Mecca, is a built up history book. A book that almost all Muslims read from page to page. Muslims know every story, every corner and detail of the holy mosque., and they narrated stories of the ritual journeys of Al Umrrah and Al Hajj that they take to Mecca over the years. What is shared by Muslims today would be panoramically viewed by Starchitects, but the question remains, would Muslims let it be viewed only by architects whom Sami Angawi, a Saudi Architect specialized in Mecca history and design, called "outsiders"?
I believe it should not. The design of Mecca and the region should be discussed with specialists from the inside. Furthermore, Architects from the region should held a greater accountability of a bigger role.
Recently, Jabal Omar and King Abdulaziz Towers in Mecca were questioned, for the impact the designs have on the urban fabric which outreached a wider radius from Al Kabba. Certainly, which raised debates of the process, these recent buildings went through skeptic concerns by specialists and precisely the Saudi government. Thus, that could be the reason why they chose to outsource designs. Another reason is to simply contend with the tallest or greatest landmarks around the world.
Sir. Norman and Zaha are both reputable for what they accomplished, they will defiantly input an exorbitant significance to the design, but it should be embraced with cautious approach. Likewise it should be approached with architects that developed an experience over the years of how to design for the holy mosque. Moreover, to look at the project from a different angle, and to completely understand the background of where more than millions of Muslims visit annually.
The project is not yet to be inevitable, but what should highly be noted are the controversial claims of what could lead to dramatic outcomes as Sami Angawi believes so.
great - another mideastern troll - dont you have a Islam only architecture site to stink up? If I could Id put a f*cking McDonalds right in the center that serves Pork Chop sandwiches.
i'm not sure i understand clamfan's reaction above. the poster's point is valid, perhaps reactionary and insular. your pork comment, however, is out of line.
If as tradition holds the first mosque was built by angels, it would indeed be a significant downgrade in both talent and virtue for Norm and Zaha to be working on the site.
I'm surprised either of them would even consider this commission.
Clamfan you are not a clam up after all. I knew that by posting this thread I would come across a fan of your attitude. There are plenty of things that I could say about you to make you hate me even more. One thing I will say is that you have a greater responsibility as an architect or maybe as a human. I will retaliate by coming up to the center of your heart and spray "SALAM/PEACE until you scent with it.
I wouldn't say more. I want the thread to keep going with the main topic.
Designing in Mecca is thrilling, any of us would want to work on a project where you have thousands of people coming across. I am skeptical of what could be the end product of both architects. The Fluidity of Zaha or Norman's systems.
Desiging in Mecca is an extremely challenging task, but also extremely rewarding. i think the controversy that the Saudi architect has started is a bit overblown. while i think that the task should be undertaken by Muslims, i wouldnt mind "outsiders" acting as consultants. they would be able to look at things differently and present solutions that might otherwise be overlooked. but, lets be honest, it is a task that should be undertaken by Muslims.
clamfan, try to be less ignorant, u achieved absolutely nothing by your comments. im sure you can come up with an objective answer to an extremely loaded issue. If you have no opinion, then why dont u do some research and learn something new.
A starchitect on board would at least ensure that the site doesn't get spoilt by some kind horrible picturesque neo-regionalist pastiche. Surely starchitects have got the ability and the necessary ressources to intelligently analyse a site and its historical significance in order to produce a design that is both relevant and beautiful. And the fact that Zaha, an Iraqi born woman, is involved sounds like a rather healthy thing to me actually.
presumably those who are the stewards of the site have elected to go with internationally known architects as a way to assure the importance of the project for a worldwide audience. these same people will be responsible for keeping the appropriate spiritual and cultural advisors involved in the project so that there aren't mis-steps. and regional architects are also likely to be involved, if more in an administrative and facilitative role.
if muslims have trusted those who watch over the site with maintaining its relevance, they need to trust this decision. as doberman notes, without strong architectural leadership, a derivative 'regional' architecture might be the result, adversely affecting the quality and integrity of the overall site.
