Depending on whether we consider the Imperial Bank building and the University of Tehran as the starting point of the history of modern architecture in Iran, or the Shams al-Emareh building, which represents the first overt influence of Western architecture, the age of this history ranges from approximately seventy to one hundred and thirty years. The importance of the first sixty years, which represents the initial reflection of Western architectural influences, is not insignificant and cannot be ignored in teaching the modern history of Iranian architecture. However, for our purpose — namely, the collection, documentation, and publication of notable works representing the evolution of modern architecture in Iran — we can consider the beginning of the fourteenth century of the solar calendar, coinciding with the fall of the Qajar dynasty and the rise of the Pahlavi era, as the starting point of this history.
During this roughly eighty-year period, the millennia-long historical trajectory of Iranian architecture, confronted with the spread of modern architecture from Europe and America to all corners of the world, slowed down and eventually came to a halt, replaced by a new course aligned with the globally expanding Western architecture. Our architecture today is more global and modern, and less local and retrospective. Although this story has not yet ended, it is not unlikely that one day it may imprint an Iranian character upon this global architecture.
Modern Western architecture was not a school or style with unified principles and methods that would exert a uniform influence on the architectures it affected. The course of this architecture's evolution in Europe and America itself shows that its fundamental characteristic is change and instability. This constant change and instability arises from the fact that the modernity of architecture stems less from the internal structural relationships of architecture than from its external structural relationships. In reality, the fundamental strategies of architecture in the modern era shifted from within architecture to outside it — that is, to politics and technology. On this matter, God willing, we shall speak in detail separately in the future. But in summary, if we consider the three famous Vitruvian conditions — firmitas, utilitas, venustas (firmness, commodity, and delight) — whose more accurate contemporary expression is construction, function, and form, as the constituents of a unified architectural identity, each condition must also, at the same time, guarantee the other two. But we see that modern politics and technology consider themselves endowed with such limitless power that they see no need for alliance and solidarity among the three conditions, and presume that with the seemingly unlimited force drawn from politics and technology, they can impose whatever degree of functionality, stability, and beauty is required or expedient from the outside upon what should be called architecture. In the 1960s, the last resistances against the unchallenged dominance of politics and technology collapsed, and from the 1970s onward, we have witnessed the emergence of various architectures and theories that defend the breaking of the internal balance among the three conditions of construction, function, and form.
Therefore, the diversity of Iran's receptivity to modern Western architecture should not be attributed solely to unfamiliarity with the intellectual and cultural foundations of modernity or to clumsiness in adopting the principles and rules of modern architecture. The main reason for this diversity is the variety of architectural interpretations of modernity in the original examples.
In any case, modernity is a quality that is externally imposed upon intellectual and cultural affairs and products, and does not in itself explain the relative value of these products. Modernity is merely a sign of belonging to a particular era and its strategies, not a criterion for evaluation. For assessment, we must resort to other criteria.
Our architecture today — this eighty-year-old heritage — is undoubtedly a modern architecture. That is: first, if we consider it not merely an economic product but a cultural one, it belongs to no cultural family other than architecture. Second, retrospection has been overcome in it, and modernism has prevailed. Teaching architecture and transmitting it as a body of knowledge in universities can foster the hope that the evolutionary and elevating course of this architecture may continue, that the forces of progress and uplift may be supported, and that the signs of evolution and elevation may serve as guides and models for those pursuing this path.
Architectural theory, at least if its goal is to influence the course of education and production of architecture, is not created in a vacuum. The works of the past eighty years, which represent the endeavour of modern Iranian architecture to build its own models and exemplars, must today be identified solely on the basis of the definitions these works provide of themselves, and placed within the chain of evolutionary movement and their theoretical context.
This undertaking is not entirely unprecedented, and it is necessary to review previous experiences. As far as the author is aware, a group of four young architects — Victor Daniel, Sohrab Soroushiani, Bijan Shafei and Mozhgan Fazli — based on three years of intermittent pursuit, from 1964 (1343 SH) onward began an extensive collection effort with personal motivation for gathering, categorising and periodising the works of modern architecture in Iran. This group, by their own account, has gathered sufficient illustrated documentation of all qualifying works from the longer period of modern architecture in Iran — that is, approximately one hundred and thirty years — and has conducted studies for their categorisation and periodisation and for explaining the relationship of this categorisation and periodisation with the evolution of modern Western architecture, in light of Iran's changing social and political conditions. This research, which lacks governmental financial support for compilation and publication, remains uncertain as to when it will become available to interested parties.
Earlier still, another group of four, composed of well-known practising architects (Behrouz Pakdaman, Taghi Radmard, Ali Saremi and Kamran Safamanesh), again with personal motivation, undertook a study of Tehran's architecture between the two wars — a period coinciding with the first Pahlavi era and constituting an important chapter in the evolution of modern architecture in Iran. This group, which did not continue their collaborative work to the end, apparently gathered extensive visual documentation and historical information, and some members produced and published articles from their research findings. However, the final product of this research has yet to appear as a synthesis and conclusion.
