CalArts two-day symposium on “The Politics of Parametricism” opened last Friday with a conversation between Reinhold Martin, associate professor at Columbia University’s GSAPP, and Patrik Schumacher, partner at Zaha Hadid Architects. Their debate, while at times tending more towards dysfunctional improv theater than academic discussion, revolved around the relationship between architecture and politics -- generally speaking, Martin sees the two as indelibly linked, while Schumacher idealizes their explicit separation. Their debate didn’t concern the visual aesthetics of parametric design, so much as argue about its utility in political systems.
Patrik Schumacher
As an event presented by CalArts’ MA Aesthetics & Politics program, the Martin-Schumacher debate did not explicitly discuss individual architecture projects, but tended more on the side of critical architectural theory. To introduce their debate, both Martin and Schumacher presented papers on their approach to parametric design, which I will try my darndest to make accessible. Martin took an intellectual historical angle, relating parametricism to linguistic theory and our construction of grammatical systems that determine “right” and “wrong” communication. Considering design based on the grammar of scripted parameters, the aesthetic outcome is simply an expression of that procedure, what Martin referred to as the “performativity of procedure”. The power to have a written code dictate the aesthetic terms of the architecture completely, and come to wholly define the architecture, is to Martin a “legitimation of power”. So if politics can generally be understood as a network of power systems, then parametricism is certainly in the political pocket.
Schumacher, who coined the term parametricism and has certainly taken flak for it before, took a much more divisive approach to defining the genre. He saw politics as best left to the “professionals”, and certainly not appropriate for architectural intervention, which could only make things worse. Because architecture has no power to affect political realities, it can only reinforce hegemony and can’t be counted on to resolve anything. When architecture is allowed to float on the whims of a liberal democracy, it produces a “garbage spill” of varied forms and styles within a city, leading to a dissonant and illegible, “white noise” urbanism. To fix this, Schumacher argues for a “private planning” city-building system: a free-market-driven collaboration between private development corporations and architects. These collaborators can then consistently apply their parametric designs to the city texture, increasing order and therefore, legibility.
Reinhold Martin
Even while discussing systems of legibility, the conversation that followed was pretty muddled. Initiated by co-organizer Manuel Shvartzberg’s prompt, “What makes a good city?”, the conversation devolved into that dysfunctional improv, where neither party said “yes” to the other long enough to establish any argumentative threads. By the Q&A period, the only clearly established trend was a public shaming of Schumacher’s parametricism as a totalitarian design method. It seemed as if many people had showed up to the conference only to (eloquently) bash Schumacher, leaving a good-humored Martin to try and pick up the pieces.
Maybe Day 2’s round of speakers brought more clarity, with lectures from Teddy Cruz, Phil Bernstein, Neil Leach, Christina Cogdell, Peggy Deamer, Laura Kurgan, Benjamin Bratton and Andrés Jaque. More information on the conference can be found here, courtesy of CalArts:
167 Comments
Do not believe that you have the moral high-ground or right and capacity to second guess the market !
Really?! Really?!?!? The market exists because humans made it. It's not some pre-existing natural reality. If a market isn't working for some they can exit it, and we sure as hell all have the right to critique it.
curtkram, are you chronically led to believe that what you say holds any lesson?
one of my previous early posts here: i think schumacher cognizes his inability, as an architect, to play a political role and therefore, views that neither is his work (or architecture conceived within the neoliberal frame) able to manifest political valour. by a political valour, i understand it as the degree of differentiating oneself politically from the status quo. Can architecture differentiate itself politically from the system it exists within? Can it resist? Is it not inherently formed around the backbone of the system, the economy? Is it not, in fact, the de facto environmental sediment of the subconscious of that system? in other words, is it not much more feasible to read the political valour of an architecture retroactively within the contextualizing system of power than to try and actively engender it/or read it with a political valour, a politically differential one - a rather useless exercise as the system of power (and the people will always organize themselves into a system of power) will only accommodate it in its acquiescence and not in its difficulty. People resist, spaces don't.
yes, personally, i have distaste for the total acquiescence to, even embracing of, this apolitical neoliberal model. schumacher is being honest within the system of mainstream operation - it really does not afford him with political tools which allow him to situate himself outside the system of production, he has to cater to the system or he has no job. in other words, the architecture being produced will necessarily carry the politics of this system. but so do most if not all of you. what differentiates you is parametricism. as architects, schumacher is saying you don't have much choic
but what is distasteful is that through the formalism of parametricism, he fetishizes neoliberalism. its another kind of non-space as conceived by Marc Augé, a space that precludes local identity, precludes difference, precludes social identity and so on - the extension of the global space of neoliberalism that is being branded with a certain global style. it certainly is a clever thing to do and actually a very political thing to do - but not political (i.e.e politically differentiating) deliberated at the level of architecture and space (that are indeed de-politicized, bearing the imprint of the global style of choice)- rather political at the level of selling the idea of parametricism.
in other words, he is a merchant-politician of parametricism. Whether architecture itself has a political (resisitant) valour, in its abstractions, I find it difficult to believe so:
in reality, its quite stupid of the architect to think that he or she is able to affect reality, that is true. but its not stupid of the architect think that to "sink" to the level of the concerned citizen, one would be able to affect reality. (context was affect reality politically)
Its a good idea to read others' posts before trying to act like a on-the-defense understudy of "mr. schumacher" :o)
what is neoliberalism:
Neoliberalism as an economic policy agenda which began in Chile in 1973. Its inauguration consisted of a U.S.-organized coup against a democratically elected socialist president and the installment of a bloody military dictatorship notorious for systematic torture. This was the only way to turn the neoliberal model of the so-called “Chicago Boys” under the leadership of Milton Friedman – a student of Friedrich von Hayek – into reality.
