starting pay under employment? They are about the same but depends on individual performance of course. But considering it is a longer course of study, I'd say the engineer gets a better deal.

average pay? ditto

professional fees for a project? The architect gets more (probably about 2-3 times but depends on the type of buildings) but this is because of the much larger scope of works, involvement, responsibilities and liabilities. After all, the engineer only designs the skeleton of the building or in the case of housing, the infrastructure as well. The architect is the lead consultant in a building project, the first to get involved and the last to leave. It is common that the architect gets the project to provide comprehensive professional service and engages other consultants (engineers, QS, interior designers,etc) to be under him.

as a business - architects earn more generally

This post has been edited by tehtmc: Dec 31 2010, 10:25 AM

Is a architech needed to be very creative?

This post has been edited by Mjern: Dec 31 2010, 03:57 PM

You are not only needed to be creative/artistic/historic, you are also required to be technical, cooperate/business minded, controlled, & objective.

Nevertheless, it is not rare to lean towards one side more.

Regards.

Mr.Azarimy, I've heard of a course called Architectural Engineering. If i'm not mistaken one who pursue this path will be able to sign both the architectural drawings and also the structural drawings of a building given that they fulfill all the requirements such as LAM part 3 and etc

Is it true?

Santiago Calatrava and Norman Foster took this course right?

Is it recognized here in Malaysia?

Any good Singapore university to study for part 2. I m going to finish my degree n now in practical.

it's true that such courses exist. but not in malaysia.

in the UK for example, they do offer architectural engineering course where after 5 years u will graduate with both architecture professional degree (part 2) and a civil/structural engineering professional degree as well. when i was in sheffield, there were two malaysian students sitting for that course. but i didnt ask how the recognition is.

but at least for architecture, anything with RIBA/ARB part 2 will be recognized here in malaysia. so it boils down to if BEM would recognize it as well.

Never get into architecture because of the pay. You will regret it and it will be a long investment before you can get your Part III and be eligible to be paid according to the construction rate. You will have to endure seeing your friends getting huge salaries while you are lugging yourself a low salary in a firm. Understand that architecture is a life you subscribe to.

---

Added on January 5, 2011, 11:16 amI still resent the idea of business mindedness in the field of architecture. Unlike a business, architecture's final purpose is not getting the biggest profit or building the biggest towers. The realm of architecture belongs to a social philosophy under humanities. This has been very well discussed in my website's quest of Malaysian architecture.

Azarimy, after comparing the professional architectural scene in Malaysia and Australia, I do have few questions to ask. What is your opinion on LAM's stringent accreditation procedure? We have noticed that LAM do not recognize any other qualifications out of Malaysia, UK, Australia and New Zealand. How about students from a bigger part of Europe, USA or even Japan?

This makes me wonder how many 'graduate architects' from overseas get away with submission and approval by parking their name under other professional firms or partnership despite being the real designer of a project. I guess this leads to the speciation of architects species into design architects and project architects. In all actuality PAM only protects project architects while many design architects are derived of their rights. This is especially the case for a lot of local scene 'design architects' such as John Bulcock, Ernesto Bedmar, Kevin Mark Low and Ng Sek San. I wondered what really guarantees the rights of 'design architects'.

This post has been edited by yangsquare: Jan 5 2011, 12:02 PM

I have not heard of any architect-cum-engineer in Malaysia. I know one of the principals of Veritas Architect has a degree in civil engineering from the US. The Malaysian Engineering Accreditation Council requires the engineering degree to be a 4-year full-time study. That's why the 3-year UK Engineering degree is not recognized. Add the 4 years to the 5-years architecture course and that's the period you need to get the two degrees. And we are not even talking of work experience - min. 2 years for LAM Part 3 and 3 years for BEM exam. Who would want to do that?

Architecture is wide enough as a field of study. I don't think you can be an expert in two fields. Truth is, you can't even be an expert in the various aspects of architectural practice alone.
Santiago Calatrava is a rare breed. Norman Forster does not have a qualification in engineering.

azarimy
Are you sure 'anything with RIBA Part 2' is recognized? I thought they are not if the first part of the degree is done in the IPTS.



