1. Introduction
1.1. Research Issues
In recent years, a city’s development of a clear sense of place and identity—the image of the city—has become increasingly important in the context of rapid globalization, particularly for marketing purposes. Within the discipline of architecture, views differ on the authenticity and, hence, the value of the architectural objects sometimes used in this process of urban image creation. New objects introduced into the city space are perceived by some, cynically perhaps, as artificial products of commercially driven urban strategy, yet the same objects might equally be considered by others as authentic reflections of the city’s evolving identity. Either way, the desire to conjure prominent architectural objects—objects which mark the city, increase its attractiveness, and become structural icons of its landscape—is a palpable and visible trend in contemporary urban architectural practice.
So-called ‘iconic’ urban structures and spaces have become a particularly prominent element of city marketing in the contemporary world [1], the quest for which plays a key role in the construction of modern urbanity and the creation of specific city images for marketing purposes [2,3]. An image of a city shaped by iconic buildings can be an exceedingly effective promotional tool because it draws on the power, penetration, and persistence of visual symbols as mental markers, not just of the city space but also of the mood and even psyche of the city [4]. Whatever the strategy may be, and there are many different permutations, the end goal is fundamentally the same: to engage existing, new, or stylistically hybridized architectural objects in the quest to conjure, re-reconjure in a new guise, or entirely re-invent the image of the city using select representations of its urban landscape to achieve this goal.
The strategic devices and architectural forms used in pursuit of ‘the image’ of the city can and do differ widely. Sometimes, city curators collaborate with city creators and opt for a kind of urban development that represents what might be termed “borrowed” architecture: architecture that is characterized by a foreign style and which breaks entirely with existing local tradition. This is often aimed at conjuring an image of a city boldly drawing away from its past, creating a new, more attractive image of itself, and, as a result, fundamentally changing its core identity. Alongside these marriages of innovation and borrowing sit examples of contemporary architecture, which, nonetheless, are lodged in conservationist thinking and foster continuity with existing architectural objects, sometimes at any cost. A third strategic approach is even more conservative, drawing from and relying on architectural objects that emphasize the city’s historical identity by attempting to return to and exploit further its founding ideas and traditions. In these approaches, old structures may be maintained as a tribute to the past or adapted for new purposes to meet modern functional, formal, and aesthetic expectations.
Nowadays, the idea of sustainability is becoming increasingly important in promoting buildings as icons. The context of ecological architecture and buildings integrated with greenery indicating new and desirable trends are gaining importance. Through the construction and promotion of green buildings, the image of modern and sustainable cities of the future is being created. Another approach to sustainability in architecture is to preserve continuity and relate to the traditions of a place in creating iconic buildings. This is essential for preserving the urban landscape, the city’s characteristic skylines, and the scale and character of the buildings. Considering the idea of sustainability in creating iconic architecture is not easy, but it is crucial for exposing the cultural identity of a place. Sustainability understood as preserving the continuity and identity of the landscape also seems to impact the creation of buildings of timeless significance.
Some architectural objects initially promoted as crucial elements in the foundation of a new image of the city, and which are often purposefully created as potential icons of architecture, enjoy prominence only for a short time and fade from significance. In addition, changing habitation patterns generate new needs and alter perceptions of what is desirable, obfuscating, complicating, and even frustrating new processes and strategies for re-imagining the city.
Yet, in all of this, the popularity of some architectural objects does not wane or diminish. Rarely, perhaps too rarely, a few architectural objects persist regardless—no matter the strategy of today’s planners—as resolute symbolic markers of what truly underpins the identity of the city. These objects are the city’s true masterpieces of urban architecture.
Promoting a city’s image using architectural objects, and the need to create and maintain architectural icons in the urban space, is evident in many cities worldwide. The city of Szczecin in Poland, whose architectural structures are the subject of this study, is no exception. The uneasy history of this city, which was shaped by urban planning and architecture while within the borders of Prussia and Germany for many years, renders it a case particularly worth analyzing, as it displays the changing popularity of architectural objects against the backdrop of shifting political, cultural and economic conditions. Originally owned by Slavic princes, Szczecin flourished in the 1920s and 1930s, when the city belonged to Germany. After World War II, the inclusion of Szczecin within the borders of Poland resulted in a loss of cultural continuity, and years of rejection of German cultural heritage, followed by a long search for individual identity and a new image of the city against the backdrop of altered geo-political conditions.
The research presented here aims to analyze the old and contemporary architectural objects of Szczecin depicted in postcards from the period spanning 1920 to 2023 as manifestations of successive processes of building, changing, and re-building identity. The research identifies a series of iconic objects, depicted in postcards, and their features which have been exploited in this process of image formation and reformation in Szczecin, revealing clear changes over time in the popularity of particular architectural objects and shifts in perceptions of them as iconic buildings. By analyzing their decoded features, the research plainly shows that the architectural objects promoted at any juncture represent specific strategic approaches to the construction and interpretation of Szczecin’s identity by its curators and creators of the particular time. Ultimately, the study shows that analysis of popular architectural objects (whether aspirationally iconic or artificially created as such) in a city’s presentation of itself, both inwardly and to the external world, can provide telling insights into the city’s motivations for shaping, and sometimes reshaping, a specific image of—and indeed for—itself. The research applies to sustainable development regarding cultural continuity with changing economic and geopolitical conditions.
1.2. State of Research—Iconic Architecture
An architectural icon is a term used in architectural criticism to define an object, an outstanding work, or a masterpiece that is or was groundbreaking, timeless, unique, or image-building and has been elevated to the level of a symbol [5]. Typically, a building defined as an architectural icon is characterized by the ability to create an unforgettable image in memory—a process sometimes termed “imageability“ [6]. An architectural icon is a building and space that has special symbolic and aesthetic meaning and is well known among architects and art critics, as well as the general public [7]. Such a building stands out against the backdrop of its time and events, usually from the moment it was built. Modern architectural icons are often designed by famous architectural figures or so-called star architects.
Previous research on buildings characterized as architectural icons have mainly focused on issues like the typology of architectural icons [8,9], the characteristics of buildings functioning as architectural icons [2,10,11,12,13,14,15], the importance of buildings as architectural icons for cities and their development [16,17,18,19,20,21,22], the impact of architecture on the construction of urban identities [23,24], and the influence of the phenomenon of star architects on the creation of architectural icons [25,26,27,28].
Architecture is “a non-verbal form of communication, a silent record of the culture that produced it” [18] (p. 3) and is a form of memory that allows the past to be reinterpreted into the future [20]. From this standpoint, iconic architecture takes on a particular significance, as its purpose is to create and demonstrate the high status of the city [29]. There are discrepancies in assessing the longevity of architectural icons, which is related to differences in understanding and defining them. Iconic buildings are considered timeless works but may also be short-lived phenomena whose temporary popularity is an expression of a certain fashion and the fame of their creator. According to Jencks [10], iconic buildings are durable and do not pass away because they reflect the dominance of powerful forces and the fall of others. Other writers consider timelessness an essential feature of an architectural masterpiece—a concept different from an icon. The difference between these two concepts “lies in the timeless values of a masterpiece that permanently enters the canon of architectural art and sets further directions for development. On the other hand, a feature of an icon is “glitz” which makes it likely to be quickly dethroned by successors presenting a more relevant message at the time, or a more attractive form” [12] (p. 100).
Uniqueness, prestige, legibility, memorability, style, and familiarity are all features that create iconicity [30,31,32]. Some scientists associate the characteristic, distinctive form of buildings described as iconic with the existence of other features, not only those relating to aesthetics [15,33]. According to Yildiz [15], each iconic building is distinguished by its unique design, large scale, high level, and specific message that the building carries. This accords with observations about the features that strengthen the importance of the object; its unique size, its unique style, and its strategic location [34].
