"Place is to architecture" it is said, "as meaning is to language." Given this comparison, architecture gives a place meaning. Examples of this include the Eiffel Tower in Paris, or the White House in Washington, D.C.

        Another building that has political importance and shows historical and geographical diversity is the Stockholm City Hall in Sweden.  Built by Ragnar Ostberg, considered a leading Swedish architect of the time, the City Hall building was built using a Romantic style in the fashion of a Renaissance palace, complete with two piazzas.  The design Ostberg envisioned was one that would provide evidence of the rising urbanism and industrialism in Sweden during the early twentieth century.  To retain the classic Scandinavian design, yet incorporate new designs to represent the blooming industrialism of Sweden, Ostberg incorporated vernacular materials (wood and brick), giving the building a “National Romantic” style (as well as also being considered part of the arts and crafts movement).  Specifically, the brick used represented the modern industrial movement, and moved away from the use of wood in many Scandinavian buildings.  To give the building a classical feel, one that established Sweden as a power of the past and future, Ostberg used the classical romantic design, mentioned earlier.  After all was said and done, the Stockholm City Hall was a building that used a diverse supply of material and to this day elicits a strong national pride harkening back to the early twentieth century.  

        The Arc de Triomphe stands as an excellent example of a romantic style structure.  To celebrate Napoleon’s brilliant victory at Austerlitz, the Arc de Triomphe was built, celebrating French pride as a nation.  Jean-Francoise Chalgrin designed the Arc, and was renowned for his early studies with Etienne Louis Boullée, a famous architectural theorist who advocated the use of emotion and reason in architecture.  In Chalgrin’s education, he was taught of classical rules of proportioning, a topic Boullée stressed greatly.  Chalgrin effectively used this theory, as the Arc was perfectly proportioned with its immediate surroundings.  Because of its use of colour, picturesque nature, proportion and ornamentation, the Arc de Triomphe can be considered an example romantic neoclassical structure.  Chalgrin’s choice of the romantic style complemented the opulence and beauty of Paris, one of the most beautiful cities in Europe.  He decorated the monument heavily to give the structure a great presence, and the frieze in particular is notable because of its depiction of the battle of Austerlitz.  Additionally, each shaft of the four pillars portray four politically relevant periods in French history. The sculptures on each pillar identified: The Departure of the Volunteers in 1792 (or La Marseillaise); Napoléon's Triumph of 1810; Resistance of 1814 and Peace of 1815.  Through his design, Chalgrin effectively demonstrated use of historical diversity in through his decoration of the Arc de Triomph, most notably with the romantic style he used.  The Arc de Triomphe was obviously classical design, the Guggenheim Museum, on the other hand, is a building with not such clear roots.

        Arguably the most famous museum in America, the Guggenheim Museum, designed by the eponymous architect Franklin Lloyd Wright is a fabulous structure unlike any other.  The difference between them is the simple and understated design that Lloyd elicits in the structure that arouses amazement in the spectator.  Unlike classical structures, which are largely rooted in the Greek style, Wright used an ancient Babylonian style to allow his building to function.  Wright imagined a museum unlike any present in his day, which were largely based on a system of interconnected rooms, forcing patrons to retrace their steps upon exiting, a problem in his opinion. Rather, Wright revived the Babylonian ziggurat (a stepped or winding pyramidal temple), inverting it to whisk visitors to the top of the structure via an elevator, beginning their tour at the top.  From there, visitors moved about a slowly descending spiral platform, returning them to the same room they entered, eliminating any need to repeat steps.  Another aim of Lloyd was to bring life into New York, a city he believed was “overbuilt, overpopulated, and lacked architectural merit.”  From the outset, the Guggenheim Museum contrasted with the popular modern style of the time, much as the Eiffel Tower, a contemporary style, had contrasted the Renaissance style of France in its’ early days.  The Guggenheim contrasted the modern style’s rigid geometry in favour of circles, arcs, and ovals, and was criticized for trying to overpower the significance of the paintings within.  However, this view largely faded and the Guggenheim is now world renowned for its unique style.

        The Capitol Building, Stockholm City Hall, Arc de Triomphe, and the Guggenheim Museum stand as buildings with diverse cultural, historical and geographical diversity.   Each structure was designed with the intention to bring forth a particular feeling for the spectator, either that of representing a particular time period, or for others, to simply represent a nation.  The political overtones of each building require a design rooted in some sort of historical design, to represent the ongoing success of a nation while also being modern, to symbolize a promising future.  Each of these buildings, through their style, rivals the importance of the events going on around, or inside them.  For example, the Arc de Triomphe tells the story of French Conquests, and stands for the peoples’ pride in the French nation.  As another example, the Guggenheim Museum was the response of Franklin Lloyd Wright to the lack of important architecture in New York.  Because the structures mentioned each depict a story through their style, they therefore give each place meaning.