Landmark as Symbol

The Tamar Government Complex

June 2012

Introduction

Debate is often raised as to whether architecture can be studied and unpacked as a language which embodies society’s ideals, as most architectural objects are not perceived to communicate ideas, but merely to function (Eco, 1986, p. 57). While not immediately apparent, the built environment can actually be seen as “a system of communication, representation and expression in power…only rivalled by verbal communication” (Preziosi, 1979, p. 12). Roland Barthes, a prominent writer of semiotics, further highlights how the city “…is truly a language: the city speaks to its inhabitants, we speak our city…simply by living in it, by wandering through it, [and] by looking at it” (1986, p. 92). Perception is therefore in the eye of the beholder, something that helps people understand and move through the environment around them. The concept of how we see and how it helps users to interpret the complex language of the urban fabric had previously been introduced by American urban planner Kevin Lynch. His influential 1960 work The Image of the City examines how people recognise, utilize and operate in the urban environment through five core elements of city cognition: paths, edges, nodes, landmarks and districts (Lynch, 1960, p. 8).

Working within this framework of Lynch’s Concept of City Legibility, and using Barthes’ research in semiotics, this paper aims to examine one of the core elements, the landmark, as a semiotic sign and a building’s significance and effect on people within the urban cityscape. To better understand the interrelationships within semiotics, the exploration of these ideas will be illustrated using the recently completed Tamar Central Government Office and Legislature Complex in Hong Kong.

The Concept of City Legibility

Kevin Lynch’s Concept of City Legibility forms the basis of cognitive geography which recognises that people have “ways of acquiring, storing, organising and recalling information” (Gifford, 2002, p. 32) about locations and buildings. Known as environmental cognition, Lynch further identifies that a person’s perception of their surroundings influences their understanding and that a city with clear, definable elements can assist people in orientating themselves through an urban environment. He describes a legible city as a place where “…[a person] can establish a harmonious relationship between himself and the outside world” (Lynch, 1960, p. 2). He argues that a city is constructed  on five fundamental elements: paths, edges, nodes, landmarks and districts (Lynch, 1960, p. 8). Understanding and moving through a city therefore lies in recognising the meaning contained within each of these elements and their interrelationships between each other, allowing a person to cognitively recognise the urban fabric.

What must first be recognised is that the concept of perception and what a person sees extends beyond what Lynch described in ‘reading’ a city. A person’s gaze is not a neutral experience, people “…continually compare what we see with situations that we have previously met and assimilated” (Meiss, 2008, p. 27). City legibility can therefore be extended beyond merely what is seen and instead be used to consider how urban fabrics carry meaning, with Lynch’s work forming “…the principal means at present for researching signification in the city” (Gottdiener & Lagopoulos, 1986, p. 6). In particular, one of the five elements, the landmark can be scrutinised “…as stimuli [for people’s perception] because they have become symbols and not because they support behaviour by facilitating movement” (Gottdiener & Lagopoulos, 1986, p. 8). Unlike Kevin Lynch’s exclusively scientific and detached investigations, this approach instead recognises that “attitudes and beliefs [of people] cannot be excluded…[nor can] their perception of it [buildings] and the value they put on it [be ignored]” (Tuan, 1974, p. 2). There is therefore a need to substitute Lynch’s “epistemological approach” with a conceptual approach which examines the meaning of what a person perceives (Gottdiener, 1986, p. 212). This argument suggests that a landmark is not merely an object which is viewed as important or significant because of its placement or physical characteristics, but rather is a semiotic symbol, a signifier of meaning.

Casestudy //  The Tamar Government Complex, Hong Kong 

The premise of any semiotic study involves recognising how arbitrary ‘signifiers’ are linked to what is ‘signified’ to form ‘signs’ (Hebdige, 1984, p. 141). In the case of a landmark, a building is the ‘signifier’, where meaning (the ‘signified’), does not necessarily have a material existence of its own but exists through the symbolic activities of society (Krampen, 1979, p. 7), that is, it derives meaning through people’s interactions with the signifier. By examining the Tamar Government Complex, designed using very specific symbols by Hong Kong based architect Rocco Yim, it will therefore be possible to examine how successfully people interact with this signifier to recognise it as a landmark.

