In October 1968, the United States Congress decided to
develop a site in Washington, D.C. designed to accommodate an international
diplomatic center. Two years later, under the authority of the Secretary of
State, the National Planning Commission approved a master plan for the
center which was located on federally-owned land at the Bureau and
Standards site on Connecticut Avenue and Van Ness Street, in northwest
Washington. The site was to consist of 14 lots, housing chanceries of
foreign governments as well as the international headquarters of the
Organization of African States. The General Services Administration later
prepared plans for streets, utilities and public space development which
were also approved by the commission.
Israel was the first country to apply for a plot
allotment. In 1973, Simcha Dinitz - then Israel's Ambassador to
Washington - received in the name of the state, the corner lot at Van Ness
Street and Reno Road, and with the assistance of Washington developer
Robert Kogod, engaged a local architectural firm to prepare preliminary
drawings for the new chancery building.
Both the National Planning Commission and the Washington
Fine Arts Commission had to review and approve the plans submitted by each
foreign government, first at the conceptual design stage and again in their
final form. Appearance, height, colors, texture of materials and so on were
subject to approval to ensure that all designs were compatible with each
other and in harmony with the adjoining residential neighborhoods. The
declared theme uniting the plans was "to design a contemporary
structure which reflects the national heritage of each sponsoring country
while also serving the many functions required by a chancery."
During 1976 and 1977, various alternative proposals were
presented and reviewed by and Israel government inter-ministerial
committee. Being almost purely functional in character, the proposals
failed to fulfill the expectations of the committee which, at the end of
1977, decided to appoint an Israeli architect to assume responsibility for
the design and to serve as consultant to the project. When this writer was
appointed by the committee, the first question we asked ourselves was: What
kind of structure will best reflect the national heritage of Israel?
As it transpired, the character of the entire complex is
strongly Islamic, given the apportionment of six of the 14 parcels to Jordan, Libya, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait,
Bahrain and Yemen. While recognizing that orientalism had
widely influenced Jewish thought, religion, philosophy, literature
(including the later books of the Bible) and architecture, the first design
decision was that a building representing the State of Israel should avoid
the decoration and embellishments typical of oriental design and rely on
other recognizable features of modern Israeli architecture - such as
boldness and directness of concept and articulation - but at the same time
should incorporate features characteristic of the old regional
architecture - such as the breaking up of large masses into closely knit
units, the use of recessed or arched openings, and the gathering of smaller
masses around a multipurpose open space.
A digression is necessary in order to consider factors
influencing the design team. A study of Jewish architecture of the past for
inspiration brings into focus only synagogue architecture, based on public
participation in a collective act of worship conducted around a focus
inside the building. While the Temple in Jerusalem had a rich interior
serving the ritual celebrated by priests only, the interior of early
synagogues was kept deliberately austere, avoiding, as it were, anything
which might distract the worshippers from study or prayer.
The architects of the early type of synagogue were
probably trained in the local tradition of the Greco-Roman period, where
the execution of the buildings was in the hands of local craftsmen,
introducing a strong oriental element into the order of decoration and
concentrated the splendor of the buildings in the interior, especially
their mosaic pavements. In Israel, several examples of these can still be
seen intact at Beit Alpha, Jericho and Hamat Gader. Just as Byzantine
synagogues were influenced by Byzantine art, the existence of rich building
traditions in the countries in which the Jews lived precluded the
development of a specific Jewish art of building in those countries. When
Jews adopted a type of building suitable to their needs, they generally
borrowed from existing secular forms, even though some similarities with
other religious buildings might have occurred in the details of the
ornaments.
Only in the 16th century was a creative architectural
answer found to the problem of a centrally located liturgical function, by
emphasizing the central position of the bima (dais) with four
pillars from which the service was conducted. Although it would have been
possible to emphasize the centralized layout by other means, such as a
dome, the four-pillared design was the central architectural feature of
synagogues in eastern Europe. This style was quickly absorbed and further
modified in Eretz Israel by adding a dome to the central space concept of
four pillars, thus reflecting the local historical and climatic
environment.
By the end of the 19th century, architects had come
under the influence of new technologies and were reacting against the
prevalent exuberant use of ornamentation. As in the past, Jewish architects
continued to build in style contemporary to that era; the freedom of the
period actually impeded the formulation of a style which reflected the
Jewish national heritage or the continuity of a traditional type of
building. At the same time architects in Palestine, while free to exercise
their imagination in their search for appropriate evocative forms, looked
to their surroundings for inspiration. Consequently, architecture mirrored
the revival of the new Jewish nationalism in Eretz Israel by using the
region's traditional forms and consciously striving for an idiom that would
reflect the national heritage.
