See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/341027929

An investigation into the connotations of iconic buildings by using a semiotic

model of architecture

Article in Social Semiotics · April 2020

DOI: 10.1080/10350330.2020.1756590

CITATIONS READS

6 450

1 author:

Ercim Ulug
European University of Lefke
9 PUBLICATIONS 8 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Ercim Ulug on 12 May 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Social Semiotics

ISSN: 1035-0330 (Print) 1470-1219 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/csos20

An investigation into the connotations of iconic

buildings by using a semiotic model of architecture

Erçim Uluğ

To cite this article: Erçim Uluğ (2020): An investigation into the connotations of iconic buildings by
using a semiotic model of architecture, Social Semiotics, DOI: 10.1080/10350330.2020.1756590

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10350330.2020.1756590

Published online: 29 Apr 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=csos20
SOCIAL SEMIOTICS
https://doi.org/10.1080/10350330.2020.1756590

An investigation into the connotations of iconic buildings by

using a semiotic model of architecture
Erçim Uluğ
Department of Archictecture, European University of Lefke, Lefke, Turkey

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
This article is about the semiotics of iconic buildings which are rich Semiotics; denotations;
in their aesthetical qualities, design concepts and metaphors. connotations; semiotics
Therefore, connotations and denotations in architecture are model of architecture; iconic
buildings and metaphors
discussed. Aesthetical qualities and metaphors of iconic buildings
are investigated. SUBJECT CLASSIFICATION
The research conducted a questionnaire with six buildings (the CODES
Denver Art Museum and the Pinakothek Der Moderne Museum, architecture; semiotics
the Swiss Re Headquarters and HSBC London Group Head Office,
the Ascent Building and the Glasgow Regency Square Housing) to
compare connotation differences between iconic buildings and
the others. Also, a Semiotics model of architecture is created.
Swiss Re Headquarters building in London and HSBC London
Group Head Office were compared in detail. Results of the
comparison present a method to investigate the possible
development of metaphors from aesthetical qualities and design
concepts.

Introduction
The creation of metaphors in architecture has raised analytical questions. Jencks (2005)
speculated that there is a strong connection between metaphors and iconic buildings.
However, not any systematic investigations into the subject are conducted. Therefore,
the aim of this article is to investigate this relationship in the light of Semiotics by funda-
mentally adopting the theories of Saussure (1974) and Eco (1980).
In addition to this, the paper claims that iconic buildings connote more than any other
type of buildings. The conducted research and analysis also aims to investigate this
relationship. However, it is important to emphasise that the paper uses the term “iconic
buildings” in the sense of buildings which are created by the influence of the Bilbao
effect. Iconic buildings are different and unique buildings which are high in figural
shape, gestalt and stand out from the city with their aesthetic qualities. Their geometries
remind the most bizarre metaphors (Jencks 2005). Therefore, the author would like to
exclude the historical iconic buildings and restrict the term “iconic” to what it is much
more common use in today’s discussions of architecture, reference to symbolism, meta-
phors and expression of difference, as in the iconic status of notable buildings, spaces

CONTACT Erçim Uluğ eulug@eul.edu.tr

© 2020 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 E. ULUĞ

and architects. In this framework, the paper investigates semiotics of iconic buildings by
comparing with the selected cases.

Research methods and materials

In architecture, buildings are created by individual architectural concepts which compose
particular architectural styles with different aesthetic qualities. Accordingly, the diversity of
architectural styles may have different connotation scale which may influence the meta-
phors in architecture. In this regard, iconic buildings can be a special case and Muntañola
and Muntanyola (2012) defines “the distributive cognitive paradigm” that architect is
under strong pressure in order to build these places without a concern of environmental,
cultural or social impacts of these buildings and cities. Semiotics of architecture may help
them to decide the design concepts, aesthetics, structure and other qualities like meta-
phors. Therefore, the paper aims to investigate the following questions:

. What is the relationship between metaphors and iconic buildings?

. What is the influence of building aesthetic qualities on the generation of metaphors?

In order to investigate the above-listed questions, the research structured its method-
ology by two interrelated methods; a semiotics model and a questionnaire. In this regard,
the paper created a semiotics model of architecture (Figure 2) in the light of Ferdinand de
Saussure’s and Umberto Eco’s theories. Swiss Re HQ in London and HSBC London Group
HQ were applied to this model and then connotation scale of the buildings was compared.
These two buildings were especially selected because of their analogical similarities such
as scale, context and functionality. Both of them are headquarter buildings in London and
they were designed by the same architectural office, Foster and Partners. The physical
qualities and design concepts of the two buildings were compared and the generated
metaphors by the questionnaire were discussed. The model offers a way to trace the poss-
ible development of metaphors from aesthetical qualities and design concepts.
The questionnaire was compiled and conducted by the author. It was circulated among
forty diploma students in the Mackintosh School of Architecture and the collected data
were statistically analysed. Last year, architectural students in equal gender ratio were
especially selected for the questionnaire. These students have a good understanding of
architecture and they are architecturally familiar with the selected buildings. Three
iconic and three contemporary buildings (the Denver Art Museum and the Pinakothek
Der Moderne Museum, the Swiss Re Headquarters and HSBC London Group Head
Office, the Ascent Building and the Glasgow Regency Square Housing) were selected.
Four different pictures of the buildings from four different perspectives were provided
to the subjects. The participants were asked to answer the question; “What does the build-
ing look like?” Rebata Botwina and Jacub Botwina (2012) explains that in the code of
architecture, “interpretation reveals the hidden semantic potential”. Accordingly, the
architecture students answered the question by interpreting the given visuals and they
created many metaphors. With their architectural education background, they have the
ability to make connections between metaphors and the actual building aesthetics. It is
also important to mention that all subjects completed the questionnaire individually
and they were not influenced by each other.
 SOCIAL SEMIOTICS 3

