Dubai: Selling a Past to Finance the Future?
Kevin Mitchell
Kevin Mitchell is an Asso-
ciate Professor in the De-
partment of Architecture of
the American University of
Sharjah. He is also the Di-
rector of Graduate and Un-
dergraduate Programs.As a result of efforts to ensure a future, Dubai has accelerated the present and fash-
ioned a past that is often reduced to a series of marketable images. Precipitated by a
desire to attract foreign direct investment and capture a share of the global and regional
tourism markets, the rapid change has had significant effects on the built environment.
Since the middle of the 20th century there have been exponential increases in the scale
of architectural and urban projects and the speed with which they are designed and
constructed. The exaggeration of scale has been accompanied by an emphasis on the
iconic to attract media attention and investment; the speed is necessary to ensure con-
fidence, inspire continued investment, and fulfill the promise of profit. While the eco-
nomic benefits of increasing scale and speed to deliver iconic statements are evident in
the case of Dubai, it has led to the commodification of the built environment. Treating
buildings and urban spaces as mere commodities may have long-term consequences.
Urbanization has been almost instantaneous in
Dubai. As late as the 1960s, some Dubai inhabit-
ants continued to live in small palm-frond shelters
(barasti) that were used prior to the introduction
of more permanent dwellings. Others with greater
means lived in “windtower” houses, named for
the characteristic wind catchers (badgir) that rose
above the houses and contributed to cooling by
enhancing the effect of breezes. While there is evi-
dence of the use of wind catchers throughout the
broader region, Dubai’s windtower houses were
modeled on those found in modern-day Iran and
in other parts of the Gulf; they represent migra-
tion and the transfer of knowledge that resulted from the exchange of goods, ideas,
and technology along trade routes. As is common with vernacular buildings, scale was
related to available or easily imported materials and technology. In the windtower hous-
es, mangrove poles or timber joists that supported upper floors or roofs restricted the
width of rooms to approximately 3–3.5 meters. The size and structural capacity of the
material placed limits that, in the hands of capable master builders, became the basis for
a restrained elegance and intimate scale that is rare in many contemporary buildings.
For a brief period during the 1970s there were noteworthy buildings by architects aware
Figure 1