Can Icons Always Remain Iconic?

            In reading Even Smith Wergeland’s “When Icons Crumble—The Troubled Legacy of Olympic Design,” I began to wonder what happens to iconic architecture when it is no longer used or is abandoned, or it is used for a different purpose. Does it lose its iconicity? Take for example some of the complexes that have been built for Olympic games in specific cities that now have become ruins. Lots of time and money was spent to create a memorable structure — or structures — that would rival any that came before it. With the eyes of the world watching, these structures would bring honor and recognition not only to the games but to the host city as well. Millions attended and watched the games, while marveling at the venues that showed architecture prowess. While the games lasted, and while there was still an audience, the architecture remained iconic. What happens then when the audience leaves? Does the icon remain even after it is no longer part of daily life?

            According to Mr. Wergeland, “empty Olympic sports complexes lose their iconicity when they cease to be used.” He is referring to those that have become derelict and therefore its “architectural design features [are] robbed of the context that initiated them.” I take this to mean that if there is no audience—or better yet no end user—then there is no icon. I read somewhere that “a truly iconic structure creates its reputation and image from the effect it has on people.” Then for a structure to be “truly iconic” it requires the audience’s interpretation in order to define what makes it so. The architecture alone does not make an icon.

            When I think about the Millennium Park, and many other examples we have explored so far this semester, I can see how true this statement is. And it makes sense. Buildings, and parks, are built for people. When done well, there’s a mutual beneficial relationship. In the case of Millennium Park, its success is attributed to how its audience/end-users make use of it. There is so much to do at the park, that it is visited often in almost every season.

Magical artworks, a delightful cafe, theaters, an outdoor concert venue, a world-class art museum next door … inventive gardens, an ever-changing pool for wading and running, a bike rental pavilion — the list of delights seems endless…

Developers of the park have created an iconic park but would it still be iconic if the visitors had had a different response? The area around the park has become gentrified. The price of real estate has increased with the demand for housing nearby the park increasing. What if that didn’t happen? Would Millennium Park still be iconic if it attracted the opposite result, a negative response?

            This brings me to my last point. I think of all the money spent in building the derelict Olympic sport complexes and wonder if they have truly lost their iconicity? Although abandoned and forgotten, perhaps their iconicity still stands but with a different meaning.