Filling the Gaps

George Arbid interviewed by Joyce Joumaa on Oscar Niemeyer’s project for the Rashid Karami International Fair in Tripoli

JJ: First, I’d like you to talk about your career as director of the Arab Center for Architecture.
GA: The Arab Center for Architecture was founded in 2008. Its objective is to collect archives and stimulate a debate around architecture in the Arab world. When I was conducting a study on modern architecture in Lebanon as part of my doctoral dissertation, I realized that I had assembled a large quantity of information that was worth being shared beyond a circle of friends and experts. Undeniably, at the time, there was a dearth of documentation, dispersed in different places, and I began to collect and assemble it for researchers. After that, we officially founded this not-for-profit association to continue the work that I had begun as an individual. Every day, we realize how many gaps we have to fill, especially in terms of archives and specialized documentation.

Behind the scenes of a research interview conducted at the Arab Center for Architecture, Beirut, in the context of كیف لا نغرق في السراب / To Remain in the No Longer, 2022. © Joyce Joumaa

JJ: What can you tell us about Oscar Niemeyer’s vision for the Rashid Karami International Fair in Tripoli when he was commissioned to design the project?
GA: According to the articles that were written at the time and Niemeyer’s statement when he received the commission for the project, he clearly didn’t intend to create a fairground in which each exhibiting country would stand out. He didn’t want to make architectural extravaganzas. He was aiming for a sort of democratization of the pavilions, and that was reflected in his concept. He designed a tent-shaped roof, which was built of concrete, and he also wanted to have a great deal of water, the symbol of life, to freshen the atmosphere and play with reflections of the architectural forms. His plan was much bigger than what is there now, even though the Lebanese government had not asked him for this. He suggested that housing be added so that the fairground would be connected to the city and not be isolated; he imagined an urban space with buildings arranged around the fair, making the site spacious and open to the horizon. The Lebanese government rejected the idea of residential buildings because they weren’t part of the initial project, which was already beyond the government’s means. It was decided that the site would be fenced although Niemeyer was against this idea. The large building devoted to the exhibitions, which we like to call the Boomerang because it tilts to the right, was nevertheless built. Construction of the fair was a technical feat. Part was built on site, and part was prefabricated and the different pieces were then assembled; this can be seen both in the plans and on the site itself. The buildings are harmonious in height, length, and width, like those in a park or a large garden; they resemble each other but their shapes are unique.

There was one very special aspect of Niemeyer’s projects, here and elsewhere: he built a project somewhere, then he would recycle it, experimenting by modifying and expanding or reducing it. He was very much ahead of his time. It’s notable that most of his buildings have a single axis of composition, as if each form has to be complete and self-sufficient. Perspective and the architectural promenade are of prime importance in his designs.
JJ: Lebanese contractors were involved in its construction, right?
GA: The fair itself is unique with regard to both its design and its execution, as it reflects numerous construction techniques and the skill and ingenuity of the contributing architects, local engineers, and contractors from Tripoli and elsewhere. In the 1960s, modern architecture in Lebanon already had momentum, and twenty to thirty years’ experience working with all kinds of concrete had been accumulated. Where did this expertise come from? Artisans who had mastered their art and had turned to teaching their discipline. Because this expertise was very widespread, contractors were able to respond to the avant-garde ideas of local or foreign architects. Niemeyer was an international architect, but, at that time, there were also local architects and engineers who had studied in Lebanon or abroad and had produced unique modern architecture, and all of their work must be considered an architectural heritage. The Arab world in general was overflowing with modernity, but unfortunately, retrograde ideas led people to think that “heritage” meant exclusively ancient heritage.

JJ: To what extent can we consider this project a turnaround in the history of modernism or of modern architecture?
GA: There’s no doubt that the Tripoli international fair was unique for its size and its design. It’s a symbol of modern architecture. But we mustn’t forget that this project faced much resistance, notably by local architects who didn’t understand why an international architect had been chosen. This phenomenon exists everywhere. Nevertheless, when such a rivalry serves to spark modern architectural experiments, it is beneficial. Niemeyer certainly was influenced by other architects, and Lebanese architects, in turn, were inspired by his designs, whether in Lebanon or elsewhere. When he arrived in Lebanon, it was an era rich with experimentation: the country was ready to see technical and intellectual ideas come to life. The Lebanese government aspired to a thriving future for the country. Obviously, time and subsequent events showed that the task wasn’t so simple; stability was difficult to come by, and the fair wasn’t exploited to its full potential. This is not irreversible – we can still reach this objective. It is still possible for both the fair and the city to benefit, because, in the end, the fair is situated in a city that has many needs but also enormous potential.
JJ: Mousbah Rajab¹ thinks that the fair is out of scale in relation to the city, but what do you think?
GA: Opinions diverge on this question: some think that the project exceeds the city’s needs, and others feel that it competes with the city, but in my view, history has proved the contrary. Even without the fair, the city would have still impinged on farmland and on the lemon and orange orchards. The fair is an indispensable outlet, and its size corresponds to the scope of the urban-planning problem the city is facing. I would have liked to see the initial project completed. Then, there would have been better interaction between the city and the fair, it would not have been fenced off, and everyone would have had access to it. I think that it was very large given the era during which it was constructed, but the expansion of the city proved that in the end its size corresponded to urbanization needs.