sure, foster and hadid, but not without oversight.
while i admire hadid and foster's work, neither has been known to be particularly friendly to context (though the hearst tower does give one some hope), and i can't imagine a project where context more demands a thoughtful and sensitive approach. it seems a quieter, gentler hand would have been better selection for the project, perhaps piano or chipperfield if they were set on a starchitect.
i could see piano, possibly. but i don't see him as all that much more contextually sensitive than sir norman.
i'd guess the reason they wouldn't have chosen a chipperfield (or pawson or similar) is that the resulting project would be a little bit too mute. it's possible to be too contextually sensitive and, thereby, not add anything to the built conversation. they're obviously looking for a contemporary statement. if it's not too secular to say so, i'd guess there's some thinking that it's important to extend/update the mecca 'brand' for the 21st C.
Steven,
I think that is exactly the driving concern with this project and is my main problem with it...
As i see it the infrastructural and support concerns for handling such high levels of pilgrism should be given more focus. Not how to "extend/update the mecca 'brand' for the 21st C."
Although, the two aren't necessarily mutually exclusive...
if you're committed enough to show up anyway, you're probably willing to undergo some hardship if the place doesn't function as well as it should.
i'd guess it isn't just about the pilgrims - or at least not just about serving the pilgrims that actually come there. it's about creating a draw for new pilgrims - to re-invigorate the desire to make the pilgrimage for a new century of muslims.
Having just taken part in some pilgrimage myself when in India,
Hardship is definetely part of the package. But i guess it just seems to me that "expanding the brand" via architecture is more likely to attract archi-tourists than people traveling for Hajj...
And if they want to "make the pilgrimage for a new century of muslims." it seems like updating/modernizing the facilities/infrastructure would be more effective. At least based on my own recent experiences..
As i understand it, currently many pilgrims to Hajj stay in big tent cities put up by the Saudi Royal Family.
One of the most ironic things about Mecca is that Muhammed and his band of followers were exiled from the city and thusly staged a sort of "sit-in" outside the city gates for months (effectively holding the city under siege, like the bangkok airport a week ago) and were eventually let back in. If i'm not mistaken, Muhammed allowed the pagans to live in the city peacefully alongside the Muslims, I wonder what actually sparked mecca's conversion to "muslim only"?
Frankly, I don't think the Saudis can have it either or, they either let in a few "infidels" every now and then or they find themselves some Muslim Architects. Being asked to design a building without ever being able to visit it or the site its built on is ridiculous to me.
D7mY: Specialists of what? Religion? Islam? Shi'ite Islam? Sunni Islam? Sufism? Islam Architecture? My point is, the realm of Islam is large and complicated. Having a specialist might create bias, which in my opinion, doesn't help in the design process. I do agree that the architect should have a very intimate understanding of the premise of his/her design, specially when it comes to something as high-profile as Mecca, but I think an "outsider" has the ability to become intimate if willing and motivated.
Some people think that the best person to design a Christian church, for example, would be an athiest.
But I do agree with Apurimac in that having a designer who can't even visit the site would be just stupid. Hopefully, if they do commission an "infidel" they will have an all-access pass.
i'd guess there's some thinking that it's important to extend/update the mecca 'brand' for the 21st C.
i agree with nam. this just seems off. you can brand a corporation, but trying to brand a religion which stakes its identity on ideas of permanence will inevitably lead to something regrettable.
and is there a religious artifact any more modern than the kabba? i still think one of the british minimalists could do great things in mecca (and in the process do a lot more for religious identity than a more bombastic design.)
Jafidler,
Interesting point about the Kabba.
It is pretty "Modern" in the clean lines and abstract sort of form.
It would be interesting to see how or if the designers make any references or connections to this in their designs or if they just make as you say, something bombastic..
