Iconic architecture versus architecture as icons

Architecture is a visible symbol of the values it represents. As a sum total of the climate, culture and construction, architecture consciously or subconsciously carries the identity of its time, place and people.

Being a physical object and visible from the distance, buildings often are conceived as an icon expressive of the collective image. While, in terms of scale these icons represent neighbourhood, city, region or even the country; in terms of their values they range from temporal to political to socio-cultural to technological or religious overtones. St. Louis arch or the millennium dome even signified the epoch or the time.

It is important here to make a distinction between the iconic buildings and the buildings as icons. The latter refers to the consciousness of such considerations and therefore are the signifiers of the values, quality or the characteristics.

Tajmahal, Statue of liberty or Eiffel tower may all have become icons representing their countries respectively, but the question is whether they were conceived as so when created? Do they signify the characteristics of the place and people it is meant to represent or do they remain the part of the tutored memory.

Icons often have relied on their oddity or singularity of character, may it be scale, form, or the technology. Even though some of these may have been identifiable, but often remaining out of reach and inaccessible to most. Is it truly iconic then?

Perhaps we need to come out of the notions of ‘mega’ as iconic in favour of the ‘multiple’ and democratic ones. Humane qualities and interactivity may become the integrally implicit attributes of these resolutions. Hence, often these icons may demand to become pluralistic place rather than egocentric edifice. Architects may make spaces but it is the people who convert them into places.

The successful icons are therefore those, which induce life and spontaneous participation. In my opinion George Pompeii II centre at Paris is a successful example of the iconic architecture as well as architectural icon. Ahead of its time it was a path breaking resolution introducing the new aesthetics.

Assembly building of Chandigarh or the Parliament building of Dhaka may qualify better instead. True icon should not be about idiosyncrasy, hero worshiping or pampering of egos of creator but rather one that spontaneously engages and induces bond. Icon’s place need not be in the books of history but rather should be in hearts of its people.

On the palimpsest of the city of Ahmedabad many architectural edifices have left their imprints through time.

Bird feeders of Ahmedabad pols were apt icons holding larger values of coexistence with nature were unique in its expression and aesthetics to mark the precinct and became stimulus for the social interaction. Window trellis of the 16th century Sidi Saiyad mosque, never intended to be an icon, but through popular hype in past century emerged as the visual symbol of the city.

About two decades ago the revolving restaurant -patang- as a tall freestanding object at the riverfront and bridge corner became characteristic of Ahmedabad’s skyline and symbol of the modern Ahmedabad. We need to collectively innovate architectural syntax and building types to potentially serve as the contemporary icons of the city. Malls and multiplexes are most certainly not the ones in race…