The Iconic Building by Lilia Obletsova

Lilija Oblecova

Has Charles Jencks’ book, “The Iconic Building: the Power of Enigma” (2005) identified something relatively new in architectural trends, or is this just a heightened awareness of the relatively wide diversity of which architects and engineers are now capable, or of the cult of individualism of our age, but in relative terms, the iconic has always been with us throughout history?

Glasgow 2009

Weak belief + the desire to have a landmark + celebrity culture + globalized capitalism + the art market's desire for the new = the iconic building1

Charles Jencks claims to have identified a new paradigm in architecture – that of the Iconic Building – a genre which, in response to the unwillingness of the society to make any strong statements, is characterised by the ‘enigmatic signifier’, which is left to the viewer to be interpreted. Some, however, say that the recent iconic buildings are simply the ‘monuments of our age’2.

Undesirable Monumentality

Monumentality was defined as representing people’s ‘eternal need to create symbols revealing their inner life, actions and social conceptions’3. Therefore, monuments are only possible in societies unified by ‘consciousness and culture’4. We are ‘unable to create lasting monuments’5 unless we say that our weak6 belief and our cult of individualism, brought on by commercialisation and democracy, is what unifies our pluralist culture. It was in fact proved possible to create architecture that celebrates pluralism7.

Monumentality, however, is ‘not desirable’8 now, in the age of democracy, due to its ‘many unfortunate connotations of empty grandeur’9, and its use by the totalitarian societies.

Jencks, Charles, ‘Being Iconic’, (Archinect.com interview Dec 11, 2005) David Shaw ‘An Investigation into the Rise of Iconic Architecture with Particular Reference to Will Alsop and the Fourth Grace Project’, dissertation (Mackintosh School of Architecture, 2007) p.13 3 Gregor Paulson et al, ‘In Search of a new Monumentality’, a symposium (Architectural Review, Voll CIII March-June 1948, The Architectural Press, Westminster) 4 S. Giedion, F. Léger, J. L. Sert, ‘Nine Points on Monumentality’, a position statement of 1943, Point 3 5 Idem. 6 or even absence of it 7 Charles Jencks,‘The Iconic Building’, (London : Frances Lincoln, 2005) p.53 since the government building in Canberra, there has been a ‘shower of post-modern icons to pluralism’ 8 Paulson et al, ‘In Search of a new Monumentality’ 2

The Idiosyncratic Delight

Recognising communal desires, it was once10 predicted that monumental architecture will ‘be more than a functional fulfillment’11 and, by following the other arts, will also ‘attain a new freedom and develop new creative possibilities’12. It was a return to ‘commodity, firmness, and delight’13.

Having taken their lead from the advances in arts, which by the sixties were already being flooded by ‘open works’14, architects put their discipline onto ‘the same road’, and now still remain ‘further behind’15. Even though the title of the ‘open-ended’ road might seem new, its essence is not. The benefits of the ‘temple to the universe and a spiritual exploration without a religion’, where ‘the search was part of the goal’16 were already exploited by the French when, by erecting the enigmatic Obelisk, they enabled it, unlike its predecessors, to become permanent.17. What used to be ‘gravitas, impersonality, and the generic’18, is now the idiosyncratic enigma, which, by being even more generic than the alternative, is accepted even in governmental buildings’ design.

Lewis Mumford, ‘Monumentalism, Symbolism & Style’, (Architectural Review, Vol CV January-June 1949, The Architectural Press, Westminster) 10 1949 11 Paulson et al, ‘In Search of a new Monumentality’ S. Giedion 12 Idem 13 Mumford, ‘Monumentalism, Symbolism & Style’ 14 named after Umberto Eco’s book of 1962 15 Shaw, ‘An Investigation into the Rise of Iconic Architecture’ p.43 16 Ibid., p.63 17 Jencks,‘The Iconic Building’, p.197 18 Ibid., p.123

Detectives of Mystery

However central the media might be to raising people’s involvement with the open works19, I think it is their important role of ‘detectives of mystery’20 that lies behind it. In architecture, they enjoy transforming the usual into a ‘distorted human-object relationship’ by giving the buildings such nicknames as the ‘Lipstick and Powder Puff’, ‘Washing Machine’, or the ‘Giant Toilet Bowl’21. The latter seems to be a greater achievement than what, having originally been modeled on the shape of a shattered fender Stratocaster guitar22, is simply called ‘the blob at the bottom of the Space Needle’23.