What I meant by specialists, the people who have been studying the area for years now. I tend to raise awareness for a critical cause. What if the new development of the Holy Mosque and its surrounding don't strategically consider the effect of density, and circulation. I think it is interesting to see the link below to compare the map of The holy area, note that the area below the red mark is demolished now, and it could be the location of the new development.
Check the link, and take a look on the notes, its interesting too.
What if the new development of the Holy Mosque and its surrounding don't strategically consider the effect of density, and circulation.
the most important thing to design is the safety of the pilgrims. thats different from hardships.
both of these points are architecture 101. i have confidence that either of the above architects could design through these issues (if you want to see circulation, have you seen zaha's bmw plant?!) i think there's more at stake with this commission, specifically identity and a larger notion of permanence and impermanence, and that's where i might question their selection.
both of these architects have been doing their thing for decades - not too many more architects who have been working at their level for as long.
granted, we're talking about longevity in centuries here, not decades. while, i could see hadid's work being seen as trendy, i don't see it in foster's at all. what about foster's work might make you think it wouldn't maintain relevance over time?
i'm a huge fan of moneo - and i think his work would be a good conservative example for the kind of permanence you're suggesting. it's both quiet and communicates gravity while also having its own significance and presence. (i.e., it wouldn't just be a background building.) but i still don't think that's what the clients here are going for.
if the project gets built and it's not good, it won't last. if it gets built and it increases the power of mecca to draw pilgrims, it will be a success.
foster is a good architect. he is also a corporate architect. i'm not sure curtain walls is what mecca needs.
moneo would definitely be a more interesting selection. how about someone like siza even?
let's put this a different way. it's 1959. who would you rather have designing a master plan for an important religious site? louis kahn or eero saarinen?
well, thats only because moneo's is such a mineral architecture. there's something to be said about geophagic and stratalogical architects with a taste for dirt, magma, and dead residues of aquatic life. i do like foster's work; out of all the so called british "high-techs", his version of souffléed architectural blandness, generic and anonymous, could almost dissipate into england's grey skies and greyer atlantic waters.
tele-architecturing, from a distance, is hardly an unusual thing in the arab gulf region. there are many instances of "international" consultants (the designer), working with a local firm (architects of record), where "experiencing the site" is, practically speaking, irrelevant to the actual designer (except, from a logistical, municipal and programming point of view - all this info is provided by the local consultant). its enough that the site be next to the sea for the design to warrant a half-kilometer stretch of iconicity (which really is scaleless, a tower on the site = a trophy on the shelf).
i'm aware that this is read in a tone of cynicism by the critic of such a formulaic, to give it a lazy description, endeavour. a critic of this criticism might then note that the context is, anyway, rife with such a maladroit hysterical clutter of surfaces and edges in the wake of a nouveau riche sensibility to exhibit possession [i/]as well as[/i] stylistic significations as well as cultural prohibitionism; all this ending up in an absurd, sometimes extremely interesting because its telling, elements such as balconies that are 0.3m wide or are boarded over altogether, stretches of reflective-green-glazed windows that look much more solemn and threatening than normal windows have a right in being. Or a paperthin arcade of arches stuck onto a solid wall, or domes with a complete flat roof beneath. Such a critic might then thank his allah for the lack of a designer's regionalistic ethics.
now about mecca, this religious core, being a context. well there are two meccas (here i am channeling another easy-to-read italian). there's the contextual mecca of commerce, begging, fuckbuddies, shariaa laws, and so on...and there's the other mecca, uncontextual, virtual, a magnetic mecca that emanates from an imperfectly cubic (Kaaba, in arabic, translates into Cube) pile of stone, the ultimate opacity. One is never in this mecca even when one is in the other mecca: the same rules apply in mecca as elsewhere on the planet, you pray towards the Kaaba as you would if you were japan. the Kaaba is therefore, for the common worshippers (the inside of the Kaaba is only accessible to particular members of a particular tribe and very select dignitaries) on the outside, the most inscrutable and opaque, the most cthonic (a pile of stones), of tabernacles from which emanates the most binding of virtualities and virtual spaces/forums, the Umma. it is not a suprise then that the kiswa cloth is black, rendering the edifice inscrutable to and absorvent of the harsh desert light. this mecca: the empty air around the dense stone.
how to compare it to its levantine counterpart, jerusalem, the city of stones? the stone around the air?
