Foreword
In Mehr 1380 (October 2001), following the Behrizan company's positive response to Memar-Nashr's invitation to support the country's best built work of recent years, the preliminaries for holding this competition — unprecedented of its kind in our country — were prepared. The aim of the founders of this event, Memar-Nashr and Behrizan, was attention to the private sector; and the substance of it — competition between built works — is what distinguishes it from the other kinds of architectural competition whose record in our country goes back as far as the early decades of the twentieth century, when the architects of certain public buildings here were chosen for the first time through architectural competitions.
Following this agreement, Memar-Nashr defined the general terms of participation, and the call for entry was published in the national press in Aban (November 2001). At the same time, notices and posters were distributed at the Engineering System organisations, municipalities, university centres in Tehran and the provinces, and the points of sale of the quarterly magazines Memar and Shahr. The deadline for submission of the requested documents was set at 16:00 on 28 Azar (19 December 2001).
The Jury
Mohsen Mirheydar, engineer — Master's in Architecture, Faculty of Fine Arts, University of Tehran (1342 / 1963), and AA Diploma in urban planning and design, Architectural Association London (1968-69). Career as architect, project leader and deputy CEO at Amir-Nosrat Mofatteh, Yousef Shariat-zadeh & Associates, and Bonyan Consulting Engineers (1348-60 / 1969-81); CEO of Pirraz Consulting Engineers (from 1362 / 1983). Member of the National Building Code Committee (1371-73 / 1992-94); member of the Engineering-System Implementation By-laws Committee (1375 / 1996); founding board member of the architecture and urbanism professional bodies (1374-80 / 1995-2001); member of the AA London.
Iraj Kalantari, engineer — Graduated from the Faculty of Fine Arts (1342 / 1963). Career at the Technical Office of the Ministry of the Interior as head of the urban renewal and development office, the Ministry's representative on the Technical Committee of the Supreme Council of Urban Planning, in private practice with Kalantari & Associates (until 1350 / 1971), among the principals of the Bavand firm (from 1350). Has taught at the University of Tehran, Iran University of Science and Technology, and Azad University. Active member of the Society of Consulting Engineers from its founding, of the Architects' Association, of the Industry Guild of Architect and Urbanist Consulting Engineers, and of the Society of Architects.
Mohammad-Reza Jowdat, engineer — Graduated in architecture from the Faculty of Architecture and Urbanism, Shahid Beheshti University (1351 / 1972). Founder and director of the Qandriz Hall (Iran), continuously active in the visual arts and architecture from 1342 to 1357 (1963-78). Faculty member of the Beheshti School of Architecture and Urbanism (from 1354 / 1975). Founder and principal of Shahrbod Consulting Engineers (1353-63 / 1974-84) and of Mohammad-Reza Jowdat & Associates (from 1362 / 1983). Publisher of 18 volumes in the architecture and urbanism essay series (1370s / 1990s). Editor-in-chief of Memari va Shahrsazi (1374 — Shahrivar 1379, i.e. 1995-2000); proprietor and editor-in-chief of the quarterly Memari-ye Iran (Architecture of Iran, from 1378 / 1999).
Bahram Shirdel, engineer — B.Arch., University of Toronto (1979); M.Arch., Cranbrook Academy of Art, Michigan (1982). Top placings and diplomas of honour in international competitions (1979-96). With AKS-RUNO architects (1987-90), member of Kipnis & Shirdel (1990-91), member of Shirdel Kipnis (1991-94), CEO of Shirdel & Associates (from 1376 / 1997). Has taught at the Architectural Association London, SCI-Arc, Harvard, Ohio State, the University of Illinois, and the University of Houston.
Kamran Afshar Naderi, Ph.D. — Member of the Memar-Nashr board and of the editorial board of Memar magazine. Graduated in architecture from Italy. Six years' professional experience in Italy, including with the Renzo Piano office. Six years teaching at Azad University, Tehran. Author of more than sixty articles on architecture (his articles, lectures, and research findings have been published in Iran, Italy, the UK, Switzerland and the USA). Six years' experience in the management and supervision of executed projects. Numerous research projects for the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development, the Tehran and Tabriz municipalities, and the Cultural Heritage Organisation.
Method and Stages of Judging
Venue: Khaneh-ye Honarmandan (initial sessions); Memar-Nashr's offices (final sessions). Dates: Thursday 29 Azar, 10:00-12:00 and 14:00-17:00; Friday 30 Azar, 9:00-13:00; Monday 3 Dey, 17:00-20:00; with an additional session on Wednesday 5 Dey, 17:00-20:00, if needed.
