Fortune cookies, the Eiffel Tower, and lederhosen all share at least one
important distinction, they each signify a particular culture. These symbols,
however, typically represent a particular culture to people not of that culture.
For example, there is far more to Chinese culture then cookies, however, availability
and exposure has led to the fortune cookie as a defining cultural icon in
the eyes of other nations. In fact, the fortune cookie is an entirely American
phenomenon. A visitor to China won’t find any fortune cookies. Few Chinese
would like to be known to the rest of the world for a cookie that they didn’t
even create. The fortune cookie is a cultural icon. Cultural icons are those
aspects of a culture seen as representative of it by people of a different
culture. Often the icons, as in the example of the fortune cookie, were never
intended to become symbols by the country itself.
While cookies and leather overalls are examples of icons associated over time,
some icons gain instantaneous acclaim and are purposefully designed to do
so by a nation. Cultural icons are becoming a favorite means to express nationalism
in the light of a growing homogenization among people. Benjamin Barber, a
political science professor at Rutgers University compares the concept of
globalization to the idea of a “McWorld” seeing the planet as
moving to one culture (Barber 1). For Barber, the increased sharing of information
and trade in the world today will lead, he sadly concludes, to one international
culture. In the face of McWorld, countries are asserting their individual
assets as a means to increase awareness of their specific nation.
In this view, monuments and buildings have been symbolic of a culture since
the dawn of architecture. The first human beings are known as the “Cave
man” for the dwellings they made famous. Notre Dame and the Arc de Triumph
in Paris are structures known internationally as French. As the world becomes
smaller and smaller, in terms of Barber’s McWorld, nations are turning
to structures as opportunities for creating cultural icons. The race for the
tallest building has made some Asian cities household words. By building a
particularly special building, specifically one, which is taller, more expensive,
or more amazing than any other becomes internationally famous instantly. Countries
looking to assert themselves as modern powers and shed any past negative stereotypes,
such as “third world” or “developing” are turning
to architecture to build cultural icons.
The practice of designing cultural icons now falls in the hands of architects.
As a result, they grapple with conflicting ideas about how to design spaces
that will represent a particular culture. It is often mistaken that architects
must infuse some aspect of a culture into one of its building in order for
that structure to be considered a cultural icon. In the wake of tall building
races and booming technology, today’s most recent icons have little
or nothing to do with their cultures and make them famous by association only.
The Petronas Towers recently constructed in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia are an
example of a cultural icon constructed to give an image to the world. The
culturally specific aspects of the towers can be questioned, but their international
presence cannot, thus making them successful in their goal to create an icon.
Icons do not need to be of a culture to necessarily represent it. Time honored
traditional icons such as Inuit igloos have become famous over time, while
the fast paced world today can make a glitzy building an instant icon overnight
regardless of its design. Size does matter when you are in the business of
making icons.
As the Internet and new information technology brings peoples closer together
and lessens the vast geographic rifts between countries, societies are becoming
more and more aware of each other. School children in Germany studying Africa
can speak to a class of their peers in Kenya live with a few clicks of a button.
Flying around the globe for a weeks vacation is no longer an unfathomable
dream. With these luxuries comes the growing importance of an ancient global
trend. Establishing nationalism through cultural icons exists deep into the
history books. The Egyptian Pyramids as temples to the Pharaohs have long
since come to symbolize the advanced desert civilization. The practice of
making monuments to culture continues strong today. Countries in the 21st
century are expending mass amounts of time and resources to ensure that their
society creates a cultural icon.
Nationalism is an individual’s feeling of identity with an ethnic group
based on several shared characteristics, such as language, history, and religion
(Kelleher 197). Expressing nationalism allows a culture to show itself to
another culture different from itself. Causing others to recognize that a
people is different from another is particularly important to countries whose
very sovereignty may have been in question at a particular time in history.
Countries who broke free of imperialist ties during the twentieth century
feel a need to assert their identities as different from that seen by the
world while they were under colonial rule. Nicholas Kristof describes the
nationalism in India that led to the end of British rule and the beginning
of a need to create a different identity Kristof 252).
