Hey guys so i'm new here. I've been following this site a long time and y'all get pressed about a lot of sh*t a lot of times and it's so fun to read LOL
Anyway, I just got back from a trip to London and I got to visit some old colleagues doing their PhD or post grad stuff there in schools like Bartlett, RCA and AA. I loved everything I saw especially the works from the younger students doing their MArch in computational design / digital fabrication and all that. It's all parametric and sculptural, not to mention the hyphaluting vocabulary etc. LOL But still very interesting work.
My questions now are: How is this method or approach relevant or useful in today's academe and practice in terms of the design, planning and construction of buildings and cities (it seems apt or looks good when you apply it on prototype pavilions, exhibitions, and those curvy furnitures that looks uninviting for couch surfers and etc).
I get some firms use it for simulation and optimization (and if you're from ZHA pretty much everything Patrik Schu touches) which is pretty cool and seems to get a lot of work done for them I think. But I see these kids in schools all they do is make those crazy forms and then 3d print, CNC or laser cut the hell out of it and call it research and generative form finding but the architectural aspect of it (details, building tech, spaces, floors, ceilings, sections, utility systems, etc) is not really reflected nor integrated. I find that they are not taught how to apply it in buildings, or is it just me? More so, do you really need to get a masters degree for it when you can learn the tools on your own or at a firm or office that regularly uses it?
I'm in design-build (basically in engineering/construction, we fabricate stuff mostly) and I find that in practice, architects should know a little bit of everything involved in designing a building. But maybe im a luddite of sorts (cos I feel old AF than these kids) but I've always believe that it's not about the tools or the softwares, but what you produce in the end and that you can justify every line of. B*TCH WHUUUT
Anyway the reason why I'm bringing this up as I'm exploring the idea of having to hire staff or train staff to learn these things to innovate our work flow, or whatever jargon you call it these days, and upgrade their skillset and services.
Holla back, kitties!
JLC-1
Nov 17, 17 4:09 pm
no, that glitter will fade
Miles Jaffe
Nov 17, 17 4:15 pm
Somebody has been guzzling the KoolAid.
archietechie
Nov 17, 17 4:25 pm
I think the way you speak/type seem to suggest you're outdated and irrelevant.
In all seriousness tho, computational design isnt just about manipulating forms. Just look at AEC firms and how they're improving their workflow processes. Optimizing structural materials too can save cost from a developers POV. Pretty sure there are more examples out there if you look deeper beyond the curvaceous facade.
kidomega
Nov 19, 17 11:30 am
That's true though I attended this seminar with this girl from Foster and Partners giving a talk about how they efficiently designed the roof structure of the new Mexico airport---getting the weight, volume, etc. of materials through algorithms (which is what they commonly do for all their glass ceiling structures or curvy glass cladded towers).
Peter Normand
Nov 17, 17 4:55 pm
Digital fabrication is going to be crucial as it speeds up the shop drawings process and allows for more economical use of custom components. As for the computer driven designs using the latest modeling and other techniques they have clientele and an appropriate application but probably will not upend all of architecture. We still build things with bricks in 2017 and will for some time, but the cool things that can be done can ad value to your menu of services you can offer a client. I think this relatively new parametric design is a niche but the ability to model and convert those modeled elements into manufactured components is going to be mainstream in the next decade. CNC technology already is making ornament and what was once labor intensive design economically viable again the process of converting the image on the screen into the commands to operate the machines fabricating things is speeding up and cutting out people and steps for a more direct approach to custom fabrications in architecture.
I say invest in the modeling skills and BIM first as this is where value can more easily be created in the design and construction process.
Over and OUT
Peter N
chigurh
Nov 18, 17 6:44 pm
There is a huge disconnect between what you are describing and the academic work the OP is talking about...
kidomega
Nov 19, 17 10:09 am
"I say invest in the modeling skills and BIM first as this is where value can more easily be created in the design and construction process." I LIKE THIS. Is it worth getting a masters for or getting into formal education/training though? Seems like, as the people in the schools I visited say, you need a certain way of thinking or knowledge to be able to apply it in real life situations (hashtag-marketing / sideeye.gif). But I think of it as just having a more advanced grasp of the tools being used. Either way, you can learn it by yourself and read research or journals that's readily available.
Non Sequitur
Nov 17, 17 5:00 pm
I find that referring to me as a kitty is an unwanted sexual advance. My lawyers just fired up their zeppelin and are heading to your location at this very moment.
citizen
Nov 17, 17 6:13 pm
Is that the new Dodge Zeppelin I've been hearing so much about?
