See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/316279446

The icon project: architecture, cities and capitalist globalization

Book · April 2017

CITATIONS READS

23 1,077

1 author:

Leslie Sklair
The London School of Economics and Political Science
148 PUBLICATIONS   3,893 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

BEYOND CAPITALISM AND THE HIERARCHIC STATE View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Leslie Sklair on 10 October 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Iconic Architecture and the
Rise of Globalizing Cities
Leslie Sklair
Professor Emeritus
London School of Economics

Never before in the history of human society has the capacity to produce
and deliver goods and services been so efficient and on such a grand scale. This
was made possible by the electronic revolution that started in the 1960s and the
global logistics revolution, which was the result of the advent of the shipping con-
tainer. Paradoxically, never before in the history of human society have so many 127
people wanted goods and services that they cannot afford to buy, largely due to
absolute increases in human populations and the relative ease of communica-
tions brought about, again, by the electronic revolution. The results of this shift
are class polarization and ecological unsustainability, both fatal contradictions
to the promises of the capitalist system. These problems are disguised by what
has been termed iconic architecture produced by a new breed of “starchitects”
(globally renowned architects) that now spans most regions of the world, from
the great cities of the Global North, to the expanding megacities of the Global
South and the artificial urbanism of the oil states of the Arabian Gulf. Shopping
malls, modern art museums, ever-higher skyscrapers, and urban megaprojects
constitute the triumphal “Icon Project” of global capitalism.1
Leslie Sklair is Professor Emeritus of Sociology at the London School of Economics. He has been Visiting
Professor at the University of Southern California, New York University, New School in New York, Uni-
versity of Sydney, Hong Kong University, and Strathclyde University in Glasgow. In 2017 he was awarded
an honorary medal by the Czech Academy of Sciences. He has written The Transnational Capitalist Class
(Wiley-Blackwell, 2000) and most recently The Icon Project: Architecture, Cities, and Capitalist Globaliza-
tion (Oxford University Press, 2017). He has also written on globalization and capitalism for social science
encyclopedias and has been a member of the editorial boards of the British Journal of Sociology, Review of
International Political Economy, Global Networks, and Social Forces.
Copyright © 2017 by the Brown Journal of World Affairs

Spring/Summer 2017 • volume xxiii, issue ii

Complete 23.2.indb 127 5/25/17 12:40 PM

 Leslie Sklair
Icons emerge at the meeting point of power, meaning, aesthetics, and taste,
where the power of those who dominate the global economy, the meanings
produced by its ideologues, and the aesthetics produced by architects create the
conditions in which the Icon Project thrives. I define iconic in terms of fame and
aesthetic/symbolic significance. The more successfully a building can convey
consumer-friendly meanings and designs—ideally combining the comfortable
with the spectacular—the more value the building will have in the market. For
example, the Sydney Opera House, often described as the first global architectural
icon, initially provoked a storm of protest against its cost and unusual shape.
A successful marketing
Capitalist hegemony—the everyday ex- campaign, however, gar-
pression of the power of the dominant nered it a high measure
of popularity and esteem
class—is made visible by the creation of both at home and abroad.
iconic buildings, spaces, urban mega- The opera house was origi-
projects, and sometimes entire cities. nally commissioned and
promoted with the aim
of boosting tourism and Australia’s reputation on the world stage. It has now
become a significant consumerist space and global tourist destination. It is to
128 Sydney and Australia what the Eiffel Tower is to Paris and France: an integral part
of its city’s and country’s brand. Essentially, the more famous a building is, the
greater its commercial potential will be. One of the most defining characteristics
of iconic architecture in globalizing cities is the ever-increasing importance of
tourism for economic development, place marketing, and national identities.
This reality should therefore be borne in mind when considering the connec-
tions between iconic architecture and capitalist globalization.
One of the consequences of capitalist globalization is the transformation
of the social production, marketing, and reception of iconic architecture. These
processes are largely driven by those who own and control most of the land
and other resources all over the world, conceptualized here as the transnational
capitalist class (TCC). The TCC is organized into four overlapping factions:
corporate, political, professional, and consumerist. In most societies, the TCC
has the lion’s share of economic resources, political influence, and mass media
attention and support.
How then does the transnational capitalist class use architecture and urban
design in its own commercial interests? Capitalist hegemony—the everyday
expression of the power of the dominant class—is made visible by the creation
of iconic buildings, spaces, urban megaprojects, and sometimes entire cities. I