Expressing this nationalism gives way to various creative opportunities. Nations
select symbols, songs, and monuments to define their cultures as they see
fit. A cultural icon could be a monument such as the White House in America,
or a dance such as the American Indian Ghost Dance, or a costume such as the
Iranian Chador. By contrast, however, this definition is not always seen as
intended by other cultures. Other cultures tend to select icons that they
see as indicative of a people. These icons are not necessarily items by which
cultures identify themselves; they are items by which other cultures identify
them. Modern day Egyptians may not see the Sphinx as representative of Egypt
as a country, however members of other cultures might see it as a symbol regardless
of its place in history. Cultural icons are deemed so by cultures other then
the icon’s own.
Nations attempt to overcome this misidentification by creating icons using
carefully prescribed ideas and images. These images can range from political
banners, to large-scale cultural performances. North Korea’s Pyongyang
Moranbong Circus is a popular venue for entertainment in the socialist country
(Sims 1). The 500-member troupe performs daily at a 620-seat dome near the
border of South and North Korea (Sims 2). The Circus has achieved international
status and is a destination for many Asian travelers. The small performance
dome near Mount Kumgang is the only place that non-North Korean tourists are
permitted (Sims 2). The performances have become cultural icons for North
Korea. Visitors from other Asian countries travel to see the circus perform
their internationally award winning show (Sims 3).
The government of North Korea takes great pride in their performers and develops
rigorous training programs for them, which can be seen in their performance
(Sims 3). Unlike the bull running in Spain, the Pyongyang Moranbong Circus
is the only glimpse of North Korea that outsiders see. It has become a cultural
icon in part because others have deemed it so, but also because it is the
only public glimpse of North Korea to be seen or identified by foreigners.
In this case, a government has purposefully prescribed how it will be known
by other cultures by limiting exposure it the many facets of its culture.
Either way, the circus has come to symbolize North Korea.
North Korea worked with a definitive plan to create its circus cultural icon.
For some countries, holding onto the meaning and rights of a time honored
traditional icon can require an equally definitive plan. Unlike North Korea,
Hawaii did not work to establish one of its major cultural icons, however
it has had to work to maintain it. The aloha shirt was developed in the 1930’s
and 40’s by silk manufactures in Hawaii (Essoyan 1). Susan Essoyan interviews
Dale Hope, president of a textile company in Hawaii. Hope explains that there
is more to the aloha shirt then the tacky tourist in black dress shoes and
a loud button down shirt. A new wave of popularity has led to the copying
of designs by foreign companies looking to compete in the market for the sought
after shirts (Essoyan 2). Hope describes how the shirts have come to symbolize
the free spirit and individualism of Hawaii (Essoyan 2). “Aloha shirts
are no longer limited to Hawaiian themes. They’ve gone way beyond the
hibiscus to sports motifs and taro farmers,” Essoyan 2). What Hope is
describing is the very concept of a cultural icon. The aloha shirt was seen
by others as a wild expression of lazy relaxing and surfing, though that has
little to do with its origin. Today people identify any loud print shirt with
Hawaii even though only some are actually the authentic variety. For Hope,
it is important to understand what makes a real aloha shirt, but for the rest
of the globe it has been simplified to outrageously colored flowery shirts,
which represent fun in the sun. This cultural icon has transcended a real
representation of Hawaiians to represent an idea with little origin in the
culture of Hawaii.
Whether a country sets out to establish an icon, or it is highlighted by other
peoples, nations are identified by these icons in a world growing closer and
closer through the McWorld of information sharing and trade. As the globe
becomes smaller and available to more people, countries are beginning to use
cultural icons as a means to identify themselves as unique nations. Creating
cultural icons spreads nationalism and controls the views of a country seen
by others. By creating a specific icon, like the circus in North Korea, a
government can help to define how others will perceive it while spreading
its national identity.
