The GEM and the Egyptian architects—bad luck? Khaled Asfour's Egyptian view of the Grand Museum competition and the whole education system - View

Architectural Review, The, Oct, 2003 by Khaled Asfour

From Egypt came the third largest number of participants, 126 entries, yet none got even an honorary mention (AR August). The museum represents the ancient heritage the Egyptian architects know best, they should be able to compete with peers abroad, at least on such familiar topies. This is not the first time. Fourteen years ago, Alexandria library was another international competition in which no Egyptian architect won any prize. This is not bad luck then ... this is non-competitive practice.

Egyptian practice comes from an architectural education that restrains creativity. Teaching in design studios reflects more of a technical than a philosophical mind. Students are taught to handle the project as an exercise in, what I call, programme logistics. They start the exercise by resolving the brief of the project into an appropriate functional linkage diagram: spaces represented in bubbles are clustered together according to compatibility in functions. Site analysis helps in placing the spaces in the right zones with respect to each other. Once the students reach the correct functional diagram, they start drawing out the plan following an orthogonal grid. They slide spaces over each other as if figuring out a jigsaw puzzle.

Usually, the outcome of the whole studio is the same: no creativity, for students are geared towards a single ideal set of spatial relationships. They only differ from one another in the level of detailing, sensible handling of areas and structural rationale.

This approach, though it sounds archaic, is common in many architectural schools in Egypt. To a lesser extent, other schools have reacted to such technical mindset by focusing on form-making. Students develop an artistic handling of masses first, then they work out how to fit the programme of the project inside the forms. Evaluation of projects is biased towards avant-garde shapes and daring facades. Much less attention is given to programme logistics, producing a new brand of architects who work with curvilinear and inclined planes. The less orthogonal the project, the more attractive quality it promises. In fact, during the last decade, the form-making approach has won many local competitions compared with the programme logistics approach. But when it comes to international competitions, neither of the two approaches appears to have a winning ticket. There is something lacking in the education of Egyptian architects that stifles their international competitiveness. It is concept development.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

GEM competition particularly highlighted this problem. For the first time in Egypt, the organizers asked competitors to submit in the first phase a few sheets showing only concepts rather than a finished project. This meant that architects had to ask themselves what ideas the project should embrace before going into programme logistics or form making. But such a question is unknown to most Egyptian architects since it never exists in their formal education.

The concept development to many architects starts with keywords. They are cornerstones with which architects never lose sight of basic concepts while ploughing through programme logistics. The first three winning projects show a strong coherence between concept development and programme logistics. They all start with keywords reacting to the commanding view of the Pyramids from the site. Such keywords led them to bury the project in the 40m difference between the upper and lower natural plateaus of the site, in this way the awesome presence of the Pyramids is never challenged.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

The third prize-winners, Renato Rizzi, Massimo Scolari and Kuno Mayr, did not want a 'confrontation' with the Pyramids. They had the most dramatic image of the project buried underground taking the shape of an ancient tomb. Keywords like 'the dig', representing the sunken museum, will exercise 'fascinating power' of the tomb on visitors who will recall the original settings of the artifacts the moment they were discovered. The museum in this case not only restores the 'materiality' of the ancient artifacts but also the 'spirituality' of the original surrounding atmosphere of a tomb. Based on this, the programme logistics are resolved on three 'mastabas' with walls acting as 'veils' from one level to another, thus adding an air of 'mystery' and 'contemplation' to the circulation of the visitor.

A keyword in the second prize-winner, Coop Himmelb(l)au's, concept is 'hybridizing' the landscape with the museum, which meant fusing the idea of the museum with the surrounding environment, even though it is an underground structure. So the roof of the museum is a huge crater with curvilinear rim which blends well with desert panorama. It is a technological gadget that acts as a giant filter, diffusing light and cooling air before admitting them inside the exhibition halls. Interacting with the surrounding environment also included the Pyramids, for visitors circulating around the crater rim are eventually funnelled through a linear incision that leads to the Pyramids viewpoint. 'Hybridization' also moved to the interior of the museum by piercing the crater with a double coned courtyard that is packed with greenery. Direct sunlight floods the landscaped court making it an 'oasis', rather, a distinct landmark in the circulation of visitors and museum programme.