MAA – MELIKE ALTINISIK ARCHITECTS
Melike ALTINIŞIK | Founder
the role of the jury…
My first MIPIM experience was in 2015. That year, I attended solely as a visitor, intent on observing the atmosphere and understanding the dynamics of the event. It struck me as quite different because its atmosphere diverged significantly from the traditional fairs where the architectural community typically presents its projects. I was impressed by the insights I gained at that time; realizing that this was an organization encompassing every actor within the sector.
In the intervening years, my path did not cross with the event again until I received an invitation from MIPIM last year. They contacted me and offered me a three-year jury membership as part of the MIPIM Awards. First, we had a conversation; subsequently, they confirmed their invitation, thus initiating the three-year process.
The first jury meeting convened this year. Our team consisted of about 12 individuals, yet only two of us were architects; the others hailed from various distinct areas of the sector Collaborating with them was an intriguing experience for me. It is significant to me that my involvement with MIPIM has evolved to this extent over the past decade. Back then, our office was newly established; now we are over 10 years old. The way we conduct business has transformed, as has our perspective on how MIPIM can add value to our firm. That is precisely why I find this jury membership so meaningful.
A recommendation list is being compiled for jury members. Although the recommenders are not officially disclosed, I anticipate that I will be asked to provide such a list when my three-year term concludes. The process works systematically: interviews are conducted with the individuals recommended by departing members, who are then extended invitations.
My jury process was exciting.
Once the applications were finalized, we traveled to Brussels for the evaluation meeting, where we convened with the other jury members. The location made for a poignant meeting. We visited last year’s winner, the Royale Belge conversion project, on site. An old office building has been converted into a mixed-use structure. It houses a hotel, offices, social areas, and the city’s largest and most active gym. They expanded the dining areas so that people could come from outside and spend time there. The atmosphere was truly pleasant.
The building itself was equally impressive. Constructed in the sixties, it had aged over the years, but a comprehensive renovation has now modernized both its operations and architecture. Although it is a little far from the city center, it has become the heart of the city with the activities it hosts. We spent the day there conducting the jury evaluation.
Luckily for me, this year they launched a new initiative: “Let’s see the winning project on site and experience whether the right decision was made.’’ I conveyed that this was a highly appropriate decision. Because you can only understand what the project you choose really means by experiencing it. Everyone was fascinated. This initiative is planned to continue in the coming years. This year’s Overall Winner was the Fuzja project in Poland; we will visit it in the coming period.
Overall, there were good projects this year. Fuzja was a particularly valuable project. Deciding on the Overall Winner was not easy; we were torn between several projects.
The jury makes the preliminary selections, and then the winner is determined based on the average, including the participants’ votes. This year, the preferences of those who voted from outside were also parallel with the juries.
evaluation & voting…
The competition attracts a high level of participation, and similar systems are typically employed in such organizations. I have served as a jury member in other international competitions besides MIPIM, and the method here was quite similar to them. Since there are many applications, a pool is created, assigning approximately 50–60 projects to each jury member. For example, If there are 600 submissions, they are divided into groups and distributed via an algorithm ensuring each project is reviewed by at least four jury members.
Before the meeting, you individually score the projects and write notes and comments. The projects that stand out based on the evaluations of 4–5 jury members in each category are identified. These projects are discussed first at the meeting. However, sometimes we encounter projects with score differences or that risk being overlooked. You can bring these up and open them for discussion. System is based on the principle that every project must be reviewed by several people because it is not possible to evaluate six hundred projects on your own.
At the meeting where we came together, we discussed the top ten projects in their categories throughout the day. The best three projects were selected from each. An Overall Winner was also determined from among the winners of all categories. The finalists were then announced, and participants could vote during the fair.
So, if you were at the fairgrounds, you had the right to vote for one of the finalists. However, this voting right was exclusively for MIPIM participants (approximately 20,000 people) and was not extended to the public.
Various stakeholders can apply in each category, including architecture firms, investors, and construction companies; thus, applications are not limited solely to architects.
This year, the jury and participants’ preferences aligned. This is not always the case; or instance, participants might rank our third choice as first, or the Overall Winner could diverge. But this year, the results being in the same direction surprised and pleased everyone.
Of course, there were disagreements within the jury. There were points where I had serious objections. Sometimes, while five or six jury members voted positively, I did not agree. I presented my reasons; sometimes these explanations led to a change in the decision, sometimes they did not. It was a democratic environment; the vote was counted, and the decision went with the majority.
Besides me, Camilla VAN DEURS was also an architect on the jury. She served as Chief City Architect of Copenhagen for many years and completed her term last year. She continues her architectural practice today. She is a wonderful woman with a strong character. Together, we expressed our architectural perspective very clearly and, when necessary, forcefully. In my opinion, a good selection emerged at the end of the day.