Some architects evoked the oriental style in a form more
sentimental than functional, creating a style termed "eclectic
romanticism;" this approach was abandoned when European architects
brought to Palestine--during the 1930s--the International Style developed
in the Bauhaus in Germany, and incorporated their new functionalist
movement into the mainstream of modern Israeli architecture. They
recognized conceptually that architecture has an international idiom;
thereafter, buildings in Israel lost their traditional expression and
possessed characteristics no different from buildings in other parts of the
word.
Only since the creation of the state have legitimate
regional needs dictated by climate, geography and topography been taken
into consideration, albeit with little inspiration from historical oriental
architecture. The eclectic influences in the architectural styles of
Israeli building include Bauhaus, Le Corbusier, Brazilian sun shades and
Japanese "brutalism" in exposed concrete.
The design team for the new Washington chancery was
fully cognizant of this historical background, but was aware that not
enough time had passed since the foundation of the state to allow an
indigenous architecture to crystallize, thus giving expression to the
traditions and cultural experience of the new society. The final design was
an attempt to incorporate the quality and vitality of the past in the
architecture, not by exploiting historical sentimentalism or romanticism,
but through the expression of contemporary materials and structural
integrity.
In order to meet the requirements of the chancery and to
comply with the Planning Commission limitation that the building occupy
more than 30 percent of the parcel, we allowed the architecture to develop
out of its own volition, only striving for a lack of pretense that would
fit the Israeli mood of simplicity and directness. The building was planned
to rise four floors above ground, with a large basement area for parking,
mechanical and service facilities.
The final design which was presented for approval
in the summer of 1978 featured a buff-colored brick exterior with deeply
recessed windows crowned by arches on the top floor, with all floors facing
inward onto a brick entrance atrium. The building provided 50,000 square
feet of office space for diplomatic, consular, press, economic and military
personnel, and a large reception hall for cultural and formal functions,
abutting an open terrace for indoor and outdoor use. Although there was
pressure on the part of security officers for a more massiveness and
enclosure, the focal highlight of the building is the entrance atrium,
reminiscent of Mediterranean architecture, which conveys natural light into
the building from outside. Spatially it is filled with an interchange of
stairs and arches, echoing the intimacy of the Mediterranean open
courtyard. The atrium can thus become an informal gathering space for
receptions or a formal sitting area; a quiet waiting area for visitors or
an exciting exhibition space. The sun admitted through the upper windows
gives a warm light to the interior and the corridors and galleries change
in treatment and atmosphere as one moves along, creating a variety of moods
throughout the building.
The designs were approved by the Washington Fine Arts
Commission in November 1978, and structural, mechanical, piping and
electrical consultants were brought in to complete the working drafts and
to meet the schedule for groundbreaking on Israeli Independence Day, May
1979. While construction was in progress and the final landscaping and
interior plans were being completed, it was decided to relate to the new
chancery building as a showcase for Israeli art, no easy matter considering
the restricted budget and the manner in which this problem had
traditionally been tackled--relying on unsolicited gifts or loans of
artwork, sometimes of dubious merit.
To solve the problem posed by the requirements of
quality and quantity, a new approach was called for. With the help of the
Israel Museum, Jerusalem and later the Tel Aviv Museum, an arts program was
initiated, in itself an interesting experience in unifying arts and
architecture. Israeli architecture, like any other, tends to reflect the
forces that go into the shaping of the surrounding society; but without the
active participation of the arts, it cannot be fully representative of the
creative spirit of the society. With this concept in mind the building was,
from the outset, designed to include in its public and private spaces works
of some of Israel's finest contemporary artists.
Although the chosen works of art, predominantly modern
and western in character, were successfully integrated into the design of
the building, and the menorah (candelabrum) as the traditional
national symbol was reproduced ornamentally in the ironwork, a definite
need was felt to incorporate elements of oriental Jewish symbolism which is
so much a part of our historical heritage. In this, the Department of
Ethnography of the Israel Museum was of invaluable help in selecting
suitable Jewish motifs (inspired by the museum's collection of oriental
carpets and the fine embroidered dresses) which were then used in the
design of the atrium carpet of the chancery. The motifs in the carpet's
pattern are found solely in Jewish ornamentation and in no other culture.
The whirling rosette and the palmette have been employed for generations by
Jews under the Spanish influence and are mystic symbols of continuity and
afterlife. The carpet, woven in different shades of blue, and be seen from
every floor of the building and is in itself an artistic expression of the
continuity of the Jewish tradition and the rebirth of the State of Israel.