what does neoliberalism entail:
Self-interest and individualism; segregation of ethical principles and economic affairs, in other words: a process of ‘de-bedding’ economy from society; economic rationality as a mere cost-benefit calculation and profit maximization; competition as the essential driving force for growth and progress; specialization and the replacement of a subsistence economy with profit-oriented foreign trade (‘comparative cost advantage’); and the proscription of public (state) interference with market forces.[3]
how is profit perceived apropos society within the neoliberal model
...the common good depends entirely on the uncontrolled egoism of the individual and, especially, on the prosperity of transnational corporations. The allegedly necessary “freedom” of the economy – which, paradoxically, only means the freedom of corporations – hence consists of a freedom from responsibility and commitment to society.
the negative impact neoliberalism has had on women worldwide:
It is usually women who are called upon to counterbalance underdevelopment through increased work (“service provisions”) in the household. As a result, the workload and underpay of women takes on horrendous dimensions: they do unpaid work inside their homes and poorly paid “housewifized” work outside.[24] Yet, commercialization does not stop in front of the home’s doors either. Even housework becomes commercially co-opted (“new maid question”), with hardly any financial benefits for the women who do the work.[25]
Not least because of this, women are increasingly coerced into prostitution, one of today’s biggest global industries.[26] This illustrates two things: a) how little the “emancipation” of women actually leads to “equal terms” with men; and b) that “capitalist development” does not imply increased “freedom” in wage labor relations, as the Left has claimed for a long time.[27] If the latter were the case, then neoliberalism would mean the voluntary end of capitalism once it reaches its furthest extension. This, however, does not appear likely.
about the myth that neoliberalism encourages fair distribution of wealth:
Today, hundreds of millions of quasi-slaves, more than ever before, exist in the “world system.”[28] The authoritarian model of the “Export Processing Zones” is conquering the East and threatening the North. The redistribution of wealth runs ever more – and with ever accelerated speed – from the bottom to the top. The gap between the rich and the poor has never been wider. The middle classes disappear. This is the situation we are facing.
about pursuing the idea of profit to its (illogical) conclusion:
Neoliberalism and war are two sides of the same coin.[44] Free trade, piracy and war are still “an inseparable three” – today maybe more so than ever. War is not only “good for the economy” but is indeed its driving force and can be understood as the “continuation of economy with other means”.[45] War and economy have become almost indistinguishable.[46] Wars about resources – especially oil and water – have already begun.[47] The Gulf Wars are the most obvious examples. Militarism once again appears as the “executor of capital accumulation” – potentially everywhere and enduringly.[48]
regarding the bottom-up ambitions that schumacher-well, any neoliberalist- sees in the 'free market':
The “New World Order” implies a new division of labor that does no longer distinguish between North and South, East and West – today, everywhere is South. An according International Law is established which effectively functions from top to bottom (“top-down”) and eliminates all local and regional communal rights. And not only that: many such rights are rendered invalid both retroactively and for the future.[53]
...........
All italicized text from:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/neoliberal-globalization-is-there-an-alternative-to-plundering-the-earth
well, if you let people meddle with parametricism parametrically, it might end up not looking like parametricism whatsoever. and half of schumacher's vision is to look like parametricism, stylistically.
i suspect laissez faire parametricism is a contradiction in terms. i don't know how an architectural contradiction in terms would look like formally in this case.
can you stack up some of those nice houses on each of the tower balconies? maybe thats one sort of melange
Patrik: The problem with food is not production but distribution, as both have been commoditized by the global corporate financial complex. Distribution issues do not preclude the idea of sustainable local communities. Such communities have, since the beginning of human history, engaged in the trade of vital resources.
I do not understand your comment on consumerism. 20% of the world's population consumes over 75% of it's resources. Consumerism is the model on which modern society (i.e. unrestrained global capitalism) is based, and the model on which your business (and mine too, alas) is built. Again, it is distribution that it the problem.
It is counter to my experience (again, luxury residential) that rich clients borrow money and pay interest - they have so much that there is no need to borrow and only do so in when it is to their financial advantage. Their stupendous wealth allows them to behave without concern for the real-world consequences that those without such resources face every day. Time and again I have seen the most incredible waste and inefficiency by those of uncountable wealth who are most concerned with squeezing the last drop of value - and then some - out of every single penny. They will spend tens of thousands to save a hundred without ever a thought of the environment or the well-being of those they employ. Thinking globally is not contemplating the import of stone from a 15th century Italian villa to tile one's bathroom.
As to the moral high-ground, you staked out that territory when you said:
the historical pertinence and societal importance of parametricism as a new global best practice methodology and paradigm - as key criterion for all human progress
words that after engaging in discussion with you are now doubly empty.
I don't need to second guess the market because the market is rigged. There is no free market. The hard earned savings you speak of aren't, they are the spoils of war and the booty of pirates. As Buddha said, "the wealth of a few is made of the poverty of many".
Your position in society has apparently removed you from the reality of the human condition, which is not uncommon but simply sad and apparently endemic to the moneyed. Money is a certificate of service when it is bestowed on loyal workers by the financial elite. For the rest of the world it is an artificial construct used to enslave vast populations for the benefit of a few.