One of the three original fine arts according to the Greeks, architecture
has been a revered profession for several thousand years. Based on principles
of composition, form, and structure, architecture strives to accomplish simple
goals. According to Rob Krier, author of Architectural Composition, a text
often given to architecture students early in their studies, “Architecture
has to provide us with physical shelter from our environment, create a framework
for our activities, and above all, express symbolic and ethical values,”
(Krier 11). Resting in between the lines of this seemingly straightforward
definition is the catch phrase ‘express…values’. Architecture
must express a set of values extrapolated from the client and realized by
the designer.
A designer might create a building based on the values of expressing the architecture
of a building that used to rest on the site. Conversely he might design a
building for a historical district which was so modern that visitors could
not, even for a moment, think that it had been built at the same time as the
others. Both of these examples assign a value system to a building before
the design begins. The architect trying to preserve some of the architectural
dialogue of the prior building is working toward historic preservation. The
architect designing the purely modern building is as well. He aims to preserve
the history of the older structures surrounding his site by not trying to
make his new building look like them. While one can imagine the end result
of these two examples looking quite different, the value system employed to
solve the problem was the same.
Societies are not building stone temples or great walls anymore, but they
are giving architects the opportunity to shape a nation’s image through
other large-scale projects. The tall office building has come to replace the
temples to the Greek Gods as the iconographic archetype of the 20th and 21st
centuries. Beginning with the birth of Louis Sullivan’s first cast iron
tall building in Chicago in the late nineteenth century skyscrapers have been
revolutionizing city skylines for over one hundred years (Beedle 3). Since
the advent of steel and high strength concrete, up to ten times stronger then
traditional concrete, in the 1930’s and 40’s, tall buildings have
been rising steadily. As their height became grander so did their symbolism.
In America structures like the Chrysler and Empire State buildings rose out
of a depressed economy to signify a triumphant strength present in the country
(Beedle 5). These buildings became symbols of democracy, capitalism and endurance.
Today tall office buildings continue to grow and symbolize the cultures that
create them as today’s opportunity for cultural icons.
As architects find themselves wearing the hat of icon creator, one important
issue arises. In the design of cultural icons how much of a particular culture
should the average person be able to see in the icon? Two varying schools
of thought have come to light as a result of this problem. Some architects
feel a balance of culture, site (i.e. integration of a new building in an
existing urban fabric) and modern techniques must meld together to form a
culturally specific building. Other designers call for an end to false cultural
objects that resemble old buildings around them in favor of new designs not
misguided by what was appropriate for a culture in another time period.
John Hoskin, writing for Architectural Record, argues that site and culture
gestures must be made by architects for buildings to function in his article
(Hoskin 1). Referring to the building boom now underway in Thailand, Hoskin
criticizes past urban planners for not being sensitive to cultural as well
as environmental issues. He cites the example of western tall buildings dropped
into a tropical climate as indicative of the universal, cultureless architecture
being built today (Hoskin 2). The tropical climate in Thailand makes some
modern western design invalid. The hot sun and wet air renders the glass curtain
wall (a system for covering the exterior of a tall building in the west) totally
inappropriate (Hoskin 2). The glass curtain wall offers no shade or protection
from the hot sun and is susceptible to leaks against driving monsoons (Hoskin
2). It is a system that yields energy and comfort inefficient buildings. Even
though Hoskin admits that many Asian countries are turning to tall buildings
that look more western and express modernity and progress, their systems don’t
necessarily yield efficiency in a tropical environment (Hoskin 2). According
to Hoskin, many Asian countries associate these archetypes with prosperity
and strength despite their total lack of function in an Asian environment.
While Hoskin argues for greater cultural expression in buildings, Rem Koolhaas,
an architect practicing currently, whose lecture which addressed architects
from Asia was summarized by A. Clifford in Architectural Record, feels designers
must assign a value system of autonomy to their radical structures and allow
them to be radical. Clifford characterizes the group as concerned about maintaining
their Asian identity in the face of “rapid globalization,” (Clifford
1). Clifford summarizes the group’s fears as they watch western firms
brought in to deign tall buildings in Asia with little or no understanding
of traditional building customs or traditions (Clifford 1). Koolhaas was little
comfort to the group as he told them to give in. “The driving forces
behind the globalization of their cities were just too big for architects
to resist in any meaningful way,” (Clifford 1).
