KAMRAN AFSHAR NADERI’S INTERVIEW WITH BAHRAM SHIRDEL
We begin the interview with a basic question. What do you think about idea? It is a couple of years now that I have become interested in geography as a theme. Of course, I think it was always important to me, yet it has become clearer now. My recent ideas in architecture start from ‘geography’. For instance, the idea for the project ‘Center for Interior Design of Tabriz City’, a center for building equipment and home improvement, is derived from the location of Tabriz and the location of the building within the urban fabric. Geography has a multi- dimensional meaning for me, and as such, the project itself can help to provide a better definition of its location. Iran has a very specific geography, i.e. the Iranian plateau. Geography has a physical and social structure. My architecture is a container for life in a particular geography. We are in the 21st century and architecture has changed in most of the parts of the world. Today good architects no longer resemble the ‘architectural stars’ of the past. They pay attention to local issues and many good works have been created in Latin America, Asia, China, Bangladesh and Vietnam on such a basis. These works are created by the architects of the new generation who are attentive to local and cultural issues. In my opinion, we are confronted with a different definition of idea in the 21st century than in the past century. Parallel to the problem of culture and land, new topics such as environmental and energy concerns have been introduced. The fact that Milan Expo 2015 is dedicated to the theme of Feeding the Planet without recourse to fossil fuels, is a sign. In the case of the Tabriz project, the idea of my work was not an outcome of an abstract decision. The site is next to the bazaar of Tabriz and is located on the entrance of the city from the Tehran highway. These factors formed the main idea of the project.
Of course land and environment are new concerns to which the 21st century architecture is attentive. However, do you think in our era the modes of thinking have also changed or it is only about new topics entering the scene and replacing previous concerns? Certainly! In the second half of the 20th century, idea in architecture was mostly oriented towards form. Prominent architects had a formalist approach to architect. In late modernism, architects such as Frank Gehry created works that, without taking into account whether the project is located in Bilbao or Los Angeles, followed the modernist aesthetics. As such, ‘personal style’ and ‘architectural stars’ were created. Today, we know that the people of each society relate to architecture, use spaces and occupy them, as it were, in their own ways. As such, the architecture of one geographical location differs from another. For instance, the tower that I designed for Tabriz would never function in Kish. In Kish, the architecture should be close to the ground or even under it.
In all times, the main concern of architecture has been to find a new and correct relationship between form and content. All architects like their work to be contemporary and connected to history and geography. However, finding a solution to this problem is extremely difficult, particularly if we intend to create a new work. To me, Tabriz project like a new invention which, despite its simplicity, has gathered complicated qualities in itself: it is at the same an icon and a space. It relates to history and the current era. While being international, it also relates to its particular location. I think Tabriz needs such a distinguishable landmark particularly at the entrance of the city. Can you explain who you came up with the idea of this project? From the very first days, my concern was to establish a connection with the city of Tabriz. As you mentioned, Tabriz lacks a recognizable urban landmark or icon, if you will. However, the bazaar of Tabriz is a very special complex very different from that of other cities. This bazaar is one huge, lofty, roofed space. This is an architectural characteristic which is specific to Tabriz. I was searching for a idea that could relate to the bazaar of Tabriz and this connection was created both spatially and functionally. The presence of the client during the formation of the project was very influential. For my client, whose profession is connected with the export of carpets, it is very important that he is from Tabriz and is an Azari. He wanted his building to be a new work and yet pertain to Tabriz. We designed different options for him but he believed that the Center for Interior Design of Tabriz should not only be a different tower or commercial complex, but, using the jargon of the carpet-weavers he told us he wanted “something which is wrong”, i.e. a work that is not conservative.
This is interesting. A ‘wrong carpet’ is a breaking with tradition with its roots in tradition. How did you apply this concept in you work? I had to transform the demand of the client and the problem of geography and function into an acceptable concept through my architectural language. I use ‘folding’ as my design technique and therefore I designed the project using one of folding equations. One of the major problems of the design was the north-south orientation of the lot and its small width. If the project rose like a prism from the ground, the building would turn into a volume with an east-west orientation. Yet there is a twist in the building running from the ground level to the upper part, hence creating this concave form which you rightfully call ‘a container holding the sky’ referring to an ancient Iranian mythology. I agree with you that this work is iconic and I don’t believe one can borrow icons from another land. The overall form of this building is connected to the mysterious ancient icons of Iran.
I find this project very interesting because it appears impossibly simple. Icons usually have a simple formal structure and their power lies in this simplicity. Your design, while possessing this power is complicated and connects to history, particularly that of the Islamic and ancient times, yet it is at the same time contemporary! It is connected both to the location and functionality. As such, it is a multi-dimensional project which succeeds in creating a new idea of vaulted structures. Up to here, we focused on the local aspects of the project. It would be interesting to divert our attention to the more contemporary aspects of it. Another point in the formation of the idea of this project was that I tried to present a new model of tower and I think I have been successful in this. The new point in this project is the façade which slides over the structure and reaches
the interior creating the interior façade. The interior has two facing façades in the courtyard which serve as urban façades for an urban fabric: it is like a roofed urban square.
I think Iranian architecture has always been formed on the basis of two different models: ‘introversion’ and ‘extroversion’. It seems your design presents a single solution for a project that has both of these qualities and reaches introversion by going beyond extroversion. This is correct. In this project the two issues are aligned with one another.
I now ask a very scientific question: where did the seed for the idea come from? A sketch? A model? A text? I mean the first stage of the process which led to the idea. I ask this because I believe the value of architecture does not lie merely in the finished product, but it includes all the different stages of the design. It was a freehand sketch related to folding equations. I cannot separate sketches from computer-aided designs, because without a software and a computer, the form cannot be conceived.
I have always believed that one of your distinctions is how you cannot imagine a project before it is designed. What do you think about this? This is true. This is an important issue to me. If I can imagine a project I will not design it. If I reach a design in my imagination I will not have enough interest or energy to go forward. I always design something which I cannot imagine. My projects take shape through a pragmatic process initiating from the initial ideas. First comes the project, then its image.
I think you always seek a design that surprises you before anyone else. This is true. It is easy to surprise people. My aim is, first of all, to surprise myself and then surprise colleagues whose opinion is important to me. This is a clever game. When it is not like that, architecture becomes very boring, because the route is long and tiresome. Sometimes I have tried to use my earlier ideas in a new project and each time I have gave up very quickly. Because I have realized that I’m not interested in working like that and it is not exciting.
I think the Tabriz project, contrary to what the so-called ‘identity-saturated’ works, so common all across the country, do, establishes a productive relationship with culture, geography and history. This is while those common works seek a consumer relationship: they consume historical forms and patterns without pushing the boundaries of collaboration forward. What is your opinion it this regard? I think a work that wants to be counted not only as an architectural work but also a cultural production has to belong to its own geography.