Perhaps not a surprise to others, but Makkah Province--which includes Mecca and nearby Jeddah--has a more sizeable population than I expected. The province is also rapidly growing, so I think we can expect alot more urban architecture from these cities.
Mecca - Wikipedia

it dominates the entire setting. the hotels around the vatican blend in with their surroundings which in turn, compliments the vatican. not compete with it.

plus, i would imagine the amount of tourists rome gets annually is more or less the same as the pilgrims to the hajj.

I don't think the Vatican is exactly like Mecca as a holy place. There are similarities, which I pointed out earlier, but Mecca is considerably "holier."

You literally cannot be considered a devout Muslim if you don't perform the hajj. Visiting Mecca is, essentially, a sacrament. Remember that Muslims across the world face Mecca when they pray five times a day.

The Vatican may be the seat of the Catholic pope, the head of the church government, but it is of no real significance to Catholics living elsewhere; Christ never visited there, there is no prophesy about anything happening in the Vatican, there is no compulsion to go there, and if the church moved its capitol somewhere else the religion would not change (it actually did, temporarily, a few times in history during political conflicts or wars).

The commercialization of Mecca is more comparable to the commercialization of, say, communion wafers in Catholicism. Like imagine if a company were selling communion hosts at a profit. Or if you could pick them up after mass at a Starbucks inside the church next to the rectory.

Now I'm not saying that this building "commercializes" Mecca - but I would say that its a potential political conflict in the future if staying at these hotels becomes intrinsic to performing the hajj. I'd really like to hear from some Muslim insiders, who live in Mecca or have performed the hajj before, on this project. I wouldn't expect strong opposition but if more of these kinds of buildings go up (which I'm sure will happen) I bet criticism would emerge.

I meant to add this to my earlier post wrt the developing urban nature of the city. Don't have much info on this, but it's from SSC
http://img50.imageshack.us/img50/5830/mk1.jpg

I don't know about the respective tourist numbers, but not everybody going to Rome, is there to see the Catholic Vatican. Also, even if the visitor numbers were equal--there's a big difference between annual vs jamming that same number into a 3 day period.

I just didn't see any comparison with the ESB--which I understood to be specifically a commercial/office enterprise, and Rome was already a big, built-out city, millenia ago. It's possible they wouln't have the room for a new mega-structure. Mecca was a small city until very recently...366K from the 1974 census. Also, The Vatican/Rome is not a place that regularly has 1-2 million people descend upon it, to my knowledge.

I'm not going to quibble over somebody's opinion regarding degree of tackiness--that's a characteristic that varies with the eye of the beholder. I'm certainly not interested in starting up what amounts to be another crusade: The media's done a damn good job of that over recent years in creating a devisive atitude when it comes to Christianity and Islam. Furthermore, there's already been plenty of bashing, in that vein, on this thread. Ironic, considering that both faiths read the bible.

There are plenty of examples of either faith, going over the line in some people's perceptions, when it comes to blending religion with commercialism. When I was in Mexico, I visited the shrine at Gudalupe. I also visited Mayan Temples. They all had vendors selling chachkas. To me, a big-ass hotel and mall selling religious paraphenalia right next to a Muslim shrine, is on the same scale as a hotel advertising itself with a picture suggesting getting liquored-up while overlooking a Christian shrine. I also comprehend it's a nuanced world, so I can see how you might not see it exactly that way.

I agree it dominates--I'm just OK with it:
1) Given some of the other proposals, I fully expect it to be part of a much greater urban mass of hig-rises. It'll still dominate, but over an expanded skyline as opposed to being a skyline in itself currently.
2) The shrine it overlooks is a place of gathering for huge crowds. The faith encourages it's 1 billion+ adherents--to go there at least once in their lifetime. It's not like the Vatican in that sense. It's definitely not a place of solitude or quit contemplation, the way some other spiritual shrines might be. The only comparison that comes to mind is perhaps The Kumba Mela, in India. Here's a pic of a recent one:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/55/Mela.jpg

It's all so overwhelming and so hard to comprehend, everything seems so messy, cheaply built, and very very confusing. It looks cool but seems so unpractical, I also hate how everything's so squished up next to the gorgeous Mosque. gives me a headache just thinking about it.