After this discussion, which I thank you for, I suggest that you would benefit from a change in financial status that would give you an opportunity to experience the world that the other 99% live in.
i would like to suggest, first, that there is no "moral high ground." we each choose our own moral standing based on the various variables that make up our lives. we each get to make the choice of who we want to be. that shouldn't place one person on 'higher ground' than the next, it just makes us all a bit unique.
second, i think patrik's view on non-political architecture is right, and it's a good starting point to realistically define what we do and what we don't do. we are hired to do a job. as professionals, we serve not only our client, but we have a responsibility to public health and welfare. at least in america we do, not sure about the laws of other lands. however, as has been stated, if your client has the political clout to mow down someone's neighborhood, that kind of lies on the client more than the architect. we have to take work in to keep our jobs. that's part of the nature of our profession, as philip johnson said 'i am a whore.' it doesn't seem right for one architect to criticize another over that, when we're all kind of in the same boat.
beyond that though, i think there are things architects can do, and maybe things patrik especially could think about. the market is real, and should be addressed as such. however, we should understand that's not really a good thing for those of us who drag our tired asses out of bed in the morning and go to work for a living. we need those rich patrons to give us work, so we shouldn't be too hard on them, but still, we could recognize the negative effects our current economic system has on a lot of people. including ourselves. or at least including me.
parametric architecture was largely defined as a formal style (what a building looks like):
Negative heuristics: avoid familiar typologies, avoid platonic/hermetic objects, avoid clear-cut zones/territories, avoid repetition, avoid straight lines, avoid right angles, avoid corners, …, and most importantly: do not add or subtract without elaborate interarticulations.
Positive heuristics: interarticulate, hyberdize, morph, deterritorialize, deform, iterate, use splines, nurbs, generative components, script rather than model, …
we're creating complex geometries, because we now have tools that allow us to explore and communicate those geometries. we could do something with those geometries if we wanted. we could create rooftop gardens that grow food, which localizes that little bit of the economy. we could also add chicken coops and beehives (swarm analogy there-clever). beyond that, we could create various designed 'vignettes' that could offer shelter to homeless people, that use the buildings excess heating and cooling to keep the environment safe and comfortable. have a bit of your building's excess light spill into the area in a way that might increase security a little. they could eat some of the food they grow. there could possibly be a greenhouse for food year round (though that might start costing money). you could design a structure that allowed people to choose to drop out of the rat race when wage deflation gets out of hand.
instead of random or arbitrary complexity, you could create useful complexity.
and, obviously, we have zoning regulations. those are political, and architects should be hired to help develop them. opening zoning to neo-liberal market greed is a terribly bad idea. someone has to maintain sewer systems that prevent the city from flooding. someone has to limit pollution being dumped into local waterways. someone has to make sure fire engines have access to buildings. self-interested greed isn't going to motivate people to look after the community like that.
information-rich 360 degree layered interface of communication.
that could be the future. but it depends on what information you're layering. we communicate with cell phones, and email, which essentially transcend space and time (respectively). those aren't architectural problems. but, as i tried to illustrate above, we can fold in some real urban problems into the design of a building or a community. you could do it by laying those problems on top of your complexity. 360 degrees shouldn't be your client's profit. they already have profit. 360 degrees is how you include everyone else.
curtkram, you hit the nail on the head. We can talk politics and try with-in the sphear of our own lives to change things for the better, but work is work, and in the case of patrik and the new ism he promotes, it's all about the "moral high ground" becasue that's what will set you apart from others when erecting palaces of consumerism that tend to be both unsustainable and illegible on any meaningful level but consumerism. Not that we are all in some way or another complicit in a system we see slowly choaking off our long term viability, but what's doubly annoying is this legibility that patrik seems to crave is further obscured by his phraseology. With all the complexity in our world, it seems errecting more 'complexity barriers' by the choice of language to express very straight forward points further pushes our profession into irrelevance. Then again, the cynicism this game breeds should be no stranger to those who went to architecture school.
localism over globalisation - is generalized, then most of us will starve as the planet can not support the current numbers with localized production systems
It will clearly be both, with the emphasis on developing localism to mitigate the effects of global warming and the tenuousness and wastefulness of a gargantuan delivery system.
I find the notion of consumerism highly problematic as it presumes that the mass of our populations consume too much
That's precicely what comsumerism implies. And toxic land fills, oceanic garbage swirls, and the dying off of small but vital links in local food chains are clear signs of that.
... with money and power come opportunities ... that's clients ... but they work usually with borrowed money that they need to pay back with interest to the banks/savers ... this disciplines them not to waste resources according to their or their architect's fancy but to invest in facilities that people appreciate enough to pay for them with their hard earned money or savings
You might not be aware of America's recent economic turmoil, but the recent flush of money and power in both our leaders hands and in the general population resulted in a huge waste of recourses. Maybe becasue the money was neither earned or saved.
to work within market logics means to serve your fellow men according to their preferences ... you would want to be served in turn according to your preferences ... Do not believe that you have the moral high-ground or right and capacity to second guess the market !
If only. Most "free market" choices are distilled through the prism of maximun short term profit and existing power structures. To promote the idea that one choses the products and lifestyles they find themselves in is naive at best. This isn't to take away the notion of personal responsabilities, but second guessing the market is exactly how preferences are expressed. So do believe!
