Iconic Architecture and Capitalist Globa PDF

CCIT_A_159444.
fm Page 21 Tuesday, February 21, 2006 5:25 AM
CITY, VOL. 10, NO. 1, APRIL 2006
Iconic architecture and 1

2
capitalist globalization 3
4
5
6
7
Leslie Sklair 8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Icon. 1572. 1. An image, figure, or architectural icons—the focus of this 22
City:
10.1080/13604810600594613
CCIT_A_159444.sgm
1360-4813
Original
Taylor
102006
10
April
L.Sklair@lse.ac.uk
LeslieSklair
00000Analysis
2006
and
&Article
Francis
(print)/1470-3629
Francis
of Urban
Ltd Trends
(online)
representation; a portrait; an illustration in paper. My general approach identifies the 23

a book; image in the solid; a statue. 2. drivers of actually existing capitalist 24
Eastern Church. A representation of some globalization as the transnational capital- 25
sacred personage, itself regarded as sacred,
ist class (TCC) and suggests how theory 26
and honoured with a relative worship.
and research on the agents and institu- 27
(adapted from the Oxford English
Dictionary, various editions) tions of the TCC could help us to explain 28
how the dominant forms of contemporary 29
On being described as an icon: “I think iconic architecture arise and how they 30
that’s just another word for a washed-up serve the interests of globalizing capital- 31
has-been.” (Bob Dylan, 1998, cited in ists—the focus of a companion paper 32
Knowles, 1999) (Sklair, 2005). The historical context of the 33
research is the argument that the produc- 34
“Iconic. An incitement to spend money.”
(Anon, 2004 ) tion and representation of architectural 35
AQ1
icons in the pre-global era (roughly before 36
the 1950s) were mainly driven by those 37
T
his paper aims to develop a frame-
work within which the place of who controlled the state and/or religion, 38
iconic architecture in capitalist whereas the dominant forms of architec- 39
globalization can be analysed. The litera- tural iconicity for the global era are 40
ture on globalization is enormous, and increasingly driven by those who own and 41
there are many competing approaches control the corporate sector. Iconicity in 42
jostling for primacy.1 So, any attempt to architecture is a resource in struggles for 43
present a definitive account of “globaliza- meaning and, by implication, for power. 44
tion and architecture” (or anything else) is Therefore, to explain how iconic architec- 45
doomed to failure. Here I argue for a ture works for capitalist globalization we 46
specific conception of globalization and must ask questions about meaning and 47
how this works for what can be labelled power. 48
ISSN 1360-4813 print/ISSN 1470-3629 online/06/010021-27 © 2006 Taylor & Francis

DOI: 10.1080/13604810600594613
CCIT_A_159444.fm Page 22 Tuesday, February 21, 2006 5:25 AM
22 CITY VOL. 10, NO. 1
1 The central feature of all the approaches to works in China. Many celebrated living
2 globalization current in the social sciences is architects readily accept that they could not
3 that some important contemporary problems have made their most famous designs with-
4 cannot be adequately studied at the level of out the help of computer-aided design
5 states, that is, in terms of national societies or (CAD), notably Norman Foster’s Reichstag
6 inter-national relations, but need to be theo- in Berlin, Great Court in the British Museum
7 rized in terms of globalizing processes, (Pawley, 1999) and the Swiss Re Building in
8 beyond the level of the state. Many architects London, and Frank Gehry’s Guggenheim
9 and critics have joined the debate about Bilbao and Disney Concert Hall in Los
10 globalization (e.g. Ibelings, 1998; Migayrou Angeles (Friedman, 1999).6 Swiss Re and the
11 and Brayer, 2003).2 It is clear that the Disney Concert Hall are often cited as prime
12 umbrella concept of globalization, a concept examples of how iconic buildings have trans-
13 with many meanings, would benefit from a formed city skylines (see Figures 1 and 2).
14 measure of deconstruction. Let us begin by The postcolonial has had profound effects
Figure 21 Disney
Foster’sConcert
Swiss Re
Hall
Building
by Gehry
(2003)—a
(2003)—a
newdeliberately
icon in the manufactured
London skyline.
icon
Source:
to stand
Leslie
out in
Sklair.
the new downtown of Los Angeles. Source: Leslie Sklair.
15 splitting it into three separate ideas, namely on architecture, urbanism and identity all
16 generic globalization, capitalist globalization over the world, notably illustrated by King
17 and alternative globalizations. (2004) in his powerful arguments around
18 “spaces of global culture”. Architects are also
19 responsible for the creation of many transna-
20 Generic globalization tional social spaces, spaces like globally
21 branded shopping malls, theme parks, water-
22 The idea of generic globalization focuses our front developments and transportation
23 attention on four new phenomena that have centres that could literally be almost
24 become significant since the middle of the anywhere in the world and thus must have
25 20th century: consequences for the senses of space of those
26 who use them. New forms of cosmopolitan-
27 1. the electronic revolution, notably trans- ism are more difficult to pin down, but the
28 formations in the technological base and most famous architects, dubbed “starchi-
29 global scope of the electronic mass media, tects”, of today play an increasingly pivotal
30 and most of the material infrastructure role in creating them.7
31 (Herman and McChesney, 1997; Castells, These new phenomena—the electronic and
32 2000); postcolonial revolutions, transnational social
33 2. the postcolonial revolution, whereby spaces, new forms of cosmopolitanism—are
34 almost as soon as they were conceptual- the defining characteristics of globalization in
35 ized as such in the 1950s, the First and the a generic sense. They are irreversible in the
36 Third Worlds began to be deconstructed;3 long run (absent global catastrophe) because
37 3. the subsequent creation of transnational for the vast majority of the people in the
38 social spaces;4 and world, rich or poor, men or women, black or
39 4. qualitatively new forms of cosmopolitan- white, young or old, able or disabled,
40 ism.5 educated or uneducated, gay or straight, secu-
41 lar or religious, generic globalization could
42 Each of these characteristics of generic serve their own best interests, even if it is not
43 globalization is significant for contemporary necessarily serving their best interests at
44 architecture. Tombesi (2001) shows how new present. Globalization impacts most people,
45 technologies, particularly computer software, big landlords as well as subsistence farmers in
46 have promoted a new international division the countryside, corporate executives as well
47 of labour between architectural offices in the as labourers in sweatshops in major cities,
48 First World and in the Third World, and well-paid professionals as well as informal
49 Chung et al. (2001) vividly illustrate how this workers in tourist sites, comfortable manual
SKLAIR: ICONIC ARCHITECTURE AND CAPITALIST GLOBALIZATION 23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Figure 1 Foster’s Swiss Re Building (2003)—a new icon in the London skyline. Source: Leslie Sklair. 23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
Figure 2 Disney Concert Hall by Gehry (2003)—a deliberately manufactured icon to stand out in the new downtown 48
of Los Angeles. Source: Leslie Sklair. 49
1 workers as well as desperate migrants in tran- transnational practices, a still-evolving tran-