Koolhaas denounced historic preservation and what he condescendingly called
the devising of ingenious ways of infusing local character into modern buildings
(Clifford 1). He told the group that they could design 50 story buildings
with pagoda roofs if they wanted, but resistance to the standardization of
the cityscape was futile (Clifford 2). Koolhaas was trying to explain a theory
of architecture that places modern tall buildings as a movement independent
of cultural specifics or vernacular architecture. Tall buildings are not vernacular
by their very nature. Rather they are the products of modern engineering and
materials, neither of which is culturally specific. “Perhaps we have
to shed our identities. Perhaps identity is constricting us,” Koolhaas
questioned (Clifford 2).
Koolhaas is speaking about the notion that cultural icons or buildings that
represent a certain culture do not need to be made up of a kit of that culture’s
parts to be successful. To design a building that is new and modern with revolutionary
materials and then give it a hokey historical decoration would be ridiculous.
If a culture can afford to build a new and modern building, then it should
look new and modern as a celebration of that fact. Architects’ responsibilities
are to provide new icons of identity for cultures, not to summarize past identities
into a new collage according to Koolhaas (Clifford 2).
Whether one chooses to take culture into account or design using the blank
slate approach, architects must assign specific values to their building in
order to reconcile these differences. Tall office buildings will by the nature
of their like materials always appear somewhat similar. Architects must realize
that creating a cultural icon means simply a design that is unique to the
world and worthy of international attention despite its coordination or not
with the actual culture of the nation.
Malaysia’s capital city of Kuala Lumpur looks much different now then
it did only 50 years ago when the country was still a colony of Great Britain.
Sporting a new airport, several new office buildings, then new Multimedia
Super Corridor, and modern urban planning, the city and its government have
been working hard to modernize the landscape (Paranoid 1). Prime Minister
Mahathir Mohamad is well on his way to achieving his goal of showcasing Malaysia
as a developed country by the year 2020 (Paranoid 1). The most recent project
spearheaded by Mohamad includes the leveling of the city’s central racetrack
to clear room for the new Kuala Lumpur City Center (KLCC) (Pearson 1). Planned
in phases, the new KLCC will include office space, a concert hall, shopping
mall, hotels, and an enormous outdoor park and garden space equal in square
footage to the buildings (Pearson 1). The first phase of the new city center
was finished in 1997. The Petronas Towers office, hotel, and shopping complex
greet visitors as the new gates to the city.
Malaysia’s newest cultural icon was elevated to international status
when designers decided to increase the height of the building for a more slender
look. This mid-design change put the towers over the height mark set by Chicago’s
Sears Tower, which had held the rank of world’s tallest building for
several years (Pearson 2). On April 15, 1996, the Council on Tall Buildings
named the Petronas Towers the world’s tallest building putting it instantly
on the map of modern development (Petronas Towers 1).
The towers reach their amazing height through the employment of several technological
advances. Each of the 88 story towers soars 542 meters above the ground along
a 75 foot square concrete core (Toronto 1). Rings of super columns spaces
around the perimeter tied together by arched ring supports allows the cantilevering
of each floor deck (Pearson 3). Special high strength concrete, ten times
as strong as concrete used in the United States, was necessary to support
the giant buildings and resist their tendency to sway in the wind (Pearson
3). The towers are linked as Siamese twins by a glass and steel sky bridge
that connects the 41st and 42nd floors. The bridge serves not only to ease
travel congestion up and down the towers, but also to structurally tie the
systems together making the slender towers more ridged in the face of wind
and seismic activity (Pearson 4). The sum total cost for the towers, surpassing
that of the Sears Tower by 33 feet, measured in the US dollar, was $1.2 billion
(Petronas Twin Towers 1). There is much more, however, to the towers then
their super engineering and sophisticated structural components.
