Iconic Architecture contribution to Publicizing Cities

Iconic Architecture contribution to Publicizing Cities
Ahmed Mahmoud, MU 2012/2014

1. INTRODUCTION

Architecture is an old industry since the inception of creation, started as a basic need for a shelter and flourished with human development throughout the ages. It is one of the most influencing professions in our global society. It guides the way our built environment is planned, designed, used and maintained. Architecture brings together the arts, ecology, sciences and technology. Architecture is a key factor in all aspects of our life, starting from the shelter (houses), worship houses, hospitals, schools, universities, factories, companies, streets, public spaces, etc., thus we can hardly find a space that is excluded from the architectural practice.

Globalization, technology, time and space compression, mobility and media promote Architecture and support it with more dimensions than just a building function, and give advantage for architects to elaborate unprecedented designs, which contributes to publicizing the cities by having a better image, be more attractive and recognized as; Touristic destination, Cultural hub, business district, etc. In that sense cities develop strategies and policies to be globally recognized and get the advantages of iconic architecture and iconic architects, in which media plays a big role to make stars of them as a part of the development strategy. A good example of iconic buildings that were attributed to publicizing cities: Opera Sydney designed by JørnUtzon, Guggenheim museum of Bilbao designed by Frank Gehry, and Swiss Re tower in London designed by Norman Foster, etc.

This research paper aims at exploring how Iconic Architecture can contribute to publicizing the cities in a way that helps creating identifiable image. This contribution is explored within the framework of theory of globalization and capitalism with various explainer examples. In addition, this paper reveals and sheds light on the debates about how can Iconic architecture play an intermediate role between pro-development (who are mainly Politicians, investors and party of

Architects) from one side and leading conservation bodies from the other side. This issue will be studied through analyzing the city of London as a case study. Moreover, a second case study will be conducted to study the effect of iconic architecture on the urban heritage in Singapore, and analyze the way Politicians shifted their policies from adopting contemporary architecture to inhering the heritage one.

Methodology: This paper will discuss the topic from five themes: The first part of the literature discusses the definition of iconic architecture and discusses how it contributes to formalizing the identity of the city. The Second part shows how iconic architecture is affected and reformed by globalization. Third, the research narrows down to talk about the transnational capitalist class that played a major role in the formation of contemporary iconic architecture, and how do they benefit from it. Fourth, in the highlight of the previous three parts the research will discuss how cities are publicized by iconic architecture. The last portion will discuss some debates concerning iconic architecture through two case studies, one in the city of London and the other in Singapore.

2. Iconic Architecture and City Identity.

Iconic Architecture creates an image of the cities in a way that makes it distinct and identifiable from others. Therefore a side of city identity is influenced by its iconic architecture. In order to understand the relationship between city identity and iconic architecture, it is important to understand some relevant definitions;

the Iconic Architecture is defined as follows; the building that is famous inside the profession, between Architects, Planners, Engineers, etc. and it could extend to be famous for the Public, as it have special aesthetic or symbolic or historical values attached to them. “Icons are famous not simply for being famous, as is the case of various forms of celebrity, but famous for processing specific symbolic/aesthetic qualities, qualities that are the subject of considerable debate within the recent rise of blogosphere, debate to which the general public actively contributes”(Sklair, 2010: 136). The iconic architecture could extend to have more values than the three aforementioned ones. A good example is a building which is famous for its function such as the

High Dam in Egypt, or a building that is famous for its Ethical values such as the Architecture of the poor “El Gorna Village” in Egypt. There are many values that Architecture could be Iconic for although it may not take the same priority for people and media, but the study in this article will focus on the three values; aesthetic, symbolic and historical.

Moving to City Identity which could be defined as; generally Identity could be defined as “the extent to which a person can be recognize or recall a place as being distinct from other places” (Lynch, 1960as cited in Riza 2011: 294). The city being distinct and having recognized identity can be inherited by many factors; Identifiable image as Dubai in UAE, Mega events as Cannes in France, Nature as Maldives islands, etc. but the article is focusing on city identity through identifiable image created by iconic architecture. Each city has a unique identity through creating a flow of images on people’s minds through the three values; aesthetic, symbolic and historical. For example; Dubai, this city has an attached image of the tallest man-made structure in the world, burj Khalyfa. New York is usually attached to skyscrapers as the twin towers, even though they are not there anymore, but they are still creating and image and memory for the city.