(I hear good things, except that it's hard to find a helium-fueling station.)
Miles Jaffe
Nov 17, 17 7:33 pm
Digital fabrication is going to be crucial as it speeds up the shop drawings process and allows for more economical use of custom components.
Utter nonsense.
chigurh
Nov 18, 17 6:36 pm
disagree. old school thinking.
Miles Jaffe
Nov 18, 17 7:08 pm
Nope, experienced thinking. I fabricate with 3D printing on a regular basis.
zonker
Nov 17, 17 8:15 pm
it's about being able to put a building together - not so much about going all Zaha with some wowie zowie form that cant be built -I'm working in bum wad now - I was told to get off Revit and back to the drawing board
kidomega
Nov 19, 17 11:24 am
A hand-drafted drawing or sketch on any paper works and is still the best to this day, tbqh.
Marc Miller
Nov 17, 17 8:50 pm
Irrelevant and outdated like the 3 screwdrivers and 2 hammers in your junk drawer...
JLC-1
Nov 18, 17 4:05 pm
A box works
bowling_ball
Nov 17, 17 9:03 pm
Useful for the 0.0001% of projects that 'require' it for construction. Most of which is happening in China where labor is nearly free and designers get to experiment because safety in environment, materials and workplace are all non-existent.
For the rest of us who have to deal with conservative clients, conservative contractors and actual budgets, these technologies will remain out of reach as an actual part of the construction process for at least our lifetimes.
randomised
Nov 17, 17 9:54 pm
Hi Gwen Stefani, welcome to archinect!
kidomega
Nov 19, 17 10:01 am
I'm too ghetto to be called Gwen Stefani, boo! But I'm flattered thank you! This sh*t is bananazzzz
:*
randomised
Nov 19, 17 12:42 pm
What's "too ghetto"?
arch76
Nov 18, 17 2:09 am
shit. have architects started to lose jobs to parametric architects yet?
tduds
Nov 30, 17 1:48 pm
All architecture is 'parametric' ;)
x-jla
Nov 18, 17 9:43 am
I've been all over the Place and have never seen an actual built "parametric" blob building (other than student pavilions)....so I'd say no...
kidomega
Nov 19, 17 10:00 am
David I think that was the Chanel Pavilion! That was the start of her "blob" era when Patrik Schu was really pushing for parametric to happen LOL
randomised
Nov 18, 17 2:02 pm
As long as you have paying clients... I mean, there are even still people earning a living by practising classical architecture. So outdated and irrelevant, probably yes...but that never stopped anyone.
TIQM
Nov 18, 17 5:56 pm
"I mean, there are even still people earning a living by practising classical architecture." Imagine that!
randomised
Nov 18, 17 9:37 pm
;-)
kidomega
Nov 19, 17 9:58 am
YO I can't agree more! Y'all been to Macao or some parts of China? They practically replicated the Venetian, the Eiffel Tower and a bunch of classical European style buildings down there! Chinese market is ratchet.
hellion
Nov 18, 17 5:49 pm
Watch!
chigurh
Nov 18, 17 6:43 pm
what the OP is describing is architecture reduced to a postmodern graphical exercise using overly complicated tools and programming to achieve an end result, perfect way for architects to become even more impractical in the AEC workflow. If the intent is to be on the software development side probably not a bad approach, but if you want to practice architecture it couldn't be any less relevant for the reasons described.
kidomega
Nov 19, 17 9:55 am
You're the only one who seem to get it, boo! That's exactly my point! Because the way I see it, if this whole "postmodern graphical exercise using overly complicated tools and programming to achieve an end result" is what they're teaching the current and next generation of architects/designers then it must be probably where all of us in this darn practice is heading for! But the thing is they're kind of missing out on the essentials or the other practical knowledge!
joseffischer
Nov 19, 17 11:30 pm
For every 20ish person studio, there are 3-4 students who are deemed "too in-the-box" "too cautious" or even "lazy designers" who typically get As in all their other classes and B/Cs in studio. So far, from my year of 80ish graduates, 1 "star" student is getting registered and is working for a starchitect, and roughly 10 of the above described students (myself included) are registered/near registered. The other 60ish students no longer continue on the traditional professional track. So I don't think you have anything to worry about. The profession will continue to produce bland but functional buildings for a long time coming.
tduds
Nov 30, 17 1:50 pm
"if this whole "postmodern graphical exercise using overly complicated tools and programming to achieve an end result" is what they're teaching the current and next generation of architects/designers then it must be probably where all of us in this darn practice is heading for!"
