opens with the definition: When it comes to an architectural work worthy of the title “act of architectural craftsmanship”, the architect is reserved the “moral right”, which means that the work must be attributed to its creator (the proper credit), and no changes can be made to the architectural plan without the consent of the architect who created it. Please remember this definition, when we consider the history of the establishment of the project “The Peace”, also known as the “Azrieli Center”.
International tender
In the 1980s, the Municipality of Tel Aviv decided on an international tender for the construction of the largest and most prestigious project in Israel, formally called the Peace Center, in the most central location in Tel Aviv, at the most important intersection in the city and in Israel, the Peace Interchange in the Ayalon lanes. The project was intended to be the modern architectural symbol of Tel Aviv, which would become, as indeed happened, an icon of the city.
The tender was combined: the high financial offer for the land and the quality of the architectural plan. In 1992, two groups reached the final stage of the tender: the veteran construction company Ashstrom with the architect John Portman, known for the Hyatt Hotel in San Francisco, as well as the late entrepreneur David Azrieli, the Kenit HaShalom company and the architect Eli Atia, who designed the tower at 101 Park Avenue in Manhattan, the tower of Safra Brothers and Republic Bank on 5th Avenue in Manhattan, the Pennzaville Towers in Houston Texas and the 101 California Street Tower in San Francisco.
Success at Ayalon Mall
David Azrieli enrolled in architecture studies at the Technion in 1944, but did not finish his studies due to unclear circumstances. He immigrated to Canada, where he became a real estate developer. Azrieli invested in Israel starting in the early 1980s and enjoyed tremendous commercial success, beginning with the Ayalon Mall in Ramat Gan and continuing with the Azrieli Mall chain, which today is led by his daughter Dana. The value of the Azrieli Group is approximately NIS 36 billion .
Eli Atia, a graduate of the Technion, immigrated to the USA in 1968 and gained a reputation as one of the world’s experts in the design and construction of tall towers. He was the senior architect in the office of the well-known architect Philip Johnson, and later founded a prosperous architectural firm. Atia is happy for the opportunity to establish a significant project in Israel and harnessed all the work of his office to the project, including detailed planning.
Architecture and money
In the final stage of the tender, a drama took place. On the long table, in front of dozens of senior officials of the municipality and the judging team, were placed, covered with cloth, two models of the contestants’ projects. The event started with the announcement of the contestants’ financial offers for the lot. Azrieli offered 37 million dollars. Ashstrom offered $43 million.
When the results of the financial bids were announced and it became clear that Ashstrom’s bid was significantly better, Azrieli got up from his seat and was about to leave the stand as one who admits to losing the competition. But then, in the second phase, the architectural proposals were revealed and the models were presented. The senior officials of the municipality and the professional judging team ignored the plan of the architect Portman and immediately crowded around the model of the plan of the architect Atia: a mall in the shape of the letter Y, with the three towers known today as the Azrieli Towers at the intersections of the sides.
In the vision of the architect Atiya – a utopian vision, it must be said – the three towers, which are the most basic and different geometric shapes from each other, symbolize the three religions living in peace among themselves: a circle (crescent – Islam), a square (cross – Christianity) and a triangle (Star of David – Judaism ). In a particularly rare decision in the world of tenders, the financial consideration was taken off the table. The senior officials of the municipality unanimously decided that despite the financial inferiority of Azrieli’s proposal, Atia’s architecture is the clear winner of the tender. At that point at least the architecture beat the money.
Azrieli as an architect
From the beginning of the contacts between the developer and the architect, Azrieli requested that in the project documents, where the developer’s name is mentioned, Atia would present him as “the architect David Azrieli”. Atia, to whom Azrieli introduced himself as an architect, did not suspect anything. Indeed, in the documents submitted to the municipal bodies at the beginning of the project, Azrieli was presented as an architect.
At the beginning of 1992, the journalist Yoav Yitzhak revealed in “Globes” that Azrieli’s name does not exist in the database managed by the Registry of Architects and Engineers. According to the law, when it comes to “uniqueness of operations” (for example, lawyers, accountants, engineers and architects), those who are not registered in the register of architects and engineers, cannot be registered as such in statutory documents addressed to the authorities.
Despite the disclosure, Azrieli added and demanded that Matia not only continue to present him as an architect, but also present him in the documents as a partner in the planning of the project and as someone who participated in the planning of the commercial center and the parking lot. Following the exposure, Atia refused to continue presenting Azrieli as an architect and rejected Azrieli’s further demand to present him as a planning partner.
Azrieli called Atia’s refusal “betrayal”. Azrieli did not pay Atia for the temporary accounts. Atia’s architectural office experienced serious financial difficulties, but Atia stood by his refusal.