That's interesting, because at the London City Hall (GLA) there is a cafe on the first floor and because of the way the building is ventilated (in a very "eco-friendly" way) apparently you can smell burgers frying all the way up on the top floor.
This article looks at the new Jamrat Bridge and how it fared handling the large crowds this year during Hajj.
You will rmember the old bridge was the site of numerous large scale stampedes in which pilgrims were crushed
Well..as i was reading this exciting discussion..i remembered the rumor about the biggest cross in emirates ..related to "burj el arab" tower.This is probably an outdated news and it is all over the internet, anyway, Burj al Arab was designed by Tom Wright of WS Atkins PLC, during the designing stage, the world was told that it was built to resemble a sail, but critics are claiming that Wright designed the cross after he had a dream to have a Christian influence in a Muslim country.
Thou i don't know if it was truly intended to be a cross or not..but how would i trust non-Muslims in designing the holiest place on earth for Islam.
You can't even get in if you aren't of the faith! It makes me happy to believe in NOTHING. I could see Zaha's building looking like a flying spaghetti monster. I'd hope she's an atheist and her capitalist sensibilities are forcing her to be involved.
Mecca in the hands of Norman & Zaha
Mecca, is a built up history book. A book that almost all Muslims read from page to page. Muslims know every story, every corner and detail of the holy mosque., and they narrated stories of the ritual journeys of Al Umrrah and Al Hajj that they take to Mecca over the years. What is shared by Muslims today would be panoramically viewed by Starchitects, but the question remains, would Muslims let it be viewed only by architects whom Sami Angawi, a Saudi Architect specialized in Mecca history and design, called "outsiders"?
I believe it should not. The design of Mecca and the region should be discussed with specialists from the inside. Furthermore, Architects from the region should held a greater accountability of a bigger role.
Recently, Jabal Omar and King Abdulaziz Towers in Mecca were questioned, for the impact the designs have on the urban fabric which outreached a wider radius from Al Kabba. Certainly, which raised debates of the process, these recent buildings went through skeptic concerns by specialists and precisely the Saudi government. Thus, that could be the reason why they chose to outsource designs. Another reason is to simply contend with the tallest or greatest landmarks around the world.
Sir. Norman and Zaha are both reputable for what they accomplished, they will defiantly input an exorbitant significance to the design, but it should be embraced with cautious approach. Likewise it should be approached with architects that developed an experience over the years of how to design for the holy mosque. Moreover, to look at the project from a different angle, and to completely understand the background of where more than millions of Muslims visit annually.
The project is not yet to be inevitable, but what should highly be noted are the controversial claims of what could lead to dramatic outcomes as Sami Angawi believes so.
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/visual_arts/architecture_and_design/article5295644.ece
http://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/news/dailynews/2008/11/foster_and_hadid_to_redesign_mecca.html
great - another mideastern troll - dont you have a Islam only architecture site to stink up? If I could Id put a f*cking McDonalds right in the center that serves Pork Chop sandwiches.
i'm not sure i understand clamfan's reaction above. the poster's point is valid, perhaps reactionary and insular. your pork comment, however, is out of line.
If as tradition holds the first mosque was built by angels, it would indeed be a significant downgrade in both talent and virtue for Norm and Zaha to be working on the site.
I'm surprised either of them would even consider this commission.
Janosh, you do realize that Zaha and Norm respectively are like the biggest egomaniacs in field populated by them right?
Clamfan you are not a clam up after all. I knew that by posting this thread I would come across a fan of your attitude. There are plenty of things that I could say about you to make you hate me even more. One thing I will say is that you have a greater responsibility as an architect or maybe as a human. I will retaliate by coming up to the center of your heart and spray "SALAM/PEACE until you scent with it.
