A Report on Jury Sessions — 6th Memar Award

The winners of the 6th Memar Award were honored on the 19th of Aban 1385 [November 10, 2006] in a ceremony held at the Shahrokhan Hall of Architect Yousef Shariat-Zadeh at the National Library of Iran. A film was also screened at the ceremony in tribute to Architect Kamran Diba.

Prior to the publication of the call for entries, meetings of the Advisory Council for this edition were held with the participation of Dr. Ahmad Azimi Bolourian, Architect Mohsen Mirheydar, Architect Iraj Kalantari, Architect Kamran Shahinfar, and Architect Kamran Afshar Naderi. The council formulated policies aimed at enhancing quality and increasing rigor in the judging process.

Entries were evaluated in three scale-based categories of residential architecture: individual dwellings and small houses, apartment buildings, and large residential complexes. Prizes would be awarded to the top three in each category, with the jury reserving the option to declare any rank vacant if no submission met the standard. The total prize fund was 150 million Rials.

♦ ♦ ♦

The Jury

The jury members for the 6th edition were Negar Hakim, Faramarz Sharifi, Hossein Sheikh-Zeineddin, Bahram Shokouhian, and Bernard Khoury from Lebanon — who unfortunately could not attend due to the Lebanon War. From the Advisory Council, Architect Firouz Firouz was selected as his replacement.

Negar Hakim reviewing submissions at the 6th Memar Award
Negar Hakim
Architect, Juror
Hossein Sheikh-Zeineddin reviewing submissions at the 6th Memar Award
Hossein Sheikh-Zeineddin
Architect, Juror
Faramarz Sharifi reviewing submissions at the 6th Memar Award
Faramarz Sharifi
Architect, Juror
Firouz Firouz reviewing submissions at the 6th Memar Award
Firouz Firouz
Architect, Juror (Replacement)
Bahram Shokouhian reviewing submissions at the 6th Memar Award
Bahram Shokouhian
Architect, Juror
Jury working session for the 6th Memar Award, Memar Magazine Issue 40
The jury in a working session, reviewing submissions for the 6th Memar Award
♦ ♦ ♦

Submissions & Process

Following the call for entries and the expiration of the submission deadline on the 10th of Aban, a total of 73 projects were received at the magazine's office. One project was rejected due to incomplete documentation and another was excluded, leaving 72 projects for evaluation. A notable observation in this edition was the slight increase in submissions from provincial cities compared to previous years: Isfahan contributed 7 projects, Kerman 3, and submissions were also received from Hamadan, Mashhad, and Rasht.

Judging Process

The judging sessions took place on the 15th and 16th of Aban [November 6–7, 2006]. Through three phases of elimination based on the judging protocol, the jury reviewed all works. In the first elimination phase, 18 projects were removed; in the second phase, 10 more were eliminated. The remaining 15 projects, together with 5 borderline projects that had been the subject of jury deliberation, advanced to the final evaluation stage for ranking.

Of the 30 selected works — comprising 9 individual dwellings or small houses, 6 apartment buildings, and 5 large complexes — with the remaining reviewed in the borderline category, 2 were ultimately rejected as renovation works. The jury recommended that future editions establish clearer criteria regarding renovations.

♦ ♦ ♦

Juror Perspectives

Before the first elimination phase, the jurors were asked to articulate their personal criteria for inclusion and exclusion of projects. Their perspectives reveal the depth of consideration brought to the evaluation process:

