Forums

Moderator(s): Array, Array, Array, Array, Array, Array
Author Post
sanaa
Sun Mar 04 2007, 05:38pm Print
Registered Member #492 Joined: Tue Feb 27 2007, 05:34pm
Posts: 3
 
  hello all..........m doin ma thesis on iconitecture(iconic architecture); many global and aspiring global cities have looked to iconic architecture as a prime strategy of urban intervention, often in the context of rehabilitation of depressed areas. The attempt to identify the agents most responsible for this transformation, namely the TCC(transnational capitalist class), and to explain how they operate, suggests that deliberately iconic architecture is becoming a global phenomenon, specifically a central urban manifestation of the culture-ideology of consumerism.

relating iconicity in karachi,s context i studied the high foreign investments and mega projects goin on ,and once the foreign investment comes in ,the need for accomodation becomes prevalent ,and karachi has seen over 90% occupancy and short supply of international quality rooms  as there was less accomodation planned ....so the hotel seems a good option to me as building type.........need some good guggestions on the research area and the building type
Back to top
NEO
Mon Mar 05 2007, 11:53am
Admin Registered Member #4 Joined: Thu Aug 04 2005, 04:54am
: Dhaka
Posts: 666
First of all there are some philosophical conflict around your idea.
Let me ask you a question... 'are you a modernist'? If you believe that you are a modern architect then you must believe in the theory of 'architecture for everyone'. The theories of communism is actually lies in the core of modernism in architecture. That is, architecture will be 'classless', hardcore for mass people.
So where the intension of a design is creating something iconic, saluting the contemporary capitalist trends, then it definitely goes against the concepts of modernism. As I personally still believe in modern theories, I still salute modernist masters... I strongly disagree with your idea.

Making something 'iconic' should never be the intension of a design. Some architecture automatically evolves like an iconic element in an urban context. But that shouldn't be the intention anyway.
Back to top
sanaa
Mon Mar 05 2007, 05:05pm
Registered Member #492 Joined: Tue Feb 27 2007, 05:34pm
Posts: 3
thnx for ur views...........but by consumption i meant purchasing....(which is a very strong force in todays world )and not mass production the idea which inculcated with bauhaus and today capitalism is governed by consumption and not production............... and as far as iconic is concerned i am still confused with what actually makes a building iconic......... and if it is wrong than what do u have to say about buildings like the guggenheim museum by frank ghery in balbao,it was certainly made with the intention of being iconic.........and the term which came out -'bilbao effect' ,it certainly did good to the city by turning 1.3 million tourists towards the rustbelt city within year of its completion..................... thnx ,looking forward for suggestions
Back to top
NEO
Mon Mar 05 2007, 08:51pm
Admin Registered Member #4 Joined: Thu Aug 04 2005, 04:54am
: Dhaka
Posts: 666
That's the main problem of today's world. Everything is running only for money. And from my point of view architects can fight against it. This capitalist attitude breaks our social relations, makes us selfish and Hippocrates day by day.... can't we fight against it as Corbusier did?
Corbu said something like the building technology, scale and material of a residence of a business tycoon and a slam dweller will be the same.
The attitude of making of iconic architecture is nothing but a show of extra money in someone's pocket sucked out from poor people, nothing else.
Why to make a building with titanium as Frank Gehry did? Couldn't we make thousands of low cost housing for the poor homeless of Spain by the unnecessary extra cost of Bilbao Guggenheim?

This attitude is merely a show-off of pride of the client and the architect also. It's not actually an outcome of the intention: 'doing something for the people by architecture'.

Gehry is a master 'form maker' no doubt. But if we go through crits on his projects we see often how insanely expensive they are... and often not very functional also.

Your intension may be creating something like a monumental public place which may serve the mass people of the local community. In such a case the 'economical sustainability' of the project may be questioned. But that answer may also come out analyzing the local public needs in depth. You may try selecting a potential area in the city you are working in. find out their neighborhood or city-scale needs... like entertainment hub, open plazas and parks, some pedestrian nodes... something like this. Which will develop the quality of the neighborhood, will serve them with potential functional and cultural services and earn some money for sustainability as well.
Back to top

Go to:

Powered by e107 Forum System