Be this as it may, most scientists agree that the basic feature of the iconic architecture is that the building is distinct from its surroundings [2], often in surprising and controversial ways. This requires the designer to act on the principle of contrast by opposing tradition and breaking with canons [11]. The striking impression of an iconic building can also be due to its height, scale, or unique location [10]. Often the spectacular form of a building relies on novel and innovative construction elements, materials, and technologies, thus displaying fresh directions in design [14]. However, it is the possibility of synthesizing the architectural form into a simple symbol that seems crucial [13]. According to architect Tom Wright, if you can draw a building in five seconds and everyone recognizes it, it has become a symbol [13]. The Parthenon, Eiffel Tower (1889), Einstein Tower (1924), Fallingwater (1937), Berliner Filharmonie (1963), Cathedral of Brasilia (1970), Sydney Opera House (1973), Louvre Pyramid (1989), Guggenheim Museum Bilbao (1997), and Burj al Arab (1999)—all of these structures can certainly be considered architectural icons. According to Sklair [9], there are two types of iconic buildings, i.e., “unique icons” (buildings recognized as works of art in their own right) and “typical icons” (buildings that successfully copy elements of unique icons).
The symbolism of the form—the possibility of its simplification to an easily remembered sign—relates to the city’s identity, which can be understood as a system of visual signs. The identity of the city, constructed and transmitted through architecture, consists of three systems of signs: material, visual, and rhetorical [24]. Drawing on the concept of a mental landscape [6], an easily remembered object, through its form marked by extraordinary originality, becomes an important distinguishing feature of space, generating interest and attracting tourists. Architectural monuments are an expression of collective identity. It is precisely such elements of the landscape that build the city’s identity [35]. By conveying information encoded in the form of signs, buildings with iconic features play an important role in maintaining the cultural continuity of the city, shaping its identity, and passing it on to subsequent generations. Architectural works as symbols, co-creating a unique history, become a collection of markers on the city plan, its so-called “landmarks”. As these points change and new, distinctive, and unique buildings emerge, so does its cultural identity, in new guises over time [36].
This is not the only impact of iconic buildings. Their construction is one of the three approaches (next to cultural events, restoration, and promotion of heritage) to promoting cities [17,37]. According to Kavaratzis [37], an iconic building works through the physical attributes that distinguish it. It also acts as a marketing tool for projecting the image of the city. The third type of impact relates to users and their interactions with each other. An iconic building can be used both to create a city brand as a magnet attracting tourists and to arouse civic pride in residents [22]. It can also catalyze tourism or suburban redevelopment and gentrification [38].
The importance of iconic buildings is therefore not only related to shaping a specific image of the city. Iconic buildings can bring benefits to the community through culture and productivity, the promotion of tourism, the demographic and economic benefits they ignite at the time of their construction [19], and the quality of life they inspire [16]. Because they contribute greatly to the identifying image of a city or place [23] (p. 185), iconic buildings may indirectly affect the sense of well-being and satisfaction of residents and tourists, which indicates the existence of a relationship between the image of a place and the quality of life [38]. The complexity of the impact of such buildings suggests that iconicity is not just an aesthetic category [21].
The popularity of the buildings and the demand for icons is confirmed by the rankings and exhibitions of iconic buildings created, both globally and nationally.
2. Research Methodology
2.1. Purpose, Scope, and Methods of Research
The research presented in this article is based on an analysis of postcards of Szczecin over a period of about 103 years between 1920 and 2023. Its specific objectives were to:
Identify the most popular buildings which are perceived as architectural icons;
Determine the distinguishing features of the identified buildings;
Indicate changes over time in the popularity of these architectural objects and their perception as iconic;
Determine the relationship between the promotion of specific buildings and the creation of a specific image of the city of Szczecin; and
Define the types of architectural objects promoted as architectural icons, their features, significance for the urban landscape, and their role in building the city’s image.
The scope of the research included architectural objects that are located in Szczecin and are presented on postcards—objects which are popular among residents and tourists and are important for the city’s image for historical or symbolic reasons. These postcards, so to speak, serve as the ‘business cards’ of the city. The research relied on historical and interpretive analysis, which is a method commonly used in the discipline of architecture and urban planning, to discern the relationship between architectural objects and the historical contexts in which they were created. The research was largely desk-based and focused on the iconographic analysis of past and present postcards depicting characteristic architectural objects in Szczecin. It was carried out in the following stages:
Identification, collection, recording, and organization of the data (postcards);
Evaluation and analysis of the data; and
Interpretation and explanation of the analysis.
This aligns with the scope of activities commonly accepted in historical and interpretative research [39]. The archival research and literature studies were supplemented by field research.
The analysis covered several digital databases containing archival and contemporary postcards, such as Fotopolska [40] (a documentary and historical portal in which 325 archived and contemporary postcards of Szczecin were found); Szczecin Postcard Museum [41] (a virtual museum showing postcards issued after 1945 with a resource of 226 postcards); The Digital Libraries Federation [42] (a website providing on-line access to the collections of Polish science and culture institutions, in the resources of which 537 archival postcards from pre-war Szczecin were found); Pomerania Digital Libraries Collections [43] (a website providing access to the resources of regional and national cultural heritage, which contains 2227 archival postcards of Szczecin); and Visit Szczecin [44] (a portal for tourists in which 201 contemporary postcards of Szczecin were found, showing images of the city from the last few years).
A total of 3315 postcards of Szczecin were reviewed, of which 445 were selected for further analysis as these met the temporal and substantive criteria; that is, these were postcards dated between 1920 and 2023 that depicted a specific architectural object or objects located in Szczecin. Postcards depicting sculptures, monuments, greenery and city parks, and engineering structures, as well as postcards that are too general to indicate a specific architectural object, that is, the leitmotif, were excluded. The objects shown on the postcards were assigned to one of four historical epochs, each covering a period of approximately 25 years: 1920–1945 (pre-war Szczecin); 1946–1975 (post-war socialist Szczecin); 1976–2000 (Szczecin during political transformation); and 2001–2023 (contemporary Szczecin).
The research presented in this article is the first phase of a study of Szczecin’s architectural objects and their perception as iconic. The second phase of the research will be based on surveys of residents and tourists (general surveys) and a survey of professionals such as architects and designers (an industry survey). The survey research will supplement and verify the results of this first phase of postcard analysis. It will specifically address the marketing of the city and the creation of a specific image for marketing purposes; it will also scrutinize the actual popularity of objects among various social groups. Phase two of the study will be presented in a subsequent article.
2.2. Szczecin as the Territorial Scope of Research
The territorial scope of the research was limited to Szczecin within the city’s administrative borders. Szczecin (ger. Stettin, lat. Sedinum or Stetinum) is located in north-western Poland, in the western part of the West Pomeranian Voivodeship, at the Polish-German border (Figure 1). The city is located on the Oder River and near the Dąbie Lake. The sea is about 100 km away. The specific location and the port and shipyard developed on its basis make it a city associated with the sea. According to data from the Central Statistical Office, Szczecin had a population of 393,472 in 2022 [45]. It is the third largest city in Poland in terms of geographic area occupied.
Historically, Szczecin was the capital of the Duchy of Pomerania, but at various times it was also within the borders of Sweden, Brandenburg, Prussia, and Germany. Its establishment dates to the 6th to 7th centuries BC (known as the Lusatian culture period) when the first fortified settlement was established on the site of the present Castle Hill. Szczecin was granted city rights in 1243 and, for years, belonged to the main cities of the Hanseatic League. During the Thirty Years’ War (1618–1648), in 1627, Szczecin was occupied by the imperial army, and in 1630, the city was taken over by the Swedes. Their reign, combined with the construction of the Szczecin fortress, constrained the possibility of the spatial development of the city and significantly limited its area. In 1713 the city was taken over by Prussia and transformed into a sizeable fortress. Two baroque city gates from the forts built in the city have survived to this day—Harbor Gate (formerly Berliner Gate) and Royal Gate (formerly Anklamska Gate). During the Seven Years’ War (1756–1763), Szczecin was besieged by the Russians, and in the years 1806–1813 it was under French occupation.