A more limited but very serious and methodical study was carried out in 1994 (1373 SH) by Mr. Sirous Samiee, commissioned by the Center for Urban Planning and Architecture Research of Iran, at a time when the author served as its director. This study was based on the selection of sixty works in twelve functional categories, all located in Tehran. A summary of this research was published in Abadi magazine, issue 16, winter 1995, which, despite its brevity, contains categorisation, periodisation, and an explanation of the characteristics and features of each category and period.
Another limited study, also commissioned by the same centre around the same time, was conducted by Mr. Farzad Azadi, with the aim of examining residential architecture after the revolution in the northern half of Tehran. The documentation of this study is available at the aforementioned centre. From among the qualifying works, five works by five architects, selected by the judgment of approximately twenty qualified architects, were published in Abadi magazine.
“A Qualitative Study and Assessment of Public Buildings of Contemporary Iran” is the title of a more extensive study that was commissioned in 1996 (1375 SH) by the Organization for Government and Public Buildings and Facilities of the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development, and carried out by Naghsh-e Jahan-Pars consulting engineers. In this study, based on the criteria and research methodology employed, fifty buildings belonging to three periods — Qajar, first Pahlavi and second Pahlavi — were selected and examined. The results of this research have not yet been finalised or published.
Additionally, monographs in the form of introductions and critiques in domestic and foreign architecture journals, both before and after the Islamic Revolution, have been published and constitute valuable resources for the collection and assessment of modern Iranian architecture.
The goal of Memar magazine's call is that, by utilising the results of the experiences mentioned above, as well as other similar experiences of which we are unaware and which may become available to the magazine, a collaborative effort by enthusiasts and experts be organised for the collection, categorisation and periodisation of the best works that represent the evolutionary trajectory of modern architecture over the past eighty years. Our general plan for organising this effort includes the following points:
1. Memar magazine will undertake the organisation, communication and coordination of this cultural activity and welcomes the participation of all individuals and institutions.
2. The duration of the project should not be unlimited or prolonged, and should not exceed one year. Deficiencies can be remedied afterward, and the product of this work, even if imperfect, will be immediately usable in education, research and professional practice.
3. It is clear from the outset that unanimously agreed-upon values cannot serve as the criteria for evaluating and selecting qualifying works. Every value and criterion is subject to modification, change, supplementation and replacement. But one criterion and value surpasses all others, and that is the seriousness, strength and solidity of the works. In other words, from among all nominated works, those should be selected that are the result of above-average vision and extraordinary effort. In this way, not only commercial and vulgar works but also ordinary and mediocre ones will be set aside. Placing seriousness, strength and solidity above other criteria means that the use of analytical methods and academic standards of architectural evaluation is not applicable to our purpose, and judgment must be entrusted to the discerning power and the authority of experts. In fact, let us first see which works are superior and more worthy, and then examine upon what principles and rules those superior and more worthy works are founded.
4. The number of jurors who will ultimately select the superior and more worthy works is estimated at about twenty, who must be chosen from among the most expert architects and scholars. These jurors will not represent any institution or organisation, but institutions and organisations may participate in their selection. The presence of creators of the works among the jurors is inevitable, and given their large number, it will not compromise the outcome of the judgment.
5. The final product will be a book containing one hundred works, accompanied by biographies of the creators, whose categorisation and periodisation will demonstrate the evolution of modern architecture in Iran. Each work will be presented in one to two pages, depending on importance, containing the necessary drawings and photographs, and a text that, in addition to describing the work, will indicate its place in its category and period, its strengths and weaknesses, and especially its pioneering and exemplary aspects. The book as a whole will include an introduction stating the purpose and methodology. The aim of the book, as stated in this article, is the documentation of the history of modern architecture in Iran and its use in education and research.
6. The wider and more inclusive the participation in this activity, the higher the level of acceptance and legitimacy of the results obtained. Participation in all areas and throughout the entire duration of the activity will be beneficial and fruitful: from expressing opinions for the completion of the general plan and executive programme, to nominating works, collecting and sending documents and materials, nominating jurors and proposing evaluation criteria.
It is expected that the first wave of participation will be generated by readers and admirers of architecture, immediately following this call, by sending letters containing any thoughts and suggestions that come to mind. They may, from the very outset, send along with their opinions and suggestions the documentation and materials of the works they have in mind, and if they have questions in this regard, raise them before sending. The second wave of participation will be generated by the creators of the works themselves, by sending information and visual documentation of their works. The third wave will consist of proposals and organised collaborations from architectural groups, provincial engineering associations, and other architectural organisations and formations, in the areas of nominating works, methods of judgment, methods of compilation and arrangement of selected works, and proposals for investment in publication.
There is no limitation on the participation of any person or institution in any of the aspects or stages of participation, and the magazine welcomes any form of participation.