QUOTE(coollove @ Apr 25 2011, 05:05 PM)
Mr. Azarimy, can u recommend me some good books on working drawing and for design (besides Francis D.K Ching's)? thanks in advance ya~
i dont think there's a single book that anyone would recommend for design. but for working drawings, try and look for technical magazines like DETAIL or the likes. there's also several working drawings handbook (google!) published that u can refer to. but remember, working drawings, although mostly standard, evolves through time. especially when new technologies or techniques are introduced. so i'd start with old, established books, but then quickly move on to the more recent ones.
also remember that working drawings do tend to be localized. meaning conventions used in the US might not be applicable in malaysia. heck, some of the things in johor can be very different from KL. but those are just minor. concentrate on the gist of it!
QUOTE(Benjamin911 @ Apr 25 2011, 09:57 PM)
I am impressed by how quickly version III of this topic has grew since its inception just last month.
It is great that UTM's usual full 5 year degree program has now successfully been 'transmogrified' into a standard & renowned international 3 + 2-masters format. (UTM's Part 2 program will definitely be in my list of consideration for the future.

)
Some of my best works in diploma are currently at progress (in Taylors), and my final semester is, at present, in full-swing; so as a result, I will (sadly)
not be able to make it to the upcoming degree intake in May 2011, for UTM. (As much as I would like to fight the battle to stand the gap between the middle earth!)
I, however, maintain my respect for this mature & established institution for Architecture - UTM. (Quite a significant number of my lecturers from the Division of Architecture at Taylors are graduates from this renowned institution of Architecture, and I realized there is usually a certain level/kind of knowledge & maturity demonstrated by these lecturers in tutorials, lectures, & critic sessions which tend to be profound; and interestingly in a style that is either liked or disliked by students- but I happened to be the type that enjoys it all very much, seeing it all happening in front of me during crit.

)
I have some questions out of my curiosity if you don't mind:
- How does the standard in UTM (at present), compares to its standard say in about 10 - 15 years ago (as in back in our lecturer's tertiary education time-line)?
- What was the primary focus/style/philosophy of the architecture school back then?
- Today, is UTM more focused onto design/theory/philosophy/concepts, or is it more focused into building or architectural - technology/construction/science/functional designing?
- If UTM switches over to BIM in the future (a new work-flow & process for students - correct me if I'm wrong), would creativity/uniqueness in/of students be severely 'diminished'; due to the nature & 'rigidness' of the BIM system?
Regards & now proceeding back to nocturnal-noon work shift in a cold - vast - empty studio boring plain space...
did u know that even if u havent finished in taylor's, u COULD still apply with ur pre-final results? but it's too late now

. btw, dont forget to keep a copy of ur works. some diploma students we interviewed always gave an excuse that their school "kept the drawings, that's why i didnt bring any today" yadda yadda yadda....
to answer ur questions:
the standard is very different nowadays. we've changed quite a lot in the last 10 years that those who graduated during my time would not even recognize them. this is due to the major change of teaching philosophy from a highly technical based to a more open ended, constructive and highly specialized approach. meaning, 10 years back, ALL UTM graduates are very technical based. they have little ability to explore the theoretical or philosophical aspect of architecture, but they can damn sure construct a building and draw the very detail of it just from memory!
nowadays, it's a matter of choice. the highly technical path is still available. students may choose to follow the old school. but there are other specializations that they may venture into. for example, the environmental and sustainability path. this is still highly technical, but also involves in a lot of environmental physics, computer simulations, calculations and experiments. so if u look at their works, it'll be very hardcore science almost engineering, and from a perspective of those graduating over 10 years ago, it'll be an unfamiliar approach.
so back to the standards, if u were to force me to answer it, i'd say the technical aspects have toned down. our diploma school now specializes on building a strong technical base, just like polytechnic diploma. but we have grown to other aspects even more.
i understand there's a lot of concern over the rigidity of BIM system. but like i said before, sketchup can be extremely rigid as well. but people quickly mastered sketchup and did things that even the makers of sketchup never imagined it could do. it's the same with BIM. sure, it'll take a whole lot longer to master BIM software compared to sketchup (which can be mastered in under 2 hours).
we have the core qualities comfortably firm. it's just a matter of taking the next step it producing a more holistic architect. UTM used to be very strong technically. then the school shifted into specializations and the technical aspects have been toned down. by introducing BIM, we can increase the strength of technical knowledge amongst the students WITHOUT sacrificing their ability to specialize!
win-win!