-
This article was downloaded by: [Ume University Library]On: 19
July 2015, At: 06:51Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in
England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: 5
Howick Place, London, SW1P 1WG
City: analysis of urban trends, culture,theory, policy,
actionPublication details, including instructions for authors
andsubscription
information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ccit20
Iconic architecture as a hegemonicproject of the transnational
capitalistclassLeslie Sklair & Laura GherardiPublished online:
23 Apr 2012.
To cite this article: Leslie Sklair & Laura Gherardi (2012)
Iconic architecture as a hegemonicproject of the transnational
capitalist class, City: analysis of urban trends, culture, theory,
policy,action, 16:1-2, 57-73, DOI: 10.1080/13604813.2012.662366
To link to this article:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13604813.2012.662366
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy
of all the information (theContent) contained in the publications
on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our
licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe
accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the
Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are
the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or
endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould
not be relied upon and should be independently verified with
primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be
liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs,
expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever
caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in
relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private
study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction,
redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply,
or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms
&Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
-
Iconic architecture as ahegemonic project of thetransnational
capitalist class
Leslie Sklair and Laura Gherardi
Identifying the drivers of actually existing capitalist
globalization as the transnationalcapitalist class, this paper
suggests that theory and research on its agents and
institutionscould help us to explain how the dominant forms of
contemporary iconic architecturearise and how they serve the
interests of globalizing capitalists. We define iconic
architecturein terms of buildings and/or spaces that are famous,
and that have distinctive symbolic andaesthetic significance. The
historical context of the research is the thesis that the
productionand representation of architectural icons in the
pre-global era (roughly before the 1960s)were mainly driven by
those who controlled state and/or religious institutions,
whereasthe dominant forms of architectural iconicity in the global
era are increasingly driven bythose who own and control the
corporate sector. The argument is illustrated with referenceto
debates around the politics of monumentality in architecture; the
relationship betweeniconic architecture and capitalist
globalization; and an explanation of why these debatesare being
overtaken by critical and uncritical conceptions of architectural
iconicityderived from an analysis of the use of iconicity and
similar terms in the discourses ofmajor architecture and
architectdeveloper firms and mass media presentations of
theirwork.
Key words: iconic architecture, transnational capitalist class,
starchitects
It has long been recognized by scholarsand interestedpublics
alike that architec-ture has been used to transmit and
reinforce the power of the strong over theweak and up until the
middle of the 20thcentury such ideas were discussed largely interms
of the role ofmonumentality in archi-tecture. However, since the
end of theSecond World War and the defeat of thefascist
dictatorships in Europe the discussionhas moved on to new ground.
Bombasticmonumentality, while not entirely aban-doned, has become
more and more
discredited as an architectural strategy forthose in power. The
breakup of the Sovietempire in the 1990s and the creation of
newregimes in post-Soviet Eastern Europeadded some further, often
contradictory,elements to the debate. Gradually, withincreasing
pace in recent decades, architec-tural iconicity has begun to
replace monu-mentality as the central motif in thesediscussions.
Interest in architectural iconshas blossomed in recent years.
Theoryand research from geographers, historiansand sociologists as
well as urban and
ISSN 1360-4813 print/ISSN 1470-3629 online/12/012005717# 2012
Taylor &
Francishttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13604813.2012.662366
CITY, VOL. 16, NOS. 12, FEBRUARYAPRIL 2012
Dow
nloa
ded
by [U
me U
nivers
ity L
ibrary
] at 0
6:51 1
9 July
2015
-
architectural theorists has started to raisequestions around the
origins, structure,dynamics and significance of iconicity
inarchitecture. At around the same time,architect and critic
Charles Jencks, geogra-phers Maria Kaika and Donald
McNeill,urbanists Carola Hein and K.C. Ho,
histor-iansPhilipEthingtonandVanessaSchwartz,and sociologists
Leslie Sklair and StevenMiles all wrote explicitly on
architecturalicons. Jencks book, The Iconic Building(2005), put
forward the idea of the architec-tural icon as an enigmatic
signifier from thepoint of view of the architectural insider.1
Maria Kaika (with the architect KorinnaThielen) co-edited a
special issue of thisjournal in 2006, with further
contributionsfrom Jencks, Sklair, McNeill, Hein and Ho(seeKaika
andThielen, 2006). Kaika followedthis up with research on iconic
architectureand the City of London (2010) andMcNeillsbook,TheGlobal
Architect, appeared in 2009.Miles (2005) explored the role of
iconic archi-tecture in urban regeneration in England.On the other
side of the Atlantic, Ethingtonand Schwartz (2006) edited a special
issue ofUrban History, with contributions onurban icons in Rome,
Jerusalem, Venice,Berlin and Shanghai. These are mostly his-torical
studies but there is some discussionof the fruitfulness of semiotic
interpretationsof the iconic.2
In a series of articles (Sklair, 2005, 2006b,2010) an attempt
has been made to develop asociological framework for the analysis
oficonic architecture in the era of capitalist glo-balization. This
paper sets out to show howmembers of the transnational
capitalistclassthe drivers of capitalist globaliza-tionpromote
iconic architecture over monu-mentality as a marker of their
hegemony. Thisopens up new lines of inquiry on the perennialproblem
of explaining how the built environ-ment can be manipulated in the
interests of adominant class. Here we raise a series of ques-tions
about the relationship between iconicbuilding and iconic practice,
the emergenceof starchitects in contrast with the
corporatepractices of the biggest architecture firms,
and their different understanding of iconicity(see Ponzini and
Nastasi 2011).
Monumentality and hegemony
In what is certainly one of the most authori-tative and
influential histories of architecturein the 20th century we find
the followingdeclaration: Throughout history, monumen-tal
architecture has been employed toembody the values of dominant
ideologiesand groups, and as an instrument of state pro-paganda
(Curtis, 1996, p. 351). In the chapterof which this is the opening
sentence, Totali-tarian Critiques of the Modern Movement,Curtis
shows that there are some exceptionsto the conventional accounts of
architecturein Nazi Germany, Communist Russia andFascist Italy as
chauvinist, debased andworthless (he, and many others, cite
theItalian Terragni as the main exception,notably his modernist
Casa del Fascio inComo of 1936). Nevertheless, Curtis
argues,totalitarian critiques of the modern move-ment had a point.
