After viewing the designs related to the competition for the central building of the oil industry in Memar issue 18, a few points came to mind that I would like to briefly explain as follows:
The central building of the oil industry is the greatest event in the history of contemporary architecture in Iran. It was therefore important that this project, given its volume, height, dimensions, and cost, be comprehensively examined and discussed in advance among professional architects, from the perspectives of urban design, urban architecture, and social and economic considerations. The first aspect that should have been considered in this review is whether such heavy centralization is necessary, and more importantly, useful. Setting aside the traffic jams that concentrating 8,000 employees at various levels (not counting daily visitors) in a small area would create several times a week between the various departments of the oil company and the numerous officials involved. Does establishing all departments of the oil industry in one district, besides turning this national industry into a fortress separated from the city and urban fabric, not also place it in danger? The memory of Iraqi missiles that continuously threatened Tehran for several years and the image of the collapse of the World Trade Center towers in New York are still fresh in people's minds. Let us recall that the Pentagon, the American defense headquarters, suffered far less damage in human and structural terms precisely because of its horizontal design. Attention to this matter is particularly important given that Iran is situated in a sensitive geostrategic region, as the southern and eastern neighboring countries have experienced in recent years — to say nothing of the danger posed by Israel's presence in the region.
If we set aside these general issues, which merit much further discussion, a few points about the organization of the competition and the physical program for the design are necessary:
Mr. Yahyavi, in justifying the invitation of foreign consultants, states: "We believe that Iranian experts are not inferior to foreigners in terms of intelligence and talent. God has distributed everything among human beings equitably." On the other hand, in Iran, due to certain principles, those things that impair or weaken the intellect — such as resorting to alcohol or the all-night revelries common in Western countries — do not exist. Consequently, the minds of Iranian experts are healthier and possessed of greater talent. Everyone knows that in the oil industry, hiring foreign consultants and collaborating with them is customary. If this organization wishes to follow the same policy in its building sector, there is no need for such justifications as a precondition for requiring a foreign partner. Architects agree that Iran's contemporary building technology is Western in origin, and using the latest methods and achievements of world architecture is a positive endeavor.
Regarding the physical planning of the project communicated by the client to the design consultants, the important point from the author's perspective is that the result of the initial planning and the decision for heavy centralization has produced a graceless giant, such that even the best architectural talents of the country and the world cannot produce a meaningful, proportionate, humane, and urban proposal for it. Architecture is either created in nature or within the context of the city, and in the latter case, it must necessarily be proportionate to the city and the lives of its citizens. Solitary and monolithic architecture is merely a symbol, a sculpture. To confirm this, it suffices to look at the unsuccessful examples in history. The city of Brasilia, Brazil's new capital, was from the very beginning an unsuccessful city — because over the past half-century, under the influence of the views of the artist-architect Oscar Niemeyer, who has produced very interesting and noteworthy works, it prioritized symbolic aspects over the life and activities of the populace. Le Corbusier's forward-looking proposal was also in reality a plan for the destruction of Paris — one of the most beautiful and successful cities in the world — and an urban planning catastrophe. Twenty years ago, the then-president of France, under pressure from architecture professionals and lovers of Paris, annulled the unintelligent plan to demolish the Les Halles market district in central Paris and build a tower in its place.
In our own country, about 30 years ago, engineer Heidar Ghiai advanced the design of a large, self-contained complex including a palace and the Ministry of Court to the point of preparing construction drawings, which was shelved before the revolution by order of government officials themselves. Perhaps it is worthwhile here to consider the original plan for the Abbas Abad city center, which was shelved after the revolution. The detailed plan and urban design for Abbas Abad was prepared under the direction of Jaquelin Robertson at great expense and after persistent follow-up by the then-mayor. Robertson was the chief architect and head of the technical office of the New York City municipality, who resigned when the mayor left office. He was subsequently employed by Tehran's municipality, and after completing the Abbas Abad plan and returning to America, established a joint office with the renowned Eisenman and later became dean of the architecture school at the University of Virginia. While preparing the Abbas Abad plan, Robertson was collaborating in Tehran with the firm of Sir Llewellyn Davies.