Figure 1. Design Concepts – Aesthetics – Metaphors (Source: Author).

Figure 2. Semiotics Model of Architecture (Source: Author).

Analysis of the questionnaire is supported by sketches of the created metaphors. The

author sketched the most important metaphors for each building and these sketches visu-
ally supported the analysis. The visual demonstrations are presented together with the
statistical analysis and discussed in detail.

Semiotics and architecture

Semiotics is the study of sign processes or signification and communication, signs and
symbols, both individually and grouped into sign systems. It includes the study of
how meaning is constructed and understood (Chandler 2007, 14). In semiotics, the
study of nonverbal communication and in particular the analysis of visual communi-
cation has acquired a fundamental importance. The field itself has proliferated in
many directions, but it is dominated initially by the writings of Ferdinand de Saussure
and Charles Sanders Pierce. Saussurès “dyadic” or two-part model of the sign theory con-
centrates on two divisions (Saussure 1983; 67, 1974, 67). Also, Ogden and Richard`s
semantic triangle (1989) is another dualistic model which is formed by the triangle of
symbol, reference and referent. On the other hand, Charles Pierce divided the sign
into three different types; icon, index and symbol (Broadbent, Bunt, and Jencks 1980,
3). The paper is aware of the diversity of these semiotics theories, but it adopted Saus-
surès model because a more intimate connection was found between Saussure’s theory
and architecture.
4 E. ULUĞ

Saussure’s theories can be accepted as the base of semiotics. Especially, the two-
part model of the sign theory has been mainly adopted in the literature and applied
on many semiotic systems. In this model, Saussure divided the sign into two (Eco
1980, 2);

. Signifier: The pattern of marks on paper, sounds in the air or even building forms by
which the sign itself is made physically manifest.
. Signified: The concepts, ideas or other thoughts which the signifier actually stands
for.

According to Saussure’s theory, the sign can be the signifier or the signified or both
of them. The application of this theory into architecture is straightforward. The sign can
be associated with the building. The signifier can be associated with the function and
aesthetic qualities of the building. The signified can be associated with the architec-
tural concepts and symbolism of the building. This may initially explain the relationship
between semiotics and architecture. The paper would like to emphasise that the
concept of Saussure has been transferred from linguistics into other systems of
signs, including architecture. Afterall, architecture as a sign is part of the semiotic uni-
verse that Scalvini (1975) interprets it as “connotative semiotics”. Many pioneering
studies clarify the discussion that the references are varied: among these are Barthes
(1966, 1994), Eco (1967, 1968, 1983), Lévi-Strauss (1958), Mukarovsky (1973) and
Prieto (1967).
According to Jencks (1980), Semiotics was first introduced into the architectural debate
in Italy when there was a general “crisis of meaning” during the late 1950s. By the late
1960s, in France, Germany and England semiotics was being discussed for its architectural
implications and again it was used as a polemic tool, a normative instrument, to attack in
adequate theories of functionalism (Jencks 1980, 7). “Form follows function” (Sullivan
1903) phrase has been always associated with Modernism. Modernism in architecture
was a restricted period that the form was constrained by the function. In opposition to
the concept of the modernist architects, contemporary architects develop an articulation
of complex form (Muntañola 1996). Most probably, this was one of the reasons that
Umberto Eco saw architecture as a particular challenge to semiotics. “ … apparently
most architectural objects do not (are not designed to) communicate but function” (Eco
1980, 12). The revision of six chapters of La Struttura assente: Introduzionealla ricerca semi-
ologica by Umberto Eco distinguished two types of function in the semiotics of architec-
ture (Eco 1980, 11):

. Primary Functions: those that the functionalist tradition recognises as functions in the
true sense of the word (going upstairs, standing at the window, taking the air, enjoying
the sunlight, etc.).
. Secondary Functions: those that art-historians and iconologists have preferred to clas-
sify as the `symbolical values` of architecture: a Gothic cathedral makes possible several
primary functions such as `gathering together`, but it communicates a number of `ideo-
logical` values as `mystic atmospherè, `diffusion of light as symbol if the divine presencè
or else `concentration`, `deferencè, and so on.
 SOCIAL SEMIOTICS 5