Mousbah Rajab is an urban planning professor at the Faculty of Fine Arts & Architecture of the Lebanese University. He specializes in the problem of heritage preservation in Lebanon and urban governance. ↩

Georges Doumani, architect. Pages from a report titled Mission à Paris : Consultations avec M. Oscar Niemeyer sur des problèmes de la Foire de Tripoli [Mission to Paris: Consultations with Mr Oscar Niemeyer on the issues of the Tripoli Fair], dated “from 3 to 9 February 1972.” Courtesy of the Arab Center for Architecture

Mitri Nammar, Lebanon’s Director of Urban Planning. Pages from a report titled Mission à Paris : Consultations avec M. Oscar Niemeyer sur des problèmes de la Foire de Tripoli [Mission to Paris: Consultations with Mr Oscar Niemeyer on the issues of the Tripoli Fair], dated “from 3 to 9 February 1972.” Courtesy of the Arab Center for Architecture

JJ: Given that Niemeyer began the project in 1962 and the war broke out in 1975, what happened during this ten-year period before the project was stopped completely?
GA: Any large-scale project like this presents risks, because history is almost never linear. What we predict is always different from the reality; this site is a prime example of the effect of the time that passed—the consequences of war or of economic instability. The fairground was occupied by the army, and there were various attempts to operate it with projects doomed to failure because they weren’t a good match for the buildings. The difficulties that the fair encountered at that time were quite common, economic in nature, but they are insignificant compared to its potential, despite its current state. Its size is equal to the complexity of the problem that it poses but also to the importance of the solution that it could offer, which could be beneficial to the city. And so, the obstacles encountered—political or economic instability, lack of funding—created a hindrance to the project at the time, but modern architecture didn’t stop at that moment.

It takes time to build a project like this. It is completely normal that during such a period of time external factors intervene. Many things have been said about this project, and numerous articles have questioned its usefulness. I’ve worked a great deal with my students on projects that exploit the fairground to organize contemporary activities. Among those that involve the old buildings, some propose to return them to their initial function; others, to change their function. The design of these types of buildings offers the possibility of modifying or recycling them in this way. This is a case study of sustainable architecture that reuses existing structures without having to demolish or reconstruct. These are processes that have been widely used in our region.
JJ: You mention students. How did they work on the fair site, and how did you teach this subject, as a university professor?
GA: I asked my students to work on two big projects on the fairground: to design a pavilion under the Boomerang, and to work on the building situated at the entrance to the site, which is currently a carpentry shop. Their projects are inspired by the simplicity that characterizes Niemeyer’s work. They were able to change the function of these buildings while preserving their architectural characteristics. No one should become obsessive, constantly wondering what Niemeyer would have done if he were still alive. He lived in his time, and times have changed, the range of materials has evolved. We have observed that some materials suffer the vicissitudes of the climate and can see what we should change, avoid, and work differently in the end. A building is a reflection of its era and of a level of expertise.

JJ: Could you talk about the application for inclusion in the UNESCO World Heritage List and your involvement with it?
GA: I didn’t contribute to the application for inclusion on the UNESCO World Heritage List, but the desire for inclusion has become self-evident given the urgent need to conserve the structures because they are at risk of collapse or deterioration. Inclusion on the World Heritage List could mean financial support due to the visibility that it would garner. The conditions for operating the site would be more regulated to ensure that it is preserved. Very few properties related to modern architecture have been classified in the Arab world, so this would be a real step forward. Also, people often wonder what is meant by “heritage.” I like to say that heritage is a group of successive modernizations. When we look closely, we find that the heritage of the seventeenth century was considered modern in its time. In the eighteenth century, too, we find a heritage that was considered modern in its time. Then come the heritages of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Although these successive modernizations have offered us something we can define as heritage, we shouldn’t imitate them – because if we do, we won’t produce a heritage to bequeath to the future. The idea of a modern heritage is therefore not a terminological contradiction; “modern” and “heritage” aren’t two distinct entities but a homogeneous ensemble, as soon as we grasp the meaning of the words “heritage and modernity.” The prevailing idea is that heritage is old, in principle, because in the end modern heritage is not considered heritage. This idea is false, as it represents the modernity of our peoples, and we have to accept the idea that we have contributed to it. I consider this question essential on the political level.

Related exhibition

To Remain in the No Longer

Failed Bureaucracy

Tripoli: Who Took Away Our Land? (Part 1)

Tripoli: Who Took Away Our Land? (Part 2)

Filling the Gaps

George Arbid interviewed by Joyce Joumaa on Oscar Niemeyer’s project for the Rashid Karami International Fair in Tripoli

Search