One of the Tamar Government Complex’s most clearly identifiable symbols lies in its form. Two large towers reach out toward the sk­­­y, topped with a massive cantilever to form a massive archway. The building’s central opening is described as “The Open Door [which] also symbolises the openness and transparency of governance” (Tamar Development Project: Door Always Open, 2010). Its design draws quite literally from verbal language, the Chinese word for ‘door’, characterised as: “門”. The overall theme of the project is to promote the notion that the Hong Kong government is receptive to public opinion (TAMAR: 'A Dynamic New Chapter' Video, 2007). The building’s clear intension to reach out to many people, can be read as “a form of mass culture” (Eco, 1986, p. 76) which draws from the Chinese heritage of its city. It forms a link between two different languages, the architectural and the verbal to signify democracy and open government in Hong Kong. What is being signified is not a physical ‘thing’ but a mental representation of the ‘thing’ (Barthes, 1977, p. 42). People can therefore cognitively recognise this building because a mental process of transformation occurs, where people perceive the building, not as a physical object, but as a signifier that embodies an idea, the signified. This mental engagement with the building is what makes it significant and thus, the building is recognised in a person’s subconscious, as a landmark.

A secondary ideology which has been exemplified through the cantilever structure is the intention to bridge the gap between politics and government. One of its core values was identified as being connectivity, “symbolically in terms of dialogue between different parties” (Tamar Development Project: People will be Connected, 2010). A conscious attempt has been made in the design to link the three separate realms of politics, bureaucracy and governance under one scheme. The cantilever becomes the metaphoric ‘bridge’ which joins these separate entities together. Given the conscious decision to embody an idea within the structure, the complex exemplifies the notion that a building’s “meanings are the product of a particular ideology” (Parker, 1979, p. 222). ­­Once again, through understanding the meaning embodied within the structure, the Tamar Complex becomes more significant in terms of a person’s perception, allowing it to be identified as a landmark.

The traditional strength and will of political power has also been exemplified in the overall forms of the building. Any building, particularly a landmark, “must have some meaning for the observer, whether practical or emotional” (Lynch, 1960, p. 8) and the Tamar Government Complex is no exception. The entire building is composed of a series of strict geometries, carefully organised together to form a singular cohesive form. The Tamar Government Complex thus becomes the embodiment of an ideal, to allow people to “…engage in the lively debate of an open and transparent government” (TAMAR: 'A Dynamic New Chapter' Video, 2007). Its composition transforms the building into a powerful signifier of governance. The language of power, political power, has been ‘urbanised’ (Certeau, 1986, p. 128) to advertise its presence amongst the people, and it is this transformation that also supports the complex in being seen as a landmark.

In terms of materiality, the building’s shimmering glass facades and tall imposing structure can similarly be read as a physical link between governance and the city. Given that “the sign derives its values also from its surroundings…” (Barthes, 1977, p. 48), the physical links drawn here can be seen as the structure’s attempt to relate to the city. As a legislative complex, the building seeks to signify the all-encompassing nature of governance. In a material sense, the complex therefore blends in with its commercial office neighbours, forming a somewhat homogenous cityscape in its attempt to fit in. While perceptively this would appear to detract from the visual impact of a landmark, as it does not immediately ‘stand out’, Lynch identifies that “single landmarks…are likely to be weak references by themselves…[but] if they are clustered, they reinforce each other” (Lynch, 1960, p. 101). The materiality thus serves to reinforce the Tamar Complex as a landmark, providing a connection to its surrounding context to emphasise the ideas that underpin the building and its intensions.

