MECCA | Abraj Al-Bait | 601m | 1972ft | 95 fl | T/O

[leftopolis]

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

Population (2007)
- City 1,700,000
- Density 4,200/km2 (2,625/sq mi)
- Urban 2,053,912
- Metro 2,500,000

Population (2007)
- City 3,400,000
- Density 2,921/km2 (1,826/sq mi)
- Urban 3,855,912
- Metro 4,500,000
Jeddah Municipality estimate

[JManc]

Originally Posted by leftopolis

Not quite an apt comparison...since the structure is there to primarily accomodate pilgrims.

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.

[Pizzuti]

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.

[leftopolis]

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

Abraj Albait with Jabal Omar and the western gate projects

[leftopolis]

Originally Posted by JMancuso

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 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:

[Patrick]

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.

[leftopolis]

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:

[lakegz]

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

[leftopolis]

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:

22/04/2009
Foster + Partners and Buro Happold joint venture to design four stations for Saudi Arabia’s new Haramain High-speed Railway

Foster + Partners and Buro Happold joint venture has been appointed to design four stations along a new high speed railway line in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, which will link the cities of Makkah and Madinah via Jeddah. The Haramain High-speed Railway (HHR) is a major infrastructure project, conceived to forge new social and economic links by dramatically cutting journey times between the cities in western Saudi Arabia and by providing a new transport option for many of the pilgrims making the journey to the religious cities of Makkah and Madinah.

Passing via Jeddah and the King Abdullah Economic City, the new HHR service will be operated by state-of-the-art, high-speed trains, capable of reaching speeds of up to 300 kilometres per hour. By providing an attractive alternative to the use of private vehicles, the scheme will considerably lessen the future impact of these journeys on the environment.

The HHR’s fast-track construction programme has led to a modularised approach to the station design with a high degree of prefabrication. While all stations will share a common planning strategy, each will have a distinct identity and building envelope to respond to the respective cities they serve. All will provide extensive facilities and a high quality passenger experience, with generous circulation spaces and segregated arrival and departure zones. The public areas – including platforms – will be environmentally controlled to enhance comfort and will have filtered natural daylight throughout.

Mouzhan Majidi, Chief Executive of Foster + Partners, said:
“The Haramain High-speed Rail project represents a major investment in sustainable public transport by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, with potentially far-reaching social and economic consequences. The project will foster new social and cultural connections across the Kingdom’s western cities, and the design of the four new stations will support and symbolise this progressive approach.”

Martin Walsh, Project Director at Buro Happold, said:
“The HHR is a genuinely exciting and challenging project and one of the most important transportation initiatives in the Kingdom. The innovative scalable modular approach to the design of the stations will enable the speedy delivery of high-quality station buildings – fast-track in every sense.”

[JManc]

Originally Posted by leftopolis

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.

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.

[leftopolis]

Originally Posted by JMancuso

skyscrapers have their place and i don't think right on top of historic cultural sites are it... they could have easily been built elsewhere.

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

[JManc]

Originally Posted by leftopolis

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.

[Aleks]

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.

[jbr12]

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

Atkin's proposals for Mecca's Transformation

A video detailing Atkins’ proposal to transform the Haram Mosque, one of the world’s holiest sites in the city of Mecca, has been leaked.

[Pizzuti]

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

[chiphile]

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.

[gttx]

Originally Posted by leftopolis

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

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.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by chiphile

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.

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.

[Anxious Traveler]

Originally Posted by jbr12

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

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.

[Aleks]

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.