1

DRAFT VERSION OF

PÉREZ INDAVEREA A., &VILA VÁZQUEZ J. I., (2014) “Analysing a Spatial

Pattern of Innovative and Brand Architecture in European Cities: Clustering and

Diffusion of Media and Signature Projects?”, in Mierzejewska, L. and Parysek, J. J,

(eds.) Cities in a Complex World: Problems, Challenges and Prospects, Poznan, Bogucki

Wydawnictwo Naukowe, p.139-153, ISBN : 9788379860227

PhD candidate, Mª Aránzazu Pérez Indaverea. Universidade de Santiago de

Compostela

PhD candidate, Jose Ignacio Vila Vázquez. Universidade de Santiago de

Compostela / Université Paris 1: Panthéon-Sorbonne

ANALYSING A SPATIAL PATTERN OF INNOVATIVE AND BRAND

ARCHITECTURE IN EUROPEAN CITIES: CLUSTERING AND DIFFUSION

OF MEDIA AND SIGNATURE PROJECTS?

Abstract

During the last decades there has been a spread of flagship buildings designed by renowned

architects, as well as architectural projects adopting new technological possibilities, aesthetics and

functions. We aim to explain the spatial distribution of architectural firms and media and signature projects

of architecture, built or not, in Europe. These works constitute a strategy of urban marketing in a context

of inter-urban competition, and the production of know-how of building procedures of media architecture.

A database on offices of signature architects and their European projects, as well as media

architecture projects has been built. A methodology of data analysis is used for studying this sample. It

includes projects designed and inaugurated between 2000 and 2010 which appeared in the official web

pages of their architects and in the most relevant specialized magazines. Concentrations of architects and

projects in the urban areas of Western Europe are identified. We analyse recent dynamics in the spatial

patterns of diffusion of these models of projects and clusters of architectural firms in the chosen period.

Four main explicative factors of these spatial dynamics can be pointed out: first, the economic performance

and size of the cities and their corresponding urban areas; second, the origin countries of signature architects

and other places with cultural proximity; third, direct links to knowledge centres of architecture highly

specialized in technology; and fourth, the punctual realization of cultural events.

Keywords: spatial pattern, clustering, diffusion, signature and media architecture, city

1. Introduction

2

G. Débord stated our consumer society has a constant searching for the most

spectacular things to attract potential clients. The production of spectacle buildings has

characterized the European urban fabric during the last decades. Their objective was to

produce competitive advantages for the territories. A global competition among cities to

attract investments and visitors started, using spectacular architecture as a marketing tool

to sell a modern image of themselves and become more competitive. This paper focus on

two types of this spectacle architecture: signature and media buildings. Signature

architecture are those constructions produced by prestigious architects which are in the

elite group of their profession for a certain period. Media architecture is characterized by

merging physical and digital media in the architectural design, aiming to turn architectural

projects into communication devices. Our objective is testing the hypothesis of the

existence of a clustering process of both these spectacular projects and studios in the more

dynamic urban areas of Europe.

2. Urban Forms for Spectacle and Branding: Signature and Media

Architecture

Since the late nineties, creativity has constituted a recurrent issue in the social and

cultural approaches within urban studies. R. Florida has had a key role in this approach

due to his definition of the concepts of creative class and creative milieu (Florida, 2005).

Location in central places and the creation of clusters of knowledge are the basic factors

for the production of innovation and creativity (Porter, 2000; Castells & Hall, 2001), even

in our epoch characterized by the spatial-time compression. Other scholars have

approached the urban regeneration through the impact of the creative activities (Landry

& Bianchini, 1995; Evans, 2009) and the hard-branding through cultural infrastructures

(Evans, 2003). More precisely, the production of iconic buildings has been linked to the

authorship of a new class of transnational or global architects and the predominant logics

of the consumerism (Jencks, 2005; McNeill, 2009; Sklair, 2005). To study signature and

media architecture and its authors, we must first define and point out the main

characteristics of these architectural trends.

