The Transnational Capitalist Class and Contemporary Architecture in Globalizing Cities

Abstract

The focus of this article is on the role of the transnational capitalist class (TCC) in and around architecture in the production and marketing of iconic buildings and spaces, in global or world cities. The TCC is conceptualized in terms of four fractions: (1) Those who own and/or and control the major transnational corporations and their local affiliates (corporate fraction). In architecture these are the major architectural, architecture‐engineering and architecture‐developer‐real estate firms. In comparison with the major global consumer goods, energy and financial corporations the revenues of the biggest firms in the architecture industry are quite small. However, their importance for the built environment and their cultural importance, especially in cities, far outweighs their relative lack of financial and corporate muscle. (2) Globalizing politicians and bureaucrats (state fraction). These are the politicians and bureaucrats at all levels of administrative power and responsibility who actually decide what gets built where, and how changes to the built environment are regulated. (3) Globalizing professionals (technical fraction). The members of this fraction range from the leading technicians centrally involved in the structural features of new building to those responsible for the education of students and the public in architecture. (4) Merchants and media (consumerist fraction). These are the people who are responsible for the marketing of architecture in all its manifestations. (There is obviously some overlap between the membership of these fractions.). My conclusion is that many global and aspiring global cities have looked to iconic architecture as a prime strategy of urban intervention, often in the context of rehabilitation of depressed areas. The attempt to identify the agents most responsible for this transformation, namely the TCC, and to explain how they operate, suggests that deliberately iconic architecture is becoming a global phenomenon, specifically a central urban manifestation of the culture‐ideology of consumerism. L’article porte sur la classe capitaliste transnationale (TCC) au sein et à la périphérie de l’architecture, et sur son rôle dans la production et la commercialisation de constructions et espaces iconiques dans les villes mondiales ou planétaires. Cette classe se conceptualise en quatre fractions: (1) Ceux qui détiennent et/ou contrôlent les principaux groupes transnationaux et leurs sociétés affiliées locales (fraction économique): En architecture, il existe de grands cabinets d’architecture, d’ingénierie en architecture et d’architectes promoteurs immobiliers. Par rapport aux grosses sociétés multinationales de la finance, de l’énergie ou des biens de consommation, les recettes des plus importants cabinets sont assez faibles; pourtant, leur place dans l’environnement construit et la culture, notamment en milieu urbain, compensent largement leur impact relativement mince sur le plan financier et économique. (2) Les acteurs politiques et bureaucratiques de la mondialisation (...

Theorizing global business spaces

“…This socio-economic literature has established the importance in many industries of social networks as the means for acquiring and retaining business, as a means of knowledge transfer, and as central to innovation (Gertler 2003). Another strand of the literature discusses the development of a transnational business class (Sklair 2001(Sklair , 2005 (Jones 2005(Jones , 2007. This strategy has resulted in a rapid growth in employee mobility and a reconfiguration of office space as lawyer teams spent more time working abroad in client offices of temporary meeting spaces.…”

“…Drawing together number of different strands social scientific literature concerned with conceptions of space (Lefebvre 1991;Amin 2002;Buchanan 2005;Massey 2005), the built environment (Dovey 1999;Harvey 2000;King 2004), organizational theory (Felstead et al 2005;Taylor and Spicer 2007;Dale and Burrell 2008), mobility (Sheller and Urry 2003;Urry 2006) and economic practices (Sklair 2005;Yeung 2005;Jones 2008), its central argument is that the different spatial epistemologies being used to frame understandings of economic activity within the social sciences need reconfiguring if they are to capture both the nature and significance of the spaces in which business (i.e. economic) practices are undertaken in the context of contemporary globalization.…”

Aspects of urbanization in China: Shanghai, Hong Kong, Guangzhou

“…Each category clearly offers, at least in principle, tremendous emancipatory potential over a wide range of economic, political, and social issues. However, as capitalism began to globalize in the second half of the twentieth century, the emancipatory potential of generic globalization began to be systematically undermined (see Sklair 2009). While the impact of the electronic revolution and new forms of cosmopolitanism are discussed briefly below, the main focus in this paper is on iconic architecture in the context of postcolonialisms and transnational social spaces.…”

“…Globalization, at least in its generic sense, is all too often confused with the dominant type that actually exists, namely capitalist globalization. In previous publications (Sklair 2001(Sklair , 2002, I have argued that capitalist globalization is driven by a transnational capitalist 28 LESLIE SKLAIR class, which consists of four main factions: 1) those who own and/or control major transnational corporations and their local affiliates (the corporate faction); 2) globalizing politicians and bureaucrats (the state faction); 3) globalizing professionals (the technical faction); and 4) elites that consist of merchants, the media, and advertising (the consumerist faction). Architecture and urban design provide plenty of examples.…”

Form Follows Function: On the Interaction between Real Estate Finance and Urban Spatial Structure

“…In the U.S. this lasted until the early post-war boom, when, with the rst signs of nancializing real estate, "the di erences in skyscraper design and urbanism in New York and Chicago, and everywhere diminished in response to the forces of nance, market values of design, and prevailing theories of urbanism" (Willis, cited in Sklair, 2009, p.2706. 5 In related research, Sklair (2005) highlights that the production and representation of architectural icons in what he terms the "pre-global era" were mainly driven by those who controlled the state or religion, whereas the dominant forms of architectural iconicity for the global era are increasingly driven by those who own and control the corporate sector.…”