Iconic Architecture
Case StudyDaniel Libeskind, Imperial War Museum North
History and Theory 2 Assignment 2 Mohammed Amir Amin 2nd Year Architecture
Imperial War Musuem North, photographed by Greaves (2020)
Contents: - Introduction, Page 1 - The Bilbao Effect, Page 2-4 - Imperial War Museum North, Page 5-6 - Architectural Analysis, Page 7-11 - Critiques, Page 12-14 - Conclusion, Page 15 - Bibliography, Page 16-17 -Image Source List, Page 18-19
Imperial War Musuem North, photographed by Greaves (2020)
Guggienheim Musuem photographed by Fernandez (2018)
Introduction In the year 1997, Frank Gehry opened the Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao, Spain as part of efforts to revitalise the previously derelict port city and since being built the museum had become a massively successful tourist spot attracting attention internationally and transforming and improving the local economy of the city (Hedgecoe & Whittle 2012). This led critics to use the term ‘Bilbao effect’ because of the many different cities that tried to replicate the success of Bilbao and increase their own economic growth (Forgey, 2002). Similarly, in 2002 as part of ongoing regeneration in Salford Quays Polish-American architect Daniel Libeskind was awarded commission by the Imperial War Museum organisation to build the Imperial War Museum North (Niesewand, 1997). This essay aims to discuss how Gehry and the Bilbao effect has influenced the way iconic museum architecture is viewed and portrayed using the Imperial War Museum North as an example.
“Form no longer follows function, it was following image.” - Sudjic (2011, p.367)
1.
Guggienheim Musuem photographed by Frederique (2004)
The Bilbao Effect The Bilbao effect arose because of Gehry’s successful Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao. The term, for most, is describing a way for post-industrial cities to use architecture and art to help regeneration and development of an area and is therefore replicated by planners across different cities (Dickson, 2017). Dividing opinions of such critics using the term as a way to castigate the museum as a symbol of cultural imperialism because of the lack of regard for the traditional culture and way of life (Hedgecoe & Whittle, 2012). On the other hand, some praise it because of the sheer ability to create such an icon which transformed Bilbao seemingly overnight, with many news outlets, media and architects such as Philph Johnson praising the structure calling it “the greatest building of our time.” (Lee, 2007).
2.
Replicating the Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao is often described as a gambled risk (MacCannell, D. 2011). This is because opening the museum netted a $20 million fee from the Basque government, the launch of ‘Guggenheim.com flop’ cost the backers of the museum $20 million and the director Thomas Krens was forced to cut the 2003 budget for the Guggenheim by 13 percent on the previous year (Sudjic, D. 2011). Yet, cities still aim for iconic pieces of architecture to help ensure economic success which doesn’t come without risk.
Figure 1. Close up of Guggienheim Musuem Bilbao, photographed by Prins (2019)
Figure 2. Close up of Guggienheim Musuem Bilbao, photographed by ar_ graff (2011)
Guggienheim Musuem photographed by Prins (2019)
Essentially, Bilbao created the trend of cities creating icons in the form of architecture to serve as a catalyst for better economic prosperity, whether or not the architecture itself is important is debatable. As said by critic Deyan Sudjic (2011) “One Bilbao can shock its way into the headlines but replicating the trick is the way to an architecture of diminishing returns” (p.392) This suggests that not every piece of architecture that aims to be as successful as Guggenheim in Bilbao actually achieves the desired attention and often times leads to designs that have more shock than value. However, others such as Benjamin Forgey claims “Gehry and others have done enough now to certify that being different from the norm -- even extraordinarily different -- is not evil.” (Forgey, 2002. N.p). This shows that although the architecture is different it’s not necessarily bad. This could reflect the views of a changing society, building no longer needing to relate to context or history but being their own entity which provides the city, in this case Bilbao with a new sense of pride. 3.
Figure 3. Guggenheim Museum Bilbao Project Sketch Gehry F (1999)
The Bilbao effect has led to an increase in ‘Starchitects’ which is described as architects who have achieved massive critical acclaim and gained a celebrity status in the world of architecture because of it (Sklair, 2017). Gehry is the main example of a starchitect whose designs have become iconic and are highly recognisable. As critic Sudjic (2011) discussed, the Guggienheim Bilbao had catapulted Gehry into celebrity status. The partnership of the then director of Guggienheim Krens and architect Gehry made each other famous as Gehry became a star whilst Krens became “the most talked about museum director in the world” (p.362). Similar to how Krens was able to become well-known and as Gehry had ushered in a new era of iconic buildings and set the standard for what a starchitect would be, more have risen. Many city planners and investors are looking for the next iconic piece of architecture that would be able to transform areas like how Gehry transformed Bilbao from a place plagued with crime and terriorism to an affluent tourist attraction (Sudjic, 2011). 4.
