This year's exhibition differs from previous ones - up to the Hanoverian 2000 - in that each of its participants - a country or an organization - could design and build their own pavilion: at previous EXPOs, all countries were allocated sectors in pre-built buildings, and the national contribution there was limited to design expositions, and only themed pavilions differed in the original architectural solution, for example, the "bridge" by Zaha Hadid at EXPO-2008 in Zaragoza.
But in Shanghai, it became clear that freedom of creativity is not always a good thing, and the most striking example was the failures of two eminent architects - Norman Foster and Benedetta Tagliabue. Foster's project for the UAE pavilion was presented to the public by the very first of all national pavilions and made a good impression then, but in its completed form it became one of the most uninteresting buildings at the EXPO. Most likely, one should blame the execution, more precisely, the quality of the metal used for the facades - dark and shiny, reducing the intended resemblance to the dunes. The Spanish pavilion Talbue, the walls of which are assembled from "scales" woven from the vine, looks about the same as in the project, and also causes bewilderment. Its organic forms seem incomplete, the scale is too large for the chosen material, especially in the interior.
The pavilions of Portugal, New Zealand, Ireland, Turkey (although the appeal to the image of Chatal Huyuk can be called a godsend), Belgium and the European Union, Malaysia, Sweden (SWECO bureau), Singapore, Indonesia and Chile also found themselves in the position of “unprincipled” buildings. All of them are not so bad from a formal point of view, but they play their role unsatisfactorily as a symbol of the country and the embodiment of the theme of the exhibition, especially given their heterogeneous and conflicting environment. But, of course, there are obviously unsuccessful buildings in Shanghai, among them are the buildings of Saudi Arabia, Israel (architect Haim Dotan, Haim Z. Dotan), Taiwan, Hong Kong (architects Zhan Weijing, Se Jishan) and Macao ("moon hare" by architect Carlos Marreiros, Carlos Marreiros), Venezuela, Romania and Cuba (an unexpected and awkward reference to constructivism in the colors of the national flag, which can be opposed to the Croatian pavilion, where the same components gave the best result).
However, not all countries were on an equal footing: many, for financial reasons, had to settle for a standard pavilion, then decorated to their own taste. Among the best ways out of this situation are the pavilions of Estonia, Monaco, Peru. However, even here not everyone was on equal terms: Iceland, Greece, Belarus were forced to simply tighten the facades of their buildings with a cloth with an image applied to it, the Philippines and Sri Lanka used plastic panels for this purpose; Angola distinguished itself with special courage, turning its pavilion into a huge flower of amazing velvichia - a plant-symbol of this country.
The organizers of the exhibition provided the poorest countries with sectors in the "continental" pavilions, in particular, the African one, and almost completely paid for their participation in the EXPO: this explains the large number of participants.
