Michael Kirkland was the foreign associate of Bavand Consulting Engineers in the preparation of a design for the oil industry central building architectural competition. He answered questions concerning the actual situation of architecture in Iran, his cooperation with Bavand for the competition, the social and cultural ways of supporting architecture in Canada, the relation between architecture and society, the role of architecture magazines, the problem of professional jargon, and the future of architecture.
Having visited Tehran and Isfahan and gained a relative familiarity with several consulting engineering firms and the general condition of architecture, what impression have you formed of contemporary Iranian architecture?
In contemporary Iranian architecture, one can see a tendency toward early and avant-garde modernism together with influences from the remains of the Persian architectural tradition. The modernist division has a minimalist, abstract, and radical attitude, while on the other side, there is a tendency that could be called Islamic post-modernism. Regardless of the typology or function of a building, there could also have been a third solution, which is to adopt and develop a better understanding of Persian architecture.
A point that greatly attracted my attention is that space in Persian architecture is positive. It is the spaces that gather and define buildings, while a collective spirit emerges within this space. In contrast, in Western architecture, it is not space that defines the building, but rather the building mass that defines the space. The approaches toward architecture are completely personal and superficial over there. The fundamental concepts of Persian architecture are superior in this sense and can contribute to world architecture if they are properly developed.
What assessment can you present regarding the problems and weaknesses of Iranian architecture? In what areas do you see them most?
Two things are quite evident in contemporary architecture. One is the borrowings from the West. Of course, I have encountered many intelligent architects; however, I feel that their work has been influenced by Western construction, and this influence has been more superficial than deep — meaning they have not experienced large-scale projects. Most have been houses or small projects. For this reason, it seems that when architects want to design a building of a certain scale, they enlarge the concepts they employ in the architecture of a house. But when an architectural project exceeds a certain size, all relationships and perspectives change.
It seems that two quite different tendencies can be seen in contemporary Iranian architecture. One is modernism, which strongly inclines toward minimalism, abstract concepts, and has a radical aspect. The other tendency can be called Islamic post-modernism. There could also have been a third solution — to develop a better understanding of Persian architecture and allow it to continue. Sensitivity to historical heritage is important in the world today. Iranian architects should resist this superficial aspect of Western architecture, because the fundamental concepts of Persian architecture are superior and can have an influence on world architecture as well.
What can the collaboration on the Oil Company building bring to each of the two partners?
What I can give to Bavand is my experience in complex, large-scale buildings. As I mentioned, since such experience has not existed in Iran, I can probably be of help in this area. We want to create a large public domain, and this has had little precedent in Iran. At the same time, I feel like a student here, learning and drawing on the experiences that Bavand shares with me, becoming acquainted with Persian architecture and the sensitivity of material use and the historical and symbolic aspects of architecture — such as the sequence of spaces, the Persian garden, the central courtyard, and so on. Thus, I am learning through various paths. I hope that at the end of this competition we can design a large and complex building that simultaneously embodies these fundamental concepts. So this collaboration is positive.
In my view, this project is very important and carrying it out is a valuable opportunity. When I went to China and began my first work there, it was precisely when China was just beginning to connect with the outside world and the topic of large buildings had emerged. In my opinion, Iran is currently in a similar position, and the discussion of large buildings and projects has emerged. This is an ideal opportunity for us to participate in this transformation. Although the Oil Company project is in fact a single building, due to its large scale, the design is very complex — it encompasses a collection of functions and spaces and presents a challenge in the realm of large buildings. In Iran's past, the construction of such complexes — like Persepolis and Isfahan — has had precedent; but in the modern era, no large complex has been built in Iran. We want to see how one can create a large, unified complex in a modern language.
Our office has been very fortunate to have won several competitions, and this does not happen often for architecture firms. We are happy to have had this chance and hope to be able to work in this field.
In general, architecture needs the support of forces and institutions in society. In your country, what institutions work hardest for the growth and advancement of architecture?
Every building has a client. But society as a whole needs a cultural patron for its growth, and that is the government and public institutions, which can support architecture through various mechanisms — such as holding competitions or contributing to the budgets of public projects.
In Canada, the tendency of contractors or large construction companies in Toronto is no different from other parts of the world. In Vancouver the situation is somewhat better, but in Toronto two things are most in mind: that the work be fashionable, and that costs be lower. They generally follow very superficial patterns. Some institutions and organizations commission work, and because they are more intellectually oriented, they value the artistic aspect of architecture, and their projects turn out better — especially if the works are small, like neighborhood centers, universities, and houses. In short, institutions give better commissions.