Firouz Firouz: “An award, in my view, is a kind of recommendation — a statement that the architect presents, which carries significance and focus. The plan and structure should reflect a new idea that could introduce meaningful change in society. Among the submissions we saw, some architects were truly accomplished, but the fundamental issue is how these projects relate to the art of architecture. We should assess whether a project is born from a genuine architectural idea or merely represents competent construction. I believe the award should be reserved for works that demonstrate true innovation in residential architecture.”
Hossein Sheikh-Zeineddin: “This question concerns not only residential architecture but our entire built environment. Looking at the works before us, we must ask — do they represent authentic responses to how Iranian families actually live? When we examine plans, we should observe whether the architect has genuinely engaged with the lifestyle and culture of the inhabitants. There are projects here with beautiful facades, yet when you study the floor plans, the sleeping quarters have no logical relationship to other spaces. This disconnect between appearance and lived experience is something we must scrutinize.”
Faramarz Sharifi: “In reviewing the works, first and foremost I consider the experiential quality of the residential spaces. I am drawn to projects where the architect has engaged with both appearance and substance. A beautiful facade must be matched by functional and spatially coherent interiors. What concerns me most is when projects present elaborate exteriors while neglecting the fundamental quality of living spaces — the relationship between rooms, the provision of natural light, and the flow of daily life within the home.”
Bahram Shokouhian: “I categorized the entries based on their typological and scalar characteristics. For smaller works, I examined how well the design responds to site conditions, client needs, and construction quality. For larger complexes, I focused on planning logic, common area treatment, and the relationship between individual units and shared spaces. In all cases, I looked for evidence of genuine design thinking rather than merely applying fashionable forms. Craftsmanship and attention to detail are paramount.”
Negar Hakim: “I approach these works from the perspective of architectural history and cultural continuity. The question for me is whether a project represents a meaningful contribution to Iranian architectural discourse — whether it demonstrates the courage to innovate while remaining rooted in its context. I seek projects where the architect has engaged with the particular conditions of the site, the climate, and the cultural expectations of the inhabitants, and has produced something that could point the way toward a future for Iranian residential architecture.”
♦ ♦ ♦

Selected Projects — Jury Discussion

Individual Dwellings and Small Houses

Project No. 31 — Villa No. 3, Matli Township, Royan (Zaviyeh Architecture Group): The jury found this project to be of exceptional quality, with a design ambition matched by the courage of its execution. The spatial composition demonstrates a classical calm — the plan has great depth, and the orientation to the four cardinal directions is handled with precision. The relationship between the courtyard and interior spaces was praised as both logical and poetic. All five jurors recognized the work's sustained attention to detail and the authenticity of its architectural references. From the very beginning, the project commanded unanimous respect.

Project No. 2 — Villa No. 2, Daryacheh Township, Nour (Pouya Khazaeli-Parsa): This project engaged the jury because it addresses several architectural problems simultaneously — the attention to landscape, the relationship between courtyard and dwelling, and the proportions and scale all demonstrate a principled approach. The proportional quality between interior and exterior spaces was particularly noted, along with the successful integration of the building with its natural surroundings.

Project No. 60 — Pour Seyyedi House, Kerman (Shervin Hosseini): The form and spatial organization of this project demonstrate genuine architectural intelligence and a thoughtful response to the Kerman context. The handling of climate and local building traditions was commended, with the jury noting the practical resolution of the plan despite some details that could have been developed further.

Project No. 38 — Noamouz House, Karaj (Ali Barikhti): The jury appreciated this project’s good plans and clear articulation of roof and wall surfaces. A particular Iranian sensibility in the spatial arrangement was recognized — one that feels authentic rather than imposed. The relationship between structure and plan reflects a mature understanding of domestic space.

Apartment Buildings

Project No. 32 — Dowlat Building, Tehran (Alireza Sharafati, Pantea Eslami, and Rashid Ebtehaj): Selected for its qualities of restraint and urban sensitivity, this project creates a building that contributes positively to the streetscape while providing genuinely livable apartments. The architects made intelligent choices about massing and orientation on a difficult urban site, allowing natural light and air to reach the living spaces. The geometric rigor of the design gives it a clarity that serves the residential program well.

Project No. 19 — Ganj-e-Danesh, Tehran (Ramin Mehdizadeh): This project demonstrates genuine care in the handling of residential space within a multi-unit building. The planning approach draws on a recognizable Iranian typological tradition — the entry sequence, the relationship between public and private zones, and the proportions of the common areas all reflect a mature understanding of apartment living in Tehran. The massing and facade have an appropriate dignity.

Project No. 29 — Parvaneh District, Tehran (Harirchi and Associates): The jury recognized the fundamental challenge this project addresses in creating community within a large-scale residential development. The landscape design, common space treatment, proportional relationships between building masses, and internal organization of apartments all demonstrate a comprehensive design approach.

