'HR Dissertation – Iconicity and hubris\r'

'Abstract\r\nThis story outlines the importance of ikonimetropolis and hubris in the scene of sophisticated computer architecture. Signifi evictt applications of the phenomenon identify as Starchitects and their constituent to developing a untested office of architecture ar ease uped in this string. The primary(prenominal) objective of the breeding is to explore the failures of iconic constructions developd by Starchitects, by nidusing on various boundulations including frugal and policy-making, amicable and estimable, and environmental and evolutionary. In pitch to roleplay these look into objectives, the looker consumptions non- experiential enquiry regularity in the brain of collecting germane(predicate) discipline from auxiliary resources. The nearly big coda proveed in the exact is that iconic buildings be perceive as egocentric representations of the improperly constructed ambitions of Starchitects.\r\nChapter 1: Introduction\r\nIn t he twenty-first century, ball-shaped developers piss demo their coc primordialed willingness to use the effectiveness of Starchitects in influence to create monumental buildings. The boom of Starchitects in currentity rear end be explained with the speedy military op termtion of globalisation as salubrious as frugal progress and cultivation (Marsh each(prenominal), 2000). Designs of such(prenominal)(prenominal) architects be unremarkably perceived as iconic dominated by extensive visibility and unique characteristics that can to the appeal of these buildings. It has been argued that the use of Starchitects is an innovative stylus to expand tourism in divergent sites crosswise the world. The invent of prestige buildings close to the world has been marked by the b atomic number 18(a) estimation to make a inequality in producing specific landmarks for cities (King, 1990). The motives for the establishment of particular proposition landmarks adhere to the speci fimetropolis of Starchitects who ar a carrefour of their sponsors and organisations, which actively search to present dogging innovation in the architectural dramatics. disparate utilisations of iconic buildings can be appoint globally, such as the Imperial severalise of war Museum North (2002) based in greater Manchester, UK, and the Seattle Central Library (2004) based in Washington, US. Similar buildings shake up been highly criticised since the epoch of their edifice. This implies the existence of controversies surrounding some of the well-nigh famous buildings around the world in particular at voguern times.\r\nPerceived as an attitude, neoity can coexist with tralatitious architectural patterns. upstartity is master(prenominal)ly refer with transformation of the present and tries to ensure such an nerve in symbolic buildings. Modern architectural patterns as evident in the pieces created by Starchitects implement the latest in composite materials and c omposite structural engineering science (Marshall, 2000). Accordingly, the festering of the cities has generated the need for the incorporation of all the elements that define a developing civilisation, allowing them to seek out identicalness in the infrastructural resources that be found deep down them and their cap office to go along with others and represent themselves in international entrepreneurial matters (Reutskaja and Nueno, 2009). While the victimization of the architectural landmarks creates the possibility of make up the tourism attraction to the sites, expositions and events argon necessary to play up and show campaign these outgrowths frankincense creating a means of investment for the topical anaesthetic authorities and outside(prenominal) investors.\r\nThe of import get down of the interpret is to provide a relevant lowstanding of the grimaces of iconi city and hubris as applied to the represent of Starchitects. The following objectives stir bee n sketch for the study:\r\nTo outline the stinting and political failures of iconic buildings; To discuss the move of social and honourable failures of iconic buildings; To present environmental (urban & natural) failures of iconic buildings; To explore the relevance of evolutionary perspectives\r\nChapter 1 is introduction and sets the mount for the present study. Chapter 2 is the publications palingenesis providing decorous culture relating to the explored topic in the thesis. Chapter 3 outlines the challenge methodology employ in the study. Chapter 4 consists of seek purposes, discussion and synopsis of findings. Chapter 5 concludes the study and provides specific recommendations pertaining to the main investigate questions and objectives.\r\nChapter 2: Literature Review\r\n trey of the essence(p) subject matter harm identified in this thesis are Starchitects, iconicity and hubris. A Starchitect is referred to as an architect who is instead famous as a e nsue of the high-profile human beingss being presented by him or her to the national (Reutskaja and Nueno, 2009). iconicity is a term relating to the specific characteristics of an icon or something emblematic in the context of architecture (Glendinning, 2012). Hubris betokens a high take of self-assurance and thus is identified as extensive pride or self-confidence.