Please explain what is the "topic" in here if not discussing buildings, what do they replace, what do they do to their surrounding, and how do they blend or clash with the cultural and architectural setting into which they are built? Isn't this what we are discussing here? Every time anyone criticizes this monsterocity and what it is doing to the historic heritage of Islam and world heritage, some of you folks get testy. But, it seems even Tom of Chicago is in agreement with you on this too: do not criticize this big-buck project, lest....... (fire and brimstone). We know this is Tom's web site, but c'mon man.

Either there should not be a thread on Mecca, or if there is, then it should be treated like--say, St. Petersburg, Russia: A historic city damaging its own heritage by going out of control with big building project, not a kid-glove case where any substantive criticism is slated as "rant" and hushed up. What is going on? Has a Saudi gov. sensor agent gotten aboard? :shrug:

Yes, if you bring up anything on the Islamic sect that destroys historic structures because they think historic structures become idols somehow and then bring away homage to Allah. So they destroy history and replace it with terrible monstrosities. But of course, this comment will be erased even though it directly relates to this project in Mecca because for some reason Tom likes censoring stuff on this thread. Whatever.

If anyone has something more mature to add, than simply joining a politically-motivated-religious-belief-infused bashfest...please do so. You know who you are, so do us a favor and don't try to dishonestly cloak your petty/angry/hateful opinions as a legitimate critique.

Upon seeing some of the up-close and detailed pics(posted upthread), it would be challenging for anyone with an open mind...to convincingly still characterize the structure as gaudy. The attention to detail is classy, the materials appear to be of high quality. It is certainly huge and unique to be sure--but then most iconic structures of the world have always been surrounded by controversy during their construction. I'd only like to see an equal effort to house the less well-to-do pilgrims.

This news came via my inbox, today:
High Speed Rail to Makkah, by 2012

It's really getting huge now

I don't give two half craps about religion, so that part of the debate about this project escapes me. But I do find this thing to be really quite cool. When it's all done, I think it might look quite good.

This will get deleted but anyway, it's not just that they are building this on a sacred site, they couldn't have chosen a cheaper design, this belongs to vegas, not to a sacred place.


And i don't know why we care about this project, mos of us can't see it live.

Well, I don't know who you are or where you are from. But its up to THEM what they consider a good design. And I find it likely they don't give two cents what anywhere here in the USA thinks about it.

That said, this is EASILY the coolest looking tower under construction IMO. I don't understand how people can yalk about how great all the "Western" style towers are where are they are is blue glass rectangular prisms or cylinders. I mean 90% of the buildings I see on this forum all look the same and then someone goes and builds something interesting and unique and everywhere here talks about how cheap it looks? TBH ity looks alot more expensive then the same old blue glass cladding that every other building under construction in the entire world is using.

You may like it, you may not, but certainly it isn't unique, when i first saw the design, two vegas resorts came to my mind:
http://aawsat.com/english/images/200.../O31708309.jpg
source (Fisrt Post of the thread)
http://i118.photobucket.com/albums/o...ip--23rd-F.jpg
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...129985&page=17
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...agio-front.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...egas%2C_NV.jpg
en.wikipedia.com
I certainly see some resemblance
I hope you get to see my post

Bbeliko, I mentioned this earlier in the thread, but it bears repeating. This building needs to be read a little more carefully. It's a palimpsest of information, and, in a way, it is referencing itself.

Look closely at the two Las Vegas hotels you posted. What style of architecture are they imitating? Yup, Venetian. And what style of architecture were Venetians imitating? Moorish & Byzantine. Arabs who settled in Spain via north Africa, and Turks.

Layered.

So there won't be any skybridges?

Interesting point about the architecture.

I really think that the designers of this structure have done a fine job preserving the integrity of traditional Islamic architecture, much more so than they've done over in Dubai.

I've long felt that traditonal Islamic forms are more beautiful than modern and traditional western ones anyway, because of the intricate, mathematical details and the higher-purposed symbolism.

I especially like how even despite its immense size, the building seems to defer to the Masjid-al-Haram in grandeur and importance.

Now you have a point:tup:

Beast.

It's not the design I dislike, it's the green glass. Makes it look cheap. I remember reading in Maclean's that green glass contains more impurities, hence it's lower price. Besides, clearer glass would give it less of a False Creek look.

http://img87.imageshack.us/img87/637...baittowers.jpg

Details of the red clouded area

http://img87.imageshack.us/img87/7914/88537042.jpg

http://img87.imageshack.us/img87/2884/84984845.jpg

http://img87.imageshack.us/img87/4462/20580920.jpg

http://img87.imageshack.us/img87/3181/96104218.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3464/...f41e519e_b.jpg

This building is come from

http://www.chapmansltplus.com/chapman_gf_clock.jpg

Thank you for the photos - the scale is deceptive, I hope we will see shots from within the tents one day.

I would argue that the towers with their current design - tacky as they may appear to Westerners - are more culturally and architecturally relevant to the setting than any high-rise you'd find in any other major city.

I'd have to hear from local people about what they think of the design, because it's not for a bunch of Americans or Europeans to decide if this is appropriate for Mecca. I'd like thier input before drawing conclusions. I'd also like to hear their input on having a commercial site so close to a sacred mosque.

Personally, I don't think the buildings look bad. Taken as a bunch they're a bit monolithic given that there isn't much else that approaches the height. But I think they do a good job of blending modern Western architectural styles that lend easily to skyscrapers with the ornate Middle Eastern styles and mosques. The only thing I'd dispute is the clock, which makes me think of London more than anything else, but I'm sure it will look better when complete.

We have to try not to antiquefy Middle Eastern culture. We get used to associating domed tops with medieval times and poor people because of images we constantly see coming in from the Middle East. Muslim culture - which constitutes about a fifth of the world - is trying hard to achieve something grandiose enough to be proud of, to re-gain the status it had in the eleventh century, and have developed a unique form of modern architecture. Many of the towers built in Dubai utilize Western developers - something the local culture is willing to tolerate in a city as cosmopolitan as Dubai - but Mecca is not that kind of city, so they went with an Islamic corporation owned by the bin Laden family.

I do have to say the rendering is really low-quality, which has prejudiced us against the buildings. There's less need for good PR in a political setting where the people don't have much say in government or planning. But the real deal is looking much better than any of the renderings indicated.

Nice to see my original post criticising the tacky, grandiose design was deleted. Let's find out if it will happen again?