"the recent flush of money and power in both our leaders hands and in the general population resulted in a huge waste of recourses. Maybe because the money was neither earned or saved" ... I agree with this statement, i.e. I am with those who criticize the current monetary policy of money printing and interest rate repression ... under this regime there is no longer any meaningful capital market ... e.g. 90% of all morgages in the US are once more sold on to government sponsored/guaranteed mortgage securitization ...
so we have to distinguish the current crony capitalism from a capitalism without all this active state intervention/distortion .. ... I say: let all the investment banks, big banks and creditors fail without bail-outs, clean out all this state-levitated financial services sector, let it burn out in the canyons of wall street and re-establish real capitalism as a profit AND loss system with real capital markets where losses are no longer socialized but allowed to discipline markets ... this healthy crash will wipe out a lot of the wealth differentials and prevent the exaggerated financial earnings which a real market would never entertain ... if this does not happen through insight soon (I a afraid it won’t) a US/global currency crisis (collapse of the dollar) will wipe the sheet clean for a proper restart (0nce the world's creditors will wake up to the fact that the US will never be able to even pay half its debt ... i.e. when creditors will no longer roll over US debt and interest rates sky-rocket and the dollar cracks up in hyper-inflation ... a very nasty, violent scenario fraught with unpredictable dangers ...unfortunately: the longer these attempts to rescue investors and to stimulate this distorted economy without radical structural reset the worse will be the crash)
what I predicted happens: once we enter a political/economic debate we wont find back into architecture ... both discourses are interminable and thus run parallel ... you can only discuss one of them by presuming the other to be resolved ... only one set of variables can be handled within a discourse
right. monetary policy is not what architects do, which i think is a point you were trying to make to Reinhold Martin
so do you think parametricism has a place to include social problems, as i tried to outline previously? you could add a layer of complexity to say the form can solve some problems, maybe have the form defined in a way that ease some of the suffering created by the economic divide.
don't absolve yourself so easily there patrick, from thread central (some adjustments)
i only went on about neoliberalism and what i see as a non-architecturally-topical solution because patrick schumacher dragged politics into this through his defense of neoliberalism..quite ironic for someone who perceives architectural practice as apolitical. he is ultimately entrapping himself in a contradiction. And therefore my straying away from architecture: Because Patrick Schumacher himself strayed away from architecture by his very definition of architecture as apolitical coinciding with his very political defense of neoliberalism. In other words, I only followed where he led. So I am not to blame for the non-architectural talk.
only one set of variables can be handled within a discourse
But computers have sufficient processing power these days to handle an enormous amount of variables leading us to: Parametricism....ironic?
i would prefer to see this conversation on parametricism and politics limited to a narrow set of variables. we aren't software, we're people talking about stuff on the internets. i would be happy to discuss neoliberalism and trickle down economics on it's own merits, but preferably in a different thread.
for this thread, i would like to know more about the scope of parametric design, and whether it could grow to include some social layers, which would ultimately place some politics into parametric design, and keep that design within the scope of what architects do.
patrik included 5 agendas in his manifesto:
The following 5 agendas might be proposed here to inject new aspects into the parametric paradigm and to push the development of parametricism further:
1.Inter-articulation of sub-systems:
The ambition is to move from single system differentiation – e.g. a swarm of façade components - to the scripted association of multiple subsystems – envelope, structure, internal subdivision, navigation void. The differentiation in any one systems is correlated with differentions in the other systems.
2. Parametric Accentuation:
The ambition is to enhance the overall sense of organic integration through intricate correlations that favour deviation amplification rather than compensatory or ameliorating adaptations. For instance, when generative components populate a surface with a subtle curvature modulation the lawful component correlation should accentuate and amplify the initial differentiation. This might include the deliberate setting of accentuating thresholds or singularities. Thus a far richer articulation can be achieved and thus more orienting visual information can be made available.
3. Parametric Figuration:
We propose that complex configurations that are latent with multiple readings can be constructed as a parametric model. The parametric model might be set up so that the variables are extremely Gestalt-sensitive. Parametric variations trigger gestalt-catastrophes, i.e. the quantitative modification of these parameters trigger qualitative shifts in the perceived order of the configuration. This notion of parametric figuration implies an expansion in the types of parameters considered within parametric design. Beyond the usual geometric object parameters, ambient parameters (variable lights) and observer parameters (variable cameras) have to considered and integrated into the parametric system.
4. Parametric Responsiveness:
We propose that urban and architectural (interior) environments can be designed with an inbuilt kinetic capacity that allows those environments to reconfigure and adapt themselves in response to the prevalent patterns of use and occupation. The real time registration of use-patterns produces the parameters that drive the real time kinetic adaptation process. Cumulative registration of use patterns result in semi-permanent morphological transformations. The built environment acquires responsive agency at different time scales.
5. Parametric Urbanism:
The assumption is that the urban massing describes a swarm-formation of many buildings. These buildings form a continuously changing field, whereby lawful continuities cohere this manifold of buildings. Parametric urbanism implies that the systematic modulation of the buildings’ morphologies produces powerful urban effects and facilitates field orientation. Parametric Urbanism might involve parametric accentuation, parametric figuration, and parametric responsivess.
is he perhaps allowed to add a 6th? complexity is of course an important part of parametricism. vitruvius's manifestos on classical architecture were largely limited to formal and decorative elements; what a building should look like. patrik seems to be focused on that here as well. if we look at 'form follows function' as a stylistic manifesto, that's not just about what a building looks like, but what a building accomplishes.
if this style is more complicated, because it reflects the growing complexity of our society in a post-fordist economy, then it should include what a building can accomplish as well as what it looks like. make your parametric model a bit more complicated by designing a building that does something to help the urban environment. my humble opinion is that ideas like urban farming or housing could be somehow included. perhaps there is some sort of agenda 6 that could improve the living conditions of those who are not the wealthy patrons of architecture. maybe that would turn those wealthy patrons away and you would lose business, which i recognize would be counter-productive to the architect's goal of bringing in work. i don't know how to reconcile this with your neo-liberal views, but i'd like to hear your thoughts on it.