Imperial War Musuem North The Imperial War Museum North (Fig. 4) was the first branch of the Imperial War Museums (IWM) to be opened outside of the Southeast, England and was designed by Libeskind (Baing, Andreas Schulze, & Wong, Cecilia. 2018). The trustees of the Imperial War Museum needed a space to house collections that were unable to fit in the other exhibitions, attract visitors to the north and wanted to build an iconic building that would be ‘a statement that people got excited about’ (Imperial War Museum North, Manchester. 2004). Although Libeskind’s aim for the IWMN was to tell the story of how war and conflict has affected the lives of those in Britain and commonwealth countries since 1914 (Studio Libeskind, 2020). Libeskind lost his own relatives during the holocost and his parents were holocost survivors, their lives being drastically changed during the second world war under the Nazi regime. Even after the war had ended, anti-seminitsm was still prevalent which then caused his parents to move to Israel in 1957 and then the US in 1965 (Marek, 2010). This would not be the first time Libeskind created a war museum as he is most known for another project, the Jewish Museum (Fig. 5) in Berlin, Germany (Niesewand, 1997).
Figure 5. Jewish Musuem Berlin, Germany. Photographed by Esakov (2010)
Figure 4. Imperial War Musuem North, photographed by Victor B (2020)
5.
The Imperial War Museum North is often seen as an example of deconstructivist architecture (Shaw, Scholes, & Thurgood. 2008). Conceptually the three main structures represent the three interlocking shards of the globe (Fig. 6), each being a different territory of war: Land, air and water (Studio Libeskind, 2020). The idea for this concept was said to have been from Libeskind dropping a teapot from his window and gathering the remains of what was to eventually become the shape of his design (Rushforth, 2003). The funding for the IWMN had been cut but despite this setback Libeskind remained set on there being a strong and stark form without any compromise to the original concept, insisting that the budget cuts would actually help in some ways (Herbert, 2000).
Figure 6. Imperial War Musuem concept drawing, drawn by author.
Figure 7. Imperial War Musuem site in the 1900s, Retrieved from DigiMaps
The site in Salford was previously a brownfield site previously used as a shipping dock before it became derelict in the 1980s. Since then numerous regeneration projects have occurred to help boost the cultural and economic value of the area, the Imperial War Museum North being one of them (Baing, Andreas Schulze, & Wong, Cecilia. 2018). The hope for this regeneration scheme was to help improve and solidify Salfords Quays place branding and image with a flagship landmark, with the Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao being used as a precedent with the risk of the outcomes and aims not being achieved still present (Kavaratzis, Mihalis, & Ashworth, Greg. 2015). However, since it’s opening in July 2002, the museum has attracted over one million three hundred fifty thousand visitors and won numerous architectural awards (Conde Nast Traveler Magazine, 2007). The area of Salford Quays had also undergone a major transformation due to the opening of the Imperial War Museum North, Lowry Centre and development of MediaCity are accredited for putting Salford on the map by some critics and even referred to as “Salford’s Guggenheim” because of the influx of visitors and tourists to the area (Aldersey-Williams, 2000). 6.
Figure 8. Air shard, photographed by Parr (2011)
Architectural Analysis The concept of the interlocking shards in the Imperial War Museum North can be seen clearly as the viewer draws closer to the building however viewing the structure from afar can make it seem as the shards resemble a sail (Fig. 8). The critic Jones (2003) explains “From a distance the tower makes a projecting sail, but as you approach, the building becomes a collision of large rounded metallic forms” (N.P). This shows that from afar the buildings concepts are not clear but the likeness towards a sail is interesting since the context of the site is an old shipping dock. This leads the viewer to see a link between the overall image of the structure and the place it stands.
-Figure 9. Elevation drawings of Imperial War Musuem North, drawn by author
7.