The accreditation process is not just about merit, it's more of a policy thing, like many other things in Bolehland. B.Arch from HKU (ranked top 30 in the world) used to be in LAM's list but has disappeared. NUS (previously SU) has never made it to the list even though there has been many graduates from there since the 70's and many are in successful practice. How do you explain that?

This post has been edited by tehtmc: Jan 5 2011, 06:23 PM

is there any uni in malaysia tht i can study architecture with twinning program to uk?

what's my opinion? well, personally i think LAM should get their acts together and have a more transparent system. they've been dwelling on the old system inherited from the british. although it worked well before, it's time for a change. just refer to tehtmc's comments above. it's true that those from NUS, which is not in the list, have been accredited with no problem at all. then again, it might be an issue of that stupid website which is managed by god knows how many people.

thing is, LAM does recognize overseas degrees, particularly RIBA accredited degrees. i know a lot of them are already working in msia, but didnt bother applying for the LAM part 2 exam. most are following the kamil merican way - instead of working under a part 3 architect, they EMPLOY a part 3 architect to work under them. and it works!

a friend of mine who's a graduate from UTM, never registered his part 2 (although he's perfectly qualified for it), practiced interior design (rather than architecture) under his own flag. now he's venturing back into architecture, and instead of going for a part 2&3 himself, he employed a part 3 architect under him and assigned his other employees to that guy.

so business wise, they're still selling their name. it's still seksan design. still kamil merican's office. people know by their name and their work, not their part 3 qualification. i'm not sure the legalities of this though.

even if they did the 1st degree in IPTS, RIBA wont let them sit for part 2 until they've actually completed part 1. this is the same case with students with LAM part 1 going overseas. they still have to take RIBA part 1 in order to get part 2. as far as i know there is no way for anyone to obtain a RIBA part 2 without taking part 1.

as far as i know, they have been discontinued. what u can do now is to take a diploma or 1st degree here, and continue for the rest of the studies in the UK.

That's part of a very big picture IMO. The 'realm' of Architecture is immensely broad and encompasses a whole lot of other matter/aspects.

In general, architects/architecture students shouldn't be too conservative/controlled in designing. One should just attempt to think out of the box, break the rules/boundaries, & push the limits. There is no such thing as 'playing save' in architecture; students having this mentality & going down this route tend to produce designs that are boring & mundane and which are literally meaningless & far from being outstanding & significant in any-way. (As our lecturer puts it "designs being neither here nor there.")

It is indeed true that architecture belongs to a social philosophy under humanities; hence there's the need to push it further in that aspect;

Visionary Architecture (in western architecture history) is a powerful way of inspiring, simulating the mind & senses, & arousing imagination. It could be disturbing, mind boggling, simulating, or just plain awe-struck inspiring.

The following links to some famous works that evoke such feelings;

http://www.darkroastedblend.com/2010/02/ha...-of-future.html

http://www.darkroastedblend.com/2007/12/re...s-urbanism.html

http://obviousmag.org/en/archives/2007/10/..._architect.html

Edit: Added more links.

Regards.

This post has been edited by Benjamin911: Jan 7 2011, 04:07 PM

Your definition of 'Visionary Architecture' actually have its origins in Romanticism, in due influences from philosophers like Rousseau and Burke. Powerful stimulation of the mind and the senses are pretty much what they regard as the sublime. For me, it's simply called poetic or phenomenology in architecture. Fret not though, there are some well-known practitioners of phenomenology to this day.

I'm glad that you do subscribe the same philosophy as I do. I'm duly very interested in the sublime powers of architecture. However there are several schools of architecture that put much more priority in other instances like architectural tectonics or architecture as a language. The only thing that irks me is the over commodification of architecture, particularly in Malaysia. A bigger part of Malaysian society still think architecture is simply facial aesthetics and unfortunately quite a number of mainstream architects subscribe to this mindset. Some think there's no point of going through all this sketching and modelling, heading straight to CAD to accelerate delivery. I hope you do not lose this integrity and most importantly what we've learned in all these years in studio do not be thrown away mindlessly.