Procedure: all entries were laid out together for the jurors' inspection, so that, after viewing the whole, they could set aside the works which all five jurors regarded as ineligible. This elimination procedure continued until 20 jury-shortlisted works remained. Each juror then privately chose his five preferred works, without ranking; works with unanimous or majority support proceeded to the ranking round. In the final round, each juror gave each of seven finalists a score from 7 (highest) down to 1 (lowest), and the first to fifth places were determined by total score.
On the closing of the deadline at 16:00 on 28 Azar and the registration of the 160 entries, the first sessions opened on 29 and 30 Azar at the Khaneh-ye Honarmandan. After eight hours' work in several elimination rounds reaching unanimity at every step, 29 works remained. On the second day, with each juror choosing five preferred works without ranking, 13 works moved to the next stage; and finally seven works remained in the contest:
1. Niopco Factory at Eshtehard, by Arash Mozaffari and Mehrdad Golmohammadi. 2. Office Building, Tehran, by Shamil Mohammadzadeh. 3. Rafsanjan Cultural-Sport Complex, by Hadi Mirmiran. 4. Filmmakers' Centre, Tehran, by Hadi Mirmiran. 5. Two Houses for Two Friends, Gonbad, by Firooz Firooz. 6. Furniture and Art-Works Gallery, Tehran, by Reza Daneshmir. 7. Shahr-e-Ketab, Tehran, by Shahriar Izadi.
Final Score Table
In the third session, each juror gave a score of 7 (highest) down to 1 (lowest) to each of the seven finalists. The totals were as follows:
Mirmiran (Rafsanjan): Mirheydar 7, Shirdel 4, Kalantari 5, Jowdat 7, Afshar Naderi 7 — total 30. Daneshmir (Gallery): 6+7+7+2+6 — total 28. Izadi (Shahr-e-Ketab): 5+3+4+3+5 — total 20. Mozaffari (Niopco): 4+1+1+5+1 — total 12. Mohammadzadeh (Office Building): 3+5+6+6+4 — total 24. Mirmiran (Filmmakers' Centre): 2+2+3+4+4 — total 15. Firooz Firooz (Two Houses, Gonbad): 1+6+2+1+2 — total 12.
| Juror | Firooz (110) | Mirmiran (251) | Daneshmir (266) | Izadi (127) | Mozaffari (205) | Mohammadzadeh (108) | Mirmiran (205) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mirheydar | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
| Shirdel | 4 | 7 | 3 | 1 | 5 | 2 | 6 |
| Kalantari | 5 | 7 | 4 | 1 | 6 | 3 | 2 |
| Jodat | 7 | 2 | 3 | 5 | 6 | 4 | 1 |
| Afshar Naderi | 7 | 6 | 5 | 1 | 4 | 3 | 2 |
| Total | 30 | 28 | 20 | 12 | 24 | 14 | 12 |
Final ranking (by highest total score): 1st: Two Houses for Two Friends, Gonbad-e-Qabus (Firooz Firooz) — 30 points; 2nd: Rafsanjan Cultural-Sport Complex (Sayyed Hadi Mirmiran) — 28; 3rd: Nipco Factory, Eshtehard (Arash Mozaffari and Mehrdad Golmohammadi) — 24; 4th: Furniture & Artworks Gallery, Tehran (Reza Daneshmir) — 20; 5th: Khaled Eslamboli St. Office Building, Tehran (Shamil Mohammadzadeh) — 14.
Jury Statement
1. Before judging began, the jury met to discuss the subject of the Grand Memar Award, the breadth and variety of the works, the difference of this kind of award from a project-design competition, and the manner of judging itself. Over three sessions held with the directors of Memar-Nashr, the programme and method of judging were drawn up, and the jurors stated their readiness to begin judging immediately after the entry deadline.
2. The judging work began on 28 Azar — the day immediately after the handing-in of entries — and continued until 9 Dey. The early sessions, owing to the great number of works and the need for ample space, were held at the Khaneh-ye Honarmandan, whose management we again thank for their full assistance. The final sessions, for ranking the first five places, were held at the Memar-Nashr offices. All five jurors were able to attend every session.
3. 155 works took part in the Grand Memar Award '80. According to the agreed programme and method, the jurors first looked over all the works carefully, and then, after assuring themselves of readiness for the preliminary selection, each juror named the works of relative merit that should be retained for the next round. By this means, a number of works were unanimously set aside.
4. In the second stage, the jurors again looked carefully at the 60 remaining works and gave their views on those which deserved to advance to the third stage. At the end of the second stage, 29 works remained, each of which had managed, across two stages and a total of six rounds of review, to retain at least the favourable view of some of the jurors; these were named to Memar-Nashr as the works selected by the jury of the Grand Memar Award '80. In the jury's view, the set of these 29 works can be taken as a chart of the country's good non-state architecture of the past five years and as the first achievement of the Grand Memar Award '80.
