"Today, iconic architecture is essentially the spatial implementation of corporate decisions. Signature architecture has become the boardroom's, and the city authority's, bitch"

-- Jay Merrick

Empty vessels: eye-con architecture

By Jay Merrick

Cheap thrills: Norman Foster's Palace of Peace, Kazakhstan
(Photo source: Independent.co.uk)

Is your town a bit frayed? No problem: just commission a piece of "iconic" architecture. Is your city perceived as not quite remarkable enough? Ditto. Lord Foster's Peace Pyramid in Kazakhstan is described as "iconic".

So, too, is the forthcoming building at Tate Modern by Herzog and de Meuron; not to mention the China Central Television building, designed by Rem Koolhaas, and now approaching completion in Beijing. Three very different architects, three very different architectural icons – but iconic of what? Iconic of the commercial stampede to produce cheap thrills. Too much of the apparent concern about architecture actually reveals a profound lack of interest in any discussion that might suggest that architecture, and our relationship with it, is not only complex but is in a crucially debatable condition. >>> Read More

Previous articles by Jay Merrick:

• A canvas in concrete: Architecture as Art?
  Monday 6 October, The Independent
• The Battle of Hebden Bridge
  Sunday 28 September, The Independent
• Observations: Architecture finally hits the bottle
  Friday 19 September, The Independent
• A wealth of sound: Kings Place Concert Hall
  Wednesday 27 August, The Independent
• Angles from heaven: Frank Gehry takes on his dream project
  Wednesday 9 July, The Independent
• Master class: How the National Gallery is turning children on to art
  Thursday 19 June, The Independent
• Bridge over troubled water: Zaha Hadid's latest architectural creation
  Tuesday 17 June, The Independent
• Ahead of the herd: Norman Foster redesigns the elephant house at a Denmark zoo
  Thursday 12 June, The Independent