Critique & Theory

Interview with Mahmoudreza Mohajerani

Memar 155 · February–March 2026

Mahmoudreza Mohajerani at the Pirraz office

Let us begin with a look at Shariatzadeh's architectural thinking. How did Shariatzadeh view architecture?

In the prevailing thinking at Bonyad Consulting Engineers and then at Pirraz, attention to pure form at the outset of architecture had absolutely no place. In the works of Bonyad and Shariatzadeh, you never see an idea of architectural volume as the axis of design, or symbolic resemblances in a building. Architecture like the Professor Samii Brain and Nerve Center building is never witnessed in Shariatzadeh's works. Having a concept — for example, of an open safe frozen in space — from the perspective of Shariatzadeh's thinking, is an error and outside the process of his architectural design for a public building. On the other hand, his approach in architecture was not in opposition to form and its importance, and he had no hostility toward the symbolic nature of buildings in cases where it was called for.

Tell us briefly about the principles of Shariatzadeh's architecture.

What can be said regarding the principles of Shariatzadeh's architecture: first, when architecture is designed for a user, the horizons of today's world in responding to their needs must be identified. For example, one can look at the architecture of three administrative buildings designed by Shariatzadeh and Bonyad — the Ministry of Labor building (1339), the National Iranian Oil Company building (1351), and the Ministry of Education building which was not built (designed in 1375) — and observe the changes in approach to the design program and the requirements of each project. Changes in the relationship with the audience and the nature of work processes over 35 years have certainly been influential in the planning and design of all three projects. In the design of the Rivoli Cinema, too, one can observe that at the time of its design and construction, the study of technical requirements in the world's cinema halls had produced the best specifications and technical hardware for image projection and acoustic quality.

Second, attention to the continuity of optimal function in the face of structural and organizational changes in public buildings over time. For example, in the National Library project, the building's flexibility — given the everyday needs of work relationships and services provided and their changes over time — was of key importance. Third, attention to building intelligence, which in Shariatzadeh and his colleagues had taken shape long before the concept of intelligent buildings became commonplace in today's definition. From their perspective, intelligent buildings must be able to adapt to the structural changes of future needs in terms of space, quality, and durability. Fourth, the importance of compatibility with sustainable development and energy conservation. This important matter is well observed in the design of the National Library and the University of Kerman buildings.

Mirheyder, Razzaghi, Mohajerani and colleagues at the Pirraz office on Zoroaster Street — Mirheyder, Razzaghi, Mohajerani and colleagues at the Pirraz office

What do we know about Iranian identity in Shariatzadeh's architecture? Considering that we know of his complete mastery of architectural history and Iranian architecture.

In the 1370s solar decade, the discussion of Iranian and Islamic identity in architecture was very much in the air, and prominent architects such as engineer Sheikh Zeineddin were working on this subject. Shariatzadeh had a deep command of Iranian architecture and architectural history and believed that when we speak of spatial identity, a building built in the climate of Gilan with the climatic characteristics of that place would not be built the same way in the desert climate. In the north, architecture is extroverted, and in the desert, introverted. A building designed and built in a city in 1375 certainly does not share the same form and design as a building constructed centuries ago in the same place. From Shariatzadeh's view, an architect may take elements from past architecture such as the dome and repeat them in a new construction, but this will not create Iranian identity for that new building. What is important is being up-to-date, observing modern technical principles, and practical considerations. For example, in the National Library building, upon passing through the entrance, one sees no sign of old and historical symbols. Even the column capitals, which at first bear a resemblance to Iranian architecture, in fact have a structural function.

At a glance, have Pirraz and Shariatzadeh practiced a modernist architecture, or have they achieved a style of architecture with satisfactory results and simply repeated it?

In my view, doing something unconventional and different in terms of form and shape does not necessarily mean the architect is a modernist. If we are speaking of modernism, attention to compatibility with sustainable development, energy conservation, conformity with seismic conditions in most parts of this earthquake-prone country, and appropriate function in relation to the building's users can lead to new and up-to-date architecture.

Do we encounter something like a style or signature in Shariatzadeh's projects?

In form, perhaps not, but in working method, yes. For example, in the University of Kerman project, with the designer's input, educational programming for the university was assigned to Espandar Company, and based on its results, the masterplan for the University of Kerman prepared at Pirraz Consulting Engineers, for the first time, led to the formation of a framework that also became the design strategy for subsequent educational projects. All buildings in this project are designed at a scale of 3,000 to 5,000 square meters, because they are built with less budget and in shorter time and reach operation sooner. Building a 20,000-square-meter structure for a single faculty with all necessary dedicated facilities might lock up your capital for 5 years before reaching fruition. This system proved very effective in practice, and Pirraz and Shariatzadeh repeated it in later projects such as Shahrekord University and Kerman Medical Sciences University.

Shariatzadeh had a serious inclination toward the organic nature of his architecture. This perspective is clearly apparent in the Zoroaster Street building. In this work, the architect has brought green space into the interior of the architectural space, and his architectural geometry displays a striking example of organic architecture. In the Yousefabad residential building — his own house — you do not encounter conventional architectural forms. In the Tandis residential building too, we see that the architect has designed a private and unique green space for each unit. In residential architecture in Iran, at such a scale, I have not seen a comparable example.

Yousef Shariatzadeh, Mohsen Mirheyder, and Pirraz colleagues at the office, 1378

Dernières Vidéos

Catégories

Types de bâtiment

Populaire

Restez informé

Suivez-nous