I have arrived in Sydney, Australia to surely the most iconic building of them all...... the Sydney Opera House!
When walking around the building i ask myself 'was the opera house built originally to be 'iconic' or was it built because it was the correct solution for the site and for the city?' Well perhaps it was a bit of both, but can the same be said for more modern 'iconic' buildings?
We can look at the buildings of architects such as Frank Gehry and the 'Bilbao effect' which is the term given to the regeneration of the City of Bilbao, a traditional ship building city in the Basque region of Spain, after the construction of the Guggenheim Museum. The Building itself has become a major tourist attraction and so has triggered the regeneration of the city- so much so that when Bilbao is mentioned the museum is really the first thing you think of. In the case of this building it has done fantastic things for this city. The same can be said for the buildings of Zaha Hadid.
Below: The Guggenheim Museum, Bilbao
But when i visit these buildings i think it is important to try to understand them- are they sculptural works of art? are they designed just to be wacky? just to shock? If this is the case then are they responding to the actual place and the surrounding buildings? I listened to a really interesting debate last year at the RIAS conference between Peter Eisenman, Charles Jenks and Alain de Botton. It was about iconic architecture and just how appropriate and responsive these buildings are; Eisenman was expressing concern over students sitting at their computers and drawing things that they don't understand- when the relationship between the pen and the paper is lost the buildings start to lose their meaning.
Historically, there have been a series of successful buildings which would have to be described as iconic- the Eiffel Tower in Paris and The Sydney Opera House are the two that immediately come to mind. People travel across the world to marvel at these structures so in that way they make a positive contribution to their respective cities. Perhaps there is room for these buildings, these special unique gems.
Below: the construction of the Eiffel Tower, Paris
These ideas can be translated badly however, one example that comes to mind is the proposed redevelopment of the waterfront in Inverness, Scotland- the design of this doesn't look like it has been given much consideration other than to say the scheme centres around an 'iconic' tower. Does the scheme now have merit because they have an iconic building? In August last year i did a post on this and compared the proposed scheme to a development in Stavanger. The development in Norway was not about creating iconic architecture, it was architecture about the people, the place and so the scheme had integrity and will be successful. Look at the success of The Pier Arts Centre in Orkney - this building is not iconic - it is modest and it is humble and to me it is wholly about the building and the place.
Below: The Pier Arts Centre, Orkney, Scotland
Iconic architecture is about something different; its about making a statement. Ultimately i believe architecture should be about the people and the place and should improve peoples lives.
I do think there is probably room for iconic architecture but lets just hope that its left to the good guys.
When walking around the building i ask myself 'was the opera house built originally to be 'iconic' or was it built because it was the correct solution for the site and for the city?' Well perhaps it was a bit of both, but can the same be said for more modern 'iconic' buildings?
We can look at the buildings of architects such as Frank Gehry and the 'Bilbao effect' which is the term given to the regeneration of the City of Bilbao, a traditional ship building city in the Basque region of Spain, after the construction of the Guggenheim Museum. The Building itself has become a major tourist attraction and so has triggered the regeneration of the city- so much so that when Bilbao is mentioned the museum is really the first thing you think of. In the case of this building it has done fantastic things for this city. The same can be said for the buildings of Zaha Hadid.
Below: The Guggenheim Museum, Bilbao
But when i visit these buildings i think it is important to try to understand them- are they sculptural works of art? are they designed just to be wacky? just to shock? If this is the case then are they responding to the actual place and the surrounding buildings? I listened to a really interesting debate last year at the RIAS conference between Peter Eisenman, Charles Jenks and Alain de Botton. It was about iconic architecture and just how appropriate and responsive these buildings are; Eisenman was expressing concern over students sitting at their computers and drawing things that they don't understand- when the relationship between the pen and the paper is lost the buildings start to lose their meaning.
Historically, there have been a series of successful buildings which would have to be described as iconic- the Eiffel Tower in Paris and The Sydney Opera House are the two that immediately come to mind. People travel across the world to marvel at these structures so in that way they make a positive contribution to their respective cities. Perhaps there is room for these buildings, these special unique gems.
Below: the construction of the Eiffel Tower, Paris
These ideas can be translated badly however, one example that comes to mind is the proposed redevelopment of the waterfront in Inverness, Scotland- the design of this doesn't look like it has been given much consideration other than to say the scheme centres around an 'iconic' tower. Does the scheme now have merit because they have an iconic building? In August last year i did a post on this and compared the proposed scheme to a development in Stavanger. The development in Norway was not about creating iconic architecture, it was architecture about the people, the place and so the scheme had integrity and will be successful. Look at the success of The Pier Arts Centre in Orkney - this building is not iconic - it is modest and it is humble and to me it is wholly about the building and the place.
Below: The Pier Arts Centre, Orkney, Scotland
Iconic architecture is about something different; its about making a statement. Ultimately i believe architecture should be about the people and the place and should improve peoples lives.
I do think there is probably room for iconic architecture but lets just hope that its left to the good guys.
No comments:
Post a Comment