MAA – MELIKE ALTINISIK ARCHITECTS
Melike ALTINIŞIK | Founder
This year marked the Turkish Architects Federation’s inaugural participation in MIPIM, and I find its collective, unified presence highly valuable.
preperations…
Although I lack extensive MIPIM experience, my observations indicate that thorough preparation is essential before attending. If one attends unprepared, it is easy to get lost. Because there are booths from institutions and offices in every area of the sector; the information density is incredible. Therefore, you must plan in advance which agenda to follow, which perspective to approach it from, and whom to meet with.
Chance encounters are exceedingly rare; everyone’s schedule is booked months in advance. If you miss an hour, it is almost impossible to reschedule. Therefore, regardless of the nature of MIPIM, participants should prepare for the process with awareness.
Of course, developments that are not in your plan but catch your attention can add value to the process. However, due to the distribution of the stands and the structure of the fair area, you can miss a lot. When you try to discover just by walking around, sometimes you come across an architecture office, sometimes a city promotion, and sometimes a federation. The probability of getting lost in the flow or skipping important points is high. This confusion can happen whether you group the booths or not.
That’s why I see MIPIM as a city fabric; there is a grocery store next door, an office, a restaurant… All kinds of opportunities are available, but preparation is essential to take advantage of them.
By preparation, I mean: Who is participating, why are we going there, what is our goal, who will we be dealing with? The participation system and appointment interfaces are quite advanced in this regard. I observed that the interface worked well. I will be able to make clearer comments next year because this year was full of firsts for me and was a bit hectic.
I often observed that most people meet outside. I even received an invitation myself. On Tuesday, we went to the Palais Bulle (Bubble Palace), a legendary bubble-shaped building from the sixties, located 1.5 hours away from MIPIM. The owner is an investor from Manchester. With a group of about eighty guests, we toured the villa and had the opportunity to chat. I heard that such events increase during MIPIM; different gatherings are organized at the fair.
As architects, we are usually focused on space, design, and how we can benefit society. Business development is often the last thing on our minds. At MIPIM, the situation is the opposite; business development is at the forefront.
Ten years ago, this topic was at the bottom of my list, and while it is not at the top now, it has moved up significantly. Over time, your awareness and consciousness grow, and you shape your initiatives accordingly. Environments like MIPIM are beneficial in this regard. Of course, there are many shortcomings, and large budgets are spent, but it is up to you to turn these into benefits. Determining the strategy for this process is entirely up to the participant.
Reaching the younger audience requires different participation segments. This year, they tried adding a student category. However, due to insufficient promotion, only three projects participated; as the jury, we did not deem it appropriate to award a prize this year. Still, I find it valuable as an initiative. Because competitions can reach young people and create awareness for institutions.
Competitions also have a special place in our office. So far, we have two projects that we have obtained and built through competitions, and we are now working on the third. In Korea, we are one of the five finalists in the Performing Arts Center competition. The process continued with public presentations, and now we are waiting for the jury’s evaluation. We will soon compete in the second round. Among our competitors is Zaha Hadid Architects, which holds a key place in my life.
That is how life is; if you persevere, you build your luck step by step. The projects we have obtained through competitions shape our journey, and some of them get the opportunity to be built. That is why I have always seen competitions as a crucial tool.
Turkish Architects Federation…
The Turkish Architects Federation participated in MIPIM for the first time this year, and I find it valuable that this was achieved through collective participation. While countries such as Germany, France, and Italy have been participating in this way for years, it was thought-provoking that Turkey was missing from this picture.
Despite our cultural differences, I believe in the principle that unity is strength. In an environment like MIPIM, it is much more meaningful to be present together rather than individually. If architectural services are to be offered from Turkey, there is a significant difference between a single office opening a stand and 10-20 offices participating with a common vision.
As the world evolves in this direction, it is important for us to be part of it and to advance this approach. Since it was the first year, there were both positive developments and some hiccups; this is natural. I believe that in the coming years, there will be stronger, more vocal, and more coordinated participation. I even foresee small talks, discussions, or short events taking place in the booth area.
The Federation needs support from the public sector as well as civil initiatives. Although this year’s participation was largely driven by individual initiatives, public support is critical for strengthening the structure on a global scale. However, I believe that it is essential for the Federation to maintain its unique voice and autonomous stance, regardless of the support it receives during this process.
Individualism is widespread in Turkey; it starts with the individual and reflects in the office and other areas. However, it is critical to develop the understanding that strength comes from unity and that we can rise together with our competitors.
The setbacks experienced were minor issues; most of them were due to lack of time. About two months before the event, Murat Tabanlıoğlu called me and mentioned the Federation’s initiative; he invited me, saying they wanted to bring together ten architecture firms. I was already going to be at MIPIM as a jury member, so I joined the process on that occasion.
In a short time, it was difficult for independent offices to make joint decisions, design the stand, implement it, and transport it to Cannes. Dome+Partners took on the design; they shared it with us from time to time, and we moved forward with joint decisions, but they carried the main burden. I would like to thank them for their efforts, both on my own behalf and on behalf of the other offices.
