Who wins and who loses in the production of cultural iconic architecture?

Abstract

Recent studies on the role of architecture within urban restructuring processes have become dominated by narratives on neoliberal urban entrepreneurialism, which consider urban development projects as key instruments of growth-oriented regimes and urban elites. In this paper, I want to focus on the role that cultural iconic architecture can play within a community to shape a collective identity and institute an urban imaginary. This study illustrates current cultural developments in Hong Kong, where most of the cultural budget has been spent on the global megaproject of the West Kowloon Cultural District (WKCD). In contrast, the new development areas, particularly the later generations of new towns, lack almost any form of cultural infrastructure. This contrasts with the governments' claims for creating self-contained communities. The provision of cultural buildings, when embedded in social and cultural life, can be an essential mechanism to shape a collective urban character and institute an urban imaginary. This study uses the framework of Kaika (2011) on urban imaginaries as an analytical structure to interpret the production of aesthetic symbols, based on Castoriadis' (1987) account of the imaginary institution of society. The importance of such civic infrastructure has been largely overlooked in the evaluation of existing new towns and the plans for future urban extensions. This, too, should be considered as a right to the city.

Putting the ‘i’ in icon: An autophotographic study of iconicity

“…Here, tensions over the primary function and use of a space can arise when libraries also serve as tourist attractions (Ho, 2006). However, Goudsmit (2021) discusses that icons that are embedded in the civic life of the city have the potential to contribute to a collective urban identity. This idea has already received attention from Lees (2001) who argues that studies of (iconic) architecture need to reflect on how these spaces are experienced via embodied practice rather than abstract representations.…”