Michael Kirkland, the foreign associate of Bavand Consulting Engineers in their entry to the architecture competition for the central buildings of the oil industry, answered our questions on his impressions of Iranian architecture, his joint work with Bavand for the competition, the social and cultural manner of supporting architecture in Canada, and the future of architecture. The full conversation follows.
Having seen Tehran and Isfahan and become somewhat acquainted with the offices of several consulting engineers and a sample of building sites, have you formed an opinion on today's Iranian architecture?
Yes. In today's Iranian architecture there is an admirable tendency towards early and avant-garde modernism. At the same time, a quality is visible in this architecture which, despite carrying international ideas, sets it apart, and which one can regard as a remnant of the Iranian architectural tradition. This is an interesting subject one could discuss within the experience of the modern, addressing the influence of the historical essence of Iranian architecture upon it. Although these architectural works are modern and abstract, similar work cannot be found in Europe or America.
In this quick summary you have given of Iranian architecture, in what areas do you most see the difficulties and weaknesses?
Two issues are evident in contemporary Iranian architecture. One is the borrowing from the West. I have, of course, met many intelligent architects, but I feel that in their work they have been influenced by Western construction — and that this influence has been more superficial than deep, that is, impressionistic. The second point is that, in the past 50 years, Iranian architects have not had experience of large projects; most have been houses or small projects. For this reason, when projects become a little larger, the architects appear to enlarge the very ideas they applied in designing a house. But when the scale of architecture becomes greater than a certain size, all relations and viewpoints change.
Two broadly different tendencies appear to be visible in contemporary Iranian architecture, and these correspond to the features I have described. One tendency leans towards minimalism, abstraction, and a radical attitude; the other can be called Islamic post-modernism — irrespective of what the typology of a building is and what use it has, an Islamic post-modern appearance is created for it, which we call the kitsch tendency in architecture, that is, an idea of building that lacks authenticity and is imitative.
There can also be a third path, which is to arrive at a better understanding of Iranian architecture and to give it continuity. Sensitivity to historical heritage has become very important in the world today. From the little I saw of Iran's historical architecture, my impression was that, in Iranian architecture, space is a positive element — it is the spaces that gather and define the buildings, while a collective spirit also arises in this space. By contrast, in Western architecture it is not the space that defines the building; rather, the building and its mass define the space, and the tendencies there are entirely individual and superficial. Iranian architects must resist this aspect of Western architecture, since the fundamental concepts of Iranian architecture are superior to it. I hope that, by growing on its own and attending to its own foundations, Iranian architecture can also help Western architecture. If these concepts can develop in Iranian architecture, they will also affect world architecture.
What do you think the partnership with Bavand for the oil-industry building competition can yield for each of these two partners?
What I can offer Bavand is to put my experience in the field of large and complex buildings at their disposal. As I said, since such experience has not been had in Iran in the past, I can probably help in this respect. We want to bring into being a great public realm — a matter that does not have much precedent in Iran. At the same time, I feel that I am here as a student, and I make use of the experience Bavand offers me, becoming acquainted with Iranian architecture and the sensitivity in the use of materials and the historical and symbolic aspects of architecture — such as the sequence of spaces, the Iranian garden, the central courtyard, and so on. So I learn through different routes. You see, in our shared scope of the competition we are designing a large and complex building which at the same time embodies these fundamental concepts. So this cooperation is positive.
I think this project is very important and to do it is a precious opportunity. When I went to China and started my first work, it was just when China was beginning to open up to the outside world and the discussion of large buildings had emerged. In my view, Iran is now in such a position, and the discussion of buildings and large projects has emerged. This is therefore an ideal opportunity for us to share in this transition. Although the oil-industry design is in fact a single building, by virtue of the size of its scale it is a very complex design — it embraces a set of small spaces and spaces and presents a challenge in the field of large buildings. In history such complexes have been built, but in the modern era no large complex has been built in Iran. We must see how to bring into being a large and integrated complex in a modern language.
Architecture, in general, requires the support of forces and institutions in society. In your country, which institutions most strive for the growth and elevation of architecture? If it is the state, which part: the municipalities and councils, or do the great economic institutions push architecture forward through their own funds?
What I mean by support is the support that springs from society itself, since architecture is part of the culture of a society.
The tendency of contractors and large construction firms in Toronto is no different from elsewhere in the world. In Vancouver the situation is somewhat better, but in Toronto two points are foremost: that the work be in fashion and that it be cheap; the result, naturally, is very superficial patterns. Some institutions and bodies commission work and, being more cultured, attach importance to the artistic aspect of architecture, and their work turns out better — especially when the works are small, like neighbourhood centres, universities, houses and so on. In short, institutions and bodies offer better commissions.
Canada is at present in a very good period: the government has come out of the policy of monetary tightening. That fiscal policy was like the Reagan-era policy that aimed at lowering government costs and budget expenditures; consequently, the number of public buildings built in that period was very small. But now, having come out of that period, we have reached budget balance, and it seems that in the next 5 to 10 years we shall have a series of public buildings. That is a very good opportunity for architects, since it is in public buildings that design innovations come to the fore and one can step outside the limit of building schools and art galleries to take on larger work.
Such a thing does not often come the way of architectural offices, and we are glad to have found this chance and hope to be able to work in this area.
Every building has a client, but for its growth society as a whole needs a collective client, and the resources for that should come from public sources. How much do newspapers play a part in shaping the budgets of public projects, and so forth?