According to the above definitions, primary function could be the notion of “tangible”
qualities which are the actual function, material characteristics and structure of a build-
ing (museum, concert hall, windows for sunlight, titanium or brick building, curved or
right-angled facade, steel or timber construction, etc.). According to semiotics, these
could be defined as “denotations”. The object of use is, in its communicative capacity,
the sign vehicle of a precisely and conventionally denoted meaning – its function (Eco
1980, 20).
On the other hand, secondary function could be the notion of “intangible” qualities
which is the design concepts and metaphors (poetic and artistic responses in the
design process, metaphors that the society creates, etc.). According to semiotics, intangi-
ble functions could be defined as “connotations”. Besides denoting its function, the archi-
tectural object could also connote a certain ideology of the function. But undoubtedly it
can connote other things (Eco 1980, 21).
With the approach of Saussure and Jencks, we could decipher the formation of
meaning possessed by architectural objects from various standpoints, both denotative
and connotative, and through the lens of architect and user (Trisno 2019). In order to
understand this relationship, the paper created a semiotics model of architecture.

Semiotics model of architecture

The semiotics model of architecture (Figure 2) is divided into two like Umberto Eco
(1980, 11) distinguished “primary” and “secondary” functions. The primary function is
the notion of “signifier” which is the actual and tangible function of a building. It con-
sists of building’s functionality, structure, material qualities and geometrical formation.
In this regard, the primary function could also be defined as “denotations”. In this
regard, denotations in architecture could be divided into two categories as “the
actual function of the building” and “the aesthetic and structural qualities of the build-
ing”. Accordingly, Figure 2 Semiotics Model of Architecture categorises building func-
tions (museum, concert hall, shopping mall, residential, etc.) under “Actual function
of the building”. Also, building form qualities (titanium building, brick building,
curved or right angled facade, steel or timber construction, doors and windows
shapes) could be categorised as “Aesthetics and Structural qualities of the building”.
The secondary function could be the notion of “signified”. It consists of design concepts,
ideologies and metaphors which could be defined as “connotations”. Accordingly, the
secondary function could also be divided into two as “Design Concept and Ideology
of the building” and “Metaphors of the building.”
Figure 2 demonstrates that a building should have tangible primary function. In
addition to this, it may have intangible secondary functions. In other words, a building
is always created by an actual function which proposes a purpose with aesthetical and
structural qualities. In addition to this, a building may be created by a design concept.
The combination of aesthetical qualities and design concepts may influence the society
to create metaphors for the building. Metaphor creation is not controlled by the building’s
architect(s). It is a visual response from the society. In this case, it is necessary to admit that
architectural codes are constitutive without being directly linked to functions admitted by
the usage; that there is a cultural autonomy of the architecture, that the architectural
6 E. ULUĞ

conception is self-referential (Pellegrino 2006). In this essence, the paper defines that in an
iconic building; not the primary but the secondary functions play a much higher
significance. Iconic buildings can be more connotative because of their aesthetical qual-
ities like Jencks (2005) expresses; the more the building connotes, it is more likely to be
an icon.

Metaphors in architecture
“The vague character of metaphors allows capturing the essence of a problem under
different perspectives” (Casakin 2005). Metaphors opened a new perspective in architec-
ture and they have been a familiar case after the Bilbao effect by Guggenheim
Museum. Jencks (2005) defines the era after the Bilbao effect as iconic buildings which
are different and unique buildings which are high in figural shape, gestalt and stand
out from the city with their aesthetic qualities. These buildings are designed in demand
of innovative aesthetical, material and structural qualities that society reacts to them
with nicknames and metaphors. “What metaphors essentially do is they structure the
human conceptual system. That is, they have the capability to affect the way people
think, what they perceive, and how they categorise experiences in their minds” (Lakoff
1993).
Iconic buildings connote metaphors and this effects the architectural perception of the
society. “Metaphors can even modify the conceptual system and prompt the understand-
ing of situation under a new perception” (Schön 1993). In this sense, associating iconic
buildings with connotative metaphors emphasises the communicative quality of architec-
ture. Jencks (2005) also explained the relationship of metaphors and iconic buildings
under the term, “enigmatic signifier”. These early studies of Jencks (2005) on architectural
metaphors gave an insight into the research that there is a connection between semiotics
and iconic buildings.
The paper claims that iconic buildings are high in symbolism and connotations. Trisno
(2019) also emphasises “as a sign system, architecture should not ignore the meaning and
individual perception”. To investigate this assumption, the paper presents the results of
the structured questionnaire and semiotics model comparison of the two similar buildings.

Analysis of the questionnaire

Answers of the fifty architectural students are analysed by the author. First of all, each
building was analysed individually and then a comparative analysis was done by creating
statistical graphics. Accordingly, this analysis was divided and graphically presented in
three categories.

. “Variety of Metaphors” category to investigate how many different metaphors were

created for each building,
. “Total Number of Metaphors” category to investigate how many metaphors were
created in total for each building,
. “No Metaphor Created” category to investigate if any subjects did not create any meta-
phor for a building.
 SOCIAL SEMIOTICS 7

Figure 3. Denver Art Museum.

