A r c h i t e c t u r e
Mayo Clinic? No, the Imperial Medical Center of Tehran
In the field of architectural design, Iran possesses an ancient tradition of excellence; the nation then, had a unique opportunity to create a significant, contemporary architecture. The process of industrialization had resulted in a growing middle class which seeked a modern rather than traditional life. Burgeoning urban areas required a whole new stock of buildings, from dwellings to social institutions. Industrialization had brought about the manufacture and importation of all types of building materials and techniques, and it was providing the economic mechanism to finance large amounts of construction. These were the practical conditions prevailing; and much ingredients for a productive aesthetic condition existed as well.
The long and well-documented history of classic Iranian architecture is itself a rich heritage from which new forms were derived. This tradition of creative design can be traced in actual examples from the Achaemenian Empire to the Qajar Dynasty in the nineteenth century. At that time, imitation of European styles and motifs became a dominant concern and the continuity of indigenous architectural development was broken, an instance of the severance of cultural roots. However, the hiatus, which lasted beyond the occupation by foreign powers during World War II and the later beginnings of industrialization, did leave the aesthetic ground free.
There was a group of talented young architects in Iran who were developing a new design philosophy stemming from a conviction that there is no need to imitate either the past or the building styles already produced by other nations. They believed that design solutions must grow directly out of the cultural background to satisfy the requirements of the nation's future. Indeed, many of the world's most respected architects and planners agree that Iran at that moment had an unparalleled opportunity to learn from and avoid the mistakes of those countries which had already passed well beyond the industrial revolution. It could create something entirely new without the constraints of insurmountable financial limitations or overburdening tradition.
There was also the temptation to design "tourist architecture"- to apply standard motifs in a pastiche attempt to "Persianize" modern forms. At the opposite extreme was the danger of being too fond of al. things foreign. The nation's construction demand made it particularly vulnerable to "imported system" which could quickly fill a need but could not be suitable for Iran's conditions or the people's requirements.
Although there was certainly a place for the work of foreign architects in Iran, one must realize that for the most part they were here only temporarily and their iinterest was most often limited to the project in hand . There were a few who could nevertheless give Iran examples of high-quality modern architecture to stand alongside others anywhere in the world - as France's Le Corbusier did in India, as the American Louis Kahn did in Bangladesh, as Finland's Aalto did in the United States and was doing in Iran upon his death. During the Pahlavi Era there were internationally known architects from around the globe making their marks ir Iran, such as Kenzo Tange and I. M. Pei, to name but two, from the far east and the far west. Indeed, the interchange of ideas brought about by such contacts with the new and the foreign was necessary for growth and Iran has historically thrived on just such condi tions.
In one respect, the distinctive assimilating and synthesizing approach of the creative Jranian mind was already at work not only among graduates of universities here, but also among young architects and planners who had received their training abroad and had recently returned at the time to their homeland. Combined with professional knowledge and expertise gained in foreign places and a skill with foreign styles, one found in them a renewed and genuine appreciation of their culture and its values. This resulted in a growing concern with developing Iranian solutions to building programs from a single dwelling to an entire town. And equally as important, there was the conviction that this can be done right then.
For the future, it is this kind of concern and the attempt to express it in actual projects which will assure the quality of Iranian architecture. It is both impossible and hardly important to arrive at "final solutions" to modern Iranian design, for the society, particularly because it is predominantly young, will continue developing in new directions with new requirements. In the long run, it is not the container which is of first importance, but the contents: it is not the visual perfection of the city and its buildings which is the primary goal, but the quality of life of the inhabitants. What had already been planned embodied a vision of "Iran tomorrow" as a major world center linking East and West in a modern version of the ancient Silk Route which once passed through her borders. It envisioned a well-rounded society which concerned itself with culture as well as technology, with philosophy as well as commerce, with the quality of life as well as the quantity of production. The elements of greatness were there - in the land land in the people.
Adapted from a 1977 article by E. Nader Khalili and Moira Moser-Khalili, Editors of Vision.