Iconic Architecture has a direct relation with City Identity as it is a representation for History, Culture, Economic, Political, and Social states of the city. Through these representations that are delivered through the identifiable image, cities are drawn on the global map and become more recognized. The below pictures shows good examples for iconic architecture:

1 2 3

Iconic Architecture contribution to Publicizing Cities (Ahmed Mahmoud, MU 2012/2014)

It is easy for any person to identify those images and know where they are located where each image gives a reflection of the city. First picture is Burj el Arab in Dubai which holds aesthetical value that may shows the financial and luxurious level of UAE, second picture is Eiffel tower in Paris which may reflect the Parisian classical history, third is Guggenheim museum in Bilbao that reflects a cultural development of the city, fourth is the Petronas towers in Kuala Lumpur that may reflect the economic development, finally the fifth picture which is the white house in Washington which can be a symbol of democracy. These buildings are publicly known because of their symbolic, aesthetic, historical values which make the buildings iconic and become a part of the city identity.

The History of Architecture is very rich and contains a lot of iconic buildings, but the scope of study in this article will be concerned with the contemporary iconic architecture after Globalization, which will direct the discussion into understanding what globalization is and how it affects iconic architecture.

2. Iconic Architecture and Globalization:

Globalization affects contemporary iconic architecture, as before it was reflecting national or regional culture and supports its ideologies, now it changes and moves to a global level and more or less becomes reflecting transnational cultures and ideologies. The global electronic revolution and high technology develop iconic architecture in a way that was not possible before, cities

urban morphology changes with dozens of high-tech iconic buildings. But in order to understand these changes and effects it is important to understand first the meaning of globalization.

Globalization can be defined as; “the closer integration of the countries and peoples of the world...brought about by the enormous reduction of costs of transportation and communication, and the breaking down of artificial barriers to the flows of goods, services, capital, knowledge, and people across borders.” (Joseph Stglitz, 2002: 9). According to Sklair (2010) globalization can be divided into; Generic globalization, capitalist globalization and (non-capitalist) globalization. Starting with Generic globalization it could be defined into four criteria; the electronic revolution, post colonialism, the creation of transnational social space and new forms of cosmopolitanism. And these forms of generic globalization are just theoretical abstracts which doesn’t take place in reality “Generic globalization is an abstract framework for analysis, it is not actually existing globalization” (Sklair, 2010: 136) except the electronic revolution which played a key role in globalization and the flourish of iconic architecture. Capitalist globalization is in an institutional form, which is responsible for the transnational economic practices, and guides the transnational political practices and decisions. Thus, affects the society culture and ideologies and creates the cultural ideology of consumerism, which subsequently affects iconic architecture.

Iconic Architecture in the pre-globalization era was either a religious or cultural or state building, as it was the leading force at that time, and the reflection of people believes and ideologies. The iconic buildings change with time, starting from the ancient cultures as in the Greek civilization for example; the iconic buildings were represented through the construction of the temples, theatres and libraries. In the middle age in the Islamic civilization the Mosque, schools and “sabeel” (a place for public to drink fresh water) were a good example of iconic architecture. In the nineteenth and early twentieth century’s the State buildings, the Cathedral and cultural buildings were the iconic buildings. But after globalization which is roughly after 1950, the iconic architecture mostly shifts towards commercial and high corporate buildings. Commercialism sprawls everywhere rendering everything into a commodity form “shopping has become the dominant mode of contemporary public life” (Goss, 1993: 18 as cited in Sklair 2010: 142).