Case 1 is the Denver Art Museum which is also known as Frederic C. Hamilton Building
and designed by Daniel Libeskind in 2000–2006. According to Jencks’ definition (2005), it
can be categorised as an Iconic Building. Because of its function, it can also be categorised
as a public building. Libeskind’s design consists of geometric, titanium-clad angles, which
reflect the nearby Rocky Mountain peaks and rock crystals. The Hamilton Building rises
from two stories to four as it moves towards the north. A sharply cantilevered section
of the building rises across the street towards the North Building above an enclosed
steel-and-glass bridge that links the two structures (Figure 3).
Analysis of Denver Art Museum revealed that the building created 31 different types of
metaphors and 83 metaphors in total. All subjects created metaphors for this building and
there are not any participators who did not create any metaphors in the questionnaire
(Figure 9).
The main metaphors in the questionnaire were Spaceship, origami, transformer (robot),
knife and bird. These metaphors were sketched by the author to demonstrate the visual
relationship between them and the building (Figure 10). Apparently, these metaphors
were connoted out of the museums’ “aesthetical and structural qualities”.
Case 2 is the Pinakothek Der Moderne Museum which is located in Munich and
designed by the German Architect Stephan Braunfels. The Pinakothek Der Moderne was
opened in September 2002. Because of its function, it can also be categorised as a
public building. Therefore, Denver Museum and Pinakotkek Museum were compared in
the questionnaire analysis. The rectilinear facade, dominated by white and grey concrete,
is interrupted by large windows and high-rising columns, the latter supporting the exten-
sive canopied roof. Each of the four corners of the building, connected by a central
rotunda, is dedicated to a special collection (Figure 4).
Analysis of Pinakothek Museum revealed that nineteen participators did not create any
metaphors for this building. In other words, 47.5% of the subjects thought that the build-
ing does not connote any metaphors. The other 21 participators created only nine
different types of metaphors and only 21 metaphors in total (Figure 11). These figures

Figure 4. The Pinakothek Der Moderne Museum.

8 E. ULUĞ

Figure 5. The Swiss Re London Headquarters.

may show that the buildings’ aesthetical and structural qualities are still able to create
some metaphors, but comparing the findings with Figure 9 revealed that Pinakothek
Museum created 74.6% fewer metaphors than Denver Museum. The main metaphors
were forest and temple (Figure 12).
Case 3 is Swiss Re London Headquarters which is a 40-storey office building in the heart
of London’s financial centre, developed by Swiss Re and designed by architects Foster and
Partners in 2001–2003. The building can be categorised as an Iconic Building by its inno-
vative architectural qualities. Functionally, it can be categorised as a commercial building.
It is located on the former site of the Baltic Exchange, the distinctive form of the building
adds to the cluster of tall buildings. This is London’s first ecological tall building and it is
instantly recognisable. Environmentally, its aerodynamic form encourages wind to flow
around the building, minimising load on the cladding and structure, reducing the
amount of wind deflected to the ground compared with a rectilinear tower of similar
size (Figure 5).
Analysis of Case 3 the Swiss Re headquarters showed that the building created 24
different types of metaphors and 86 metaphors in total. All subjects created metaphors
for this building and there are not any participators who did not create any metaphors
in the questionnaire (Figure 13).
The main metaphors which were created in the questionnaire were gherkin, phallus,
rocket, bullet and egg. These metaphors were sketched by the author to demonstrate
the visual relationship between them and the building (Figure 14). These metaphors are
out of the building’s point extruded circular plan and the material qualities.
Case 4 is HSBC Group Head Office which is a skyscraper located in the Canary Wharf
development in the London Docklands. The tower was also designed by Foster and

Figure 6. HSBC Group Head Office.

 SOCIAL SEMIOTICS 9

Figure 7. The Ascent Building.