Conversely, the process of signification can also arise from what a sign attempts to distance itself from and what it strives not to represent. In noting that “historical associations, or other meanings, are powerful reinforcements...” (Lynch, 1960, p. 81) of the landmark we can infer that a deliberate historical disassociation can serve as an equally powerful reinforcement. By comparing the new Tamar Complex with the old Legislative building, distinctions in the articulation of the two buildings can be seen as signs which represent the move from the old colonial Hong Kong into its new democratic future. The old complex’s strong masonry columns and dark loggias suggest an introverted and authoritarian approach to governance. The architect’s employment of modernism in the Tamar Complex is such that there is a clear intention to disregard this dictatorial past in an attempt to destroy tradition (Margalit, 2012), distancing the building from history. This rational building stands as “a dynamic new chapter in the life of Hong Kong,” (TAMAR: 'A Dynamic New Chapter' Video, 2007) in complete contrast to the old Legislature building, a relic of British colonialism at the city’s heart. Where stone and masonry was the traditional symbol of authority and governance, the Tamar complex replaces these materials with steel and glass. The new building therefore exudes a sense of change in the political landscape, emphasised architecturally through its disassociation with the old heart of government.

Conclusion

Landmarks are much more than the physical characteristics people perceive. Landmarks are the physical embodiment of hopes, beliefs and values. In the case of the Hong Kong Government Complex, the “Open Door” is suggestive of Hong Kong’s future path towards democracy and equality. Examining the Tamar Complex has shown that the relationships people have with their buildings extends far beyond a structure fulfilling a function. The meaning encapsulated within a building is not merely significant to our perception, but is supported by the semiotic and cognitive associations, making it a landmark. The building is an abstract representation, a semiotic sign of the many values and hopes the people have for their government. This consciousness to the symbols that surround people in their cities creates an all the more enriching experience and arguably, allows people to become more self-aware of their cities. While Kevin Lynch could filter any city into a composition of five basic elements, it is the meaning that people impart in their buildings and the associations they make with these that gives landmarks their significance. In doing so, a person gives value and adds to the complex and dynamic language of the urban fabric, allowing each city to possess unique characteristics and experiences.

References

• Barthes, R 1977, Elements of Semiology, 2 edn, Hill and Wang, New York.

• Barthes, R 1986, 'Semiology and the Urban', in M Gottdiener & A Lagopoulos (eds), The City and the Sign: An Introduction to Urban Semiotics, Columbia University Press, New York, pp. 87 - 98.

• Certeau, Md 1986, 'Practices of Space', in M Blonsky (ed.), On Signs, Basil Blackwell, Oxford.

• Eco, U 1986, 'Function and Sign: Semiotics of Architecture', in M Gottdiener & AP Lagopoulos (eds), The City and the Sign: An Introduction to Urban Semiotics, Columbia University Press, New York.

• Gifford, R 2002, 'Environmental Perception and Cognition', in R Gifford (ed.), Environmental Psychology: Principles and Practices, 3 edn, Optimal, Canada, pp. 22 - 50.

• Gottdiener, M 1986, 'Culture, Ideology, and the Sign of the City', in M Gottdiener & A Lagopoulos (eds), The City and the Sign, Columbia University Press, New York.

• Gottdiener, M & Lagopoulos, A 1986, The City and the Sign: An Introduction to Urban Semiotics, Columbia University Press, New York.

• Hebdige, D 1984, Subculture: The Meaning of Style, Methuen, New York.

• Krampen, M 1979, Meaning in the Urban Environment, Pion Limited, London.

• Lynch, K 1960, The Image of the City, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.

• Margalit, H 2012, 'Modern Architecture & Urban Semiotics', Course material for BENV2256 - Theory & Politics in Architecture, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia, 19 April 2012.

• Meiss, Pv 2008, Elements of Architecture: From Form to Place, Spon Press, New York.

• Parker, A 1979, 'Semiotics & Architecture', Bachelor of Architecture thesis, University of New South Wales.

• Preziosi, D 1979, Architecture, Language and Meaning, Mouton Publishers, The Hague, The Netherlands.

• Tamar Development Project: Door Always Open, 2010, CSfAO Administration Wing, Hong Kong.

• Tamar Development Project: People will be Connected, 2010, CSfAO Administration Wing, Hong Kong.

• TAMAR: 'A Dynamic New Chapter' Video, 2007, Hong Kong, <http://www.admwing.gov.hk/tamar/eng/design.htm>.

• Tuan, Y-F 1974, Topophilia: A Study of Environmental Perception, Attitudes and Values, Prentice-Hall Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, USA.