No first prize but two tied second prizes were given to the entries 21PR22 and 1025AC
The jury of the international architecture competition to design the Central Mosque of Prishtina, Kosovo has announced its verdict: no single first prize but two tied second prizes and one third prize were awarded.
i have a problem with the minarets, apart from those belonging to 1025AC which i have a more comprehensive problem with.
aside from 1025AC which is easy to criticize (i'll leavei t at that) there is a deliberate tendency to be specifically non-mosque-like and, in my opinion, that is an enforced delibration and at the same time, there is a fear of departing altogether from the 'traditional' mosque type. i say this because i believe that the design of a mosque presents one with an opportunity to take the contemporary design of a mosque seriously - to research what is necessary in a mosque and what is theologically superfluous, to research what resonates culturally and what does not (such as those really quite intellectually demeaning minarets).
one should ask whether minares are mandatory, theologicaltly and whether they are thus requisite. the earliest mosques were eithout minarets. these were then acquired to facilitate the mu'addin's job. we rely on other technologies now.
however if, as a designer, one deems the minaret's presence a phenomenological comfort to the pious people, then one should take it as an opportunity to harness this phenomelological potency of minarets and not to deal with them in an offhand half-assed mimicky manner.
i disagree with Orhan's post elsewhere that:"Islamic world will have great opportunity to break all taboos, prodigious and misinformation with its forward looking places of prayer."
i could care less about what "taboos" are broken by the "Islamic world" as if to prove some point to the "non-Islamic" world. perhaps some of us feel that the onus is on the islamic world (i'm bored of quotation marks now) to prove that it is progressive, liberal, advanced...if one digs deeper, basically beneath all these adjectives is the will to bring out the non-terrorist elements.
for me its more relevant to approach it from a wider and more indigenous perspective, both architecturally and religiously/culturally. irrespective of arrogant and narrow dualities and reifying myths of cultures clashing. i have no issue with GOOD (naturally, theres a subjective element to that sort of judgement...but more invitingly, there is a discursive one) contemporary religious architecture nor indeed GOOD traditional islamic (fatamid, abassid, ottoman...etc) architecture. but i have a problem when one equates contemporary architecture with contemporary religion ipso facto. there is crap contemporary, irrelevant contemporary, overtly self conscious contemporary, gossipy contemporary, flashy contemporary...architectures.