the brown journal of world affairs

Complete 23.2.indb 128 5/25/17 12:40 PM

 Iconic Architecture and the Rise of Globalizing Cities
argue that the TCC mobilizes two distinct but related forms of iconic architec-
ture to spread the culture-ideology of consumerism: unique icons (buildings
recognized as works of art in their own right) and successful typical icons (build-
ings copying elements of unique icons). The culture-ideology of consumerism
relentlessly promotes the view that the true meaning of life is to be found in
our possessions. It is the foundation of the capitalist dogma of limitless material
growth that turns all major social institutions—education, law, criminal justice,
family life, sexuality, social services, and health—into commercial opportuni-
ties, commodifying everything. To that end, iconic architecture promotes an
insatiable desire for the fruits of consumer culture.
The vast body of literature on globalization and global cities has so far
failed to come to grips with the social production of iconic architecture and its
central role in globalizing cities (namely, cities aspiring to global status). With
more and more people living in cities all over the world, a phenomenon cap-
tured by the concept of planetary urbanization, the Icon Project is an important
weapon in the struggle to create and solidify capitalist hegemony, as well as to
reinforce transnational capitalist control of where we live, what we consume,
and how we think.2
My argument draws on two of my previous publications.3 Here, I focus
129
on how capitalist globalization is produced and represented all over the world,
especially in globalizing cities; on how the TCC inscribes its own interests in
the built environment; and, in particular, on what has come to be known as
iconic architecture. These questions are approached through two interrelated
investigations: 1) how the architecture industry organizes the social produc-
tion and marketing of iconic architecture and 2) how processes of capitalist
globalization since the second half of the twentieth century have evolved into a
complex system. This system is one in which capitalist corporations increasingly
dominate the built environment and promote the trend toward globalizing and
consumerist cities. This, in turn, results in the virtual privatization of public
space through a process of creating new consumerist spaces tailored toward
privileged publics—that is, people with money to spend.
The production and representation of architectural icons in the pre-global
era (roughly pre-1960s and before the rise of the electronic and then the digital
revolutions) were mainly driven by those who controlled state or religious insti-
tutions. Today, however, the dominant forms of architectural iconicity for the
global era (post-1960s) are increasingly driven by those who own and control
transnational corporations, their local affiliates, and their government, profes-
sional, and media allies. Historically, this mirrored class structure in most societ-

Spring/Summer 2017 • volume xxiii, issue ii

Complete 23.2.indb 129 5/25/17 12:40 PM

 Leslie Sklair
ies: religious authorities dominated the first era of architectural icons (through
the construction of monumental religious buildings such as Greek temples and
Gothic cathedrals) and states and empires dominated the second era (royal pal-
aces, monuments, official buildings). The present era is dominated by the TCC.
Iconic architecture has always been a resource in struggles for meaning and,
by implication, for power and profits. Therefore, to explain how iconic archi-
tecture works for capitalist globalization, we must ask questions about meaning
and power. Temples, cathedrals, and mosques become significant to the faithful,
and they convey visions of the gods and the enigmas of the human condition on
which all religions rest. Palaces, government buildings, and public monuments
become famous to citizens and subjects, and they convey the power and authority
of empires and states and the hierarchies on which all forms of class society rest.
Shopping malls, corporate headquarters, museums, performance spaces, sports
stadiums, transportation hubs, and gleaming megatowers become famous to
everyone through the mass media, for example as background establishing shots
on TV screens. Architectural landmarks of the past are turned into icons (in my
terms) and routinely mobilized by the tourist trade. These buildings convey the
message that the true meaning of life is in consumerism, which in turn serves
as the fuel that powers the global capitalist machine and provides the profits for
130 those who own and control the transnational corporations. Where the iconic
architectures of previous eras (religion- and state-dominated) are often marked
with the symbols of the dominating elites, the icons of capitalist globalization
are more varied in style, a consequence of the corporate capture of the modern-
ist aesthetic and its offshoots. Glass, shiny metals, and spectacular shapes have
been mobilized to convey messages of transparency, democracy, and consumer
friendliness in all building types. The electronic revolution that made capital-
ist globalization possible also makes possible new forms of iconic architecture.
In a research project stretching over the last decade, and in addition to
surveys of the literature on architecture and urban design as social and cultural
phenomena, I undertook a series of formal interviews with practicing architects
and people working in and around architecture—who teach, write, promote,
and curate. My respondents, who were from all over the world, were engaged
in some (or all) of these activities. The primary purpose of these interviews was
to establish whether or not the term “iconic architecture” is becoming part of
the discourse of architecture and urban design. All my respondents were able
to provide their own definitions of the term iconic (mostly in terms of fame
and symbolic and/or aesthetic significance). The second purpose of the inter-
views was to find out if respondents could tell me what buildings or spaces