This ‘metaphorical froth’ reveals that people ‘react spontaneously to an unusual set of provocative forms with concepts they already know’24, which can be both positive and negative. The latter – ‘the revenge of the enigmatic signifier’25 – was devastating for Rafael Viñoly’s WTC26 competition entry. His ‘twin skeletons in the sky’ were only slightly more unfortunate than Libeskind’s winning ‘trauma park’27.

Avoiding ‘architectural slips of tongue’ and rendering icons unmistakably convincing by means of inventing a new iconography28 is not a solution, for, by taking out the enigma, the

Shaw, ‘An Investigation into the Rise of Iconic Architecture’ p.8 Jencks,‘The Iconic Building’, p.203 21 Dell Upton,‘Signs Taken for Wonders’, (Visible Language 2003, http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3982/is_200301/ai_n9176867/?tag=content;col1) 22 Idem. 23 Waters, ‘Blobitecture: Waveform Architecture and Digital Design’, p.48 24 Jencks,‘The Iconic Building’, p.33 25 Ibid., p.48 26 World Trade Center 27 Sudjic, ‘Can We Still Believe in Iconic Buildings?’ 28 Idem. 20

entertainment will be ruined. Creating private pantheistic iconographies29, as did Le Corbusier – proves to be successful.

The Democratic Monument

Democratic society was deemed ‘anti-monumental’30 initially; Vitruvius reproached anything supporting exclusivity or pretension31. It is irresponsible to spend taxpayers’ money when it is cheaper to make a standardised building unique with text. Democracy’s ‘grudging attitude’32 excludes those monuments sponsored by the ‘egoistic money’33 – even though celebrating success is discouraged ‘for the fear of offending the unsuccessful’34, it is unavoidable in the age of competitive consumerism. And it is not ‘dictators today who are making the running’35. It is not only city administrators hoping to ‘reinvent themselves as postmodern centres of creativity’36 either. Now every new corporate headquarters seeks to become a ‘landmark building’ – a euphemism for ‘monument’37.

Jencks,‘The Iconic Building’ Paulson et al, ‘In Search of a new Monumentality’ 31 Architectural History Lecture Series at the MSA 32 Mumford, ‘Monumentalism, Symbolism & Style’ 33 Jencks,‘The Iconic Building’ 34 Shaw, ‘An Investigation into the Rise of Iconic Architecture’ 35 Deyan Sudjic, ‘Can We Still Believe in Iconic Buildings?’ (Prospect Magazine, Issue 111, June 2005, http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=6926) 36 Idem. 37 Jencks, ‘The New Paradigm in Architecture’ 30

Non-Landmark Landmarks

The need for a new and more humanistic expressive language incorporating ‘town-planning, planting and landscape’38 was identified, and now new concepts of the ‘Non-Landmark Landmark’39, the ‘Anti-icon Icon’40 and ‘the landform as a building type’41 are emerging – finally, a worthy response to the need. Even when Peter Eisenman admits that the visitors to his City of Culture (Ill.1) won’t ever be able to distinguish the images which informed the design42 and will only feel ‘something’, Jencks still tags his building as iconic43, when it should belong to the opposite - the ‘landscrapers’44, which, by concentrating on the architectural experience rather than exterior, are unlikely to reap any nicknames nor become icons. They are superior to the alternative from the ecological point of view as well45. This trend complies with Paulson’s prediction that ‘intimacy not monumentality’ would become democracy’s emotional goal. 46

Ill. 1 Santiago City of Culture competition entry model, 1999

Mumford, ‘Monumentalism, Symbolism & Style’ Jencks,‘The Iconic Building’, p.127 40 Idem., i.e. the building that is very visibly not there 41 Charles Jencks, ‘The New Paradigm in Architecture’ (Hunch Berlage Institute Report 6-7 August 2003) 42 Jencks,‘The Iconic Building’, p.164 43 Ibid., p.165 44 buildings that nestle into the ground but nevertheless have a striking image (Aaron Betsky) 45 Ibid., p.127 46 Paulson et al, ‘In Search of a new Monumentality’ 39

Rejection of the Machine-Age Forms

The shift from the machine ideology to that of nature stems from the reaction against the war, which ‘didn’t make the machine look like such a salvation’47.

