Blaming a decline in architectural education, the principal of Zaha Hadid Architects claims universities have replaced design rigour with political discourse, stifling innovation
Patrik Schumacher, principal of Zaha Hadid Architects, has claimed that architecture as a discipline has ceased to exist, blaming “woke virtue-signalling”, political distractions and stagnation in architectural education for its supposed demise.
In a 13,000-word essay titled The End of Architecture, published in the Serbian architecture and philosophy journal Khōrein, Schumacher argues that architecture “has self-dissolved, eroding its intellectual and professional autonomy under the pressures of anti-capitalist politicisation and woke virtue-signalling”.
The architect, who succeeded Zaha Hadid as head of her eponymous firm following her death in 2016, claims the discipline has abandoned its theoretical foundations, returning to “a state of mere craft” devoid of innovation. “The bulk of architecture designed in 2024 could have been designed in 1974 or indeed in 1924. It is not only stagnant but positively regressive,” he writes.
“All styles, with the exception of parametricism… are retro-styles: minimalism, neo-modernism, neo-rationalism, neo-classicism, neo-historicism, neo-postmodernism.”
Schumacher claims that architecture has abandoned its role as a driver of innovation, arguing that the profession has become preoccupied with political and social issues at the expense of technological and theoretical progress. He describes architecture as a “discourse that is geared towards permanent innovation”, historically shaped by the need for a “permanently updated built environment”.
Rigorous architectural discourse has been replaced with woke studies, woke criticism, and woke polemical, artistic-symbolic illustrations standing in for absent design projects
However, he argues that this focus has been lost, with “universities, exhibitions, conferences and magazines” now dominated by discussions on “climate change, racism, Eurocentrism, decolonisation, degrowth” – topics which, he claims, relate “only negatively to contemporary architecture”. He suggests that this shift has contributed to the stagnation of the discipline, sidelining its core function of advancing new design practices.
Schumacher singles out architectural education as a key factor in this perceived decline, arguing that the “prevailing woke culture” in universities now “repels students with intellectual ambition”. He suggests that rigorous architectural discourse has been replaced with “woke studies, woke criticism, and woke polemical, artistic-symbolic illustrations standing in for absent design projects”.
He claims that critique of student work is now “avoided”, creating an “incestuous academic culture of dilettante distraction.”
He further argues that architecture has lost its theoretical foundation, claiming that the discipline has “self-dissolved” and eroded its intellectual and professional autonomy. He contends that architecture has abandoned its critical discourse and “devolved into a fragmented practice now operating on the level of a mere craft rather than a science-based, academic discipline”.
>> Also read: Schumacher blasts ‘lack of architecture’ at Venice Biennale
He insists that theoretical treatises are essential, maintaining that “architecture, as distinguished from mere building, is inherently connected to architectural discourse and theory”.
Schumacher has a history of controversial interventions in architectural discourse, having previously suggested the privatisation of public land and the abolition of social housing as possible ways to address London’s housing crisis. The article restates his previous criticism of the Venice Architecture Biennale, which he attacked in 2023 for its “lack of architecture”.
In his latest critique, Schumacher reiterates this argument, claiming that the 2023 Venice Biennale illustrated how Western architectural culture had become “shamefaced and guilt-ridden”. In contrast, he argues that Chinese architects exhibited a sense of “full force and self-confidence”, with the Chinese national pavilion delivering virtually all the architecture on display in Venice.
This, he suggests, raises the question: “Will architecture end only in the West, while continuing in the East?”
Only through such recalibration can architecture emerge from its current dissolution and reclaim its role as a distinct and essential function system
Schumacher’s critique aligns with a broader backlash against liberal orthodoxy, typified by Donald Trump’s re-election and a movement framing itself as a defence of “free speech” against progressive dogma. His argument echoes wider claims that institutions have stifled intellectual rigour in favour of ideology.
His latest broadside against the state of the profession is likely to provoke further debate, particularly given his assertion that “the voluntary self-dissolution of architecture” is already “a fait accompli”.
Despite his bleak assessment, Schumacher calls for the discipline to “reassert architecture’s specific social function” by “reclaiming agency and re-establishing [architecture’s] critical discourse to foster innovation aligned with societal progress”. He argues that “only through such recalibration can architecture emerge from its current dissolution and reclaim its role as a distinct and essential function system in the development process of contemporary society”.
Khōrein: Journal for Architecture and Philosophy is a biannual, peer-reviewed, open-access publication from the Institute for Philosophy and Social Theory at the University of Belgrade. It claims to explore the intersection of architecture and philosophy, aiming to “deepen the dialogue between the two disciplines” and “transcend their boundaries.”
9 Readers' comments