the brown journal of world affairs

Complete 23.2.indb 130 5/25/17 12:40 PM

 Iconic Architecture and the Rise of Globalizing Cities
they considered iconic personally, such as from their own childhood; iconic
for architects and/or for the public; and iconic on the local, city, national, and
global scales. Every one of them was able to do so, usually with enthusiasm.
These interviews provided me with some confirmation of what I already knew
from documentary sources; pointers to buildings considered iconic at various
scales (local, urban, national, regional, and global) of which I had never heard;
and the often ambivalent attitude of practitioners and scholars in the field to
the very idea of iconic architecture.
The origins of what I rather dramatically term the Icon Project in architec-
ture and urban design are to be found in the celebrity culture that has become
a defining characteristic of what I have conceptualized as the culture-ideology
of consumerism.4 I define iconic architecture in terms of fame and aesthetic/
symbolic significance, and I show how failure to define the concepts of iconic
architect and iconic architecture clearly has led to confusion in professional and
public discussion. The Icon Project in architecture is not produced exclusively by
the mass media, as is widely imagined, but in many cases by architecture firms
themselves. The process of iconization of buildings, spaces, and architects is
shown to work in the production not only of unique icons (such as Jørn Utzon’s
Sydney Opera House, Mies van der Rohe’s Seagram building in New York, and
131
Frank Gehry’s Guggenheim Bilbao) but also of successful typical icons (copies of
elements of unique icons—for example, the metal and glass towers and expressive,
unusually-shaped museums and transport hubs that have sprung up in cities all
over the world in recent decades). The evidence of several complementary em-
pirical measures derived from
searches of newspapers and The Icon Project in architecture is not
other media—including cover- produced exclusively by the mass media,
age of the architects themselves
and their buildings labeled as as is widely imagined, but in many
iconic, major prizes and exhibi- cases by architecture firms themselves.
tions, and recognition in gen-
eral cultural as well as architectural media—shows the existence of three distinct
groups of architects. The first group comprises the top four designers of unique
architectural icons at the beginning of the twenty-first century: Frank Gehry,
Norman Foster, Rem Koolhaas, and the recently deceased Zaha Hadid. The sec-
ond group comprises about 30 signature architects, such as David Chipperfield
in England, Thom Mayne in California, and Renzo Piano in Italy. The third,
much larger group consists of firms producing many locally successful typical
icons, for example, Nikken Sekkai based in Japan, HOK in the United States,

Spring/Summer 2017 • volume xxiii, issue ii

Complete 23.2.indb 131 5/25/17 12:40 PM

 Leslie Sklair
and Tabanlioğlu in Turkey.5 Substantive evidence of the unique-typical iconicity
distinction can be derived from the structure of the architecture industry itself.
Such evidence focuses not only on the most celebrated architects but also on the
much more sizeable body of largely anonymous architects responsible for most
of the buildings in globalizing cities around the world. The producers of these
typical icons serve to connect all globalizing cities in the collective imaginaries
of consumerist capitalism. This is happening even in self-branded communist
societies, most notably China.
Unique icons and successful copies occupy different spheres of the same aes-
thetic/symbolic space. Unique icons are proclaimed iconic because they display
an original aesthetic, but their symbolism is open and they are enigmatic signi-
fiers—their meanings are open (sometimes deliberately) to several (sometimes
contradictory) interpretations. Architectural theorists, historians, and critics
therefore offer imaginative metaphorical analysis of the designs of many iconic
buildings.6 Here I confine myself to the social production and functions of such
architecture. While Barthes explored this idea in his essay on the Eiffel Tower,
and the phrase “enigmatic signifier” is used in psychoanalytic and cultural theory,
as far as I am aware Jencks was the first to apply it systematically to the study of
architectural iconicity.7 Successful typical icons meanwhile strive to reproduce
132 an already successful aesthetic by copying original features, but symbolically
they are not intended to be too open or enigmatic. They are expressions of the
culture-ideology of consumerism. This symbolic choice is also open for the
reception of unique icons, and under the conditions of capitalist globalization
they too have become consumerist spaces, as well as spaces for other experiences;
for example, gift shops in churches, restaurants in sports venues, and bazaars in
museums. Unique and typical icons both play central roles in the Icon Project,
and those who are responsible for them are complicit with the corporate faction
of the TCC in architecture and urban design.
The biggest firms in the architecture industry are rarely the most celebrated.
To explain this apparent anomaly, it is useful to explore the extent to which dif-
ferent categories of architects connect with capitalist globalization as analyzed
here by way of a TCC-based analysis of architectural iconicity. Through the
distinction between unique and typical iconicity, a more accurate picture of how
the system of iconic architecture works emerges in comparison to what is to be
found in most mass media and even some professional accounts.
I conceptualize the TCC in terms of its four factions (corporate, political,
professional, and consumerist), whose personnel often overlap (for example,
through the “revolving door” between the corporate and government spheres).

