Purpose This article argues that metamodernism should be understood in architecture primarily as an epistemological framework – a way of knowing – rather than as an aesthetic sensibility. It demonstrates how contemporary architecture must navigate incompatible knowledge systems simultaneously. Design/methodology/approach The article bases its argument on metamodernism as oscillation and “as-if” epistemology, applied to architecture through five material constraints: materiality, duration, collectivity, publicness and capital intensity. It examines five paradigmatic case studies (Grenfell Tower, Svalbard Global Seed Vault, Beijing Daxing Airport, National Museum of African American History and Culture, Elbphilharmonie) and two hedonistic sustainability projects (CopenHill, Sara kulturhus). Findings Architecture demonstrates metamodern epistemology through productive impossibility: the requirement to proceed as-if contradictory goals could be reconciled while materially making their irreconcilability visible. This framework has significant implications for architectural pedagogy, requiring educators to cultivate students' capacity to work within epistemological hybridity rather than seeking resolution. Research limitations/implications This article's analysis is limited to European, North American and East Asian architectural examples, reflecting both metamodernism's origins as a European theoretical framework and the author's situated perspective as a northern European educator. Future research should investigate whether metamodern epistemology applies to non-Western architectural contexts or whether different epistemological frameworks emerge from other cultural and intellectual traditions for navigating productive impossibility. Many non-Western architectural practices already navigate multiple contradictory functions and producers; examining these through their own theoretical vocabularies rather than importing Western frameworks could significantly extend architectural epistemology's geographic and cultural scope. This remains crucial terrain for extending these arguments beyond their current geographic concentration. Practical implications The article's pedagogical argument has direct implications for architectural practice preparation. Architects educated in metamodern epistemology will encounter professional practices still organised around modernist structures: building codes presuming singular solutions, fee structures commodifying design as product and client expectations shaped by technological solutionism. This friction is inevitable but productive: metamodern thinking can equip architects to articulate what knowledge claims their buildings make, which validation criteria apply across epistemologies, and why contradictions cannot be resolved. Rather than seeking to eliminate this friction, professional practice should recognise and support architects trained to work productively within epistemological complexity. Social implications As architecture and construction face unprecedented pressure from the polycrisis (the climate emergency, social inequity, resource scarcity), training architects to work within productive impossibility rather than seeking definitive solutions has significant social consequences. Metamodern pedagogy prepares architects to hold incompatible demands (sustainability and development, community benefit and capital efficiency, cultural preservation and innovation) without false resolution. This capacity is essential for navigating the contradictions embedded in contemporary building: materials with embodied carbon used to address climate change, developments addressing housing scarcity while potentially displacing communities, heritage preservation and adaptive reuse. Metamodern epistemology offers architects intellectual and ethical tools for acknowledging rather than obscuring these contradictions, supporting more honest engagement with architecture's role in social transformation. Originality/value This article extends metamodernism from cultural theory into architectural epistemology, providing vocabulary for understanding how contemporary architecture must navigate the polycrisis. It positions architectural education as critical training for practitioners facing practice's inherent epistemological complexity.
James Benedict Brown (Thu,) studied this question.