If the controversy is "skyscrapers next to places of worship"...
 

I'm curious whether urban enthusiasts felt that the skyscrapers in this pic--were somehow innappropriate, overwhelming, or "squishing" St, Patrick's Cathedral in NY, as urbanism enroached. Some even look cheaply made.
From Here:

http://www.visitingdc.com/images/st-...hedral-nyc.jpg

^I'm sorry but that comparison has FAIL written all over it.

I don't know if there's a separate "Mecca" thread--but this seems related, considering the sheer size of the building this thread is about. Foster and Partners are involved in designing stations for the new HSR being constructed in Saudia Arabia--connecting Mecca and Medina via the large urban center of Jeddah, which is also where most international pilgrims first arrive.

From Foster and Partners:

the empire state building is a huge skyscraper. the al-bait towers will be huge skyscrapers. skyscrapers have their place and i don't think right on top of historic cultural sites are it. so far, you have not convinced me why they need to be built in that spot. they could have easily been built elsewhere.

a 17th century ottoman era building was demolished to make room for the the al-bait towers. so mecca didn't really have the room either. at least not in the immediate proximity of the mosque.

Fair enough...Do you also apply this philosophy to the skyscrapers engulfing the gothic-style cathedral in NYC(a few posts up)?

not really no because neither st. patrick's itself or the land it sits on has any significance other than accommodating the local archdiocese in a major city. it's not a 1,500 year old holy site. st. patrick's is significant but it took a century for us to truly appreciate it.

I think they chose the site because it makes sense. The site was probably the only "available" land near the mosque where developers could build a giant complex to accommodate pilgrims. It also makes sense having the complex within a comfortable walking distance. This creates less hassle during the times the pilgrims need to go to the mosque and it saves the government a butt-load of money. If the complex was farther away, the government would have to provide comfortable transportation to-and-from the mosque which could mean millions of dollars wasted.

Sure there will be a high-speed rail built soon but that's designed for long distances, not 1 mile lines. The huge complex also makes more sense than having hundreds of small buildings scattered throughout the entire surrounding are of the mosque which would mean even more lost history.

Now I can see that future plans call for even more destruction of surrounding buildings, which is not the best idea in my opinion. I still feel like the government can do a better job with the layout of the area. But by incorporating several "complex-cities", the pilgrims can get more comfort, less destruction, less distance, and more money saved. Also, these complexes can assure that more people can attend at once without having to worry about overcrowding, it creates more organization which means the gov can keep track of people easier than ever before and it adds a better look to the surrounding area.

We also don't know much about that area in general. How do we know many of those structures are even historic? How many are original and how many were built in the 70's? I too would like to hear from a pilgrim so that we get a better understanding of the situation. In some ways I like the idea of this complex and in others I don't. But overall is we look at it from every point possible, the positives seem to outweigh the negatives.

Hope this is an appropriate place to post this... You can see a ghosted Abraj Al-Bait Towers in the background of the video.

http://www.bdonline.co.uk/story.asp?...de=3140848&c=1

^Wow, that's fascinating video, but what an awful clash between that architecture and the architecture of the mosque!

I am also Muslim and have visited Mecca 3 times in my life.

One of the the biggest disappointments I felt was the loss of history. Architecture that inspires nostalgia of an earlier time is important for places like this, and I never got a sense of awe and wonder when I was in the actual city - the shops and streets all looked too modern.

The actual mosque however melts your heart, and you feel the powerful symbol of Islamic monotheism, of humanity united and facing one direction, and I don't think that can ever change. Once you are inside the structure, which is truly magnificent, the rest of the city is forgotten.

