What makes a building iconic? Is it the design, the materials it’s constructed from or the architect? Some would say it’s a combination of all three, as well as the building’s sense of place. Landmark buildings have, of course, been around for centuries, most with a religious basis such as St Paul’s, the Taj Mahal and Angkor Wat in Cambodia. And then there are iconic structures, such as the Eiffel Tower, the Statue of Liberty and our very own Angel of the North.

Is a definition of an iconic building, one that people will travel miles to see? But does a burning desire to see a landmark in situ rather than in a book or on TV, make it architecturally brilliant? Of course not, because a building may not be a tourist attraction yet a wonderful example of unique architecture.

A major problem for defining and classifying iconic buildings, is that it simply comes down to individual taste. But one thing that does appear to surround architectural iconicism is controversy. Whether it be on an intellectual level as to the merits of the overall design within the framework of the landscape or purely on aesthetics, a building with ‘iconic status’ courts debate.

Iconic architecture depends mainly on the ‘idea’ or the ‘concept’ behind it and there can be no more current conceptual building than Titanic Belfast. Built as part of the Titanic Quarter regeneration, this building celebrates the life of the world’s most famous liner, and it’s rippling aluminium facades dramatically rise out of the ground like a ship cutting through the waves. For a building to have a lasting effect on society, it needs to be aesthetically pleasing and fulfill a function. To be iconic, it needs to be memorable. I’ve booked my flight to Belfast.