Partners. Construction began in 1999 and was completed in 2002. Functionally, it can
also be categorised as a commercial building. There are 42 floors in the 200 metres
(656 ft) high tower, the joint second largest in the United Kingdom along with the
Citigroup Centre. Its linear cubic form appears on the skyline of London. The corners
of the cubic rectangular block are curved. Horizontal floor plans are emphasised on
the elevation. The repetition of floor plans created a vertical rhythm and a texture on
the building’s facades (Figure 6).
Analysis of HSBC London Group Headquarters revealed that seventeen out of forty par-
ticipators did not create any metaphors for the building. In other words, 42.5% of the sub-
jects thought that the building did not connote any metaphors. The other 23 participators
created fourteen different types of metaphors and only 22 metaphors in total (Figure 15).
These figures may demonstrate that the buildings’ aesthetical and structural qualities are
still able to create metaphors but compared findings revealed that the HSBC London HQ
building created 74.4% fewer metaphors than the Swiss Re HQ building.
The main metaphors, which are created in the questionnaire, are Lego and Sliced bread
(Figure 16). Mainly, these metaphors are connoted out of the building’s cubic form. Curved
corners connote the sliced bread.
Case 5 is Ascent Building which is designed by Daniel Libeskind and completed in 2008.
It is sited along the river front at the Ascent at Roebling’s Bridge in Kentucky. According to
Jencks’ description, it can be also categorised as an Iconic Building. It is a residential build-
ing, which is curved to maximise the views of the river and the surrounding hillsides, its
windows reflect the sky and river images. The ascending height of the building is from
14 to 22 stories. The facade is a graphic pattern of pre-cast concrete and blue-tinted
glass that extends up one elevation, across the slanted, curving roof and back down the
opposite elevation (Figure 7).
Analysis of Ascent Building revealed that the subjects created 38 different types of
metaphors and sixty metaphors in total. Only one of the participators did not create
any metaphors for the building (Figure 17).
The main metaphors which were created in the questionnaire were Shard of ice, spiral
staircase, Iceberg Mountain and zebra. These metaphors were sketched by the author to
demonstrate the visual relationship between them and the building (Figure 18). Mainly,
these metaphors were connoted out of the building’s patterned elevation and ascending
curved form.
Case 6 is Glasgow Regency Square Housing which is designed by Holmes Partnership.
This residential project’s construction was completed in 2005 and is the first phase of the
10 E. ULUĞ

Figure 8. The Glasgow Regency Square Housing.

redevelopment proposals for Queen Elizabeth Square carried out by Stewart Milne Homes.
Passive rectangular blocks are designed to exploit maximum sunlight penetration into
main living spaces. The subtractions from the rectangular blocks are created to catch a
horizontal rhythm on the elevations. The rectangular frames are used to create explosion
on the elevation which function as balconies. The local materials help the building to stand
in harmony with its surrounding (Figure 8).
Analysis of Glasgow Regency Square Housing revealed that 22 subjects did not create
any metaphors for the building. In other words, 55% of the subjects thought that the build-
ing did not connote any metaphors. The other eighteen participators created six different
types of metaphors and only eleven metaphors in total (Figure 19). These figures may
show that the buildings’ aesthetical and structural qualities were still able to create meta-
phors, but comparing the findings revealed that Regency Square Building created 81.7%

Figure 9. Results of Denver Art Museum Metaphors (Source: Author). List of the created metaphors -
number of subjects: Spaceship – 13, origami – 9, transformers – 6, knife – 6, bird – 6, explosion – 4,
broken pieces – 4, crystal – 3, crushed paper – 3, pyramids – 3, chard of ice – 3, twisted metal – 3,
sail boat – 2, collapsed building – 2, finger mouse – 1, meteor – 1, dinosaur – 1, sculpture – 1,
gymnast – 1, cluster of geometries – 1, knot –1, coral – 1, armadillo – 1, gun slup – 1, deformed
jewel – 1, cut stones – 1, cannon – 1, shades – 1, cave – 1, shark fin – 1.
 SOCIAL SEMIOTICS 11

Figure 10. Denver Art Museum Metaphors (Source: Author).

fewer metaphors than Ascent Building. The main created metaphors were Lego and the
Jenga Game (Figure 20).

Discussion of the questionnaire

The analysis clearly demonstrates that the Iconic Buildings (Denver Art Museum, Swiss Re
Head Quarters and Ascent Building) generated more metaphors than the contemporary
buildings (Pinakothek Der Moderne Museum, HSBC London Head Office and Glasgow

Figure 11. Results of Pinakothek Der Moderne Museum Metaphors. List of the created metaphors –
number of subjects: Forest – 9, temple – 8, prison – 1, folded paper – 1, stack of cards – 1, box – 1,
ripped basket – 1, tooth picks – 1, coliseum – 1.
12 E. ULUĞ

Figure 12. Pinakothek Der Moderne Museum Metaphors (Source: Author).

Regency Square Housing Project). If one compares the outcomes in three categories
(Variety of Metaphors, Number of Metaphors and No Metaphors), there are significant
differences between iconic and other contemporary buildings.
In the first category of analysis, Ascent Building created the highest number in the
variety of metaphors. Denver Museum is the second and Swiss Re Head Quarters is the
third one. The iconic buildings contain the highest values. Other buildings’ values were sig-
nificantly low compared with those of the iconic buildings (Figure 21).

Figure 13. Results of the Swiss Re Head Quarters Metaphors (Source: Author). List of the created meta-
phors – number of subjects: Gherkin – 18, phallus – 16, rocket – 15, bullet – 9, egg – 5, drill – 3, auber-
gine – 2, jewel – 2, corn – 1, cigar – 1, pine cone – 1, date seed – 1, rugby ball – 1, mole – 1, faberge – 1,
mosaic – 1, alien – 1, budding flower – 1, Russian doll – 1, coloured condom – 1, mesh cage – 1, snake –
1, cocktail shaker – 1, piercing – 1.
 SOCIAL SEMIOTICS 13

Figure 14. Swiss Re Head Quarters Metaphors (Source: Jencks 2005).