However, this observation of mine was made before this monstrosity could be seen from the inside the grand mosque, which I feel is the worst part. Was something as tall as the sears tower necessary to be that close? Most of my Muslim friends who have visited recently say it is atrocious, not because of its architecture or design, but because of its proximity.

Nevertheless, I love how the internet has made us all one global community and everyone is welcome to critique how something looks, no matter what culture it belongs to. If the Saudis were more democratic and actually listened to people, perhaps we would've had a better design.

Skyscrapers on 5th Avenue in New York City are about as far as you can get from skyscrapers nearly on top of Islam's holiest site. Sorry, but the comparison just isn't working.

my sentiments exactly. english heritage forbade any office building to be built high enough to be seen from the confines of the tower of london but this never stopped london from building skyscrapers as they built them elsewhere.

i would imagine if you were standing in the middle of the mosque, these towers would draw focus away from the kaaba itself.

The very ending of the video is horrible in my mind. It is a proposal to eventually replace the entire mosque with this new "plan." All of the history, beauty, and religious significance (excluding the actual Kabba) would be completely destroyed. Do they not realize how holly and historic that structure is? It's like tearing down Vatican City and making a more modern and larger one, completely destroying the beauty and history.

I don't think that tearing it down is a proposal. The only proposal is the small wing next to the doors. Personally I find the development of this new wing better than nothing and probably better than any other proposal.

But I do agree that replacing the entire mosque is too much. Even if they do in fact end up rebuilding it somewhere else.

At the end of the video, it mentions that this design proposal is only phase 1. It then continues to show removal of the existing buildings and these double height structures surrounding the ring... however please note this quote:

That doesn't mean the other 12 firms aren't still moving forward with proposals tho.

I'm interested in seeing what these proposals are. More height is good I think; better than tearing down the walls of the current mosque. Better to see OVER them than eliminate them. I think the best design would be something like a tiered structure (as the current design is 2 tiers; the next one would have 3 or more and each one would be taller so the higher levels have a good view), that could eventually wrap around the current mosque but doesn't entail tearing down parts of the mosque and has very similar architecture to the mosque. It could have an old-fashioned facade but still have really modern amenities (especially on the outer part) like elevators (perhaps glass elevators), fountains and pools.

Ideally it would also have room for growth; they could make it strong enough to build additional levels as needed. Hey, it might even be used to block views from these skyscrapers that are supposed to go up all around.

I'm not saying that is the best thing to do, but I think one thing is clear: the "intimacy" of the current mosque will someday be lost as expansion is a requirement. It's gonna be huge, always proportional to the global Muslim population and their wealth (because the wealthier they are the more often they will do the hajj and increase the numbers there during a given year). There can be smaller mosques around for locals or for more intimate experiences there, but the main one is going to end up being huge.

Pizzuti:

Here's a pic of a proposal--not sure if it has anything to do with the video--it doesn't have anything to do with changing the Al Haram(sp?) Mosque(which can be seen on the left edge of the pic). It's scheduled to go behind the Abraj Al Bait--which is conspicuously missing in the render.

http://img10.imageshack.us/img10/9340/makkah6764740.jpg
http://img10.imageshack.us/img10/9340/makkah6764740.jpg

Those canyons between the skyscrapers look kinda cool. I imagine these buildings will be flowing with people.

Yikes!!! I gotta admit I don't like that architecture at all, it's a bit Star Wars. And I don't like the idea of eliminating streets in a city to replace them with enclosed spaces. Streets are nice.

But the hugeness of it is impressive at least.

Imagine living in one of the small buildings at the base of that thing!