A wide concrete path leads to the entrance of the Imperial War Museum (Fig. 10), the path itself has a thinner irregular path crossing it. Unwin states that a path may be straight or irregular and is used to avoid obstacles (Unwin S, 2014). Both irregular and straight paths are used in the Imperial War Museum North, which could be inferred as clashes of territories and boundaries or it could be used as a way to build suspense and anticipation. The viewers experience in the case of the Imperial War Museum North has been a main priority for when development was taking place as in each shard tries to emit certain emotions as the viewer walks through them, even before the viewer enters the importance of the journey from approach is seen as a way to build up anticipation which ultimately leads to a small doorway into the museum (Macleod, Dodd & Duncan. 2014).
Figure 11. Entrance to the Imperial War Musuem North, EatExploreEtc (2018)
Figure 10. Pathway to Imperial War Musuem North, Roach L (2010)
8.
The Imperial War Museums wall displays and orientation are at an angle (Fig. 12), this has been done deliberately to disorientate and unsettle viewers but it has become a main feature of the viewers experience in the museum (Macleod et al. 2014 2014). The use of walls according to unwin is used negatively as a way to restrict access and freedom of movement (Unwin S, 2014). Although, walls in the imperial war museum north slope outwards in order to project historical films and war photographs onto them both horizontally and vertically (Spring M, 2001). This leads to the walls having more than just one purpose in this case. The walls and ceiling which slope look to the viewer as if they are dissolving become smaller or larger depending on which way they are walking. This psychological manipulation of space leads to confusion and the photographs of war being projected onto these surfaces make it seem to the viewer as if war is inescapable. Therefore it leads viewers to “successfully navigate a purposefully disorientating and disconcerting experience” (Macleod et al. 2014. p.16).
-Figure 12. Floorplan of Imperial War Musuem North, highlighting walls in the exhibition space. Drawn by author.
9.
Figure 13. Pathways that prevoke emotions, edited by author.
The design of a museum is thinking about how objects should be displayed as well as thinking of the routes people may take through the gallery whilst also thinking and understanding the place museums have in culture (Unwin, 2014). The floorplan shows the distortion of the museum floor clearly as objects are placed on an angle and walls slated. This suggests that the Libeskind had done this deliberately to provide viewers with an experience of the place as each route leads through the museum and makes the viewer feel a set of emotions as they explore the museum physically as well as mentally and emotionally (Macleod et al. 2014). Therefore Libeskind had been thinking theoretically and creating these exhibits as journeys which provoke emotions from viewers not only when they stop to glance but as they enter, travel through and exit the museum (Fig.13).
10.
One of the Imperial War Museum North’s defining features is its lack of light which creates a dark atmosphere throughout the exhibition space (Fig. 14), with only randomly placed beams of light acting as the light source. The earth shard which holds the main exhibition space is lit by random diagonal gashes of fluorescents (Jones, 2003). According to Unwin (2014) “Light, both natural and artificial can be manipulated by design to identify places and to give places particular character.” (p.49). This suggests that depending on light places can be recognisable, in this way the lack of light creates confusion for the viewer as they are unable to see where they are going. The random gashes of floursents act as a way to draw the viewer’s attention to a particular place, for a museum it would be the exhibits. This would be done in order to allow the viewer to recognise the exhibit as being the main focus and where their attention should be. Yet in the Imperial War Museum fluorescent light strips seem to avoid the exhibits freely lighting sections of the walls. This may have been done to disorientate and confuse the viewer. Further proven by critic Jones (2003) comments on the diagonal bands of light on walls and clashing diagonals as they become a “dominant visual impression” (N.p). Therefore, the museum’s lack of light is used to draw attention to what is important and guide the viewer’s eyes in a certain direction to what is lit to signify importance, but in the Imperial War Museum North the light is placed randomly to leave the viewer amazed and confused at the spectacle.
Figure 14. Interior of Imperial War Musuem exhibit space, retrieved from arch2o.com
11.
Critiques The critics of the Imperial War Museum North often comment on the exterior appearance of the structure with either praise or dissatisfaction for its simplicity and meaning. Jencks (2005) explains that Libeskind is ‘obviously trying to be iconic’ when referring to the concept of the shattered globes (p.38). Interestingly the use of the phrase ‘obviously trying’ implies that the Libeskind does have a drive to create icons similar to those done by Gehry although maybe not as successful. As rhetorical strength doesn’t always succeed, this leads to architects like Libeskind to focus too hard on becoming iconic. The concept becomes too obvious and lackluster.
Figure 15. Concept sketches of Imperial War Musuem, by Libeskind.