the brown journal of world affairs

Complete 23.2.indb 132 5/25/17 12:40 PM

 Iconic Architecture and the Rise of Globalizing Cities
The first faction of the TCC in architecture, namely the corporate, comprises
both the biggest architect and architect-developer firms and the smaller, more
celebrated firms responsible for most of the unique icons. Thus, firms of all
sizes provide the built environments of cities, jostling for positions in the global
hierarchies that were invented by urban growth coalitions. This is their contribu-
tion to the culture-ideology of consumerism and the growth-obsessed dogmas
of neoliberal capitalism.
There is natural resistance to seeing great artists as businesspeople, let
alone members of something as formidable as the transnational capitalist class.
Nevertheless, starchitects, signature architects, and designers of typical icons
actively engage not simply in
the creative work of architec- Firms of all sizes provide the built
ture, but also in the business environments of cities, jostling for
of architecture and the Icon
Project through their active positions in the global hierarchies
engagement with the culture- invented by urban growth coalitions.
ideology of consumerism. This
is obvious from the promotion of the iconicity of their own buildings on their
own websites.8 To a certain extent, all great artists do this. My purpose here is
133
not to pass judgment on these artists, but rather to explain how unique iconic
architects, producing spectacular consumer-friendly buildings, work for the TCC
and global capitalism and how these creative people can be considered part of
the corporate faction of the TCC in architecture and urban design. Without
the larger group of signature architects and the much larger group of expansive
firms producing hundreds of typical iconic buildings across the world, the Icon
Project as I have conceptualized it would not be possible. The social production
of iconic architecture, however, also requires the skills and resources of the po-
litical, professional, and consumerist factions of the TCC to create and sustain
the requisite connections with consuming publics distributed in a great variety
of cultures globally.
The second faction of the TCC in architecture, namely the political, is di-
vided into two overlapping groups and two sets of institutions. First, globalizing
state officials and politicians—and their nominees in public agencies—promote,
award, permit, or refuse contracts for important national or subnational (usually
urban) projects. Governments and local authorities organize competitions—
capitalism is a very competitive socioeconomic system—sometimes inviting
entries from domestic and/or foreign architects. The selection of iconic foreign
architects for prestigious national and urban projects has become a prominent