Capitalism globalization is the engine of transforming everything to a commercial product according to Sklair in 2010, and the iconic architecture Plays role with commercialism, as the visual aspects and the recognition of the building outline that catches the eyes helps in advertising the products inside. Nevertheless, commercialization of buildings and public spaces extends to the sports buildings, despite its physical presence and the social role of gathering people of the same interest together in a public space, it is now a part of “Stadium tourism” so it has to be more and more iconic. For example; Olympic stadium in Munich is the second most touristic attraction and the home of camp of the football club in Barcelona records higher tourism than Picasso museum. Cultural buildings transform and add to its cultural value a touristic attraction value, hence it becomes a part of the major development of cities as the case in Bilbao and Guggenheim museum and it reaches a point that a lot of cities tends to simulate what is called a Bilbao effect. In addition to the case of Opera Sydney that becomes a national symbol of the city and one of the world heritage buildings list and these factors contributes to increasing its commercialization. Another case is Alexandria library where it becomes a very important commercialized touristic attraction to the extent that citizens and tourists pay money just to enter such a unique iconic building. This shows how iconic buildings become more important than the art or the sport or the function inside the buildings itself, most of these buildings now have commercial functions “Most of new museums today have larger shops and greater variety of art and architecture-related merchandise and spaces for refreshment than was the case 50 years ago”(Zukin, 1995 as cited in Sklair 2010: 146). Capitalism tends to add in any space or building commercial function and get advantage from it, and it extends beyond the mentioned examples to schools, universities, airports, public spaces and streets even some places of worship. It becomes a way of hegemonic control which can be described as “colonization of public space”(Sklair, 2010: 149). All the cases mentioned of transformation of cultural, sports, etc. buildings is just a part of a system of commercialization every single building and space, using the tool of Iconicity and the identifiable image of the buildings.

Culture changes with the new forms of globalization and changes the iconic Architecture reflections and values, which according to Jencks (2006) it reaches a kind of “Spiritual inflation” that people become not believing in radical values. “Today anything can be an icon”(Jencks, 2006: 4) as he mentions that when people faith and believing in God stops, they don’t believe in nothing, and they could be easily directed and forced to believe in anything. So Icons do not hold

any genuine valuable meaning, and Jencks describes them as spots on skin that needs a doctor to cure them, as long as people are now believe and give faith to commercialization, money and get satisfied, self-steamed in possessing and shopping. Thus, it is icons with no clear iconography, which he called “enigmatic signifier”. Due to this culture change and these new enigmatic signifiers that doesn’t hold a depth in its philosophy or meaning, hierarchy and deference in iconic buildings is in erosion. “Today social hierarchies are suspected and perceived to rely only on power and class,the value and symbolism that used to justify an integrated culture are no longer currency”(Jencks, 2006: 12). As architecture is a reflection of culture, the hierarchy of buildings changed with the change of social hierarchy, which affects national identity gained through history and time. Causing from the other side declination of monuments, as the cultural values changes, the focus becomes on the new iconic commercialized buildings, as the case of declining of urban heritage and loosing national identity in Singapore.

Another, significant aspect of globalization is a practical side of it that is dealing with the electronic revolution, building materials, construction technology and mobility. The global electronic revolution is one of the most important elements that make a revolution in Architecture, in a way that makes Architects able to create unprecedented buildings. The computer hardware and software contributes a lot in solving complicated architecture and structural logarithmic equations and makes it easier to see it before construction, to simulate the effect of natural environment like sunlight, heat and winds on buildings, and the relation between the new building and the surrounding built environment as well, leading to more contrived designs and sculptural forms. All this kinds of computer aid software helps in creating a lot of designs in shorter time, with a lot of varieties.

The technology of construction and materials opens the way to architects for more innovative futuristic designs. As before in general concrete or natural stones, timber, masonry were used in construction, and the construction was in a conventional way. In the globalization era and with the electronic revolution, a lot of new materials are created, to respond to the new complicated designs delivered by architects, which develops with the development of the construction technology. Form this iconic architecture, the skyscraper BurjKhalyfain UAE which rise more than 800 m to the sky which was impossible before, Guggenheim museum in Bilbao with the new cladding materials.

Iconic Architecture contribution to Publicizing Cities (Ahmed Mahmoud, MU 2012/2014)

The modern transportation systems, flow of images and countries with opened borders facilitate the mobility of Architects and the flow of Architectural concepts and technologies, which elaborates new and innovative ideas forming the new morphology of iconic architecture all over the world. As now a lot of Architects like Norman Foster, Zaha Hadid, Frank Gehry, etc. presence is everywhere in the world creating the contemporary iconic architecture.

