Martin Skarback Prof. Richard Coyne 13 Jan 2014 Architectural Theory Object: What is the relation of the landmark building to (the identity of) society and the city? ‘’Identity is the new junk food…’’ 1 The idea of the monument has changed. As the landmark is becoming increasingly expressive it challenges the traditional architectural monument. The function of a building is 2 less important today. The population prefers pride and excitement as opposed to a purely functional space for community buildings. Anyone can download music mp3s, yet people 3 travel from far away to get their hands on the scarce tickets for the opera house La Scala. By 4 promoting a city similar to a global brand the poverty and despair are efficiently hidden. In this covert state the chosen urban tag satisfies the tourist and the investor equally by joining an ‘‘exclusive’’ global club of starchitecture. The symptom is the metamorphosis of the 5 individual from a citizen into a consumer. A global population realises the importance and 6 attraction of characteristics and urban individualism. As axiomatic as this is, it brings radical consequences. Fairly recently, architecture as a discipline has been confronted by a new society that aims to promote itself as a package comprising fame and economic growth. Traditional institutions are not as popular anymore for the production and promotion of an urban narrative. Compared to a nation, the identity of a city is more complex and subjective. When they express values and cultural issues, that is when cities become 7 successful. When culture is highlighted, a creative, dynamic and vigorous identity is S1142587 13-01-14 ARCHITECTURAL THEORY 1 Koolhaas, R. (2002) Junkspace in: Obsolescence Vol. 100, MIT Press, Cambridge, US, p.175 1 Jencks, C (2005) Iconic Building: The Power of Enigma, Frances Lincoln, London, p.7 2 Sert, J.L. et al. (1993) Nine Points On Monumentality in: J.Ockman (ed.) Architecture Culture 1943-1968 - A Documentary 3 Anthology, Rizzoli International Publications Inc., New York, p.29 Mitchell, W.J. (2002) The Revenge of Place in: Rattenbury, K. (ed.) This Is Not Architecture - Media Constructions, Routledge, 4 London, p.52 G. Evans (2006) Branding the City of Culture - The Death of City Planning? in: J. Monclus & M. Guardia (ed.), Culture, 5 Urbanism and Planning, Ashgate, Farnham, UK, p.197 Baudrillard, J. (2001) The System of Objects in: Poster, M.(ed.) Jean Baudrillard - Selected Writings, Polity Press, Cambridge,p.7 6 Evans, G. (2006) p.202 7
Transcript
Martin Skarback
Prof. Richard Coyne
13 Jan 2014 !
Architectural Theory
Object: What is the relation of the landmark building to (the identity of) society and the city?
!‘’Identity is the new junk food…’’ 1
The idea of the monument has changed. As the landmark is becoming increasingly
expressive it challenges the traditional architectural monument. The function of a building is 2
less important today. The population prefers pride and excitement as opposed to a purely
functional space for community buildings. Anyone can download music mp3s, yet people 3
travel from far away to get their hands on the scarce tickets for the opera house La Scala. By 4
promoting a city similar to a global brand the poverty and despair are efficiently hidden. In
this covert state the chosen urban tag satisfies the tourist and the investor equally by joining an
‘‘exclusive’’ global club of starchitecture. The symptom is the metamorphosis of the 5
individual from a citizen into a consumer. A global population realises the importance and 6
attraction of characteristics and urban individualism. As axiomatic as this is, it brings radical
consequences. Fairly recently, architecture as a discipline has been confronted by a new
society that aims to promote itself as a package comprising fame and economic growth.
