Iconic Architecture or Global Propaganda?

There are some important concerns that arise when emerging cities use skyscrapers, designed by star architects, as a means of asserting their global significance. Large-scale skyscraper projects, using the latest in engineering technology and cutting edge design, are prevalent taking place in cities such as Dubai and Shanghai. In these locales they are being used to bolster the local economy while asserting their global status as an emerging and prosperous city.

Both Kheir Al Kodmany in Importing Urban Giants: Re-Imaging Shangai and Dubai with Skyscrapers and Paul Goldberger in Castle in the Air: Dubai Reaches For The Sky, explore this phenomena. These symbols of prosperity are often lacking in functional design and do not meet the needs of the location nor reflect the culture. Goldberger notes, “As cities, more than nations now compete to attract global investment and global tourism, they seek differentiation and symbolic modernity. (…) However these architects’ work is often conceptual displaying their personal creative artistry and they often overlook the fine grain of culture, identity or locality (24).” When there is an economic downturn these buildings quickly loose their original identity and intent, adding to their impersonal nature. The Burj Khalifa in Dubai and the current title holder of World’s Tallest Building, was originally built to assert Dubai’s growing influence on the global stage but it was in fact named for another city’s Sheikh. Neighboring Abu Dhai’s rule Sheikh Khalifa bin Zayed al-Nahyan revived the project when Dubai experienced a financial downturn. The enormous financial implications of these projects leave them vulnerable to being stripped of their original intent altogether. Additionally, Burj Khalifa’s design did not incorporate its original inspiration of local plants, another example of the architects’ disregarding the local culture.

Needless to say, these projects typically serve global ambitions that do not respect nor consider local needs or culture. This is evidenced by the Burj Khalifia debacle but there are other examples as well. The Abraj Al-Bait Towers Complex was recently completed in Saudi Arabia on a site overlooking Islam’s holiest shrine, the Kaaba. With its large elevated clock, a seven star hotel, an enormous prayer area and a shopping mall, the enormous building has been lauded with destroying the historic character of the holy city and the sanctity of the holy site containing the Grand Mosque and the Kaaba in order for Saudi Arabia make their mark on the global stage and accommodate the rich.  For The Shanghai Tower Gensler applied the design concept of traditional lane houses where rooms are arranged around a communal space.  Despite this well-intentioned start, when this concept was applied to a vertical building it lost its meaning altogether.

There is a clear disconnect between the goal of these emerging cities and the needs of its citizens in the undertaking of these building projects. It appears that the city intends to create record setting, iconic skyscrapers using modern technology and designs in order to promote their cities as global players. However its citizens hold the desire for these buildings to meet their functional needs as well as give a global impression that accurately reflects their unique culture. These cities have their eyes so focused on creating a spectacle of wealth and engineering that impresses their counterparts that they are missing the mark in terms of creating a skyscraper that is functional and culturally appropriate. It reminds me of women who covet th expensive bag Birkin bag, an outrageously price $15,000 purse and status symbol. Is it likely that this bag meets the needs of every customer in its size and storage capabilities? It is highly unlikely. And yet, function is overlooked in order to make a statement of status and wealth. I see this same problem present in the commissioning of large-scale skyscrapers with the intent to attract more wealth to a city and send a message of prosperity to the world. Without meeting the functional needs of its users and incorporating a cultural uniqueness to its design, can these buildings even be considered iconic? Or are they just shallow displays of propaganda?