People were losing their shit about this when I was in undergrad 12 years ago. Hasn't happened yet, & the same people are losing their shit about the same things.
arch76
Nov 19, 17 12:06 am
are parametric gcs stepping up to build this parametric architecture, or has some new workflow been established?
I for one welcome a blobby, postmodern and conductor head free, yet properly draining architectural paradigm. (they are worried about shedding water, right?)
arch76
Nov 19, 17 12:55 am
is it though?
I just bought a 2016 car, and the fit and finish of the materials and components is worlds better than the 2004 model it replaced. I imagine that same decade-long quality improvement is being reflected in curtainwall/enclosure, DSM foundation geo-alteration, rebar bending/ welding machines, project delivery methods, etc...this blob thing could be real.
ultimately, this is all about enclosed volume/cost+ code compliance+ pleasing the lender+ great customer service= built structure. if blob is best, it might be the next curtainwall.
kidomega
Nov 19, 17 9:50 am
unfortunately, the common mentality these days is most people would prefer to invest a sh*t load of money on a car (that they will resell or get over with in no time) than on a building (that can shelter them for life)!
kidomega
Nov 19, 17 11:21 am
The way I see it, I think the major issue with this whole parametric/computational design method is that we might become too dependent on it to provide us design solutions, almost to the point that we're making the tools make the decision for us in a way. After all, with Rhino/GH/Dynamo, etc. there are scripts/algorithms that can provide them a million solutions or options of a design study or component depending on what parameters they're basing it on. Although it makes the work flow efficient, it kind of dehumanises the thinking aspect or design process (but then that's really up to the designer in terms of if he/she will follow that result for what it is). I mean, I don't give a sh*t how cool it makes you look or what cool stuff you can do with it, but if it doesn't do or contribute much besides only complicate things then why bother. I think it fits with the whole material exploration / generative form finding and prototyping thing especially in academe, but we gotta teach and train these kids to think and be architects/designers (and be able to focus these skills/tools/knowledge into the building aspect and not just some made-up sh*t-looking 3d printed blob), not software monkeys getting their fingers pounded typing away codes.
Miles Jaffe
Nov 19, 17 12:49 pm
One of the many problems here is that the tool is driving the process rather than vice-versa.
The illusionary expertise imparted by imagined capability and presumed infallibility of the tool precludes responsible, intelligent (read "thoughtfully considered, rational") design. Especially when used by people with little to no practical experience.
"Because we can" is invariably a bad justification for anything. Examples abound.
thisisnotmyname
Nov 19, 17 1:56 pm
Accredited architecture schools should should be prohibited from graduating any student who cannot generate a buildable and code-compliant set of construction documents and accompanying project manual. People need to be taught how to really do the job.
Parametric/computational is, in most cases, a smokescreen that the academic crowd uses to hide the fact that they are not teaching their students the basic skills.
joseffischer
Nov 19, 17 11:34 pm
Hah, even the construction oriented studio semester combined with the Building Construction course didn't scratch the surface much deeper than Design Development. No one was thinking specs.
Marc Miller
Nov 19, 17 3:00 pm
This seems to have devolved into a conversation about why parametric are bad versus why critical thinking is always valuable. I personally don't see a reason why the two can't exist together, but critical thinking should always prevail.
To a certain extent I'm not buying the "because we can" is bad argument, because it is also a matter of when you can. If you're in an academic environment, because we can is a valid approach provided you push the limits of the thing to learn why you can't. Agreed, this requires an awareness on the part of the instructor and the critic, but the question "why would really you want to" is a great learning tool. And frankly this has always been a question asked in order to test the validity of the avant guard (or whatever phrase you want to learn).
With respect to embedding it in pedagogy, I think the blame lies squarely on accreditation boards and not the institutions. Given how prescriptive the process is, they would be at fault for approving the process. Furthermore, I'm always curious about the question of for who. Who are we making the drawings for. I've recently looked at a number off sets from a number of respected offices and seen several "we never draw like that" conflicts. It seems to me the assumption that there is one way to prepare a set is always met with exceptions, making the standard the exception.
