Wanted: An Icon

In a multi-part series, The Age--the newspaper of Melbourne, Australia--enlists the imaginations of its readers in envisioning an iconic building for that city's Central Pier.

Central Pier at Docklands — a blowy, light-bathed heritage-listed promenade — always looks as if it's verging on a big idea. And for years ideas about what to do with the prominent site, once earmarked for Melbourne's answer to the Sydney Opera House, have bubbled beneath the surface.

But since The Age revealed last week that the site may languish as a cafe precinct for the next five years, the question has renewed urgency.

Responses, not surprisingly, run the gamut: from maintaining its current use as a mix of cafes; to a museum of aborginal art, to "anything with a one billion dollar wavy roof" and a local version of Manchester, England's Urbis, a museum of contemporary urbanity.

Others ask, why does the city need to pursue the construction of an iconic building? Does it merely reveal deep insecurity to do so? What are the ramifications of international recognition, and is there any guarantee that broader recognition will actually occur? What about the buildings that are already there--are they historical? Worthless?

"Marvellous Melbourne" is already known for many things: quality of life, cultural diversity, design, art, sophistication. Maybe the city is itself the icon that people seek:

The Sydney Opera House and Guggenheim Bilbao are, unquestionably, internationally recognised and instantly recognisable iconic buildings, both of which house cultural activities. They are the twin icons that are cited by every promoter of a landmark building in every city that aspires to the Sydney or Bilbao branding opportunity.

How many intended icons actually make the grade of international recognition? The reality is that for every Bilbao there are scores of buildings that feature in Sunday papers and in-flight magazines for a year or so and then quietly disappear from sight.

In Britain, the Millennium Commission was set up with largesse from the National Lottery to create a series of iconic buildings across the length and breadth of the UK in time for the celebrations in the year 2000. How many of those buildings would be recognised instantly by someone living in Melbourne?

What do people expect of iconic buildings to come? What do they mean for the cities they are supposed to represent? Are all-defining symbols necessary? Desirable?

Below, Central Pier in Melbourne's Docklands. (via)

Comments

[Alexander Waters]

I don't think there's going to be one building that does the task in making Melbourne instantly recognizable to the eyes of the rest of the world. I'm grew up in Melbourne and have lived around the US and Asia for a number of years now. Everyone outside Australia knows Sydney for its Opera house, and its opera house alone.

They may know that there are nice beaches there and that its a typically Australian hot climate, but not much else. Melbourne really is a better city; in every conceivable sense. Its a historical accident that Sydney is older and thus able to advertise its 'premier' status to the world. I trust that I don't have to go through a list of reasons why Melbourne is better than Sydney here, lets just grant that, and that Melbourne deserves to be shown in all of its glory to the rest of the world, as an underlying assumption.

Melbourne's growing at a rate of just under 70,000 people a year (double that of Sydney) and there's increasing interest from abroad so it will continue, steadily, to grow whether some giant monument gets built or not.

The destiny of our city could be realized much sooner with a lot of effort though.

I think there needs to be a huge amount of money injected into the infrastructure of the city. I'm talking in excess of 100 billion dollars. We have Eureka. Lets build 10 similarly sized skyscrapers; at different points around the city. We'd want to aim at least for tripling the size of Melbourne's skyline; expand not only into the Docklands, but in every direction. The great thing about Melbourne's positioning, is that it's not right next to the water, so it can expand much wider than an island city like Manhattan. The potential for Melbourne to grow is almost unlimited.

Look at what the city of Beijing did in the buildup to their 2008 Olympics! There's a town with a population of 14 million people, that up until a year or two ago didn't have a single sky scraper! If you've seen the images of Beijing during the olympics, you'll know that they have fairly decent looking skyline and genuine downtown area now, as well as having some magnificent sporting arenas; the ''birds nest'' not the least of them. There is no reason that Melbourne could not unify its people in a similar spirit and achieve similarly astounding milestones in its history. Also, we should draw heavily on Melbourne's strong cultural ties with China, more than having a huge number of Chinese Australians in the Melbourne area, there are some great opportunities for networking, cultural exchange and huge economically symbiotic growth there; just ask John So! (We'll miss you "bro")

Just to go completely against my thesis so far; here's my suggestion for an individual building that would draw millions of foreign visitors to Melbourne, and make it instantly recognizable.

A giant brain. Sounds gross I know, but hear me out.

'The brain' would be a homage the greatest achievement of humanity; our minds and along with it; our reason and our imagination. It could function in any number of ways. I think making the facility a public space that people would want to use repeatedly would be a good start.

It could be a monument to great thinkers; philosophers, authors and world leaders? It should promote Melbourne and the world, not Australia. The monument should transcend the old world barriers of nationality, ethnicity and creed. It could be a monument to reason and skepticism; to critical inquiry. It should reflect the true nature of Melbourne's diverse population. Whilst primarily promoting the greatly atheistic, skeptical, almost existential nature of most Melbournians, it could also present the historical roots of those afflicted by various religions in Melbourne. I feel very strongly that this monument should not obsess over Australian history, although I did like and support some other commentators ideas of an aboriginal museum. It should reflect the deep substance of Melbourne and its people. It should promote secularism and Melbourne as a model secular city to the world. The monument should show that if human beings use their ability to reason, to think and to question, all the answers are attainable and the human mind is truly a marvel.

Perhaps it could be part science research lab/university/museum? Giant part shopping mall/residential apartment? There could be a concert hall with interactive biographies of great composers, music theorists and performers.

I am open, and would appreciate all suggestions!

I love Melbourne and can't wait to visit home again in May '09.

[Ashley Brient]

This building should be built, now, not later, having this type of building at a location right next to the water with a design like that would be one of the best things that has happened to Melbourne, a good view from the top, over looking the water and, Victoria Harbour, Docklands and Melbourne CBD!

Will this building be built? and if so, when??