\r\nIn a book by Glendinning (2012), the focus is on the pitfalls of global groundbreakingism demonstrated in the cornerst unrivaled of various architectural buildings globally. The main argument introduced by the question worker is that architecture has been apparently spectacularised, which has led to alienated architectural pieces and individuals. It has been indicated that the supposed iconic buildings realize in unanimous social and historical integrity, implying that the aspect of iconicity has been replaced by triviality that shows unbefitting identified architectural objectives (Jacobs, 1961). The ty pe of iconic buildings created by famous Starchitects has expanded criticism in recent years, as outlined by Glendinning (2012). These buildings make water been presented as competing for attention on the skyline and in the surge media. Similarly, Sudjic (2005) indicates doubts in the authenticity and properly intended goal of iconic buildings.\r\nMoreover, searchers give considered iconicity as a distinct type of architectural tourism, which echos in buildings intended for urban travel destinations (Specht, 2014). Kent (2010) implies that architecture’s lieu has been changed from iconic to extraordinary(p) in the process of exploring architectural buildings’ force-out on a sense of place. such a sense has been explored by Rybczynski (2008) with a focus on the Bilbao action or the Bilbao anomaly representing a dearly-won iconic failure. The Bilbao effect, as shown in an expression by Martin (2013), creates controversies and thus the exploreer presents a prototype about the perceived interdict clash of Starchitects’ iconic buildings on local cities and states.\r\niconic architecture has been identified as a stiff failure, as argued in an article by Romaniuk (2010). The author of the search has presented convert arguments relating to the manipulation of the mass media trying to create a desirable vision of iconic architecture. such(prenominal) manipulation is evident in emotionally charged architectural projects including the exemption Tower for Ground Zero (Romaniuk, 2010). It has been argued that the adjust of belief and the extensive growth of pluralism agree led to the emergence of iconic buildings that are unable to fulfil the objectives of authentic iconography (Reutskaja and Nueno, 2009). In addition, the legitimacy of identifying particular buildings as iconic can be judged with time, disregarding the mass media’s projected implications of successful architectural buildings solely based on sociological and financial profit susceptibility. Based on the major(ip)(ip) studies presented in the literature review, it can be concluded that buildings should be constantly assessed in legal injury of the values with which they are associated.\r\nChapter 3: explore Methodology\r\nThe type of search methodology used in this study is non-empirical explore design, which is suitable to explore the human relationship between iconicity and hubris. Arguments are based on evidence and credible opinion provided in secondary resources (Yanow and Schwartz-Shea, 2006). The major aspect relating to non-empirical look for is the focus on data previously gathered by lookers in the field of architecture sooner than gathering a newly set of data. This explore theoretical account is ofttimes associated with the purposes of humanities and natural philosophy. superstar of the most important elements of this type of research methodology, as applied in the present study, is review of subsisting litera ture as the focus is to provide sufficient arguments in clubhouse to accomplish the previously verbalize research objectives (MacNealy, 1998). The systematic review of existing literature on the subject implies non only prior knowledge and nice research skills but as well ability to use a distinct form of meta-analysis in an attempt to reach conclusions which are important for the study.\r\nIt has been n unrivaledd that non-empirical research analysis suggests a significant amount of varying variants of the information obtained from secondary resources. A soaked sense of intellectual inquiry is subjective in this type of research because the process of acquiring knowledge is accomplished through and through valid critical and analytical interpretations of the research material (MacNealy, 1998). In fact, it is important to accentuate on the reinterpretation of consolidated information on the spots of iconicity and hubris at bottom the new exemplar presented in this study . Thus, critical reflection is part of non-empirical research analysis, which is demonstrated in the present research. in that respect is a solid focus on propositions for theory relating to the iconic dimensions of modern-day buildings crosswise the world (Yanow and Schwartz-Shea, 2006). The development of a particular approach to the present study is a well(p)-structured process that starts with the identification of a central issue, in particular the exploration of iconicity and hubris including their shock on the comprehension of emblematic buildings created by Starchitects.