Currently, Canada is in a very good cycle. The government has come out of the monetary contraction system — a fiscal policy like the Reagan era that sought to bring down government expenditures. The number of public buildings constructed during that period was very small. But now, we have reached a budget balance, and it seems that in the next 10 to 15 years we will have a series of public buildings. This is a very good opportunity for architects, because it is in public buildings that design innovations are put forward, and one can move beyond building schools and art centers to larger projects.
How much do architecture magazines contribute to raising architectural awareness in society?
In my opinion, architecture magazines are more in service of the profession itself. Of course, there are exceptions. The Canadian Architecture magazine has many advertisements, and even architects who feature their work pay for the privilege. Therefore, the magazine comes out almost free and is distributed among a large number of contracting companies and clients. This has caused them to see the magazines and gain some awareness of architecture, and even use the content in their conversations. In any case, this magazine constitutes a kind of advertising of architecture among clients, but society in general does not have access to these magazines, because they are very expensive both for distribution and purchase. Therefore, one must create a kind of local awareness among people and offer an architecture that in itself elevates people's taste.
Another thing that magazines do is critique architectural works, which has a good educational aspect. But the problem is that the writers must sometimes forego commissions from certain institutions, because their critique is unwelcome. The solution is to invite a third party who is not part of the magazine's staff to carry out the critique. In all such places, pressures exist, and undoubtedly in Iran too, such pressures exist for publishing architecture magazines.
When we want to raise the level of public awareness of local culture, the question of Islamic and historical sensitivity also arises, and we must see how people react to this synthesis. Architecture magazines can bring these discussions forward. Of course, this is a very difficult task, because magazines always tend to publish avant-garde and new works, since people like this kind of work. But in my opinion, alongside these, the discussion should be continuously raised as to whether they have a connection to the tradition of the society. This discussion should continue alongside avant-garde works so that they can be critically examined — otherwise, rootless and inauthentic works may be created.
Architecture magazines raise the level of professionals' understanding, and there is no doubt about this. But at the same time, because they create a specialized language among architects, they apparently add to the gap between architects and the public. If one cannot justify an idea to the public, one should doubt the idea itself. Many times in the field of architecture, one must return to the original source of the discussion, and if one can explain it, that is a great help. If one can justify the original ideas, that itself becomes a bridge linking us to the general public.
Have any media in Canada succeeded in bridging the gap between architecture and the public?
Newspapers have great power in connecting with the public. I am not saying they always do positive things — sometimes they can play a negative role. But in changing public disbelief, especially about avant-garde and unconventional projects, they are effective. At least one can say that if people's distrust has not been completely eliminated, it has been put in a state of suspension.
Of course, some types of architecture exist that cannot be justified or explained to the public — like deconstructivism, which seeks to dismantle and deconstruct all structures. After September 11th, when those two buildings were destroyed, a transformation took place. No one can any longer justify deconstructivism, because this event showed what consequences such destruction would have. It can fairly be said that the followers of this movement have left the scene and there is no more discussion defending it.
As an architect, how do you assess the future of architecture?
If we consider the short term, architecture is not in good conditions right now. The reason is that there is no widely accepted general theory or agreement about architecture. A kind of nihilism has come into being and everything has been chopped into pieces. But in my opinion, the future of architecture in the century ahead of us is continuously improving, because the physical and functional world will not vanish, and as culture and conveniences develop, the active role and importance of architecture increase accordingly. People understand more and more each day, and this in itself is promising.
What mental image did you have before coming to Iran, and what has shifted after your trip?
The image I had of Iran has changed. The image I previously had was mostly historical in nature, and it was real. Of course, I do not know how well I got to know Tehran in the short time I was there, because I feel that these friends at Bavand, who all take pride in being Iranian, might have taken me to see certain aspects.
When I look at Tehran, generally like Beirut, Cairo, and even Paris, the streets with rows of trees on both sides still have a kind of authenticity. Annoying aspects like traffic, driving, and confrontations also exist in the city, but there is still a kind of coherence. Tehran has a good position for a good public life. Yet this kind of life is not publicly taking place, and everything is inside homes. I am very eager to see what happens in the next two to five years — not just in terms of the city, but culturally.
A mental contradiction for me is that Iranian architectural spaces have been shaped for shared public activity, whereas this is not what actually takes place.
You mean historical architecture creates this feeling?
When Naqsh-e Jahan Square in Isfahan greatly resembles Las Ramblas in Barcelona. But not much activity can be seen there. Whereas Las Ramblas is a center of activity and life in all of Barcelona.