Seeking to represent the new ‘joyful’ order of things came the Expressionists with crystalline symbolism stemming from the bedrock of the universe48; Saarinen, Wright, and the Eameses with their post-WWII ‘biomorphic impulses’; Gehry’s boundary-bursting buildings; Lynn’s animate architecture and the sensuous ‘blobjects’ of Rashid’49.

Our understanding of the traditional architectural space ‘based on rules of proportion’ is suggested to be learnt, while our appreciation of the alternative is probably innate50. It was predicted51 that the ‘building might return …to the cave: in which the exterior, if visible at all, would become a blank shell, which revealed nothing of what went on within it52. Is not this a prediction of the age of blobby open works?

Developments of the ‘war machine’53 – new materials, technical processes and forms of construction54 allowed designers to innovate. And, along with an ‘aesthetic infused with the

John K. Waters, ‘Blobitecture: Waveform Architecture and Digital Design’ (Rockport Publishers Inc., Massachusetts, 2003) p.12 48 Architectural History Lecture Series at the MSA 49 Waters, ‘Blobitecture: Waveform Architecture and Digital Design’ p.11 50 Aldersey-Williams, ‘Zoomorphic: New Animal Architecture’, p.29 51 1949 52 Mumford, ‘Monumentalism, Symbolism & Style’ 53 Idem. 54 Idem.

conceptions of time, space, energy, life and personality that have been developing since the sixteenth century’55, resulted in the emerging architecture.

The current state of ‘no predominant style or methodology or set of barriers or procedures’56 did encounter resistance. Morris Lapidus, the ‘blobbiest’ architect of all, seeking to transform the world into a ‘banquet of delight and joy’ was ignored by critics for over 30 years57. Gehry’s Walt Disney Concert Hall, though planned in 1988, was only built after Bilbao – so it is indeed fair to name Gehry’s Guggenheim a breakthrough. While simple ‘blobitecture’58 has its roots in postmodernism, he claims to be attacking59 what is already a ‘rebellion against the perceived mechanistic dryness of modernism with its well-known emphasis on function, scientific analysis and order’60 itself. Bilbao has not only ‘destroyed the right-angled world’61 – which for the previous generation of architects, unaware of the possibilities of CAM62, was synonymous to rational63, but also, most importantly, reminded the world of the economical benefits which a noble building can bring.

Idem. Shaw, ‘An Investigation into the Rise of Iconic Architecture’ p.10 57 Waters, ‘Blobitecture: Waveform Architecture and Digital Design’, p.14 58 Ibid., p.30 (biomorphic structures and organic design) 59 Ibid., p.36 60 Idem. 61 Jencks,‘The Iconic Building’, p.9 62 computer-aided manufacturing 63 Ibid., p.57 ‘boxes were assumed to be normal, understated, and more easily mass-produced, and in those senses – rational’ 56

Enigma

Gehry’s Fishdance Restaurant in Japan is only slightly less explicit than the roadside advertisements of Las Vegas. By drawing customers to the unpromising neighbourhood64 it proves that iconic buildings have roots in these huge amplifications of products. They similarly rely on their exteriors for effect, but have turned the explicitness into an enigma. Being an encoded ‘giant iconostasis’65 is not enough – the oxymoron of ‘mystery and system’66 is necessary for a lasting effect. Without a system67 the building quickly ‘achieves a wearisome normality’68.

Natural allusions, containing the ‘best answers to problems’69 are helpful in creating beauty70 – for ‘all structures in organic nature are purposive’71 and their form follows function. Santiago Calatrava understands and exploits this. He ‘gives everybody [i.e. envious engineers and architects] problems but public – they instantly comprehend his buildings72 - they do relate to cosmic iconographies73, but his success lies in the skill.