In the second category of analysis, Swiss Re HQ Building created the highest number of
metaphors. Denver Museum was the second and the Ascent building was the third. The
Contemporary buildings’ values were approximately 25% of the iconic buildings
(Figure 22).
In the questionnaire, all subjects created metaphors for Denver Art Museum and Swiss
Re Headquarters building. Only one participant did not create any metaphors for Ascent
Building. However, the contemporary buildings’ values were very high on this category.
Averagely, 48.3% of the subjects did not create any metaphors for the contemporary build-
ings (Figure 23).
Within a limited sample size, it appears that iconic buildings create more metaphors
than the contemporary buildings. The aesthetical and structural qualities of iconic build-
ings may connote more metaphors than the others. Curved and complex forms may
provoke people to create metaphors. Square, cuboids or right angled forms are less con-
notative. Issues related to building tectonics, such as the new and uncommon materials
like titanium cladding, coloured and tinted glasses, may have the ability to create more
metaphors. Also, the textures and graphic patterns on the facades could be one of the trig-
gering properties for metaphor creation.
14 E. ULUĞ

Figure 15. Results of the HSBC London Head Office Metaphors (Source: Author). The list of the created
metaphors – number of subjects: Lego – 4, biscuits – 3, sliced bread – 2, fridge – 2, cuboid – 1, I-pod –
1, CPU – 1, milk box – 1, chimney – 1, Jenga game – 1, CD shelf – 1, column – 1, HI-FI – 1, remote
control – 1, no metaphors 17.

Analysis of Swiss Re HQ and HSBC London Group HQ building by the

semiotics model of architecture
In this analysis, Table 1 is created according to the semiotics model of architecture. All the
related variables of the two buildings were collected to conduct a comparative analysis.

Figure 16. The HSBC London Head Office Metaphors (Source: Author).
 SOCIAL SEMIOTICS 15

Figure 17. Results of the Ascent Building Metaphors (Source: Author). The list of the created metaphors
Shard of ice – 5, spiral staircase – 4, iceberg mountain – 4, zebra – 3, fan – 3, shell – 2, shard of mirror –
2, sky – 2, sail – 2, spiral – 2, arc – 2, bird wing – 2, cactus – 2, demolished building – 1, free standing
curved wall – 1, headless dog – 1, twist – 1, barcode – 1, sundial – 1, ramp – 1, curving blade – 1, wave
– 1, Elvis Presley dress – 1, flame – 1, fossil – 1, fence – 1, fancy napkin – 1, wind movement – 1, alien –
1, giraffe – 1, ramp – 1, porcupine – 1, fragments – 1, tree branches – 1, shark fin – 1, pop-up book – 1,
origami – 1, ascent – 1.

Figure 18. Ascent Building Metaphors (Source: Author).

16 E. ULUĞ

Figure 19. Results of Regency Square Housing Project Metaphors. The list of the created metaphors:
Lego – 4, boxes -2, Jenga game – 2, brick – 1, cardboard – 1, telephone box – 1.

Figure 20. Regency Square Housing Project Metaphors (Source: Author).

Initially, the table demonstrates that actual functions of the buildings are identical. Actual
function of the buildings is the requirements of the client and the design brief. Secondly,
the author analysed the differences in the design concepts that the clients’ requirements
may influence this category. By the interpretation of these requirements, the architect
created the main design concepts of the buildings.
According to the obtained data from Fosters and Partners website (Foster 2020), there
are differences in the concepts of the two buildings. The design concept of Swiss Re HQ
Building was to create London’s first ecological tall building and an instantly recognisable
addition to the city’s skyline. Technically, architecturally, socially and spatially, radical
approaches were targeted. To minimise the wind load on the cladding and structure to
reduce the light reflection and improve the transparency were the other design concepts.
 SOCIAL SEMIOTICS 17

Figure 21. The Variety of Metaphors (Source: Author).

On the other hand, the design concept of the HSBC London HQ was to create a building
which was state of the art and economical. One could argue that the created “design con-
cepts” influenced “the aesthetical and structural qualities” of the building. Because of the
ecological concept of the Swiss Re HQ, the architect designed a circular plan which widens
in profile and tapers towards its apex. The new material qualities and the diagonal struc-
tural system were especially designed to make the building instantly recognisable. On the
other hand, in HSBC Building, in order to reduce the cost of the building (economical), a
simple rectangular plan was designed. No super structure was needed for this solution.
The other design aim in HSBC building was to create a building which is a state of the
art, but this notion was conflicted with the notion of economical. Because of this, the build-
ing contains simple and economical aesthetical qualities like curved corners, a vertical
elevation pattern which was achieved by repeating the 42 floors. Costs of the two build-
ings also reflect the economical concern of HSBC London HQ Building. Comparing the
budget of HSBC Building (£250 million) with the budget of Swiss HQ buildings budget
(£630 million), there is a difference of 60.3%. This is a very significant percentage which
may influence the qualities of architecture. Similar to the design concepts, budget of a
building can be considered as a connotative value which directly influences aesthetic
18 E. ULUĞ

