The Politics of Iconic Architecture

The political fraction of the transnational capitalist class (TCC) in architecture and urban design is made up of national, international, and transnational politicians and officials at all levels of administrative power and responsibility. They operate in communities, cities, states, and international and global institutions. They make decisions on what gets built where, how changes to the built environment are regulated, and on issues of urban preservation. The TCC facilitates the production of iconic architecture in the same way and for the same purposes as it does all cultural icons, by incorporating creative artists to construct meanings and aesthetics that effectively represent its power in order to maximize profits for the capitalist class. In his very widely reviewed book on megaprojects and risk, Bent Flyvbjerg (2003: 16) states, ‘Cost underestimation and overrun cannot be explained by error and seem to be best explained by strategic misrepresentation, namely lying, with a view to getting projects started.’ It seems to me sensible to bear this apparently extreme statement in mind when thinking about the relations between politicians and professionals in this field. The political fraction of the TCC in architecture divides into two over­lapping groups and two sets of institutions. First, there are globalizing state officials and politicians and their nominees in public agencies who promote, award, permit, or refuse contracts for important national or subnational (usually urban) projects. Governments and local authorities organize competitions, sometimes inviting entries from domestic or foreign architects. The selection of iconic foreign architects for prestigious national and urban projects has become a feature of the era of capitalist globalization. The second group com­prises inter-state and transnational officials and politicians who are influential for architectural projects promoted as sites or buildings with global significance. Others confer a sort of transnational political iconicity on existing buildings and places, notably through the World Heritage Site system of UNESCO (Edensor 1998: 184–7). The work of private transnational non-governmental organizations is also important. For example, the title and mission statement of the World Monuments Fund, ‘Saving the world’s architectural masterpieces and important cultural heritage sites from damage and destruction’, have a deliberately official ring.