The society does not know, apart from the monumental gestures themselves, what exact symbols to embed into their civic trophies, therefore the dominating aesthetic of the vague yet eternal suits them well. 64

Aldersey-Williams, ‘Zoomorphic: New Animal Architecture’, p.47 Jencks,‘The Iconic Building’, p.182 66 Ibid., p.160 67 i.e. content / building that ‘works’ 68 Jonathan Meades, ‘Iconic: The Adjective of the Age’, (Intelligent Life Magazine, spring 2009) 69 Aldersey-Williams, ‘Zoomorphic: New Animal Architecture’, p.31 (Aristotle) 70 Mumford, ‘Monumentalism, Symbolism & Style’, quote by Emerson: ‘beautiful rests on the foundation of the necessary’ 71 Idem., biologist Lamarck 72 Aldersey-Williams, ‘Zoomorphic: New Animal Architecture’, p.53 73 Jencks,‘The Iconic Building’, p.142 65

Form-Giving

The ever developing technology of 3D-modeling, animation and special effects74 has particularly influenced architecture. The computer became ‘the tool of trade’, for productivity levels demanded today turned paper into a ‘physical barrier’, denying entry into the emerging architectural culture, where the tools employed are more important than the ‘architectural mastermind’75. While many only use computers to boost efficiency, others76 would even give their software ‘51% of the credit for the design’77. Gehry still devises his designs traditionally and turns to CATIA78 only to make his ‘idiosyncratic geometries’79 buildable.

Searching for new monumental expression in 1948 architects established that its totally new form, ‘based on the manipulation of natural and other elements against a diagrammatic background’80 had to emerge. It is exactly the approach that Gehry uses. He manipulates simple rectangular blocks to work out the uses of different spaces and their relationships81 and claims that only ‘playing close to the bone’82 can render the iconic (and any) building successful.

Waters, ‘Blobitecture: Waveform Architecture and Digital Design’, p.8 Hugh Aldersey-Williams, ‘Zoomorphic: New Animal Architecture’, (London : Laurence King, 2003), p. 25 Tom Verebes of Ocean D company 76 Greg Lynn 77 Idem 78 design tool for the French aviation and aerospace industries, 3d numeric surface-and-solids modeling software can analyse fabrication, aerodynamics, surface stresses, hydraulics, electricity (Ibid., p.30) 79 Ibid., p.30 80 Paulson et al, ‘In Search of a new Monumentality’ 81 Waters, ‘Blobitecture: Waveform Architecture and Digital Design’, p.32 82 Jencks,‘The Iconic Building’, p.171 the bone being the budget, the program, the context, and the culture it’s in 75

Alsop, in his belief that architects no longer hone buildings precisely to their use for greater flexibility’s sake83 designed his Fourth Grace so that ‘deforming the shape would not make any difference’84. He claims to be designing for the future, when building types will have to be interchangeable. If, however, the building is that iconic, a simple change of owner or function would not rid it of previous reputation – and this, unlikely being desirable, renders ‘flexibility’ a bad excuse for buildings without content. Text-Architecture with qualitative ‘landscrapers’ is the answer to such a future.

Costa del Icon

Businesses adopt ‘nature-lovers’ language’ to indicate ‘corporate concern for the environment’85 and want brand-able ‘stationary architecture’86 which uses forms recognisable when compressed to a size of a stamp. Since the iconic building is fully capable of that, it is unlikely to fail as long as Warhol’s prophecy of all department stores becoming museums, and all museums becoming department stores87 is a reality.

‘Shopping is killing the city even as it gives it the kiss of life’88, and many are worried that in the absence any regulation the inevitable hyperinflation will turn major cities into ‘world fairs’89, but introducing rules will contradict the democratic idea of the ‘equal dignity and form-worthiness of all architectural tasks’90.

Shaw, ‘An Investigation into the Rise of Iconic Architecture’ March 2007 Interview with Will Alsop, p.12 Jencks,‘The Iconic Building’, p.146 85 Aldersey-Williams, ‘Zoomorphic: New Animal Architecture’, p.10 86 Shaw, ‘An Investigation into the Rise of Iconic Architecture’, p.39 87 Jencks,‘The Iconic Building’, p.44 88 Koolhaas 89 Jencks,‘The Iconic Building’, p.135 90 Paulson et al, ‘In Search of a new Monumentality’ Alfred Roth 84

It is understandable that each entity wants a recognisable image, but ever since the wrongway-to-brand ‘flagship syndrome’ was denounced, the newly introduced policy of ‘reinvention’91 produces even greater amounts of one-liners.

Questions of how many of these can a city stand were similarly asked in the early days of modernism92. Thus, accepting the upcoming ‘world fair’ future ‘in which every sensational new building will have eclipse the last one’93 is simply a matter of learning a new language. Tourists are still eager to see the once new language of San Gimignano’ towers (Ill.2). Architecture is after all ornamental – otherwise one would have to consign many historical periods, including

Ill. 2 San Gimignano Towers

Art Nouveau, to the dust-bin .

