Building (13 March, page 38) says the era of the icon is over and predicts more modest buildings post-recession. But you interview only architects. Why not some of the clients?
There seems always the presumption that only the architect is responsible for design style. But the more iconic clients seek designers who can reflect the images they want their buildings to convey – and they pay accordingly. Unless such clients existed, there would be no Zaha Hadids, and their sometimes wilful architecture.
It is simplistic to say that iconic means costly. Perhaps we should stop using “iconic”. Would “designer buildings” be more appropriate?
Malcolm Taylor, FRICS