3

Signature architecture1 is defined by the architects who produces it, the 25 most

famous architects world-wide (McNeil, 2009). This denomination was be retained, but

we indicate that it was created a posteriori by other disciplines, normally architects does

not identify themselves in this group. These professionals are linked to branding in the

period of the global capitalism. Every “stararchitect” is a global architect who constructs

his brand and/or his signature turning their works into icons (Jencks, 2005) through an

innovative architectural discourse. There are different criteria to define this category of

architects who are in the top level in the fame hierarchy of their profession. This does not

mean that they produce the best architecture, just that they are the most reckoned

professionals among the public. Clients prefer these architects for producing great

projects because they immediately add them value and visibility. In fact, in the 1990’s

and early 2000’s, several European cities imitated the model of hard-branding

regeneration (Evans, 2003) which has been promoted by Bilbao and the so-called,

“Guggenheim effect”2.

The presence of urban screens in our cities and their use for artistic, informational,

advertising or playful purposes is not new. What started to change in the 1990’s, and

especially around the year 2000 (Tscherteu, 2010), was the will of doing an

interdisciplinary work between architects, media experts, artists and engineers to merge

urban screens and buildings from the beginning of the design process. This team-work

result in media architecture projects, new spatial structures that merge with visual

displays and computational devices that are controlled by specific software, that in some

cases include kinetic and interactive elements. Preceding ideas of such designs were

present in architectural utopias, like the ones by Archigram in the sixties, and science

fiction. But only in the 1990’s, parallel to the technological advances and costs reduction,

1 Other concepts that refer to signature architects are “star architects” (Jencks, 2005; Sklair, 2005; Jones

2009 and 2011; Faulconbridge, 2009), “brand architects” or even “global architects” (McNeil, 2009). We

prefer “signature architects” because it defines a group of architects who produces identifiable designs,

focusing on their artisticness and stressing the power of the brand generated by the quality of their

designs. Meanwhile, the rest of terms emphasize their celebrity, their mobility or their links with the

model of this last period of global capitalism. The category of star architect was popularized by press

with an ironic character. Sociologists such as Gutnam already used this concept (Gutnam, 1988 in Jones,

2011:129). Afterwards, scholars began to use this concept for characterizing the elite group of architects

which allow to study global urban trends (Jencks, Sklair). McNeil and other authors such as Fuerst,

McAllister and Murray use the concept ‘signature architecture’ to include a group of architects who are

recognized at an international level among the most well-known architects. 2 The use of an iconic building realized by a re-known architect -F. Gehry- was used to catalyse the

renewal of the city waterfront and the change of its declined socio-economic situation.

4

some offices were founded in Europe and focused on this field, as ag4 (1991) in Köln3.

Media architecture aims to establish a communication with users of the city and their

urban environments, being especially effective during night-time, when their lights give

them a new spectacular prominence. This dynamic visibility turns these projects into

landmarks in their cityscapes. Their search for new relationships with the city and its users

answers to a new context of complexity in which experience economy is rising. This

architectural current is growing while still settling, matching the theory of media

convergence.

Signature and media architecture are defined by innovative architectural

languages easily recognizable, whether formally, by discourse or fusion with other

disciplines. The presence of these projects in the urban fabric is strong. These buildings

tend to answer to a branding strategy, selling an improved image of the city.

3. Data and Methodology

This paper is focused on architectural projects and offices of both media and

signature architectures. We have built a geographical database which is constituted by an

exhaustive sample of these types of objects for the European territory, in order to test our

hypotheses about the locations of both offices and spectacle projects and their spatial

patterns in European cities. In this research we have considered the pre-existent database

of the project Urban Audit (European Commission, 2004), and followed their delimitation

of cities and large urban zones (LUZ). Our dataset of the projects is composed by

buildings or structures designed or inaugurated between the year 2000 and 2010. Another

dataset is composed by the architectural offices that have conceived the previously

indicated European media and signature architectures.