2 sit in the hope of better lives. These polarities snational capitalist class in the political
3 point to the inescapable fact that we do not sphere, and in the culture-ideology sphere,
4 live in a world of abstract generic globaliza- the culture-ideology of consumerism.8 The
5 tion but a world of actually existing capitalist importance of the transnational corporations
6 globalization. So, the dominant global system and of consumerism are now widely recog-
7 at the start of the 21st century is the capitalist nized by proponents, opponents and those
8 global system. who claim to be neutral about globalization,
9 but the idea of the transnational capitalist class
10 is less familiar and much more controversial.
11 Global system theory It is important at the outset to state that
12 the members of the transnational capitalist
13 Global system theory is based on the concept class (TCC) are typically people who have
14 of transnational practices, practices that cross globalizing perspectives as well as rather than
15 state boundaries but do not originate with in opposition to localizing perspectives
16 state agencies or actors (although they are (Sklair, 2001). These are people from many
17 often involved). This conceptual choice offers, parts of the world who operate transnation-
18 as it were, a working hypothesis for one of the ally as a normal part of their working lives
19 most keenly contested disagreements between but who more often than not have more than
20 globalization theorists and their opponents, one place that they can call home. This
21 namely the extent to which the powers of the reflects their relationships to transnational
22 state are in decline. The concept of transna- social spaces and the new forms of cosmo-
23 tional practices is an attempt to make more politanism of generic globalization, forms
24 concrete the issues raised by such questions in that encourage both local rootedness and
25 the debate over globalization. “Transna- transnational (globalizing) vision. Clearly,
26 tional” acknowledges that states still exist and new modes of rapid and comfortable long-
27 powerful states still have power but that the distance transportation and electronic
28 balance of power in the global system has been communications make this possible in an
29 swinging decisively in favour of non-state historically unprecedented fashion. It is for
30 transnational (thus globalizing) forces since this reason that the new concept of globaliza-
31 the 1950s. Analytically, transnational prac- tion is most appropriately reserved for the
32 tices operate in three spheres, the economic, new economic, technological and social
33 the political and the cultural-ideological. The conditions that began to develop in the
34 whole is what I mean by the “global system”. middle of the 20th century and have rapidly
35 The global system at the beginning of the 21st accelerated since then. The TCC can be
36 century is not synonymous with global conceptualized in terms of the following four
37 capitalism, but the dominant forces of global fractions (based on primary institutional
38 capitalism are the dominant forces in the locus, though actual people may operate in
39 global system. more than one fraction).
40 Individuals, groups, institutions and even
41 whole communities, local, national or tran-
42 snational, can exist, perhaps even thrive as 1 Those who own and/or and control the
43 they have always done outside the orbit of the major transnational corporations and their
44 global capitalist system but this is becoming local affiliates (corporate fraction)
45 increasingly more difficult as capitalist global-
46 ization penetrates ever more widely and In architecture these are the people who own
47 deeply. The building blocks of global system and/or control the major architectural, archi-
48 theory are the transnational corporation, the tecture–engineering and architecture–
49 characteristic institutional form of economic developer–real estate firms. They are of two,
minimally overlapping, types: first, the in the structural features of new building to 1
biggest of these firms, and second, the most those responsible for the education of 2
celebrated and famous architectural firms. students and the public in architecture who 3
The magazine World Architecture has are allied, through choice or circumstance, 4
published annual lists of the top corporations with globalizing corporations and the agenda 5
in the industry by fee income and numbers of of capitalist globalization. 6
fee-earning architects employed (available 7
AQ2 from its website ). In 2004 the biggest firms 8
earned around $200–300 million in fee 4 Merchants and media (consumerist fraction) 9
income and employed around 1000 or fewer 10
architects so, in comparison with the major These are the people who are responsible for 11
global corporations they are quite small (to the marketing of architecture in all its 12
gain entry to the Fortune Global 500 these manifestations and whose main task is to 13
days you need revenues of $10 billion plus). connect the architecture industry with the 14
However, relatively few of the top 50 archi- culture-ideology of consumerism. 15
tectural firms are led by famous architects or The point of this discussion of the TCC is 16
build famous buildings. The actual impor- to suggest that the symbolism and aesthetics 17
tance of celebrated architects for the built of iconic buildings and spaces needs to be 18
environment and their cultural importance, contextualized in terms of the specific 19
especially in cities, far outweighs their rela- connections between the four fractions of the 20
tive lack of financial and corporate muscle TCC and the production and representation 21
(see Sklair, 2005, tables 1–3 for data). of iconic architecture (see Sklair, 2005). How, 22
then, does the iconic operate within capitalist 23
globalization? 24
2 Globalizing politicians and bureaucrats 25
(state fraction) 26
The icon: history and theory of an idea 27
These are the politicians and bureaucrats at 28
all levels of administrative power and respon- What does it mean to say that a building or a 29
sibility, in communities, cities, states, and space or an architect is “iconic”? The term is 30
international and global institutions who in common usage for those in and around 31
serve the interests of capitalist globalization architecture9 with a considerable overlap into 32
as well as or in opposition to those who elect the mass media. The idea has two defining 33
or appoint them. They decide what gets built characteristics. First, it clearly means famous, 34
where and how changes to the built environ- at least for some constituencies; and second, a 35
ment are regulated. They are particularly judgement of iconicity is also a symbolic/ 36
important for issues of preservation and aesthetic judgement. By this I mean that an 37
urban planning (Tung, 2001), and in compe- architectural icon is imbued with a special 38
titions for major projects, many of which meaning that is symbolic for a culture and/or 39
result in the creation of what are known as a time, and that this special meaning has an 40
architectural icons (Haan and Haagsma, aesthetic component. It is this unique combi- 41
1988; Lipsdtadt, 1989). nation of fame with symbolism and aesthetic 42
quality that creates the icon. Iconicity 43
persists, but not necessarily forever. These 44
3 Globalizing professionals (technical characteristics constitute my working 45
fraction) definition for the purposes of this discussion. 46
The idea of the icon comes to us with consid- 47
The members of this fraction range from erable historical baggage and as it has 48
those leading technicians centrally involved attracted virtually no discussion in the social 49
1 sciences, it is necessary to sketch out the nature and scale of the fame of icons and
2 history of the idea and show how it fits into what they symbolize has been transformed
3 the theory and practice of capitalist global- by corporate interests in a historically
4 ization. unprecedented way.
5 I must first dispose of an important episte- The relation between image and reality
6 mological question. There are some who may be complex. Many architects report
7 argue that contemporary life, and by implica- that the images they had seen of iconic
8 tion architectural iconicity, is entirely a buildings and spaces had totally unprepared
9 matter of image, an essential component of them for the emotional (in some cases the
10 the postmodern turn in cultural theory and spiritual) experience of actually seeing and
11 practice. The importance of drawings and being in a building and its spaces. A notable
12 photography in establishing the iconic status example is Ronchamp—the full name of this
13 of buildings or spaces is widely assumed church by Le Corbusier is the Pilgrimage
14 though rather less widely discussed in Church of Notre-Dame-du-Haut at
15 contemporary architecture (see, e.g., Ratten- Ronchamp—a frequent object of architec-
16 bury, 2002). While in no way minimizing the tural pilgrimages and even pastiche in the
17 centrality of the image in the production and form of a branch of the Bank of America in
18 iteration of iconicity, neglecting what the Palm Springs, California (see Figure 3).11
19 image is an image of is to misunderstand this And this can work in the opposite direction
20 centrality entirely. The best analogy is with where actual experiences of buildings and
21 advertising. The images of advertising may spaces do not match their iconic images.
22 have symbolic qualities whether or not they This issue will be discussed below in the
23 persuade people to buy the products they context of the different modes of architec-
24 represent, but from the point of view of those tural iconicity.
25 who drive capitalist globalization the point As the citations from the Oxford English
Figure 3 “Ronchamp” Palm Springs, ironic reference to iconic Ronchamp in an architecturally aware “modernist” city in the desert. Source: Leslie Sklair.
26 of advertising is to sell products. If “symbol- Dictionary at the top of this paper make
27 ism”, for example figurative or cubist or clear, an icon originally meant a representa-
28 surrealist or abstract expressionist images, tion—an image, figure, portrait, illustration,
29 help to sell the product that is fine, but the or in the solid, a statue. The Eastern Church
30 image serves the circuit of capital and with turned it into a representation of some sacred
31 few exceptions has little independent exist- personage, an object of veneration, itself
32 ence outside this circuit. It certainly does not regarded as sacred. Iconic in the history of art
33 displace or replace the circuit of capital.10 was applied to the ancient portrait statues of
34 Similarly, the point of the images of iconic victorious athletes, and hence to memorial
35 architecture is to persuade people to buy statues and busts (so the labelling of sports
36 (both in the sense of consume and in the celebrities as icons does have classical
37 sense of give credence to) the buildings and origins). Iconography and iconology became
38 spaces and lifestyles and, in some cases, the branches of knowledge dealing with repre-
39 architects they represent. Thus, while the sentative art. So the history of the icon is
40 images of iconic architecture can be great art, bound up with representation, symbolism
41 they are not the things they are images of. and expression. Gombrich (1972, p. 124)
42 Iconicity is not simply a question of image explains: “These three ordinary functions of
43 or, by implication, fashion. Iconicity works images may be present in one concrete
44 and persists because the buildings in which it image—a motif in a painting by Hierony-
45 inheres are built by architects and teams of mous Bosch may represent a broken vessel,
46 others to symbolize something (possibly symbolize the sin of gluttony and express an
47 several things) apart from the programme unconscious sexual fantasy” and then
48 (functions) of the building itself. Under the proceeds to deconstruct them (see also,
49 new conditions of capitalist globalization the Panofsky, 1955 ). AQ3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Figure 3 “Ronchamp” Palm Springs, ironic reference to iconic Ronchamp in an architecturally aware “modernist” city 24
in the desert. Source: Leslie Sklair. 25
26
27
The icon as representation (let us call this architecture and the responses reflect this. 28
Iconic I) does have some pedigree in archi- One respondent identified the icon as a 29
tectural theory. Broadbent (1973), for exam- stereotype, as when the word “mosque” 30
ple, distinguishes four approaches to design, brings up the image of the dome and the 31
namely the pragmatic (using available materi- minar and all domes and minars look more or 32
als and methods), iconic (copying and less alike (Iconic I). Similarly, the respondent 33
perhaps modifying pragmatic solutions), continues, architecture itself could provide 34
canonical (use of rules) and analogical (using an icon for a culture as the Statue of Liberty 35
analogies from other fields or contexts).12 has become for the USA, Sydney Opera 36
That this meaning of iconic (not very differ- House for Australia, and Mies’ Barcelona 37
ent from his canonic) is still current in some Pavilion, used as an icon for the new post- 38
architecture schools is clear from an interest- war Germany.14 This point stimulated lively 39
ing internet debate in 2003 around the topic. debate. There are two issues here. First, it is 40
Here iconic design in architecture is defined obvious that if an icon is a type then it cannot 41
in the following terms: “a culture has a fixed also be something unique as in the three 42
image of what an object should be like and … examples cited. It is clear that within 43
subsequent generations of that culture keep architecture the icon can refer to the ordi- 44
on building that object in the same way and nary, fixed and constantly repeated. This is 45
with the same shape” (www.archnet.org/ also near the sense in which Bob Dylan 46
forum).13 responded to being called an icon: “I think 47
ArchNet is a forum organized at MIT for that’s just another word for a washed-up has- 48
those specifically interested in Islamic been”, cited above. This sense of iconic 49
1 recaptures the original meaning, albeit cyni- Alsop, saying that most of the other propos-
2 cally, of the iconic “Palladian villa” or als “were simply repeating things we had
3 mosque or even office block that is simply a seen before and were trying to pass them off
4 copy of some archetype of the villa or on Liverpool”.15 This repetitive representa-
5 mosque or cathedral or office block, because tional sense recalls the more mundane, even if
6 it looks like what it is supposed to be (see loved, landmark, the way in which Lynch
7 Figure 4). (1960) appears to use it. So for Alsop and his
8 However, iconic is more often used today supporters, the iconic means a building or a
Figure 4 “Palladian-style” villa and minar of mosque, Regents Park, London (Iconic I). Source: Leslie Sklair.
9 in an entirely opposite sense. For example, space (and perhaps even an architect) that is
10 when Will Alsop (an architect who has had different and unique, intended to be famous
11 his own TV programmes in Britain) won the and to have special symbolic/aesthetic quali-
12 prestigious competition to design the £225 ties. Let us call this Iconic II, with the added
13 million (ca $400 million) Fourth Grace feature that such icons can be proclaimed
14 project in Liverpool, his scheme was voted iconic before they are built.
15 the least popular of a star-studded shortlist in All works of art are routinely said to
16 a poll of 15,000 Liverpudlians, well behind represent, symbolize or express things or
17 Foster & Partners and Richard Rogers. feelings. This is relatively understandable in
18 However, a spokesman for Alsop Architects terms of the visual arts, or even music or
19 commented: “if you propose any icon the dance, in the way that a painting or a sculp-
20 instant response is negative because it chal- ture or a symphony or a ballet can represent,
21 lenges perception: it is the nature of an icon. symbolize or express a landscape or a family
22 None of the other schemes were icons. They group or, more abstractly, longing or love.
23 were landmarks”. David Dunster, Liverpool But how can a building or a space be said to
24 University’s head of architecture, supported represent, symbolize or express anything?
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49 Figure 4 “Palladian-style” villa and minar of mosque, Regents Park, London (Iconic I). Source: Leslie Sklair.
Clearly, some buildings actually do look like symbolic form”; decorated sheds are build- 1
objects. Frank Lloyd Wright’s Guggenheim ings where “systems of space and structure 2
Museum in New York is commonly said to are directly at the service of the program [the 3
represent the spiral form in nature (see functions that the building is intended to 4
Figure 5), Jorn Utzon’s Sydney Opera perform] and ornament is applied indepen- 5
House the sails of a boat (or the segments of dently of them” (1997, p. 87). The example 6
an orange), Frank Gehry’s Guggenheim in given for the duck is Chartres cathedral 7
Bilbao fish scales, Norman Foster’s Swiss Re (though, confusingly, Chartres is also said to 8
tower in London (see Figure 1) is one of the be a decorated shed) and for the decorated 9
latest phallic representations in a long line of shed, Palazzo Farnese in Rome. 10
tall buildings, and so on. This is because, in It is easy to dismiss this distinction as a 11
Figure 5 Frank Lloyd Wright’s Guggenheim Museum in New York (1959), an instant icon despite the complaints of artists that it was difficult to hang their pictures on spiral walls—the building was the work of art. Source: Leslie Sklair.
some sense, all these buildings actually do piece of whimsy in a book (perish the 12
look like real or stylized versions of what thought) on the architectural qualities of Las 13
they are said to look like. In Learning from Vegas, but there are two good reasons to take 14
Las Vegas Robert Venturi et al. (1977, part it seriously, even if the original authors may 15
II) famously divided all buildings into no longer do so. First, the work of Robert 16
“ducks” and “decorated sheds”. Ducks, after Venturi and Denise Scott Brown has been 17
a drive-in on Long Island in the shape of a very influential on the thinking of those in 18
duck, are a kind of “building-becoming- and around architecture, and not only so- 19
sculpture” where all the architectural systems called postmodernists, who fight for the 20
are “submerged and distorted by an overall contextualization of buildings, spaces and 21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
Figure 5 Frank Lloyd Wright’s Guggenheim Museum in New York (1959), an instant icon despite the complaints of 48
artists that it was difficult to hang their pictures on spiral walls—the building was the work of art. Source: Leslie Sklair. 49
1 architects themselves, against the high art manner, Venturi et al. contrast the “heroic
2 canonical view of architecture. And second, and original” qualities of Crawford Manor
3 the distinction does have some significance with the “ugly and ordinary” qualities of
4 for my argument about iconicity and capital- Guild House, concluding that what is needed
5 ist globalization. While duck and decorated is more of the latter (architecture of meaning,
6 shed are unpromising labels for a discussion symbolism, representational, societal
7 of iconic architecture, the examples given are messages, etc.) and less of the former (archi-
8 highly significant. Most people who read tecture of expression, abstraction, and
9 Learning from Las Vegas would have heard abstract expressionism, architectural content,
10 of Chartres cathedral, certainly an icon of the etc.).
11 architecture of the middle ages and a building The duck–decorated shed distinction
12 still revered by architects and tourists from all suggests ways of seeing why a few buildings,
13 over the world. The Palazzo Farnese, less well at least, become iconic under different social
14 known outside Europe, is celebrated in archi- systems while the vast majority of buildings
15 tectural history as one of the great monumen- do not, as well as suggesting different types
16 tal palaces of the High Renaissance in Rome. of iconicity. If all buildings are both ducks
17 While its original architect, Sangallo the and decorated sheds we can argue that
18 Younger, is not well known, after his death iconicity may be a way of celebrating the
19 others including Michelangelo helped to “duckness” of special buildings through
20 complete the palace. So, both these examples what they are agreed to symbolize or express.
21 are “great buildings” in the commonly Gombrich (1972, p. 21) argues: “Iconology
22 accepted architectural sense and it is the must start with a study of institutions rather
23 differences between ducks and decorated than with a study of symbols”, and though
24 sheds, not the frivolous labels, we need to his field of scholarly interest is Renaissance
25 focus on. The main difference is symbolism. art, his conviction is just as relevant for
26 Venturi et al. (1997, p. 87 ) argue: “The duck contemporary iconic architecture. Whereas
27 is the special building that is a symbol; the Iconic I icons, like landmarks, do not neces-
28 decorated shed is the conventional shelter sarily raise questions about symbolism and
29 that applies symbols”. They illustrate the expression, Iconic II icons do and it is
30 point with (1) a picture of the famous “Long precisely in the ways in which they do that
31 Island Duckling” and a sketch of the building we can find the different, special and unique
32 with the words “Duck” and “Highway” and qualities of Iconic II buildings, spaces and
33 a little car from which, presumably the duck architects. To find these qualities we must, as
34 can be seen; and (2) a picture of a typical road Gombrich suggests, start with a study of
35 scene in the USA (now typical all round the institutions rather than with a study
36 world) of gas stations and large signs advertis- of symbols, in this case with the institutions
37 ing their products, and a sketch with the of capitalist globalization.
38 words “Decorated Shed” plus one little shed So, there is clearly a good deal of ambigu-
39 with a large “Eat” sign outside plus another ity if not confusion about the use of iconic in
40 shed with “Eat” emblazoned on the exterior. and around architecture. From now on, I
41 They go on to illustrate the distinction in want to file away the representational,
42 rather more detail by contrasting two mimetic meaning (Iconic I) and restrict the
43 contemporary buildings, both designed to term to what is its much more common use
44 house the elderly, namely Crawford Manor in discussions of architecture today, refer-
45 in New Haven (1962–1966) by Paul Rudolph ence to the symbolism and expression of
46 (who was chairman of the Department of difference, the special and the unique, as in
47 Architecture at Yale from 1958 to 1965) and the “iconic status” of notable buildings and
48 Guild House in Philadelphia (1960–1963) by spaces and their sites, and architects (Iconic
49 Venturi’s own firm. In a typically provocative II). While both forms of iconic status have
symbolic significance, it is the institutional tion of new technologies of architectural 1