i think the most that good architecture can achieve is going to be more than looking complicated and having an undulating form. you can take those as a starting point, then add the clients programmatic requirements. so then you have form + function. add to that the real urban context. create a secondary function of improving the lives of the building's neighbors. we've seen enough manifestos about form, and we've seen enough about function. kick it up a notch. form + function + urban social and environmental context.
one more, if we want to derail this back toward monetary policy/neo-liberarlism
the pope wants to talk to you:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/pope-francis-slams-tyranny-markets-idolatry-money-article-1.1529293
original version which was too long for me to read
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/francesco/apost_exhortations/documents/papa-francesco_esortazione-ap_20131124_evangelii-gaudium_en.html
i don't know how architecture relates to this, but perhaps it should be accepted as a real thing, and then we'll figure it out from there. now i will go back to not posting for a while. thanks for your attention.
patrick schumacher:
what I predicted happens: once we enter a political/economic debate we wont find back into architecture ... both discourses are interminable and thus run parallel ... you can only discuss one of them by presuming the other to be resolved ...
"And I wonder if
You can bi locate, is that what I taste?
Your supernova juice
You know it's true, I'm a part of you" Tori Amos - Bliss Lyrics
Is that what you're doing then patrick, bilocating?
a bilocational parametricism in self(ves) denial
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-Xps7isi8M
the surgery is obvious; god was she great back in the days...
Patrik, so work with-in a system that's destined to colapse. That's certainly one way of looking at it. In fact, I think many might share your view simply becasue there are few if any alternatives. But if you'd like to divorce politics from architecture, why do you spend so much time speaking about geo-political issues? Why not focus on empowering Google if that's what interests you, or simply show off your designs, whether they where drawn with an algorithem or charcol pencil like Eric Mendelsohn prefered? In other words, why bother with another manifesto?
what if historical architectural styles were used parametrically? choose three, four, five styles with the iconic elements assiciated to them - these would be the stylistic parameters. thereafter disperse them parametrically (there would be an algorithm for said dispertion)...
perhaps, in tandem with the quondam's idea that the 'left side of the picture' can take on parametricism as a design tool, they, the people, would factor in the vernacular building elements they are familiar with (tiled roofs, plastered walls...etc) as parameters and disperse accordingly.
in neoclassical parametricism?
a vernacular parametricism?
and so forth
one of my most persistant teachings is that we should not oppose functionality to form, and not even to appearance ... architecture functions through its forms, by means of its forms ... and more-over it functions through its appearance ... the appearance matters to social functionality because the designed built environment is not only channelling bodies (like cattle) but requires to be navigated via the mostly visual orientation of sentient beings and more-over it is a semiologically charged communicating environment that needs to be understood and engaged with by socialized actors ... we have to go by appearances if we want to find relevant communication partners in specific communication situations
this is the main point about all design ... in the case of fashion design its more obvious ... the physical act of keeping us warm (technical shelter) is trivial and would not need creative designers ... the whole fashion system is a necessary system of information processing without which our complex society could not function ... in fact there is no society on reord that did not rely on artificial fashion-like ornamental markings to make social distinctions visible ... architectural design plays an equivalent information processing and communication role ... and this is equally necessary
the societal function of design = framing social interaction
"frames" are designed framing communications ... a space is a communication that invites potential participants into a specific communicative situation/constellation that requires participants to modulate their behavior upon entry, i.e. they need to accept the implied definition of the situation as the premise for all further communications to take place within the framing territory in order for specifically desired and sought communications to follow
that is the basic premise of my architectural theory ... this also applies to parametricism ... we ned to understand current patterns of social interaction to develop pertinent spatial framings that have sufficient complexity and ability to articulate and visually communicate this complexity
http://www.patrikschumacher.com/Texts/Design%20of%20Information%20Rich%20Environments.html
also, my views once more on arch & pol :
http://www.patrikschumacher.com/Texts/Counterpoint_Transgression_Innovation_Politics.html
patrick schumacher: . we ned to understand current patterns of social interaction to develop pertinent spatial framings that have sufficient complexity and ability to articulate and visually communicate this complexity
exactly what you're not doing by participating in the demolishment of houses and the impoverishment of those affected (per Orhan's posts).
in fact, what you're doing would be overtly simplifying (in the traditional vein of the grand modernist project ) and you're implanting a scheme that has nothing to do with the concurrent social interaction in place.
you're very top-bottom actually. what is already in place is ALREADY much more bottom-top than you could ever fabricate or encourage.
Emergence and complex coalescence of human spaces reflecting a historical emergence of relations(cultural, social, political and so forth) , en masse, cannot be engineered or designed - this is the fundamental blind spot of the emergent/parametric designers all share when they go on and on about finding a design equavalent to self-formation or to formal coalescence of complexity. It is a vapid assumption and a vain ambition. Its a baseless religion.
tammuz, i suspect he was creating frames spaced for social interaction and whatnot for his clients, not for the previous inhabitants of that space. obviously his intrusion into the existing space changed the nature of that space. that's going to be true from almost all architecture. it's what we, as architects, do.
why can't you design emergence and coalescence of human spaces? or is your criticism that a single architecture project does not address human space 'en masse,' but rather focuses on the specific project at hand?
furthermore, the religion/ideology of parametric connectivity precludes the very human facet of formally athematic disruptures. Ignoring this implies that you are not taking people into mind when you talk about visual orientation but perhaps tricking yourself in thinking that this is your concern...in fact, you deny yourself the ability to see from people's perspectives because you are not paying heed to the whole spectrum of their design cultures (this including non-parametric disruptive dis continuous parcelled space).