Again- Non-parametic thinkers are outdated and irrelevant. Irrelevant as those two hammers in the drawer. But note- there are two hammers, because you purchased the second (or the third) when the 1st wasn't where you expected it to be, and you always need fundamental skill sets.
Miles Jaffe
Nov 19, 17 4:04 pm
All design processes are essentially parametric, balancing a variety of dynamic variables both physical and intangible. The misappropriation of the term to describe a design philosophy is transparent marketing bullshit.
New Coke!
The tail is wagging the dog.
cipyboy
Nov 30, 17 1:33 pm
Y'all forgetting a very important factor to this equation- the builder. Parametricism is good in the drawing or fabrication process, but that would require a special set of building skill niche that's hard to find depending on your location. It will take time until parametricism in all its full glory becomes "accessible" to many.
archietechie
Nov 30, 17 1:44 pm
Look to China for the answer.
Bench
Nov 30, 17 2:05 pm
Our practice would literally be unable to approach many of our structural and facade designs without scripting the work out to exchange with fabricators, who work hand-in-hand with those physically putting it all together.
cipyboy
Nov 30, 17 2:31 pm
... I'd rather go to Singapore if that's the case, the city is set up to push design-driven architecture with their local and real estate codes. But even so, its even harder to look for GC's who can push thru the endeavor without paying premium $$$
Hey guys so i'm new here. I've been following this site a long time and y'all get pressed about a lot of sh*t a lot of times and it's so fun to read LOL
Anyway, I just got back from a trip to London and I got to visit some old colleagues doing their PhD or post grad stuff there in schools like Bartlett, RCA and AA. I loved everything I saw especially the works from the younger students doing their MArch in computational design / digital fabrication and all that. It's all parametric and sculptural, not to mention the hyphaluting vocabulary etc. LOL But still very interesting work.
My questions now are: How is this method or approach relevant or useful in today's academe and practice in terms of the design, planning and construction of buildings and cities (it seems apt or looks good when you apply it on prototype pavilions, exhibitions, and those curvy furnitures that looks uninviting for couch surfers and etc).
I get some firms use it for simulation and optimization (and if you're from ZHA pretty much everything Patrik Schu touches) which is pretty cool and seems to get a lot of work done for them I think. But I see these kids in schools all they do is make those crazy forms and then 3d print, CNC or laser cut the hell out of it and call it research and generative form finding but the architectural aspect of it (details, building tech, spaces, floors, ceilings, sections, utility systems, etc) is not really reflected nor integrated. I find that they are not taught how to apply it in buildings, or is it just me? More so, do you really need to get a masters degree for it when you can learn the tools on your own or at a firm or office that regularly uses it?
I'm in design-build (basically in engineering/construction, we fabricate stuff mostly) and I find that in practice, architects should know a little bit of everything involved in designing a building. But maybe im a luddite of sorts (cos I feel old AF than these kids) but I've always believe that it's not about the tools or the softwares, but what you produce in the end and that you can justify every line of. B*TCH WHUUUT
Anyway the reason why I'm bringing this up as I'm exploring the idea of having to hire staff or train staff to learn these things to innovate our work flow, or whatever jargon you call it these days, and upgrade their skillset and services.
Holla back, kitties!
no, that glitter will fade
Somebody has been guzzling the KoolAid.
I think the way you speak/type seem to suggest you're outdated and irrelevant.
In all seriousness tho, computational design isnt just about manipulating forms. Just look at AEC firms and how they're improving their workflow processes. Optimizing structural materials too can save cost from a developers POV. Pretty sure there are more examples out there if you look deeper beyond the curvaceous facade.
That's true though I attended this seminar with this girl from Foster and Partners giving a talk about how they efficiently designed the roof structure of the new Mexico airport---getting the weight, volume, etc. of materials through algorithms (which is what they commonly do for all their glass ceiling structures or curvy glass cladded towers).
Digital fabrication is going to be crucial as it speeds up the shop drawings process and allows for more economical use of custom components. As for the computer driven designs using the latest modeling and other techniques they have clientele and an appropriate application but probably will not upend all of architecture. We still build things with bricks in 2017 and will for some time, but the cool things that can be done can ad value to your menu of services you can offer a client. I think this relatively new parametric design is a niche but the ability to model and convert those modeled elements into manufactured components is going to be mainstream in the next decade. CNC technology already is making ornament and what was once labor intensive design economically viable again the process of converting the image on the screen into the commands to operate the machines fabricating things is speeding up and cutting out people and steps for a more direct approach to custom fabrications in architecture.