In Canada, the most discussion among architects in society takes place in the newspapers, not in architecture magazines, since architecture magazines are for professionals. Newspapers reflect society's awareness of architecture; radio and television do likewise. Spending on architecture and producing good architecture also has an economic effect — it is not only a cultural one. Once spending is done in public spaces and buildings, it draws other investment and brings prosperity to the city. For instance, in Iran, this is the kind of thing that should be done to revive the tourism industry — like Barcelona, which has risen from the 23rd to the 4th rank — and the rest of the world's countries, which have understood the importance of this, are investing in it.
Like it or not, the tourism industry is now the world's largest industry and the most prosperous. In China, in the three cities of Shanghai, Beijing, and Tianjin where I was working, the question being raised was how to spend the capital — should it be divided equally among the people, or should it be invested in economic areas which themselves attract foreign capital and lead to its redistribution?
At present, one of the projects we have in hand is the renewal of a coastal area in Toronto of about 800 hectares, which used to belong to factories that are now derelict. About $5.5 billion is to be invested in the area over the next ten years. The renewal of this area will raise the quality of people's lives while also drawing tourists. A series of public buildings and bodies have also been provided for; in principle, investment in the realm of public spaces and buildings is bound up with the raising of the quality of life and the economic prosperity that follows from it.
In answering our previous question, you gave some explanations about magazines and television. How much do architecture magazines help raise architectural awareness in society?
As I said, in my view architecture magazines are mostly in the service of the architectural profession itself. There are, of course, exceptions. For example, Canadian Architect magazine carries a great deal of trade advertising, and even the architects who present their works in the magazine pay for them to be reflected; the magazine is also distributed free among a large number of contracting-company managers and clients. This makes them see the magazines and to some extent become aware of architecture, even using its content in their conversations. In any case, this magazine is regarded as a kind of architectural advertising among clients; but society in general does not have access to such magazines, since the magazine is very expensive both to distribute and to buy. So this aim must be carried through by a more complex route: a kind of local awareness must be created among the people, and an architecture must be offered that of itself raises public taste.
Another thing magazines do is to criticise architectural works, which has a good educational aspect. The problem, however, is that the magazine's own writers — given their consideration for advertisers, clients, and even the state — may abstain from criticism, since their criticism is not pleasing to those bodies. The solution is that a third person, not on the magazine's staff, be invited to do this critique. In fact, these pressures exist everywhere in the world, and surely in Iran too there are such pressures on the publication of architecture magazines.
When we want to raise the level of people's awareness of local culture, they show a sensitivity to it. For example, in Iran, alongside the modernity of society, the Islamic and historical aspects are also at issue, and we must see how people respond to that combination. Architecture magazines can take up such discussions, publishing pioneering and innovative work — since people, too, like such work — but in my view, alongside this there must be a continuing discussion of whether these have any link to the tradition of society or not, so that we can criticise and examine them; otherwise rootless and inauthentic works may be produced.
From our experience in publishing an architecture magazine, our assessment is that architecture magazines raise the level of professionals' understanding — there is no doubt of that — but at the same time, by creating a special language between architects, they apparently increase the distance between architects and the public.
Right. This is the very thing that creates the special and technical language of every profession. But in my view, if one cannot justify an idea to the people, one should suspect the idea — perhaps the idea itself has a problem. Often, in architectural discussions, one must return to the original source of the discussion; being able to explain it will be of great help. If one can justify the basic ideas, that is itself a bridge that links us to the community of people.
What about newspapers? Have they been able to forge this connection?
Newspapers have great power in connecting with the public. I do not say they have always been successful in reducing the public's disbelief, especially regarding pioneering and unconventional projects. In Toronto one can say that the people have a sense of attachment and understanding; at least, their distrust, even if not entirely gone, has been somewhat suspended. There are, of course, kinds of architecture that cannot be justified or explained to the people — such as the discussion of deconstruction, which seeks to break apart and separate all structures. After September 11, when those two buildings were destroyed, a change took place in this matter; no one can any longer offer a justification for deconstruction, since that event showed what effects such destruction would have, and one can almost say the followers of this school have stepped aside, no more arguing for it.
As an architect, how do you assess the future of architecture, and do you think it is now passing through good or bad years?
If we consider the short term, architecture is not at present in good condition — the reason being that a general unanimity of view and a comprehensive theory of architecture do not exist; a kind of nihilism has appeared and everything has become fragmented. In my view, the future of architecture in the century ahead is steadily improving, since the physical and useful world will not vanish, and people, day by day — both culturally, in terms of welfare, and in other respects — will come to grasp the role and importance of architecture in the state of the world.
What was your mental picture of Iran before coming, and after the trip what parts of that picture have shifted?
The picture I had of Iran has changed. The picture I previously had was very limited; now I think I have reached a better kind of understanding. Although I do not know how much I came to know Tehran on this trip — for I feel that these Bavand friends, who all take pride in being Iranian, may have shown me a particular set of aspects. But in any case, Tehran is an agreeable city, and when I look at other cities of the region — Beirut, Cairo, even Paris in general — the streets whose two sides have grown trees still have a kind of grandeur. The unpleasant aspects — traffic, driving, accidents — also exist in the city, but a kind of cohesion is still visible in the city, which one does not see in this form in other cities of the region; for example, if war had come, those would have been wholly destroyed.
Tehran is well placed for good public life, although that kind of life is not flowing in it at the moment. If a transformation occurs, I do not know what will happen to this city — not only in urban terms but in cultural terms. A mental contradiction for me is that the spaces of Iranian architecture have been formed for shared activity by people, while what is happening at present is not that.
That is, historical architecture creates that feeling?
For example, the Chahar Bagh of Isfahan very much resembles the Ramblas square of Barcelona, but no marked activity is visible in it — whereas the Ramblas is the centre of activity of Barcelona.