The effect of globalization on iconic architecture and all the changes due to capitalism, culture, electronic revelation, construction technology is managed and driven by a dominating force which is the transnational capitalist class. It is important after discussing the iconic architecture and the city identity, moving to the globalization and its effect on iconic architecture, to understand the managing force of all this process in order to understand why they are interested in creating the iconic architecture, how and why they make use of it to publicize the cities.

3. Iconic Architecture and Transnational Capitalist Class:

The transformation of culture, spiritual inflation, the commercialization process and the changes in the hierarchy of Iconic buildings are according to Sklair (2001) driven by a Transnational Capitalist Class, which is managing the transformation process and getting advantage of it to its own interest. They are conceptualized into four fractions; the class that owns and/or control the major transnational corporations and their local affiliates (corporate fraction), Politicians and bureaucrats (state fraction), International Professionals (technical fraction), the Media and Merchants (consumerist fraction).

Corporate fraction is where a huge capital of business and money revolve through the globe. And they are one of the main customers for iconic architecture, in order to show their power and financial capital. The corporate fraction could be an insurance company, bank, real estate, electronic products companies, fashion brand etc. and they hold a lot of contemporary iconic architecture, mainly in the business district or the center of every global city.

State fraction of politicians and bureaucrats that have the administrative power, control and manage the regulations and decide what to be built and what is not. These politicians are searching for the attraction in their cities from two sides; the economic capital and the touristic

attractions. They transfer, simulate and develop policies to draw their cities on the map, so they are another customer for the iconic architecture to show power and competence with Global cities.

Technical fraction of global architects or as called “Star Architects” who own and control the major international architecture firms are assigned by the corporate and state fractions to publicize the cities of advanced capitalism. Their role is well described according to Mcneill; “the intensification of travelling images, where iconic landscape and buildings provide the backdrop for satellite news broadcasts, or adorn magazine covers, or are touched by countless hands in the journey of million postcards, mean that Bilbao Guggenheim or Sydney Opera House are now instantly recognizable forms, mediated in multiple ways. As Sudjic notes, the authors of these iconic buildings- Hadid, Piano, Meier, Khollas, Gehry, Foster, Calatrava, among others – are sought out to rebrand, reposition, or otherwise publicize the cities of advanced capitalism” (Mcneill, 2005: 501, 502). In order to publicize the cities it is important to publicize the Architects, although the process needs more than just an architect, it is a multidisciplinary professions work in terms of technical fraction, but the need at the end is to have a super star to use his name as a Brand.

Consumerist fraction is the sector that serves the corporate, state and technical fractions, where the commercialism and media is controlled and accessed to promote the transnational practices. The mass media especially plays a big role in advertising the contemporary iconic buildings and creating the star architects, “Global society and its largest corporations, those commissioning the expensive landmark, in turn forces architecture to be mediated by the mass media” (Charles Jencks, 2006: 8). So the iconic buildings to be mediated and know globally, in order to advertise for the company or the city, it needs a focus from the mass media on the building and the architect who designed it.

The transnational capitalist class according to Sklair has a great role in the formation of contemporary iconic architecture, where each fraction is supporting the other to develop the image of the global cities. State fraction assigns technical with the support of the consumerist fraction to publicize the city in order to attract corporates. From the other side the corporate fraction assign the technical one with the support of the mass media in order to publicize itself as

a strong transnational capital. At the end all the ways leads to create more iconic architecture that contributes to publicizing the cities.

