The global neoliberal cityscape is one of the most iconic products of contemporary urbanization. Inborn to international financial hubs such as New York, London, and Hong Kong, the dense concentration of high-rise bank headquarters became a powerful branding tool in the growing competition to attract foreign investment. Despite the extraordinary international attention this cityscape has attracted, there is a paucity of scientific research on its morphological principles and the gap between its visibility and perception. With a focus on Hong Kong, this study develops an innovative multi-method research design, combining historical investigation, a newly advanced visual impact assessment method, and a survey of a random probability population sample. The historical investigation reveals a volitional attempt to preserve visibility from key vantage points. The comparative assessment of bank headquarters and other corporate buildings, regarding both their visibility and perceived impact on the city’s image, demonstrates a gap between visibility and buildings’ perceived importance. The results illustrate the effective semiotic use of architecture, shedding light on how the symbolism of architectural form can consolidate neoliberal hegemony on the basis of shared perception. This study’s novelty lies in its multi-method approach and methodological advancement in terms of visibility analysis, while its significance is its potential application across a vast geographic area by scholars, designers, planners, and policymakers.
AbramsonDMDanielM (2005) Building the Bank of England: Money, Architecture, Society. New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press, 1694–1942.
2.
Ahmad NiaHAtunRA (2016) Aesthetic design thinking model for urban environments: a survey based on a review of the literature. Urban Design International21(3): 195–212.
3.
ArrighiG (1994) The Long Twentieth Century: Money, Power, and the Origins of Our Times. NY, USA: Verso.
4.
AsurFYaziciK (2020) Observers’ perceptions of aesthetic quality of high-rise buildings in the urban landscape: the case of levent/istanbul. Fresenius Environmental Bulletin29(12 A): 11165–11174.
5.
BarnesVNewtonL (2019) Symbolism in bank marketing and architecture: the headquarters of national provincial bank of England. Management & Organizational History14(3): 213–244. DOI: 10.1080/17449359.2019.1683038
6.
BartiePMillsSKinghamS (2008) An egocentric urban viewshed: a method for landmark visibility mapping for pedestrian location based services. In: Geospatial Vision. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, 61–85.
7.
BattyM (2001) Exploring isovist fields: space and shape in architectural and urban morphology. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design28(1): 123–150.
8.
BenediktML (1979) To take hold of space: isovists and isovist fields. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design6(1): 47–65. DOI: 10.1068/b060047.
9.
BenedekJMinerT (2002) Measuring Desirability: New methods for evaluating desirability in a usability lab setting. Proceedings of Usability Professionals Association2003(8–12): 57.
10.
BensonEDHansenJLSchwartzAL, et al. (1998) Pricing residential amenities: the value of a view. The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics16(1): 55–73.
11.
BergPOKreinerK (1990) Corporate architecture: turning physical settings into symbolic resources. In: Symbols and Artifacts: Views of the Corporate Landscape. Oxfordshire, UK: Routledge, 41–67.
12.
BishopID (1999) Modelling the view: perception and visualization. Landscape Character: Perspectives on Management and Change. Edinburgh: The Stationary Office, 150–161.
13.
BishopIDLangeEMahbubulAM (2004) Estimation of the influence of view components on high-rise apartment pricing using a public survey and GIS modeling. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design31(3): 439–452. DOI: 10.1068/b3042
14.
BitnerMJ (1992) Servicescapes: the impact of physical surroundings on customers and employees. Journal of Marketing56(2): 57. DOI: 10.2307/1252042
15.
BlackIS (1996) Symbolic capital: the london and westminster bank headquarters, 1836-38. Landscape Research21(1): 55–72. DOI: 10.1080/01426399608706475.
DanahyJW (2001) Technology for dynamic viewing and peripheral vision in landscape visualization. Landscape and Urban Planning54(1–4): 127–138.
18.
DaneseMNolèGMurganteB (2009) Visual impact assessment in urban planning. In: Geocomputation and Urban Planning. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, 133–146.
19.
DaneseMNolèGMurganteB (2011) Identifying viewshed: new approaches to visual impact assessment. Studies in Computational Intelligence348: 73–89. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-19733-8_5.
20.
DanielTCMeitnerMM (2001) Representational validity of landscape visualizations: the effects of graphical realism on perceived scenic beauty of forest vistas. Journal of environmental psychology21(1): 61–72.
21.
DoveyK (2008) Framing Places: Mediating Power in Built Form. 2nd ed. Oxfordshire, UK: Routledge.
22.
DupontLAntropMVan EetveldeV (2014) Eye-tracking analysis in landscape perception research: influence of photograph properties and landscape characteristics. Landscape Research39(4): 417–432.
23.
El-KhouryR (2017) The Role of the Banks in shaping the Image of the Neo-Liberal City. Brooklyn says: “Move toDetroit”, 105th ACSA annual Meeting,ACSA Press, New York, 266–272.
24.
FisherPF (1991) First experiments in viewshed uncertainty: the accuracy of the viewshed area. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing57(10): 1321–1327.
25.
Fisher-GewirtzmanDWagnerIA (2003) Spatial openness as a practical metric for evaluating built-up environments. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design30(1): 37–49.
26.