structures that dominate the times and places glass, translucency was a frequent ingredient 2
and audiences of buildings, spaces and archi- in iconic buildings—especially in the Paris of 3
tects that makes them famous, and that the grands projets, of which I. M. Pei’s 4
provide the explanations for their iconicity Louvre Pyramide is a notable example (see 5
that symbolic/aesthetic qualities on their Figure 6)—but, again, it is certainly not a 6
own cannot furnish. However, under condi- defining feature of iconicity.18 Perfection and 7
tions of capitalist globalization unless these enigma plus likewise may occur in jury cita- 8
qualities are acceptable to the transnational tions but are hardly defining features of 9
capitalist class, it is unlikely—though not iconicity. 10
impossible—that large-scale architectural The case of the iconic architect further 11
Figure 6 I. M. Pei’s entrance pyramid at the Louvre (1993), transparency and new technology at the service of commerce through visual excitement. Source: Leslie Sklair.
icons could be built, given the financial risks complicates the issue. Where an architect 12
involved. becomes iconic for a particular building and 13
The only full-length contemporary treat- then makes more buildings that resemble the 14
ment of icons available16 appears to be the original icon, this may well be considered 15
book that accompanied an exhibition at the repetitive in the representation sense, and so 16
San Francisco Museum of Contemporary the conferring of iconic status on the subse- 17
Art in 1996, Icons as Magnets of Meaning. It quent buildings may also confuse Iconic I 18
ascribes the following characteristics to and Iconic II. Indeed, such circumstances 19
icons: (1) they provoke the “wow” have been taken to be grounds for rejecting 20
syndrome, cool and hot; (2) they have the the value of iconicity itself and call into ques- 21
ability to create as much noise as communi- tion the merits of what have come to be 22
cation; (3) there is nothing intrinsic about an labelled signature architects (namely archi- 23
icon, how it looks and feels are what matter; tects whose unique signatures, in the sense of 24
(4) they are formed as much by the frame recognizable features, are on their buildings). 25
(society, culture, presentation) as the content; The principals of Foreign Office Architects, a 26
(5) they embody human factors or emotive booming young London-based transnational 27
design; (6) they are fluid, they cannot articu- architectural practice (the principals Farshid 28
late their parts; (7) they are smooth and Moussavi and Alejandro Zaera-Polo are from 29
streamlined because they are mass-produced; Iran and Spain, respectively), have claimed 30
and for architectural icons (8) they have a that with “iconic architecture” now cropping 31
sense of monumentality; (9) they are sensu- up in every city these buildings are starting to 32
ous and light, they project translucency as cancel each other out: “Gehry is peppering 33
opposed to modernist transparency; (10) the world with Bilbao Guggenheim looka- 34
they embody perfection; (11) and a sense of likes and if you’ve seen one building by Cala- 35
density, enigmatic character, that replace trava or Meier, you’ve seen them all” (quoted 36
symbols or signs, and are generally silent, in The Guardian, 17 November 2003).19 This 37
exerting a hypnotic quality in their sense of discursive strategy of applying the law of 38
otherness (Betsky, 1997, pp. 20–51).17 Items diminishing returns to iconic architects begs 39
(1) to (7) focus on consumer goods, the rest the question of what it means to say that an 40
directly address architectural icons in terms architect is iconic. Certainly a select group of 41
of monumentality, translucency, perfection architects throughout history have been 42
and (let us say) enigma plus. These are odd described in this way. But the problem is to 43
though interesting choices. It is true that explain why, when iconicity is ascribed to 44
some, perhaps most of the buildings one or two buildings of some architects, 45
commonly said to have iconic status are iconicity starts to spread to all their build- 46
monumental in scale (see below) but this ings, past, present and future. For example, 47
does not seem to be a defining characteristic. Le Corbusier is definitely considered to be 48
Certainly in the mid-1990s, with the inven- iconic by those in and around architecture, 49
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26 Figure 6 I. M. Pei’s entrance pyramid at the Louvre (1993), transparency and new technology at the service of
27 commerce through visual excitement. Source: Leslie Sklair.
28
29
30 even for his early and at the time not much tantamount to asking if Shakespeare could
31 noticed buildings, including those that exist have written a bad play or sonnet, or
32 only on paper. As the blurb on a recent book Beethoven a bad symphony, and so on). In
33 tells us: “This volume explores an unbuilt yet terms of the history of architecture, theorists
34 iconic project by Le Corbusier [the Venice and historians alike have to make aesthetic
35 Hospital]” (Sarkis, 2001). Fayolle-Lussac at judgements and they do.21 These and other
36 the DOCOMOMO Paris Conference in great architects have designed dozens and
37 2002,20 raises the issue of the “overprotection sometimes hundreds of buildings, and not all
38 of the work of Le Corbusier” with respect to of them can be discussed in even the biggest
39 his housing estate at Pessac and other sites, book. It is notable that by and large the same
40 arguing that the publicity surrounding the few works of the masters are chosen time and
41 centennial of Corbu’s birth had again for textbooks and histories. It would be
42 the “perverse” effect of raising their status. odd, for example, to discuss Wright without
43 The study by Boudon (1972) on what the Fallingwater, Corbu without Ronchamp,
44 press, Le Corbusier and the inhabitants of Mies without the Seagram Building.
45 Pessac thought about their housing estate However, in what could be called the Wright
46 does support this view. or Corbu or Mies industry (in the sense of
47 This is a truly subversive idea—could the “culture industry” of the Frankfurt
48 Corbu, Mies or Wright ever design an ordi- School), the more iconic sites of these and
49 nary or even bad building? (This is other great architects the better, each making
its architectural contribution to the culture- conversely, in what sense can a building be 1
ideology of consumerism.22 This, then, is the said to be iconic for the public but not for 2
defining feature of architectural iconicity architecture? The easy answer, the one that 3
under conditions of capitalist globalization, bolsters professional confidence and even 4
namely that buildings, spaces and architects encourages professional snobbery, is that 5
are iconic to the extent that they symbolize iconicity is simply a matter of publicity, fash- 6
the variegated fruits of the culture-ideology ion, self-promotion by the client or the 7
of consumerism. developer aided and abetted by the architect 8
Now that the competing conceptions of and by those who produce the images. The 9
iconicity that prevail in discussions of archi- commercial exploitation of the art of archi- 10
tecture today have been set out, we can tectural photography is often held up as an 11
proceed to deconstruct Iconic II icons in exemplar of this process—one of the best 12
terms of three basic questions: Iconic for known cases is the series of iconic photo- 13
whom? Iconic for where? Iconic for when? graphs by Julius Shulman of the Case Study 14
houses in California, particularly Case Study 15
House #22 in Los Angeles (see Figure 7 and 16
Iconic for whom? the originals in Serraino, 2002).23 This 17
connects with the idea discussed above that 18
The obvious way to approach this question is there are no iconic buildings or architects, 19
to distinguish between those in and around only iconic images. 20
architecture and the public at large. In what Lipstadt expresses this attitude well in her 21
Figure 7 Case Study House #22 by Pierre Koenig (1960), images and realities in the creation of iconicity. Source: Leslie Sklair.
sense can a building be said to be iconic for case study of Eero Saarinen’s St. Louis Arch, 22
architecture but not for the public? And where she distinguishes between the canonic 23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
Figure 7 Case Study House #22 by Pierre Koenig (1960), images and realities in the creation of iconicity. Source: 48
Leslie Sklair. 49
1 and the iconic.24 The canonic is defined in Laboratory designed by Stirling and
2 terms of what the well-educated architect Gowan”. It is unlikely that many members of
3 would value most highly, while “iconic stat- the lay public, even in Leicester, have ever
4 ure is conferred by communities of non- heard of this building though Stirling’s iconic
5 architects” (Lipstadt, 2001, p. 11). This status ensures that it has been published
6 distinction makes sense, but is not supported widely in architectural magazines and books
7 by the available evidence. As has been around the world. It is an icon for profes-
8 demonstrated above, documentary sources sionals but not for the general public.
9 (as well as my own interviews) show that Even more intriguing for Lipstadt’s thesis
10 architects, as well as critics, scholars and is the possibility that while iconic status is
11 others who are professionally involved with conferred by non-architects without help
12 buildings, spaces and architects routinely use from the canon, those responsible for the
13 the term iconic to emphasize the special canon might be constrained to confer
14 status of objects of their esteem. A few more canonic status on a publicly conferred icon.
15 examples from widely varying sources Such questions may usefully be asked about
16 accessed from their respective internet sites highly publicized buildings like Gehry’s
17 will reinforce the point. The Principal of the Guggenheim Bilbao and Disney Concert
18 Chandigarh College of Architecture has no Hall in Los Angeles, some skyscrapers in
19 hesitation in calling Le Corbusier’s Chandi- Chinese cities, and what is to replace the
20 garh “an icon of modern architecture” (The Twin Towers in New York. The first phase
21 Tribune, 7 October 2003); the Architecture of my interviewing, from January to June
22 School in Palermo, Buenos Aires, teaches the 2004, took place in and around Los Angeles,
23 Great Buildings Perspective as the second of Boston and New York. This was a time when
24 its three fundamental methods for research- two new buildings by Frank Gehry were
25 ing and learning about architecture, through very much in the news, the Disney Concert
26 study of two “iconic houses”—Palladio’s Hall in Downtown Los Angeles and the Stata
27 Villa Rotonda and Corbu’s Villa Savoye— Center at MIT in Cambridge near Boston.
28 arguing that they are “beyond dispute as There was also talk of a project by Gehry in
29 masterworks for historians, theoreticians, Brooklyn (New York). It was clear from
30 tourists, critics and aficionados of architec- press coverage and my interviews that Gehry
31 ture alike”, clearly iconic for professionals and his buildings were considered iconic,
32 and, by implication, some publics (and the even by those who were not comfortable
33 Bartlett School in the University of London with this terminology. Koenig has written:
34 does something similar); the website of the “It is unusual for a building to achieve status
35 Mies Society at the Illinois Institute of Tech- as an icon before it is built, but the Disney
36 nology proclaims that “IIT’s main campus is Concert Hall has occupied the center of
37 one of the masterworks of iconic architec- attention since it left the drawing board …
38 ture”; “Architect Colin St. John Wilson will [its sails] embody the spirit, exuberance and
39 tell the governments of Russia and Finland place that is Los Angeles” (2000, p. 107).25
40 today why an iconic Alvar Aalto building in This is despite opposition from the displaced
41 Russia must be restored” (“Bid to save iconic homeless in the locality while it was being
42 Aalto library”, Building Design, 28 March built and complaints of glare and overheating
43 2003, p. 6). And at the DOCOMOMO from condo-dwellers opposite since it
44 (2002) conference in the session where Lips- opened. It should be noted, however, that
45 tadt delivered a version of her paper on historically it is not uncommon for the
46 Saarinen’s St. Louis Arch, Edwin Brierley of iconicity of buildings to come after initial
47 Leicester School of Architecture discussed public opposition, as was the case for the
48 “The iconic status and historical significance Eiffel Tower, the Pompidou Centre (see
49 of the Leicester University Engineering Figure 8a) and the Sydney Opera House,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Figure 8 (a) Pompidou Centre by Rogers and Piano (1977), the drama of inside/outside, to see and be seen. Source: 47
Leslie Sklair. (b) Monumental model of the aspirant iconic China Central Television building in Beijing by Rem aas OMA 48
(under construction). Source: Julie Bauer. 49
1 among many other commonly cited architec- and, by implication, for power. Under condi-
2 tural icons. tions of capitalist globalization, iconicity is a
3 Despite occasional overlap, Lipstadt’s key component of what I have termed the
(under
Figureconstruction).
8 (a) PompidouSource:
Centre
Julie
byBauer.
Rogers and Piano (1977), the drama of inside/outside, to see and be seen. Source: Leslie Sklair. (b) Monumental model of the aspirant iconic China Central Television building in Beijing by Rem aas OMA
4 distinction between canonic and iconic is too culture-ideology of consumerism, the under-
5 rigid to deal with these issues. It is more lying value system of capitalist globalization.
6 useful to distinguish professional icons (a.k.a. Thus: “Iconic. An incitement to spend
7 the canons of various groups within the money” (Anon, 2004). The capacity to confer
8 profession) from public icons, opening up iconic status on a building, space or architect
9 rather than closing down the possibility that is an important resource that the TCC can
10 professional icons can become public icons mobilize to facilitate the assimilation of the
11 without losing their professional iconicity, in general public into the culture-ideology of
12 the sense that just because a building or a consumerism, to keep people spending to
13 space becomes famous outside the architec- maximize profits for the transnational corpo-
14 tural community it need not lose the qualities rations and their affiliates and the aggrandise-
15 for which it became famous in and around ment of the class as a whole.
16 architecture. The comments about “Bilbao It is in these terms that we can explain the
17 Guggenheim look-alikes” and “if you’ve phenomenon of deliberately manufactured
18 seen one building by Calatrava or Meier, icons in the global era, where those who
19 you’ve seen them all” cited above are own and control architectural projects
20 patently false, ignoring for example the announce their iconic status in advance as a
21 different materials used for the Bilbao transnational practice of the culture-
22 Guggenheim and the Disney Concert Hall, ideology of consumerism. Recent typical
23 the different scales of the Stata Center in examples reported in the architectural media
24 Cambridge to both of these, and differences of this are, from Greece: “Doubt … hangs
25 of site; and so on for Calatrava, Meier and over whether Santiago Calatrava’s iconic
26 other iconic architects. It is much more likely Olympic Stadium will be ready in time”
27 that people who are excited by one building (“UK shuns Beijing gold”, Building Design,
28 by Gehry or Calatrava or Meier would be 21 March 2003, p. 6), and from China:
29 stimulated to search out their other buildings “Tony Blair stepped in to help Foster &
30 than to think that they have seen them all. Partners and Arup scoop the £1.2bn
31 This is where the unique symbolism/aesthet- commission to extend Beijing airport, which
32 ics of architectural icons—in terms of the was announced this week … The RIBA’s
33 corporate sanction of specific architectural representative in China, Martin Iles,
34 production—that successfully achieve the welcomed Blair’s involvement … Foster
35 crossover from professional to public, himself used key contacts, flying often to
36 become relevant. This distinction encourages Beijing and meeting the ambassador … the
37 us to think through the processes whereby design team has pledged to ‘create a new
38 icons move from one status to the other, the icon for China’” (“Blair aids Foster win”,
39 differential processes of social production of Building Design, 7 November 2003, p. 1);
40 icons, and how buildings and spaces might and from New York: “It took a while for
41 lose as well as gain iconicity.26 Cutting the New York’s normally gregarious architec-