The project is called: Darb Al-Khalil...if anybody wanted to look up more info. Here's another render which shows it up close at street level and with [the back of] Abraj Al Bait, in the background. I know, the first pic doesn't seem to show a street--maybe it's just various ideas of the same proposal.

http://img478.imageshack.us/img478/5027/35476253bf7.jpg
http://img478.imageshack.us/img478/5027/35476253bf7.jpg

And from HOK: http://www.hok.com/xml/work/project/...images/1_1.jpg
http://www.hok.com/xml/work/project/...images/1_1.jpg

OK, I think I figured out my confusion regarding the two proposals and the different look...They are two different proposals for two adjacent locations. The first pic (star wars-ish, w/ deep narrow canyons between bulildings), is Rawabi Abraj Al-BAit. It's the one scheduled for directly behind the massive Abraj Al-Bait(which this thread is about)! The second two pics(mostly shorter towers, surrounded by a road), are Darb Al-Khalil. In fact, in the HOK pic of Darb Al-Khalil, one can see an adjacent plot of bare land--that's where Rawabi Abraj Al-BAit, is expected to be built.

Hopefully, that didn't add to the confusion.:shrug:

I may have passed the info over somewhere, but how many people are these new towers along with Abraj Al-Brait supposed to accommodate? Are they mostly for pilgrims or will there be alot of new residences built as well?

From what I understand, a little of both. Saudi Arabia's population is growing rapidly, including that of Mecca...Which looks to have grown in recent decades, even faster than Phoenix, AZ: From World Gazeteer:
Mecca's economy primarily revolves around the Hajj...3-4 million pilgrims come into town...

As Hajj begins, more changes and challenges in store

guys now its very nice place and i think i doesn't feel you Confused or annoying you because there will be a lot of ppl there and some thing like that i guess that will be not big problem but generally its good 70 - 80 % very good Thanks for you all nice because we are looking for some thing good in the internet like that and i wanna some people more to pm my email is yas_2005_5@hotmail.com i need some one to pm me support me i really need some help from some one know a lot of thing about skyscrapers(architect.) i know i talking a lot so thanks all but when you send a message to me show engineer word or some thing of the name of the message to know .

^Well that was /almost/ a sentance. . . j/k welcome to the forums. . .:cool:

Those renders are nice.:)

Updates

The renderings make it look really fat but it's pretty decently proportioned.

.

Lol, damn, there are a lot of American cars in Saudi Arabia o_O

Nice photos. That's a huge complex.

What a POS. Ridiculous in every aspect. Mecca: the Casino/Hotel.

But very nice pics ;)

How tall is it now? 350m?

Wow! It's really looking majestic(despite the nearby construction ruble). The progress is impressive, too--the whole area is practically an instant urban jungle.

Does anyone know what the price tag is on the whole project in US dollars?
Is it all hotel, or are there some permanant private residences here?

Seems like a tacky, supersized Las Vegas Casino, with a giant evil moon symbol at the top. I could care less whether its built ontop of some sacred site, the country is a tyranny anyways. The whole point is, this thing wouldn't look good in any city! I mean even in Vegas it wouldn't look right. But if they want to make Mecca ugly, than by all means go ahead!

Culwulla's diagram:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3422/...af204cbf_o.jpg


Progress over 1 year:

Damn, that's gonna be a big ass clock! What's that egg-like looking thing at the base of the spire? Also, where does the "official" roof end? Will there be habitable floors above the giant clock?

Hmmm, I smell product placement. IWC, Patek, Lange, Breguet - the possibilities are endless!

As awful as that would be, I wouldn't put it past the same people who demolished buildings from the time of The Prophet to put this up.

here is a nice rendering from the Dubai Chronicle. does anyone know what the writing at the top of the tower says?

http://www.dubaichronicle.com/wp-con...-al-bait.jpg?d
http://www.dubaichronicle.com/busine...in-makkah-1509

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...Moskau_Uni.jpg
(Moscow University)

I'm sorry if someone has already made the connection between the Abraj Al-Bait towers and Stalinist Architecture. I'm sure it wasn't the intent of the Saudis to mirror the authoritarian style.

I wouldn't be surprised it was an observation deck.

the writing at the top is the word ALLAH (GOD)