On the other hand, critic Jones (2005) praises and often compares it to Lowry, claiming it to be more successful because of its simplicity. He explains “it is more coherent as an object despite its dynamic plan; yet its curves and diagonals differentiate it dramatically from the horizontal and vertical backdrop of ordinary buildings” (N.p). This infers that because of the placement of the building it stands out whilst also being unique and complementary to the surroundings. In this way Libeskind creates a building that is iconic because of its ability to differentiate itself and stand out all while not clashing with the natural city landscape. In addition, Jones (2003) uses the metaphor describing the Lowry and Imperial War Museum North as the two cultural cherries on cake, similarly Hedgecoe & Whittle (2012) quoted a tourist visiting the area of Bilbao for the Guggenheim Museum and they used the same metaphor of cherry on cake when describing the museum. This also shows that both museums were revived positively because they improved the area culturally and were internationally recognised. 12.
The role of the Imperial War Museum North being a key point in Salford Quays regeneration is also brought up again, whether Libeskind was able to achieve the desired effect of socio-economic prosperity by opening the museum similar to Bilbao. Critics argue if the construction of the Imperial War Museum North was done to increase consumption in the area of goods, help educate or simply as a way to draw attention to the city (Shaw, Scholes, & Thurgood. 2008). According to some articles, they believe the IRA bombings was “one of the best things to happen to Manchester” because they allowed for some of the architecture they believed to be unappealing be destroyed and allowed for the creation of new, modern buildings to be built such as the Imperial War Musuem North (Creative Review, 2002). This suggests that the Imperial War Museum North and other newer buildings helped transform Manchester and Salfords landscape and helped regenerate new and improved place branding and image. In addition, the article “Libeskind’s Skill” writer Powers (2002) comments that the creation of the Imperial War Museum North as being a “carefully contrived product of culture” (N.p). This further proves that the museum’s creation was used to help boost the area as being culturally rich for having an icon designed by a famous architect, similar to how Gehry was able to remake and transform the area of Bilbao.
Figure 16. Salford Quays overview, Webb (Accessed 2020)
13.
Libeskind’s ability to create architecture with tragic meanings and site contexts is something critics either praise or criticize. The Imperial War Museum North was criticised by Glendinning (2010) for its inability to relate to the site on which the museum is built upon, he states “The incongruous context for this profundity is the theme-park-like landscape of a canal side.” (p.104). The description of the site for the Imperial War Museum North as ‘theme-park-like’ seems to criticise the structure for being out of place. Interestingly, the juxtaposition of theme parks being places used for fun and entertainment whilst descriptions used to describe emotions felt around visiting a war museum are very contrasting, making the museum feel trivial and insignificant. Further, Glendinning (2010) quotes journalist Jonathan Meades criticising the use of sloping floors and walls which Libeskind had purposefully done to simulate war by just denying the effectiveness of this tactic. Therefore, Libeskind’s use of the site, concepts and meanings for his designs do not align to some critics’ views as they see them employed ineffectively. However, others critics such as Jones (2003) describe the appearance of the Imperial War Museum North as being extremely extroverted and claims that designing museum buildings have now become playgrounds for architects. This description makes the museum seem loud and having a presence whilst Glendinning (2003) was opposed to this idea. As well as this, the ‘playground’ metaphor suggests museum buildings now allow for more freedom for architects and allow them to be as creative as they like without restrictions. Therefore, praising Libeskind’s creativity and ideas for an impactful war museum design.
Figure 17. Apple map view on Imperial War Museum North, Apple.
14.
Conclusion In conclusion, the Bilbao effect has changed the way architecture is viewed because of the impact, status and success Gehry was able to achieve with the Guggenheim Museum. The rise of starchitects like Libeskind has ultimately led to varying degrees of successful iterations of iconic architecture that has also played a key role in regeneration in areas and also attracting both negative and positive criticism. Yet as the world becomes more globalised and exposed to new forms of art and architecture, it undoubtedly will occur that more stararchitects would continue to rise and cause constant change in the portrayal of iconic architecture.
Figure 18. Portraits of Gehry (Left, retrieved from Les Ateliers Courbet. 2019) & Libeskind (Right, photograph by Moore. 2015)
15.