I wouldn't say more. I want the thread to keep going with the main topic.
Designing in Mecca is thrilling, any of us would want to work on a project where you have thousands of people coming across. I am skeptical of what could be the end product of both architects. The Fluidity of Zaha or Norman's systems.
Desiging in Mecca is an extremely challenging task, but also extremely rewarding. i think the controversy that the Saudi architect has started is a bit overblown. while i think that the task should be undertaken by Muslims, i wouldnt mind "outsiders" acting as consultants. they would be able to look at things differently and present solutions that might otherwise be overlooked. but, lets be honest, it is a task that should be undertaken by Muslims.
clamfan, try to be less ignorant, u achieved absolutely nothing by your comments. im sure you can come up with an objective answer to an extremely loaded issue. If you have no opinion, then why dont u do some research and learn something new.
A starchitect on board would at least ensure that the site doesn't get spoilt by some kind horrible picturesque neo-regionalist pastiche. Surely starchitects have got the ability and the necessary ressources to intelligently analyse a site and its historical significance in order to produce a design that is both relevant and beautiful. And the fact that Zaha, an Iraqi born woman, is involved sounds like a rather healthy thing to me actually.
presumably those who are the stewards of the site have elected to go with internationally known architects as a way to assure the importance of the project for a worldwide audience. these same people will be responsible for keeping the appropriate spiritual and cultural advisors involved in the project so that there aren't mis-steps. and regional architects are also likely to be involved, if more in an administrative and facilitative role.
if muslims have trusted those who watch over the site with maintaining its relevance, they need to trust this decision. as doberman notes, without strong architectural leadership, a derivative 'regional' architecture might be the result, adversely affecting the quality and integrity of the overall site.
sure, foster and hadid, but not without oversight.
FLW designed Beth Shalom
while i admire hadid and foster's work, neither has been known to be particularly friendly to context (though the hearst tower does give one some hope), and i can't imagine a project where context more demands a thoughtful and sensitive approach. it seems a quieter, gentler hand would have been better selection for the project, perhaps piano or chipperfield if they were set on a starchitect.
i could see piano, possibly. but i don't see him as all that much more contextually sensitive than sir norman.
i'd guess the reason they wouldn't have chosen a chipperfield (or pawson or similar) is that the resulting project would be a little bit too mute. it's possible to be too contextually sensitive and, thereby, not add anything to the built conversation. they're obviously looking for a contemporary statement. if it's not too secular to say so, i'd guess there's some thinking that it's important to extend/update the mecca 'brand' for the 21st C.
Steven,
I think that is exactly the driving concern with this project and is my main problem with it...
As i see it the infrastructural and support concerns for handling such high levels of pilgrism should be given more focus. Not how to "extend/update the mecca 'brand' for the 21st C."
Although, the two aren't necessarily mutually exclusive...
if you're committed enough to show up anyway, you're probably willing to undergo some hardship if the place doesn't function as well as it should.
i'd guess it isn't just about the pilgrims - or at least not just about serving the pilgrims that actually come there. it's about creating a draw for new pilgrims - to re-invigorate the desire to make the pilgrimage for a new century of muslims.
Having just taken part in some pilgrimage myself when in India,
Hardship is definetely part of the package. But i guess it just seems to me that "expanding the brand" via architecture is more likely to attract archi-tourists than people traveling for Hajj...
And if they want to "make the pilgrimage for a new century of muslims." it seems like updating/modernizing the facilities/infrastructure would be more effective. At least based on my own recent experiences..
As i understand it, currently many pilgrims to Hajj stay in big tent cities put up by the Saudi Royal Family.
