[Schumacher] sees parametricism as the architectural style of capitalism, to which he is a relatively recent convert. “My early heroes were Marx, Lenin and Trotsky, people who wanted to make an impact”, but he now believes that free enterprise is the best means of the “human development of prosperity and freedom”. The innate logic of parametricism means that, in a truly free market, with “freer utilisation of land”, it would eventually triumph. — theguardian.com
Patrik Schumacher sits down with Rowan Moore, and share his plans to assert a parametricist future as Zaha Hadid's successor at ZHA. Moore isn't exactly convinced.
More on Zaha and Patrik:
17 Comments
I hope they can get some parametrics to lower the wage of their workers even further, while making them work even harder.
how lower than pay for the "privilege" to work here can you go?
. the end.
This really isn't all that surprising. So much of the language that PS has used in the past suggested that culture is driven by capital and that capital is the thing we should all strive for- or defer to if we can't afford to play in the club.
I'm curious how this will effect project selection or if it will have an impact on project selection. Not in a cynical sense (the usual what labor group will they exploit comment), but a marketing and strategic sense. Will they be able to collect even higher fees because they acknowledge that money makes the elite? Is this the point when the firm begins to steadily increase in size because they have created a market that requires a practice mill?
Parametricism makes no sense. It's not even a real system of thought... Seems closer to what Walmart does
If you were to only read the text there is nothing really that points to the forms of Zaha's architecture. The architectural style could be PoMo, minimal modern, and absolutely Traditional. Parametrics is the closest style to Traditional. In other words, Zaha did Zaha and he produced some heavy theory to support ultimately something quite 'whimsical' - the forms. In theory Parametricism could be for the information age what Modern Architecture was for the Industrial Age. If Capital equated information which equated performance of the architecture that in turn equated capital then Parametricism would truly be serving Capitalism. If I could put $1 million in and through a system of rules churn out a building that gave me back $2 million after the process then you would have something. This does happen by the way, often via the architect, but the rules are much different and complicated. For instance:
Investors buy two (2) apartments in an area of NYC that has great investment value. A 100 year old building. In combining the apartments first a set of Building Department rules must be met. Then the realtors note an additional bathroom might add a few hundred thousand to value. The architect/engineer argue with the buildings architect/engineer whether capacity is available for a new bathroom on what might have been a kitchen plumbing riser. This is an engineering debate and code issue - nothing whimsical - solid financials achieved by engineering and codes. Another part becomes the style of the unit based on 'hot' selling design styles. For instance certain hardware and fixtures may be trending in the market and from certain countries (England these days for some reason). The realtor is actually doing comps (comparables) constantly to to see which style and set of parts sell best. Even just affixing a designers name to it increases value. This is exactly what Capitalism and Architecture look like. The architect is the parametric function.
Olaf, agreed. And I think PS is trying to be less of an instrument/function and more of an actor.
What if you were to combine the architect as cultural critic and designer with the role of the developer? With enough cultural cache you could design entire districts (no biggie). But as a "stakeholder" you have more control over what culture means in the precinct because you control uses, form, price points and as a result the photoshop image that you are striving towards.
/\ Bernard Tschumi - Event Cities? the architect as actor of the actual social conditions.
Even Tschumi is an instrument in these terms . Actuator might be a better "a" word.
edit: agent...
edit edit: curator
you mean curator like the guys in hip deli's in Williamsburg (Brooklyn) who curate your Deli meats and cheeses! I couldn't even find a can of Coke the other day in some healthy looking deli. Curators. Lets stick with Agent, Curators have too much cultural influence...
I mean a designer capable of leveraging their design capital and financial Capital to construct large exclusive precincts within cities, controlling who occupies these presents and by constructing value- while at the same time profiting not from services delivered as is the case with the "conventional "set of design services. profiting not from services delivered as is the case with the "conventional "set of design services -but from being at a high point in the investment waterfall.
but how much is design capital worth? if its at the top as proposed then is it the cause of $1 million more in profits....hmmm...made me think. what if, say within midtown, we did a starchitect comp. first look at the values strictly based on SF. after that compare materials and specs. then if we have at least a handful we could say things like "Jeam Nouvel will bring you 150% more profit than Zaha, etc..."
but how much is design capital worth?
That's the question isn't it? And it's only one part of the equation I'm
But not I'm sure if the model you are describing is quite what I'm imagining. The way I see it is:
that I as the A-list architect (laughter ensues), having gone through the process of extensive analysis in a premiere city (like a developer looking for a site), have determined that the best way to frame culture would be a precinct with set "x" of cultural venues surrounded by those who are best served to use these spaces.
As part of this, I am willing to design and invest in construction. By controlling program and price point, I can ensure that the proper blend of program and people are present in the precinct. My portfolio already demonstrates our commitment to only the highest forms of quality and architectural excellence (more laughter ensues).
Of course others can visit as they can afford to (this would mean that the hipsters you mentioned earlier would be lookers on like the rest because they deal in slightly larger amount of piddling change).
Is that what you were imagining?
I wonder what moby thinks about all this
I wonder how many 'new' projects they've been commissioned with since Zaha died.
chigurh, Moby's restaurant deals in piddling change, so his opinion doesn't matter.
accesskb, good question. And to what extent is this impacted by the new direction the office is being steered towards?
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.