In his contribution to aspecial issue of the Harvard
ArchitectureReview, the celebrated art historian andleading
proponent of the Modern MovementSiegfried Giedion (1984) gave
expression tothe view that a new form of democratic mon-umentality
was necessary for the post-warworld.3 Curtis, significantly,
chooses to illus-trate this argument with reference to thework of
Louis Kahn, whose National Assem-bly Building in Dacca (196275) was
thecrowning achievement of this phase of demo-cratic monumental
architectural (Curtis,1996, chap. 28). Curtis is led to the
conclusionthat: Monumentality is a quality in architec-ture which
does not necessarily have to dowith size, but with intensity of
expression(p. 514).4
Smith, in his comparison of the architec-tures of Barcelona in
the periods of the 1888Universal Exhibition and the Olympics
of1992, argues that while the former wasmainly about Catalan
nationalism, the latterwas much more about Barcelona as a
global
58 CITY VOL. 16, NOS. 12
Dow
nloa
ded
by [U
me U
nivers
ity L
ibrary
] at 0
6:51 1
9 July
2015
-
city. He makes the explicit connectionbetween monumentality and
iconicity asfollows: the contemporary obsession withiconic
buildings can be interpreted as thelatest attempt by cities to use
monumentalityas a way of affirming and displaying capitalstatus . .
. [today] tourism objectives areoften the prime justification for
these newmonumental strategies (Smith, 2007, p. 82).While he makes
the perfectly valid pointthat contemporary icons operate as
symbolsof communication, he fails, in our view, tosee that it is
not only in the terms of formthat monuments of the pre-global era
differfrom architectural icons of the global era,but crucially in
terms of the class that drivestheir production and representation
and it isto this topic that we now turn.5
The transition from monumentality toiconicity in
architecture
Our line of argument derives in part from thevast literature on
globalization and the manycompeting approaches jostling for
primacy.6
Any attempt to present a definitive accountof globalization and
architecture (or any-thing else) is doomed to failure. Here weargue
for a specific conception of globaliza-tion (see Sklair, 2002) and
how this worksfor what can be labelled architectural icons.The
general approach identifies the driversof actually existing
capitalist globalization asthe transnational capitalist class
(TCC)some of whose members are certainlyinspired by
neoliberalismand suggestshow theory and research on the agents
andinstitutions of the TCC could help us toexplain how the dominant
forms of contem-porary iconic architecture arise and howthey serve
the interests of globalizing capital-ists, thus iconic architecture
as a hegemonicproject of the TCC. The historical contextof the
research is the thesis that the pro-duction and representation of
architecturalicons in the pre-global era (roughly beforethe 1960s)
were mainly driven by those whocontrolled state and/or religious
institutions,
whereas the dominant forms of architecturaliconicity for the
global era are increasinglydriven by those who own and control
thecorporate sector and the central institutionsof capitalist
globalization. Iconicity in archi-tecture, therefore, can best be
conceptualizedas a resource in struggles for meaning and,
byimplication, for power.
The drivers of capitalist globalization canbe characterized as
the TCC, conceptualizedin four fractions. As in many other
industries,there is often an important overlap betweenthe four
fractions of the TCC in architecture.
(1) Those who own and/or control themajor transnational
corporations andtheir local affiliates (corporate fraction).In
architecture, these are the peoplewho own and/or control the major
archi-tectural, architectureengineering
andarchitecturedeveloperreal estatefirms and their clients. They
are of two,minimally overlapping, types: first, thebiggest of these
firms (of whom only afew are truly transnational), and second,the
most celebrated and famous architec-tural firms. While some of the
most cele-brated iconic architects do not actuallyown their
practices they usually controlthem and provide the cultural
capitalthat gives them their value in the market-place.
No corporation in the architectureindustry in 2010 had a
turnover exceed-ing US$300 million and employed manymore than 1000
architects. In comparisonwith the major global corporations theyare
small (to gain entry to the FortuneGlobal 500 currently requires
revenuesapproaching US$20 billion with the topechelon bringing in
hundreds of billionsand employing hundreds of thousands).As we
shall see below, few of the top100 architectural firms by revenues
areled by iconic architects or build iconicbuildings. The cultural
importance ofcelebrated architects, especially in cities,far
outweighs their relative lack of finan-cial and corporate muscle.
Table 1 lists
SKLAIR AND GHERARDI: ICONIC ARCHITECTURE 59
Dow
nloa
ded
by [U
me U
nivers
ity L
ibrary
] at 0
6:51 1
9 July
2015
-
the top 10 firms for 2008 and the numberof years between 2005
and 2009 in whicheach firm has been in the top 10. As willbe clear
from the table, eight of the top10 in 2008 had been in the list for
atleast four of the five sample years,suggesting that the dominant
firmsmake up a very stable group.7
(2) Globalizing politicians and bureaucrats(state fraction).
These are the politiciansand bureaucrats at all levels of
adminis-trative power and responsibility, in com-munities, cities,
states and internationaland global institutions who serve
theinterests of capitalist globalization aswell as or in opposition
to those whoelect or appoint them. They decidewhat gets built
where, and how changesto the built environment are regulated.They
are particularly important forissues of preservation and urban
plan-ning, and in competitions for major pro-jects, some of which
result in the creationof what are known as architectural icons.
(3) Globalizing professionals (technicalfraction). The members
of this fractionrange from those leading technicianscentrally
involved in the structural fea-tures of new building to those
respon-sible for the education of students and
the public in architecture who areallied, through choice or
circumstance,with globalizing corporations and theagenda of
capitalist globalization.
(4) Merchants, media and advertising (con-sumerist fraction).
These are the peoplewho are responsible for the marketingof
architecture in all its manifestationsand whose main task is to
connect thearchitecture industry with the cultureideology of
consumerism by promotingimages of iconic buildings, spaces
andarchitects in mass and specializedmedia using all the available
dynamicdiscourses of celebrity cultures.