Fisher-GewirtzmanDWagnerIA (2006) The spatial openness index: an automated model for three-dimensional visual analysis of urban environments. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research23: 77–89.
27.
Fisher-GewirtzmanD (2017) The association between perceived density in minimum apartments and spatial openness index three-dimensional visual analysis. Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science44(4): 764–795.
GaoTLiangHChenY, et al. (2019) Comparisons of landscape preferences through three different perceptual approaches. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health16(23): 4754.
30.
GramsciA (2011) Prison Notebooks. NY, USA: Columbia University Press.
31.
HanakataNCGascoA (2018) The grand projet politics of an urban age: urban megaprojects in asia and Europe. Palgrave Communications4(1): 1–10.
KarimimoshaverMWinkemannP (2018) A framework for assessing tall buildings’ impact on the city skyline: aesthetic, visibility, and meaning dimensions. Environmental Impact Assessment Review73: 164–176.
38.
KeshtkaranRHabibiASharifH (2017) Aesthetic preferences for visual quality of urban landscape in derak high-rise buildings (shiraz). Journal of Sustainable Development10(5): 94–106.
39.
KoolhaasR (1994) Delirious New York: A Retroactive Manifesto for Manhattan. NY, USA: Monacelli Press.
40.
KortYADIjsselsteijnWAKooijmanJ, et al. (2003) Virtual laboratories: comparability of real and virtual environments for environmental psychology. Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments12(4): 360–373.
41.
KuligaSDaltonRCHlscherC (2013) Aesthetic and Emotional Appraisal of the Seattle Public Library and Its Relation to Spatial Configuration. In: Proceedings of the Ninth International Space Syntax Symposium 2013, Seoul, South Korea, 31 October - 3 November 2013.Seoul: Sejong University Press.
42.
LambotIChambersG (1986) One Queen’s Road Central: The Headquarters of Hong Kong Bank since 1864. Hongkong: Hongkong Bank.
43.
LinYKeYvan den BoschCCK, et al. (2020) Bird eye analysis of skyline views from an elevated recreation trail—the case of the fu forest trail, fuzhou, China. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening47: 126543. DOI: 10.1016/j.ufug.2019.126543
44.
LynchK (1984) Good City Form. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
45.
MorenoL (2014) The urban process under financialized capitalism. City18(3): 244–268. DOI: 10.1080/13604813.2014.927099
46.
NutsfordDReitsmaFPearsonA L, et al. (2015) Personalizing the viewshed: visibility analysis from the human perspective. Applied Geography62: 1–7. DOI: 10.1016/j.apgeog.2015.04.004
47.
PlanD (2015) Urban design guidelines. In: Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines. Hong Kong: Hong Kong Planning Department.
48.
RapoportA (1990) The Meaning of the Built Environment: A Nonverbal Communication Approach. Tucson, Arizona: University of Arizona Press.
49.
RødJKvan der MeerD (2009) Visibility and dominance analysis: assessing a high-rise building project in Trondheim. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design36(4): 698–710.
50.
SanderHAMansonSM (2007) Heights and locations of artificial structures in viewshed calculation: how close is close enough?Landscape and Urban Planning82(4): 257–270.
51.
SassenS (2013) The Global City. New York, London, Tokyo: Princeton University Press.
52.
SevenantMAntropM (2011) Landscape representation validity: a comparison between on-site observations and photographs with different angles of view. Landscape Research36(3): 363–385.
53.
SchroederJE (2003) Building brands: architectural expression in the electronic age. In: Persuasive Imagery: A Consumer Response Perspective. Oxfordshore: Roultedge, 298–310.
54.
SchroederJE (2009) The cultural codes of branding. Marketing Theory9(1): 123–126. DOI: 10.1177/1470593108100067.
55.
TurnerA (2001) Depthmap: a program to perform visibility graph analysis. In: Proceedings of the Third International Space Syntax Symposium 2001,Atlanta, USA, 7-11 May 2001, pp. 31–112.
56.
TurnerADoxaMO’sullivanD, et al. (2001) From isovists to visibility graphs: a methodology for the analysis of architectural space. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design28(1): 103–121.
57.
VanoloA (2017) City Branding: The Ghostly Politics of Representation in Globalizing Cities. Oxfordshire, UK: Taylor & Francis.
58.
Van der HoevenFDNijhuisS (2012) Planning and visibility assessment of high building development in the hague. In: MeyerHZandbeltD (eds) High-Rise and the Sustainable City. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Techne Press, 102–119.
59.
van HeerdenCHPuthG (1995) Factors that determine the corporate image of South African banking institutions: An exploratory investigation. International Journal of Bank Marketing13(3): 12–17. DOI: 10.1108/02652329510082979.
60.
VillaniCTalaminiG (2021) Pedestrianised streets in the global neoliberal city: A battleground between hegemonic strategies of commodification and informal tactics of commoning. Cities108: 102983.
61.
Warren-KretzschmarBTiedtkeS (2005) What role does visualization play in communication with citizens?–A field study from the interactive landscape plan. In: BuhmannE. (ed). Trends in Real-Time Landscape Visualization and Participation. Wichmann Verlag, 156–167.
62.
ZachariasJYangW (2016) A short history of the Chinese central business district. Planning Perspectives31(4): 611–633. DOI: 10.1080/02665433.2016.1152909.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
