The iconic architecture is a benchmark to pursue for most of contemporary designers; it exists in every city, every town and every neighborhood for all ages. The iconic architecture reflects one period design booming style and other decline trends.
At best, the iconic architecture designs embody current state of society; people’s satisfactions in terms of art form; and the further development of the people’s life. However, not all the iconic architecture projects are considered as valuable and timeless design, they can be defined as double edge sword. The anti-iconic architecture creates an environment that makes audiences feel ambivalent. It always challenges people’s traditional artistic notion; such as Frank Gehry’s “Guggenheim Museums”, and Zaha hadi’s “London Aquatics Centre”. Frank Gehry is a pioneer in the contemporary architecture design field; nonetheless.
Gehry’s large metallic materials construction disturbs the neighbors when the dazzling sunlight is reflected into the inhabitants’ home. The iconic and anti-iconic debate is rumbling on-it can make or destroy a typology. I agree with the further development of anti-iconic architecture in the world. The most important condition to identify a successful iconic architecture has to agree the standard of “sustainable design”. No matter how the design technology is changing, the environmental friendly concept has to be consistently aligned with.
For example, the most influential contemporary architect Frank Gehry produces dominated designs in the form of sculpture language. Metallic texture pops up the unique structure and façade, it demonstrates the abstract fine art in the seriously architecture design. When the people get into interior, the space is more complex and inefficient; the staggered structure crossing the roof occupies a lot of vacant space, the commercial investment and material resources are all doubling than the same standard projects. More negative issues are likely to be exposed in the long run. Our planet desires the strategic natural balanced constructions rather than gorgeous nature against designs. Secondly, the successful architecture is equivalent to economic friendly designs.
The sustainability meaning is more than green and conservative approach. It also has the primary significance in terms of supporting the quality of the human communities, and addressing the ecological needs of our planet. The futurism architecture trend is further developed in the later design. The iconic buildings are likely getting enormous successful or deadly failure.
To be remarkable architecture has to be intimately engaged with human experience, or how the buildings make people feel. Architecture critiques frequently ignore the human aspect and focus on the form study. The pritzker price winner Renzo Piano is renowned for his design philosophy-providing the perfect accommodation place for human activities. Renzo is invited to design metro center in the London.
The building is an extraordinary example of a building that really adds to the life of a community and it also serves the landmark for the entire city planning. Unlike other newest buildings, Renzo’s design also efficiently benefits the space around the metro center itself. On the contrary, some of the designs turn out to be stunning, but the space against the human aspirations and identities. Moreover, when people talk about iconic architecture, the topic is becoming controversial at one point-does the city really need the iconic buildings?The answer is yes and no.
Vancouver is a harbor city, all the constructions tend to be harmonious and integrate as a unit. As an architect, it is primary to consider the landscape balance instead of a single pop up “iconic” architecture. The word “iconic” symbolizes that a building could be taking a huge effect on some cities’ tourism, economic development, or even city planning strategies. In Vancouver, the revitalization equals iconic architecture.
“Bilbao Effect” is “silver-bullet projects, but with a less-than-stellar track record of planning pattern building and consistent attention to quality urbanism”. Planetizen)Vancouver represents the anti Bilbao Effect, and the city plan appropriately interacts with the human livable requirements. The Vancouver government has the clear regulation stipulates that iconic constructions may produce major changes in the environment even minor disturbances. Thus, all the designers are pushed into the design perspective of global scene.
Above all, designers have to fully understand the significance of “iconic architecture” that indicates most livable and most visitable conditions. Anti-iconic architecture will better the world industry plans in a way.
Bibliography:
http://counternotions.com/2007/10/05/anti-iconic-architecture/Article Title: Anti-Iconic architectureDate Accessed: October 28, 2014Date published: October 5, 2007http://www.e-architect.co.uk/architecture-debateWebsite Title: earchitect RSSArticle Title: Architecture Debate – Iconic Architecture – e-architectDate Accessed: October 28, 2014http://www.pps.org/reference/toward-an-architecture-of-place-moving-beyond-iconic-to-extraordinary/Website Title: Project for Public SpacesArticle Title: Toward an Architecture of Place: Moving Beyond Iconic to Ext[]Date Accessed: October 28, 2014http://www.planetizen.com/node/29385Website Title: Planetizen: The Urban Planning, Design, and Development Netw[]Article Title: Does Vancouver need (or want) Iconic Architecture?Date Accessed: October 29, 2014