The point of this discussion of the TCC is tosuggest that, as
well as the aesthetics of build-ings and spaces, the specific
connectionsbetween the four fractions of the TCC andthe production
and representation of iconicarchitecture are also important in
under-standing and explaining architectural iconi-city in the
global era (elaborated in moredetail in Sklair, 2005). Therefore,
while mostof the publicity and public relations activityfor iconic
buildings focuses on the starchi-tects credited with the design,
and to alesser extent the client with the ambition tofund the
project, we argue that much morescholarly attention should be paid
to allfour fractions of the TCC, without whomsuch buildings would
rarely be built.
The manufacture of iconicity
We define iconic architecture in terms ofbuildings and/or spaces
that are famous, andthat have distinctive symbolic and
aestheticsignificance. Architecture can be iconic forarchitects and
those in and around architec-ture, and/or for the general public
(iconic forwhom?), at the local/urban, national and/orthe global
level (iconic for where?) and, inour formulation, for the
pre-global and/orfor the global era, roughly from the middleof the
20th century (iconic for when?). Iconi-city in architecture (or
indeed in any other
Table 1 Top 10 firms from BD Top 100 (20052009)
Firm
Fee-earningarchitects; feeincome (2008)
in US$Years intop 10
1. Gensler 1216; $250m + All2. HOK 1205; $250m + All3. Nikken
Sekkei 1174; $250m + All4. Aedas 1020; $200m + All but 20055.
Foster 913; $180m + All but 20066. SOM 838; $230m + All7. BDP 717;
$130m + All8. RMJM 709; $110m + 200820099. HKS 651; $190m + All but
2005
10. Atkins 622; $140m + Only 2008
Sources: Building Design, World Architecture Online Top100
(2008), for 2008 data; Building Design (20November2009, pp. 2425)
for 20052009 data.
60 CITY VOL. 16, NOS. 12
Dow
nloa
ded
by [U
me U
nivers
ity L
ibrary
] at 0
6:51 1
9 July
2015
-
field of endeavour) does not simply happen, itis the end
resultpermanent or temporaryof many deliberate practices. In a
series ofinterviews carried out in the USA, Europeand elsewhere
over the last decade8 it wasestablished that those in and around
architec-ture often remember the local icons of theirchildhood, as
well as national and globalicons, brought to their attention not
only bytheir teachers, but also by the professionalmedia of
architecture and the general coverageof cultural news in the mass
media. In recentdecades, hugely facilitated by the
Internet,architect and architectdeveloper firms haveincreasingly
taken a leading role in endowingtheir own buildings and spaces
(and, in somecases, themselves) with the quality of iconi-city.
They attempt to manufacture their owniconicity, sometimes with a
high degree ofsuccess.
Jencks argues that the construction oficonic meaning is tied to
a postmodernabsence of strong belief in any metanarrative,ideology
or religion: Given the desire ofsociety and architects to have
great iconsand yet not to agree on any iconography,they will
inevitably produce enigmatic signif-iers of varying quality (2005,
p. 196). Iconicbuildings, in this perspective, emerge, on theone
side, from the crisis of the monumentthat, in an agnostic and
global age, can bedivisiveand from the erosion of publicsymbolism.
On the other side, icons con-sidered as cathedrals of consumerism
and/ortemples of tourism, satisfy market demandfor enigmatic
signifiers with naturalistic ana-logies fulfilling the desire for a
democraticopen interpretation. Metaphors connectingbuildings and
natural elements becomemore and more common. For example,Gehrys
Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao hasbeen identified by different critics
as a meta-phor of a swan, a duck, an artichoke, a ship, awoman
sleeping and so on. The manufactureof meaning can be fruitfully
traced back toEdward Bernays, the father of the PublicRelations
industry and the nephew ofSigmund Freud (see Ewen, 1996).
Bernaysidea of the engineering of consent perfectly
sums up the way in which the manufactureof iconicity in
architecture works for thebuilt environment as a special case of
thecelebrity culture under the conditions ofcapitalist
globalization.
The attribution of iconicity by the majortransnational architect
and architectdeveloperfirms can be measured by a survey of
theirwebsites. An analysis of the presence of theterms icon and
iconic in the websites of thetop 10 architectural firms reveals
that theseterms appear in all their websites and, inaddition, some
websites also discuss iconicarchitecture directly. This permits us
to deduceboth the attitudes towards iconicity of themajor firms in
the industry and the modes oftheir communication of iconicity. The
termsicon and iconic are mostly used without beingdefined (as is
the case in much of the academicand architectural literature). In
the case of thefirms this does not appear to be accidental, asthe
terms are used in a self-evident fashionfor example, the worlds
first mixed-use high-rise, the John Hancock Centre [in
Chicago,built by SOM] is an architectural icon mirroringthe
collaboration between architect BruceGraham and structural partner
Fazlur Khan(www.som.com) (Figure 1).9 The context inwhich the terms
are used strongly suggests inmost cases that the meaning is
positive; iconicityis a quality that most if not all top firms
areclaiming for their own buildings.
Corporate usage of and attitudes toiconicity
Iconicity can refer to several different build-ings of the same
architectural firm, fromstadia to office towers, from mixed
develop-ments to museums, as will be evident fromthe examples that
follow, which are only asample of the multitude of the
attributionsof iconicity in the websites analysed. Iconi-city can
also refer to an architecturalelement of a building. Prominent
examplesinclude: The roof [of Wembley stadium byHOK and Foster] is
supported structurallyby a spectacular 135-metre-high arch that
SKLAIR AND GHERARDI: ICONIC ARCHITECTURE 61
Dow
nloa
ded
by [U
me U
nivers
ity L
ibrary
] at 0
6:51 1
9 July
2015
-
Figure 1 The John Hancock building in Boston, self-proclaimed
icon by the architects SOM(Source: Leslie Sklair)
62 CITY VOL. 16, NOS. 12
Dow
nloa
ded
by [U
me U
nivers
ity L
ibrary
] at 0
6:51 1
9 July
2015
-
soars over the stadium, providing an iconicreplacement for the
old buildings landmarktwin towers (www.fosterandpartners.com);and
for the Victoria Square scheme inBelfast by Bdp (Figure 2), The
showpieceof the project is the iconic 37m diameterglass dome which
sits on a 24m high circularred sandstone colonnade
(www.bdp.com).
