The sixth Memar Award, dedicated to residential buildings, was held this Aban following the custom of the past five years. Beyond all the debate and talk about the results of this competition and its particulars, many of the guests at the ceremony expressed satisfaction at the award's continuity. Such satisfaction is unsurprising in a society where fluctuations and the rupture of processes and routines are not merely a feature of its ancient and contemporary history but a characteristic of our everyday life. Yet it prompted us to share with readers some of the consequences of this six-year continuity — consequences that, as it happens, can be recorded and reported precisely because those who administer the award have remained the same.
The profile of the competitors has gradually changed over the past six years. In recent years, the entry of younger figures and of practices that produce for the private market — rather than for the government or its affiliated sectors — has been noticeable. One might therefore say that this award has, in effect, become an arena of competition among the architectural output of the private sector and of architects seeking to establish a position in the labor market.
In any case, given the heavy weight of the government and of state development projects, the involvement of a significant portion of the more experienced architecture and urban-planning consultants in those projects, and the very large share of institutions such as the Bonyad-e Mostazafan in the country's construction (where projects are not awarded through competitions), one might regard the shift in the profile of competitors in this competition, and the modest role of the Memar Award in introducing unknown, talented groups to the private market, as natural and beneficial.
The gradual change in the profile of competitors has been the outcome of the jury's selections over the five years the Memar Award has been held. The results of the first edition — the 1380 Memar Award — were highly controversial. Selecting the work of an architect still unknown to the architectural community, namely Firouz Firouz, over that of an influential and celebrated architect, namely Hadi Mirmiran; or choosing the work of a gifted but sparsely productive architect such as Shamil Mohammadzadeh and the work of younger groups — alongside the publication of the jury's deliberations — signaled a course different from the customary practices of the professional community, and its persistence in subsequent years reassured everyone that this course could not be reversed. A glance at the names of the winners of the past five editions and the continuation of their careers in the profession reflects the influence of the Memar Award in introducing a new generation of architects to the labor market, while still honoring architects of other generations.
The continuation of this selection process and the publication of the jury's deliberations in the magazine have had another auspicious result — perhaps the most important of which is a rising threshold of tolerance for winning and losing and for the opinions of others, any five of whom could form a jury. If the Memar Award has been even slightly effective in this, it is a great success in a society where the “I”s hidden behind the prescriptive “we”s that dictate to everyone and everything cannot tolerate the existence of any other “I.”
It appears that the differing composition of the jury across the six editions of the Memar Award has had little effect on the course of the selections and the results. In 1380, at the first Memar Award, inviting non-Iranian architects or Iranian architects residing abroad to judge was not considered. But in 1382, after inviting Fumihiko Maki, Mohsen Mostafavi, and the juror Abizadeh — who held important positions in institutions in America and Europe — this option too received attention. On the whole, however, the award's organizers gave greater consideration to selecting Iranian architects living abroad. In the years 1382, 1383, and 1384, the choice of two expatriate Iranian jurors each year, and the publication of their work in Memar, brought about a mutual acquaintance between Iranian architects and their colleagues abroad. The scope of collaboration of some of these jurors even extended to associations and other institutions in the country. Holding lectures and presenting these jurors' work also held a special appeal for Iranian audiences, especially architecture students. On the whole, however, the presence of expatriate Iranian architects apparently had no decisive effect on the overall course of the selections — a matter that could be the subject of a dedicated assessment. In any case, the fact that the names of some winners of one edition recur in other editions under different juries confirms, to some extent, the quality of the work of the Memar Award's jurors.
Beyond all this, one might also note that the annual publication of the jury's deliberations has perhaps helped make those deliberations more precise in subsequent years. Comparing the deliberations of the most recent edition's jurors (in this very issue), who happen to all be Iranian, with those of earlier years could be the subject of a kind of comparative assessment. And finally, the publication — begun last year — of a special award issue that includes the jury's deliberations and all the participating works can undoubtedly influence the documentation of the selection processes, the refinement of selection criteria, and the elevation of public debate about today's architecture and its particulars.