Traditional institutions are not as popular anymore for the production and promotion
of an urban narrative. Compared to a nation, the identity of a city is more complex and
subjective. When they express values and cultural issues, that is when cities become 7
successful. When culture is highlighted, a creative, dynamic and vigorous identity is
S1142587 13-01-14 ARCHITECTURAL THEORY "1
" Koolhaas, R. (2002) Junkspace in: Obsolescence Vol. 100, MIT Press, Cambridge, US, p.1751
" Jencks, C (2005) Iconic Building: The Power of Enigma, Frances Lincoln, London, p.72
" Sert, J.L. et al. (1993) Nine Points On Monumentality in: J.Ockman (ed.) Architecture Culture 1943-1968 - A Documentary 3
Anthology, Rizzoli International Publications Inc., New York, p.29" Mitchell, W.J. (2002) The Revenge of Place in: Rattenbury, K. (ed.) This Is Not Architecture - Media Constructions, Routledge, 4
London, p.52" G. Evans (2006) Branding the City of Culture - The Death of City Planning? in: J. Monclus & M. Guardia (ed.), Culture, 5
Urbanism and Planning, Ashgate, Farnham, UK, p.197" Baudrillard, J. (2001) The System of Objects in: Poster, M.(ed.) Jean Baudrillard - Selected Writings, Polity Press, Cambridge,p.76
" Evans, G. (2006) p.2027
crystallised. Landmarks, as signs signifying nothing, are mobilising a ‘complete imaginary 8
collective’ through discussions and their mere existence. They have turned into a
characteristic of the whole society in which it was created. Conceptually, this architectural 9
phenomenon synthesises The Bilbao Effect (urban recrudescence) with The Continuous
Monument (the urban grain remodelled). This essay discusses the need for a 'monumental
network' for the ethos of our time.
!Despite Louis Kahn’s metaphysical definition of monumentality as something eternal
and spiritual , the concept of a monument has been heavily grounded in reality. In Eastern 10
Europe, the monument concretised the struggle between social realism and functionalism.
However, Gideon neglects the monument and states that symbolic forms are exclusive for
painters and sculptors. Yet, monuments are symbols of aims, actions and ideals. They 11
realise a temporal link by outliving the originating period and serving as a heritage for the
future. Essentially, they transform a collective form into a symbol. Monumental buildings are
only possible to exist where a unifying culture and consciousness can already be found. 12
Hence, the monument exhibits the values and goals of society, rather than expressing itself as
a built object. A landmark represents something beyond the built environment.
! By the same token, a striking example of how a local area realises cultural needs and
rejuvenates itself is the Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao (see fig.1). This building rendered the
term The Bilbao Effect: ‘’the trend of cities and developers employing landmark architecture to
help attract tourism and economic development that comes with it’'. Prior to the museum, 13
Bilbao was an industrial city in decay in the Basque region in Spain. Part of the master plan
included a budget of 228 million dollars for a museum (the initial budget was 120 million) in
collaboration with the Guggenheim Foundation. Frank Gehry, the chosen architect, proposed
an evocative, unique and remarkable design. Consequently, tourism exploded: from 100 000
S1142587 13-01-14 ARCHITECTURAL THEORY "2
" Landry, C. (2008) The Creative City - A Toolkit for Urban Innovators, Earthscan, London, p.3-48
International Publications Inc., New York, p.47" Ockman, J. (1993) Architecture Culture 1943-1968 - A Documentary Anthology, Rizzoli International Publications Inc., New York, 11
p.28" Sert, J.L. et al. (1993) p.2912
" Bobman, M. (2013) Starchitects and The Bilbao Effect: New Urbanism's Role, http://www.cnu.org/cnu-salons/2013/06/13
starchitects-and-bilbao-effect-new-urbanisms-role, accessed 9th January 2014
up to 800 000 non-Basque visitors a year came. This strong regeneration brought along 14
more tax income, events and a social vibrance. However, some critics argue that the art and
culture found inside is too American and bombastic, clashing with the strong Basque
traditions of the region. In the first three years, only seven out of 53 new acquisitions were 15