4. Iconic Architecture and publicizing the cities

Now it is clear how iconic architecture has an effect on city identity and its representation of History, Culture, Economic, Political, Social states. Also what is the definition of globalization and its classifications, and how it affects and forms contemporary iconic architecture, and who are the transnational capitalist class and their interest and role in iconicity and branding of the cities. It is clear that publicizing a city needs a large scale, multidisciplinary work, and has a lot of aspects to be regarded. It needs integration in all the levels between the transnational capitalist class fractions. But what gives advantage to iconic architecture is that it is a very active tool as it is a representation of power and wealth of cities from one side and attractive touristic destination from the other side, and could be easy mediated through the mass media. Thus the state fraction of Politicians in most of the cities becomes seeking for the “wow factor” in architecture that will publicize the city. All global cities such as New York, London, Paris, Frankfurt, Tokyo, etc. have a punch of iconic architecture, and it becomes a way for the cities that aim to become a part of the transnational global capitals possess a number of iconic buildings as well. On the other hand, city publicizing process may has a lot of negative side effects, as mentioned in the effect of capitalist globalization on the culture, tradition and values, in addition to the effect on the poor and low class citizens of the cities that are crashed under this development process, especially in rising and developing countries as Istanbul, Cairo, etc. So the following case studies will explain the rising debate on the iconic architecture between the developers of the transnational capitalist class, and the conservative team of the historians, critiques and some architects in two different cases; first the case is London city and the second case is Singapore.

4.1. Case studies; London City

“After the revolt against the lumpish high rises of the 1970s, in most European cities both architectural and public sentiment determined that nothing else should be allowed to break

through a strict but unstated height limit. Then, equally suddenly, the received wisdom was turned on its head. Building tall became an obsession for architects not just in Asia and America, but in Europe too.” (Sudjic 2005: 360 as cited in Charney 2007: 195). This quote reflects the perception of iconic buildings in London, as it will be high rise buildings, and as Sudjic mentions that it was rejected by architectural and public sector, but the need for iconic skyscrapers rises and gains a lot of importance. As the plan for London 2015 is to have 18 to 20 skyscrapers in the center of the city, it was held by the mayor Ken Livingstone (state fraction) and encouraged by pro-development borough (corporate fraction) in the mid of 2000, which faces a lot of concerns from the leading conservation bodies, who are the English Heritage and commission for Architecture and the built environment.

London skyline was relatively maintained till 1960 and that’s because of the high restrictions that aspires the visual dominance of the Cathedral and the state buildings, but with time this situation starts to change by having towers away from the center at the west of London till the end of 1970, which somehow changes the city skyline. By 1980 the private sector (corporate fraction) gets more involved and new tall one Canada square building realized in 1991, which still a slow and small progress towards having skyscrapers in the center of the city. The start of the 21 century comes with a future development urban plan for the city, and the first elected mayor Ken Livingstone was in charge and was so keen about tall buildings in the center of the city, especially as they serve the global city functions. The mayor claimed “I have no intentions to recreate Manhattan here; I want London to flourish as London – a unique exciting and truly global city . . . London must continue to grow and maintain its global preeminence in Europe. London must continue to reach for the skies.” (Mayor of London 2001, 3–4 as cited in Charney 2007: 198). So the Mayor strategy is to support London with a number of iconic skyscrapers in order to refine the city image and to maintain its rank with the global cities. In order to achieve his aspirations for London he needs high financial resources which will not be available unless he adopts a strong pro-business attitude, which now completes two parts of the transnational capitalist class, the state and corporate fractions. And the Mayor justifies his strategy and aspirations by clarifying two advantages. First is that London has a scarce land space and it is important to increase the opportunity for development so the idea of having towers is function wise very sufficient. Second is that in order to attract more corporate, and to attain a global

position it is important to provide London with more fine office spaces in prestigious fine buildings.

Livingstone’s strategy faced a lot of criticism from the conservative group such as English Heritage, Save Britain’s heritage, Prince Charles, etc. They explicitly oppose his strategies claiming that he will destroy the English city heritage. And a sub-committee from the parliament examined whether London need tall buildings or not and they argued that there was “no evidence that any company had left London or refused to come to London because of a shortage of tall buildings’ and ‘tall buildings are more about power, prestige, status, and aesthetics” (House of Commons 2002, 5,26as cited in Charney 2007: 198). From the other side a property firm assigned researchers from LSE cities program to study several cities which are Berlin, Frankfurt, New York, Paris and London, and they supported a review that tall buildings in London Lake the quality in design. In addition to another international design consultancy (DEGW) that prepared a report and confirms that London needs a number of high design quality tall buildings. After those reports the debate shifts to the assessment of design quality and the sub-committee from the parliament finally concluded; “if they (tall buildings) are to enhance the skyline it is important that they are well designed” (House of Commons 2002, 5,26as cited in Charney 2007: 199).

