From 21 to 23 Mehr 1378 (13-15 October 1999) the city of Shiraz and the Persepolis site hosted the Second National Congress of Architecture and Urban Planning Students of Iran. After two years of work by the organisers, some 1,500 faculty and students of architecture and urban planning gathered to take one step further toward the congress's stated aims. The opening session was held in Hall No. 1 at the site. After the formal ceremony, Mr Sahraian (governor of Fars) spoke first, followed by Mr Gharazi (head of the national engineering organisation); Mr Ziaei, the congress secretary, then presented and announced the programme.
Programme
Papers. The papers of the Second Congress were built on two principal axes: “architecture and the people” and “criticism of architecture.” Of the 45 papers received by the congress secretariat, 11 (6 on the first axis and 5 on the second) were selected and presented.
Panel sessions. Throughout the congress, three parallel sessions with varied themes ran simultaneously in three halls. The panels were intended to review the morning lectures and to discuss other topics. Titles included: architecture and the people; architecture and contemporary urban planning; architecture and the press; architectural education; criticism of architecture; the panel of the Housing and Urban Planning Organisation; the panel of Knauf Iran.
In addition, a session under the title “Architect and philosopher in dialogue” was organised by the Islamic Azad University of Hamadan with the participation of Bahram Shirdel and Dr Zimran; it was chaired by Kamran Afshar Naderi. A separate session in the Apadana of Persepolis compared the architecture of Persepolis with that of the Greek Acropolis.
Exhibitions. Of the architecture schools of the country, only Azad Shiraz, Yazd, Azad Kerman, Azad Qazvin, Azad Hamadan, Sahand Tabriz, Guilan and Azad Tabriz exhibited their students' work, a few successful diploma projects, internal publications and computer programmes in their booths. The student publications on show included: Sara from Azad Islamic Tehran; Payam-e Me'mari (as a single sheet) from the Association of Young Architects of Hamadan; the special edition of the Second Architecture Students' Symposium from Azad Tabriz; and the newsletter of the Young Architects' Association of Fars. In the research section, several institutes also presented their products.
Competitions. Two competitions were held: the design of a cultural complex for Fars, and a pictorial vision of Iran in the year 1400 (AH). In the first competition the design of the Fars cultural complex by Azad Tabriz was chosen as first prize; in the pictorial competition a top design was also named.
The closing ceremony in the main hall opened with the formal ceremonies. Speeches followed from Mr Homafar, director of culture and Islamic guidance for Fars; Mr Kamali, head of the organising staff; and the director of the Fars Studies Foundation. Among the most important of Mr Kamali's announcements were the decision to transform the Association of Young Architects of Fars into a national Association of Young Architects of Iran, and the decision to establish a permanent secretariat that would hold the student congress of architecture and urban planning on a recurring basis, on a legally defined programme, together with the approval of specific bylaws to continue the secretariat's work.
After these speeches, the representative of Azad Kerman students read, on behalf of the participating students, the students' statement of the congress; a representative of Azad Tabriz students then presented further material. The next part of the closing ceremony was the presentation of commemorative plaques to a number of attending faculty, students and participants. The prize for the best paper on the axis of “architecture and the people” went to the writer of this report (Azadeh Shahcheraghi), a student of Azad Tehran; the prize for the best paper on the axis of “criticism” went to Ali Sokhanvari, a student of Azad Shiraz. Plaques of appreciation were also presented to Knauf Iran and the Pars Research Foundation. The booth of Azad Islamic Tabriz was then named the best exhibit, and the closing ceremony ended with a performance by the Heyran ensemble of Iranian mystical music.
Alongside the formal programme, several further events were announced: a student photography competition titled “Reflections of the Congress” from Azad Tehran; competitions on architectural themes from the companies in the exhibition; a sound-and-light programme staged at Persepolis by the organising staff that was warmly received; and the distribution of diskettes, CDs, magazines, newsletters and books.
Observations
The Second National Congress of Architecture and Urban Planning Students in Shiraz produced many positive outcomes. Yet, despite the organisers' considerable efforts, a number of points deserve mention, which future congresses will no doubt resolve:
— Contrary to the students' expectation that every school could take part in the exhibition, this opportunity was unfortunately not extended to the architecture schools of Imam Khomeini Qazvin, Azad Islamic Qazvin, Iran University of Science & Technology, the Faculty of Fine Arts (Tehran) or the School of Architecture at Shahid Beheshti, and no reasons were given.
— Disruption in some of the congress's scheduled sessions was another issue. The philosopher-architect dialogue held by Azad Hamadan with Bahram Shirdel (architecture) and Dr Zimran (philosophy) failed to produce the outcome expected by all present — perhaps because it was not clear whether the two distinguished speakers were to converse with each other, or whether the audience was to raise questions.
Another problem was the unclear organisation of some meetings: the status of each session and how it was to be run had not been fully defined, or at the very least the audience and hosts of these sessions had not been briefed by the planners. As a result, some excellent opportunities where expert faculty and interested students were gathered together were lost.
— A third point concerned how judgements were made. The papers were all evaluated by a student academic committee made up of student representatives, and scores were set by the answers speakers gave to the questions at the end of each talk. But the judgement of the school exhibition booths was entrusted to the representatives of the universities themselves — with Azad Shiraz, as host and organiser, declining to compete — and this arrangement was not widely accepted. Many participants felt that had Azad Shiraz, as a neutral school, judged the booths, the result might have been better.
— The final point was the poor turnout of students at the two main congress competitions. Running the exhibition of the competition entries in a not-very-suitable location next to the dining halls only deepened participants' inattention.
In any case the main achievement of the Second National Congress of Architecture and Urban Planning Students was that it allowed students of architecture and urban planning across the country to become much better acquainted with one another, and to present their capabilities. In this writer's view, the full benefit of this congress depends on our critique of the views it raised and our attempt to answer the questions it posed. In that case, the praiseworthy labour of the Second National Congress's organisers will receive a fitting response.
