NO ROOM FOR P A R A M E T R I C
M E Y V I N P U S P I TA
Young architects today are at the end of a branching road where one leads toward the dark, unknown world of parametric design and the other retains the familiar, traditional ways of designing.
While it is hard to resist the luring capabilities of technological advancements, it is essential for these young minds to take a step back and consider the advantages and the consequences offered by these approaches.
1
A lot is not known yet in parametric design. Researchers who are studying the topic intensively craft promising hypotheses that assure the audiences of parametric architecture’s abilities to dramatically change the world, and even the way we live.
2
These empty promises and ambiguity surrounding the topic of computer-generated designs have existed for more than four long decades:
“There is no doubt that this research is going on. What its results may be, one cannot yet predict, and nobody knows whether or not a sort of symbiosis of machine intellect and human intellect is possible. If it is possible, we might find a new organ to interact with (much in the same way as we live in symbiosis with our own sensor y organs), and we might become a different species.� (Negroponte, 1975)
3
“This is a problem that is bound up with the whole field of artificial intelligence, which promised major advances in the early and mid 1960’s, but which, more than a decade later, is still struggling with brutish machines that remain stubbornly moronic.� (Cross, 1977)
4
“Just as the calculator freed the human brain from the work of doing arithmetic sums, the computer should be able to free the brain of other burdens, as well. And yet there are certain tasks which only the human brain can perform. What we should be seeking are ways for the computer and the brain to complement each other and collaborate in the work of architectural design.� (Watanabe, 20 02)
5
One may admit that the computers have effectively and efficiently assisted architects in designing buildings, from performing structural analyses to organising window schedules and electrical plans. Moreover, working on smoothly-cur ved designs has been made easier with recent software developments.
6
Yet, besides being able to work on both planar and undulating surfaces efficiently, in what other ways has computer-aided parametric design exactly changed our lives?
In ‘Parametricism as Style’, Patrik Schumacher, partner of Zaha Hadid Architects, declares that: “Contemporar y avant-garde architecture is addressing the demand for an increased level of articulated complexity by means of retooling its methods on the basis of parametric design systems. The contemporar y architectural style that has achieved per vasive hegemony within the contemporar y architectural avant-garde can be best understood as a research programme based upon the parametric paradigm.” (Schumacher, 20 08)
7
In other words, Schumacher believes that Parametricism is the only path to designing of a piece of architecture that responds to the growing social and urban complexities of the modern society.
Whenever criticised about the cur vilinear nature of their designs, Hadid and Schumacher defend themselves by stubbornly reinstating their beliefs that these ludicrous blobs somehow “reflect emerging social demands� (Schumacher, 20 08).
8
In his manifesto, Schumacher argues that the strength of Parametricism lies on its ability to adapt to various local circumstances.
Yet, the Galaxy Soho Building in Beijing, China, has been accused of violating several heritage overlays and regulations, “causing great damage to the preser vation of the old Beijing streetscapes, the original urban plan, and the traditional Hutong and courtyard houses� (Beijing Cultural Heritage Protection Centre, 2013).
9
When viewed in context, as per image 1, the building appears ridiculously out of place, almost as if a spaceship has landed on the street of Beijing.
10
One could not help but wonder, which part of the local contexts was considered by Hadid when designing this building?
Image 1 11
In 20 04, the Architecture Foundation ran a competition to build a new headquarter in London, which was planned to house its activities, exhibitions and events.
12
Hadid won, however, three years later the project was officially abandoned due to a number of impractical constraints, including the failure to heat up the cafÊ easily during winter and the soaring costs of window-cleaning, which apparently almost matched the salar y of the foundation’s staff member.
According to Moore, who was the director of the Architecture Foundation at that time, Schumacher addressed this issue in regard to one of the practice’s philosophies: “functional optimality is renounced in favour of the experimental advancement of social practices of potentially higher functionality”
Simply put, Schumacher faithfully believes that Hadid’s design is a fair trade for practicality. He also argues that impractical experimentations are at times considered necessar y for bringing fruitful advantages in the future.
