216 Sheikh Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan Mosque

When we were called in on the project, the construction of the mosque was already well advanced. The design of the gigantic building had been based, remarkably, on a watercolour submitted by a specialised team of Arabian architects within the framework of a competition. Neither plans nor a model initially accompanied this fantasy drawing. Companies from all over the world were subsequently contacted with the specification of converting the watercolour into plans for construction and, ultimately, into built architecture.

In the spring of 2002, we received a kind of brief on the aspects of the project that were found unsatisfactory from a liturgical point of view. The basic structure of the mosque was complete by that time and it was to be ready for use by the end of 2002. We were asked to take a thorough look at the entire project. We approached it as if it were a contemporary archaeological dig, giving a great deal of thought to what was already there and how the parts could be brought together to create a meaningful whole. Possibly the Sheikh had chosen to contact us because we had shown at Tate Modern that it was possible to remake and renew a gigantic, existing building. Or had he sought us out because we’ve been experimenting for years with ornamentation, which is a fundamental feature of Islamic culture? The Sheikh’s architectural consultant was a graduate of the Architectural Association School of Architecture in London. We had been told by independent observers that she was highly intelligent but clearly overwhelmed by the task at hand. However, the documents that we received were extremely perceptive and astute. There is, moreover, highly instructive literature on the subject, in particular by the Egyptian architect Hassan el Fahdi, who has dealt explicitly with the architecture of contemporary mosques.

We singled out various identifiable liturgical and architectural elements of the complex and responded to them very specifically, submitting several options. A major concern, for example, were the landscaping and the parking facilities. The mosque is situated in the midst of the desert on a plot of land surrounded by motorways. Like a stadium, it will be visited by thousands of people. Hence, the following questions arose: how should the mosque be placed, how does the landscape lead up to it, how should access for so many people be designed? A second concern was the prayer hall, a third the ablution area for the faithful, etc. We addressed these points individually and made concrete proposals for each of them, ranging from simple, extremely pragmatic proposals to major, complex modifications. For example, in the large prayer hall, we proposed dismantling the dome and rebuilding it, but we also considered the possibility of making no changes to what had already been built but rather adding additional segments in order to make better use of the prayer hall.

We proceeded very pragmatically, adhering closely to the client’s brief and taking a conceptual, step-by-step approach to the problem. We tried to enter into a dialogue with the client, anticipating that he would respond to our suggestions. However, we never received any really concrete reactions. We contacted the client and kept making inquiries because we wanted to know whether we were moving in the right direction. At some point we realized that we were not the only architects involved although we had made it clear from the start that we were interested in the project only if we could conduct a dialogue exclusively with the client. We also discovered that others had already tried their hand at the project, most recently the French architect Paul Andreux. Although we were told that Andreux was no longer involved, our doubts were not entirely dispelled. It became obvious that the client was not showing all his cards.

It was difficult to determine exactly what was expected of us. We made suggestions regarding the possible course of the entire project in terms of time and expense. In this respect the feedback we received was unequivocal: too expensive and too time-consuming although even our optimistic time estimates were not really feasible. It became clear that the client had no idea of what was involved. For example, because cladding in white marble entails extravagant amounts of time and money, we suggested a simplification of the materials, which would have required tackling basic concepts of design as well as dialogue and negotiation with the client. We ourselves had already long felt that we were not getting an adequate response from the client. We rarely received any replies to the precisely worded letters that we sent with great regularity. It often took a long time for our telephone calls to be returned. Finally we became concerned because payments were delayed or not made at all. In consequence we put the project on a back burner because it did not make sense to keep our team of 10 people tied up in the project.

A few days before we were to fly to Abu Dhabi for a final presentation, we received a letter saying that our services would no longer be required. From the start we were fully aware that we needed to be extremely careful not to hurt any feelings but we realized too late that an entirely different business strategy would have been more appropriate. The last letter we sent contained a kind of “History of the Project”, a confirmation that we had stopped working on it and an attempt to obtain outstanding payments so that at least our expenses would be covered. We were enormously disappointed for we had structured the project so that it would result in an almost exemplary study of the contemporary architectural treatment of a mosque. The subject had interested us for a long time and we had repeatedly emphasized our great admiration of Muslim architecture and civilization. It is a civilization that has produced numerous elements of central significance to our understanding of architecture, including courtyards, gardens and a highly distinctive treatment of ornament and surface.

In the final analysis we wondered whether H&dM’s strategy of dialogue and negotiation was not a priori doomed to failure. Possibly our method of developing ideas in collaboration with the client and with a maximum of flexibility and openness cannot function in such countries. Perhaps it would make more sense to work out a framework that involves a fixed ideological and simplified method. This question is of great urgency since in the future the markets that will be of interest and importance are China, Russia and the Arab nations. It will no longer be enough to simply climb into an airplane and fly off to a promising project. Every one of these projects will require highly specialized political and legal advisory and consulting services from start to finish: from the first step to the inauguration of the building and, in fact, continuing until all guarantees have expired. Our mistake in Abu Dhabi was that we focused entirely on the subject matter at hand, on the content, without recognizing and taking into account the cultural gap. But we must do more than overcome the cultural gap; our “failure” is also a hint, an indication of a changing architectural dialogue in the 21st century – for those of us in the West as well.

Herzog & de Meuron, 2005