Spring/Summer 2017 • volume xxiii, issue ii

Complete 23.2.indb 133 5/25/17 12:40 PM

 Leslie Sklair
feature of capitalist globalization. These politicians and functionaries are supple-
mented by a variety of interstate and transnational officials and politicians who
have influence over which architectural projects are promoted as sites and/or
buildings with regional and/or global significance (for example, the siting of
the UN and other official regional institutions buildings). Others confer a sort
of transnational political iconicity on existing buildings and places, notably
through designations like United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organization’s (UNESCO) World Heritage Sites. The role of the political fac-
tion of the TCC in architecture and urban design is most visible in globalizing
cities. Iconic architecture—both unique and typical—is not merely compatible
with, but a necessary component of, what have come to be known as urban
megaprojects (UMPs) in the era of capitalist globalization. Case studies of UMPs
deliberately targeting tourist and local consumers within La Défense district in
Paris, hundreds of cities in China (notably Shanghai, Beijing, and Shenzhen)
and projects at varying scales in many other globalizing cities provide ample
evidence for this assertion.9
The third faction, the professional, is comprised of architectural entrepre-
neurs. This refers to all those who play a part in the comfortable coexistence
of architecture and urban planning as professions, with the tenets of capitalist
134 globalization and its fetish for ever-increasing growth. They include people who
work with (or for) those
Of all the four factions of the TCC, the pro- who own and control the
fessional faction is the one in which we major architectural firms;
those engaged in facili-
find the most opposition to the globalizing tating construction; the
agenda of contemporary capitalism and education of architects;
and its effects on architecture and the city. designers in general; and
professional architectural
entrepreneurs, historians, and critics. The professional and corporate factions of
the TCC thus clearly overlap. There are many other professionals in architecture
and urban design, however, whose relationship to the professional faction of the
TCC is problematic—sometimes even at a personal level, such as when former
students turn against their teachers who might also be prominent architects. Of
all the four factions of the TCC, the professional faction is the one in which we
find the most opposition to the globalizing agenda of contemporary capitalism
and, in some cases, outright condemnation of consumerism and its effects on
architecture and the city. There are frequent debates between globalizing profes-
sionals who enthusiastically support and practice the agenda of capitalist global-

the brown journal of world affairs

Complete 23.2.indb 134 5/25/17 12:40 PM

 Iconic Architecture and the Rise of Globalizing Cities
ization and others who pursue their own, sometimes alternative, agendas. This
group includes architects, engineers, and consultants, working with inexpensive
and sustainable local materials and building methods, along with the teachers,
historians, and critics who provide them with theoretical and practical support.10
There is no shortage of critical commentary on capitalism and consumer-
ist societies from politically progressive proponents of architecture and urban
design. Those associated with critical regionalism—the view that traditional
building styles and materials have been undervalued in contemporary archi-
tecture—in its several incarnations and those under the umbrella of vernacular
architecture also provide some insights about what alternative globalizations in
architecture and urban design could look like. The long tradition of architecture
without architects connects with more recent vernacular theories and practices
in ways that challenge the pretensions of those promoting starchitecture and
celebrity as it applies to architecture and urban design. The prime role of the
professional faction of the TCC here is to reconceptualize the idea of space
in such a way that the more abstract aesthetic and sociological approaches to
this slippery concept can be brought into line with the basic requirement that
the TCC sets for contemporary iconic architecture. Whatever other function
iconic buildings may serve, they must first provide appropriate levels of profit
135
and consumer-friendly space.
The fourth faction of the TCC, the consumerist fraction, comprises those
who sell architecture and urban design (mostly redesign and usually conceptu-
alized as gentrification) to the consuming public. All space is potentially con-
sumerist space, but there is certainly a continuum from maximally consumerist
space—in which users are provided with many opportunities to spend money
and few opportunities not to, as in shopping malls—to minimally consumerist
space—in which there are very few, if any, opportunities to spend money—cem-
eteries, for example. Iconic architecture, through the Icon Project, plays a central
role in promoting consumerism in the interests of the TCC. Such connections
are already common in popular culture, fashion, sports, and so on, but there is
relatively little systematic research on the links between iconic architecture and
capitalist consumerism.
In architecture and urban design, the process begins with transnational
social spaces: globally branded shopping malls, theme parks, waterfront devel-
opments, and transportation centers that could be located almost anywhere in
the world. What makes them transnational is that they are designed to represent
one or more global architectural styles, recognized through the mass media as
much as through direct experience by quite different communities of people