42 iconic loose from its representational and tural community to open up after 9/11. ‘For
43 professional moorings, paradoxically, gives it us a lot has changed’, says Derek Moore, an
44 a powerful explanatory potential when associate at SOM whose offices were adja-
45 applied in the field of architecture. Analyti- cent to the WTC … The firm had just
46 cally, iconicity in architecture may be seen submitted construction documents for a new
47 not simply as a judgement of excellence or Stock Exchange tower (’a new icon of capi-
48 uniqueness but, like celebrity in popular talism’ says Moore dryly) and that was put
49 culture, as a resource in struggles for meaning on hold” (“Say it with towers”, Building
Design, 13 September 2002, p. 11). Finally, for professional in contrast to public icons, 1
the website of the ICA in Boston told us in making the relatively rare cases of crossover 2
2004 that the new Director, Jill Medvedow, iconic architecture—buildings and spaces 3
“has guided its successful bid to build a new venerated by both professionals and 4
museum on Boston’s waterfront, which will members of the lay public—particularly 5
create an iconic presence for contemporary significant for questions of taste, high art and 6
art in Boston”. The TCC in architecture, popular culture. 7
therefore, has a delicate balancing act to Local icons are buildings and spaces that 8
perform in its efforts to feed the stream of are well known though not necessarily well 9
iconic buildings, spaces and architects, in the loved within circumscribed areas, usually in 10
knowledge that too few means the loss of cities and neighbourhoods, with definite 11
profits but too many means the devaluation symbolic significance for these places. They 12
of the currency of iconic architecture. Thus, might be known to outsiders interested in 13
the expansion of the geographical scale of these cities, and local icons in London or 14
iconic architecture is a pressing issue for New York or Paris will certainly be better 15
capitalist globalization. known than local icons in Leeds (England), 16
Rochester (New York state) or Nancy 17
(France). Reference has already been made to 18
Iconic for where? the St. Louis Arch (Lipstadt, 2001), and 19
another interesting case is Marcel Breuer’s 20
While it is obvious that iconic buildings and Pirelli building on Interstate 95 outside New 21
spaces have to be located in fixed places,27 the Haven on the east coast of the USA. This was 22
geographical scale of their iconicity is not originally built for Armstrong Rubber in 23
fixed. Architectural icons can have local, 1969 and subsequently it was taken over by 24
national or global significance and recogni- IKEA who chopped off the back of the 25
tion, or any mixture of these three. This building to make room for a car park (ironi- 26
applies equally to professional icons, public cally, Breuer had been the director of the 27
icons and those that have achieved iconic furniture department at the Weimar Bauhaus 28
status in both respects. However, under in the 1920s). Not only does the building 29
conditions of capitalist globalization and the provide the iconic gateway to New Haven— 30
demands of the culture-ideology of consum- in the sense that it is locally famous and that it 31
erism, the social relations of production of provides a suitably impressive symbolic 32
icons will be similar whatever the intended or entrance to the city—but IKEA, like Wal- 33
eventual scale of their iconicity. I suspect that Mart, “maintains a uniform, iconic look to 34
this may not be the case for state and/or reli- their enormous storage” (according to the US 35
gious icons of the pre-capitalist globalization National Trust website ). No difficulty, then, AQ4
36
era. for a well-informed writer on conservation to 37
As noted above, while many buildings and mix Iconic I and II. The context ensures that 38
spaces are landmarks, not all landmarks are we know what is meant. When the Hypo 39
necessarily icons for professionals or the Center in Klagenfurt, Austria, designed by 40
public at large. Landmarks tend to be tall in Thom Mayne’s firm Morphosis of Santa 41
relation to their surroundings, thus there is Monica, won the AIA Honor Award in 2003, 42
always an element of this specific physicality the Jury’s comments illustrated a related 43
that is not necessary for local icons, though point: “The structure of the bank’s headquar- 44
many local icons are also tall. Icons, profes- ters announces itself as an iconic civic institu- 45
sional and public alike, invariably have tion … It’s a great accomplishment using 46
specific symbolic/aesthetic qualities, which is architecture to put this city on the map” 47
not the case for landmarks. Different (www.aia.org/media).28 This is the familiar 48
symbolic/aesthetic qualities may be claimed phenomenon of urban boosterism. 49
1 Urban boosterism is the most common bureaucrat in the UK, the deputy chair of
2 rationale for deliberately created iconic archi- CABE (the government-sponsored Commis-
3 tecture. So, it is no coincidence that the three sion for Architecture and the Built Environ-
4 icons just cited were intended as icons for ment) who declares that architects must bend
5 cities (St. Louis, New Haven, Klagenfurt), to commercialism, feeding the market a
6 for it is those who own and control cities pretence of creativity while actually not
7 who, increasingly, want their cities to be doing anything risky. The context of his
8 easily recognizable for purposes of remarks is a discussion of the work of the
9 commerce as well as civic pride—for many “ideas” firm of ABK, who failed to win the
10 there is little difference, as Dovey (1999, contract for the extension of the National
11 chap. 11) illustrates for the case of Gallery in London, built eventually by
12 Melbourne. Those driving urban boosterism Venturi, Scott Brown due, it is said, to the
13 deliberately attempt to create urban architec- intervention of the traditionalist coterie
14 tural icons in order to draw tourists, conven- around Prince Charles (see Rattenbury, 2002,
15 tion and mega-event attendees with money chap. 11). Noting the absence of ‘iconic
16 to spend and the images they project are commercial buildings’ in ABK’s portfolio,
17 directed to this end. This is a truly globaliz- the Commissioner doubted whether any firm
18 ing business, from the TelstraClear Pacific that rejects commercialism could survive in
19 development in Manukau (in Auckland, the current climate (reported in Building
20 2005) “combining theme, iconic architecture, Design, 22 March 2002, p. 20). The National
21 and functionality to showcase your event”, Gallery in London—with its new Sainsbury
22 to numerous advertisements for luxury Wing (inviting the “supermarket of art”
23 resort hotels in Dubai (now marketed as a sobriquet)—like virtually all major museums
24 new “iconic city”) and elsewhere that also around the world, has become much more
25 promise “iconic architecture” as one of their commercialized in recent decades.
26 many, indeed one of the necessary, attrac- Documentary and interview evidence
27 tions; and, of course, all over North America suggests that every place has its local iconic
28 and Europe (see Jonas and Wilson, 1999; buildings and spaces and that these contrib-
29 Sklair, 2005). ute strongly to place identity and the differ-
30 The commodification of architecture, like entiation of one place from another. While it
31 urban boosterism, did not spring new-born might sound faintly ridiculous to call Place
32 into the late 20th century, nevertheless, there Ville Marie in Montreal or the new Erasmus
33 is a general consensus that as capitalist global- Bridge in Rotterdam or the Rotunda Tower
34 ization began to be the dominant mode of in Birmingham (UK) iconic, in the sense that
35 production, distribution and exchange from few outside these cities would ever have
36 about the 1950s, architectural practice also heard of them or seen images of them, these
37 began to change. In his paper on “The archi- buildings and spaces are iconic for their
38 tecture of plenty”, Kieran (1987, p. 28) localities, for the people who see them and
39 expresses this succinctly: “The emerging use them on a regular basis. When asked,
40 model of the client is that of a buyer of archi- most respondents in and around architecture
41 tectural services in a free market … When a could name such local icons, buildings and
42 tangible image is felt to be lacking, architec- spaces that everyone in their neighbourhood
43 ture is often turned to today for an associative or even city would almost certainly have
44 icon”. He illustrates his thesis through the heard of, for example places where young
45 vision of the developer Gerald Hines, adults would congregate, and notably places
46 through the Chicago Architectural Club where people would go on special occasions.
47 Tops competition, and Best Store designs.29 When it was built in the 1960s Place Ville
48 More recently the same process is (albeit Marie was seen as the first really “cool, hip
49 gloomily) confirmed by a leading architecture symbol” of Montreal as a world-class city,
known by the locals as “our Rockefeller theory, especially in the work of Kevin 1
Center”. This was the period of Expo ’67, Lynch. But landmarks in general stand out 2
but now it seems banal and lost among the (usually up as well) and the designation of 3
skyscrapers of the city—a lost icon. The landmark has no particular symbolic signifi- 4
Erasmus Bridge, on the other hand, is what cance, whereas icons need not stand out or 5
we might call a replacement local icon, a stage up (in the Rotterdam example a tall spire was 6
in iconic succession at the local level. From replaced by a relatively low-lying bridge) but 7
the 1960s onwards the most prominent local they must have some institutionally 8
icon had been the Euro Space Tower, a sanctioned symbolic/aesthetic significance to 9
symbol of the new Rotterdam rising from the be iconic at any level. This is what makes 10
ashes of the 1939–1945 War, a “modernist” sense of their perceived symbolic/aesthetic 11
symbol that was reproduced incessantly in qualities, what makes them iconic and thus 12
the marketing of the city. The new bridge has “famous” in the local context. In the global 13
replaced the spire as both the physical icon era these processes tend to be driven by the 14
for the city and as the symbolic icon for corporate sector, whether or not specific 15
representing and marketing the city, for buildings and spaces are sponsored by the 16
example on the front of the city map that state or the private sector or both. It is 17
greets you when you land at the airport and obvious that the business of business is busi- 18
on the laundry bags in local hotels. The ness, less obvious that the business of the 19
image of the Erasmus Bridge is a sleek high- state is, increasingly, business too (Sklair, 20
tech structure of the type generally associ- 2001). 21
ated with Santiago Calatrava and plays its National icons historically have tended to 22
part in the regeneration of the Rotterdam be buildings and spaces constructed by the 23
waterfront (see Meyer, 1999). The Rotunda state and/or religious bodies and traditional 24
was the first prominent round tower in national icons have invariably been charac- 25
Birmingham and for no apparent reason terized by great legibility in terms of their 26
apart from its shape (an example of what I monumentality and, often, representational 27
termed the “peculiar aesthetics” of icons) it sculptural features. There is now a consider- 28
has survived as a local icon while the Bull able literature on “architecture and power” 29
Ring that dominates the centre of the city has that investigates how buildings and spaces, 30
been demolished and redeveloped. But it may especially monumental buildings and spaces, 31
be the very roundness of the tower in express power relations and how the ordi- 32
contrast to the New Brutalist architecture of nary citizen and/or believer can read off 33
the Bull Ring that accounted for its local political and religious values from these 34
iconic status. In 2005, the Rotunda was re- icons.30 The iconic architecture of powerful 35
invented as a luxury apartment block by states, including states that have once been 36
fashionable developers Urban Splash, whose powerful but are no longer, frequently 37
spokesman enthused: “It’s amazing. We’ve crosses borders and the theme of “architec- 38
been inundated before we’ve even done any ture and imperialism” has also attracted a 39
marketing. Everyone wants to live in an good deal of scholarly attention.31 Buildings 40
icon” (Birmingham Post, 5 September 2005). and spaces created by states and religious 41
This raises issues of the class basis of the uses institutions continue to be built, of course, 42
of some architectural icons, a topic that and the study of iconic architecture and 43
would repay further research. capitalist globalization raises questions about 44
Can we generalize about what whether the processes of iconicity that 45
distinguishes local icons from all the other predated the global era (in my terms starting 46
buildings and spaces in a neighbourhood or a from around the 1950s) carried over into the 47
city? As noted above, the idea of the land- global era and persist today. A corollary of 48
mark is fairly well developed in urban the argument of this paper is the hypothesis 49
1 that whereas the iconic architecture of the building in Beijing is said to be iconic though
2 pre-global era was driven mainly by church its fame and its symbolism appear more
3 and state (often embodied in the same insti- corporate than national, certainly “foreign”
4 tutions and elites), the iconic architecture of (see Figure 8b).
5 the global era is increasingly driven by Are there any genuinely global icons? In
6 corporate interests, embodied in the leading the aftermath of 9/11 there was a good deal
7 members of the transnational capitalist class of commentary on what the loss of the Twin
8 and their transnational corporations (see Towers meant that is relevant to the ques-
9 Sklair, 2005). Though my focus here is on tion. Under the title “Attack on iconic build-
10 icons of the global era, from the 1950s on, it ings robs us of emotional compasses” an
11 is instructive to consider older icons. article in the Dallas Morning News (18
12 Historically, national icons start their September 2001) by David Dillon summed
13 careers as local icons in important cities up the issues well: “Iconic buildings tell us
14 where holders of economic or political or where we are, at a glance. The Eiffel Tower,
15 culture-ideology power are or were based. Sydney Opera House, the Gateway [St.
16 This is clearly the case for the major imperi- Louis] Arch, the Pentagon and the World
17 alist powers of the past and the present. In Trade Center. Typically, they are large and
18 the USA, national icons are found in Wash- exhibitionistic so that even a partial glimpse
19 ington DC (the Capitol, Lincoln Memorial) is enough to fix our visual and emotional
20 and in New York (certainly the Statue of compass. And when they disappear, a
21 Liberty and the Brooklyn Bridge, and many psychological gap appears, as if our memo-
22 of my respondents made the case that the ries have suddenly failed and we’ve become
23 Twin Towers of the World Trade Center disoriented.” And where the buildings them-
24 became national icons after 9/11). In Britain, selves are destroyed, the sites are made iconic
25 they are in London—Buckingham Palace, (see Figure 9). The idea that global icons
26 Westminster and Big Ben are the most must be large is a very common one and
27 commonly cited national icons; in France— connects the discussion of iconicity with that
28 the Eiffel Tower and Notre Dame in Paris; in of monumentality,32 skylines and what van
29 Italy—the Coliseum and the Pantheon in Leeuwen (1988) terms “the skyward trend of
30 Rome; in China—Tiananmen Square and the thought” (see also King, 2004, chap. 1). Attoe
31 Forbidden City in Beijing; and so on. It is (1981, chap. 6) provides a useful discussion of
32 interesting to observe that most of these how skylines can become icons, the special
33 national icons predate the 20th century and case being, of course, Manhattan and how it
34 that many attempts to build new national has been portrayed in the media, especially
35 icons in the 20th century appear to have the movies (Sanders, 2001).
36 failed, for example, the belated Second World Buildings and spaces that have been used
Figure 9 during
damaged The manufacture
the tragic events
of the
oficonic.
September
The plaque
11 2001,
reads:
but endures
“For three
as an
decades,
icon ofthis
hopesculpture
and the indestructible
stood in the Plaza
spiritofofthe
thisWorld
country…”.
Trade Center.
Source:Entitled
Leslie Sklair.
‘The Sphere’, it was conceived by artist Fritz Koenig as a symbol of world peace. It was
37 War memorial in Washington (though a case in establishing shots and/or foregrounded in

