Grand Memar Award 80 Report

Bahram Shirdel: I am very surprised that none of the gentlemen besides me voted for this project. In my belief, in the past several years in Tehran, no architectural work has been done that is as distinguished as this architecture. This project sets a certain standard for the Grand Architecture Award. It has a distinct architecture, and the space it has created is an utterly unique space. This space is reflected in the project's facade, and the work that Mr. Arabshahi has done on this project is one of the best such works ever produced.

Iraj Kalantari: Both of Mirmiran's works are in my selection. But if I did not vote for it, it is because of the repercussions of this decision on public opinion. If we compare this work with the Rafsanjan project, we see that this work, with two facades and a very small courtyard, cannot be seen fully. Nevertheless, I too think it is a very good work, but within Mirmiran's oeuvre, it does not have the importance it should.

Mohsen Mirheydar: I am fundamentally and strongly opposed to the use of glass in Iran because it is not suited to our climatic conditions. Furthermore, we should discuss this work only after we set aside Arabshahi's work and comment only on its architecture.

Kamran Afshar Naderi: The merit of this work is that its exterior facade reflects its interior space. But what Mr. Shirdel says about the interior space, I do not accept. This space is nothing more than a tall corridor — not interesting for those who walk through it, nor for those who might sit there and work. The Larkin Building employed this idea far better, with better proportions and a more open space.

Mohammadreza Joudat: I agree with Mr. Kalantari and Mr. Afshar. The occupants have also objected. In the Bar Association, confidentiality is a principle. In this work, everyone is exposed to everyone else's view. The idea of involving painters and sculptors is a very old idea in architecture.

Bahram Shirdel: I voted for this project because of its spatial idea. It has a clear concept. From the standpoint of light, it provides good light for a building on a very limited plot. The facade that Mr. Arabshahi designed in collaboration with Mr. Mirmiran — this light well is neither a corridor nor a light well — it is a completely defined space. Removing the facade is like cutting the mane and tail of a male lion.

Iraj Kalantari: This is a timely work that speaks the language of its era. An industrial complex approached with design capability, with good formal values and good details. The two-layered envelope and the shadows it creates have given this work a special appeal.

Kamran Afshar Naderi: Special work has been done on this envelope at not a very high cost — important because it is an industrial work, not a luxury project. The envelope has become the subject of design. Through the play of shadow and light, something both contemporary and connected to our culture has been created. Moreover, this is the work of young architects deprived of market support. Behind this work, I sense a great effort that must be acknowledged.

Bahram Shirdel: I generally agree. It has interesting design points successfully incorporated into the design process. But I do not think there is a strong architectural idea in it. A young architect should strive to have something to say — they should be young not only in age but also in the spirit of their work.

Mohsen Mirheydar: One of the greatest problems in our country's architecture is the undervaluation of small projects, which constitute at least 88 percent of construction. Rarely do architects invest time in a work of 8 by 12 meters. This competition can show that for small works too, one can act correctly and win a prize. The distinguished qualities of this work are its simplicity, humility, and nobility. There is no intention of showmanship. Its facade, interior and exterior views are pleasant, and there is meaning in its simplicity.

Kamran Afshar Naderi: This work is not just a building and a house — it is an urban work. It raises an unconventional subject and is part of the work of an architect who has always, with courage, remained faithful to their principles. They have not been concerned with whether their work conforms to the times or is suitable for a magazine cover. I consider this work a serious and respectable alternative against the various architectures that receive attention today.

Mohammadreza Joudat: Very simple, with very simple volumes and simple plans — a very good work that matches the title the designer gave it. It represents a strong minimalist tendency that has not yet become outdated.

Bahram Shirdel: There is no doubt it is a good work, and it is very good that a small project receives attention. But my criticism is that architecturally it is to a great extent conservative.

Bahram Shirdel: The discussion of this project has always been a subject in architecture in Iran. I think this may be one of the few projects that has raised this architectural discussion very correctly. The wall has become an architectural statement. The conical form and the sloped surface are architectural elements that create a certain kind of space very successfully.

Iraj Kalantari: I have a fundamental doubt about pursuing identity at this historical juncture. The distinguishing factor of these projects is not which one is Iranian and which is European. My criticism is that the brick is not a texture proportionate to this volume and form at this scale.

Kamran Afshar Naderi: Personally, I have never been fond of this project. This project was initially meant to be a museum, and after that plan fell through, it was converted into a sports facility. The form that remained fixed is approximately close to the form of an ice house in Rafsanjan. From design to execution, nothing changed. But a special space has been created, and the placement of the pool on two sides, inside and outside, raises a successful spatial discussion.

Mohammadreza Joudat: The structure conceived for this volume is illogical. The formal approach exists in other parts as well. In this project, the approaches are mainly formal, and the structure and architecture have been strangely separated from each other.

Mohsen Mirheydar: This work has attracted public attention to its function through the variety created in its architectural form. Among those small projects that have been well thought out.

Kamran Afshar Naderi: It has a spatial and volumetric discussion. In Tehran, design discussion is mostly about floor plans and facades. But overall, it is not a successful work. The designer's effort should be appreciated, but in many places it has been damaged by technical weakness or inattention to surroundings.

Bahram Shirdel: I have no opinion about this project.

Mohsen Mirheydar: It has converted a disused swimming pool into a usable space. Taking a disused place and giving it spatial value is no small feat. Its construction in three months demonstrates the designer's experience and skill in quick decision-making.

Kamran Afshar Naderi: The designer, with all limitations — an abandoned swimming pool and a modest budget — was able to give a non-box idea to a defined box. There is no excess in this single space. Something has been created from nothing.

Bahram Shirdel: The discussion of this project is more interesting than the project itself. The most important point is the trend of reducing architecture to style. This project, compared to the Rafsanjan project, lacks the same long-term research and effort to reach a specific idea.

Kamran Afshar Naderi: The designer started from an architectural discussion in relation to existing issues. The texture on the north facade matches the Cinema Shahr-e Farang across from it. The architect tried to build different layers, break through, and create depth. In this building, there is no mechanical room — it is just a single plane. This is the issue of spatial organization. This building is a pioneer for office towers in Tehran.

Iraj Kalantari: This is a timely work that speaks the language of its era. But this architect's characteristic is that they arrive at a spatial and formal result, then through devices such as materials or ornament, diminish its graphic purity.

Bahram Shirdel: The distinction is between those who produce style and those who consume it. An architect cannot go to the supermarket of architecture and say "today I'll take this red one." There are people who cause ideas to take shape through their lives, goals, and daily activities. Not just anyone can come along and take them.