Iconic architecture as a hegemonic project of the transnational capitalist class

Abstract

Identifying the drivers of actually existing capitalist globalization as the transnational capitalist class, this paper suggests that theory and research on its agents and institutions could help us to explain how the dominant forms of contemporary iconic architecture arise and how they serve the interests of globalizing capitalists. We define iconic architecture in terms of buildings and/or spaces that are famous, and that have distinctive symbolic and aesthetic significance. The historical context of the research is the thesis that the production and 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, whereas the dominant forms of architectural iconicity in the global era are increasingly driven by those who own and control the corporate sector. The argument is illustrated with reference to debates around the politics of monumentality in architecture; the relationship between iconic architecture and capitalist globalization; and an explanation of why these debates are being overtaken by critical and uncritical conceptions of architectural iconicity derived from an analysis of the use of iconicity and similar terms in the discourses of major architecture and architect–developer firms and mass media presentations of their work.

Keywords:

• iconic architecture
• transnational capitalist class
• starchitects

View correction statement:

Erratum

Notes

For a review of Jencks (2005) and two other contributions to the debate, see Sklair (2006a).

The entertaining website of this project, still running in December 2010, can be found at www.journals.cambridge.org/urbanicons

This special issue of HAR also includes, among others, a short manifesto-like text from the 1940s by Giedion, the artist Léger and the architect Sert, and a paper by Curtis.

Vale (2008) is an authoritative study of parliamentary buildings in capital cities all over the world throughout the 20th century, with many excellent examples of the changing nature of such architecture.

While limitations of space preclude further discussion of monumentality here, see also, from a formidable literature, the excellent case studies of the Vietnam Memorial Wall (Griswold, 1986) and Tiananmen Square (Wu, 1991).

For paths into this literature, see the multi-volume Encyclopedia of Globalization (Ritzer, 2012).

The global economic crisis that began in 2007 hit architect and architect–developer firms hard, with many reports of iconic projects being delayed or abandoned, prompting a debate on ‘Does the recession mean the end of the icon?’ at the Hay (England) Festival in May 2009. By 2010 the industry appeared to be recovering slowly and the current ‘world's tallest building’—the Burj Khalifa tower in Dubai—despite a malfunctioning elevator to the observation deck, was instantly dubbed iconic.

See Sklair (2005, 2006b). The findings from these interviews will be fully analysed in a forthcoming book, to be entitled ‘The Architecture of Globalization’.

All websites cited were searched between 1 February and 30 June 2009.

As noted in Table 2, there is a similar claim in SOM's website: ‘SOM's Seventy Years of Iconic Designs. It is no easy matter to sum up seventy years of architectural practice. In “Skidmore, Owings & Merrill: SOM since 1936”, architectural historian Nicholas Adams of Vassar College undertook to give an overview of the firm and its history’ (www.som.com).

For an account of the first phase of this project by one of the design partners that explicitly confirms the importance of iconicity, see Carmona (2006).

The Pudong district of Shanghai has several self-proclaimed iconic buildings, for example, ‘Designed by HOK, the 41-story, 800,000 square-foot office tower awaits final approval from the City Council before taking shape as the city's tallest and most iconic structure’ (www.hok.com); ‘The 12-story United Gulf Bank building [by SOM] is one of the region's most iconic corporate edifices’ (www.som.com).

This occurs even without the building necessarily being the symbol of an event that in some way involves the territory in which it is promoted, as would be the case of, for example, a stadium built for the Olympic Games or the World Cup.

In this regard, it is significant to note the anecdote of foreigners visiting London, who, referring to the Swiss Re building (Foster's Gherkin), ask how many there are in the city.

For a lively account of the ongoing competition surrounding the ‘Tallest Building in the World’, see King (2004, chap. 1).

For example: ‘Aedas created an iconic building [R&F Centre Guangzhou] that is commercially efficient, elegant and timeless’ (www.aedas.com).

Iconicity can refer to architects of the past, not just of the present, for example, ‘HOK International has revealed new images of its London Docklands-based Churchill Place development, inspired by iconic Finnish Modernist Alvar Aalto’ (www.hok.com).

Sklair (forthcoming) identifies the four most important contemporary global starchitects as Norman Foster, Frank Gehry, Zaha Hadid and Rem Koolhaas. See also, McNeill (2009).

Online searches have been carried out for every newspaper website in the sample. The option chosen was articles/full text/all categories and the search terms were: ‘name of the firm’ + ‘architecture’.

In rhetoric, however, the architect serves the common good, and is therefore socially committed (compare the discussions of McNeill, 2009 and Saint, 1983). This is in contrast to the figure of the artistic genius, portrayed in romantic literature, attributed nowadays to internationally famous painters and sculptors, see Gherardi (2010).

The Foster website also contrasts this idea through its iconicity communication strategy. In its website icon/iconic appear also in quotations from other firms that are reported (for example, in the ‘News’ section), while in the company's own descriptions it more frequently uses the term ‘landmark’ to describe its buildings. With the exception of Aedas, which makes a distinction between ‘icon’ and ‘landmark’ on its website, the other companies in the BD Top 10 appear to use the two terms as synonyms.

‘We don't positively encourage the star architect approach. Instead, we like a number of leaders in their field to be collaborating in the design process’ (Chris Johnson, managing principal of Gensler, quoted in Gibson, 2008, p. 6).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Leslie Sklair

Leslie Sklair is Professor Emeritus of Sociology at LSE.

Laura Gherardi

Laura Gherardi is Associate Researcher in Sociology at UC Milan. Email: [email protected]