A particularly important period in the city’s development began in the mid-nineteenth century, when Szczecin, then located within Germany, gained a direct railway connection with important urban centers. Railway lines were opened to Berlin in 1843 and Poznań in 1848, and a railway station was built in the southern part of the city between 1841 and 1843. This stimulated the intensive development of industry in the city. In 1851 the Früchtenicht and Brock (“Vulcan”) shipyard was established, along with the Stoewer brothers’ automotive factory, a cement plant, a sugar refinery, a steelworks, a paper mill, and artificial silk and chamotte brick factories. Municipal infrastructure was also developed as a gas plant and waterworks [46,47,48].
Another breakthrough event in the development of Szczecin occurred in 1873 when the Szczecin fortress was demolished. This enabled rapid residential development of the city. At the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries, Szczecin obtained a new urban layout, and its area began to increase along with the incorporation of already urbanized and independent suburban housing estates and towns into its borders. The new urban layout was based on characteristic round squares and streets radiating outwards in a star-shaped layout (1882, designed by Konrad Kruhl, inspired by Mayor Herman Haken) (Figure 2). The construction of the downtown complex, quarters of eclectic tenement houses modeled on the urban layout of nearby Berlin, was begun during this period. In the years 1902–1921, a complex then known as Haken’s Terraces (now Chrobry Embankment, Polish: Wały Chrobrego) was built in the form of a representative boulevard with monumental buildings (today these are: Maritime University, the building of the National Museum together with the Contemporary Theater and the Provincial Office), pavilions and a large basin with a fountain at the foot, creating an excellent showcase of the city on the Oder. The complex is 500 m long and 19 m above the river’s bank.
In 1939 there was an expansion of administrative boundaries and the creation of the so-called Wielki Szczecin (the cities of Police and Dąbie, among others, were included), as a result of which the city’s area was enlarged almost sixfold. During the Third Reich, Szczecin became a strategic industrial city, and its population increased to approximately 380,000 [46,47,48].
During World War II, the city’s economy was subordinated to the military needs of the Reich, thus becoming a target for bombing. In 1944, due to Allied air raids, about sixty percent of downtown buildings were destroyed, including the entire port and shipyard infrastructure and industrial plants, vital municipal facilities, the road and rail network, and seventy percent of the Old Town (Figure 3). After World War II, Szczecin was incorporated into Poland, forming part of the so-called Recovered Territories. There was an almost complete exchange of German to Polish population in the town. The authorities’ propaganda needed a historical justification for the rapid settlement of these lands. People were to be “convinced” by the arguments about the ancient Slavic lands and the return to the Piast route [46,47,48].
As a result of political decisions, the old town buildings were not rebuilt after the war. Most of the building material obtained from the demolition of the historic ruins of Szczecin was used, among other purposes, for the reconstruction of Warsaw. As a result, the city was deprived of the Old Town Square—an area that had been the “heart of the city” for almost 50 years [49]. In the post-war period, Szczecin became famous primarily as a shipyard city and a leader of workers’ movements that accelerated the radical political breakthrough in 1989 and contributed to the change of the state’s political system from socialist to democratic.
In the post-war period, new buildings were erected in the city, introducing a fresh style of post-war modernism into the historical quarter. Housing estate complexes were built, including industrialized large buildings and service buildings, which played an important role in promoting the city in the following decades. Not all of them have survived to this day. The area of the old town received significant investment during the post-war period. The reconstruction of Podzamcze began in 1994, preserving the historical grid of streets. Public utility buildings were also constructed, such as the Pazim-Radisson complex (1989/1992, designed by M. Dumenčić), the Pomeranian Library (1995–2000, designed by Z. Paszkowski—Urbicon), and the seat of the Social Insurance Institution (1989, designed by S. Derejczyk). In 2003, the first “Galaxy” shopping mall was built in the heart of the city. In the following years, further large-format commercial facilities were in the city center, such as Galeria Handlowa Turzyn and Galeria Kaskada. In 2008, the cathedral basilica was rebuilt, restoring its original appearance. Recent years have seen the implementation of prestigious investments, including the Mieczysław Karłowicz Filharmonie, which has become a kind of icon of the city and has been honored with several awards receiving Solids of the Year 2014 (the most beautiful building in Poland) and the Mies van der Rohe. Then, on the square in front of the Philharmonic, the Upheavals Dialogue Center Museum was erected, and its partially recessed roof became a generally accessible public space. In 2016, this underground museum was recognized in an international competition as the best public space in Europe.
3. Results
3.1. The Popularity of Szczecin’s Architectural Objects Based on an Analysis of Postcards
Over three thousand different postcards, between 1920 and 2023, were analyzed to obtain a ranking of the popularity of the architectural objects depicted in them. Popularity was determined in terms of the commutative number of appearances of objects in the postcards. Cards were then categorized into the following four historical epochs according to the year of publication of the card: 1920–1945 (pre-war Szczecin); 1946–1975 (post-war socialist Szczecin); 1976–2000 (transforming Szczecin); and 2001–2023 (modern Szczecin) (Figure 4).
The object most often placed on postcards, and therefore at the top of the ranking, both overall and when broken down into the epochs, is the Chrobry Embankment complex (German name: Hakenterrasse)—a historical architectural and urban layout, creating a characteristic silhouette of the Oder River visible from the main access routes to the city (Figure 5). The Chrobry Embankment was designed by Wilhelm Meyer-Schwatau and erected on the initiative of Mayor Hermann Haken between 1902 and 1921. The layout is distinguished by monumentality, which is emphasized by the axial symmetrical composition in the central part and excellent exhibition conditions (artificially built escarpment), its representative location (Nadrzański Boulevard), and its historical value.
Second place in the classification was taken by the Pomeranian Dukes’ Castle (early construction in approximately 1346 and reconstruction between 1530 and 1537)—a Renaissance complex located on Castle Hill (Figure 6). Seriously damaged during the Second World War, it was rebuilt in 1958–1980, and the reconstruction recreated the body of the building from the 16th century. The castle occupies an exposed location and is an important element, co-creating the silhouette of the city.
Third place was taken by another historical object constituted by fragments of Szczecin’s fortifications in the forms of the Port Gate (German name: Berliner Tor) and the Royal Gate (German name: Anklamer Tor) (Figure 7). Both historic gates were carved in a Baroque style according to the design of Gerhard Cornelius van Wallrawe, were richly decorated with sculptural decorations, and were built during the Prussian extension of the Szczecin fortress in 1724–1740 and 1725–1728, respectively. The gates play an important role in the spatial organization of Szczecin’s downtown precinct due to their location in the middle of a transport hub: the Port Gate at the junction of the Old Town district and the 19th-century city center, and the Royal Gate at the junction of the Old Town and the newer northern districts of Szczecin.
Joint fourth place in the ranking was taken by three objects with the same number of representations on postcards. Two of them are also historical buildings: the Red Town Hall (currently the seat of the Maritime Office) and the Arch Cathedral Basilica of St. James. Additionally, in fourth place was the town hall, called New or Red. Built between 1875 and 1879, the hall is an example of monumental neo-gothic architecture. It is one of the main buildings in Szczecin’s New Town, whose network of streets was laid out in 1846. It is situated on the edge of the Odra escarpment in the vicinity of prestigious buildings from the late 19th century and is exposed thanks to the location of Tobrucki Square in front of it, where the fountain from the late 19th century is situated. Other impressive buildings are concentrated around the square, including the building of the main post office and the rectorate of the Pomeranian Medical University.
The only contemporary building that made it into the group of most popular objects on postcards in the overall ranking is the building of the philharmonic known as Mieczysław Karłowicz (Figure 7). The building was built between 2011 and 2014 according to the design of Estudio Barozzi Veiga (designers: Fabricio Barozzi and Alberto Veiga) which was selected following an international competition to design a new building for the institution. The modern building contrasts with its historic counterparts in color and material but, at the same time, fits into the situational context, creating a coherent line with the neighboring Neo-Gothic buildings. It is distinguished by a characteristic and easily remembered silhouette and a rhythmic facade. Although the building is monumental, its shape gives the impression of being light thanks to its slenderness and economical, minimalist aesthetics.