Hailed as a symbol to the national pride and the economic progress that Malaysia
holds dear, the towers dominate the world of architecture (Pearson 1). Arguably
the towers have put Malaysia “on the map”. To achieve their function
as a new headquarters for the national oil company Petronas, the buildings
are much larger and grander then necessary. They speak to much more then a
utilitarian functionality, they speak to the purposeful creation of a cultural
icon. Designed by American architect Cesar Pelli, the project represents an
attempt by a western architect to symbolize a culture and define a new identity
(Pearson 1).
“They are the talk of the town…They stand out for more than just
their height,” (Bowie 1). Author Paddy Bowie, writing for the New Straits
Times, describes the towers effects on the city. For Bowie the most important
aspect of the Petronas project is not the statistical achievements in architecture
or engineering, but rather the pure fact that the tallest building in the
world currently is in Malaysia (Bowie 1). In the race among modern nations
to build the tallest monument to their prosperity and success, there is something
to be said for a developing country who is not only in the running, but has
won, at least until another tall building takes the lead. New projects include
The Shanghai Financial Centre, expected to weigh in at 463 meters and finish
by 2004 (Susskind 1) as well as a recent plan to build a 468.5 meter high
vertical city in Chicago in the next few years (Us versus China 1). The race
continues, and it is a race for prestige, progress and presence.
What makes the Petronas towers and icon over other structures in the country?
To locals and architecture connoisseurs, the National Mosque in Kuala Lumpur
is among the most contemporary and sleek examples of Islamic traditional architecture
(Bowie 1). The stylish concrete and glass sparkling gems of the IKIM headquarters
and the Menara Kuala Lumpur are among the candidates for most exquisite building
in the city (Bowie 1). Why then do the towers seem to be gaining the international
press?
The concept of status helps shed light on the mystery of cultural icon design.
To create the most beautiful building is a distinction vulnerable to cultural
value systems, which may place emphasis on varying attributes. The Petronas
towers now assume the distinction of the tallest buildings. A press statement
by Prim Minister Mahathir sums Malaysia’s perspective on their newest
buildings, “We are not a big country nor a very rich one. But we build
what we can afford, and we can afford the Twin towers,” (A Symbol 1).
For Malaysians, the towers signify national pride and accomplishment in the
race among nations to develop and compete globally.
Beyond the theoretical symbolism of cultural accomplishment seen in the eyes
of the government, the towers’ sheer size has made them famous and that
is enough for some Malaysians. Bowie cites a recurring frustration for Malaysians
that will, in part, by eased by the towers.
Nothing irritates Malaysians more than when others don’t even know where
this country is. Well, they will now. We can rely on the ubiquitous modern
predilection for quiz games. The question will increasing be asked, ‘Where
are the tallest buildings in the world?’ And word gets around. (Bowie
2).
Bowie feels that just as the seven wonders of the world, all of which are
architectural, have evolved into cultural symbols of great civilizations,
so will their Petronas Towers (Bowie 3). In the case of the Petronas Towers,
Malaysia sees itself as being positively represented by the modern buildings
it has erected using progressive materials and strong resources.
For the Towers to function as a cultural icon, however, they must represent
Malaysia not only to the Malaysians, but also in the eyes of other nations.
S. Jayasankaran gives readers of Far Eastern Economic Review a flavor of one
perspective on the towers from other Asian countries. Jayasankaran refers
to the towers as symbols of Malaysian self-confidence (Jayasankaran 36). While
admitting the towers speak about economic stability and modernization, Jayasankaran
criticizes what he calls an emphasis on outward appearances rather then efficiency.
A leading Malaysian executive tentatively admits to Jayasankaran during an
interview that a smaller tower on the outskirts of Kuala Lumpur would certainly
have met the program at a far lesser cost (Jayasankaran 36). Even a Malaysian
news source is quick to point out that the towers received priority and resources
over other infrastructure improvements such as a new hydroelectric dam (A
Symbol 2). This is a perfect example of the true goal of projects like the
Petronas towers, that is, to create a cultural icon and establish a certain
identity to other nations. Jayasankaran sees the towers as a flashy and functionless
yet purposeful creation of a supposed image of prosperity and development.
