{"id":8399,"date":"2026-05-21T10:15:19","date_gmt":"2026-05-21T10:15:19","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.angesfinanciers.org\/?p=8399"},"modified":"2026-05-22T15:11:55","modified_gmt":"2026-05-22T15:11:55","slug":"how-parametricism-changed-architecture-but-not-buildings","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.angesfinanciers.org\/index.php\/2026\/05\/21\/how-parametricism-changed-architecture-but-not-buildings\/","title":{"rendered":"How parametricism changed architecture but not buildings"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"<\/div>\n

Our Parametricism<\/a> series has explored the architectural theory controversially touted by Patrik Schumacher<\/a> as the defining style of the 21st century. To round things off, Tom Ravenscroft<\/a> measures the movement’s impact.<\/span><\/p>\n

Zaha Hadid Architects<\/a> (ZHA) principal Schumacher coined the term parametricism in 2008, declaring that it will become a universal style of architecture. He doubled down on the prediction in 2016, and again in an interview with Dezeen as part of this series<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Clearly, this has not yet come to pass. Schumacher himself acknowledges that parametricism \u2013 basically the use of computational tools to design buildings based on a set of parameters, but usually associated with dramatic swooping curves \u2013 is still “a drop in the ocean”.<\/p>\n

But while Schumacher remains convinced that a parametricist future is on the horizon, others are not so sure.<\/p>\n