You are fabricating a system of extremely impoverished quasi-indexocal semiotics and imposing it - you are not reading the existing semiotics, complex, paradoxical, rich, infused with difference (as opposed to yours that collapses around the self-serving monological forces of coalescence, the extreme fetishism of the diagram as a building). In short, your buildings are not inhumane from the socio-economic sense, they are also inhumane in the poverty of their monology and in the poverty in their response to architecturally and urbanly pluralistic environs.
poverty of their monology?
curtkram, the Istanbul project is not being built in a desert. And Orhan (who I trust knows most what this area is like) has pointed out the consequences.But this is not a unique case; this is the attitude of designers in the vein of ZHA and others. Tabula rasa for their grand schemes - its about ego and their beliefs that they sell to either silly and rich or simply rotten and rich people who are in a position of power...not that of the people who actually reside there, It rides the waves of fashionability and trend-setting rather than any actual grounded care for the place that it will occupy and the people who occupy the place already.
Tammuz, I agree.
The tabula rasa approach is no different than modernist urbanism. A new international style.
Correction, your buildings are not ONLY inhumane from the socio-economic sense...etc
tammuz, i fully agree that the displacement of working class neighborhoods (as well as the park that drew so much criticism a while back) is a bad thing, and it should be recognized as such.
this is a discussion about politics in architecture, so obviously that is a very appropriate concern. i think the counter-point though, is to clarify what role the architect is playing. schumacher was hired to design a building. the displacement of that population was already done (i assume) by the time he was involved. the responsibility for the displacement of that population should be on the politicians that were unable to protect the people they were representing, and the developers or financiers that corrupted the politicians and forced the evacuation of those people.
so do you really blame schumacher for agreeing to work with a client that was doing immoral but legal things? is it really reasonable to expect him to turn down the project, in which case the people who actually created the immoral acts would just get someone else to fill in? sometimes, the act of architecture is inherently immoral. as an architect, i agree with him that i should not be held responsible to the moral implications of my clients. as a citizen, i think i have a responsibility to hold my government accountable to preventing these sort of things from happening.
i haven't had a chance to read his article about politics in architecture that he linked yet, but perhaps i will be able to respond with a better understanding after i've had a chance to think about it from his perspective a little better. i reserve the right to change my opinion if i find that i'm misunderstanding what's happening.
curtkram, accepting a commission is an ethical matter. for example, there are firms that boycott working in the (Arab) Gulf unless there is proof of continued monitoring of working conditions on site for labourers. is that not true?
by the same token, why should we not think about the people actually already inhabiting the area and are affected negatively by a commission and why should we not boycott such projects?
i find your dissociation between the choices an architect has to make and his or her responsibilities not only artificial but deliberately tailored to to benefit you (or the architect in question) financial while alleviating the responsibility. This is a post-rationalized rationale starting from the premise: how can I be profitable while not being liable for my actions? Its the wrong question...and this is exactly the root of schumacher's defense.
You call it politics if you wish...I would call it more directly ethics. You would be literally assisting in the destruction of the local environs and graft something that has little to do with the historically present community there - something that will drive them out of houses, jobs, introduce aspects that they did not choose - all this without their concession. No, you'd be a far better man or woman if you just build a few nice vacation houses for your rich friends.
Yes, architects have a choice...and ZHA has more so a choice than many many others. She can choose to boycott and bring attention but she doesn't. She cares more about fashion that she does the community who will have to suffer her graft, as does Patrick Schumacher and others. \
Really, this is architectural colonialism
the displacement of that population was already done (i assume) by the time he was involved
curt, most of area are fully functioning factories, small workshops 11000+ of them and occupied apartment buildings. ZHA was commissioned to design and spearhead a total transformation marketing project for replacement of a working class manufacturing area with luxury condos and a yacht harbor. There might be some distant decency in Patrik since he is relentlessly trying to rationalize these otherwise "let them eat cake" type of projects with "seemingly" theoretical jargon.
The effort I am criticizing here is to uproot these bread baskets of community in Kartal because real estate is more profitable albeit less sustainable. It does not and cannot have a deep theory behind it other than clever marketing and speculative development bound to burst. It is a dumb project that would be abandoned after building few blocks. It is a burden for Kartal paddled by people with very little concern for hundreds of thousands of people. It is not just a few hundred people.
In a way this practice of pushing the productive industries out of city and turning the city into a one big service center and luxury habitat has dire consequences. Coming from a leading architectural firm known for large luxury and trophy projects this is embarrassing. Yuck!
Orhan: There might be some distant decency in Patrik since he is relentlessly trying to rationalize these otherwise "let them eat cake" type of projects with "seemingly" theoretical jargon.
I conceived of it slightly differently (i think you were a bit more kind Orhan):
This is a post-rationalized rationale starting from the premise: how can I be profitable while not being liable for my actions? Its the wrong question...and this is exactly the root of schumacher's defense.
I also see why it just doesnt make sense on other levels.