The new genre is, in attempt to prove its inevitable decline, indeed, often compared to Art Nouveau, which also expressed the new human power created by the machine. Being (similarly) a ‘consciously non-historical style’95 did not cause its short life – its failure to achieve the required economy of scale did96. But is not the Secession House, by today’s definition, iconic too (Ill.3)?

Jencks,‘The Iconic Building’, p.45 (Koolhaas) Aldersey-Williams, ‘Zoomorphic: New Animal Architecture’, p.28 93 Jencks,‘The Iconic Building’, p.135 94 Ibid., p.142 95 Mumford, ‘Monumentalism, Symbolism & Style’ 96 Aldersey-Williams, ‘Zoomorphic: New Animal Architecture’, p.27 92

Ill. 3 Secession House by J. M. Olbrich in Vienna (own photography): Does not this image prove the ever-presence of the iconic qualities wherever universal forms occur?

Religion and Regeneration

The idea of using sacred relics as a tool to attract trade and tourism is at least 2000 years old97. But it was from Bilbao’s interpretation that a Mongolian town-head drew inspiration for his Ordos10098 project – which would produce a new ‘collage city’ out of 100 iconic buildings by 202099. ‘Going East’ for clients that ‘care about the users and the function’100 is an obsolete advice indeed.

One connotation of the ‘icon’ concerns religious veneration. The recent iconic buildings, though capable of cathedrals’ usual ornate-box mission, are ‘shrines to an unknown religion’101 themselves, which are upheld by the ‘modern form of ritual created by media, not religious, repetition’102. While challenging cathedrals’ previous importance by more convincing symbolism103, they have not retained same social and human depth104, for they are driven by commercial interest, although the ‘living room for the city’105 in form of a welcoming concert hall lobby seems to be the rare exception and overpowers the recentlyopened Catholic Cathedral nearby106,

Sudjic, ‘Can We Still Believe in Iconic Buildings?’ Friday Lecture Series at the Mackintosh Building 99 Bert de Muynck, ‘on ORDOS100: Avant-garde Architecture in the Desert’ (http://www.artforum.com.cn/angle/596, 22 April, 2008) 100 Jencks,‘The Iconic Building’, p.101 101 Ibid., p.182 102 Ibid., p.71 103 Sudjic, ‘Can We Still Believe in Iconic Buildings?’ (Foster's ‘cosmic skyscraper’ was at first deplored by the dean of St. Paul’s because of the way its pointed dome challenges the heavens, as well as the cathedral) 104 Shaw, ‘An Investigation into the Rise of Iconic Architecture’, p.17 105 Frank Gehry’s Walt Disney Concert Hall in Los Angeles 106 Jencks,‘The Iconic Building’, p.174 98

In rare circumstances even totemic significance can be conferred to the building, as in the case of the Uluru-Kata Tjuta Cultural Centre, Australia, where, by incorporating overlapping animal messages, the architects enabled different tribes to identify with aspects of design107.

Castle of Light

The ‘combination of admiration and disgust, delight and paranoia’108, found around the Latvian ‘Castle of Light’ makes it a good example of the genre. Having for more than seven decades been planning to build its national library, the government is finally starting its construction

–

now,

when

even

teachers’ jobs are being cut down, its exorbitant budget could have had a better application. But, the strong desire to have a symbol of a new country

has

overpowered

the

complaints. The design’s incorporation of local imagery109 or its meaning is hardly being discussed at all – proof that it is not really an ‘age of the Ill. 4 A snapshot from an online game aimed at acquainting people with the features of the ‘Castle of Light’s’ design

107

Aldersey-Williams, ‘Zoomorphic: New Animal Architecture’, p.73-74 Jencks,‘The Iconic Building’, p.195 109 of threshing barn, opera, Old Riga, ancient ware-houses 108

enigmatic signifier’110 - just like the New Scottish Parliament, this building will stand for a new country, and not for some ‘un-fathomable metaphors’111. The gestures behind civic buildings are seldom empty and vague, but the definition of the genre is.