Spring/Summer 2017 • volume xxiii, issue ii

Complete 23.2.indb 135 5/25/17 12:40 PM

 Leslie Sklair
from a multitude of class, geographical, ethnic, and cultural backgrounds. Where
they are successful, they provide visual references that mark out specific senses
of belonging identified with each of these communities. They aspire to do this
without offending the sensibilities of members of other communities—one
connection with what may be conceptualized as consumerist postcolonialism.
This is the sphere in which globalization, iconic architecture, and consumer-
ism relate most directly insofar as consumerism provides them with a common
set of defining practices and beliefs: shopping and other retail opportunities
that aspire to transcend the very real differences between various communities
at home and abroad. The social production of both unique and typical iconic
architecture is integral to this process. Iconic buildings of all sorts attract cus-
tomers and keep the wheels of the culture-ideology of consumerism, and thus of
capitalist globalization, rolling. For example, even the reconstruction of Ground
Zero was marketed in these terms: “World Trade Center. Features the newest,
greenest, most exciting commercial office spaces in New York City. Distinctive
buildings designed by celebrated architects, world-class restaurants and shops,
and much, much more.”11
Antonio Gramsci (borrowing from Romain Rolland) warned us that it is
important to balance our “pessimism of the intellect” with a healthy dose of
136 “optimism of the will.”12 It is all too easy for progressive-minded people (espe-
cially democratic socialists) to feel helpless when they contemplate the world,
which is faced with democratic deficits and ecological unsustainability in even
the most fortunate communities and daily horrors in the most unfortunate.
The twin crises of capitalist globalization—class polarization and ecological
unsustainability—appear to be getting worse rather than better on a global scale,
as debates around the new geological epoch, the Anthropocene, highlight.13 It
would be absurd to expect architects and urbanists to design us out of these
crises. Nevertheless, architects and urban designers can work creatively to pro-
vide a built environment fit for an alternative noncapitalist globalization as they
currently do for global capitalism. These large transformations, I believe, are not
possible within the framework of capitalist globalization and its alter ego, the
hierarchical state. Progressive alternative globalizations, in my view, can only be
possible to the extent that we start to think about a world free of the capitalist
marketplace, wage labor, and the hierarchic state. As utopian and unrealistic as
this may sound, it is no more so than the complacent belief that our peoples
and planet can continue to muddle through the existing order as it deteriorates.
Despite the dominance of corporate architecture there is an impressive array
of alternative approaches and practices in circulation.14 All types of sustainable

the brown journal of world affairs

Complete 23.2.indb 136 5/25/17 12:40 PM

 Iconic Architecture and the Rise of Globalizing Cities
architecture, including iconic buildings, would have a place in new noncapitalist,
inevitably smaller-scale, and more resilient communities all across the world. WA

Notes
1. This paper summarizes the central arguments of my new book: The Icon Project: Architecture, Cities,
and Capitalist Globalization (New York: Oxford University Press, 2017). Please consult the extensive index
and the 25-page bibliography in the book for detailed references on all the topics covered here.
2. N. Brenner, ed. Implosions/Explosions: Towards a Study of Planetary Urbanization (Berlin: Jovis, 2014).
3. Leslie Sklair, The Transnational Capitalist Class (Oxford: Blackwell, 2001); Leslie Sklair, Globalization:
Capitalism and Its Alternatives (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002).
4. See: Sklair, Globalization, ch. 7; Sklair, Icon Project, ch. 7.
5. All of these architects and firms have offices in and build all over the world; the place names simply
indicate home office location. This is one indicator of the globalization of architecture.
6. For example, see: A. Boime, The Unveiling of the National Icons: A Plea for Patriotic Iconaclism in a
Nationalist Era (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998); C. Jencks, The Iconic Building: The Power
of Enigma (London: Francis Lincoln, 2005).
7. C. Jencks, The Iconic Building.
8. On iconicity claims on corporate websites, see: Sklair, Icon Project, 57–62; On corporate attitudes to
iconicity, see: Sklair, Icon Project, Table 2.2; On typical icons, see: Sklair, Icon Project, 93–95.
9. Sklair, Icon Project, 170–93.
10. For the criticality debate around business orientations of architects, see: Sklair, The Icon Project,
194–200.
11. For the reproduction of a photo taken in April 2012 of a hoarding with this text (which also iconises
Calatrava’s Transportation Hub) see: Sklair, The Icon Project, 39. 137
12. In Q. Hoare and G.N. Smith, eds., Selections from the Prison Notebooks of Antonio Gramsci (London:
Lawrence and Wishart, 1971), 175, n.75.
13. See: Ian Angus, Facing the Anthropocene: Fossil Capitalism and the Crisis of the Earth System (New York:
Monthly Review Press, 2016); and for its connections with architecture, see: D.A. Barber, “Architectural
History in the Anthropocene,” Journal of Architecture 21, no. 8 (2016): 1165–70.
14. For the Critiques series of the Architectural Humanities Research Association, which offers an ex-
ample, see: R. Morrow and M.G. Abdelmonem, eds., Peripheries: Edge Conditions in Architecture (London:
Routledge, 2013); I. Weizman, ed., Architecture and the Paradox of Dissidence (London: Routledge, 2014);
and countless small independent architecture practices all over the world.

Spring/Summer 2017 • volume xxiii, issue ii

Complete
View23.2.indb
publication stats137 5/25/17 12:40 PM