The municipality and the dismissal of the architect
City officials feared that Azrieli would carry out the threat to fire Atia because of his refusal to present Azrieli as a planning partner. Attorney Yigal Arnon, the municipality’s special legal advisor for the project, was asked to create a defense mechanism against Atia’s dismissal. In the document prepared by Arnon, Azrieli and Atia committed to work together and in good faith to carry out the project according to the original plan without taking legal proceedings and actions that would harm the project or delay it. Arnon He emphasized: “Azrieli must not fire Atiya.”
The municipality announced in June 1992 that the project had been awarded to Azrieli. Mayor Shlomo Lahat and the city officials pledged to maintain the architect’s status and not allow a deviation from Atia’s design. A month later, without Atia’s knowledge, a new document drafted by Arnon was born in the municipality, who also provided Azrieli with legal advice in the business field. The document allows Azrieli to fire Atia, on the condition that the architect who will step into Atia’s shoes receives the approval of the city engineer at the time Shamai Asif. The document empties the content of the previous document.
On the last day of 1992, Azrieli sent Atia a notice of his dismissal, and according to the agreement between them, arbitration was announced. So, with the consent of the municipality, Azrieli put his home architect Avraham Yeski in Atia’s shoes.
“I didn’t say I was registered”
The arbitration was held before retired district court judge Hadassah Ben-Ato. Azrieli demanded to be recognized as the one whose overall planning was based on his ideas, especially the commercial area and the parking lot. Atia vehemently denied that Azrieli had any part in the planning. Atia’s attorney, Yossi Bankel, conducted a tough investigation. Regarding the documents presented by Azrieli. When pressed in the investigation, Azrieli said: “Architecture is a free profession.” Later he said: “Neither did the architects van der Rohe and Corbusier have an academic degree.”
The contemporaneous arbitrator showed a forgiving attitude towards Azrieli. When embarrassing documents were revealed in the arbitration, Azrieli repeatedly said: “But I didn’t say I was a registered architect.”
An architect’s word
Four senior architects submitted affidavits on behalf of Atia to the arbitration: Richard Meyer: “Only Eli Atia can design the peace center from start to finish.”
David Yanai: “The original planning architect of the act of the architectural craftsman is alone the most correct address in terms of the public interest for carrying out the planning actions. I have no doubt that no self-respecting architect would take on the role.”
Yaakov Rechter: “If the architect Atia is not responsible for planning the project in the following stages, there is no way to guarantee that the result obtained will meet the expectations that formed the basis of the jury’s decision. An architect other than the one who conceived and planned the original architectural concept will not be able to develop Atia’s idea in a reliable way. I have no doubt that no self-respecting architect would undertake the task of carrying out another architect’s idea, and if he did, he would not live up to the original standard. If Atia does not complete the design, it is better from a professional point of view to cancel the competition win and invite new and original proposals from architects others”.
David Reznik: “In a project with architectural uniqueness, the development must be carried out by the creator. In the case in question, I do not see the possibility of continuing the planning of the project in its details by another architect, and if it is decided for some reason that Architect Atia will not be given the opportunity to complete the design, it is better to cancel the results of the competition and invite proposals News from other architects, whose it will be possible to plan the building and supervise it until the finale.”
The contemporaneous arbitrator decided that the affidavits of these four architects and their positions are not relevant. They did not testify.
“From architect to architect”
In contrast to the rejection of the affidavits of the well-known architects, Azrieli’s home architect Avraham Yaski testified in the arbitration and praised Azrieli as having knowledge in the field of planning. Yeski did not see any ethical problem in continuing the project planning and reasoned as follows: “Since time immemorial, projects have passed from architect to architect, and each one added and contributed his ability. The Church of St. Peter in Rome passed under the hands of 12 architects, including world geniuses, such as Bramante, Giacondo, Raphael, Sangello and Michelangelo, and we have not heard of a decrease in originality – on the contrary.”
Under the pressure of the arbitrator, she received the authority to decide on the question of accreditation and the salary due to her pens. The arbitration award was given on June 9, 1993. It awarded Atia 1.5 million dollars – the amount in the temporary accounts that Azrieli did not pay. His contemporaries determined that Azrieli was allowed to use Atia’s plans, and in the place designated for mentioning the designer’s name, it would be written: “Eli Atia, architect. David Azrieli, partner in the design and planning of the commercial center and the parking lot.” The arbitrator determined that Azrieli may use Atia’s plans, and even granted Azrieli the authority “to introduce changes and adjustments during the execution, all within the framework of the tender. Azrieli and Atia will not take any steps, legal or otherwise, against each other.”