38 could be made for Maya Lin’s Vietnam globally successful movies and TV shows are
39 Memorial Wall), and the ill-fated Millennium almost guaranteed a type of public iconic
40 Dome in London. The truly iconic buildings status today, though this does not mean that
41 of the 20th century in these countries in members of the public who recognize build-
42 terms of fame and symbolic/aesthetic appeal ings can either name them or their architects.
43 to architects and public alike are more likely How many people outside Miami who have
44 to be corporate, for example the Empire State seen Miami Vice know the name of the
45 and Chrysler Buildings in New York (pre- Atlantis Building or have heard of the archi-
46 1950s, of course), Canary Wharf and Lloyd’s tects Arquitectonica; how many outside Los
47 in London, the HSBC building in Hong Angeles who have seen Blade Runner know
48 Kong and Jin Mao Tower in Shanghai. The the name of the Bradbury Building or
49 controversial China Central Television George Wyman; even outside New York,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
Figure 9 The manufacture of the iconic. The plaque reads: “For three decades, this sculpture stood in the Plaza of the 42
World Trade Center. Entitled ‘The Sphere’, it was conceived by artist Fritz Koenig as a symbol of world peace. It was
damaged during the tragic events of September 11 2001, but endures as an icon of hope and the indestructible spirit of
43
this country…”. Source: Leslie Sklair. 44
45
46
who have seen Men in Black, know the name who ever lived, so far)? So, what turns local 47
of the Guggenheim or Frank Lloyd Wright and national icons into global icons is a 48
(and he is certainly the most famous architect mixture of publicity and the peculiar 49
1 symbolism/aesthetics of iconicity. There is Coliseum in Rome, the Acropolis-Parthenon