The architectural community of that time did not agree with employing a foreign architect in the municipality. Among others, I myself approached the municipality's action with skepticism and was always among the critics of architectural and urban planning policies and the hiring of foreigners. At that same time, the design of a park in the Abbas Abad district was assigned to our firm called DAZ, and it became necessary for me to familiarize myself with the Abbas Abad plan. I had a meeting with Robertson and, contrary to expectations, was surprised by his working method and plan preparation, and left with a favorable impression. Robertson had carried out a meticulous urban design, incorporating the best urban spaces in the world at that time, with consideration for the importance of such spaces and the necessity of mixing and diversifying activities. I, who placed great importance on creating such a center in the heart of Tehran, was embarrassed by my own critical attitude about the municipality. Because in my view, this was the promising beginning of a new era in urban planning in Iran and could have elevated Tehran to the level of world-class cities.
Unfortunately, this plan was shelved after the revolution and a new plan was substituted that divides the Abbas Abad lands among governmental institutions instead of dedicating them to various public activities. The outline drawings of the plans confirm that no comprehensive design has been prepared for the region, as they do not show any zoning boundary — a kind of feudalistic plan suited to American suburbs or to Brasilia, where each sector of the government has built its own independent administrative palace.
In any case, perhaps one cannot fault either the oil company or the architects participating in this competition, because perhaps the fundamental problem is the absence of a serious, three-dimensional comprehensive urban plan. Apparently, the planners did not consider that an employee might want to leave the complex to chat with a friend on the adjacent street or buy a book, and in practice they are preparing a luxury prison for the employees. One of the points in the jury's statement also includes a reference to cultural context: "Some participants, without sufficient attention to the cultural context, have borrowed foreign tastes..." Well, is not the very idea of monolithic tower-building in the manner of today's global architecture questionable?
The first additional point concerns the general state of the oil industry. In the 1950s, Iran's oil production reached approximately 6 million barrels per day, which declined to 5 million barrels before the revolution. At that time, the total number of oil industry employees was 56,000. Today, Iran's oil industry has 150,000 employees, but its production capacity is 3.8 million barrels per day, which due to OPEC quotas has been reduced to 2.4 million barrels per day. Reports indicate that the lifespan of our oil reserves is no more than 40 years, and probably in 15 years, its export value will approach zero. This picture is not a pleasant one, and I mention it as background for the massive oil industry building.
The second point is a brief commentary on the published designs. The Kalantari-Zeinoddine design undoubtedly possesses architectural refinements and the sensitivities of contemporary design, and from an aesthetic standpoint, striking elements that led to its selection are evident. However, the tall tower has no relationship with the rest of the design and seems designed solely to satisfy the desire for record-breaking in tower-building in Tehran — while one of the important hallmarks of Iranian architecture is its modesty and humility, not heroic solo performances.
The second-place design, although it lacks the elegance and strong rhythm of the first-place design, displays more organic harmony overall and would certainly have turned out well in execution. It is necessary to congratulate engineer Mirmiran and his colleagues for maintaining their architectural integrity and refraining from symbolic pretensions in favor of tower-building. Their design indicates the designers' attention to urban issues and the arrangement of the relationship of the complex with the sidewalk and the exterior.
In any event, I believe that heavy investments, especially governmental investments, must be multipurpose and cannot serve only the specific objective of one branch of government. A glance at the proposed designs shows that the potential exists for dividing the complex into four or five independent architectural units, which together with commercial and private sections could create an interesting urban center for Tehran residents as well as oil company employees.
It is good to think about the day when Iran's oil has run out and this heavy building has become the narrator of an era in which cooperation, modesty, and holistic thinking were rare.