3.2. Popularity of Szczecin’s Architectural Structures in the Analyzed Time Periods
Analysis of the postcards within particular periods made it possible not only to identify the most popular objects but also to link their popularity with the historical context and prevailing political and economic conditions of the time (Appendix A—selected postcards).
During the first of the analyzed periods (1920–1945), Szczecin was within the borders of Germany. The most frequently depicted architectural objects on postcards from this period include the Chrobry Embankment complex, the Port Gate and the Royal Gate, the Red City Hall, and the Municipal Theater (Figure 8). These are prestigious buildings representing German cultural heritage and showing the metropolitan aspirations of Szczecin, which was developing dynamically before the war. In contrast, the Pomeranian Dukes’ Castle was not among the most frequently presented objects. As it was associated with the heritage of the Piast dynasty—and is, therefore, Polish—it was not a particularly popular object during this period, despite its historical value. In addition to the postcards showing the most impressive and representative public utility buildings, there are also a few postcards highlighting the industrial and port functions of Szczecin. One such object, for example, was the modern and impressive grain elevator “Ewa” (then called Getreidespeicher), located in the port.
During the second period (1946–1975), which was associated with the reconstruction of the city following war damage and the socialist system, there are clear changes in the objects presented in the postcards. The exception is Chrobry Embankment (formerly Hakenterrasse), still the object most often depicted on postcards, except under a new Polish name emphasizing Piast heritage. The Castle of the Pomeranian Dukes also became more prominent during this period, perhaps emphasizing Szczecin’s ties with Poland and serving to rebuild an image of the city as historically connected with it and regained after many years. New buildings, such as the Kosmos cinema and residential buildings, schools, and kindergartens, are also enthusiastically embraced in postcards, possibly to show off the reconstruction of the city and the authorities’ care for its inhabitants (Figure 9). Representation of the new buildings reflected a trend in architecture, namely post-war Polish modernism, consistent with the political doctrine of the time.
During the third of the analyzed periods (1976–2000), connected with dynamic social and economic change and transformation of the political system, churches that had not previously been shown (except for the Cathedral Basilica) gained prominence. Along with these religious objects, buildings of historical value that were undergoing renovation, tenement houses in the Old New Town, and new public buildings also seemed to grow in significance (Figure 10). Among the churches, the Arch Cathedral Basilica and St. Peter’s Church are the ones that were popularly shown. New, modern buildings are also photographed, such as the Pazim-Radisson complex, a recent and dominant structure in the urban landscape. These images point to a city undergoing a metamorphosis, looking for a new idea for itself, and intensively developing economically. Nonetheless, it is the Chrobry Embankment and the Pomeranian Dukes’ Castle that were still the most popular objects on postcards in this period.
The fourth period (2001–2023) was when Szczecin developed intensively. Accordingly, new facilities appear in postcards, building an image of Szczecin as a modern and open city, drawing on its border and waterside location and embracing its history and cultural heritage (Figure 11). Although the Chrobry Embankment remains the most popular object on postcards, the newly built home of the M. Karłowicz Philharmonic, which took second place in the ranking in this period, is becoming one of the most characteristic and recognizable architectural objects not only in the country but also abroad.
3.3. Typology of Iconic Buildings
Comparing the objects that were popular in particular periods, differences can be discerned in the types of buildings and architectural features that were promoted in each. Related to this, the objects promoted in each period conjure specific and discrete images of the city, each linked with a particular set of political and economic conditions (Table 1).
It is worth noting that some objects representing important ideas only in a given period (such as new residential buildings in the post-war period) enjoyed short-term popularity. Others, distinguished by timelessness and the presence of many features important for iconic objects, such as the Chrobry Embankment complex, seem to be etched enduringly in the city’s image, permanently consolidating their position in its landscape (Figure 12).
The buildings selected as characteristic and aspirationally iconic in the analyzed periods were compared regarding features identified as distinguishing iconic architecture (Table 2). The study was based on individualized expert evaluation. The adopted features were awarded 1 or 0 points depending on whether the analyzed object is distinguished by a given feature. The analysis showed that the Chrobry Embankment complex, which was the most popular on postcards in each of the analyzed periods, is also distinguished by the largest number of features contributing to the building’s iconic character. This suggests that using specific features is important in creating an iconic building and, considering durability, continuity, and timelessness, even in crafting an architectural masterpiece. Most features are not represented in all objects simultaneously. However, it is noteworthy that most objects enjoy prominent locations, which might therefore be considered crucial for promoting an object as iconic or boosting it to iconic status. Features such as uniqueness, monumentality, landmark quality, and message-idea also seem to have great creative power.
Comparing the characteristics of the most promoted buildings and the characteristics of the promoted architecture in the analyzed periods, it is possible to identify four basic types of iconic buildings: anchors, signs, ideas, and statues. These differ in their main purpose, duration of impact, and significance for the landscape (Table 3).
The four types of iconic architectural objects do not depend on the periods analyzed. Still, it is apparent that the anchor buildings with the greatest importance for the urban landscape, and with the most enduring impact, are buildings of historical value, deeply rooted in social awareness and permanently etched into the mental landscape of the city. Their visual prominence provides great potential for building the city’s identity and creating a specific image, and their power is long-lasting. “Building-signs” are characterized by a very strong impact—usually presenting modern trends in architecture and construction, and are, in fact, frequently public utility buildings with a cultural function and unique form. However, the duration of their impact may be short, as they are usually an expression of a certain fashion (e.g., for a designer) or a strong need to create a new image of the city, which after time is replaced by yet another, newer vision of it. A “building-ideas” will work in a completely different way. It is usually much more modest due to its relatively ordinary functions (e.g., a residential building or a school), but represents socially up-to-date content. As their message is usually directed at a specific generation, the prominence of “buildings-ideas” is temporary.
As the impacts of “building-signs” and “building-ideas” are linked with prevailing political and economic ideologies of the period, structures of these kinds are of secondary importance to the urban landscape. In contrast, a “building-statue”—usually a prestigious seat of a large private or state company and often located in the city center or some other prominent location—is of greater importance to the urban landscape. Although it can be locally dominant or even the main element of the composition of the entire urban layout, a building-statue is also of secondary importance to the image of the city. This is due to the variable strength and time of impact, which depend mainly on the economic situation and the company’s development.
The typology of buildings developed here suggests a concept of iconicism that is fluid and multi-dimensional, changing in strength, perception, and quality over time. A building may take on iconic status only for a relatively short period as an expression of fashion or the product of a political agenda, or it can become embedded in consciousness as a key identity marker—often due to the advantage of prominent location—and permanently inscribe itself on the mental and physical landscape of the city, becoming a timeless icon. This more enduring iconic status requires, however, an ongoing dialogue between history and the present, combining the values of function, form, and prominent location.
4. Discussion
The research presented here confirms the existence of certain specific features which characterize, and may even be used to create, iconic buildings and even architectural masterpieces. As pointed out by Yildiz [15], Ching [34], Jencks [10], Kosiński [11], and Thiel–Siling [14], features can be found in buildings that are popular and can even be exploited to turn these structures into symbols that build the image of a city. Yet, possession by a building of iconic features is not, in and of itself, an indication of its iconic status. Such status is primarily a sign of the times because the promotion of a specific building (distinguished by specific architectural features and a certain message or idea) is associated with purposeful efforts to shape the desired image of the city at a given time. In this context, a building can become an important distinguishing feature of space, changing, shaping, or building a new identity of the city [24,35,36,50]—acting, in a sense, as part of the brand of the city [1].