Some requirements are considered to both define what signature and media

architectures are, and take into account in our critical analysis of these objects. For

delimiting who European signature architects were during the first decade of the

millennium we used several criteria. The data concerned celebrity, artistic qualities, and

3 The earliest built example of media architecture we know is The Tower of the Winds (1986) from T. Ito

in Yokohama. Some universities have started to set up specialized research groups, such as Hyperbody

(2000) in Delft TU. Due to the recent appearance of media architecture there are not many studies on it

and its relationships with the city and its users, the creation of Media Architecture Institute in 2009 in

Vienna tried to fill this void.

5

international recognition in Europe. We built an indicator (between 0 and 7 points)4

including: obtained awards; frequency in major publications, and other annual rankings.

First, we looked for the personal recognition of the architects, checking all the European

winners of three of the main Architectural Awards5. Second, we searched for the

repercussion they had in specialized press from 1990 to 2012, both in terms of frequency

of occurrence in articles in specialized journals or monographs focused on these

architects6. And third, we checked if they appeared in other international ranking list

based in an evaluation of several international professional journals: Baunetz7. Once the

architectural offices were determined, we looked for their inaugurated architectural

projects in Europe between 2000 and 2010 by checking the selections presented in their

official websites8.

In the case of media architecture, difficulties were found to widely trace projects

due to the embryonic state of this phenomenon, and therefore, the lack of broad studies

on it. We established the characteristics that a project must fulfil in order to enter in our

database, after the definition given by the Media Architecture Institute and a historical

artistic analysis of the concepts and thoughts of some key architects for this architectural

current. One key aspect for us was that the project had to be conceived from its inception

as a comprehensive work that merged the characteristics already pointed out in the

previous section. Therefore, we excluded all those projects that were alterations on

previous structures. To find media architecture cases, we did a bibliographic quest both

4 This indicator pretend to classify the characteristics of “signature architect” between 0 -without a low

level- and 7 -high level-. We use the threshold of 2 points to consider an architect in our study in order to

having scored at least in two of the three considered criteria. This classification have been updated the

21/04/2012. 5 The three awards considered are: Pritzker Award, RIBA Golden Medal and European Architecture Award.

We have attributed 1 point for have won each award. The possible scoring vary between 0 and 3. 6 Two main kinds of publications are considered: a) specialized journals: RIBA journal (between 1998 and

2008), and Architectural Record (between 1992 and 2012); and monographs in prestigious publications of

art or architecture: Taschen, Monographs of El Croquis, Monographs of AV and Gustavo Gili (GG). We

have attributed 1 point for having at least one of one kind, and 2 points for at least one publication of each

group. The scoring goes between 0 and 2. 7 We consider an international ranking list of architect offices: Baunetz, which has been also used in the

analysis of the cluster of architects in the Netherlands (Kloosterman and Stegmeijer, 2005). This ranking is

built considering quotations in professional journals: 2 German, and 4 other international journals

(BauNetz, 2012), which is available for 2009, 2010, and 2012. If almost two of these three years an architect

or his office appears among the first 100 considered firms the maximum punctuation is attributed: 2 points.

If it appears only in one of these three rankings, 1 point is attributed. So, the score vary between 0 and 2. 8 If these architects don’t have an official site, we have used other web pages or publications to consider

their more recurrent architectural works inaugurated in the considered period.

6

in specialized publications9, magazines from 2000 to 201010, specialized websites and a

detained search in the webpages of architects that showed interest in merging architecture

and media whether theoretically or in any of their projects. We considered realized and

not realized projects to have more tools to trace possible focuses of this phenomenon.

The fields filled in the built databases of European signature and media

architecture represent a set of characteristics which have been used to explain their

distribution in space and time: location of the projects and the architectural offices, key

dates, functional typology, current state of the project, characteristics of the architect, and

typology of the clients. We selected 18 signature architects11 and 56 designers of media

architecture with, respectively, 312 and 89 projects in Europe during the considered

period (2000-2010).