from Basque artists. Today, the Catalonian population of the city is decreasing. Yet, this 16 17
syndrome proves how a city can be turned around and works as a model of what imagination
can achieve. This is especially true for places that have few local qualities. The new city 18 19
was a tabula rasa where new ideas and concepts could be inscribed, forming new links in
time. Cities will always experience the struggle between tradition and heritage. Nietzsche 20 21
suggested to create new values if the existing ones fail in creating a successful brand. For 22
Bilbao, the museum induced hope and brought political parties, civic associations and trade
unions together. To summarise, Gehry was commissioned ‘to endow with a poetic value that 23
which does not yet possess it’. The pathos of Bilbao was forever changed. 24
!With the pace of globalisation, the natural reaction is to find solace in local roots and
objects. By celebrating, or recognising, the past in a new landmark, it appears easier to
confront the future. Coupled with emotions, a landmark has the potential to start a 25
discussion, like the Jewish Museum in Berlin, designed by Daniel Libeskind. He exposed
suppressed modern history and transformed public content into symbolism. Usually, as the 26
city stands out through the iconic building, the world is becoming increasingly segregated. 27
S1142587 13-01-14 ARCHITECTURAL THEORY "3
" Plaza, B. (2007) The Bilbao effect (Guggenheim Museum Bilbao), http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/12681/1/14
MPRA_paper_12681.pdf, accessed 9th January 2014" Jencks, C. (2002) Post-Modernism and the Revenge of Book in: Rattenbury, K. (ed.) This Is Not Architecture - Media 15
Constructions, Routledge, London, p.192" Evans, G. (2006) p.20416
" Evans, G. (2006) p.21117
" unknown author (2013) The Bilbao Effect, http://www.economist.com/news/special-report/21591708-if-you-build-it-will-18
they-come-bilbao-effect, accessed 9th January 2014" Mitchell, W.J. (2002) p.5219
" Jencks, C. (2002) p.19220
" Evans, G. (2006) p.21321
" Braun, T. (2004) The Philosophy of Branding, Kogan Page Limited, London, p.13422
" Plaza, B. (2007) www.mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de23
" Keiller, P. (2002) Architectural Cinematography in: Rattenbury, K. (ed.) This Is Not Architecture - Media Constructions, 24
Routledge, London, p.37" Landry, C. (2008) p.625
" Jencks, C. (2002) p.18926
" Jencks, C (2005) p.727
Conversely, to a city like Berlin, torn by war and ideologies, an attempt to brand a capitol
with its shame and the horrors of the world shows an alternative social approach of the
landmark.
!The Bilbao Effect and the Jewish Museum show clearly how cultural hubs need a clarity
of purpose to be successful in the urban context. Similarly, the city of Dallas aimed to 28
improve its literal and figurative image post-JFK-assassination and turned to architecture.
Consequently, starchitect I.M. Pei was chosen to design the new skyline in the form of a city
hall in 1977. However, as Pei’s inverted pyramid succeeded iconically being a stand-out
building the downside was the surrounding plaza which proved difficult to congregate in. It
became merely a thoroughfare. Critics claim it lacked human scale. In other words, the 29
landmark has to be symbiotic to the urban fabric which it inhabits. Dallas in this example
knew why they wanted to improve, but not how.
!In the light of Dallas, modern architects have realised that a monument can not be an
isolated unit. It has to work holistically. There is no line separating architecture and town
planning. This contextualist approach is suggesting that the Guggenheim worked only 30
locally, not regionally (depriving the Basques).
!For these iconic structures, as commissions increase, the status decreases. Still, 31
Koolhaas succeeded in not replicating appreciated buildings, like Gehry went on and did, and
thus this style-lessness helped his buildings to avoid losing the uniqueness. Koolhaas avoided 32
the creation of ersatz and instead performed the opposite, improving his reputation by being
difficult to pin down. This resulted in a diverse cityscape and an improved identity where he
worked.