Building a cultural icon with the prestige of the world’s tallest building
is very effective at getting other nations to notice one. An Australian news
paper, The Bulletin, when reporting on Malaysia’s Petronas Towers, referred
to the developing country as “Joining an elite group of countries with
the tallest buildings,” (Susskind 1). The article describes the strong
economy needed to build such a project and cites the likelihood of boosted
tourism and investment by other countries as a result. In this case the cultural
icon designed to foster a positive image about a nations economic growth might
contribute to that growth. Investment can come as a result of cultural icons
in money and in exposure.
In 1998, Twentieth-Century Fox Productions Ltd. decided to film the climax
of their Sean Connery film at the top of the Petronas Towers (Climax 1). Entrapment,
an action thriller centering on the theft of a priceless painting brought
more to Kuala Lumpur then Connery, Antonio Banderas, Catherine Zeta Jones
and other Hollywood big names (Climax 1). The production company stressed
that Malaysia would gain from the filming. Many jobs would be created including
the necessary 500 extras, not to mention the added tourism revenues (Climax
1). The films producer, Rhonda Tollefson, told reporters that, “Kuala
Lumpur is the most beautiful, architecturally exciting modern city,”
(Climax 1). Culturally specific or not, the Petronas towers are attracting
international attention and gaining recognition for Malaysia.
Exposure and attention go a long way in a world of information sharing and
name recognition. A recent advertising campaign for the Multinational Corporation
HSBC, cultural icons determined opportunities at valuable free press. The
company ran a series of commercials depicting its many world city locations
(Bowman 1). The primarily non-verbal ad used images of cultural icons to impress
on views the vast extends of HSBC (Bowman 1). London’s Big Ben, Sugar
Loaf Mountain in Rio de Janeiro and the Petronas Towers were among the images
of world cities (Bowman 1). While Hong Kong was home to one of the company’s
first major offices, it was not represented in the ad. Hong Kong officials
lashed out at HSBC for not including their city among the important World
metropolises in their ad. HSBC executives responded, “If you’re
looking at Big Ben or the Eiffel Tower, it’s different, isn’t
it? I don’t think there are symbols in Hong Kong that are on the same
scale,” (Bowman 1).
In the end it came to scale. The world today is interested in bigger and sometimes
better versions of what it already has, faster computers, more powerful cars,
and taller office buildings. Cultural icons do not necessarily need to represent
a specific culture; they merely have to make it known. The Petronas Towers
have accomplished that goal, they have placed Malaysia in the ring of architecturally
developed countries. As Prime Minister Mahathir said to a group of press,
“a country needs something to look up to,” (A Symbol 1).
Airplane travel, instant message chats, real time video conferencing, and
satellite television are all working to break the geographic barriers of the
globe. As the world grows closer through trade and information sharing, Barber’s
McWorld is an ever-growing threat to small countries feeling threatened by
large developed nations. Nationalism continues to be a means to express and
assert identity in the face of global homogenization. The creation of cultural
icons is an opportunity for a nation to control the image it present to other
countries. Architecture finds itself constantly charged with transforming
words into forms. The very notion of a concept in design is the abstraction
of words into spaces. In the case of cultural icons, the words are a powerful
message from the country to the rest of the world. It is imperative that architects,
regardless of their nationalities, be able to understand the goals of a country
and design an appropriate building.
In the case of the Petronas Towers, Cesar Pelli took the goals of international
recognition and transformed them into a revolutionary new building reaching
new feats of engineering and most importantly new heights. His towers may
not be the most efficient building for the people who use it, but it attainted
the goal of cultural icon. The value system employed by Pelli placed status
above function and cost. For Kuala Lumpur, identity was the first priority
and Pelli understood that.
Architecture must always balance the many variables of a project. The site
and environment of a particular geographic location can be limiting. Budget
and function often play a key role in the design of buildings. These must
all be placed in a hierarchy of values by the designer. Additionally, this
hierarchy comes from the client and should be expressed architecturally by
the designer. The design of cultural icons obviously lends itself to a different
set of values from most projects. In the case of national identity, the building
as object can outweigh the building as space. The Petronas towers are seen
as a monument more then a compilation of spaces and experiences.