This is reflected in the changing popularity of Szczecin’s buildings over time which, we have shown, corresponds with attempts to shape specific images of the city in different historical epochs. In the pre-war period, when the image of “Szczecin—Berlin’s sister city” was promoted, foregrounded structures tended to be the most representative and prestigious public utility buildings with monumental features built before the war and inspired by the architecture of Berlin. After the war, when the motive was necessary to eradicate signs of German heritage, the image of “Szczecin—Polish again” was promoted. Historical buildings representing the Piast roots, along with new residential buildings showing the care of the socialist authorities for citizens, were promoted as part of efforts by the city to break with German tradition and cultivate a new image of domestic modernism. Over time, when the political changes had been actualized, the city’s image was transformed again, changing to “Szczecin—a city of transformation”. During this period, the new image was promoted primarily by focusing on large investments like prominent company headquarters, such as the Pazim–Radisson complex, and also by the revitalization and renovation of old urban complexes. In recent years, due to the intensive development of the city and increased openness to cooperation with foreign countries, the image has been built of “Szczecin—a city combining history with modernity”. Breaking patterns and seeking to boost the city to the ranks of a world metropolis, while respecting its existing cultural heritage, have become important. An example is the building of the M. Karłowicz Philharmonic, recognized widely as an architectural prize in international competitions, which is a strong distinguishing feature of the landscape and a recognizable symbol even outside Poland. The identified buildings were heavily promoted as (or actually became) architectural icons during certain periods, acting as landscape landmarks.
Contemporary architectural icons, however, are not only a sign of the times in promoting the city’s image, but also a reflection of the relationship between iconicity, globalization, and consumerism. According to Sklair [51], iconicity in architecture is defined in terms of fame and special symbolic or aesthetic significance in relation to buildings, spaces, and, in some cases, the architects themselves. Evidence of this can be found in the attempts to engage famous architects for projects aimed at promoting the city as a modern tourist destination and an attractive location for capital investment. The term “Bilbao effect” is widely used to describe the potential for iconic objects designed by famous architects to serve as catalysts for economic revitalization and transformation of the surrounding space (e.g., a housing estate, district, or even an entire city). Iconic buildings can act as stimuli for economic and cultural development [52], and even become models for good practice and current trends in construction, such as combining sustainable development with iconicity [53]. Rybczynski [54] (p. 35) believes that perhaps the Bilbao effect should be called the “Bilbao anomaly,” since “the iconic chemistry between the design of a building, its image and the public turn out to be quite rare, and somewhat mysterious.
An interesting example of this is presented by post-industrial (deindustrialized) cities that struggle with the loss of an old identity and search for a new one. The creation of elite buildings, detached from their roots and local heritage, and the realities of the inhabitants, will not necessarily lead to the expected benefits and may even polarize society [55]. What is needed are solutions of timeless quality, combining tradition with modernity, and history with the present [56,57,58], which implement the principles of sustainable development. The guarantee of this, and at the same time a good practice, seems to be the selection of iconic projects through architectural competitions, which allows choosing the best solution for a group of professionals [59]. There is some criticism of this method because competitions favor extravagance rather than diligence and the creation of better buildings [60]. The problem may also be persistent bureaucracy, corruption, or overly restrictive provisions of construction law [61].
However, it is not only individual developments that can be considered as part of the promotion of the city and the construction of a specific image. Additionally, important is the function of the development, which has a significant impact on the evaluation and promotion of the buildings in the period in question. The research presented in this paper developed a typology of iconic buildings based on factors like a building’s main purpose, its importance in urban space, its role in the landscape, and the duration of impact: “buildings-ideas“—whose purpose is to promote a certain social idea, of secondary importance for the urban landscape, with a short duration of impact; “buildings-signs”—whose form is to focus attention, usually of great importance for the landscape and urban space, often constituting an expression of a certain fashion lasting for a certain time; “buildings-statues”—showing the prestige of institutions or owners, with a variable duration of impact depending on the prosperity of the institution and the use of composition and location values; and “buildings-anchors”—representing important public functions, deeply rooted in the mental space of the city, inscribed in its silhouette, of strategic importance for the city landscape and long-term impact.
The proposed typology considers landscape factors and goes beyond the issues of the city’s image and promotion. Therefore, it differs from the typologies of iconic buildings developed by other scientists, focusing instead on the impact of buildings on the development of the city and its economic activities and trajectory. Focusing on economic significance, for example, Temelova [8] distinguishes three types of architectural icons: “trophy buildings”—proclaiming the fame and prestige of their owners; “exclusive buildings”—segmenting the market and creating expensive enclaves; and “image buildings”—promoting a favorable climate for investment. This approach to the typology of iconic buildings is common because their popularity is most often analyzed in the context of political and economic tendencies and neoliberalism [62,63]. However, iconic buildings are also worth analyzing in the context of their impact on the urban landscape and their impact on physical and mental space.
The research presented here also confirms the existence of buildings that can be described as more than architectural icons insofar as they express a certain fashion. Such buildings are architectural masterpieces, distinguished by timelessness and durability [12]. In Szczecin, such a role is played by the Chrobry Embankment complex, which has been a showcase of the city since pre-war times. Therefore, the question arises whether new, prestigious, and international award-winning buildings, such as the Szczecin Philharmonic or the Dialogue Centre Upheavals, can outclass a work with such an established position in the city space as Chrobry Embankment. Introducing a recognizable and characteristic object changes the mental landscape of the city [6] and the perception of urban space [64]. Time will certainly be the ultimate arbiter of this issue. Nevertheless, it seems that the timelessness of the Chrobry Embankment and its unquestionable rooting in the physical and mental space, based on such qualities as its exposed location and co-creation of the city’s silhouette from the side of the Oder River, predisposes it to being viewed as a masterpiece of architecture. As Kuryłowicz [12] has noted, architectural masterpieces do not pass away.
5. Conclusions
The case of Szczecin, a city that for years remained within the strong cultural influences of Prussia and Germany and subsequently had an interesting post-war history within Poland’s quest for new statehood, provides a rich tapestry within which to identify historical and contemporary changes in the city’s image and analyze how, through architectural objects, the city set about conjuring particular images of itself for political, marketing and other purposes. In its contemporary form, features of its past and present now combine to create an image of Szczecin as a thriving cosmopolitan, multicultural, and worldly city. Despite the emergence of new, award-winning objects, the historical identity—and the architectural drivers which symbolized it—still seems to prevail. Perhaps that is why a consciously, precisely, and stylishly designed architectural and urban complex such as Chrobry Embankment, which has been an element of the city’s panorama for over a hundred years, has an unquestionable and enduring impact on the city’s image.
Based on the conducted research, the following conclusions can be drawn:
Architecturally iconic buildings are created concerning political, economic, and social conditions and the need to promote a specific image of the city at a specific time. They are, quite literally, a sign of their times; therefore, their impact and popularity may be relatively short-lived.
Certain features contribute to a building’s potential as an architectural icon. A building’s aesthetics, its uniqueness, its characteristic form or contrast—all of which are identified by some researchers as definitive features of iconicity—are not the only factors which contribute to making a building an icon. The exposed location and timelessness of the facility are also important. Crucially, these features distinguish an icon from a masterpiece; the former is a time-constrained and politically driven identity marker while the latter is a timeless and politically neutral work of architecture whose greatness exists outside any temporal or political boundaries.
The strength of the building’s impact, its importance for the city landscape, and the possibility of creating a specific image depend on its iconic type. Of particular importance are buildings-anchors of strategic importance for the landscape, inscribed in the silhouette of the city, dominants, deeply encoded in the mental landscape of the local community and tourists, having a timeless value.
Our analysis of postcards depicting Szczecin’s architecture over roughly one hundred years turned out to be an effective tool for identifying the various images of the city promoted over time and the related message-ideas associated with each. The information encoded in the type of architecture promoted in any given period served to cultivate, very intentionally, particular images of the city, each corresponding with a specific historical epoch and serving the motivations of the prevailing political, economic, and intellectual elite of the time. Although it has made some progress toward understanding the role of architecture in creating and recreating images of the city, this research by no means represents an exhaustive analysis of architectural iconicism in Szczecin. Scope certainly exists for further studies which explore the relative popularity of architectural objects from the differing standpoints of gender, age, class, and professional status, to name but a few other potential variables.