The reference can also be to several archi-tectural elements of
the same building: Thefacade [of Tabira-cho Town Hall by
NikkenSekkei] is the building icon made fromexposed steel
reinforced concrete and verticalcurtain wall. There is an iconic
penthouseincluding meeting room and outdoor equip-ment storage site
on the top of the governmentbuilding (www.nikken.co.jp); as well as
to acluster of buildings, We designed threeiconic buildings: the
countrys first IMAXtheatre; the Science Mall with hands-on
exhibition space, a planetarium, two theatres,lab, cafe, shop,
offices and workshops; andScotlands tallest free-standing
structure[Glasgow Science Centre by Bdp] (www.bdp.com).
Furthermore, iconic can also referto the character of a building,
for example:This portion [the top of R&F CentreGuangzhou by
Aedas] is also where morearticulation takes place and reflects
theiconic character of the building both in theday and night time
(www.aedas.com); to thesilhouette of a building: In design
buildingand landscape [of the Gas Science Museum,Toyosu by Nikken
Sekkei] are united insuch a manner as they look like a naturalland
mound creating an iconic silhouettewhen viewed from the other bank,
whichleaves a deep impression to people (www.nikken.co.jp) and to
the shape of a building:Al Sharq Tower [in Dubai, by SOM] is
aunique mix of an iconic form, ingenious struc-ture, and spatial
qualities of sky-high living(www.som.com). Multiple claims are
madefor Iris Crystal Tower in Dubai by Aedas:Its iconic form
embodies a strong ecologicalconcept fitting for these demanding
timeswhile providing its tenants with state of theart, luxurious,
first class commercial facilitiesand Iconic, visionary design is at
the heart ofIris Crystals identity (www.aedas.com).Even the
architectural firm itself is self-pro-claimed as iconic: Atkins has
been involvedin Kuwait since 1977 and over the last threedecades
has developed a reputation for itsiconic design
(www.atkinsdesign.com).10
Significant for the high importance of theiconic in urban design
are references to theimage of a building in the skyline of a city,
forexample, on the Victoria Square scheme inBelfast: It is an
intentional set-piece and hasalready become an iconic image on
Belfastsskyline (www.bdp.com) and, in a widersense, to the
architectural image of a city: theproject [West Kowloon Cultural
DistrictHong Kong by Foster & Partners] will conso-lidate Hong
Kongs reputation as a culturaldestination while providing an iconic
architec-tural image for the city (www.fosterandpartners.com).11 It
is common for several
Figure 2 Belfast, Victoria Square(Source: Nigel R. Clarke)
SKLAIR AND GHERARDI: ICONIC ARCHITECTURE 63
Dow
nloa
ded
by [U
me U
nivers
ity L
ibrary
] at 0
6:51 1
9 July
2015
-
buildings defined as iconic to coexist in thesame city: As the
most prominent icon onthe citys skyline, [Genslers] ShanghaiTowers
transparent spiral form will showcasecutting-edge sustainable
strategies and publicspaces that set a new standard for green
com-munity (www.gensler.com); so that thereappear to be different
degrees of iconicity(always without offering a definition of
iconi-city). Even more iconic, in terms of media cov-erage, is the
Jin Mao Tower (Figure 3): At thetime of its completion, the
88-story, 1381-foot-high SOM-designed Jin Mao Tower wasChinas
tallest building and remains its mosticonic. Recalling historic
Chinese pagodaforms, Jin Mao has become a model for towerdesigns
throughout China (www.som.com).See also Campanella (2008, chap.
2).12
If the individual icon expresses uniqueness,the condition is not
unique and, as we have
seen, there can be several architectural iconsin a city and they
can be from different erasand for different audiences (local,
national,global). Contemporary globalizing citiescompete to
accumulate manufactured icons(among which some are successful, some
arenot), sometimes one next to another, oneinside another, always
according to the dis-course of the websites analysed.
Numerous websites state explicitly thatmarket demand is the
driver of this productionof iconicity: The design [of Bothwell
Plaza inGlasgow by Aedas] aims to fulfil the Euro-pean Development
Companys aspirationsfor an architectural icon. In recent yearssuch
production following the logic of thenewer iconic buildings
overshadowing oldericonic buildings, has accelerated. This
isclearly expressed by Andrew Barraclough,HOK International
Director: Nowadays,architectural commissions generally need tomake
statements; our clients are looking foriconic, Landmark buildings
(www.hok.com). The main clients in the architecturalmarket of
iconicity are corporations and thecities themselves. Following a
logic of terri-torial marketing, the icon is an investmentrepaid by
the flow of people and profit thatthe icon is expected to attract.
Common cri-tiques of iconic architecture concern the alien-ation of
the icon from the site/context where itis built and that iconic
buildings aim to attractflows of investments and people,
sometimeswith no connections to the site of constructionother than
the economic activities inducedlocally. The architectural icon can
bedesigned, and it actually is in a majority ofcases, for
consumption that is not exclusivelylocal (possibly the whole
world), thus for anelsewhere where it is promoted by circulat-ing
its images over the media and by the narra-tives that surround its
design andconstruction. Mass media make the decisivecontribution to
global iconicity, promotingit on a global scale often during the
designphase.13 The more ubiquitous the exposurean icon receives the
better, the architecturalicon has to be visible not only from as
manypoints of the city as possible14 and in its
Figure 3 Jin Mao Tower, Shanghai, by SOM(Source: Richard
Mallinson)
64 CITY VOL. 16, NOS. 12
Dow
nloa
ded
by [U
me U
nivers
ity L
ibrary
] at 0
6:51 1
9 July
2015
-
skyline,15 but also on TV news, backgroundsin TV programmes,
newspaper and magazinearticles and films (see Figure 4).