The cartographic visualization of that data and measures of centrality (mean and

media centres) allowed us to clarify and compare the locations of signature and media

architecture in the European context. A nearest-neighbour analysis has been used to

examine if both projects and architectural offices had a clustered spatial distribution in

the European continent and how their temporal evolution was. This technique of

locational analysis has been traditionally employed to analyse a relative concentration or

dispersion of a set of points (projects or offices) in relation to a random distribution after

a Poisson process (Pumain and Saint-Julien, 2004). In this case, it is a ratio (Rn) between

the average of Euclidean distances between each project (or office) and its nearest project

9 Main consulted references were: Haeusler, Hank, 2009. Media facades: history, technology, content.

Tscherteu, Gernot and Martin Tomitsch, eds., 2010. Media Architecture Biennale 2010. Bullivant, Lucy,

2006. Responsive Environments: Architecture, Art and Design. Bullivant, Lucy, 2007. 4dsocial:

interactive design environment. 10 AD: Architectural Design, L’Arca The international magazine of architecture, design and visual

communication 11 The considered architects ordered by the obtained scores (0-7) are: (7) Foster, Koolhaas (OMA); (6)

Hadid; Herzog and De Meuron; Nouvel; Siza; Zumthor; Chipperfield; (5) Moneo, Piano; (4) Perrault,

Rogers; and (3) Maas (MVRDV), Thorsen (Snohetta); Souto de Moura, Himmelblau, Van Berkel (UN

Studio) and (2) Calatrava.

re = 1/ (2√n/a) where n=number of points

a=area of the considered zone (European continent including European part of Russian Federation and Turkey)

Rn = ra / re If Rn=1 => random distribution;

If Rn < 1 and near to 0 => clustered distribution;

If Rn >1 dispersed distribution; If Rn near to 2 => regular distribution

7

(or office) of the same set: ra , and the estimated distance average after the Poissons’ law:

re .

4. Spatial pattern(s) in Signature and Media Architectural projects in Europe

The nearest-neighbour analysis indicates that signature and media architectural

projects show a highly clustered spatial pattern (Table 2). Comparatively, signature

architecture projects are globally slightly more clustered than media ones. Projects made

by signature architects tend to increase their clustering process with time, from 2000 to

2010. Meanwhile, media architectural projects show a general evolution towards a less

concentrated distribution in this period, although a change appeared in the evolution of

their distribution when examining only built media projects. That fluctuation occurred

between 2007 and 2010, when there was a little increase in the spatial concentration of

the built media buildings.

Analysing the location of these spectacular projects, a similar spatial distribution

of offices and projects is confirmed at a metropolitan level (Fig.1-2). Almost 60% of the

media and signature architecture projects are located in a few countries of Western and

Southern Europe, such as Germany, Spain, UK, Italy and Switzerland (these last two

countries show a high concentration of media buildings). 60% of signature and over 75%

of media architecture offices are located in cities or LUZ of Western Europe (Fig.1-2).

8

The city with a major concentration of main signature architectural offices, over

the 20% is London, followed by Paris, Rotterdam and Porto. These four cities gather over

one third of the signature architectural offices. The 35% of signature buildings in Europe

are designed in London. Furthermore, the most prolific of the signature architects in

Europe is N. Foster. And almost half of the European projects by N. Foster, along his

main office, are located in London. The metropolitan area of London concentrates by far

the greatest amount of signature and media architecture. Munich, Barcelona and Paris

have the highest concentrations of both types of projects, however the sum of the projects

of these three cities scarcely approach the collection of London. Some differences are

visible between the locations of these two types of architectures. The most relevant cities

clustering signature architectures are the capitals of The Netherlands, Spain, Germany,

Austria and Norway, meanwhile, Frankfurt and Milano are for media architecture.

5. Which factors explain this clustered distribution of architectural projects?

5.1. Location and internationality of the offices and the realization of projects.

Location of signature and designers of media architecture offices constitutes an

interesting indicator of the presence and potential interaction of the high-level

9

architectural activities in Europe. Architectural firms tend to produce a greater amount of

works within the cities and the countries where their main offices are located because of

cultural proximity to the

stakeholders and nearness to manage

the works (Fig. 3). This

circumstance occurs also in the case

of the considered ‘global architects’.