Conceptualization, W.B. and M.C.-P.; Methodology, W.B. and M.C.-P.; Formal Analysis, W.B., M.C.-P. and M.N.; Investigation, W.B., M.C.-P. and M.N.; Resources, W.B., M.C.-P. and M.N.; Writing—Original Draft Preparation, W.B., M.C.-P. and M.N.; Writing—Review and Editing, W.B. and M.C.-P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
The postcards used in the analysis come from legitimate digital databases containing archival and contemporary postcards. Part of the data in the form of selected postcards is available in
This research was supported by ZUT Highfliers School (Szkoła Orłów ZUT) project coordinated by Assoc. Piotr Sulikowski within the framework of the program of the Minister of Education and Science (Grant No. MNiSW/2019/391/DIR/KH, POWR.03.01.00-00-P015/18), co-financed by the European Social Fund, the amount of financing PLN 2,634,975.00.
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Footnotes
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Enlarge this image.Figure 2. Round squares and star-shaped street layout (1882, designed by Konrad Kruhl, inspired by Mayor Herman Haken) on the plan of Szczecin (1937). Source: Mapster/authors’ work.
Enlarge this image.Figure 3. War damages of Szczecin—Arch Cathedral Basilica of St. James in 1945 and 1985. A postcard. Authors: Archiwum Miejskiej Pracowni Urbanistycznej w Szczecinie and J. Makarewicz. Publisher: KAW. Source: Fotopolska.eu.
Enlarge this image.Figure 4. The most popular objects, taking into account the cumulative number of presentations on postcards, are broken down into individual periods. Source: authors’ work.
Enlarge this image.Figure 5. Selected popular objects shown on postcards—Chrobry Embankment, photo by M. Czasnojć.
Enlarge this image.Figure 6. Selected popular objects shown on postcards—Pomeranian Dukes’ Castle, photo by M. Czasnojć.
Enlarge this image.Figure 7. Selected popular objects shown on postcards—Royal Gate and M. Karłowicz Philharmonic, photo by M. Czasnojć.
Enlarge this image.Figure 8. List of the most popular objects in the years 1920–1945—location and the number of depictions on postcards. Source: authors’ work.
Enlarge this image.Figure 9. List of the most popular objects on postcards in 1946–1975—location and number of depictions on postcards. Source: authors’ work.
Enlarge this image.Figure 10. List of the most popular objects in 1976–2000—location and number of depictions on postcards. Source: authors’ work.
Enlarge this image.Figure 11. List of the most popular objects in 2001–2023—location and number of depictions on postcards. Source: authors’ work.
Enlarge this image.Figure 12. Popularity of selected objects on timeline postcards. Source: authors’ work.
Comparison of features of the promoted architecture in the analyzed periods. Source: authors’ work.
| 1920–1945 | 1946–1975 | 1976–2000 | 2001–2023 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Types of promoted buildings | Public utility facilities with important public, administrative and cultural functions | Public utility buildings, newly built housing (new housing estates and new infill buildings) | Public utility buildings, including the headquarters of state-owned companies, renovated historic buildings | Public utility facilities, including cultural facilities, historical and newly built facilities |
| Object promotion period | Period of intensive development of Szczecin (since the liquidation of the fortress) | Post-war regression, reconstruction of Szczecin, cutting off from German heritage and development of native modernism, PRL (1956–1989) | The period of political transformation, socio-economic changes and the search for a new image | Period of modern Szczecin |
| Architectural characteristics | Prestigious, monumental, inspired by the influence of Berlin, historicizing, decorative facades, richly decorated, high roofs | Emphasizing Szczecin’s ties with Poland, post-war modernist buildings, flat roofs, geometrized and rhythmic facade divisions | Postmodern, |
Aspiring to world ranking, modern but inspired by tradition and local specificity |
| The created image of the city | Szczecin—Berlin’s sister city | Szczecin—Polish again | Szczecin—a city of transformation, full of new opportunities, developing | Szczecin—a city combining history with modernity, respecting Polish-German traditions, a city of culture, sustainable city |
| Representative |
Hakenterrasse (after joining Szczecin to Poland—Chrobry Embankment) | Pomeranian Dukes’ Castle, standardized housing development at Wyzwolenia Avenue and Wojska Polskiego Avenue | Old New Town, Pazim-Radisson complex | M. Karłowicz Philharmonic |
Comparison of features typified as iconic for selected objects in Szczecin. Source: authors’ work. Awarding 1 point means that the feature distinguishes the object, and 0 means no feature.
| Features/Objects | Chrobry Embankment | Pomeranian Dukes’ Castle | Residential Buildings, e.g., at Wyzwolenia Avenue | Tenement Houses in the Old New Town | Pazim-Radisson | M. Karłowicz Philharmonic |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Uniqueness | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Monumentality | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| Symmetry | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Exposed location | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Rhythm | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Spatial dominance, large scale | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| Surprising form | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Symbolism of the form | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| Landmark | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| The message-the idea | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Durability, permanence, timelessness | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Sum | 9 | 6 | 3 | 3 | 6 | 8 |
Typology of iconic buildings. Source: authors’ work.
| Building-Idea | Building-Sign | Building-Statue | Building-Anchor | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Examples of objects on postcards | Residential development on Wyzwolenia Avenue, school on Korsarzy Street, “Ewa” elevator, “Dana” clothing factory | M. Karłowicz Philharmonic, Summer Theatre | The Pazim-Radisson complex, the seat of the Social Insurance Institution, the Red City Hall, the Main Post Office | Chrobry Embankment, Pomeranian Dukes’ Castle, Cathedral Basilica |
| Main types of buildings | Housing estates and residential buildings, schools, kindergartens, and other facilities related to the currently developed functions in the city | Public utility buildings, often with the function of culture and art | Headquarters of large private and state companies | Public utility buildings, state administration offices, local authorities, religious building |
| The main objective of the investment project | Promoting certain ideas that are relevant in a given period | Manifesting modernity, new tendencies, directions of development | Showing the prestige of the institution or owners | Building identity—important public functions of great importance for the city and its identity |
| Impact time | Short duration of impact strongly related to political and economic conditions | They are often an expression of a certain fashion lasting for a certain period of time, they can be the work of well-known architects | The time of impact is variable, depending on the prosperity of the institution and the use of composition and location advantages | Long-term impact, timeless buildings |
| Significance for the landscape | Secondary importance to the urban landscape | Often landmarks, of great importance for the mental landscape of the city, often local dominants | Often local dominants, objects subordinating the urban composition, located on the axis of the layout | Strategic, objects inscribed in the silhouette of the city, dominants in the landscape, deeply encoded in the mental landscape, exposed location, historically established |