Bibliography:
- Aldersey-Williams, H. (2000). “Salford’s Guggenheim”. New Statesman (1996), 129(4483), 45. - Baing, Andreas Schulze, & Wong, Cecilia. (2018). The impact of brownfield regeneration on neighbourhood dynamics: The case of Salford Quays in England. Town Planning Review, 89(5), 513-534. - Dickson, A. (2017). THE BILBAO EFFECT. The Australian Financial Review, pp. The Australian financial review, 2017-12-22. - Forgey, B. (2002). Beyond Bilbao: Revisiting a Special Effect. The Washington Post, pp. The Washington post, 2002-10-20. - Glendinning, M. (2010). Architecture’s evil empire? London: Reaktion Books. - Hedgecoe G & Whittle H. (2012). ‘Bilbao’s Guggenheim continues to divide’ https://www.dw.com/en/bilbaos-guggenheim-continues-to-divide/a-15904659 - Herbert, I. (2000). The Arts: Architecture - The museum that was bowed - but not broken - by the lottery; Despite financial constraints, the Imperial War Museum North project is under way. Independent (London, England : 1986), p. 13. - Imperial War Museum North, Manchester. (2004). The Architects’ Journal, 220(20), 54. - Jencks, C. (2005). The iconic building. London: Frances Lincoln. Jonathan Shaw, Ben Squire Scholes, & Christopher Thurgood. (2008). Space and place - Imperial War Museum North. Journal of Place Management and Development, 1(2), 227. - Jones, P. B. (2003). War stories: Daniel Libeskind’s trophy building for the imperial War Museum is a key element in the regeneration of Salford’s defunct docks. The Architectural Review (London), 213(1271), 36. - Kavaratzis, Mihalis, & Ashworth, Greg. (2015). Hijacking culture: The disconnection between place culture and place brands. Town Planning Review, 86(2), 155-176. - Lee. D, 2007. ‘Bilbao, 10 Years Later’ https://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/23/travel/23bilbao.html?ei=5087&em&en=898bb5be11939f56&ex=1190606400 - MacCannell, D. (2011). The Bilbao Effect: Ethical Symbolic Representation. In The Ethics of Sightseeing (pp. The Ethics of Sightseeing, 2011-05-19). University of California Press. - Macleod S, Dodd J & Duncan T. (2014) Developing IWM North https://le.ac.uk/-/media/uol/docs/research-centres/rcmg/developing-imperial-war-museum-north.pdf - Marek, M. (2010). ‘Architect Libeskind took unusual path to an international career’ https://www.dw.com/en/architect-libeskind-took-unusual-path-to-an-international-career/a-5238598 - Niesewand, N. (1997). The Libeskind effect; Yesterday the Imperial War Museum did the brave and brilliant thing. To design their Manchester branch, they commissioned this man, Daniel Libeskind. By Nonie Niesewand. Independent (London, England : 1986), p. 6.
16.
- Powers, A. (2002). Libeskind’s skill. .(Daniel Libeskind, Imperial War Museum North, Manchester, England). The Spectator (London. 1828), 289(9076), 39. - Rushforth, B. (2003). Imperial War Museum North. Student BMJ, 326(Suppl S5), 170. - Russell, J. S. (2002). Criticism with the Imperial War Museum North, Daniel Libeskind builds his case for a major museum destination on a budget. Architectural Record, 190(10), 125. - Shaw J, Scholes B S, & Thurgood C. 2008. Space and place - Imperial War Museum North. Journal of Place Management and Development, 1(2), 227. - Sklair, L. (2017). The Icon Project. Oxford: Oxford University Press, Incorporated. - Spring M, 2001. “War Poetry” https://www.building.co.uk/focus/war-poetry/1013470.article - Studio Daniel Libeskind Projects Honored as ‘New Wonder of the World,’ and One of Largest Visitor Attractions in England; Extension to the Denver Art Museum Named one of “The New Wonders of the World” by Conde Nast Traveler Magazine; Imperial War Museum North Honored as one of the Largest Visitor Attractions of the Year in England. (2007). PR Newswire, pp. PR newswire, 2007-04-20. - Sudjic, D. (2011). The edifice complex : The architecture of power. London: Penguin. - Unwin, S. (2014). Analysing Architecture. London: Routledge. - Urbis/Imperial War Museum North. (Pick of the Month). (2002). Creative Review (London, England), 22(8), 18.
17.