Commonly, satellite offices are

opened in cities where these

architects are realizing one or

several great projects. The rates of

projects realized abroad and

international secondary offices in

cities constitute excellent indicators

of the internationality of these

architects, and cities. In terms of

offices, signature architects are more

internationalized (some of them own global firms) than media architecture designers

(Table 2). Abroad offices show the broad range of territory where these architects work.

These studios tend to be located near to complementary economic activities and potential

market niches. In Europe, London, Paris and Madrid concentrate the biggest number of

offices. These cities have a medium-high level of this index of internationalization. Out

of Europe, the most common city to open a satellite office is New York, being the priority

foreign location for architects. The relevance of the Asian market because of its size and

the great flux of investments orientated to the production of urban fabric explains the

clusters of secondary offices in this region. This clustering process is especially

significant in global financial and economic centres as Shanghai or Hong Kong.

In both of the architectural trends studied, most of the projects are conceived and

produced by a reduced number of offices. Seven of the considered signature architects

design also media architectural projects in Europe and some of them could be considered

as pioneers of this architecture with projects realized before 2000. 40% of the media

architecture projects is produced by eight offices: four specialized offices, three signature

10

architects and a renowned German global architect who collaborates with specialized

offices (Table 2). Media architecture designers show a close relationship with art and

engineering, whether having studied in Fine Arts Faculties, Technical Universities or

collaborated soon in their careers with partners of arts and engineering. This type of

architecture depends on a specific formation and know-how, and an engagement of the

urban actors. Clients are reluctant to media architecture projects, because of its novelty,

the absence of many prepared offices or the false idea that they require huge budgets

making an image of these projects as one of risky investments. These factors can explain

that only 59 among the 89 identified media architectural projects have been finally

realized and 4 are in progress. The built projects are mainly clustered in the countries

where the main offices of their designers, and highly-specialized centres of formation for

technological or innovative architectures, are located (Fig.4).

5.2. Economic performance and demographic size influence cities ‘hard-branding?

The spatial pattern shown by these spectacle architectures seems to reproduce the

economic situation of the European cities and regions. Considering the results of the

project SIESTA-ESPON in relation to the recent data of GDP per capita13 at NUTS 3

level and metropolitan level (Paül and Lois, 2013), the Alpine Arch regions, Switzerland,

Austrian Tirol and Northern Italy, and also The Netherlands, Great London, Paris,

12 Rate of states having an international secondary office of the firm. The state of the main office is the considered reference. 13 Gross Domestic Product in PPS: Power Purchase Standard. Available and retained data from the

ESPON-SIESTA project is referred to 2009

Table 2: Signature and Media Architecture: most prolific offices, locations and internationalization

Signature Architectural

Office

Main office location

No. European projects

Internationalization index12

Media Architectural

Office

Main Office Location

No. European Projects

Internationalization

index

Foster and Partners

London 52 0,80 Gianni Ranaulo

Design Paris 7 0,60

David Chipperfield Arc.

London 25 0,75 Nouvel Paris 6 0,60

Herzog & De Meuron

Zurich 25 0,67 ONL Rotterdam 5 0,50

MVRDV Rotterdam 24 0,50 Atelier Brückner Stuttgart 3 0,00

Ateliers Jean Nouvel

Paris 23 0,60 Murphy/Jahn Berlin 4 0,33

UN Studio Amsterdam 19 0,33 Coop Himmelb(l)au Vienna 3 0,71

Rogers Stirk Harbour + Partn.

London 18 0,75 Haque Design +

Research London 3 0,00

Renzo Piano Genova 17 0,67 Herzog & De

Meuron Zurich 3 0,67

Average for all Signature Architectural Offices 0,47 Average for all Media Architectural Offices: 0,22

11

Luxembourg, and many metropolitan areas of the Western and Southern Germany

maintain the highest GDP values of the whole European Union.

