Architects and Sydney Tower

Sydney Tower, as Meaghan Morris argues in Australian Mythologies: Sydney Tower, is a fine example of a building that has no meaning, yet it successfully achieves it's intention: It was a commercial success, and it also provokes some thought. Whilst Sydneysiders do label it as their own, it does challenge architects in the debate of what the true meaning of architecture is. It is this meaning that is worrying in the architecture of popular culture.

Image by timtom.ch

It is believed that successful architects either are, or need to be narcissistic about their work, or that they eventually become so. But in this sense narcissism is about standing for one's firm beliefs. The reason that architects seem to have left out popular opinion and vernacular from their debates is based on the fact that these have been so harshly exploited in today's society, and Sydney Tower is a product of such a society. It may have some meaning, but it certainly lacks a sense of place (For example Berlin and Toronto have similar towers).


Architects in my mind have not neglected popular opinion and vernacular. Rather, they are opposed to the fact that people are becoming disconnected from places where they live. Instead, that, which is supposedly good (architecture) is suggested to the masses, by various parties with power (not architects), and every bit of this 'goodness' sold for profit.