2 no doubt that the electronic revolution that in Athens, the Taj Mahal, Machu Picchu,
3 has transformed the mass media, the first major mosques of the Islamic world and the
4 characteristic of generic globalization, facili- Gothic cathedrals. Architects, teachers and
5 tates this process to an historically unprece- critics (and probably advertising and market-
6 dented extent. This works for both ing executives as well) spend endless hours
7 architecture of the past and architecture of trying to answer questions about what makes
8 the present, but not necessarily in the same great buildings great, what makes famous
9 way. buildings famous, and the nature of the
10 connections between famous and great. What
11 keeps these places famous, leaving aside the
12 Iconic for when? question of what keeps them great, is clearly
13 publicity of various types, as argued above
14 For my purposes it is useful to draw a line and ample evidence for this statement will be
15 between icons of the pre-global era (before found in the travel guides and promotional
16 the 1950s) and the global era. This chronol- literature of the places where these icons sit.
17 ogy relates to the research question raised The culture-ideology of tourist consumerism
18 above: to what extent is it the case that before ensures that the pool of these historical icons
19 the advent of capitalist globalization most is continually being enlarged, what Vale
20 iconic architecture was a product of the state (1999) terms “mediated monuments”.
21 and/or religion, whereas since the 1950s the
22 dominant driver of iconic architecture has
23 been the corporate sector? And, if this is true, Conclusion
24 how can we explain it? Why the 1950s? The
25 answer lies in my original criteria for generic Contemporary iconic architecture is now
26 globalization—the electronic and postcolo- corporate to an extent that is historically
27 nial revolutions begin then, and as economic, unprecedented. This is embodied in the
28 social and cultural life are more or less skyscrapers that proclaim the wealth and
29 rapidly restructured all over the world, the power of major transnational corporations,
30 creation of transnational social spaces and be they banks, manufacturers of consumer
31 new forms of cosmopolitanism open up goods and services or, as is often the case, the
32 some forms of architectural expression and headquarters of corporations that most
33 production (e.g. through the use of new tech- people know very little about. In addition,
34 nologies and new materials) and close down there are many iconic buildings and spaces
35 others (e.g. the widespread and rapid dissem- (notably shopping malls, cultural centres and
36 ination of images puts a greater premium on theme parks) that are corporate but not
37 visual originality in architecture).33 always identified with a specific corporation.
38 There is a surprisingly close general Certainly there were corporate icons before
39 consensus about what buildings and spaces 1950 and state and/or religious icons after
40 constitute the major historical global icons 1950. Brasilia, the manufactured capital of
41 for both professionals and the lay public Brazil, was certainly inspired and built by
42 today. They tend to be monumental build- those in control of the state in the 1950s.
43 ings that have survived the ravages of time in However, as Holston (1989) argues, the
44 more or less recognizable form. The typical corporate sector, domestic and foreign, was
45 list will include the Egyptian (Great) deeply implicated in the creation of this
46 Pyramids and the Sphinx (of Giza)—these of Modernist City despite the statist egalitarian
47 course are the names of building and sculp- rhetoric of its founders (see Figure 10). While
48 tural types as well as specific icons (see Curl, there are several examples of state rebuilding
49 1994 on “Egyptomania”)—the Pantheon and of national capitals, this may be the last great
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Figure 10 Niemeyer’s Congress Buildings in Brasilia (1960)—national icon with multiple meanings. Source: Leslie 24
Sklair. 25
26
new city to be built by a democratic state. of icons of resistance confirms. This is similar 27
Subsequent theories of the hundred mile city, in some respects and in contrast in other 28
edge city and so on suggest that the local respects to the ways in which state and/or 29
and/or national state is powerless to direct religious elites before the global era facili- 30
urban planning in any meaningful sense tated the production of iconic architecture. 31
under the conditions of capitalist globaliza- Further study of iconic architecture in the 32
tion. Globalizing politicians and profession- global and pre-global eras, for example, how 33
als can help to create successful local, iconicity can be lost as well as gained and 34
national and even global icons within cities as why most manufactured “icons” are unsuc- 35
long as they do this within the framework set cessful, will expand our knowledge and 36
by the corporate sector, as supporting understanding not only of buildings, spaces 37
members of the transnational capitalist class. and architects but of the wider role of repre- 38
The TCC facilitates the production of sentation and symbolism/aesthetics in 39
Figure 10 Niemeyer’s Congress Buildings in Brasilia (1960)—national icon with multiple meanings. Source: Leslie Sklair.
iconic architecture in the same way and for making and remaking our world. 40
the same purposes as it does all cultural icons, 41
by incorporating creative artists, to a greater 42
or lesser degree, to construct meanings and Acknowledgements 43
effectively represent its power in order to 44
maximize commercial benefits for the capi- Collegial comments on various versions of 45
talist class. The nature of the built environ- this paper presented in symposia at 46
ment powerfully reinforces systems of values Cambridge University, MIT, Netherlands 47
and the choice of what buildings and spaces Architecture Institute, V&A London and 48
become iconic is never arbitrary, as the story conferences on “Architecture and Identity” 49
1 (Berlin) and urban diversity (Paris), are grate- meant architects and the developers, urban
2 fully acknowledged. Thanks also to my planners, teachers, critics and others who come
into direct contact with them in an architectural
3 respondents (see Note 9) and, in particular, context.
4 to Conor Moloney—my architectural 10
10
As usual there are exceptions. Andy Warhol’s