Both GDP and the production of these spectacle architectures reflect perfectly the

great disparity between Western and Eastern Europe. The cases of some capital cities of

Central and Eastern European countries highlight the great economic inequalities between

these cities and the rest of their territories. Nevertheless, a few of the spectacle buildings

studied were produced in some of these countries.

Some wealthy peripheral regions, such as the North East of the Iberian Peninsula,

clearly show a correlation between their economic performances and the presence of

signature and media architecture. The projects located in rural areas or peripheral parts of

large urban zones are generally associated to companies which are conscious of the

importance of their image. Therefore, these companies decide to invest great amounts of

money in spectacle buildings looking for consolidating their brand and a monopoly rent

(Harvey, 2001). Wineries, such as the ones of Ribera del Duero in Spain, or car design

and production centres, such as Ferrari in Italy or BMW in Germany are some

representative cases.

5.3. Cultural and architectural events to conceive, produce and diffuse these projects

Cultural events and urban policies have to be considered in order to analyse the

presence of these spectacular projects

in certain cities and the increase of

their production certain years. First,

some cities show the will to transform

the city through architecture, like

Barcelona after the 1990s, which in

this specific case, also aimed to

become a design reference and centre.

This brand image of Barcelona

explains why it attracts an important

number of architects and encourages

the production of spectacle buildings.

Second, cultural or architectural

12

mega-events, such as the Expos, of Zaragoza or Hannover, or the Biennale di Architettura

di Venezia explain the apparition of half of the built media architectural projects.

However, many of these projects are temporary structures. We can conclude that media

and signature projects are normally carried out to become iconic spots used for branding.

6. Conclusion and Discussion

There is a high clustering distribution of signature and media architecture projects,

as well as clusters of the offices of their designers in Europe. Both these projects and

offices are located in large metropolitan areas, especially in urban city centres, concretely

in the economic core of Western Europe between London and Milan, the so-called

European “Blue Banana” or “Pentagon” (ESDP, 1999). The demographic size of the cities

of this area, their economic relevance and the concentration of international investments

explain the constitution of numerous clusters of transnational firms and creative activities.

This phenomenon is especially highlighted in world cities London or Paris within the

European city system (Cattan et al., 1994; Rozenblat and Cicille, 2003). This research

shows clustering processes of creative activities and transnational firms of architecture.

London appears as the European centre for architectural innovation, concentrating

spectacle buildings and architects. Besides that, events such as fairs, Expos or Biennales

promote innovative architectural trends from public and private sectors, like media

architecture.

The presence of these types of highly innovative and branding architecture

constitutes an interesting indicator of inter-urban dynamics of innovation and potential

interaction within the European city networks. Besides, the study of the diffusion of media

architecture could be related to the presence of certain knowledge-centres that could be

considered focus of diffusion of this innovation. We hypothesize the presence of four

main focuses located in London, The Netherlands, Austria-Western and Southern

Germany and Switzerland. We must remind that a critical analysis of the construction of

these classes of architectures is always necessary to validate the significance of the

results. Further analysis of the spatial patterns of the considered architectural firms, and

their interactions at intra-urban level could confirm clustering dynamics in the main urban

areas such as Rotterdam or London.

13

References

ag4, 2006. Media facades. Daab GMHB, Köln.

BauNetz, 2012. http://www.baunetz.de/ranking/?area=info&type=verfahren (accessed

June, 7th, 2012)

Beigl, Michael, Georg Flachbart and Peter Weibel, , 2005. Disappearing Architecture

from Real to Virtual to Quantum. Birkhäuser, Basel, Boston.

Biraghi, Marco, 2008. Storia dell’architettura contemporanea. Einaudi, Torino.

Bullivant, Lucy, 2007. 4dsocial: interactive design environment. Wiley Academy,

London.

Bullivant, Lucy, 2006. Responsive environments: architecture, art and design. V&A

Publications, London.

Cattan, Nadine, D. Pumain, C. Rozenblat, and Th. Saint-Julien. 1994. Le système des

villes européennes. Paris: Anthropos.