Eli Atia (Photo: Noa Atia)Big change ahead
Azrieli was happy. He wasted no time and initiated changes to the plan through the architect Yeski. The list is long and these are some of the changes: the reduction of the central dome in the mall to a third of the size in Atia’s plan (the financial savings are obvious); Changing the entrance cube through which pedestrians enter; Neglecting the idea according to which the roof of the mall was designed as a public garden area with a labyrinth garden and an amphitheater in favor of other uses; Changing the composition of the three towers and increasing their areas significantly; Changes were made to the commercial center, parking lots and ground level traffic, including the narrowing of the sidewalks for pedestrians and the addition of parking spaces at the expense of garden areas; The municipality authorized Azrieli to use one of the towers for a hotel contrary to its original designation; And the ground level was lowered from a height of 8.5 meters to a height of 6.6 meters (the financial savings are obvious).
Azrieli-Yiski’s major change in the project concerns the facades of the towers, which are the public and dominant display of each building. The facades in Atia’s original plan are sky blue mirror glass, with the windows varying in size. Azrieli-Yiski completely changed the facades of the towers with windows of equal size.
These days the heiress Dana Azrieli is promoting the construction of the Spiral Tower, the cost of which is estimated at NIS 2.5 billion. The spiral tower will be 91 stories high, and will be the tallest in Israel (at least until another developer builds a taller tower). The spiral tower will be connected to the peace center (the height of the round tower is 49 stories, the triangle – 46 stories and the square – 42 stories). According to the model presented to the public, it is a spiral tower whose facades will be similar to the facades of the three existing towers. The spiral tower is presented to the public as the completion of the peace center project. The designers of the new tower are KPF architects from the USA and Moshe Tzur from Israel.
The sinkhole in Ayalon (Photo: Avshalom Sashoni)The municipality is on Azrieli’s side
After more and more details about the affair became known, Ashstrom and its partners, who lost in the finals of the original tender, appealed to the District Court in Tel Aviv against the municipality, demanding that Azrieli’s win in the tender be canceled and the project handed over to them. Attorney Yaakov Weinroth claimed on Ashstrom’s behalf that Azrieli’s win was solely because The architecture, and the architect’s dismissals, drop the ground from winning. The municipality sided with Azrieli.
In the lawsuit, which was conducted before judge Uri Strausman, Ashstrom undertook to carry out Atia’s plan and hire him for the purpose of completing the project, so that the municipality would receive another million dollars for the land and the winning architecture. “In a project with such an architectural uniqueness,” Weinroth claimed, “there is no possibility that the further planning of the project in its details will be carried out by another architect. The disconnection of the architect Atiya from the further planning of a project of this type is like an attempt to complete a painting by a world-renowned painter by another painter.”
Straussman rejected Ashstrom’s lawsuit on a technical basis: “Ashstrom delayed filing the lawsuit, even though the flaws in the management of the tender had been known for some time.” However, Straussman expressed support for the rights of Atiya’s creators.
The matter and the spirit
Atia, in the name of his moral copyright, petitioned the court through attorney Avigdor Feldman to issue injunctions to prevent the changes to his original plan.
How many judges dealt with the question of whether Atia has the moral right to oblige the municipality and the developer to build according to his original plans? Judge Uri Goren determined that in this case there is no place to issue restraining orders on the basis of moral right. Judge Sara Sirota praised Atia’s plan,
She compared it to the Parthenon in Athens and showed great sympathy for its moral merit. She expressed concern about changing the facades of the towers and warned against the developer’s interest in cheapening the construction – which would harm the residents of Tel Aviv. “I’m sorry to say,” emphasized Sirota, “that sometimes the material wins, because the spirit has no financial resources.” She contented herself with recommending the appointment of an accompanying architect on behalf of the municipality who would ensure that the construction conformed to Atia’s plan. Judge Gabriel Kling stated: “After receiving the payment from Azrieli, Atia has no claim against Azrieli by virtue of his moral right.”
The Supreme Court, composed of judges Shlomo Levin, Dalia Dorner and Dorit Binish, rejected Atiya’s appeal. The judges expressed support for the position according to which the financial consideration was given to Atia “also in favor of Atia’s moral right in the programs”. Regarding the judgment of the Supreme Court, it can be said that in fact the concept of “the moral right of the architect” does not exist.
In 2007, an amendment was made to the copyright law, with reference to the moral right of authors. The wording of the law is: “Taking an action in a work that violates the moral right does not constitute a violation of the moral right, if the action was reasonable under the circumstances.” This version allows for an interpretation in favor of the interests of the developer and the nullification of the moral right of the creative architect, as if the moral right fell and disappeared in the giant sinkhole at the peace interchange. Every creator, in any field, should be concerned.