Dohaland Seminar - The Aga Khan Award for Architecture: Voices from Doha This presentation focuses on the process of the AKAA technical review and jury process based on my recent experience as reviewer in the latest 33rd Cycle of the AKAA. It sheds light on nature of the review process starting with the project nomination, selection of reviewers, reviewers responsibilities, project study, visit, report writing, and presentation of project to the master jury committee. The Aga Khan Award’s process of projects technical review is one of the most rigorous and comprehensive review processes of architecture awards. The Aga Khan Award for Architecture was established in 1977 by His Highness the Aga Khan. It recognizes examples of architectural excellence that encompass contemporary design, social housing, community improvement and development, restoration, re-use, and area conservation, as well as landscaping and environmental issues. Through its efforts, the Award seeks to identify and encourage building concepts that successfully address the needs and aspirations of societies in which Muslims have a significant presence.

1. The Aga Khan Award for Architecture: Voices from Doha Dohaland Seminar Wednesday January 12th 2011 AKAA Technical Review and Jury Process:A Recent Experience Dr. Yasser MahgoubAssociate Professor of Architecture, QU

2. Qatar Projects National Museum Doha, Qatar The First Cycle , 1975

3. Qatar Projects SouqWaqif Doha, Qatar Short Listed 11th Cycle , 2010

4. The Award’s objectives Encourage architecture that reflects the pluralism that has always characterized Muslim communities.” No fixed criteria for the type, nature, location or cost of projects to be considered Eligible projects must be designed for or used by Muslim communities, in part or in whole, wherever they are located. The Agra Fort has won the Aga Khan Award for Architecture in the year 2004

5. Project Identification and Nomination The Award encourages and accepts recommendations for projects to be considered from all possible sources. All interested persons can submit projects for the Award by completing a simple form or by completing the on-line form. Architectsand others associated with projects are welcome to recommend their own works. The Award invites younger architects and emerging talentsto submit their works.

6. Eligibility Criteria All projects must meet the eligibility criteria. Eligibility criteria focus on projects completed during the last two cycles of the Award, covering the last six-year. Eligible projects must be completed and have been in use for at least one full year.

7. Eligibility Criteria Large and/or long-term projects that are not yet fully completed – such as urban design, area conservation, and community upgrading schemes, among others – are also eligible so long asa tangible portion has been completed and demonstrates the potential success of the long-term project. Re-Forestation Programme of the Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey Sixth Award Cycle, 1960 and ongoing

8. Eligibility Criteria All types of building projects that affect today’s environments Frommodest small-scale interventions tomajor complexes and urban or regional design. Housing Community and neighborhood projects Urban areas and issues Infrastructure Transportation Industry Offices and commercial facilities Educational and health facilities.

9. Eligibility Criteria The Award has encouraged submissions under the following three categories for the 2010 cycle, which were under-representedamong nominated projects: Rural development Industry and places of work Public spaces, small and large

10. On-Site Project Review Project Reviewers are architectural professionals specializing in various disciplines, including housing, urban planning, landscape design and restoration. Their task is to examine on site each of the projects shortlisted by the Master Jury, verifying project data and seeking additional informationsuch as user reactions.

11. On-Site Project Review Report Reviewers report on projects located outside their native countries. two to four days on-site, exclusive of travel. Detailed set of criteriain their written reports, and must also respond to specific concerns and questions prepared by the Master Jury for each project.

12. Report Outline The report is conceived in two sections: The firstsection should seek to be objective, and will form the basis of public reports, releases, and various publications of the Award. The secondsection will be an internal document and should reflect the reviewer’s personal judgment of the project.

13. Report Outline Section I I. Introduction II. Contextual Information III. Programme IV. Description V. Construction Schedule and Costs VI. Technical Assessment VII. Users VIII. Persons involved IX. Bibliography Section II X. Project Significance XI. Conclusion

14. Project Presentation to Master Jury Reviewers travel to Geneva one or two days in advance of the final meetings of the Master Jury. On the first two days, reviewers are required to report on each of the projects they visited, with a prepared visual presentation of materials including photographstaken by the project photographer and other materials collected by the reviewer or available at the Award office.