Putting the architecture on focus is the objective that will help in the development process. “Good design is central to all objectives of this plan [London Plan]. It is a tool for helping to accommodate London’s growth within its boundaries. Particularly given its strong growth, very high standards of design are needed to make London a better city to live in and one which is more attractive and green. There is a strong link between good design and the attraction to economic investors to help create a prosperous city.” (Mayor of London 2004a, 173as cited in Charney 2007: 199). The Mayor words shows how do Architecture contributes in publicizing the city, and the identifiable image is a source of attraction. He created an Architecture and Urbanism unit, assigning Lord Richard Rogers to be the chief advisor of this unit (technical fraction), so that it could support the delivery of world-class architecture in the sustainable urban development plan of London city.

Iconic Architecture contribution to Publicizing Cities (Ahmed Mahmoud, MU 2012/2014)

Global Architects (technical fraction) are strongly assigned from the corporate to get advantage of their signature. One of the new iconic towers is the “Gherkin” or the Swiss re tower, which won the Stirling prize in 2004 that is the highest award of the Royal Institute of British Architects, and Jenkins(2006) says that it scores the most visited on London’s open houses list. Other towers are created in London designed by star architects, as the “Helter-Skelter” by Kohn Pedersen, “Cheese Grater” by Richard Rogers and the “Walkie Talkie” by Rafael Vinoly. The consumerist fraction created the towers nicknames through the marketing plan, to create memorable identities and to be distinguished through the mass media.

The case study of London city shows how iconic architecture contributes in publicizing the city although some of this buildings does not built yet, but the vision and aspirations predicted from iconic architecture is clear. As the mayor’s objective is to develop the city and maintain a global preeminence, he assigned a number of star architects with the support of capitalist class to construct a number of iconic skyscrapers in the city center. He sets a committee for the quality of design because the quality of the images is a part of the city identity and makes it more attractive for more corporate and tourism. Nevertheless, it discusses one of the strongest debates around Iconic architecture and its role in contributing to city publicizing from side and the negative effect on values history and culture from the other side, and how the two bodies reached an intermediate solution. It is interesting to end the case study by the English heritage declaration on a new tower designed by Renzo Piano; “we feel a bit conflicted opposing something so wonderful”(Wallace 2003 as cited in Charney 2007: 202).

4.2. Case studies; Singapore

This case study has a different approach, as it discusses the identity vanishing through the excessive contemporary Architecture and globalization that affects Urban Heritage of Singapore, and causes losses in touristic attraction. Singapore has a different strategy to promote its identity through preserving its culture Landscape that elaborates the civic pride, through a development plan on the cultural, economic and social aspects of city. It will be a brief explanation in this case study, as it is more urban oriented and the article is concerned with iconic architecture, but it is important to show that contemporary architecture orientation policies to publicize the cities, may be a double edged weapon and have adverse effects.

Iconic Architecture contribution to Publicizing Cities (Ahmed Mahmoud, MU 2012/2014)

Singapore was a British colonial trading port and at that time it had a lot of colonial buildings such as state, commercial, houses and especially the shop houses which combine working, housing and commercial functions in the same small building. With the rising of Singapore and the transfer from old colonial trading to modernized city, and the aspirations to become a world class city, a lot of the old and historical buildings was destroyed to be replaced by modern contemporary skyscrapers. “Its oldest boy’s school, Raffles institution (built in 1837-41), for example, was bulldozed and on its site now stands Singapore’s tallest hotel and mega-shopping mall, Raffles city (1986)”(Yuen 2005: 2). The government (state fraction) fostered an urban conservation plan to first strengthen the national identity; according to Singapore’s prime minister in 1988 he mentions that they are a part of Asian civilization and that each community should be proud of his cultural heritage and traditions. And the second point is to rise the economy, as heritage tourism is one of the most important national income and according to Sir Peter Hall, in a research of cultural economy of cities he says that culture can replace factories and warehouses in terms of economy besides the creation of the urban image, “heritage conservation opens a new perspective for Singapore’s economy” (Sir Peter Hallas cited in Yuen 2005: 3). Yuen mentions that the development plan focuses on balancing between the new developments for Singapore as a modern business city, and the need to conserve its heritage. The development processes will not limited at the transnational capitalist class but it will include all the society, public and private sectors in a participatory community-based development as the city identity and heritage conservation is a national concern. According to Singapore’s minister for national development “All of us who have a stake here ought to have a say in how we want this place to develop. The more we are involved in the planning, then the more aware we are of the constraints we face and the trade-offs we need to make this little red dot [Singapore] livable and comfortable.” (The Straits Times, 21 Jul 2001 as cited in Yuen 2005: 5).

