The Dubai Expo pavilions could be divided into three categories according to their location in the masterplan. The first category includes the most important and larger pavilions. They are positioned in strategic places: in front of the thematic entrances or around the large central dome. In order of importance, the second category is represented by the pavilions linearly arranged along the curvilinear paths connecting the accesses to the main area. The third is made of the smaller national contributions which occupy the ground floors of the buildings arranged in a crown around the barycentric area of the masterplan. The buildings belonging to the second group had to solve a common design issue: the visitor access from pedestrian paths and the façade’s design towards the public space. Regardless of the chosen volumetric configuration and of the general exhibition strategy, all buildings along the principal axes share these architectural themes to which designers responded differently. Most projects’ accesses offer different degrees of spatial permeability, inviting visitors to the interior spaces. For example, to name a few, the Brazilian pavilion raises the translucent curtain that contains the public water space at a specific point, to allow people to come in. The Finnish pavilion solves the theme by designing a curvilinear and elegant cut on the external surface, revealing a beautiful internal courtyard cladded in wood. In the Swedish pavilion, a dense forest of wooden poles mediates between the outdoor spaces and the not directly perceptible access. The Israeli pavilion provides a terraced seating area on the roof which, descending towards the external public space level, transforms it into its stage.
Among the many other examples that could be mentioned here, the Bahrain pavilion, designed by the Swiss architect of Venezuelan origin Christian Kerez, originally solves this design theme.
The cube, externally and internally cladded with reflective aluminum panels, sits silent and, at first sight, impenetrable along one of the two main paths of the Opportunity District. The facade, recalling the early works of Daniel Libeskind, has many cuts, openings, and linear segments that protrude from the inside, showing an intentional disorder. However, this dramatic surface treatment does not undermine the mysterious symbolic identity of the volume’s abstraction. The visitor is urged to wonder what the content of the interior space would be (if he does not already know it). Such a strategy stimulates curiosity and desire for discovery, distinguishing this architecture among the many at the Expo.
Between the building and the main public pedestrian path, a low concrete volume is buried after showing an entrance of such small dimensions as to appear almost domestic. From here, one enters the pavilion along a ramp that looks almost spartan in its simple concrete cladding. It descends below the ground floor level and then reaches the ample single internal space, where the design intent to achieve a certain perceptual spatial majesty is revealed.
The theme chosen by Bahrain is density, evoked and represented by the proposed cultural content. The nature of the small Arab island, its urban dimension, the population, the traditional craft techniques contribute to the exhibition through the display of objects and installations. However, given the difference in scale, this apparatus cannot compete with the surprisingly dense forest of 126 steel columns – each 24 meter long – which, already announced on the façade, determine the particular spatial experience of the large internal atrium. Even without resorting to the metaphor of traditional weaving needles and looms, with which the design choice is officially communicated, the poles – which are partly structural and partly scenography – are the factual content of the pavilion. Their disordered presence and density break the light and, while obstructing the space, determine a fascinating reading of its depth. The architecture of the Bahrain pavilion is all contained in this idea. At the same time, it is strongly characterized by a sophisticated conceptual simplicity and a constructive and experiential complexity or, as the architect himself defines it, by an «intellectual minimalism». The project also stands out from the others present at Expo in another aspect. Although the Bahrain commissioners in their press releases support the pavilion’s sustainability, the writer could not find any indications of this strategy applied to the building. Indeed, as planned, dismantling the structure at the end of the event and moving it to the capital Manama is a sign of interest in its functional recycling.
Perhaps, given the times, the designer’s search for a spatial theatrical drama would have been even more interesting if it had been the bearer of an effective contribution in terms of sustainable strategies.
However, the Bahrain pavilion testifies, once again, to the interest of the Arab kingdom in promoting qualitative architecture. The recently built and widely published projects, together with the successful participation in the most critical architecture exhibitions in the world, testify to a fertile context for these themes, and the contribution to the Expo, once again, confirmed it.