\r\nOnce the first step outlined in the research approach is completed, it is important to move into a direction of identifying key forces contributing to a better interpretation of the research problem. The researcher is expected to get such driving forces as well as to present the component parts that have been considered the most significant for the completion of the research (Deleeuw et al., 2010). In addition, it is anticipated that systemic logic should be used to present critically the major arguments obtained from secondary resources. The final step of the presented research approach is to submit the entire research to critical consideration (Yanow and Schwartz-Shea, 2006). It can be concluded that the acquisition of non-empirical knowledge can facilitate the process of obtaining relevant information, which would win expand the research to a new stage in the sense of providing an adequate answer and explanation to the research question.\r\nChapter 4: Research Findings & Discussion and Analysis of Findings\r\nThe main research findings obtained from the critical evaluation of secondary resources are grouped in diametric subsections of this chapter in order to focus on emerging aspects relating to iconicity and hubris in a to a greater extent direct manner.Economical and Political In military strengths/ Cases of FailureA significant research finding demonstrated in this study is that of the concern of creating iconic buildings on the economy. particularised cases indicating hubris refer to Calatrava and Valencia, as Valencia has been recognised as a city of arts and sciences. Starchitects’ sense of hubris is evident in these cases and comes to show that architecture has entered a new mode of development. Although p elevated by some and rejected by others, the emblematic buildings created by Starchitects imply a square amount of efforts invested in presenting the philosophy of iconicity in architecture (Glendinning, 2012). According to Martin (2013), the opening of the Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao serves as a relevant example of how iconicity has been used as a real(p) indicator to measure the direct usurpation on the economy. It can be suggested that the basis of iconic buildings around the world, such as in locations in Saudi Arabia, Australia, Albania and Brazil, has raised the question of the perceived economic effect of akin( predicate) activities (Reutskaja and Nueno, 2009). The dimension of commercialisation cannot be disregarded, as the sole motivating factor behind the so-called iconicity and hubris can be found in the idea of generating substantial profits from architectural tourism, which is dominated by emblematic building. other essential aspect can be also indicated in terms of considering Starchitects’ intention to fill spacious spaces, but this tends to create a disconfirming effect among some individuals.\r\nAccording to researchers, the security of international mega events is one of the most decently tools that a city can use for show-casting of resources and development, as well as the development of architectural identities that have come to be defined inwardly the industry as ‘destination images’ (Reutskaja and Nueno, 2009). In this context, specific coetaneous events have come to be alike with commercial rivalry between cities as well as the transnational envi ronment, as divers(prenominal) regions struggle to attract more investors and consumer spending. In light of this, with the increase in pressure for the cities to expand their entrepreneurial stance as they capture at increasing their attraction to mobile capital, the cities have to make considerations on their investments. It would be less economical for them to carry out development if they are not going to realise fiscal gain after the renovations. Strong controversy is genuine within most of at present’s cities-the competition being amongst the city investors themselves as well with other cities that may wish to host different events and expositions that are aimed at increasing the economic eudaemonia of the region. For this reason, the completion of iconic buildings by Starchitects has increase from the regional and local scenes, stemming into international and global scales and requiring the integration of the political, social and infrastructural frontiers (Gle ndinning, 2012). Accordingly, the growth of the cities has generated the needs for the incorporation of all the elements that define a developing civilisation, allowing them to seek out identity in the infrastructural resources that are found within them and their capability to communicate with others and represent themselves in international entrepreneurial matters (Martin, 2013). While the development of the architectural landmarks creates the possibility of increasing the tourism attraction to the sites, expositions and events are necessary to highlight and showcase these developments thus creating a means of investment for the local authorities and foreign investors.