I say invest in the modeling skills and BIM first as this is where value can more easily be created in the design and construction process.
Over and OUT
Peter N
There is a huge disconnect between what you are describing and the academic work the OP is talking about...
"I say invest in the modeling skills and BIM first as this is where value can more easily be created in the design and construction process." I LIKE THIS. Is it worth getting a masters for or getting into formal education/training though? Seems like, as the people in the schools I visited say, you need a certain way of thinking or knowledge to be able to apply it in real life situations (hashtag-marketing / sideeye.gif). But I think of it as just having a more advanced grasp of the tools being used. Either way, you can learn it by yourself and read research or journals that's readily available.
I find that referring to me as a kitty is an unwanted sexual advance. My lawyers just fired up their zeppelin and are heading to your location at this very moment.
Is that the new Dodge Zeppelin I've been hearing so much about?
(I hear good things, except that it's hard to find a helium-fueling station.)
Digital fabrication is going to be crucial as it speeds up the shop drawings process and allows for more economical use of custom components.
Utter nonsense.
disagree. old school thinking.
Nope, experienced thinking. I fabricate with 3D printing on a regular basis.
it's about being able to put a building together - not so much about going all Zaha with some wowie zowie form that cant be built -I'm working in bum wad now - I was told to get off Revit and back to the drawing board
A hand-drafted drawing or sketch on any paper works and is still the best to this day, tbqh.
Irrelevant and outdated like the 3 screwdrivers and 2 hammers in your junk drawer...
A box works
Useful for the 0.0001% of projects that 'require' it for construction. Most of which is happening in China where labor is nearly free and designers get to experiment because safety in environment, materials and workplace are all non-existent.
For the rest of us who have to deal with conservative clients, conservative contractors and actual budgets, these technologies will remain out of reach as an actual part of the construction process for at least our lifetimes.
Hi Gwen Stefani, welcome to archinect!
I'm too ghetto to be called Gwen Stefani, boo! But I'm flattered thank you! This sh*t is bananazzzz :*
What's "too ghetto"?
shit. have architects started to lose jobs to parametric architects yet?
All architecture is 'parametric' ;)
I've been all over the Place and have never seen an actual built "parametric" blob building (other than student pavilions)....so I'd say no...
David I think that was the Chanel Pavilion! That was the start of her "blob" era when Patrik Schu was really pushing for parametric to happen LOL
As long as you have paying clients... I mean, there are even still people earning a living by practising classical architecture. So outdated and irrelevant, probably yes...but that never stopped anyone.
"I mean, there are even still people earning a living by practising classical architecture." Imagine that!
;-)
YO I can't agree more! Y'all been to Macao or some parts of China? They practically replicated the Venetian, the Eiffel Tower and a bunch of classical European style buildings down there! Chinese market is ratchet.
Watch!
what the OP is describing is architecture reduced to a postmodern graphical exercise using overly complicated tools and programming to achieve an end result, perfect way for architects to become even more impractical in the AEC workflow. If the intent is to be on the software development side probably not a bad approach, but if you want to practice architecture it couldn't be any less relevant for the reasons described.
You're the only one who seem to get it, boo! That's exactly my point! Because the way I see it, if this whole "postmodern graphical exercise using overly complicated tools and programming to achieve an end result" is what they're teaching the current and next generation of architects/designers then it must be probably where all of us in this darn practice is heading for! But the thing is they're kind of missing out on the essentials or the other practical knowledge!
For every 20ish person studio, there are 3-4 students who are deemed "too in-the-box" "too cautious" or even "lazy designers" who typically get As in all their other classes and B/Cs in studio. So far, from my year of 80ish graduates, 1 "star" student is getting registered and is working for a starchitect, and roughly 10 of the above described students (myself included) are registered/near registered. The other 60ish students no longer continue on the traditional professional track. So I don't think you have anything to worry about. The profession will continue to produce bland but functional buildings for a long time coming.
"if this whole "postmodern graphical exercise using overly complicated tools and programming to achieve an end result" is what they're teaching the current and next generation of architects/designers then it must be probably where all of us in this darn practice is heading for!"
People were losing their shit about this when I was in undergrad 12 years ago. Hasn't happened yet, & the same people are losing their shit about the same things.
are parametric gcs stepping up to build this parametric architecture, or has some new workflow been established?
