Comments

1. HYPEBEAST.
2. It sound all BS to me, Sorry.
3. So bad for cutting him
4. Patrik uses a puritanical phenomenology to beat the dead and fossilized steel and mortar constructions of classism and recast them with an accretion of winsome geospatial order that displays itself as as dative of disclosure of human ambition and vision to collage space and time.
5. He is the rare bird within people in architecture. If they could try read his book and look him in YouTube it could be revolution in designing our social reality.
6. ZHA is now the absolute of global intelligence and creative drive! Love ZHA!
7. I liked the video , I have a question to manage the program which uses Zaha Hadid NECESSARY FOR YOUR PYOYECTOS master mathematics 'd really appreciate it ?, THANKS
8. General principles of parametricism is that really future for 30-40 years, won't you or not. Maybe style that your saw will mutate, and change visual characteristics, but main principles will not change. Patrik Schumacher are not an artist. Patrik is an analyst. His work it's analitical effort. But your saw only pictures, and doesn't heard what he says.
9. Scott Cohen's question about flatness is great. He unmasks the fact that parametricism has yet a lot of personal influence of the architecture studio who is working with it. The question goes way further than the flat floor but it is relative to all the process and all the decisions taken, and you can see this is a weak point in this style of architecture when Patrik starts mumbling around and does not have an answer.
   I think the lecture is really interesting, but he is clearly selling his product as a reality of the future and discrediting other methods, when saying if you are not into parametricism, you are not up to date or something like that.
   I would also liked to ask him what about emergency homes or shelters for the less economically capable. Would parametrism help them? Because what I believe is that this gives great sculptural shapes and spaces for big programs, such as museums, etc. But what happens when you design a house? It would be a really interesting paradigm to investigate on.
10. I like a lot of this architecture, as well as the theoretical / technical processes behind it, but I find the speaker pretentious and elitist.
11. far too intellectualized. this guy believes his own monologues on differentiation and offerings.. it's just mindless use of tools with no vision. that's all, i do it because i can. it's mindless; it is because because the instruments allow it. why are we waiting on the next version of maya to determine what we can make.. is there that little faith in human vision..
12. EPIC;;
13. This is quite a sophisticated discourse and the theoretical contribution is clearly articulated, even if based on an outdated  view of architectural history centered on western exceptionalism. However, I see the problem of incoherency in the desire to transform this social theory into a blueprint for practice: incoherency between the claims of revolution/avantgardism and the outcomes of this approach, which is conservatism at its best. The autopoiesis of architecture makes sense in a functionally differentiated society. But society is constantly evolving, and, as the book "Capital in the 21st Century" by Piketty shows, there is good evidence to belief that functional differentiation does not portray the whole spectrum of today's society and will not in the immediate future. And so, the belief in autopoiesis might not be that revolutionary after all, because it argues along with functional differentiation, rather than helping practice to deal with our present age and problems. It is on the contrary a quite conservative approach, despite the hype and fumes surrounding ZHA's buildings, and as such it helps to not see and neglect what is already obvious and evident rather than manifesting imperceptible relations, addressing relevance and "reducing stupidity", to quote Cedric Price.
14. If you want this to make it to the mainstream, this guy is going to need a translator...
15. But the designs are about as elegant as alienware computers. Even Schumacher's graphic presentation is clumsy with that horizontally stretched font. Why does the style focus on this particular kind straining techy mucous aesthetic?
16. A line  is  the  shortest  distance  between  two  points, and  I guess  is  not  a  curve...Nevertheless,  overqualified  for  the  job!
17. Parametricism is definitely a paradigm shift in design and architecture. As a mid age architect, I feel completely outdated. Sigh...
18. Is it evolution when a cannibal uses the fork? (Stanislav Lec)
19. cultural evolution ?
20. He rushes through all the interesting stuff with the nice images and then bogs down on the boring philosophical stuff with the crappy PowerPoint slides nobody is interested in. He needs to revise his lecture to do just the opposite. Skip entirely the words-only slides and lovingly describe each and every sinuous curve of every sculptural form.