One of the most ironic things about Mecca is that Muhammed and his band of followers were exiled from the city and thusly staged a sort of "sit-in" outside the city gates for months (effectively holding the city under siege, like the bangkok airport a week ago) and were eventually let back in. If i'm not mistaken, Muhammed allowed the pagans to live in the city peacefully alongside the Muslims, I wonder what actually sparked mecca's conversion to "muslim only"?
Frankly, I don't think the Saudis can have it either or, they either let in a few "infidels" every now and then or they find themselves some Muslim Architects. Being asked to design a building without ever being able to visit it or the site its built on is ridiculous to me.
Clamfan, you are completely out of line.
D7mY: Specialists of what? Religion? Islam? Shi'ite Islam? Sunni Islam? Sufism? Islam Architecture? My point is, the realm of Islam is large and complicated. Having a specialist might create bias, which in my opinion, doesn't help in the design process. I do agree that the architect should have a very intimate understanding of the premise of his/her design, specially when it comes to something as high-profile as Mecca, but I think an "outsider" has the ability to become intimate if willing and motivated.
Some people think that the best person to design a Christian church, for example, would be an athiest.
But I do agree with Apurimac in that having a designer who can't even visit the site would be just stupid. Hopefully, if they do commission an "infidel" they will have an all-access pass.
i agree with nam. this just seems off. you can brand a corporation, but trying to brand a religion which stakes its identity on ideas of permanence will inevitably lead to something regrettable.
and is there a religious artifact any more modern than the kabba? i still think one of the british minimalists could do great things in mecca (and in the process do a lot more for religious identity than a more bombastic design.)
Jafidler,
Interesting point about the Kabba.
It is pretty "Modern" in the clean lines and abstract sort of form.
It would be interesting to see how or if the designers make any references or connections to this in their designs or if they just make as you say, something bombastic..
What I meant by specialists, the people who have been studying the area for years now. I tend to raise awareness for a critical cause. What if the new development of the Holy Mosque and its surrounding don't strategically consider the effect of density, and circulation. I think it is interesting to see the link below to compare the map of The holy area, note that the area below the red mark is demolished now, and it could be the location of the new development.
Check the link, and take a look on the notes, its interesting too.
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=300295&page=3
One good case study to look at is Al Jamarat, I was there when both the 1994's and the 1997's incidents occurred:
http://www.crowddynamics.com/Disasters/jamarat_bridge.htm
may be norman's esculator theme can help circulations... ha..
anyway, is up to muslim to decide, is their religion... :)
big difference between modern and timeless.
and, trust me, if someone is going for Holy Hajj, the hardships are negligable. try to put yourself in their shoes, would yu care about the hardships?
the most important thing to design is the safety of the pilgrims. thats different from hardships.
the most important thing to design is the safety of the pilgrims. thats different from hardships.
both of these points are architecture 101. i have confidence that either of the above architects could design through these issues (if you want to see circulation, have you seen zaha's bmw plant?!) i think there's more at stake with this commission, specifically identity and a larger notion of permanence and impermanence, and that's where i might question their selection.
both of these architects have been doing their thing for decades - not too many more architects who have been working at their level for as long.
granted, we're talking about longevity in centuries here, not decades. while, i could see hadid's work being seen as trendy, i don't see it in foster's at all. what about foster's work might make you think it wouldn't maintain relevance over time?
i'm a huge fan of moneo - and i think his work would be a good conservative example for the kind of permanence you're suggesting. it's both quiet and communicates gravity while also having its own significance and presence. (i.e., it wouldn't just be a background building.) but i still don't think that's what the clients here are going for.
if the project gets built and it's not good, it won't last. if it gets built and it increases the power of mecca to draw pilgrims, it will be a success.
foster is a good architect. he is also a corporate architect. i'm not sure curtain walls is what mecca needs.
moneo would definitely be a more interesting selection. how about someone like siza even?
let's put this a different way. it's 1959. who would you rather have designing a master plan for an important religious site? louis kahn or eero saarinen?