Cultural icons remain a favorite platform for expressing national identity.
Architects must recognize these projects and understand the ways in which
they alter the traditional architectural value system. The design must evoke
the ideas set forth by the culture to other nations. These sensitive abstractions
are the responsibility of architects as they shape the cultural icons of developing
and developed nations.
Barber, Benjamin R. “Jihad Vs. McWorld.” The Atlantic Monthly.
Mar. 1992 vol 269, p.53-65.
Beedle, Lynn. Second Century of the Sky Scraper. New York: Van Nostrand. 1998.
Bowie, Paddy. “Malaysia’s Towers of Strength.” New Straits
Times. April 28, 1997, 1618 Words: Lexis-Nexis. Oct. 25, 2001.
Bowman, Jo. “HSBC Chided for Omitting HK images From Ads.” South
China Morning Post. April 26, 2001, 388 Words. Lexis-Nexis. Nov. 5, 2001.
Clifford, A. “Asian Cities: Is ‘Generic’ the Wave of the
Future?” Architectural Record. March 1996, Proquest. Nov. 16, 2001.
Essoyan, Susan. “Check the Fine Print; Today’s makers of aloha
shirts, it’s all about designing irresistible, gotta-have-it prints
and protecting them.” The Los Angeles Times. Feb. 2, 2001, Proquest.
Nov. 16, 2001.
Hoskin, John. “Building Boom Clouded by Oversupply and Traffic Congestion.”
July 1996, Proquest. Nov. 16, 2001.
Kelleher, Ann & Laura Klein. Global Perspectives. Upper Saddle River,
Prentice: 1999.
Krier, Rob. Architectural Composition. New York: Rizzoli. 1988.
Kristof, Nicholas & Sheryl WuDunn. Thunder from the East: Portrait of
a Rising Asia. New York: Knopf. 2000.
Jayasankaran, S. “Towers of Pride.” Far Eastern Economic Review.
Aug 3, 1995. Vol. 158, p. 36-37.
“Paranoid Performance.” The Daily Telegraph. June 20, 1998, Saturday,
500 words: Lexis-Nexis. Oct. 25, 2001.
Pearson, Clifford A. “Other than their status as the world’s tallest
buildings, what else do Cesar Pelli’s Petronas Towers have going for
them?” Architectural Record. January 1999, 2869 words: Lexis Nexis.
Oct. 28, 2001.
“Petronas Twin Towers.” KIAT. Oct. 25, 2001. <www.kiat.net/towers>
“Petronas Towers, The.” Skyscraper. Oct. 25, 2001. <www.skyscraper.org/tallest/t_petronas/htm>
“Petronas Towers a Symbol of our Towering Ambition, Says PM.”
Malaysia General News. August 31, 1999, Tuesday, 915 words: Lexis-Nexis. Nov.
5, 2001.
“Petronas Towers to be in Climax of Connery Film.” The Straits
Times. July 18, 1998, 245 Words: Lexis-Nexis. Nov. 5, 2001.
Rosenblum, Mort. “Bull Bashing/ Stampede launches 280 hours of partying
in Pamplona.” Houston Chronicle. July 7, 2001, Proquest. Nov. 16, 2001.
Sims, Calvin. “High Wire Feats Rule North Korea.” New York Times.
Mar. 13, 2000, Proquest. Nov. 16, 2001.
Susskind, Anne. “High tower Lowdown.” The Bulletin. July 3, 2001,
121 Words: Lexis-Nexis. Oct. 25, 2001.
Tremlett, Giles. “Bull’s Eye: Pamplona fiesta lunacy condemned.”
The Guardian, (UK). July 9, 2001. Proquest. Nov. 16, 2001.
“Toronto: Petronas Towers.” BIG Buildings. <www.geocities.com/big_buildings1/petronas1.html>
“Us versus China in battle for the skies.” Hong King Standard.
Sept. 30, 1999, 440 Words: Lexis-Nexis. Nov. 5, 2001.
Home | Syllabus | Seminar Paper | Awards | Awards by School | Awards by Semester | Links
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||