5 (tor)mentor—for their invaluable input to images of Campbell’s soup cans are of course
6 the research on which this paper is based and, much more valuable in the art market than the cans
7 in some cases, for comments on earlier drafts. are in the soup market.
11 According to Jencks (2005, p. 56) “The iconic
11
8 building is unthinkable today without reference to

9 … Ronchamp”.
10 Notes 12
12
Dovey (1999, p. 198, n. 3) states that the meaning
11 of iconic in architecture has shifted from mimetic
12
1
1 The most comprehensive collection on globalization (copy) to synechdoche (part for whole). I deal with
to date, Lechner and Boli (2003), has 58 items. My this issue differently below.
13 13
13
This topic produced six pages of discussion.

own text on globalization splits this literature into
14 world-systems, global culture, global polity and However, about two weeks later, “Why are famous
15 society, and global capitalism approaches (Sklair, architects famous?” produced 98 pages,
16 2002, chap. 3). suggesting that architecture students are more
17
2
2 Globalization plays a central role in the writing of interested in how architects become iconic than
one of the most controversial of contemporary how buildings become iconic. This is certainly
18 related to the culture-ideology of consumerism and
architects, Rem Koolhaas, who takes an eccentric
19 position, arguing that “globalization is a special the cult of celebrity that accompanies it, as I shall
20 branch of architecture [and that] it might finally argue below.
21 14 In “The myths of the Mies Pavilion”, at the
14
lead to a definitive discrediting of architecture as

22 we know it” (Koolhaas, 1996, p. 232). DOCOMOMO Conference (Paris, 2002)
3
3 While, the first great wave of political E. M. Coad argues that it was the photographs
23 Mies contrived that were largely responsible for its
decolonization took place in Latin America during
24 the 19th century, I would argue that passing into history “as a temple to Modernist
25 postcolonialism is more a product of the second architecture” rather than the original building itself,
26 great wave from the middle of the 20th century in which caused riots (see DOCOMOMO website ). AQ6
15 These quotations are from the report in Building
15
27 Asia, Africa and the Caribbean. See Desai and

Nair (2005) and Krishnaswamy and Hawley Design (13 December 2002). In Summer 2004 it
28 was announced that funding had been cancelled
(forthcoming).
29 4
4 Also termed globalization from above and below for the Fourth Grace and other “iconic” projects by
30 (see Sorkin, 1992; Marcuse and Kempen, 2000). Libeskind and Vinoly, leading Building Design (23
31 On the creation of transnational social spaces from July 2004) to ask on its front page: “End of the
32 below by and in immigrant communities, see Smith iconic age?” See also, Jencks and Sudjic (2005).
and Guarnizo (1998) and Faist (2000). Jencks (2005)—published after my paper was
33 substantially written—discusses the idea of iconicity
5 Worked out in different ways in Beck (1999) and
5
34 Vertovec and Cohen (2002). in architecture in terms of enigmatic signifiers,

35 6
6 However, “The tyranny of computer graphics” certainly one type of the symbolic/aesthetic
36 AQ5 (Perez-Gomez, in Rattenbury, 2002, p. 20 ) is hotly dimension of my definition. (I discuss this important
37 contested. work in Sklair, forthcoming.)
16 There is, of course, still a formidable ongoing
16
38
7
7 See, for example, Larsen (1993), Twombly (1995)
and any issue of magazines like El Croquis, literature on religious icons. The catalogue of the
39 Blueprint or Domus. Ockman (2002) wittily major exhibition at the Metropolitan Museum in
40 deconstructs Koolhaas in his own terms as the “YE$ New York on “Byzantium” (Evans, 2004) is an
41 Man” (Y as in Yen, E as in Euros and $ as in excellent guide.
17 The only architect featured in the book is Robert
17
42 dollars!).
8
8 For elaboration, see Sklair (2002), the third edition Venturi and he chooses the McDonald’s Golden
43 Arches as his top American icon (clearly an Iconic I
under a new title of a book first published in 1991,
44 including a new chapter on the alternatives to choice). While all are valuable for the study of
45 capitalist globalization, a topic not discussed here. architectural icons, none of Boime (1998) on
46 9
9 This paper is informed by the findings of a series of national icons, Koenig’s Iconic LA (2000), the
47 interviews with people in and around architecture section on icons in Melbourne in Dovey (1999,
carried out in the USA and Europe in 2004 chap. 11) nor Seidler (2004) in a series entitled
48 “Icons”, is a discussion of iconicity as such.
(ongoing). By “in and around architecture” is
49 18
18 For an exceptionally valuable discussion of glass in (1989), Vale (1992), Wharton (2001) and Fierro 1
the architecture of the grands projets see Fierro (2003). 2
(2003). Chapter 4 of this book contains the most 31 For quite different approaches, compare Crinson
31
insightful discussion of the pyramids at the Louvre. (1996) and Cody (2003). Crinson’s sympathetic
3
19 This would carry more conviction if Foreign Office
19
critique of the application of “Orientalism” (Said, 4
Architects had not won some prestigious projects 1978) to architecture is of particular interest. 5
and competed unsuccessfully for other major iconic 32 For the debates around the issue of 6
32
projects, including the World Trade Center site. “monumentality” in the 20th century, see Collins 7
AQ7 20 All references to papers from this conference are
20
and Collins (1984), and the reprint of Giedion’s
8
from the DOCOMOMO website. paper of 1944 “The need for a new
21 Curtis (1996), my best guide to “modern
21
monumentality” in this same issue of the Harvard 9
architecture”, has more than 800 illustrations, and Architecture Review. Giedion (1984) argued that 10
each one in a sense could be considered iconic for monumentality needed to be recovered from its 11
architects. totalitarian distortions and recreated in an 12
22 This issue will be investigated with respect to the
22
emotionally literate and democratic form.
Frank Lloyd Wright industry in a forthcoming Restrictions of space prevent me from exploring the
13
paper. relations between monumentality and iconicity 14
23 I am grateful to Julius Shulman for an informative
23
here—suffice it to say that members of the 15
discussion of this issue in February 2004, and to transnational capitalist class appear to prefer their 16
Carlota and Buck Stahl who kindly invited me to iconicity in skyscraper form, but not entirely to the 17
spend time in Case Study House #22 in Los exclusion of other innovative forms (Frank Gehry,
Angeles “to see for myself”. for example, has not built skyscrapers, yet!).
18
24 As part of a special issue on “What makes a work
24
33 See also the distinction between “age-value” and