well, thats only because moneo's is such a mineral architecture. there's something to be said about geophagic and stratalogical architects with a taste for dirt, magma, and dead residues of aquatic life. i do like foster's work; out of all the so called british "high-techs", his version of souffléed architectural blandness, generic and anonymous, could almost dissipate into england's grey skies and greyer atlantic waters.
tele-architecturing, from a distance, is hardly an unusual thing in the arab gulf region. there are many instances of "international" consultants (the designer), working with a local firm (architects of record), where "experiencing the site" is, practically speaking, irrelevant to the actual designer (except, from a logistical, municipal and programming point of view - all this info is provided by the local consultant). its enough that the site be next to the sea for the design to warrant a half-kilometer stretch of iconicity (which really is scaleless, a tower on the site = a trophy on the shelf).
i'm aware that this is read in a tone of cynicism by the critic of such a formulaic, to give it a lazy description, endeavour. a critic of this criticism might then note that the context is, anyway, rife with such a maladroit hysterical clutter of surfaces and edges in the wake of a nouveau riche sensibility to exhibit possession [i/]as well as[/i] stylistic significations as well as cultural prohibitionism; all this ending up in an absurd, sometimes extremely interesting because its telling, elements such as balconies that are 0.3m wide or are boarded over altogether, stretches of reflective-green-glazed windows that look much more solemn and threatening than normal windows have a right in being. Or a paperthin arcade of arches stuck onto a solid wall, or domes with a complete flat roof beneath. Such a critic might then thank his allah for the lack of a designer's regionalistic ethics.
now about mecca, this religious core, being a context. well there are two meccas (here i am channeling another easy-to-read italian). there's the contextual mecca of commerce, begging, fuckbuddies, shariaa laws, and so on...and there's the other mecca, uncontextual, virtual, a magnetic mecca that emanates from an imperfectly cubic (Kaaba, in arabic, translates into Cube) pile of stone, the ultimate opacity. One is never in this mecca even when one is in the other mecca: the same rules apply in mecca as elsewhere on the planet, you pray towards the Kaaba as you would if you were japan. the Kaaba is therefore, for the common worshippers (the inside of the Kaaba is only accessible to particular members of a particular tribe and very select dignitaries) on the outside, the most inscrutable and opaque, the most cthonic (a pile of stones), of tabernacles from which emanates the most binding of virtualities and virtual spaces/forums, the Umma. it is not a suprise then that the kiswa cloth is black, rendering the edifice inscrutable to and absorvent of the harsh desert light. this mecca: the empty air around the dense stone.
how to compare it to its levantine counterpart, jerusalem, the city of stones? the stone around the air?
found in foster's cambridge (the real one) law library building...
Vado,
That's interesting, because at the London City Hall (GLA) there is a cafe on the first floor and because of the way the building is ventilated (in a very "eco-friendly" way) apparently you can smell burgers frying all the way up on the top floor.
This article looks at the new Jamrat Bridge and how it fared handling the large crowds this year during Hajj.
You will rmember the old bridge was the site of numerous large scale stampedes in which pilgrims were crushed
Earlier story on bridge
Well..as i was reading this exciting discussion..i remembered the rumor about the biggest cross in emirates ..related to "burj el arab" tower.This is probably an outdated news and it is all over the internet, anyway, Burj al Arab was designed by Tom Wright of WS Atkins PLC, during the designing stage, the world was told that it was built to resemble a sail, but critics are claiming that Wright designed the cross after he had a dream to have a Christian influence in a Muslim country.
Thou i don't know if it was truly intended to be a cross or not..but how would i trust non-Muslims in designing the holiest place on earth for Islam.
Saudi municipalities reject designs incorporating crosses.This could even apply to something as minor as window mullions.
You can't even get in if you aren't of the faith! It makes me happy to believe in NOTHING. I could see Zaha's building looking like a flying spaghetti monster. I'd hope she's an atheist and her capitalist sensibilities are forcing her to be involved.
"then, brave warrior, find the nothing"
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.