These appalling architectural non-styles
My editorial last Sunday tackled a topic that is commonly shelved, that of architectural violations in buildings erected in urban settlements outside the Cairo urban cordon, which I denominated as “new Cairo”. I wrote that, to prove my point, I will assign a team of Watani reporters to roam new Cairo and capture photographs of the architectural models I deplored, in order to publish them together with an analysis into how they defy established architectural styles, yet offer no new alternative style. Yet after giving the matter more thought, I decided to slow down and not to rush into the matter for two reasons.
First, by capturing photographs of buildings that display the architectural models intended for scrutiny, I could be violating laws that prohibit infringement against private property. Second, ethical standards require seeking permission from the owners of the buildings in question, and informing them of the reason for taking photos of their buildings.
Accordingly, I decided to wait before launching a photoshoot of the buildings that demonstrate the haphazard architecture born and reared in new Cairo. Until I find a legal and ethical answer to the privacy glitch, I will rely on explanation and verbal description of models of the architectural violations that I mentioned. I hope that this would help highlight the issue in question, and draw parameters to address it and curb its escalation.
Let me first point out that the flagrant models that drove me to open this file, do not necessarily belong to the residential walled compounds confined to specific areas. These possess, in the most part, unified architectural styles specific to the respective compounds, although this does not mean they are all free of violations. But the scope of this critique does not span all their architectural solutions, so we will only focus on architectural violations of private property outside walled residential compounds.
Before tackling violations, let me first express my respect and appreciation of the remarkable architectural endeavours displayed on the façades of public, administrative and commercial buildings. The architectural solutions offered in these buildings often rely on glass formations whether these are employed independently, or in conjunction with other lines of modern architecture. This style was first used in Egypt at the outset of the third millennium in the Smart Village west of Cairo, which boasts inspirational models of such architecture that later spread in administrative and commercial buildings in new Cairo.
As to architectural violations in private buildings in new Cairo, I begin by pointing to a disturbing ignorance of the fundamentals of the architectural styles that can be used to adorn façades. This ignorance results in architectural crimes committed under the pretext of creating “beautiful [grand] façades”, but ending up with façades that feature an alarming mélange of different styles, a mélange that is in stark violation of the rudimentary fundamentals of the styles emulated.
How can a regular three-storey residential building feature a huge dome? The dome matches neither the building’s size nor its function, it is a mere uncalled-for decorative element.
It is common to see Greek or Roman style columns used extensively in modern buildings, obviously without any understanding of the main role of such columns as load bearing elements in a building. The time honoured architectural principle is that columns carry loads of the top of the building to its foundation in the ground. In the modern buildings, however, columns are turned into mock elements thrust onto façades [for an impression of grandeur] as decorative elements; they stand on a base or bases on any of the floors, with nothing to do with the distribution or bearing of loads. It is the reinforced concrete columns of the building that carry the loads; the Greco-Roman columns are no more than an architectural farce that defies structural logic.
Modern structural engineering has introduced the idea of basing a column that carries the loads of the upper floors on -a concrete cantilever that transfers the loads to internal columns which in turn carry them to the bases and foundation. This has nothing to do with any Greek or Roman architectural style; the architects of today who do this introduce non-warranted, non-familiar architectural forms.
When did the cylindrical column become an architectural element that could be stuck to a building wall? In all architectural styles, the cylindrical column is free, not attached to the building; half or three-quarter cylindrical columns can be attached to walls, but never a fully cylindrical column. I cannot imagine any visual justification for sticking a cylindrical column to the façade of a building; let alone the difficulty of accessing the back of the column for finishing or for maintenance or cleaning purposes.
These are but samples of the architectural violations I deplore. They condemn the architects who designed them and the contactors who executed the designs. Also guilty are the building departments and apparatuses responsible for approving them. Perhaps I would get the chance in upcoming editorials to elaborate on this appalling topic, until we could present pictures to prove our point, but that only after fulfilling the legal and ethical requirements to do so.