Chatelet, Valerie, 2007. Interactive cities. Ed. HYX, Orleans.

European Commission, 2004. Urban Audit: Methodological Handbook. 2004 Edition.

Luxembourg: Office for Official Publ. of the European Communities.

Evans, Graeme, 2003. “Hard-branding the cultural city - from Prado to Prada.”

International Journal of Urban and Regional Research. 27 (2): 417–40.

Faulconbridge, J. R, 2009. “The Regulation of Design in Global Architecture Firms:

Embedding and Emplacing Buildings.” Urban Studies, 46 (12): 2537–54.

Fox, Michael and Miles Kemp, 2009. Interactive architecture. Princeton Architectural

Press, New York.

Fusero, Paolo, 2009. E-city: digital networks and cities of the future, LIST Laboratorio,

Barcelona.

Garcia, Carlos, 2004. Ciudad Hojaldre: visiones urbanas del siglo XXI. Gustavo Gili,

Barcelona.

Haeusler, Hank, 2010. Chromatophoric architecture: designing for 3D media facades.

Jovis, Berlin.

14

Haeusler, Hank, 2009. Media facades: history, technology, content. Avedition,

Ludwigsburg.

Harvey, David, 2001. Spaces of Capital. Limits. Towards a Critical Geography.

Edinburgh Univ. Press, Edinburgh.

Hindrichs, Dirk, and Schuco International KG, 2004. Fassaden: Gebaudehullen fur das

21. Jahrhundert = Facades: building envelopes for the 21st century. Birkhauser, Basel.

Jencks, Charles. 2005. The iconic building : the power of enigma. London: Frances

Lincoln.

Kloosterman, Robert C., and Eva Stegmeijer, 2005. Delirious Rotterdam: the formation

of an innovative cluster of architectural firms. [In:] Boschma, R.A. and R. C. Kloosterman

(eds.), Learning from Clusters: A Critical Assessment. Springer, The Netherlands, 203–

24

Kronenburg, Robert, 2007. Flexible: arquitectura que integra el cambio.Blume,

Barcelona.

Kronhagel, Christoph ed., 2010. Mediatecture: the design of medially augmented spaces,

Springer, Wien, New York.

Landry, Charles, and Franco Bianchini, 1995. The creative city. Demos, London

Lois Gonzalez, Ruben Camilo, and Valeria Paul i Carril, 2013. European Regions in the

Strategy to Emerge from the Crisis: The Territorial Dimension of the “Europe 2020”.

Servizo de Publicacions e Intercambio Cientifico da Universidade de Santiago de

Compostela, Santiago de Compostela.

McQuire, Scott, 2008. The Media City: Media, Architecture and Urban Space. Sage, Los

Angeles.

Oosterhuis, Kas, 2011. Towards a New Kind of Building. A Designer’s Guide for

Nonstandard Architecture. NAi, Rotterdam.

Picon, Antoine, 2010. Digital Culture in Architecture : An Introduction for the Design

Professions. Birkhäuser, Basel.

Porter, Michael E, 2000. “Location, Competition, and Economic Development: Local

Clusters in a Global Economy.” Economic Development Quarterly, 14 (1): 15–34.

15

Pumain, Denise, and Therese Saint-Julien, 2004. L’analyse spatiale: localisations dans

l’espace. Paris: A. Colin.

Ranaulo, Gianni, 2001. Light Architecture: New Edge City. Birkhäuser, Basel, Boston.

Rozenblat, Céline, and Patricia Cicille. 2003. Les villes européennes: analyse

comparative. Montpellier: DATAR-CNRS.

Sklair, Leslie. 2010. “Iconic Architecture and the Culture-ideology of Consumerism.”

Theory, Culture & Society, 27 (5): 135–59

Spiller, Neil, 2006. Visionary architecture: blueprints of the modern imagination.

Thames & Hudson, London.

Tscherteu, Gernot and Martin Tomitsch, eds., 2010. Media Architecture Biennale 2010.

Media Architecture Institute, Vienna.