Figure 22. Total Number of Metaphors (Source: Author).

and structure quality of the building. Therefore, the budget can increase or decrease con-
notations of an architecture.
The author also would like to emphasise another aesthetical characteristic of HSBC
London HQ Building. The sign of the company (HSBC) is part of the elevation design.
On the four sides of the building, the signs were printed on the elevations to represent
the building (Figure 6). On the other hand, there is not such a sign on Swiss Re HQ build-
ing (Figure 5). The building itself is a strong sign which can represent the company.
These signs are two different types of visual communication. The printed HSBC sign is
a denotation, concrete representation which denotes the actual meaning and name of
the company. In the book, “Learning from Las Vegas”, these kind of signs were cate-
gorised as “ugly and ordinary” or “the duck” (Venturi 1977, 93–100). On the other
hand, Swiss Re HQ as itself is a sign which is a connotation, abstract representation of
the company. The building is not the actual sign of the company but because of its inno-
vative form, it has become identifiable with the company. In other words, it has become
a sign for the company. These kinds of signs were categorised as “heroic and original”
(Venturi 1977, 93–100).
The table demonstrates that creation of the metaphors could be highly influenced by
the aesthetical and structural qualities of the building. New materials, forms and
 SOCIAL SEMIOTICS 19

Figure 23. No Metaphor Created (Source: Author).

innovations may attract peoplès attention and they may respond with metaphors. The
results of the questionnaire demonstrated that Swiss Re HQ building created 24
different and 86 metaphors in total. All subjects created metaphors for the building. On
the other hand, seventeen people did not create any metaphors for HSBC London HQ
and the building created fewer metaphors than the Swiss Re HQ (fourteen different and
22 metaphors in total).
Ultimately, the model offers a way to trace the possible development of metaphors and
it helps to understand “the distributive cognitive paradigm” (Muntañola and Muntanyola
2012) in the design. A semiotic of architectural sustainability helps architects to decide
design concepts and aesthetic qualities of the building. The analysis revealed that Swiss
Re headquarters building is a stronger signifier and it is higher on the connotation scale
because of its design concepts, budget and metaphors. This can be a conscious design
decision by the architects in order to create an iconic building. The created design con-
cepts lead the design into innovative aesthetic qualities which induce metaphors creation.
Therefore, this creates a highly connotative building which has higher potential to carry
itself into the iconic status.
 20
Table 1. Semiotic Mode of Swiss Re HQ and HSBC London HQ Buildings (Source: Author).

E. ULUĞ
Primary Function/Signifier/Physicality of Building Secondary Function/Signified/Meaning(s) of Building
Actual function Aesthetical and Technical Qualities Design Concepts and Ideologies Metaphors by the society
Swiss Re HQ HSBC London HQ HSBC London HQ Swiss Re HQ HSBC London
Building Building Swiss Re HQ Building Building Swiss Re HQ Building HSBC London HQ Building Building HQ Building
headquarters headquarters 40 storey high 42 story high To create London`s first ecological To create a building which is Gherkin Lego
tall building a state of the art and Phallus Biscuits
economical Rocket Sliced Bread
Bullet Fridge
office building office building Lofted circle, widens in Extruded square, To create an instantly Egg Cuboids
profile, tapers towards Curved corners recognisable addition to the Drill I-pod
its apex city`s skyline Aubergine CPU
Jewel Milk Box
commercial use commercial use Circular plan, every floor Square plan, every To minimise the wind load on the Corn Chimney
different sq/m floor same sq/m cladding and structure Cigar Jenga
Pine Cone CD Shelf
Date Seed HI-FI
Diagonal texture on the Vertical rhythm and A radical approach – technically, Rugby Ball Remote
building texture on the architecturally, socially and Control
elevations spatially. Mole
Faberge
Snake
Steel and coloured glass Marble and glass To reduce the reflection and Cocktail
improve the transparency Shaker
Mosaic
Budding
Flower
Fully diagonal glazed Sheer glass surface To maximise the public realm Russian Doll
facade treatment Coloured
Condom
Super Structure Steel Structure Mesh Cage
76,000 sq/m 100,000 sq/m Piercing
£630 million £250 million Alien
 SOCIAL SEMIOTICS 21