15. Review and Selection Procedures Master Jury The review of projects and the selection of award recipients is the responsibility of an independent Master Jury specially appointed for each Award cycle. Each jury is pluridisciplinary, and brings together specialists in such fields as history, engineering, philosophy, architectural conservation, and contemporary arts, as well as practicing architects, landscape architects and urban planners. SouleymaneBachirDiagne (Professor, Department of Philosophy, Columbia University, USA) Omar AbdulazizHallaj (Architect; Chief Executive Officer, Syria Trust for Development, Syria) Salah M. Hassan (Art historian and curator; director of Africana Studies and Research Center, Cornell University, USA) FaryarJavaherian (Architect and curator; co-founder of Gamma Consultants, Iran) AnishKapoor (Artist, UK) Kongjian Yu (Landscape architect and urbanist; founder and dean of Graduate School of Landscape Architecture, Peking University, China) Jean Nouvel (Architect; founding partner, Ateliers Jean Nouvel, France Alice Rawsthorn (Design critic, International Herald Tribune, UK) Basem Al Shihabi (Architect; Managing Partner, Omrania & Associates, Saudi Arabia)

16. Review and Selection Procedures Master Jury For the Eleventh Award Cycle, the Master Jury held two meetings to arrive at its final decisions. At its first meeting, the jury reviewed the submissions enrolled through the nomination programme. The jury examines the documentation on each project and select approximately twenty-five to thirty projects for On-Site Project Review by experts selected by the Award. At the second week-long meeting of the Master Jury, the Project Reviewers make personal presentations on the projects they have reviewed.

17. Selection of Award Recipients After evaluating the projects in closed sessions, the Jurors select the Award recipients and determine the apportionment of the US$ 500,000 prize fund. Master Jury apportions prizes among the contributors - architects, other design and construction professionals, craftsmen, clients and institutions - whom it considers most responsible for the success of each project. The decisions of the Master Jury are final.

18. Shortlisted Projects American University of Beirut Campus Master Plan, Beirut, Lebanon Chandgaon Mosque, Chittagong, Bangladesh CBF Women’s Health Centre, Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso Conservation of Gjirokastra, Gjirokastra, Albania Nishorgo Visitor Interpretation Centre, Teknaf, Bangladesh Tulou Collective Housing, Guangzhou, China Palmyra House, Alibagh, India Green School, Bali, Indonesia Reconstruction of Ngibikan Village, Yogyakarta, Indonesia Dowlat II Residential Building, Tehran, Iran Restoration of the Rubber Smokehouse, Lunas, Kedah, Malaysia Rehabilitation of Al Qaraouiyine Mosque, Fez, Morocco Souk Waqif, Doha, Qatar Yodakandyia Community Centre, Hambantota District, Sri Lanka Bridge School, Xiashi, China WadiHanifa Wetlands, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia Madinat Al-Zahra Museum, Cordoba, Spain Revitalization of the recent Heritage of Tunis, Tunis, Tunisia Ipekyol Textile Factory, Edirne, Turkey The shortlist of 19 nominees for the 2010 cycle of Aga Khan Award for Architecture was announced by the Master Jury. The nominees, which range from a textile factory in Turkey to a school built on a bridge in China, are located in Albania, Bangladesh, Burkina Faso, China, India, Indonesia, Iran, Lebanon, Malaysia, Morocco, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Tunisia and Turkey.

19. Winners of the 2010 Aga Khan Award for Architecture WadiHanifa WetlandsRiyadh, Saudi ArabiaPlanners: Moriyama & Teshima Planners Limited & BuroHappold in joint ventureClient: High Commission for the Development of Arriyadh/Arriyadh Development Authority Revitalisation of the Hypercentre of TunisTunis, TunisiaArchitect: Association de Sauvegarde de la Médina de TunisClient: Municipality of Tunis Bridge SchoolXiashi, Fujian Province, ChinaArchitect: Li Xiaodong AtelierClient: Xiashi Village Madinat al-Zahra MuseumCordoba, SpainArchitect: Nieto SobejanoArquitectos, Fuensanta Nieto & Enrique SobejanoClient: Junta de Andalucía, Consejería de Cultura Ipekyol Textile FactoryEdirne, TurkeyArchitect: EAA - EmreArolat ArchitectsClient: IpekyolGiyimSanayi

20. Five Projects Received 2010 Aga Khan Award The five projects selected for the 2010 Aga Khan Award for Architecture were announced at a ceremony held at the Museum of Islamic Art in Doha, November 24, 2010. His Highness Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani the Emir of Qatar and Her Highness SheikhaMozabint Nasser joined His Highness the Aga Khan in presiding over the ceremony.

21. Summary of the Review Process Eligibility Criteria

22. 2010 On Site Review ReportAmerican University in BeirutBeirut, Lebanon (3980.LEB) By: Yasser Mahgoub

23. Basic Information Planner/Architect: SASAKI and Machado/Silvetti Client: American University in Beirut Design: 2000 - 2001 Implementation: 2002 – On going

24. The Master Plan Successes Place PeoplePlan Product Process

25. Thank You …