14th Memar Award Jury Report

The 14th Memar Award competition was held with 241 submissions in two phases. In the first phase, semifinalists were selected from among the 241 projects that had submitted documentation, and they were asked to present their materials for the second phase of judging.

The second phase judging was held on 26 Mehr (October 18) with the addition of Mehrdad Hadighi to the jury panel of Hosein Sheikh Zeinedin, Kamran Afshar Naderi, Bahram Kalantari, and Arash Mozafari. In the second phase, by jury decision, the residential group was split into two sub-groups: "Individual Dwellings" and "Apartment Buildings." The jury also excluded four restoration projects due to their specialized nature, with the decision that these projects would be featured in Memar Magazine.

Judging Criteria

• Creativity and innovation in design and innovation in use of materials and building technology
• Creative confrontation with project-specific challenges including economic constraints, special site conditions regarding dimensions and sizes, legal regulations and procedures (especially in cities), technical difficulties, etc.
• Precision and innovation in detail design
• Attention to surrounding environment and climatic conditions, environmental values and social commitments

It is understood that the final judgment of each project is based not on scoring individual criteria and averaging scores, but on assessing the project as a whole.

Judging Procedure

All projects were divided into three groups: Residential, Non-residential, and Renovation. For each group, the following stages were followed:

1. All works in the same group were displayed together for jury viewing. After viewing all works, those rejected unanimously by all five jurors were eliminated. Even if one juror supported keeping a work, it would not be eliminated. Each juror had colored stickers of their designated color, with each sticker representing a negative vote. The remaining works were called semifinalists.
2. From the semifinalists, each juror selected their top three works without ranking, using their designated sticker (now representing a positive vote). Works not selected by any juror were eliminated. Remaining works were ranked by number of votes received. After discussion and deliberation, jurors again selected their top three with stickers. The selected works became finalists.
3. For determining first through third place, each juror gave 1 point for third place to 3 points for first place, and votes were summed. In case of ties, scoring was repeated with a 0-10 scale.
4. Jurors could declare some finalists worthy of special recognition (Honoured). Upon agreement of others, this title was confirmed.