Conclusion
The author created the Semiotics model and applied it to two buildings by the findings of the
questionnaire. The model demonstrates the differences between denotations and connota-
tions. The research would like to emphasise that this descriptive model proposes a method
to trace the possible development of metaphors. It can be applied to any building to system-
atically list the aesthetics, design concepts and metaphors for needed investigations.
In conclusion, the author would like to emphasise that iconic buildings are highly con-
notative structures. This kind of buildings creates more metaphors than other buildings.
Their semiotics is rich in connotations. In other words, they and their design processes
are connotative. On the other hand, the research also reveals that other type of buildings
can also be connotative, but their connotations are not as high as iconic buildings.
The research presented that the aesthetic and structure qualities of a building has a
direct influence on the building’s metaphors. In addition to this, Figure 1 presents some
other possible direct and indirect influences which need further clarification and research.
The figure demonstrates that design concepts of a building may influence on aesthetic
and structure qualities of the building. Therefore, it means that design concepts may
indirectly influence metaphors. In other words, if an architect creates a building with inno-
vative aesthetical and structural qualities, this design action can be a conscious attempt to
amplify metaphor creation. In this kind of cases, the society may respond to the building
by creating metaphors. Therefore, there is a need for further research to investigate how
design concepts of a building may influence the metaphor creation.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes on contributors
Erçim Uluğ is an architect and an academician who is based on a Mediterranean island, Cyprus. He is
a lecturer in the department of architecture in European University of Lefke. In addition to the
academy, he runs his own practice in Cyprus by contributing selected local designs and architectural
competitions. He believes in the strong intersection between architectural practice and architectural
theory. Therefore, his research interests are architectural design process, building typologies and
their influences on architecture and society.

ORCID
Erçim Uluğ http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9014-2958

References
Barthes, Ronald. 1966. Éléments de Sémiologie. Paris: Le Seuil.
Barthes, Ronald. 1994. Miti D’oggi; Einaudi, Torino: Italy.
Botwina, Rebata, and Jakub Botwina. 2012. “Looking for Meaning in Archıtecture: Getting Closer To
Landscape Semantics.” Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric 28 (41): 222–231.
Broadbent, Geoffrey, Richard Bunt, and Charles Jencks. 1980. Signs, Symbols and Architecture. Bath:
The Pitman Press.
 22 E. ULUĞ

Casakin, Hernan. P. 2005. “Metaphors as an Unconventional Reflective Approach in Architectural

Design.” The Design Journal 9 (1): 37–50. doi:10.2752/146069206789372118.
Chandler, Daniel. 2007. Semiotics: The Basics. London: Routledge.
Eco, Umberto. 1967. Appunti per una Semiologia delle Comunicazioni Visive. Milano: Bompiani.
Eco, Umberto. 1968. La Struttura Assent: La Ricerca Semiotica e il Metodo Strutturale. Milano: Bompiani.
Eco, Umberto. 1980. “Function and Sign: the Semiotics of Architecture.” In Signs, Symbols and
Architecture, Geoffrey Broadbent, 11–71. Bath: The Pitman Press.
Eco, Umberto. 1983. Le Forme del Contenuto. Milano: Bompiani.
Foster, Norman. 2020. Foster and Partners Projects. Accessed 25 March 2020 https://www.
fosterandpartners.com/projects/.
Jencks, Charles. 1980. “The Architectural Sign.” In Signs, Symbols and Architecture, Geoffrey Broadbent,
edited by Geoffrey Broadbent, Richard Bunt, and Charles Jenkcs, 71–121. Bath: The Pitman Press.
Jencks, Charles. 2005. The Iconic Building: the Power of the Enigma. London: Frances Lincoln.
Lakoff, George. 1993. “The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor.” In Metaphor and Thought, edited by
Andrew Ortony, 202–251. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Lévi-Strauss, Claude. 1958. Anthropologie Structurale. Paris: Plon.
Mukarovsky, Jan. 1973. Aesthetic Function: Norm and Value as Social Facts. Arbor: Prague.
Muntañola, Joseph. 1996. La topogenèse. Paris: Anthropos.
Muntañola, Joseph, and Dafne Muntanyola. 2012. “Semiotics of Architecture for a Global World:
Distributive Cognitive Paradigm.” Proceedings of the 10th World Congress of the International
Association for Semiotic Studies, Spain, 905-914.
Ogden, Charles. K., and Ivor. A. Richard. 1989. The Meaning of Meaning, edited by Harcourt Brace
Jovanovich. Orlando: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich Publishers.
Pellegrino, Pierre. 2006. “Semiotics of Architecture.” In Encyclopedia of Language & Linguistics, Second
Edition, Volume 11, edited by Keith Brown, 212–216. Oxford: Elsevier.
Prieto, Luis, J. 1967. Principi di Noologia. Roma: Ubaldini.
Saussure, Ferdinand De. 1974. In Course in General Linguistics, edited by Wade Baskin. London:
Fontana/Collins.
Saussure, Ferdinand. De. 1983. Course in General Linguistics. London: Duckworth.
Scalvini, Maria. L. 1975. L’architettura Come Semiotica Connotativa. Milano: Bompiani.
Schön, Donald. 1993. “Generative Metaphors: A Perspective on Problem Setting in Social Policy.” In
Metaphor and Thought, edited by Andrew Ortony, 137–163. New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Sullivan, Louis. 1903. Kindergarten Chats. Republished in 1976. New York: Wittenborn Art Books.
Trisno, Rudy, et al. 2019. “The Meaning of Means: Semiology In Architecture Case Study: Villa Savoye.”
International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology 10 (2): 653–660.
Venturi, Robert, et al. 1977. Learning From Las Vegas. Cambridge: MIT Press.

View publication stats