Large Residential Complexes

Project No. 20 — Ordibehesht Grand Complex, Isfahan (Ramin Madani): The jury unanimously selected this project for the way it responds to the particular character of Isfahan. The architect used materials and proportions that create harmony with the existing urban fabric while establishing a contemporary identity. The material palette and spatial organization reflect a sophisticated understanding of Isfahan’s architectural tradition, and the relationship between common areas and private residences is thoughtfully handled. The jury considered this one of the most accomplished large-scale residential developments reviewed in this edition.

♦ ♦ ♦

Jury Rankings

Individual Dwellings — Juror Votes by Project Number

Juror1st Place2nd Place3rd Place
Negar Hakim31219
Hossein Sheikh-Zeineddin60312
Faramarz Sharifi31602
Firouz Firouz31246
Bahram Shokouhian3160

Apartment Buildings — Juror Votes by Project Number

Juror1st Place2nd Place3rd Place
Negar Hakim321926
Hossein Sheikh-Zeineddin191623
Faramarz Sharifi1623
Firouz Firouz1923
Bahram Shokouhian2619

In the large complexes category, the jury unanimously selected Project No. 20 (Ordibehesht Complex in Isfahan) as the winner.

♦ ♦ ♦

Winners

CategoryPlaceProjectArchitect / FirmCity
Individual Dwellings1stVilla No. 3, Matli TownshipZaviyeh Architecture GroupRoyan
Individual Dwellings2ndVilla No. 2, Daryacheh TownshipPouya Khazaeli-ParsaNour
Individual Dwellings2ndPour Seyyedi HouseShervin HosseiniKerman
Individual Dwellings3rdNoamouz HouseAli BarikhtiKaraj
Apartment Buildings1stDowlat BuildingSharafati, Eslami & EbtehajTehran
Apartment Buildings2ndGanj-e-DaneshRamin MehdizadehTehran
Apartment Buildings3rdParvaneh DistrictHarirchi and AssociatesTehran
Large ComplexesWinnerOrdibehesht ComplexRamin MadaniIsfahan

Special Commendation: Project No. 21 — Ava-Ahang Residential Building, Tehran (Hani Ghodsi Rati and Touraj Moshirzadeh), recognized for demonstrated quality and skill, particularly noteworthy among works constrained by municipal regulations.

♦ ♦ ♦

Ceremony

The 6th Memar Award ceremony was held on November 10, 2006 (19 Aban 1385) at the Shahrokhan Hall of Architect Yousef Shariat-Zadeh in the National Library of Iran, Tehran. The ceremony included the presentation of awards to all category winners, with a total prize fund of 150 million Rials. A special film tribute to Architect Kamran Diba was screened, honoring his lifetime contributions to Iranian architecture.

Winners of the 6th Memar Award individual dwellings category, Memar Magazine Issue 40
Pantea Eslami, Rashid Ebtehaj, and Alireza Sharafati — 1st place, Apartment Buildings
Winners of the 6th Memar Award large complexes category, Memar Magazine Issue 40
Ramin Madani, winner of the Large Complexes category (Special Award)
Award presentation at the 6th Memar Award ceremony, Memar Magazine Issue 40
Award presentation at the 6th Memar Award ceremony, National Library of Iran
Award handover at the 6th Memar Award ceremony, Memar Magazine Issue 40
Presentation of awards to the winners of the 6th Memar Award
Group photo of winners and jury at the 6th Memar Award ceremony, Memar Magazine Issue 40
Group photograph of winners, jurors, and organizers at the 6th Memar Award ceremony
♦ ♦ ♦

Advisory Council

The Advisory Council for the 6th Memar Award comprised distinguished architects and construction experts who guided the jury on matters of policy:

Dr. Ahmad Azimi Bolourian · Mohsen Mirheydar · Iraj Kalantari · Kamran Shahinfar · Kamran Afshar Naderi

The council emphasized three key priorities: the importance of contextual sensitivity in residential architecture, the need for attention to construction quality and craftsmanship, and the value of innovation grounded in Iranian architectural traditions.

Note: Bernard Khoury, the originally selected international juror from Lebanon, was unable to participate due to the 2006 Lebanon War. Architect Firouz Firouz, a member of the Advisory Council, served as his replacement on the jury panel.