!Koolhaas also made through his book S,M,L,XL a sequence of urban theoretical
arguments. He coined the term Bigness, essentially meaning that a big monument disregards
context due to its serenity and blandness, simultaneously being impersonal. Hence the
S1142587 13-01-14 ARCHITECTURAL THEORY "4
" unknown author (2013) www.economist.com28
" Bobman, M. (2013) www.cnu.org29
" Sert, J.L. et al. (1993) p.2930
" Kaminer, T. (2011) Architecture, Crisis and Resuscitation - The Reproduction of Post-Fordism in Late-Twentieth-Century Architecture, 31
Routledge, London, p.170" Kaminer, T. (2011) p.17032
signature of the architect evaporates. ‘’Bigness means surrender to technologies, to engineers,
contractors, manufacturers, to politics, to others…’’. Architecture must crystallise and merge
with society and the urban continuum, not until then can it be ‘’great’’. With this 3334
neglected, the risk of cultural flagships is gentrification which further diminishes the
influence of the poor community and other adjacent victims. Unfortunately, the city of Paris
became witness to this with the aftermath of the Pompidou centre. Naturally, Paris was 35
socially reshaped, but to what cost? All things considered, a sense of belonging is necessary to
form an urban arena with a strong identity.
!As Paris and Bilbao confronted an urban reconfiguration, another kind of reshaping
was created by Superstudio. From this group of architects and critics came the project known
as the The Continuous Monument in 1969 (see fig.2). This was a universal grid, uniform and
encroaching. Conceptually, the group believed that through imperialism and technology the
world became uniform. This idea came from what they called super architecture (of
superproduction, super consumption) which all relied heavily on the demystification of the object,
touching on the consumer object and the secret behind branding. The sales system sells only
one thing: itself. Architecturally, by hiring starchitects the cities are only selling themselves, 3637
they brand the city by promoting the landmark (the product).
!As Plato suggested, the brand and the object are separate concepts and realities. He
hypothesises a row of consumers with hidden objects/products behind them and a torch
behind the objects projecting the recognisable shadows onto the wall in front of them. He
proves the idea that the brand is far from the reality of the product, yet the projection can be
as appreciated and experienced. This is how brands work and to the urban context this is 38
how a landmark can be falsely advertised. As the ‘’city’’ is never experienced, the identity and
pride of the city is fading. The most common mistake, or success in some cases, is the
synecdoche of making the landmark not only represent, but substitute the city. If it substitutes
S1142587 13-01-14 ARCHITECTURAL THEORY "5
" Mitchell, W.J. (2002) pp.194-633
" Rattenbury, K., et al. (2002) Iconic Pictures in: Rattenbury, K. (ed.) This Is Not Architecture - Media Constructions, Routledge, 34
London, p.61" Evans, G. (2006) p.20835
" Ockman, J. (1993) p.43736
" Superstudio (1993) Invention Design and Evasion Design in: J.Ockman (ed.) Architecture Culture 1943-1968 - A Documentary 37
Anthology, Rizzoli International Publications Inc., New York, p.438" Braun, T. (2004) p.4338
one could argue that it would be more appropriate to expand or transcend the monument
altogether.
!In New York, the city of landmarks, Manhattan attempts to transcend itself as an island
and claim a more global membership among other contemporaries. Here one sees a will to
extend beyond the city and work almost as a representative. Along the same lines, the urban
block grid reinforces the individual buildings by their distance and relationship to other
buildings. This juxtaposition of simulacra shows how a landmark has the potential to 39
simultaneously improve both its own image and the city’s.
!By engagement, in order to create a landmark the architect needs to synthesise/
pinpoint: a) fixed attractions like scenic beauty, climate, history, b) accessibility like railways,
water routes, crossroads in order to e.g. secure high densities of consumers or easy commutes
for workers and, c) stability so investments and prospective planning will turn out
advantageous. A concept that highlights this process is evasion design, which fundamentally 40
means in this context that an object (landmark) needs to fully involve and engage its occupier
(inhabitant/s) within the container (city). This engagement can even take the form of 41
provocation. It can be argued that the purpose of a ‘’democratic icon’’ is to challenge
conventions and upset the context. To provoke the underlying hierarchy might be the
strongest message to be conveyed. To engage by provocation seems to be the key. 42
!The typical landmark, the concentrated monolith, has been provoked and challenged.