Responding to the criticism of alienation ofthe icon from its
context, architecture firms
have drawn up what we may call a rhetoricof the context: many
buildings presented ontheir websites are explicitly claimed to
becreated for the city that hosts them. Theyare said to be fitting
to the time, place and
Figure 4 The ubiquitous Swiss Re building by Foster(Source: John
V. Keogh, www.JV21.com)
SKLAIR AND GHERARDI: ICONIC ARCHITECTURE 65
Dow
nloa
ded
by [U
me U
nivers
ity L
ibrary
] at 0
6:51 1
9 July
2015
-
culture in which they are located, as in theexample of Liverpool
FC Stadium by HKS(see below). Further, almost all of thevisions of
the firms in the top 10 state theiraim to improve peoples quality
of life overall the different contexts in which theyoperate
(globally).
However, the icon is an investment also forthe architectural
firms that can increase theirfees by selling not only the structure
of thebuilding, but also the identity of the citycreated by the
icon. For example: Thisiconic structure [San Francisco
InternationalAirportInternational Terminal by SOM]creates a
powerful identity for both theairport and the City of San
Francisco(www.som.com). The expression productionof iconicity, of
which the first step is the lin-guistic manufacture of the icon, is
justified bythe fact that iconicity is a strategic answer to
amarket demand and by the deliberate inten-tion to build iconic
buildings, most of thetime described as such even before the
build-ing is complete, sometimes when it existsonly on paper and a
computer screen. TheKowloon, Hong Kong example cited abovebears
repetition here: The project will conso-lidate Hong Kongs
reputation as a culturaldestination while providing an iconic
archi-tectural image for the city (www.som.com)(Figure 5).
This is one among many examplesalsofrom SOM: The twisting,
sculptural formof Jinling Tower was designed to establishan iconic
presence in the heart of Nanjing(ibid.); The design [Monterrey
Tower byHOK] was conceived as an abstract sculptureand is intended
to serve as an icon for the city(www.hok.com); and It has been our
ambi-tion from the outset to produce an iconicarchitecture [HKS
Plans for Liverpool FCStadium] absolutely unique to the
club(www.hksinc.com). In this sense, wheniconic identity can be
delivered in the formof a piece of architecture, iconicity may
beconsidered a product in itself. This appearsto be the implication
of the following: Inaddition to delivering iconic identity,
effi-cient passenger organization and facilities
planning, Aedas has led the dramatic shiftin aviation planning
(www.aedas.com).Table 2 presents a snapshot of the presen-tation of
the manufacturing of iconicity inthe websites of the top 10 firms
in the indus-try as listed annually by the weekly publi-cation
Building Design (BD Top 10).
A first paradox emerges here, namely, thatan icon is often
described as timeless,16 butat the same time responding to
currentmarket demand. This paradox has beennoted by David
Chipperfield, a prize-winning English architect who heads a
rela-tively small firm (number 76 in the BD 2008ranking), in his
interview on the termiconic for the magazine Iconeye: icon
maga-zine on-line:
The sort of new icon architecture . . . has acertain danger that
everything has to lookspectacular, everything has to look like
itschanging the world, even if its really notdoing that much. Im
not purposely avoidingmaking an icon. An icon just happens. If
youthink about three-dimensional objects inproduct design or
furniture, there wereobjects in the 20th century that became
iconsthat you wouldnt classify as icons using thecurrent meaning.
Clients now say that theyare looking for an icon, and I know
thatmeans it has got to look blobby, actually.Now, I think you
could say that MiesBarcelona chair is an icon, but in some ways
itis quite self-effacing. Design objects of the20th century,
whether its Mario Bellinistypewriters [for Olivetti] or Michele
DeLucchis lamp or whatever, became iconsbecause of how beautiful
they were or howsuccessful they were. Now we have to have aninstant
icon. It has to say its an icon at thevery point of delivery.
(www.iconeye.com)
Despite Chipperfield, the firms that make thiscriticism of
iconic architecture are very oftenthose which at the same time
activelysupport iconic architecture, more often rede-fining it but
without adding clarity, and thusintensifying their own ambiguous
attitudetowards the trend to the iconic. Emblematicis the famous
case of Rem Koolhaas, whosefirm OMA was number 40 in the BD Top
66 CITY VOL. 16, NOS. 12
Dow
nloa
ded
by [U
me U
nivers
ity L
ibrary
] at 0
6:51 1
9 July
2015
-
100 in 2008. Koolhaas criticizes starchitectsand architectural
icons, proposing insteadanti-iconic icons (www.oma.nl). This
suggestsa further application of the term iconic inarchitecture,
which deserves further study:namely, when the architect is said to
be iconic.
Architect as icon: the birth of thestarchitect
As with architectural iconicity itself, the archi-tect as icon
(starchitect) works at three spatiallevels, the local (usually
city), the national andthe global as well as chronologically.17 In
a par-allel study the starchitect is defined in terms offame
(prestigious prizes; dissemination ofinformation about their iconic
works throughtheir own publications and publications byothers,
exhibitions of their work, brand-stretching within the
cultureideology of con-sumerism, and legacy); recognition of
anddebate about the significance of their work, interms of cultural
meanings, and aesthetic
qualities; and geographical reach, that is, theimpact of their
buildings. While there aremany local and national starchitects,
there arerelatively few global starchitects in thesesenses.18 An
important way of measuring theextent to which an architect can be
considereda global starchitect is the coverage of his/herwork in
the mass media globally (as well asthe other elements of fame noted
above, mostof which can be monitored through massmedia coverage).
As was previously demon-strated (Sklair, 2005), the most famous
andmost honoured architects are rarely thosewho have the biggest
firms.
Table 3 presents the sum of articles, fromthe first publication
mentioning the architectto the last article before 30 May 2009, on
theonline version of The Guardian, The Times,Le Monde, El Pais, Il
Corriere della Seraand New York Times (in the originallanguages of
these newspapers). Foster,Gehry, Koolhaas and Hadid are the
onlyarchitects mentioned in all of the following
Figure 5 Promotional material for the West Kowloon Cultural
District(Source: Roberto Correa)
SKLAIR AND GHERARDI: ICONIC ARCHITECTURE 67
Dow
nloa
ded
by [U
me U
nivers
ity L
ibrary
] at 0
6:51 1
9 July
2015
-
online journals: Arabic News, The MoscowTimes, Chinadaily and
Indianexpress(English version).19
As Table 3 shows, apart from Foster, thefirms that make up the
BD Top 10 have rela-tively low coverage in mass media
interna-tionally, both in absolute terms andcompared to other
companies in the lowerhalf of the BD Top 100. For example,
Herzog & de Meuron (51st place) totals 665articles and
Chipperfield (76th place) totals243 articles. This leads us to ask
why firmscomprising hundreds of fee-earning archi-tects and
turnover that in all cases exceededUS$100 million in 20072008
barely reach100 articles in the press, limited even insome cases to
just a few dozenin the caseof Nikken Sekkei, Aedas, BDP and HKS
Table 3 Coverage in quality newspapers of BD Top 10 firms (2008)
and of global starchitects
BD Top 10 and globalstarchitects
Selected buildings called iconic on firmswebsite
Number of articles in newspapersample
1. Gensler Shanghai Tower (Shanghai) 802. HOK Arch, Wembley
Stadium (London) 993. Nikken Sekkei Tabira-cho Town Hall (Nagasaki)
14. Aedas Iris Crystal Tower (Dubai) 65. Fostera Swiss Re (London)
17046. SOM Jin Mao Tower (Shanghai) 1017. BDP Glasgow Science
Centre (Glasgow) 228. RMJM Gate to the East (Suzhou) 659. HKS W
Hollywood Hotel (Hollywood) 4
10. Atkins Al-Rajhi Tower (Riyadh) n/a
Most cited starchitects Selected iconic buildingFrank Gehry None
(see text) 1264Rem Koolhaas CCTV Beijing (Beijing) 1193Zaha Hadid
EuskoTren Headquarter (Durango) 1183
aFoster is the only architect to appear on BD Top 10 and most
cited starchitects lists.Sources: See text.
Table 2 Use of and attitude towards iconic architecture by BD
Top 10 firms (2008)
Position in BD Top100 Usage of icon/iconic on firms website
Attitude towardiconic architecture
1. Gensler Building, architectural element, an age Supportive2.
HOK Building, style, type of architecture, structures, feature,
project,
architect, landmark, architectural statementSupportive
and critical3. Nikken Sekkei Architectural element, silhouette
Supportive4. Aedas Building and its character, mixed development,
form, design,
public sculptures, citys identitySupportive
5. Foster Project, architectural element, beacon, architectural
image for a city,brand, replacement, development; icon/iconic
appears mostlyin reported news
Supportive
6. SOM Design, building, form, structure, firms historic
buildings and design Supportive7. BDP Element/s of a building,
building, cluster of buildings, element and
at the same time building containing it, campusSupportive
8. RMJM Gate Neutral9. HKS Architecture, element, lifestyle
Supportive
10. Atkins Building, design and Atkins design reputation in
Kuwait Supportive
68 CITY VOL. 16, NOS. 12
Dow
nloa
ded
by [U
me U
nivers
ity L
ibrary
] at 0
6:51 1
9 July
2015
-
in the online versions of all the newspaperssampled.
The same very small overlap between thesize of the firm and
media coverage, can alsobe seen when we consider other
recognitionindicators. For example, the number of build-ings
designed by each firm in the BD Top 10that appear in the Phaidon
Atlas of Contem-porary World Architecture (Phaidon, 2005,hereafter
PACWA) shows the same pattern.Foster & Partners tops the list
with 13 build-ings, while more than half of the companiesin the BD
Top 10 (Gensler, HOK, Aedas,RMJM, HKS, Atkins), do not appear
inPACWA at all. The other BD Top 10 firms(SOM, BDP and Nikken
Sekkei) have onlyone building selected each. The inverse canalso be
said: among the architecture firmswith most buildings in PACWA,
many arenot in the BD Top 100 and the rest have verylow positions.
It is not a coincidence that theintroductory article to the BD Top
100 isentitled: Not Everyones a Starchitect. Herethe myth of the
architect as artistic genius, incontemporary imagery is interpreted
as aromantic notion reinvented today by themedia:
Despite the fact that practices have expandedto meet the demands
of a global market, thereremains a romantic notion, particularly in
someelements of the media, of the individual geniusarchitect
constantly dreaming up radical ideasfor new cultural buildings,
while hopping fromInternational airport to International
airport,ignoring the cloying jet-lag to sketch. In short,we like to
be able to put apreferablycharismaticface to ahopefully iconic,
mostprobably civicbuilding. (Gibson, 2008, p. 6)
In fact, as described, the figure of the iconicarchitect appears
as a modern version of thefigure of the artist found in romantic
litera-ture and shares the same features of grandeurbased on
outstanding talent, mobility, dis-tinctive creativity and
inspiration.20
Again, with the exception of Foster,21 intheir own vision the
companies in the top 10contrast the prestige of the name of
theiconic architect with the prestige of numbers,
therefore their size, their projects and theiroffices around the
world. For example,
RMJM is one of the worlds leadingarchitectural practices. Our
designers andcreative thinkers come from every corner ofthe globe .
. . We employ more than 1200people in our offices in Cambridge,
Dubai,Edinburgh, Glasgow, Hong Kong, London,Moscow, New York,
Philadelphia, Princeton,St Petersburg, Shanghai, Singapore
andWashington DC. (www.rmjm.com)
They place value on their own efficiency asengineering giants as
well as architects. Some-times, as in the case of Nikken Sekkei,
SOM,BDP and Atkins, they are in fact mixed com-panies, focusing on
process innovation as theresult of the collaboration of a team
ofexperts22 linked to an international networkof service providers.
This can be said of allthe top 10, from number 1 in the 2008
list,Gensler:
As architects, designers, planners andconsultants, we partner
with our clients onsome 3,600 projects every year. These
projectscan be aS small as a wine label or as large as anew urban
district. With more than 2,500professionals networked across 31
offices, weserve our clients as trusted advisors,combining
localized expertise with globalperspective wherever new
opportunities arise. . . to serve our clients effectively on a
global,24/7 basis. Behind each client is a worldwidenetwork of
architects, designers, planners andconsultants led by 178
Principals in 31 localoffices, a firm with an international
reputationfor innovative design, superb delivery, andefficient
management of its teams andprojects. (www.gensler.com)
to number 10, Atkins (Figure 6):
With our community of 650 architects,Atkins is one of the worlds
largestarchitecture firms. But architecture is just onepart of our
story. With design studios aroundthe worldin locations such as
London,Dubai, Shanghai and Bangalorewe formpart of a leading
multidisciplinaryconsultancy employing 18,000 professionals.
SKLAIR AND GHERARDI: ICONIC ARCHITECTURE 69
Dow
nloa
ded
by [U
me U
nivers
ity L
ibrary
] at 0
6:51 1
9 July
2015
-
Our architects and urban designers workseamlessly alongside
structural and civilengineers, environmentalists,
acousticians,hydrologists and many more builtenvironment experts .
. . Atkins is the largestengineering consultancy in the UK,
thelargest multidisciplinary consultancy inEurope and the worlds
eighth largest designfirm. Our size brings significant value to
ourclients, allowing us to harness an unrivalledpool of creative,
professional people toproduce outstanding solutions to
challengingproblems. (www.atkinsdesign.com)
How can we explain the disparity betweensize and economic
results of the largest trans-national architecture businesses on
the onehand, and the relative lack of iconicity oftheir architects
and the buildings they createon the other? Frank Gehrys small
firmseems to be so famous that on its websitethere are no images of
any buildings whenaccessed in 2009 (despite the fact that his
Gug-genheim Bilbao is one of the most famousbuildings in the world
today), merely Pre-liminary sketches for the Panama Puente deVida
Museo (www.foga.com) (Figure 7).When interviewed by Charles Jencks,
notedarchitectural critic and entrepreneur, on the
elements that make an icon and the origin ofthe difference
between a bad icon and a goodicon, Gehry answered: It ultimately
comesdown to the talent of the person who createsit (in Jencks,
2005, p. 172).
The implication of this judgement is thatsuch talent is
recognized in an architecturalmarket that is also a reputational
market, inwhich iconicity is a quality of the buildings,sites and
architects that are traded. The recog-nized iconic status of a
project or a buildingoften seems to pass through the recognitionof
the iconic status of the architect or thefirm responsible for the
design: it is as if theiconicity of a building has difficulty
inbeing established without the intermediationof the iconic
architect. The architecturalicon must be accompanied by a
famousauthor, whose own story is interwoven withthat of the
building. If the buildings of anarchitect considered iconic become
moreeasily recognized as iconic than others bycross-fertilization
from the authors statusto that of his worksfollowing a processthat
is not very different from that of thesculptor or painter or
musicianthe questionbecomes how an architect achieves suchstatus,
and therefore what makes an architect
Figure 6 Atkins worldwide offices(Source:
www.atkinsdesign.com)
70 CITY VOL. 16, NOS. 12
Dow
nloa
ded
by [U
me U
nivers
ity L
ibrary
] at 0
6:51 1
9 July
2015
-
iconic, what makes an architect a globalstarchitect? Our answer
to this question, aswill be clear from the evidence presentedabove,
identifies the most globally iconicstarchitects as participants in
the hegemonicproject of the TCC in an increasingly celeb-rity-based
cultureideology of consumerism.And in this respect, iconic
architecture issimilar to most of the other culture industriesbut,
given its presence in the actual and/orvirtual lives of billions of
people, it is argu-ably the most important if largely unrecog-nized
culture industry.
Notes
1 For a review of Jencks (2005) and two othercontributions to
the debate, see Sklair (2006a).
2 The entertaining website of this project, still runningin
December 2010, can be found at
www.journals.cambridge.org/urbanicons
3 This special issue of HAR also includes, amongothers, a short
manifesto-like text from the 1940s byGiedion, the artist Leger and
the architect Sert, anda paper by Curtis.
4 Vale (2008) is an authoritative study ofparliamentary
buildings in capital cities all over theworld throughout the 20th
century, with manyexcellent examples of the changing nature of
sucharchitecture.
5 While limitations of space preclude further
discussion of monumentality here, see also, from aformidable
literature, the excellent case studies ofthe Vietnam Memorial Wall
(Griswold, 1986) andTiananmen Square (Wu, 1991).
6 For paths into this literature, see the multi-volume
Encyclopedia of Globalization (Ritzer,2012).
7 The global economic crisis that began in 2007 hitarchitect and
architectdeveloper firms hard, withmany reports of iconic projects
being delayed orabandoned, prompting a debate on Does therecession
mean the end of the icon? at the Hay(England) Festival in May 2009.
By 2010 theindustry appeared to be recovering slowly and thecurrent
worlds tallest buildingthe Burj Khalifatower in Dubaidespite a
malfunctioning elevatorto the observation deck, was instantly
dubbediconic.
8 See Sklair (2005, 2006b). The findings from theseinterviews
will be fully analysed in a forthcomingbook, to be entitled The
Architecture ofGlobalization.
9 All websites cited were searched between 1February and 30 June
2009.
10 As noted in Table 2, there is a similar claim inSOMs website:
SOMs Seventy Years of IconicDesigns. It is no easy matter to sum up
seventy yearsof architectural practice. In Skidmore, Owings
&Merrill: SOM since 1936, architectural historianNicholas Adams
of Vassar College undertook togive an overview of the firm and its
history (www.som.com).
11 For an account of the first phase of this project byone of
the design partners that explicitly confirmsthe importance of
iconicity, see Carmona (2006).
Figure 7 Preliminary sketch for the Panama Puente de Vida Museo
by Frank Gehry(Source: www.foga.com)
SKLAIR AND GHERARDI: ICONIC ARCHITECTURE 71
Dow
nloa
ded
by [U
me U
nivers
ity L
ibrary
] at 0
6:51 1
9 July
2015
-
12 The Pudong district of Shanghai has several self-proclaimed
iconic buildings, for example, Designedby HOK, the 41-story,
800,000 square-foot officetower awaits final approval from the City
Councilbefore taking shape as the citys tallest and most
iconicstructure (www.hok.com); The 12-story United GulfBank
building [by SOM] is one of the regions mosticonic corporate
edifices (www.som.com).
13 This occurs even without the building necessarilybeing the
symbol of an event that in some wayinvolves the territory in which
it is promoted, aswould be the case of, for example, a stadium
builtfor the Olympic Games or the World Cup.
14 In this regard, it is significant to note the anecdote
offoreigners visiting London, who, referring to theSwiss Re
building (Fosters Gherkin), ask how manythere are in the city.
15 For a lively account of the ongoing competitionsurrounding
the Tallest Building in the World, seeKing (2004, chap. 1).
16 For example: Aedas created an iconic building[R&F Centre
Guangzhou] that is commerciallyefficient, elegant and timeless
(www.aedas.com).
17 Iconicity can refer to architects of the past, not just ofthe
present, for example, HOK International hasrevealed new images of
its London Docklands-basedChurchill Place development, inspired by
iconicFinnish Modernist Alvar Aalto (www.hok.com).
18 Sklair (forthcoming) identifies the four mostimportant
contemporary global starchitects asNorman Foster, Frank Gehry, Zaha
Hadid and RemKoolhaas. See also, McNeill (2009).
19 Online searches have been carried out for everynewspaper
website in the sample. The option chosenwas articles/full text/all
categories and the searchterms were: name of the firm +
architecture.
20 In rhetoric, however, the architect serves thecommon good,
and is therefore socially committed(compare the discussions of
McNeill, 2009 andSaint, 1983). This is in contrast to the figure of
theartistic genius, portrayed in romantic literature,attributed
nowadays to internationally famouspainters and sculptors, see
Gherardi (2010).
21 The Foster website also contrasts this idea through
itsiconicity communication strategy. In its websiteicon/iconic
appear also in quotations from otherfirms that are reported (for
example, in the Newssection), while in the companys own
descriptions itmore frequently uses the term landmark to
describeits buildings. With the exception of Aedas, whichmakes a
distinction between icon and landmarkon its website, the other
companies in the BD Top 10appear to use the two terms as
synonyms.
22 We dont positively encourage the star architectapproach.
Instead, we like a number of leaders intheir field to be
collaborating in the design process(Chris Johnson, managing
principal of Gensler,quoted in Gibson, 2008, p. 6).
References
Campanella, T. (2008) Concrete Dragon: Chinas UrbanRevolution
and What it Means for the World.New York: Princeton Architectural
Press.
Carmona, M. (2006) Designing mega-projects in HongKong:
reflections from an academic accomplice,Journal of Urban Design
11(1), pp. 105124.
Curtis, W. (1996) Modern Architecture since 1900, 3rdedn.
London: Phaidon.
Ethington, P.J. and Schwartz, V.R. (2006) Introduction: anatlas
of the urban icons project, Urban History 33,pp. 519.
Ewen, S. (1996) PR: A Social History of Spin. New York:Basic
Books.
Gherardi, L. (2010) La mobilite ambigue. Espace, temps etpouvoir
aux sommets de la societe contemporaine.Saarbrucken: Editions
Universitaires Europeennes.
Gibson, G. (2008) Not everyones a starchitect, in BD2008 World
Architecture 100, pp. 611. London:Building Design.
Giedion, S. (1984) The need for a new monumentality,Harvard
Architecture Review IV, pp. 5261.
Griswold, C. (1986) The Vietnam veterans memorial andthe
Washington mall: philosophical thoughts on politi-cal iconography,
Critical Inquiry 12(4), pp. 688719.
Jencks, C. (2005) The Iconic Building: The Power of theEnigma.
London: Frances Lincoln.
King, A. (2004) Spaces of Global Culture. London:Routledge.
Kaika, M. (2010) Architecture and crisis: re-inventing theicon,
re-imag(in)ing London and re-branding thecity, Transactions of the
Institute of British Geogra-phers 35(4), pp. 45374.
Kaika, M. and Thielen, K., eds (2006) Iconic building andurban
design [Special issue], City 10(1).
McNeill, D. (2009) The Global Architect: Firms, Fame andUrban
Form. New York and London: Routledge.
Miles, S. (2005) Our Tyne: iconic regeneration and
therevitalisation of identity in NewcastleGateshead,Urban Studies
42(56), pp. 913926.
Phaidon (2005) Atlas of Contemporary World Architec-ture, travel
edn. London and New York: Phaidon.
Ponzini, D. and Nastasi, M. (2011) Starchitecture: Scenes,Actors
and Spectacles in Contemporary Cities. Turin:Allemandi &
Co.
Ritzer, G. general ed. (2012) Encyclopedia of Globali-zation.
Oxford: Blackwell.
Saint, A. (1983) The Image of the Architect. New Haven,CT: Yale
University Press.
Sklair, L. (2002) Globalization: Capitalism and itsAlternatives.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sklair, L. (2005) The transnational capitalist class
andcontemporary architecture in globalizing cities,International
Journal of Urban and Regional Research29(3), pp. 485500.
Sklair, L. (2006a) Do cities need architectural icons?
[Reviewarticle], Urban Studies 43(10), pp. 18991907.
72 CITY VOL. 16, NOS. 12
Dow
nloa
ded
by [U
me U
nivers
ity L
ibrary
] at 0
6:51 1
9 July
2015
-
Sklair, L. (2006b) Iconic architecture and capitalist
glo-balization, City 10(1), pp. 2147.
Sklair, L. (2010) Iconic architecture and the culture-ideology
of consumerism, Theory, Culture & Society27(5), pp. 135159.
Sklair, L. (forthcoming) Global starchitects and
iconicarchitecture in the city of capitalist globalization, inM.
Gravari-Barbas (ed.) Le`re de la starchitecture?Larchitecte global,
larchitecture iconique et lespaceurbain.
Smith, A. (2007) Monumentality in capital cities and
itsimplications for tourism marketing: the case ofBarcelona,
Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing22(34), pp. 7993.
Vale, L. (2008) Architecture, Power, and National Identity,2nd
edn. London: Routledge.
Wu Hung (1991) Tiananmen Square: a political history
ofmonuments, Representations 35, pp. 84117.
Leslie Sklair is Professor Emeritus of Sociologyat LSE. Email:
[email protected]
LauraGherardi is Associate Researcher in Soci-ology at UC Milan.
Email: [email protected]
SKLAIR AND GHERARDI: ICONIC ARCHITECTURE 73
Dow
nloa
ded
by [U
me U
nivers
ity L
ibrary
] at 0
6:51 1
9 July
2015