The case of Singapore shows that contemporary iconic architecture can lead to an adverse effect instead of publicizing the city, if it is not designed and elaborated in harmony with the national culture and heritage. So the development and the rise of contemporary architecture in order to publicize the city should be balanced with the conservation of the city heritage to have a genuine identity that fits to the modern needs. In order to have a sustainable development process, it must involve the society and not make it exclusive for a certain class as the transnational capitalist class for example, as the citizens are a part of the city identity.

Iconic Architecture contribution to Publicizing Cities (Ahmed Mahmoud, MU 2012/2014)

5. Conclusion

This article explores the role of contemporary iconic architecture in publicizing global cities. It is concluded that; First, the term iconic architecture is determined according to aesthetic or/and symbolic value which reflects the cultural value for a certain country or a city. Iconic architecture then becomes significant for this city and makes it distinctive from others. Many examples are given such as the Opera house in Sydney, Guggenheim museum in Bilbao, Swiss Re tower in London, etc. The signified city identity makes it more attractive for tourists and international corporate in a way that raises the economic and social value of the citizens. Moreover it increases the quality of life in terms of urban development and national income, in addition to the representation of power and economic capital which strengthen the city political situation.

Second, globalizations with its three types; generic, capitalist and non-capitalist strongly affects the iconic architecture by changing its values and orientation to commercialization due to the capitalism. It reaches every building from the worship house, schools, stadiums, museums, etc. to the mall.

Third the interest of transnational capitalist class with its four fractions; the corporate, state, technical and consumerist fractions. As the corporate and the state are interested in creating an identifiable image for their corporate and cities, so they assign the architects in the technical fraction especially star architects and use their names as a brand to publicize their buildings, while the mass media (the consumerist fraction) supports the other three fractions in the publicizing process.

Fourth, is that iconic architecture do really contributes in publicizing cities. The case study of London city confirms the important role of iconic architecture in publicizing the cities, showing their empowerment, making them attractive, and showing how the transnational capitalist class with all its fractions is keen about the promotion of this role with all their power. While the case study of Singapore makes us rethink about the role of contemporary iconic architecture that may negatively affect the urban heritage, and makes the city less attractive and with no real identity, which affects its attraction and economic improvement.

Iconic Architecture contribution to Publicizing Cities (Ahmed Mahmoud, MU 2012/2014)

Finally Architecture is culture, and since we are in a globalization era, it is mostly the globe culture with scarce changes from city to city and from country to another. This is the heritage that we will leave for the following generations, so it is our duty to deliver it in the best form with the best values, because at the end it will publicize our generation.

References

Sklair, Leislie (2010) Iconic Architecture and the Culture-ideology of Consumerism

Sklair, Leislie (2005) The Transnational Capitalist Class and the Contemporary Architecture in the Globalizing Cities

Jencks, Charles (2006) The Iconic building is here to stay

Mcneill, Donald (2005) In search of Global Architect: the case of Norman Foster (and Partners)

Charney, Igal (2007) The Politics of design: architecture, tall buildings and the skyline of central London

Riza.Muge (2011) City Branding and Identity

Yuen, Belinda (2005) Strengthen Urban Heritage in Singapore: Building Economic Competitiveness and Civic Identity

Joseph Stiglitz (2002) Globalization and its Discontents