Another valuable aspect of the process for me was the opportunity to meet architecture firms in Ankara. We occasionally encounter those in Istanbul at various events, but I met different offices for the first time through this initiative. Each firm has a unique way of working; it was valuable to discuss these and how future collaborations could be established.
highlights & trends…
The Saudis were truly ambitious. Their projects are certainly open to debate; however, I appreciated the care they took in their presentations. The way they designed and managed the relationship their projects would establish with people and the masses were impressive. They had caught up with the times; there were such stands that you experienced the projects as if you were watching a movie scene. Most of these belonged to the Saudis.
On the other hand, I also remember the huge master plan in Tashkent. I found the approach presented by the Tashkent team consistent; it made sense in terms of urban investment and development.
Compared to the Saudi projects, the planning approach in Tashkent seemed more positive and reasonable to me. The projects were more human scale; they were at a point where they could make a stronger and more balanced statement about the urbanization of the future.
MIPIM 2025 | perspective…
There is a significant difference between my perspective 10 years ago and my perspective today. The architectural conferences and fairs I attended back then were more architect focused. In 2015, when our office was newly established, when I first went to MIPIM, the environment seemed quite different to me and I felt quite alone. Because I was at the very beginning of the road.
When I evaluate it from my current perspective, MIPIM is an ideal platform for business development. However, at that time, there was a distance brought by inexperience. I did not know how the balances were established, how to take steps. I saw the potential power there, but I stayed away because I did not feel ready. This was one of the main reasons why I did not participate for years.
When I look at it now, I see that at the point we are at, MIPIM is the right formation for us.
Because you do not go there to discuss architecture; you go to meet investors, business developers, public institutions, and international associations like RIBA. It is an opportunity area where you can introduce yourself, even for a short time, by communicating face-to-face. How you evaluate this opportunity is entirely related to your business development vision and preparation.
In 2015, MAA and Melike Altınışık were not ready yet, so we remained distant. However, when MIPIM came back on my agenda on the jury membership, we had already been in an international business development effort for several years. With our completed projects and the office having a more solid structure, this participation was a very right step. Moreover, the jury membership created a separate source of prestige, especially in terms of international recognition. Although Turkey was a part of this process, the real value was its contribution to international recognition.
It was valuable for me to return to a place that I had timidly stayed away from ten years ago, this time by being invited. Because we also changed in the process; we can now grasp what MIPIM means from a broader perspective.
A discussion about new generations has not yet been held, but I think this topic should be opened in the coming years. Because in such environments, experience plays a critical role. How many projects an architecture office has completed, what it has built, and what stages it has gone through have become important for it to be a part of that trust network.
In 2015, our projects were just entering the construction phase. Now, we are at a completely different point with the Çamlıca Tower, the Robot & AI Museum in Seoul, and our other projects. As our experience increased, our presence there also became meaningful.
However, the problem is not just experience, there are also budgetary obstacles. The participation fees are a serious burden for young offices. Even an office that just wants to go for observation faces these obstacles. I think some privileges can be granted to small offices and teams under a certain age, for example, discounted participation fees. Such facilities will contribute to young offices at least gaining awareness and acquiring a business development vision.
On the other hand, competitions offer an opportunity in this regard. Even if an office has only a single project, it is possible to participate in categories for under 40—even under 30. This is also a valuable occasion. Increasing the awareness of the competition will also be important for MIPIM. In the end, experience is a critical factor, the process works this way due to the nature of architecture.
In architecture, you are still considered a young architect when you are 40, the maturity period begins after 50.
I am currently in my mid-forties; when I first went, I was in my mid-thirties and at the very beginning of the road. I still feel that way because there is so much more to be done.
contribution…
During our participation this year, we had the opportunity to meet and interview investors from specific regions we targeted. We were able to convey directly to them, however briefly, what kind of office MAA is. Of course, our projects are published in architectural media worldwide, and we have a certain visibility in these channels.
I am invited to and attend approximately 20 conferences in Türkiye and 10 abroad every year; sometimes jury memberships are also involved. In other words, we have recognition within the architectural community; however, the probability of potential clients discovering you through this path is unfortunately low. You experience this over the years.
Conferences, publications, and such investments certainly nourish your corporate culture and contribute to spreading it, but their potential to bring direct business is limited. Still, their contribution to building brand value is indisputable. In fact, receiving the jury membership offer at MIPIM was possible thanks to this value we built.
MIPIM’s greatest contribution is accelerating access to relationship networks that we normally struggle to reach or cannot find the opportunity to access. We had the chance to convey firsthand who MAA is and what we do to project managers, and even senior executives, from many regions such as the Middle East, Azerbaijan, and Dubai. This is a useful tool for demonstrating the quality of your architectural service. Thanks to these contacts you establish, you might be invited to limited competitions or receive direct project offers.
MIPIM’s main focal point is starting relationship building within the context of business development. This process does not always yield immediate results; returns can sometimes happen 6 months or 2 years later. But securing that initial acquaintance is valuable.
I have always believed in the importance of the concept of networking. Even if you do not see someone for years, if you have left a mark, you become the first person that comes to mind when the right time comes. That is exactly the kind of relationships you build at MIPIM.