5. In the third stage, no further work could be unanimously eliminated. The jurors were therefore asked each to select and announce his five preferred works, without ranking. Given the differences of view and the mix of shared and unshared selections, 13 works rose from the 29 to the higher stage; and finally the jurors reached agreement on the merits of seven works out of those 13.
6. The last stage of the judging was the ranking of the first five places out of the seven remaining works. The only possible method was the distribution of scores from 7 down to 1 across the seven by each juror, and the addition of the totals. Naturally, the votes of jurors of varying experience and viewpoint differ from one another. What is important is that the repetition of judgements of this kind on the country's architectural developments, and the continuation of debate and discussion, can help clarify viewpoints and criteria and strengthen the foundations of correct and informed criticism. (The full transcript of the jurors' deliberations and views will appear in Memar.)
7. We close with the characteristics of each of the works ranked first to fifth. Naturally these characteristics are not absolutely beyond question; rather they are the reasons for these works having received more votes from the body of the jury.
The Reasons for the Ranking
First place — Two Houses for Two Friends, Gonbad-e-Qabus (Firooz Firooz, engineer). For: a simple and modest yet bold work; coherence of style; a hierarchy of passage from public to private space; the architect's attention to the role of small urban projects in shaping the architecture of the city; the creation of a serious work and the bringing forth of an alternative to the fashions of the market.
Second place — Rafsanjan Cultural-Sport Complex (Naqsh-e-Jahan-Pars Consulting Engineers, Sayyed Hadi Mirmiran). For: a notable response to the demand for the continuance of an Iranian architectural vision, in which many architects have laboured; a successful effort to engage with Iranian architecture by combining the technology of today with traditional forms; an unconventional work, against market currents, achieved with low cost; the importance given to the building's envelope, one of the major issues of architecture today; well-handled treatment by adding a fresh layer onto tradition through play of light and shadow.
Third place — Nipco Factory, Eshtehard (Arash Mozaffari and Mehrdad Golmohammadi). It took third place with a total of 24 points; the critique of this work appears in the "Excerpts from the jury deliberations" section.
Fourth place — Furniture and Art-Works Gallery, Tehran (Reza Daneshmir, engineer). For: success in turning a disused swimming pool, with the smallest interventions, on a small budget and in a short time, into a gallery; the conversion of the pool's simple rectangular form into a notable space; a sense of scale.
Fifth place — Office Building, Khaled-Eslamboli Street, Tehran (Shamil Mohammadzadeh, engineer). For: attention to architecture as an urban element; a sound approach to craftsmanship and an investigative manner; the working-up of the elevation by giving it a double skin and attending to the side elevations; successful use of materials and colour; the full working-out of details.
Selected Excerpts from the Jury Discussion
On Mirmiran's Filmmakers' Centre:
Bahram Shirdel: 'I cannot find the right word for what I want to say. I am very surprised that none of you, except me, has voted for this project. … In my view, in the past several years no architectural work has been carried out in this city of Tehran that is as significant as this architecture and this project.' Iraj Kalantari: 'Both Mirmiran works are in my own selection, but if I have not given it my vote it is because of the consequences of that decision in the public mind. … If we set this project among Mirmiran's other works, it does not have the importance it should.' Mohsen Mirheydar: 'I am, in principle, strongly opposed to working in glass in Iran, because it is not suited to our climate.' Kamran Afshar Naderi: 'In my view this central space is nothing more than a tall corridor … the early-twentieth-century Larkin Building handled this idea far better.' Mohammad-Reza Jowdat: 'In a Lawyers' Centre, the principle is a kind of confidentiality. In this work, everyone is in everyone else's view.'
On complexity-as-value (in the post-vote session):
Iraj Kalantari: 'One of the marks of credit we give to an architectural work is the value we set on its complexity. For instance, in a complex the elements of design may be so many and so intertwined that to answer them challenges the architect's powers; whereas in others they are so simple that the choice between options is very easy. … We have here a special situation. It is as if this collection is announcing that complexity does not matter to it; it wants the architectural work to be valued regardless of its scale, its subject, and the quality of its complexity or simplicity.'
On the architect inseparable from the work:
Iraj Kalantari: 'In our discussions there was talk that we should look at the architect and the architecture separately. We cannot do that. Can you think of a song with no singer?'
On the scoring method:
Kamran Afshar Naderi: 'A vote has been taken, and the views of every individual were involved in that vote. The discussions we had have done their work. … Three jurors were for the first prize going to one project and two for it going to another. Even without the marks the result would have been the same.' Mohammad-Reza Jowdat: 'Any attempt — whether by a so-called majority or minority — to take the vote again is wrong. Insistence on doing so would itself spoil the matter.'
(The full transcript of the discussion will be published in subsequent issues of Memar magazine.)