Superficial Criticism

The form of iconic buildings is often their only strength and acts as a ’blanket hiding the architectural ambiguity and weaknesses’112. Some schemes rely on the ‘intellectual baggage’113 instead. In his criticism Jencks seems to be ‘content to look no further than the forms’114 or baggage, and when a building fails to excite his imagination, he calls it a ‘mainstream essay on existing well-known structures’, and identifies ‘neutrality of the hightech approach towards content’ as a problem115. Furthermore, Jencks, with his ‘fertile imagination’116 only seems to be criticising the type of buildings that, meaning everything and thus nothing at all, should be distanced from rational criticism117. His book, in a fair but superficial recognition of the recent explosion of an eternal trend, is no more than a collection of buildings’ nicknames. Just like the buildings he describes, his own pursuit of celebrity is diluting true meaning of architecture.

110

Idem. as Jencks would suggest 112 Shaw, ‘An Investigation into the Rise of Iconic Architecture’, p.37 Morrison 113 Aldersey-Williams, ‘Zoomorphic: New Animal Architecture’, p.20 (D. Libeskind’s Jewish Museum, Berlin) 114 Shaw, ‘An Investigation into the Rise of Iconic Architecture’, p.112 115 Jencks,‘The Iconic Building’, p.42 (The Eden Project – ‘missed the chance to imitate globular clusters’) 116 Shaw, ‘An Investigation into the Rise of Iconic Architecture’, p.29 (Will Alsop) 117 Ibid., p.17 111

In attempt to make his ‘new’ genre convincing, he is being very vague about its definition. ‘Ikon’ translates into likeness, image and similitude118, but everything is similar to something and thus iconic. It is just that, enabled by technologies, from the usual references to the box, today’s blobby architecture’s similarities have grown into the infinitely richer world of nature. Moreover, his citing buildings from different periods as the genre’s very first example119 shines the light on that the true ‘iconic’ has always been with us.

What is new is the conjunction of the technical possibility with the cultural mood120, which produces unprecedented amounts of it – and, in comparison to the few historical examples, the unavoidable poor quality and frequent failure might indeed necessitate a differently called branch of the genre, e.g. ‘the recent Iconic Building’. Even though classification where the role of the criterion is assigned to the vague ‘adjective of the age’121 is bound to be subjective, the author has accomplished an analysis in the spirit of the paradigm he had remembered and of the open-ended culture he was writing for.

118

Jencks,‘The Iconic Building’, p.22 it’s either the Pyramids, the Sydney Opera House, the AT Building in New York, the Ronchamp Chapel or the Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao 120 Aldersey-Williams, ‘Zoomorphic: New Animal Architecture’, p.11 121 Meades, ‘Iconic: The Adjective of the Age’ 119

Bibliography

1. Aldersey-Williams, Hugh, ‘Zoomorphic: New Animal Architecture’, (London : Laurence King, 2003) 2. Giedion, S., Léger, F., Sert, J. L., ‘Nine Points on Monumentality’, a position statement of 1943 3. Jencks, Charles, ‘The Iconic Building’, (London : Frances Lincoln, 2005) 4. Jencks, Charles, ‘Being Iconic’, (Archinect.com interview Dec 11, 2005) 5. Jencks, Charles, ‘The New Paradigm in Architecture’ (Hunch Berlage Institute Report 6-7 August 2003) 6. Meades, Jonathan, ‘Iconic: The Adjective of the Age’, (Intelligent Life Magazine, spring 2009) 7.

Mumford, Lewis ‘Monumentalism, Symbolism & Style’, (Architectural Review, Vol CV January-June 1949, The Architectural Press, Westminster)

8. de Muynck, Bert, ‘on ORDOS100: Avant-garde Architecture in the Desert’ (http://www.artforum.com.cn/angle/596, 22 April, 2008) 9. Paulsson, Gregor et al, ‘In Search of a new Monumentality’, a symposium (Architectural Review, Voll CIII March-June 1948, The Architectural Press, Westminster) 10. Shaw, David ‘An Investigation into the Rise of Iconic Architecture with Particular Reference to Will Alsop and the Fourth Grace Project’, dissertation (Mackintosh School of Architecture, 2007) 11. Sudjic, Deyan, ‘Can We Still Believe in Iconic Buildings?’ (Prospect Magazine, Issue 111, June 2005, http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=6926) 12. Upton, Dell, ‘Signs Taken for Wonders’, (Visible Language 2003, http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3982/is_200301/ai_n9176867/?tag=content;col1)

13. Waters, John K., ‘Blobitecture: Waveform Architecture and Digital Design’ (Rockport Publishers Inc., Massachusetts, 2003)