It’s a rather interesting question: why doesn’t parametric, adaptive, or generative design enjoy a much broader appeal in architecture, design schools, and the public in general—despite the fact that the industry fully recognizes its value proposition?

Design work, in general, seems to be a contradiction too. We’ve tried to apply commoditization rationales to solutions that, by nature, hold immeasurable value. While I’m not a fan of communistic theories, it can be argued that the excessive monetization of disruptive solutions stands at odds with the lofty aspirations of the field as a whole.

True, not every R&D project is important, and some arguably belong in the trash bin, but undeniably difficult fields should, by any short measure, receive a lot more funding and general interest.

It’s not surprising that established academia has chosen not to push the issue further—it makes the institutions look bad. After all, their reputation is built on knowing, and they simply cannot accept that they’re not that good at this new field.

The evident solution would be to better fund these institutions, but that would likely result in new blood in an old body, reinvigorating old discussions of irrelevance in the face of pressing social issues—therefore, diluting the effort. Philosophical discussions on architectural styles instead of acceleration of technological improvements for instance.

So the question becomes: what should we do?

Theoreticians and experts like Jacobus et. all seem to suggest the that key of the issues lies at integrating the principles of parametric design as as methodology early in the career. Something we will likely see as a natural progression in the coming years as academic staff is increasingly but surely replaced by younger academics or more pragmatic insituttions such as vocational schools take a hold on the market and society’s imaginarium. 

More likely we should also consider the potential solutions and impacts that these changes are bound to unleash of the hand of other technologies such as AI and more consolidated business models from main software producing houses now moving into cloud services for additive solutions. This has issues of copyrights and idea replication but in essence the direction is stable. 

The multiplicity of ideas and exploration angles around an issue—and, more importantly, our ability to discern between proposed solutions and how they intertwine with long-term economic goals and resource management—is perhaps the biggest challenge that design as a discipline will face in the coming years. 

As we confront issues of scarcity, we are approaching a critical threshold as a species—one that will determine our ability to ensure both survival and thriving conditions for at least the next century. So let’s get to work!