I for one welcome a blobby, postmodern and conductor head free, yet properly draining architectural paradigm. (they are worried about shedding water, right?)
is it though?
I just bought a 2016 car, and the fit and finish of the materials and components is worlds better than the 2004 model it replaced. I imagine that same decade-long quality improvement is being reflected in curtainwall/enclosure, DSM foundation geo-alteration, rebar bending/ welding machines, project delivery methods, etc...this blob thing could be real.
ultimately, this is all about enclosed volume/cost+ code compliance+ pleasing the lender+ great customer service= built structure. if blob is best, it might be the next curtainwall.
unfortunately, the common mentality these days is most people would prefer to invest a sh*t load of money on a car (that they will resell or get over with in no time) than on a building (that can shelter them for life)!
The way I see it, I think the major issue with this whole parametric/computational design method is that we might become too dependent on it to provide us design solutions, almost to the point that we're making the tools make the decision for us in a way. After all, with Rhino/GH/Dynamo, etc. there are scripts/algorithms that can provide them a million solutions or options of a design study or component depending on what parameters they're basing it on. Although it makes the work flow efficient, it kind of dehumanises the thinking aspect or design process (but then that's really up to the designer in terms of if he/she will follow that result for what it is). I mean, I don't give a sh*t how cool it makes you look or what cool stuff you can do with it, but if it doesn't do or contribute much besides only complicate things then why bother. I think it fits with the whole material exploration / generative form finding and prototyping thing especially in academe, but we gotta teach and train these kids to think and be architects/designers (and be able to focus these skills/tools/knowledge into the building aspect and not just some made-up sh*t-looking 3d printed blob), not software monkeys getting their fingers pounded typing away codes.
One of the many problems here is that the tool is driving the process rather than vice-versa.
The illusionary expertise imparted by imagined capability and presumed infallibility of the tool precludes responsible, intelligent (read "thoughtfully considered, rational") design. Especially when used by people with little to no practical experience.
"Because we can" is invariably a bad justification for anything. Examples abound.
Accredited architecture schools should should be prohibited from graduating any student who cannot generate a buildable and code-compliant set of construction documents and accompanying project manual. People need to be taught how to really do the job.
Parametric/computational is, in most cases, a smokescreen that the academic crowd uses to hide the fact that they are not teaching their students the basic skills.
Hah, even the construction oriented studio semester combined with the Building Construction course didn't scratch the surface much deeper than Design Development. No one was thinking specs.
This seems to have devolved into a conversation about why parametric are bad versus why critical thinking is always valuable. I personally don't see a reason why the two can't exist together, but critical thinking should always prevail.
To a certain extent I'm not buying the "because we can" is bad argument, because it is also a matter of when you can. If you're in an academic environment, because we can is a valid approach provided you push the limits of the thing to learn why you can't. Agreed, this requires an awareness on the part of the instructor and the critic, but the question "why would really you want to" is a great learning tool. And frankly this has always been a question asked in order to test the validity of the avant guard (or whatever phrase you want to learn).
With respect to embedding it in pedagogy, I think the blame lies squarely on accreditation boards and not the institutions. Given how prescriptive the process is, they would be at fault for approving the process. Furthermore, I'm always curious about the question of for who. Who are we making the drawings for. I've recently looked at a number off sets from a number of respected offices and seen several "we never draw like that" conflicts. It seems to me the assumption that there is one way to prepare a set is always met with exceptions, making the standard the exception.
Again- Non-parametic thinkers are outdated and irrelevant. Irrelevant as those two hammers in the drawer. But note- there are two hammers, because you purchased the second (or the third) when the 1st wasn't where you expected it to be, and you always need fundamental skill sets.
All design processes are essentially parametric, balancing a variety of dynamic variables both physical and intangible. The misappropriation of the term to describe a design philosophy is transparent marketing bullshit.
New Coke!
The tail is wagging the dog.
Y'all forgetting a very important factor to this equation- the builder. Parametricism is good in the drawing or fabrication process, but that would require a special set of building skill niche that's hard to find depending on your location. It will take time until parametricism in all its full glory becomes "accessible" to many.
Look to China for the answer.
Our practice would literally be unable to approach many of our structural and facade designs without scripting the work out to exchange with fabricators, who work hand-in-hand with those physically putting it all together.
... I'd rather go to Singapore if that's the case, the city is set up to push design-driven architecture with their local and real estate codes. But even so, its even harder to look for GC's who can push thru the endeavor without paying premium $$$