How the Works Are Submitted
The manner in which the works are submitted — both in terms of quality and of compliance with the documentation requested in the call — has improved remarkably, although some participants still fail to provide clear images and documentation of how the building relates to and adjoins its surrounding structures and site. The 100-second film has added greater precision to the documentation, but one must still allow for the errors of perception caused by the various special effects, whether in the images or the films. Of course, this can also be viewed from a positive angle: it is said that the Memar Award has, to some degree (a degree impossible to measure precisely!), been effective in advancing architectural photography and filmmaking about architecture, and in creating genuine jobs in some fields on the margins of architecture.
At any rate, some still propose a kind of prior curated presentation of the works by specialists, in the manner of the Aga Khan Award. A few years ago, however, our first step toward assessing the feasibility of such a procedure — sending letters to a large number of experts and architects — failed, since almost all the letters went unanswered. Beyond this failure, certain reflections on the possible consequences of a limited group selecting works for review and nomination — given professional rivalries at various levels and among various groups, and the weak and frail general inclination toward the affirmative, positive, and shared rather than the negative, dismissive, and divisive — prevented the pursuit of such a program.
Finally, the award's organizers concluded that, given the standing of sound, forward-looking architecture in a society where a vast volume of construction is produced free of even minimal architectural and building-construction standards, such a program has not yet become an inescapable necessity.
Architects and Developers
A final matter is the possible effect of the Memar Award in connecting architects with private — and perhaps also public — clients, and in drawing their attention to the importance of architecture and architectural design in constructing a building. Following the expressed wish of some award-winning architects to invite clients to the awards ceremony, the presentation of a plaque of appreciation to the clients of the winning projects began last year. Continuing this measure this year, it emerged that in this edition the client of two of the winning projects is a construction company (Developer) named Abadgostar Mehregan. Because of the negative connotation of the accurate, telling term “builder-seller” (which could have been a good equivalent for the English “Developer”), we were obliged to use the term “construction company,” which does not explicitly convey the notion of building for sale; the company's name, however, expresses this, and it can truly be taken as a good omen — perhaps a sign that a segment of private clients is paying attention to architectural quality.
We sincerely ask Memar's esteemed readers and the experts of the architectural community not to withhold their suggestions for holding the award better in the years to come.
Jurors of the Memar Awards
1381 — Aliakbar Saremi, Kambiz Nazer-Amou, Kamran Afshar Naderi, Mehdi Alizadeh, and Hadi Mirmiran.
1382 — Fumihiko Maki, Mohsen Mostafavi, Mehdi Alizadeh, Davar Abizadeh, and Kamran Afshar Naderi.
1383 — Heshmatollah Monsef, Homa Farjadi, Shahab Katouzian, Nader Tehrani, and Kamran Afshar Naderi.
1384 — Hadi Tehrani, Nasrine Seraji, Behrouz Ahmadi, Mehdi Alizadeh, and Kamran Afshar Naderi.
1385 — Negar Hakim, Hossein Sheikh-Zeineddin, Faramarz Sharifi, Firouz Firouz, and Bahram Shokouhian.
Winners of the Memar Awards
1381 — Mohammadreza Ghanei and Ali Sheikholeslam (First), Behrouz Bayat (Second), Mohammadreza Ghanei and Ali Sheikholeslam (Third), Mehrdad Iravanian (Fourth), Faramarz Sharifi (Fifth).
1382 — Hadi Mirmiran (First), Hamgroup Consulting Engineers (Second), Azhandshahr Consulting Engineers (Second), Esmail Talaei (Third), Bahram Shokouhian (Fourth), Hasteh Tarahi Architecture Office (Fourth).
1383 — Ramin Mehdizadeh (First), Nooshin Ghiasi (Second), Bahareh Keshani (Second), Mehdi Moghareh-Abed (Third), Amin Taj (Fourth), Reza Daneshmir (Fifth).
1384 — Mohammad Majidi (First), Hasteh Tarahi Architecture Office (Second), Padiaupart Architecture Group (Third), Hamgroup Consulting Engineers (Fourth), Arash Mozaffari and Arshia Shole (Fifth), Harirchi & Associates Architecture Office (Fifth).
1385 — In the single-unit and small buildings group: Zavieh Architecture Office (First), Pouya Khazaeli (Second), Shervin Hosseini (Third). In the apartment-complex group: Arash Architecture Office (First), Ramin Mehdizadeh (Second), Zand Harirchi & Associates (Third). In the large-complex group — Selected Work: Ramin Madani & Associates. Special Mention: Dayereh Design Office, and Hani Ghodsi and Touraj Moshirzadeh.
