Generally, when discussing the necessity of holding architecture competitions, two important aspects are noted: architecture competitions serve as a platform for producing superior works and provide a suitable opportunity for architects who lack the chance to secure major commissions. However, given the particular conditions of today's Iran, one can add another point to these two. The holding of architecture competitions over the past decade — whose turning point can be considered the Academy of Arts competition — created the opportunity for the country's architects to become acquainted with each other's work and for their works to be subjected to critique and evaluation.
Before this, unlike other artists such as poets, painters, filmmakers, and others who, through publishing, exhibitions, and screenings, were aware of each other's work, architects were generally uninformed about one another's output. Recent architecture competitions largely resolved this problem and gave all architects the chance to see and critique each other's work and to learn what others thought of their own. In other words, architecture competitions brought architects into the arena and put their work on display for judgment. In the Academy competition, more than fifty groups registered. Many of them felt compelled to participate more out of obligation than inclination, since public attention had turned toward them — and perhaps for that very reason, out of the fifty groups, only fifteen prepared and submitted their designs. Furthermore, those who did enter the competition arena worked with full force — an effort far greater than what they ordinarily devoted to regular architectural projects. Therefore, this competition and other architecture competitions that followed drew architects out of isolation and brought their work into the arena of critique and evaluation, mobilizing the maximum creative energy of architects and consequently elevating the quality of their work.
In this way, within the country's architectural practice — which lacked recognized and established standards — a qualitative standard emerged; at the very least, those who claimed to practice architecture were compelled to work at a certain standard higher than the customary level of architectural offices. And this, beyond its benefit to the country's architecture, yielded significant results for the architects and offices themselves as well.
In my view, in addition to these positive aspects, one should also consider the criticisms that can be leveled at architecture competitions. The main subject of these criticisms is that commissions are typically not awarded to competition winners. Although I myself have won several competitions, the work was not entrusted to me. I believe the positive aspects of competitions that I have mentioned should not be overshadowed by this negative dimension; and this negative aspect of competitions, though indeed very significant, should not cause prominent architects to withdraw from the competition scene. It is true that architects and architectural firms in competitions must work with full force and bear considerable expense. But in my opinion, the effort is worthwhile; participation in competitions stimulates the elevation of their work's quality and advances the country's architecture. Our office has participated in more than ten competitions. Participation in these competitions has required us to expend great energy and resources. But participating in these competitions has certainly, in a tangible way, elevated the quality of our office's work, and I believe the same has been true for other architectural offices that have been active in competitions.
Architecture competitions of the past decade have brought forth another issue as well: the level of architecture presented in competitions — which represents the latent potential of the country's architecture — is higher than the level of built architecture, which naturally stands at the conventional standard of architectural offices. And this disparity is becoming increasingly apparent.
Although the higher level of architecture presented in competitions compared to the level of built works is partly because architects and firms invest greater effort in competition work, there is also a more subtle reason for this gap: client interference. When there is no competition, the client's taste and opinion inevitably enter the picture; whereas in competitions, the client's taste and opinion are absent, and only their needs and requirements are taken into consideration.
For this reason, in competitions, architects' hands are completely free for creative work and the use of their full creative potential; hence, one of the fundamental reasons for the existing gap between what is actually built and the qualitative level of architecture presented in competitions — which reflects the true potential of the country's architecture — is precisely this.
Today's Iranian client, like any other client, usually expects good work. But they do not believe in the crucial principle that to have good work, one must select a worthy architect and thereafter accept their judgment and practice, refraining from interference, commentary, and imposition of taste upon their work. One can say that virtually all clients — whether in the capital, in remote cities, whether familiar with the profession of architecture or not, whether dealing with a skilled architect or an inexperienced one — interfere and impose their taste on the architect's work, and these interferences predominantly result in lowering the quality of work.
This is one of the reasons that today's built architecture in Iran, compared to the historic architecture of Iran and the architecture of today's world, stands at a lower level.
In the past, Iranian architecture was not this way, and clients — whether rulers or ordinary patrons — left the architect's hand free for work. For example, had there been interference from the Safavid king, men like Sheikh Bahai or Master Ali Akbar could never have created works on the scale of Naqsh-e Jahan Square or the Imam Mosque of Isfahan. Of course, I am not saying that clients or rulers did not interfere at all in architectural work; Timur had his chief architect beheaded because he could not build a mosque to his specifications. But it is noteworthy that he did this after the building was completed!
In today's world either, it is not customary for clients to interfere in architects' work to such an extent. Le Corbusier had complete authority in building Chandigarh, and Oscar Niemeyer enjoyed similar autonomy in Brasilia. Professor Salk, when commissioning the design of his biology center, only asked Louis Kahn to build a structure where he could host someone like Picasso — and made no further comment or interference in the work.
Client interference — both in the outcomes of architecture competitions and in commissions awarded without competition, especially in recent years — has deprived the country of some of the best works presented by architects, or has caused works that could have represented a high level of architecture to suffer qualitative decline due to interference.
The virtue of competitions is that in a competition, the client states their general needs and requirements, and the rest is left to the architect's judgment. Judging the submitted designs in the competition is also entrusted to architects and other experts in the profession, and consequently the quality of submitted works is high. In my belief, as long as the awarding of commissions — especially major ones — does not take place through competitions, or the results of architecture competitions are not implemented, and clients continue to interfere in architects' work, it will be impossible to raise the country's built architecture to an acceptable level — one that, on both a local and global scale, we are worthy of. And even if the professional work of some architects reaches a high level, it will remain on paper, and the level of the country's built architecture will always remain far below the latent potential of the country's architecture.
Therefore, in my belief, instead of criticizing architecture competitions and the manner of judging — which in recent competitions has been done relatively well, in my opinion — we should strive to expand architecture competitions as much as possible, and architects, architectural offices, and especially prominent and distinguished architects should increasingly welcome these competitions. The results of competition judging should be insistently applied without subsequent imposed alterations; and in parallel, client interference and imposition of taste on architects' work should be minimized, giving architects the opportunity to realize their full creative potential not on paper alone but in built work, so that the country's architecture may reach the level it deserves.