33
19
canonical” in Harvard Design Magazine (Summer “newness-value” (Riegl, 1998) in his discussion of 20
2001). The remarkable “Evolutionary tree of 20th what he called in 1928 the “modern cult of 21
century architecture” by Charles Jencks (ibid., monuments”. 22
pp. 45–46, after Jencks, 1985, p. 28), naming
400 architects, implies grave difficulties with the
23
idea of the canon evidenced, though not without References 24
contradiction, by the majority of my interviewees. 25
25 While Koenig’s point is well taken, my research
25
Attoe, W. (1981) Skylines: Understanding and Moulding 26
shows that the practice of claiming iconicity for Urban Silhouettes. Chichester: Wiley. 27
buildings in advance is common. This can be Beck, U. (1999) World Risk Society. Cambridge: Polity
explained in terms of the marketing imperative built Press.
28
into the culture-ideology of consumerism. For a Betsky, A. (1997) Icons: Magnets of Meaning. San 29
critical assessment of the politics of Gehry’s work, Francisco: Chronicle Books. 30
see Davis (1992, pp. 236–240). Boime, A. (1998) The Unveiling of the National Icons: A 31
26 The book edited by Thiel-Siling (2005), first edition
26
Plea for Patriotic Iconaclism in a Nationalist Era. 32
1998, presents double-page spreads for 87 “icons Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
of 20th century architecture” on the criteria of Boudon, P. (1972) Lived-in Architecture: Le Corbusier’s
33
architectural history, popularity, originality or Pessac Revisited. London: Lund Humphries. 34
symbolic value. This mixes professional and Broadbent, G. (1973) Design in Architecture: 35
popular icons. Architecture and Human Sciences. London: Wiley. 36
27 There are, as usual, a few exceptions that prove
27
Castells, M. (2000) Rise of the Network Society. Oxford: 37
the rule. For example, London Bridge was taken Blackwell.
down and re-assembled in Arizona in 1971 Chung, C., Inaba, J., Koolhaas, R. and Leong, S.T. (eds)
38
AQ8
(Dana, 2004 ), and a prospective buyer proposed (2001) Great Leap Forward. Cambridge, MA: 39
moving the Farnsworth House from Illinois to Harvard Design School. 40
Wisconsin. Architects are, of course, more mobile Cody, J. (2003) Exporting American Architecture: 41
than their buildings. 1870–2000. London: Routledge. 42
28 Mayne won the Pritzker prize in 2005.
28
Collins, C. and Collins, G. (1984) ‘Monumentality: a
29 An earlier interview with Hines by one of the so-
29
critical matter in modern architecture’, Harvard
43
called New York Five is quite revealing (see Architecture Review IV, pp. 15–35. 44
Eisenman, 1982). For the political background on Crinson, M. (1996) Empire Building: Orientalism and 45
“Downtown Inc.” see Frieden and Sagalyn (1991) Victorian Architecture. London: Routledge. 46
and on the cultural consequences, see Zukin (1996). Curl, J.S. (1994) Egyptomania: The Egyptian Revival as 47
30 Particularly useful for my own thinking on these
30
Recurring Theme in the History of Taste. Manchester:
issues have been Lehmann-Haupt (1954), Holston Manchester University Press.
48
49
1 Curtis, W. (1996) Modern Architecture Since 1900. Practices in the Nineties, pp. 232–239. New York:
2 London: Phaidon. Princeton Architectural Press.
Davis, M. (1992) City of Quartz: Excavating the Future in Krishnaswamy, R. and Hawley J. (eds) The Postcolonial
3 Los Angeles. New York: Vintage Books. and the Global. Minneapolis: University of
4 Desai, G. and Nair, S. (eds) (2005) Postcolonialisms: An Minnesota Press (forthcoming). AQ10
5 Anthology of Cultural Theory and Criticism. Oxford: Larson, M.S. (1993) Behind the Postmodern Façade:
6 Berg. Architectural Change in Late Twentieth-century
7 Dovey, K. (1999) Framing Places: Mediating Power in America. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of
Built Form. London: Routledge. California Press.
8 Eisenman, P. (1982) ‘Interview: Gerald Hines and Peter Lechner, F. and Boli, J. (eds) (2003) The Globalisation
9 Eisenman’, Skyline,October. Reader, 2nd edn. Oxford: Blackwell.
10 Evans, H. (ed.) (2004) Byzantium: Faith and Power Lehmann-Haupt, H. (1954) Art Under a Dictatorship.
11 (1261–1557). New York: Metropolitan Museum New York: Oxford University Press.
12 and Yale University Press. Lipstadt, H. (ed.) (1989) The Experimental Tradition:
Faist, T. (2000) The Volume and Dynamics of Migration. Essays on Competitions in Architecture. New York:
13 Oxford: Oxford University Press. Princeton Architectural Press.
14 Fierro, A. (2003) The Glass State: The Technology of the Lipstadt, H. (2001) ‘Learning from St. Louis’, Harvard
15 Spectacle. Paris, 1981–1998. Cambridge, MA: MIT Design Magazine, 14, pp. 4–15.
16 Press. Lynch, K. (1960) The Image of the City. Cambridge, MA:
17 Frieden, B.J. and Sagalyn, L.B. (1991) Downtown, Inc. MIT Press.
How America Rebuilds Cities. Cambridge, MA: MIT Marcuse, P. and Kempen R.v. (eds) (2000) Globalizing
18 Press. Cities: A New Spatial Order. Oxford: Blackwell.
19 Friedman, M. (1999) Architecture + Process. Gehry Meyer, H. (1999) City and Port: London, Barcelona, NY
20 Talks. London: Thames & Hudson. and Rotterdam. Utrecht: International Books.
21 Giedion, S. (1984) ‘The need for a new monumentality’, Migayrou, F. and Brayer, M.-A. (eds) (2003) Archilab:
22 AQ9 Harvard Architecture Review IV. Radical Experiments in Global Architecture. London:
Gombrich, E.H. (1972) Symbolic Images: Studies in the Thames and Hudson.
23 Art of the Renaissance. London: Phaidon. Ockman, J. (2002) ‘The yes man’, Architecture,March,
24 Haan, H.d. and Haagsma, J. (1988) Architects in pp. 77–79.
25 Competition. London: Thames and Hudson. Pawley, M. (1999) Norman Foster: A Global
26 Herman, E. and McChesney, R. (1997) The Global Architecture. London: Thames and Hudson.
27 Media: The New Missionaries of Corporate Rattenbury, K. (ed.) (2002) This is Not Architecture.
Capitalism. London: Cassell. London: Routledge.
28 Holston, J. (1989) The Modernist City: An Riegl, A. (1998) ‘The modern cult of monuments: its
29 Anthropological Critique of Brasilia. Chicago: character and its origins’, in K.M. Hays ed.
30 University of Chicago Press. Oppositions: Selected Readings from a Journal for
31 Ibelings, H. (1998) Supermodernism: Architecture in the Ideas and Criticism in Architecture 1973–1984,
32 Age of Globalization. Rotterdam: NAi Publishers. pp. 621–651 New York: Princeton Architectural
Jencks, C. (1985) Modern Movements in Architecture. Press.
33 London: Penguin. Said, E. (1978) Orientalism. New York: Pantheon Books.
34 Jencks, C. (2005) The Iconic Building: The Power of Sanders, J. (2001) Celluloid Skyline: New York and the
35 Enigma. London: Frances Lincoln. Movies. London: Bloomsbury.
36 Jencks, C. and Sudjic, D. (2005) ‘Can we still believe in Sarkis, H. (2001) Le Corbusier’s Venice Hospital. Berlin:
37 iconic buildings?’, Prospect,June, pp. 22–26. Prestel Verlag.
Jonas, A. and Wilson, D. (eds) (1999) The Urban Seidler, H. (2004) The Grand Tour: Travelling the World
38 Growth Machine: Critical Perspectives, Two Decades with an Architect’s Eye. Koln: Taschen.
39 Later. Albany: State University of New York Press. Serraino, P. (2002) ‘Framing icons: Two Girls, two
40 Kieran, S. (1987) ‘The architecture of plenty: theory and audiences. The photographing of Case Study House
41 design in the marketing age’, Harvard Architecture #22’, in K. Rattenbury (ed.) This is Not Architecture,
42 Review 6: 103–113. chap. 10. London: Routledge.
King, A. (2004) Spaces of Global Cultures: Architecture Sklair, L. (2001) The Transnational Capitalist Class.
43 Urbanism Identity. London: Routledge. Oxford: Blackwell.
44 Knowles, E. (ed.) (1999) Oxford Dictionary of Sklair, L. (2002) Globalization: Capitalism and its
45 Quotations. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Alternatives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
46 Koenig, G. (2000) Iconic LA. Pasadena, CA: Navigator Sklair, L. (2005) ‘The transnational capitalist class and
47 Press. contemporary architecture in globalizing cities’,
Koolhaas, R. (1996) ‘Architecture and globalization’, in International Journal of Urban and Regional
48 W.S. Sanders (ed.) Reflections on Architectural Research 29: 485–500.
49
Sklair, L. ‘Review article: Do cities need icons?’, Urban van Leeuwen, T. (1988) The Skyward Trend of Thought:
1
AQ11 Affairs (forthcoming). The Metaphysics of the American Skyscraper.
2
Smith, P. and Guarnizo, L. (eds) (1998) Transnationalism Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
from Below. Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.
3
Venturi, R., Brown, D.S. and Izenour, S. (1977) Learning
Sorkin, M. (ed.) (1992) Variations on a Theme Park. 4
from Las Vegas: The Forgotten Symbolism of
New York: Noonday. 5
Architectural Form. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Thiel-Siling, S. (ed.) (2005) Icons of Architecture: The Vertovec, S. and Cohen, R. (eds) (2002) Conceiving
6
20th Century. Munich: Prestel. Cosmopolitanism: Theory, Context, and Practice.
7
Tombesi, P. (2001) ‘A true south for design?: the new Oxford: Oxford University Press.
international division of labour in architecture’,
8
Wharton, A.J. (2001) Building the Cold War: Hilton
Architectural Research Quarterly 5: 171–179. 9
International Hotels and Modern Architecture.
Tung, A. (2001) Preserving the World’s Great Cities. 10
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
New York: Clarkson Potter. Zukin, S. (1996) The Cultures of Cities. Oxford:
11
Twombly, R. (1995) Power and Style: A Critique of Blackwell. 12
Twentieth-century Architecture in the United States.
New York: Hill and Wang.
13
Vale, L. (1992) Architecture, Power, and National 14
Identity. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Leslie Sklair is at the London School of 15
Vale, L. (1999) ‘Mediated monuments and national Economics and Political Science, London, 16
identity’, Journal of Architecture 4: 391–408. UK. E-mail: l.sklair@lse.ac.uk 17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49

Iconic Architecture and Capitalist Globa PDF

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Iconic Architecture and Capitalist Globa PDF

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

CCIT_A_159444.

fm Page 21 Tuesday, February 21, 2006 5:25 AM

CITY, VOL. 10, NO. 1, APRIL 2006

Iconic architecture and 1

representation; a portrait; an illustration in paper. My general approach identifies the 23

ISSN 1360-4813 print/ISSN 1470-3629 online/06/010021-27 © 2006 Taylor & Francis

22 CITY VOL. 10, NO. 1

SKLAIR: ICONIC ARCHITECTURE AND CAPITALIST GLOBALIZATION 23

24 CITY VOL. 10, NO. 1

1 workers as well as desperate migrants in tran- transnational practices, a still-evolving tran-

SKLAIR: ICONIC ARCHITECTURE AND CAPITALIST GLOBALIZATION 25

26 CITY VOL. 10, NO. 1

SKLAIR: ICONIC ARCHITECTURE AND CAPITALIST GLOBALIZATION 27

28 CITY VOL. 10, NO. 1

SKLAIR: ICONIC ARCHITECTURE AND CAPITALIST GLOBALIZATION 29

30 CITY VOL. 10, NO. 1

SKLAIR: ICONIC ARCHITECTURE AND CAPITALIST GLOBALIZATION 31

symbolic significance, it is the institutional tion of new technologies of architectural 1

32 CITY VOL. 10, NO. 1

SKLAIR: ICONIC ARCHITECTURE AND CAPITALIST GLOBALIZATION 33

34 CITY VOL. 10, NO. 1

SKLAIR: ICONIC ARCHITECTURE AND CAPITALIST GLOBALIZATION 35

36 CITY VOL. 10, NO. 1

SKLAIR: ICONIC ARCHITECTURE AND CAPITALIST GLOBALIZATION 37

38 CITY VOL. 10, NO. 1

SKLAIR: ICONIC ARCHITECTURE AND CAPITALIST GLOBALIZATION 39

40 CITY VOL. 10, NO. 1

37 War memorial in Washington (though a case in establishing shots and/or foregrounded in

SKLAIR: ICONIC ARCHITECTURE AND CAPITALIST GLOBALIZATION 41

42 CITY VOL. 10, NO. 1

1 symbolism/aesthetics of iconicity. There is Coliseum in Rome, the Acropolis-Parthenon

SKLAIR: ICONIC ARCHITECTURE AND CAPITALIST GLOBALIZATION 43

44 CITY VOL. 10, NO. 1

As usual there are exceptions. Andy Warhol’s

8 building is unthinkable today without reference to

This topic produced six pages of discussion.

lead to a definitive discrediting of architecture as

27 Asia, Africa and the Caribbean. See Desai and

34 Vertovec and Cohen (2002). in architecture in terms of enigmatic signifiers,

SKLAIR: ICONIC ARCHITECTURE AND CAPITALIST GLOBALIZATION 45

33 See also the distinction between “age-value” and

46 CITY VOL. 10, NO. 1

SKLAIR: ICONIC ARCHITECTURE AND CAPITALIST GLOBALIZATION 47

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen