SKLAIR Leslie (Iconic Architecture Hegemonic Project)

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.


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


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)


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)


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)


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)


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


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)


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


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.


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)


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)


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.


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]


Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

me U

nivers

ity L

ibrary

] at 0

6:51 1

9 July

2015

Documents

SKLAIR Leslie (Iconic Architecture Hegemonic Project)