\r\nFor the most part, the mere presence of a beautiful square or a religious monument within a city cannot be enough for the modern city. In order to gain learning as a modern city of the 21st century, a large portfolio of architectural development projects is necessary so increase the output, aesthetics and genera l appeal of the city to the outside world, as it is illustrated in the case of iconic buildings (Glendinning, 2012). The portfolio includes various strategies that are used by the local development councils in increasing the architectural resources found within the premises as well as the input by multinational organisations within this development in lieu of the rules that are used by Starchitects. As growth is experienced in today’s cities, individuals can witness how similar design implementations are used in different cities, with transformations of the existent architectures aiding in the provision of favourable position and identity (Marshall, 2000). The last two decades have seen the rise of the ‘megacity’ phenomenon, with small scale and often ‘off the grid’ cities being elevated to city stardom through the regeneration of existent architectures and the inclusion of socio-cultural events around the creation of these resources. As global cit ies develop, cultural and communal events have been moved to these venues creating a sense of compass for their existence and a need for their improvement.\r\n other finding that emerged from the research is that iconic buildings are perceived as a coercive tool to redefine the economical and political image of cities and countries in which they are constructed (Reutskaja and Nueno, 2009). The economic impact of these buildings has been extensively considered in order to present adequate conclusions about the state of regional economies. It cannot be denied that the presence of legion(predicate) iconic buildings in different locations across the world has improved the economic offbeat of residents. Based on the results obtained from conducting non-empirical research, it can be argued that there are some(prenominal) cases of economical and political successes and failures associated with the construction of iconic buildings. This finding is confirmed in a research by Reutskaja a nd Nueno (2009) who provide evidence of the cocksure impact on employment in the region due to the emergence of iconic buildings and the essential element of hubris attached to them. The construction of such buildings is directly linked with the creation of a substantial number of jobs in different countries as well as greater contribution to the local government budgets in terms of taxes and duties. Another corroboratory economic impact is link up to supererogatory employment in manufacturing processes for organisations that are trustworthy for the construction of iconic buildings. However, the negative economic effects of the erection of emblematic buildings should not be ignored (Rybczynski, 2008). For instance, a significant economic drawback is associated with the higher fees that are usually charged by Starchitects, indicating their egocentric factors of want used in the construction of similar buildings. A consideration of the challenges of cost estimations and over-b udgeting should be considered in order to determine the circumstantial economical and political impact of iconic buildings.Social & Ethical Instances/ Cases of FailureThe representation of iconic buildings has been also linked with specific social and respectable implications. There are extensive examples that indicate hubris of the involved Starchitects. These are Zaha Hadid’s Qatar sphere and Patrik Schumacher’s rant at 2014 architecture biennale. It appears that the mentioned buildings carry out the ‘pride’ of their creators in terms of involved efforts to make a lasting impression on the public. Moreover, it has been sight that the aspect of public alienation is among the main factors contributing to the increasing social and good instances of failed iconic buildings. Starchitects have been identified as losing their appeal because they have consistently adhered to the philosophy of constructing architectural buildings of excess (Glendinning, 2012). As a result, it often appears that architectural design of real buildings around the world is dominated by excessive elements, which create an irrelevant perception among batch. The present study also indicated that architecture is in a new era of development in the sense of focus on the possibilities that technology has to offer. Yet, this raises the question whether such modern architecture succeeds in component the needs of humanity (Kent, 2010). The answer to this question is complex considering the manifold effects created by the specific line or mode of architecture followed by Starchitects. However, it can be stated that architecture apparently emerges as an art that cannot be avoided by either means.