| Significance for the image of the city | Secondary | Very large, but may be temporary | Secondary | Large, strong and long-lasting impact, building the tradition of the place |
Appendix A
| Selected Postcards from Szczecin | |||
| Period | No. | Description | Postcards |
| 1920–1945 | 1 | View of the Municipal Theatre (Stadttheater), Polish Soldier Square (Königsplatz) in Szczecin (Stettin) | [Image omitted. Please see PDF.] |
| 2 | View of the Victory Square (Hohenzollernplatz) near the Port Gate (Berliner Tor)
|
[Image omitted. Please see PDF.] |
|
| 3 | View of the cemetery chapel at the Central Cemetery (Hauptfriedhof) in Szczecin (Stettin). | [Image omitted. Please see PDF.] |
|
| 4 | From the left, top row:
|
[Image omitted. Please see PDF.] |
|
| 5 | Monument by Ludwig Manzl (Manzelbrunnen) called Sedina in Tobruk Square (Marktplatz). | [Image omitted. Please see PDF.] |
|
| 6 | View of the Harbor Gate (Berliner Tor) and the Amphitrite monument-fountain (Felderhoffbrunnen). | [Image omitted. Please see PDF.] |
|
| 7 | View of the Royal Gate (Königstor) located on the former Prussian Homage Square (Am Königstor). | [Image omitted. Please see PDF.] |
|
| 8 | View of the eagle fountain (Brunnen) on the White Eagle Square (Roβmarkt). | [Image omitted. Please see PDF.] |
|
| 9 | From the left, top:
|
[Image omitted. Please see PDF.] |
|
| 10 | Maritime Museum on the Wały Chrobrego | [Image omitted. Please see PDF.] |
|
| 1946–1975 | 11 | Chrobry Embankment. Drawing based on a pre-war photograph. | [Image omitted. Please see PDF.] |
| 12 | Postcard collage
|
[Image omitted. Please see PDF.] |
|
| 13 | Postcard collage
|
[Image omitted. Please see PDF.] |
|
| 14 | Postcard collage
|
[Image omitted. Please see PDF.] |
|
| 15 | Postcard collage
|
[Image omitted. Please see PDF.] |
|
| 16 | Postcard collage
|
[Image omitted. Please see PDF.] |
|
| 17 | Postcard collage
|
[Image omitted. Please see PDF.] |
|
| 18 | Postcard collage
|
[Image omitted. Please see PDF.] |
|
| 19 | Postcard collage
|
[Image omitted. Please see PDF.] |
|
| 20 | Postcard collage
|
[Image omitted. Please see PDF.] |
|
| 1976–2000 | 21 | Postcard collage
|
[Image omitted. Please see PDF.] |
| 22 | Postcard collage
|
[Image omitted. Please see PDF.] |
|
| 23 | Postcard collage
|
[Image omitted. Please see PDF.] |
|
| 24 | Postcard collage
|
[Image omitted. Please see PDF.] |
|
| 25 | Postcard collage
|
[Image omitted. Please see PDF.] |
|
| 26 | Views of the Chrobry Embankment (bird’s-eye view, from the Castle Route) | [Image omitted. Please see PDF.] |
|
| 27 | Postcard collage
|
[Image omitted. Please see PDF.] |
|
| 28 | Postcard collage
|
[Image omitted. Please see PDF.] |
|
| 29 | Postcard collage
|
[Image omitted. Please see PDF.] |
|
| 30 | Postcard collage
|
[Image omitted. Please see PDF.] |
|
| 2001–2023 | 31 | Postcard collage
|
[Image omitted. Please see PDF.] |
| 32 | Pomeranian Dukes’ Castle in Szczecin | [Image omitted. Please see PDF.] |
|
| 33 | Underground routes of Szczecin-Shelter under Main Railway Station | [Image omitted. Please see PDF.] |
|
| 34 | Postcard collage
|
[Image omitted. Please see PDF.] |
|
| 35 | Postcard collage
|
[Image omitted. Please see PDF.] |
|
| 36 | Postcard collage
|
[Image omitted. Please see PDF.] |
|
| 37 | Postcard collage
|
[Image omitted. Please see PDF.] |
|
| 38 | Mieczyslaw Karlowicz Philhamonia. Design of the “Szczecin” poster made by Ryszard Kaja as part of the Poland Series. | [Image omitted. Please see PDF.] |
|
| 39 | Tiled stove on the waterfront overlooking the railroad bridge. In the background the Red City Hall and the railway station post office building | [Image omitted. Please see PDF.] |
|
| 40 | Postcard collage
|
[Image omitted. Please see PDF.] |
|
References
1. Haila, A. The Neglected Builder of Global Cities: Cities in Transformation–Transformation in Cities. Social and Symbolic Change of Urban Space; Kalltorp, O.; Elander, I.; Ericson, O.; Franzen, M. Routledge: Avebury, Hampshire, 1997; pp. 33-287.
2. Gospodini, A. Urban morphology and place identity in European cities: Built heritage and innovative design. J. Urban Des.; 2004; 9, pp. 225-248. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1357480042000227834]
3. Sadana, R. We are visioning it: Aspirational planning and the material landscapes of Delhi’s metro. City Soc.; 2018; 30, pp. 186-209. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ciso.12163]
4. Rouba, R. Promocja miast XXI wieku poprzez ikony architektoniczne–przykład Krzywego rogu w Sopocie. Stud. Miej.; 2012; 7, pp. 91-105.
5. Archirama.pl. Encyklopedia Architektury. Available online: https://archirama.muratorplus.pl/encyklopedia-architektury/ikona-architektury,62_3061.html (accessed on 15 December 2022).
6. Lynch, K. The Image of the City; Harvard-MIT Joint Center for Urban Studies Series; Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1960; ISBN 978-0-262-62001-7
7. Sklair, L. Iconic architecture in globalizing cities. Int. Crit. Thought; 2012; 2, pp. 349-361. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21598282.2012.706779]
8. Temelova, J. Contemporary buildings in city promotion: Attributes and foundation of high-profile structures. The case of Prague and Helsinki. Res. Train. Netw. Urban Eur.; 2004; 10, pp. 7-10.
9. Sklair, L. The Icon Project: Architecture, Cities, and Capitalist Globalization; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2017; ISBN 9780190464189
10. Jencks, C. The iconic building is here to stay. City; 2006; 10, pp. 3-20. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13604810600594605]
11. Kosiński, W. Kontekst i kontrast. Definiowanie Przestrzeni Architektonicznej; Kozłowski, D.; Misiągiewicz, M. Wydawnictwo Politechniki Krakowskiej: Kraków, Poland, 2008; pp. 79-85.
12. Kuryłowicz, E. Dzieło-arcydzieło a ikona we współczesnym mieście. Detronizacja czy nobilitacja dla idoli XXI wieku?. Czas. Tech. Tech. Trans.; 2011; 105, pp. 99-104.
13. Lee, J. 50 Große Abenteuer. Besondere Orte und Die Menschen, Die Sie Geschaffen Haben [50 Huge Adventures]. Special Places and the People Who Created Them; Prestel Publisher: Munich, Germany, 2006; ISBN 978-3791335308
14. Thiel-Siling, S. Icons of Architecture: The 20th Century; Prestel: Munich, Germany, 1998.
15. Yildiz, K.E. The importance of iconic buildings for city image: Konya science center example. Iconarp. Int. J. Arch. Plan; 2018; 6, pp. 461-481.
16. Elhagla, K.; Nassar, D.M.; Ragheb, M.A. Iconic buildings’ contribution toward urbanism. Alex. Eng. J.; 2020; 59, pp. 803-813. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.2020.01.020]
17. Hankinson, G. The management of destination brands: Five guiding principles based on recent developments in corporate branding theory. Brand Manag.; 2006; 14, pp. 240-254. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.bm.2550065]
18. Roth, L.R. Understanding Architecture: Its elements, History and Meaning; Westview Press: Boulder, CO, USA, 1993.
19. Raevskikh, E. Anticipating the “Bilbao effect”: Transformations of the city of Arles before the opening of the Luma Foundation. Cities; 2018; 83, pp. 92-107. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2018.06.012]
20. Schultz, M.; Hernes, T. A temporal perspective on organizational identity. Organ. Sci.; 2013; 24, pp. 1-137. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1110.0731]
21. Sklair, L. Iconic architecture and capitalist globalization. City; 2006; 10, pp. 21-47. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13604810600594613]
22. Lindsay, G. One icon, two audiences: How the Denver Art Museum used their new building to both brand the city and bolster civic pride. J. Urban Des.; 2018; 23, pp. 193-205. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13574809.2017.1399793]
