One of the best definition of the architectural field I've found is that it is the physical projection of a given culture or values! Hence, we should be a bit sceptical towards accepting global trends! instead we should always try to adapting them to the immediate context!

Related to the iconic architecture, I believe they have valuable impact in people's life. The least role they can play is the "landmark" effect. You may refer to Kevin Lynch work on legibility and imageability.

Good thought, but what if we want give additional feature of today to get layers of more traces of time ?@Amine Moulay ?

My argument is that if we add new landmarks , how can we still keep cities identities ?

thank you Ghada Al Slik , I'm just referring to the same seminal work of Kevin Lynch "Image of the city" because he argued that the combination of the 5 elements of legibility in the city (Landmarks, nodes, paths, edges, district) play a crucial role in fostering the identity of people as well!.... with time of course

Sometimes for commercial and exposure pourposes we need to have an iconic building in our cities, however, we can design and construct a particular "iconic" example from a regional and traditional context evolved into an abstract modern idea. I believe that every nation must have an architecture that define them, in case of Mexico, we live under the shadow of Luis Barragan and his timeless architecture. However, we need to create an evolution of it, as well as our prehispanic heritage, to create newer architecture that help identify us as society.

If we understand our past, we can create a better future based in our succesful examples, there is a fine line in between an historical approach and a concise global influences, because we need to process how new technologies affect design and construction.

In a particular case, i consider the efforts of the Aga Khan Trust for Culture something we need to pursuit to keep the identities of the regions alive while creating this new architecture.

Jorge Javier I understand what you say and totally agree, but some times some would say that never the less we need something different , something iconic that is of another character and could ( add ) to the identity! for example here in Iraq all were saying that it is not logical that Zaha Hadid does not have a building in her country of birth ! when a building id being built of her design now in Baghdad , some critics are attaching it as being strange to the city even it is built in the suburbs ! others say that a new feature is needed as an expression of time and culture.

I understand what your are saying. Sometimes we need to look further and have a better approach, i wonder if a lot more iraqui architects would be interested in build and promote the values of the site, looking at the ancient legacy and transform it into something new.

I wonder if Ali Mousawi from AMBS Architects has been doing something else around there, but to me, embracing modernity with meaning is the goal.

Please read my book "Urban Conservation" (MITPress) and try to rephrase your question, to render it more concrete. It is very important to distinguish between "planning" and "design". Planning is the main directive' while design changes every so often.

Nahoum Nissim Cohen I am referring to design of buildings , and their impact on the urban scene being one of the constituents of city character and not the traditional planning and its conservation .

It all depends on planning. Design is a small part of planning' just one brick in the whole city approach.

Jorge Javier Yes as you say we have sites full of potentials to get new yet authentic ideas for design.

Ali Musawi worked in the housing project in Haifa street which was built in the 80s of the 20th century , and in 2011 he participated in a competition for the renewal of Adhamyia district in Baghdad .

Cities are living organisms. The very definition of "iconic" buildings is part of a program to identify the city as a collection of consumer's objects.

Important buildings are part of a city mainly for its use and symbolic value, not as "iconic".

@ Toca fernandez Antonio , yes that is right, iconic buildings are tools for fame ! for the architect mainly! Expressive buildings with innovation thought is different.

"Iconic" buildings are a trademark. That is not an important building, regardless of its size or budget. Important buildings are something else; they are cultural and historic symbols recognized by people, not by the escenographic trends of programs of social conditioning.

I do think that iconic buildings contribute to the image of a city. Though being different oftentimes arise disapproval of residents just like when the Eiffel tower was constructed. Though it takes time for people to accept the new addition to their environment. But an iconic building can contribute to the meaning of a city not only to the residents but also sight seeking visitors. But a question can be asked of what aspect of an iconic building that can enable it to contribute to the character of a place?

The concepts of "icon" and "star architects" were born in the era of a new type of customer - global developers.

I will not discuss the negative impact of this technology on urban development.

It is enough to go outside and ask people how many windows are in the buildings in which they live, pray, rest, or work to understand that that religious notion of " a presentation of belive" does not refer to design, engineering or architecture in general, as many participants in the discussion had noted.

This is an ideological term, and one should not get carried away with it, explaining the introduction of poorly functioning implant-sculptures into the living organism of the city.

The same term "iconic" is really used as the principal feature of a building; regardless of its functional, social or cultural value. The scenographic characteristics of those "icons" are the real reason of its construction. The Eiffel Tower was a great symbol of the Expo in Paris; that after years was accepted and recognized by the people. Not was constructed as an "icon".