(Schumacher, 20 08).
13
In this particular instance, ZHA has blindly disregarded functionality, which is at the heart of architecture. In architecture, the basic functions of a building, such as providing warmth during winter, should never be compromised by architects, regardless of their directions of style.
14
Besides, Parametricism demoralises the longestablished, traditional ways of designing, which were scrupulously developed and handed over from one generation to another for hundreds of years.
When designing parametrically, forms are no longer derived from rigorous thoughts and design processes. Not even intuition.
15
Yet, they are simply manufactured by the rationales of computer programming, allowing for the manipulations of the forms freely as long as they fall within the given parameters.
16
Parametricism neglects the fact that an architect is generally required to go through a rite of passage, vigorously learning and training for years, before finally capable of designing a decent piece of architecture.
Instead, the machine is now given the freedom to design on behalf of the architect. Greg Lynn (20 08), for example, mentions that he is able to achieve 50,0 0 0 unique combinations that are derived from one generic design.
17
The forms of Lynn’s Embr yological Houses, as seen on images 2 and 3, were manipulated randomly according to a set of control points that were attached to a basic geometr y. Instead of shaping the form according to the different types of space required in a house, it was merely generated according to a series of trivial parameters.
18
19
Further more, parametric design requires architects to be able to script and architects who are not technical enough to code are not able to design parametrically. Burr y (2011) confirms this notion of prior knowledge:
“Given that almost all those I have consulted see scripting skills as being hard won, should the schools that include scripting at an elective if not fundamental level seek some computational skilling as a prerequisite to coding?� (Burr y, 2011)
20
Therefore, not only that the architect is required to understand coding, yet he is also required to have an extensive knowledge of algorithms and advanced mathematics. Soon enough, architecture schools will only accept geniuses who score 0.25 short of getting into robotics.
21
RETURNING TO BASIC FUNCTIONS
If we stray from architecture a little and take a brief walk down the automotive lane, we will soon see that the first automobiles were designed almost 130 years ago; however, technological advancements have not changed much of the ways they are designed to operate.
Motor vehicles are designed to transport people from one point to another efficiently and effectively, and in similar ways, buildings are designed to provide long-lasting shelters for the occupants. Isn’t it therefore obvious that the architects’ responsibilities are to simply satisfy the basic original functions of buildings?
23
To do this, one would need to reminisce about Functionalism and it is almost unavoidable to reflect on Functionalism without going past Modernism. In hindsight, Modernism was a movement so powerful and influential it ironically became “an art movement”, whereby the buildings designed by the Modernists were specifically “intended for those who could understand and appreciate it” (Benton, 20 06).
24
Fansworth House, despite its worldwide fame, was deemed unliveable due to its almost non-existent skin. Modernism’s relentless urges to strip a building off and leaving merely its backbones are not at all relevant to our needs for the long-lasting shelters. Contrar y to both Modernism and Parametricism, Modern Functionalism is driven primarily by needs rather than wants.
It responds to the significant environmental and socio-economic issues.
25
It is site-specific.
26
Honest.
27
Practical.
28
Experiential.
29
Unpretentious.
30
It does not necessarily dismiss aesthetics. It embraces aesthetics that are underlined by pragmatism.
31
CONTEXTS
32
First and foremost, Modern Functionalism relies on context. Unlike Hadid’s invading spaceships and Lynn’s 50,0 0 0 context-independent variations, Modern Functionalism graciously takes into account what occurs on site prior to designing a building.
It cherishes not only the immediate surrounding, but the entire urban, suburban or rural conditions. The Modern Functionalists modestly believe that a building or structure, no matter how small in size, contributes in one way or another to its local context. Hence, environmentalsustainability is considered a given in Modern Functionalism.