I don't know r recognize the area but Istanbul is an amazing place, so much bustle, so many small business . it really is an incredibly dense place, history everywhere, markets with amazing craftwork...i don't see why people need to create problems tailor made to their solution.XXL does not make sense; monological parametricism would be so infinitely more boring that what the place already has to offer. In fact, it was so much that i did not even leave with a clear idea of the place. its not really a place that tries to sell itself - than goodness. Too many places come up with these gimmicks. I also dare say that the people there are very robust and very rooted in their place (they still drink their coffee in those delicately embossed metal cups that we don't see in lebanon anymore) and there is no reason that a globalist architect with no concern for the place in association with corrupt figures of authority has the audacity to force something on them.
Tammuz, I agree with a lot of your points. The only thing I'm still confused about is how you seem to reject the establishment but support the idea of a state (Just based on what you said about the states responsibility to the people.) How can the state exist without it becoming "the establishment"?
there is no reason that a globalist architect with no concern for the place in association with corrupt figures of authority has the audacity to force something on them.
tammuz, well, let's say they tried... A lot of them try. And fail. Yacht harbors, cruise ports, resorts, shopping malls, etc., etc., Does not hurt to have a contemporary estate style sexy parametric one also. Izmir was once pitched a neat one too. I really like the current parametric and fucked up layout of Izmir and I know how it works. It really optimizes every inch. But it is not top down. Actually it is quite democratic and politically left. No gated communities. It is an open city. It does not restrict and divide and it is pretty much equally accessible to all through public transportation. Click anywhere to find its algorithms. I like me a parametric development but when it's real not a superficial pattern imitation fucking people, uprooting them and speculating the condominium markets.
Orhan, can you not recognize the economic progress Turkey has made in the last 20 years?
the kind of millieu protection you seem to advocate implies the protection and conservation of poverty for generations to come ... without the creative destruction of capitalism our lives would still be as brute, short and nasty as in the middle ages ... I like acceleration more than stagnation ...
no displacement of any old outmoded relatively unproductive indusry? ... everybody for ever land-locked, entrenched? ... total stagnation
eternal right to stay put and keep an employment routine even if its now relatively unproductive? administered by state bureaucrats? ... what is your concept of society and your concept of socio-economic progress? who are the agents of economic progress in your scheme of things ... do you think you can freeze things in Turkey when the world around is moving ahead? or do you want to freeze the whole world into stagnation ?
... without the creative destruction of capitalism our lives would still be as brute, short and nasty as in the middle ages ... I like acceleration more than stagnation ...
The fact of creative destruction isn't an excuse for demolishing urban fabric whole sale, especially with our knowledge of how devastating urban renewal projects are on the communities they displace. Now the whole manifesto thing makes sense. You aren't responsible for the choices developers and politicials make, (all though you say you'd like to be for "legibility"?), but there's no need to talk about every development as societal progress when sometimes it's just a big job.
Once you get into the bigboy's club, it's easy to assume those who are at the bottom simply want to freeze the world in amber since they have no profit in these larger development schemes. Like the old protestant ethic of assuming those who are wealthy where blessed by god. I really think you should stick to producing slick buildings and leave the pseudo moralising to preachers. Unfortunatley that might put you in some rather unattractive company, at least by intellectual and academic standards. You either like acceleration or you like stagnation. It's always amusing to see the avant guard become a brand for large commercial enterprises.
Uvvv.. Salty dog bites the hand! Just to quote Allan Sekula.
Answer Quondam's question first.
I grew up in that "stagnated" world. It is not at all stagnated Patrik. There is a life in it which surpasses any newly developed gated community "rezidans" not unlike you have patterned in Kartal.
I quote myself;
Turkish population doubled since the 60's when architecture died, to almost 80 million and expected to hit 100's sometime in the next decade. In over populated major cities of Turkey, if two people can pass a narrow path, you can be sure they'll be there to pass it and a third one will be watching for the opportunity if one fails or hesitates.
The density of Turkish cities are blinding, deafening, polluting, claustrophobic and do I dare to say, beautiful. I see that irresistible attraction in that badly constructed urbanity, city planning gone chaotic and instead of denying it, I like to indulge in it without disdain. Is that healthy thinking? Perhaps not, but I like madness, and, you cannot demolish millions of buildings or provide parking to millions of new cars previously did not exist.
The creative capitalism you are talking about is nothing more than proliferation of service industry. This is how far your wealth based theory goes. Not to be trusted. Valet services, dry cleaners, expensive restaurants.., providing dish washing jobs etc..
On the other hand you call any criticism of that hyperbolic vision stagnated? C'mon Patrik you don't need to resort to AK Party election slogans just because they might build portions of parametric sponge sucking the life out and uprooting poorer and less fortunate people and calling it a progress. "Creative Capitalism" did you get that from Bill Gates? Thanks..
patrick schumacher "do you think you can freeze things in Turkey when the world around is moving ahead?"
who or what is that world? what is "moving ahead"? to where? and why? what would make you think your "forward" is implicitly good? a prophecy you have? are you suddenly an economic genius - did God communicate this to you? can't you read the plethora literature on the increasing poverty of people around the world written by expert economists? who do you think you are to decide what is good for a people whose interests you have chosen to sidestep altogether? and in the vein of catherine tate: "how very dare you? " the people are not choosing you; a few assholes in power choose you. You don't come by way of decomcracy, you don't work with the civil communities, the overriding percentage of population living in the area, you don't incorporate their demands, you don't build for and around them. you have been assigned to do a job tailored to a few corrupt individuals who typically benefit from deals with multinational corporations sidestepping the benefit of the overriding majority of people.
calling lively economic hubs and local markets, stagnant? the homes of generations of people who live and work in an area now are tantamount to economic foul sedentary water puddles for you? seriously, have some shame and humility.