\r\nAn estimable instance of failed iconic buildings is related to the morality and controversy of such pieces of modern architecture. For example, Patrik Schumacher was accused of being motivated by an aspect identified as ‘ mislead political correctnessâ⠂¬â„¢. It has been argued that architects should try their beat not to confuse architecture and art. A relevant finding revealed in this context is that architecture is actually found in charge of the specific form of the reinforced environment (Glendinning, 2012). It is important to emphasise that one of the major duties of architects in contemporary nine is to deliver a strong aspect of social justice. However, it should be indicated that Starchitects’ works have raised a series of ethical and moral concerns (Martin, 2013). In Qatar, migrant workers died at a stadium which is currently under construction, as this intensifies social anxiety and maintenance relating to the purpose and means utilised by Starchitects in their egocentric representations found in modern buildings. It has been claimed that architects are not responsible for the death of these migrant workers, but the question of the moral and ethical parameters of such iconic buildings still remains persistent in the minds of individuals.Environmental and Evolutionary Instances/ Cases of Failure & Evolutionary PerspectivesThe issue of discussing Starchitects’ hubris reflects in numerous examples, such as Lloyds building and Calatrava & Valencia. The main aspect that was revealed in the study from an environmental perspective is that of the creation of defective masterpieces of architecture. It can be argued that such architectural creations have been resulted of the over-ambition of Starchitects (Glendinning, 2012). The example of Lloyd’s of London as anticipating leaving its iconic headquarters clearly illustrates the assumption of environmental failure. In fact, it has been indicated that the major problem with this building is its exposure to the elements making it an extremely costly structure (Martin, 2013). Cases of failure like this one point out that the technological advances of modern architecture have outpaced the simple ability of Starchitects to adeptl y utilise them. The failure of emblematic buildings to playact strict functional requirements is apocalyptic of their inappropriate environmental impact. Another example of a failed iconic building, as seen through the environmental lens, is seen at Calatrava’s City of humanities and Sciences complex in Valencia. Only eightsome years after the completion of this project, certain parts of the construction started falling off. Such an instance of architectural failure confirms major findings outlined in the literature review section regarding the failures of contemporary iconic buildings (Reutskaja and Nueno, 2009; Romaniuk, 2010).\r\nThe research findings indicated that both architects and developers are extensively focussed on erecting icons, but the results frequently turn out in a negative direction. The ambitions of Starchitects seemed to have contributed to the emergence of unsuitably maintained pieces of architecture in contemporaneousness (Romaniuk, 2010). In this sense, it can be argued that the architectural fabric is totally disregarded by Starchitects. Yet, a main problem created with iconic buildings is that they often produce one-lined response, which has become rather problematic for the entire functioning of the cities where these buildings are situated. Assessing the environmental impact of iconic buildings is a complex process relating to the interrelations of factors such as place, function and history (Rybczynski, 2008). Based on the research findings outlined in this study, it is important to state that iconic buildings have completely changed their status in the sense that population more and more start abandoning the idea of iconicity attached to similar pieces of modern architecture. The negative environmental impact of emblematic buildings cannot be ignored in the discussion of the ambitions of Starchitects and how those ambitions reflect in the buildings constructed by them. Changing the status of Starchitects’ buil dings from iconic to extraordinary one is indicative of the way the public has altered its perceptions regarding the contributions of present-day(a) architects.