Criticism against starchitects include the idea that money is being invested in iconic
architecture rather than in connectivity and shared spaces. On the one hand, we have the 43
vulnerable monolithic monumental tower. On the other, we have a dispersed network of
smaller units. Juxtaposing these we can see clear advantages. The monolith is more exposed
to both natural disasters as well as terrorist attacks. The second alternative, the system of 44
units, has the ability to include a greater part of the city and ultimately strengthen society by
S1142587 13-01-14 ARCHITECTURAL THEORY "6
" Koolhaas, R. (1994) Delirious New York - A Retroactive Manifesto For Manhattan, The Monacelli Press, New York, p.10-1139
" Mitchell, W.J. (2002) p.5040
" Superstudio (1993) p.44041
" Jencks, C (2005) p.1642
" Bobman, M. (2013) www.cnu.org43
" Mitchell, W.J. (2002) p.45-4944
involvement and engagement. So in this sense, the archetypal definition of a landmark has
the potential to be revised and re-visualised. Questions like accessibility, fixed attractions and
stability, as discussed earlier, will decrease in importance in favour of social media, celebrities
and contemporary hype to render temporary landmarks, invigorating the urban life. Being
intrusive and unpredictable in this manner is provocative enough for the monument to
transcend culturally.
!Associative networks and social rituals render the urban arena competitive. The 45
technological advances in GPS and smartphones and the like have already brought us
immediate alternatives to congregate and define a ‘’sight’’. The ‘’swarms’’ of tourists take on
a pilgrimage in new ways, forcing the world as we know it to tag along. Gehry started a new
iconic architecture with his Guggenheim Museum converging to a discussion about the urban
collective which has the capacity to redefine ‘’landmark'’ and ‘’monument’’. A definition with
a network incorporating more interests and is more inclusive in terms of class, ethnicity and
gender, which are all part of the urban identity.
!In conclusion, the cultural investment of a monumental landmark confirms that it is a
brand; a product to be sold to the highest bidder. Rejuvenation of a city is naturally
important, but if one single building is what it takes then it tells us a plethora about the pride
and self-growth of the city. If starchitects are hired to design the same building as somewhere
else, the unique quality that makes up a landmark becomes nugatory and works against the
set purpose. Monuments reshape the flow of the city, as seen with Paris and Bilbao, stagnate
the flow considering the city hall of Dallas and redefine the flow by The Continuous
Monument. These urban flagships hold inherent values, by being commodities and ultimately
turning the city into a commodity itself. It all condenses into a discussion about the real and
the advertised. The local and the global are not antagonistic at all and instead symbiotically
vital for the architectural ne plus ultra of our modern world. A landmark should be a
contextual reaction and in that regard inclusive, be it local, regional, national or global. The
metamorphosis of the monolith into a network is what marks this shift.
!!!
S1142587 13-01-14 ARCHITECTURAL THEORY "7
" Landry, C. (2008) p.845
BIBLIOGRAPHY
!literature
!Baudrillard, J. (2001) The System of Objects in: Poster, M. (ed.) Jean Baudrillard - Selected
Writings, Polity Press, Cambridge, p.7-13
Braun, T. (2004) The Philosophy of Branding, Kogan Page Limited, London, pp.43-134
Evans, G. (2006) Branding the City of Culture - The Death of City Planning? in: J.
Monclus & M. Guardia (ed.), Culture, Urbanism and Planning, Ashgate, Farnham,
UK, pp.197-213
Jencks, C. (2002) Post-Modernism and the Revenge of Book in: Rattenbury, K. (ed.)
This Is Not Architecture - Media Constructions, Routledge, London, pp.189-92
Jencks, C. (2005) Iconic Building: The Power of Enigma, Frances Lincoln, London, pp.7-16