... I am not talking specifically about our project ... I am talking about modernisation and environmental improvements in general ... the kind of developments we are hired to design represent the aspirations of a growing middle class ... its not meant to be the exclusive preserve of a rich elite at all, neither is it such ... these are not gated communities at all .. this is a new urban fabric to live/work/entertain/socialize ... this middle class can grow and with it living standards can grow only if changes in technology and work organisation deliver productivity gains ... the ultimate bedrock of any increases in material freedom ... architects are not social workers, we are also not competing or replacing local vernaculars ... these are replaced by the aspirations of people ... we are competing replacing other developer schemes ... developers can not build anything if there is not a legitmate effective demand for which aspirational citizens are willing to earn their hard earned money ... if you hate theses developments you hate them by implication ... why are you so hateful if people aspire to live in a modernized, elegant environment ... You claim the moral high-ground denunciating the aspirations of the majority of people in Turkey or anywhere for that matter ... what are you offering, I wonder?
What is your concept of society and your concept of socio-economic progress?
Patrik Schumacher, Progress is a myth. The only real progress is the individual and collective path towards enlightenment. With this comes moral, social, and economic progress. True progress is the inevitable bi-product of enlightenment. Only with this, can technology be used as a tool for progress. A scud missile is not more progressive than a spear. This paradigm is related to the overall idea of parametrics as a tool. The tool itself is only as progressive as the user. True progress is what distinguishes Einstein from Oppenheimer. True progress, imo, will likely look more like some kind of high-tech subsistence living. A completely decentralized structure of production and power...Only possible of course if the individual and collective self can reach a level of enlightenment. As I have said, the job of the artist is to instigate and facilitate this path.
A blind faith in progress is what got us all into this mess that we are in. You seem to have too much faith in the idea of linear progress-the idea that if we just keep moving that we will get somewhere better. The polar bears are floating around on little ice rafts....We are eating fake shit food filled with GMO's....The foundation of community has been uprooted in so many places...The auto-centric city has destroyed small business....How is this progress? The greedy bastards that got us into this mess will not be the ones to get us out of it. It is up to the people to lay the foundation for empowerment and spread the word of enlightenment. Facilitate and instigate! As for your tabula rasa ideology, it is impossible to replace something that evolved over generations with something that we just drop out of the sky. It will never be as rich and interesting.
why are you so hateful if people aspire to live in a modernized, elegant environment ... You claim the moral high-ground denunciating the aspirations of the majority of people in Turkey or anywhere for that matter ... what are you offering, I wonder?
I don't think anyone would begrudge their uncle wanting the 3-d tv and all the crap it sells us. It's the manifestos, the absolutism of your language, the declarations of how modernity must be. This isn't about hate, but about love. A love for the communities that flourish within a seemingly disordered environment. And if this sounds a bit romantic, it's no more than what people feel when thier environments are torn down at such a scale.
Personally, I don't think you are doing anything "wrong" by taking this job becasue like we said, someone would do it. It's your uncritical vision of a consumerist middle class whose "standard of living" is measured by material aquisition rather than a quality of life as defined by the relationships with people and place that many of these unruly and disordered places embody. Regarding the importance of legebility in architecture, it should be the architect who "reads" the local culture and place. This is done by observing and listening more than preaching about capitalism and what a "modernized, elegant environment" the majority of people aspire to. We all appreciate the benefits of modernity, but slick packaging dosen't signify to progress any more than culture represents an open mind. If you want the built environment to be legible, you should first learn the local language.
Actually Quondam, I have used parametrics as a tool for urban design in a thesis I did. The result had no aesthetic of stylistic connection to what we think of as parametricism. The data input was all about reaching a balance between production of food, production of energy, density, water collection, program distribution of residential and small business, the environmental conditions of the site, climate..etc....I put in dozens of factors to create a net-zero off the grid community plan. One that was economically and socially productive. The community was not a plop down. It was designed in the "terrain vague" of the city. It was surprisingly similar to the ancient settlement pattern and the urban form that existed in the region hundreds of years prior....
The main idea was that urban design is based on the abstract and arbitrary land grid, and that we should actually think of land or space as "resource space." The density and distribution of nature is determined by resource space not by an abstract notion like zoning.
Quondam "here, for example, parametrics could be utilized to include existing conditions as an important variable within the overall calculating/design process"
I suspect that one set of parameters would supersede, perhaps even contradict, another st of parameters.
but also, there is an assumption that parametric architecture is a reflection of a rigid modelling of the combination of objector factors - is that really true? perhaps a clarification on what is accurately the 'parametricist' (not merely parametrically-assisted) method would be useful. i suspect that either:
1- it is decided from the get go what the function of the architecture is, the master plan concept, the approximate number of buildings, the main functional core (if any) and the locational disposition relative to each...and so on. thereafter, parametricism would be the matter by which these are formally liaised.
or
2- these are derived, analogically - as architects do, from abstract parametric manipulations of the site conditions. thereafter the process is - as above- geometrically liasing these bodies.
which, if i am correct, could mean that the factoring of real information is not actually parametric but indeed a classical incorporation and/or engendering of information analogically. which is to say, it would clearly disclose a prejudice in both, the type of information being incorporated (and not "fed in" - since we would no longer be discussing a non-human engineering of imperative outcomes but rather a largely human choice of outcomes) and in the design choices apropos that information.
That would mean that we are only parametric at the figurative allusive level and not parametric at the functional level.
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.