\r\nChapter 5: Conclusion and Recommendations\r\nThis paper explored the implications of iconicity and hubris relating to architectural pieces created by Starchitects. Numerous aspects associated with this issue have been soundly investigated to include different perspectives and instances of hubris, such as economical and political instances of failure, social and ethical instances as well as environmental instances of how the concept of iconicity in modern architecture has been unsuccessful. It has been concluded that these architectural creations are merely economically and socially exuberant egocentric representations of the irrelevant ambitions manifested by Starchitects. The study illustrated how these emblematic constructions built by Starchitects have presented main failures with long-term social and ethical implic ations (Glendinning, 2012). As a result, it was demonstrated that the creations of Starchitects cannot be perceived anymore as iconic, as the aspect of iconicity has been simply replaced by so-called extraordinary dimensions of perceiving similar buildings (Martin, 2013).\r\nThe research method used in this study referred to the framework of non-empirical research analysis, which has been found suitable to meet the study’s main aim and objectives. This type of method allowed for greater tractability in exploring specific concepts related to the impact of iconicity and hubris on the development of modern architecture (Sudjic, 2005). Moreover, the study identified that architecture has entered into a new stage of development with both positive and negative aspects that should be discussed thoroughly to understand the specific impact of Starchitects’ ambitions (Glendinning, 2012).\r\nHowever, certain limitations can be identified for the present study. The major limitati on refers to the use of non-empirical research method. Instead, the researcher could have utilised empirical research method that could have contributed to achieving greater credibility and reliability of research findings (MacNealy, 1998). Another limitation relates to the specific literature that has been selected for obtaining results. Broader literature could have been used to cover the main arguments illustrated in the study (Yanow and Schwartz-Shea, 2010).\r\nIn terms of recommendations, it is essential to note that the explored subject is rather complex and thus requires the implementation of multiple perspectives to understanding the wide array of impacts relating to the architectural works of Starchitects. Thus, it is recommended to conduct an in-depth primary research involving modern architects from different countries, as they can provide insightful suggestions regarding the development of a modern era in architecture (Glendinning, 2012). This recommendation also indica tes a solid focus on including suggestions for future research in the field in order to bring the topic of iconicity and hubris of architectural buildings to new horizons of research exploration (Martin, 2013). A potential subject that may be investigated in a future research refers to people’s opinion on the impact of iconic buildings for the long-term development of their cities.\r\nReferences\r\nDeleeuw, J., Meijer, E. and Goldstein, H., eds. (2010). enchiridion of Multilevel Analysis. Santa Monica, CA: Springer.\r\nGlendinning, M. (2012). architecture’s Evil EmpireThe Triumph and Tragedy of orbiculate Modernism. London: Reaktion Books.\r\nJacobs, J. (1961). The Death and Life of gravid American Cities. New York: Random House.\r\nKent, F. (2010). Toward an Architecture of Place: Moving beyond Iconic to Extraordinary. Project for Public quadruplets [online]. Available at: http://www.pps.org/reference/toward-an-architecture-of-place-moving-beyond-iconic-to-extraor dinary/ [Accessed on: 18 Oct. 2014].\r\nKing, A. D. (1990). ‘Architecture, pileus and the Globalization of Culture’. Theory, Culture and Society, vol. 7, pp. 397-411.\r\nMacNealy, M. S. (1998). Strategies for verifiable Research in Writing. London: Longman.\r\nMarshall, R. (2000). emergent Urbanity: Global Urban Projects in the Asia peaceful Rim. London: Spon Press.\r\nMartin, J. (2013). The Bilbao Effect: If You Build It, testament They ComeThe Economist [online]. Available at: http://www.economist.com/ guest/21591708/comments [Accessed on: 18 Oct. 2014].\r\nReutskaja, E. and Nueno, J. L. (2009). ‘Starchitects, Emblematic mental synthesiss and Their do on Urban Economics’. IESE business enterprise School, University of Navarra, pp. 1-20.\r\nRomaniuk, O. (2010). Failure of Iconic Architecture. Living Space [online]. Available at: http://www.livingspace360.com/index.php/failure-of-iconic-architecture-12484/ [Accessed on: 18 Oct. 2014].\r\nRybczynski, W. (2008). When Buildings Try Too Hard. The Wall avenue Journal [online]. Available at: http://online.wsj.com/articles/SB122731149503149341 [Accessed on: 18 Oct. 2014].\r\nSpecht, J. (2014). Architectural Tourism: Building for Urban Travel Destinations. Wiesbaden: Gabler.\r\nSudjic, D. (2005). Can We even Believe in Iconic BuildingsProspect mag [online]. Available at: http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/ [Accessed on: 18 Oct. 2014].\r\nYanow, D. and Schwartz-Shea, P., eds. (2006). Interpretation and Method: Empirical Research Methods and the Interpretive Turn. New York: M. E. Sharpe.\r\n'