Image Source List: - Cover image, Imperial War Musuem North, photographed by Greaves J (2020) https://www.artlimited.net/1047826/art/image-imperial-war-museum-north/en/11772278 - Contents page image, Imperial War Musuem North, photographed by Greaves J (2020) https://www.artlimited.net/1047826/art/photography-imperial-war-museum-north-manchester-digital-construction-edifice-building/en/11772264 - Background image for introduction, Guggienheim Musuem, photographed by Fernandez F I. (2018) Retrived from site: https://www.femina.in/life/travel/discover-bilbao-spain-beyond-the-guggenheim-75514-9.html - Background image for page 2, Guggienhiem Musuem Bilbao, photographed by Frederique (2004) Retrieved from site: https://www.thousandwonders.net/Guggenheim+Museum+Bilbao - Figure 1. Close up of Guggienheim Musuem Bilbao, photographed by Prins M. (2019) Retrieved from site: https://www.flickr.com/photos/maerten/49600493596 - Figure 2. Close up of Guggienheim Musuem Bilbao, photographed by ar_graff (2011) Retrived from site: https://www.flickr.com/photos/argraff/14322628015 - Figure 3. Guggenheim Museum Bilbao Project Sketch Gehry F (1999), 2016 Gehry Partners, LLP. Image courtesy of Gehry Partners, LL Retrived from site: http://blogs.getty.edu/iris/audio-frank-gehrys-los-angeles-part-3-2/ - Figure 4. Imperial War Musuem North, photographed by Victor B (2020) Retrived from site: https://www.flickr.com/photos/123594177@N08/50189274656 - Figure 5. Jewish Musuem Berlin, Germany. Photographed by Esakov D (2010) Retreived from site: https://www.archdaily.com/91273/ad-classics-jewish-museum-berlin-daniel-libeskind/5afa5636f197cc4fc1000011-ad-classics-jewish-museum-berlin-daniel-libeskind-photo - Figure 6, Imperial War Musuem concept drawing, drawn by author. Original by Libeskind D. Retrieved from site: https://www.iwm.org.uk/history/8-things-you-didnt-know-about-the-iwm-north-building - Figure 7. Imperial War Musuem site in the 1900s, retrieved from DigiMaps - Figure 8. Air shard, photographed by Parr M (2011), retrieved from site: https://www.flickr.com/photos/hard-hat-photography/5951856612 - Figure 9. Elevations of Imperial War Musuem North, drawn by author. Original by StudioLibeskind: https://libeskind.com/work/imperial-war-museum-north/ - Figure 10. Pathway to Imperial War Musuem North, Roach L (2010) retrieved from site: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/article-1335426/The-One-Minute-Guide-To--Salford-Quays.html
18.
-Figure 11. Entrance to the Imperial War Musuem North, EatExploreEtc (2018). Retrieved from site: https://eatexploreetc.com/explore-imperial-war-museum-north/ - Figure 12. Floorplan of Imperial War Musuem North, highlighting walls in the exhibition space. Drawn by author. Original by StudioLibeskind: https://libeskind.com/work/imperial-war-museum-north/ - Figure 13. Pathways that prevoke emotions, edited by author. Original by Macleod S, Dodd J & Duncan T. (2014) Developing IWM North https://le.ac.uk/-/media/uol/docs/research-centres/rcmg/developing-imperial-war-museum-north.pdf - Figure 14. Interior of Imperial War Musuem exhibit space, retreived from site: https://www.arch2o.com - Figure 15. Conceptual sketches of Imperial War Museum, by Libeskind D (2018), retrived from site: https://www.archdaily.com/900323/drawings-by-tchoban-holl-and-calatrava-among-stunning-entries-for-the-first-athens-architecture-club-exhibition/5b75b2e0f197cc441b0001ce-drawings-by-tchoban-holl-and-calatrava-among-stunning-entries-for-thefirst-athens-architecture-club-exhibition-image - Figure 16. Salford Quays overview, Webb H (Acessed 2020). Retreived from site: https://www.apemltd.co.uk/casestudy/salford-quays-water-quality-success-story/ - Figure 17. Apple map view on Imperial War Musuem, Apple. Retrieved from site: https://mapchitecture.tumblr.com/post/33636140662/imperial-war-museum-north-by-daniel-libeskind - Figure 18. Portraits of Gehry (Left, retrieved from Les Ateliers Courbet. 2019) & Libeskind (Right, photograph by Moore. 2015) https://www.ateliercourbet.com/frank-gehry https://frameweb.com/article/qa-daniel-libeskind
19.