33
MATERIAL HONEST Y
34
The Modern Functionalists sincerely embrace material honesty and craftsmanship. In a society wholly engulfed by digital experimentations and prefabrications, it is essential for architects to continue valuing artistr y and workmanship.
Modern Functionalism recognises the importance of using local materials that are readily available, and most importantly, able to be efficiently transported and easily handled. In addition, the chosen materials ought to be robust and easy to maintain, such as bricks, concrete and timber.
35
The Modern Functionalists also aim to employ materials that lessen the building’s impact on its surrounding environment. Whenever possible, recycling and reusing of existing building’s materials are encouraged.
36
Parametricism, on the other hand, tends to neglect the importance of materials, and instead aims for the smooth futuristic-looking finish. This may result in choosing materials that are perhaps innovative, however, are expensive and require specific handling and maintenance regimes.
Additionally, some of the new composite materials may respond in unpredictable ways, resulting in unexpected problems and variations in cost during and after construction. Therefore, the properties of the materials employed in a building ought to be fully understood and only then, can they be utilised to the architect’s advantage.
37
BUILDINGS’ PERSONALITIES
Central to the philosophies of Modern Functionalism is the notion of process, including the design process that is firstly initiated by the architect and imbued by the client, to the continuing growth and changes that occur throughout the life and the rebirth of the building.
The Modern Functionalists believe that “occupation or use separates art from architecture. If art is communication then it can be purely metaphysical. If architecture is function then it must be physical as well as metaphysical� (Bell & Stathaki, 2010).
39
Modern Functionalism therefore aims to provide a wholesome experiential journey for the occupants; one that may develop over time as the occupants themselves interact and relate to the building and its surrounding landscape.
40
A building that is thoughtfully designed by an architect, instead of parametrically generated by a computer, would represent the architect’s design essence and the client’s personal identity.
While both Modernism and Parametricism aim for formal stylistic perfection, Modern Functionalism seeks to construct buildings that embody strong atmospheres and moods and buildings that reflect the thinking processes beyond them, regardless of perfection.
41
Architecture today revolves around complex social, urban and environmental issues. More often than not, it is also intertwined with digital technologies. Young architects must therefore be aware of the directions of architecture design they are going to take.
42
With innovations constantly lurking around the corner, one must remember that functionality in architecture is fundamental, for if functionality is compromised, then why create architecture in the first place?
43
REFERENCE Bell, J. & Stathaki, E. (2010). The New Modern House: Redefining Functionalism. London: Laurence King Publishing Ltd. Benton, T. (20 06). The Modernist Home. London: V&A Publications. Burr y, M. (2011). Scripting Cultures: Architectural Design and Programming. West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Chan, C. (20 08). Greg Lynn: Cur ve Your Enthusiasm. Retrieved November 11, 2013, from http://032c.com/20 08/greg-lynn-cur ve-your-enthusiasm/ Cross, N. (1977). The Automated Architect. London: Pion Limited. Etherington, R. (2013). Chinese Heritage Group Offended by Zaha Hadid’s RIBA Award for Galaxy Soho. Retrieved November 10, 2013, from http://w w w.dezeen. com/2013/08/03/zaha-hadid-galaxy-soho-riba-award-lubetkin-prize-chineseheritage/
44
REFERENCE Moore, R. (2013). Zaha Hadid: Queen of the Cur ve. Retrieved November 10, 2013, from http://w w w.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2013/sep/08/zaha-hadidserpentine-sackler-profile Negroponte, N. (1975). Soft Architecture Machines. Massachusetts: The MIT Press. Schumacher, P. (20 08). Parametricism as Style: Parametricist Manifesto. Retrieved November 8, 2013, from http://w w w.patrikschumacher.com/Texts/ Parametricism%20as%20Style.htm Watanabe, M. S. (20 02). Induction Design: A Method for Evolutionar y Design. Basel: Birkh채user.
45