23. Jencks, C. The Iconic Building–The Power of Enigma; Frances Lincoln: London, UK, 2005.
24. Jones, C.; Svejenova, S. The architecture of city identities: A multimodal study of Barcelona and Boston. Res. Sociol. Organ.; 2017; 54, pp. 203-234. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/S0733-558X2017000054B007]
25. Alaily-Mattar, N.; Dreher, J.; Thierstein, A. Repositioning cities through star architecture: How does it work?. J. Urban Des.; 2018; 23, pp. 169-192. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13574809.2017.1408401]
26. Alaily-Mattar, N.; Bartmanski, D.; Dreher, J.; Koch, M.; Löw, M.; Pape, T.; Thierstein, A. Situating architectural performance: ‘star architecture’ and its roles in repositioning the cities of Graz, Lucerne and Wolfsburg. Eur. Plan. Stud.; 2018; 26, pp. 1874-1900. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2018.1465896]
27. Alaily-Mattar, N.; Lindsay, G.; Thierstein, A. Star architecture and urban transformation: Introduction to the special issue. Eur. Plan. Stud.; 2022; 30, pp. 1-12. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2021.1961691]
28. Dreher, J.; Alaily-Mattar, N.; Thierstein, A. Star architecture projects and their effects: Tracing the evidence. J. Urbanism. Int. Res. Placemaking Urban Sustain.; 2023; 16, pp. 65-83. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17549175.2021.1924838]
29. King, A.D. Spaces of Global Cultures: Architecture, Urbanism, Identity; 1st ed. Routledge: London, UK, 2008.
30. Bonenberg, W. Brand Visual Identity in Architecture. Universal Access in Human-Computer Interaction: Design for All and Accessibility Practice; Stephanidis, C.; Antona, M. Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2014; Volume 8516, [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-07509-9_14]
31. Riza, M. Culture and City Branding: Mega-Events and Iconic Buildings as Fragile Means to Brandthe City. Open J. Soc. Sci.; 2015; 3, pp. 269-274. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4236/jss.2015.37039]
32. Ujang, N. Place Attachment and Continuity of Urban Place Identity. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci.; 2012; 49, pp. 156-167. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.07.014]
33. Ali, M.H. Contemporary Iconic Architecture in Amsterdam: Bilbao Effect hunting the City?. Int. J. Res. Eng. Soc. Sci.; 2016; 6, pp. 19-34.
34. Ching, F. Architecture: Form, Space and Order; John Wiley and Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 1996.
35. Sykta, I. Cityscape scrapers–kontrowersyjne obiekty architektury współczesnej w krajobrazie miejskim jako elementy ogniskujące rozwój rekreacji i turystyki. Nauka Przyr. Technol.; 2009; 3, 54.
36. Pages-Oliver, R. Architectural Landmarks and the Evolving Image of Perth City. Architectural Research through to Practice: 48th International Conference of the Architectural Science Association; Madeo, F.; Schnabel, M.A. The Architectural Science Association & Genova University Press: Genova, Italy, 2014; pp. 175-184.
37. Kavaratzis, M. Place Branding: A Review of Trends and Conceptual Models. Mark. Rev.; 2005; 5, pp. 329-342. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1362/146934705775186854]
38. Riza, M.; Doratli, N.; Fasli, M. City branding and identity. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci.; 2012; 35, pp. 293-300. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.02.091]
39. Groat, L.; Wang, D. Architectural Research Methods; John Willey & Sons, Inc.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2002.
40. Fotopolska.eu. Ocalić Od Zapomnienia. Available online: https://fotopolska.eu (accessed on 10 December 2022).
41. Muzeum Szczecińskiej Pocztówki [Szczecin Postcard Museum]. Available online: http://pocztowkizeszczecina.blogspot.com (accessed on 11 December 2022).
42. Federacja Bibliotek Cyfrowych [The Digital Libraries Federation]. Available online: https://fbc.pionier.net.pl (accessed on 12 December 2022).
43. Zachodniopomorska Biblioteka Cyfrowa POMERANIA [Pomerania Digital Libraries Collections]. Available online: https://www.ksiaznica.szczecin.pl/biblioteka-cyfrowa (accessed on 10 January 2023).
44. Visit Szczecin. Available online: https://visitszczecin.eu/pl (accessed on 11 January 2023).
45. Urząd Statystyczny w Szczecinie [Statistical Office in Szczecin]. Available online: https://szczecin.stat.gov.pl/szczecin/ (accessed on 12 January 2023).
46. Białecki, T. Historia Szczecina; Ossolineum: Wrocław, Polnad, 1992.
47. Białecki, T.; Turek-Kwiatkowska, L. Szczecin Stary I Nowy; Tom I–II, Szczecińskie Towarzystwo Kultury: Szczecin, Poland, 1991.
48. Piskorski, J.M.; Wachowiak, B.; Włodarczyk, E. Szczecin: Zarys Historii; Wyd. PTPN: Poznań, Poland, 2002.
49. Marzęcki, W. Szczecin–A city of many hearts. Przestrz. Forma; 2019; 40, pp. 171-194. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.21005/pif.2019.40.C-03]
50. Zamparini, A.; Gualtieri, G.; Lurati, F. Iconic buildings in the making of city identity: The role of aspirational identity artefacts. Urban Stud.; 2023; OnlineFirst. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/00420980221144157]
51. Sklair, L. Iconic Architecture and the Culture-ideology of Consumerism. Theory Cult. Soc.; 2010; 27, pp. 135-159. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0263276410374634]
52. Patterson, M. Revitalization, transformation and the ‘Bilbao effect’: Testing the local area impact of iconic architectural developments in North America, 2000–2009. Eur. Plan. Stud.; 2022; 30, pp. 32-49. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2020.1863341]
53. Aatty, H.M.S.; al Silk, G.M.R. Iconic architecture and sustainability as a tool to attract the global attention. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng.; 2019; 518, 022076. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/518/2/022076]
54. Rybczynski, W. The Bilbao Effect. Atl. Mon.; 2002; 290, pp. 138-142.
55. Hoekstra, M.S. Iconic Architecture and Middle-Class Politics of Memory in a Deindustrialized City. Sociology; 2020; 54, pp. 693-710. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0038038520906772]
56. Assi, E. Layers of Meaning and Evolution of Cultural Identity: The Case of Wind Towers in Dubai. Conservation; 2022; 2, pp. 38-50. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/conservation2010004]
57. Garzulino, A.; Borgarino, M.P.; Del Curto, D. When GIS Joins the Conservation Management Plan of a 20th-Century Architectural Heritage. Sustainability; 2021; 13, 3881. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su13073881]
58. Ronsivalle, D. Relevance and Role of Contemporary Architecture Preservation—Assessing and Evaluating Architectural Heritage as a Contemporary Landscape: A Study Case in Southern Italy. Sustainability; 2023; 15, 4132. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su15054132]
59. Danilović Hristić, N.; Lalošević, M.; Stefanović, N. Implementation of Urban Solution for New Faculty Facilities within Spatial Historical and Cultural Units—A Case Study of Belgrade, Serbia. Sustainability; 2023; 15, 5590. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su15065590]
60. Rybczynski, W. When Buildings Try Too Hard. Available online: https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB122731149503149341 (accessed on 1 February 2023).
61. Trumbull, N. Challenges to Western Participation in Shaping the Urban Landscape of Post-Socialist St. Petersburg: The Failure of International Competitions for Iconic Architectural Projects. Eurasian Geogr. Econ.; 2010; 51, pp. 788-802. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2747/1539-7216.51.6.788]
62. Patterson, M. The Role of the Public Institution in Iconic Architectural Development. Urban Stud.; 2012; 49, pp. 3289-3305. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0042098012443862]
63. Balke, J.; Reuber, P.; Wood, G. Iconic architecture and place-specific neoliberal governmentality: Insights from Hamburg’s Elbe Philharmonic Hall. Urban Stud.; 2018; 55, pp. 997-1012. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0042098017694132]
64. Lenartowicz, J.K. O Psychologii Architektury. Monography 138. Seria Architektura; Wydawnictwo Politechniki Krakowskiej: Kraków, Poland, 1992.
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.
Details
; Czalczynska-Podolska, Magdalena
; Nieścior, Maja