Just remember this quote:
"Do whatever you can to keep money from being a major influence in your life. It will control you. It allows others to control you."

That's a good thing, its always ideal (crucial I'll say) to have this visionary/imaginative mindset in architecture.

Just a word about CAD; it has its "prominent" place in architecture; the technicalities in this field of practice is just as important as the artistic/creative part. Other than the technically inclined personnels who are just naturally good at stuffs like CAD, it is also highly ideal/crucial for highly creative, talented, artistic and imaginative personnels, who tend to sketch, draw, & express in manual craft, to learn & use CAD too. (CAD is a professional skill, knowledge, & practice that cannot be overlooked in the profession.) However, it is definitely crucial that one should be "seriously" good when it comes to CAD or BIM; because like it or not, every single average Joe around are easily getting to know how to use CAD/BIM in a breeze as they get their hands on one; it is nothing difficult, new, or special. Nevertheless, one without the desired level of creativity, knowledge, & understanding of the subjects in architecture will most notably be sure to screw up really badly with CAD/BIM. (It is that bad, though I was not the victim. )
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Just a little bit of history I'll like to share;

"Romanticism" was a big movement which occurred during the era of the Industrial Revolution; 18th - 19th century. (In the Age of Enlightenment.)

In the movement & era, elaborate wrought-iron works rich in decoration & ornaments found their way into the structure of buildings; in the balustrades, roofing structure, light fixtures, structural supports, furnitures, and all the way out into the street furnitures such as decorative cast-iron lamp posts, decorated wrought-iron benches & gas lamps as such. (This is Art Nouveau - 18th century, an original movement in Romanticism.)

During romanticism, the "flowering" of Rococo architecture once again reappeared; being revived from the glorious passed age of magnificent palaces & fountains back then. (Known as the magnificence age of the Baroque & Rococo era back in the 16th - 17th century; according to scholars, the most beautiful period of architecture ever.) However, being revived into the 19th century of the Industrial Revolution era, Rococo architecture was perceived by the general public as "corrupted" and full of "decadence"; being associated only with the wealthy & aristocrats.

The romantic movement also sought to revive the powerful & souring characteristic of Gothic architecture from the 12th - 13th century (right after the dark ages back then); the architecture consist of souring spires, pinnacles, flying-buttresses, & tall pointed arches of masonry lined with traceries & stained-glass windows. (Known as The Gothic Revival, it is very much evident today in the London Parliament for example.)

Finally, there were other movements interwoven in Romanticism, but one of them was among the most opulent & imposing of all, and also original to this era & movement. The Style Napoleon III or better known just as "Beaux Arts Classicism". (I did a report on it, so there is obviously too much to talk about it in here.) However, just to make it short & sweet; the style has the grandiosity of the 16th - 17th century Baroque architecture, the richness of the later & more feminine Rococo architecture, & the original foundation of Neoclassicism.

P.S., Sadly, the Internet is still substandard when it comes to retrieving good quality archives of topics in architecture history. A proper book will provide so much more & in better quality. (The library is still the best place for studying, appreciating, & getting inspired by architecture history.)

Best regards.

This post has been edited by Benjamin911: Jan 9 2011, 09:27 PM

I just came back from Education Fair at KLCC just now. During the talk by Tony Liew, dean of architecture in Taylors, he told us that they might be offering a masters course later on this year. So you guys might want to add them in the list for comparison sake. Cheers

What a nice coincidence;

He is very enthusiastic about architecture history, and he is also a lecturer of the subject.

He gave us a profound lecture on Gothic architecture last year.

(P.S., I've been told that Taylors Part II is on the way...)

Masters toward the end of this year? Now, this is all beginning to sound unreal...

Regards.

This post has been edited by Benjamin911: Jan 9 2011, 09:42 PM

The history period between Renaissance and Modernity is probably a succession of reactionary movements against one another, and I'm afraid you might have misplaced some labels. The movement labels although might overlap each other in periods of time, but their philosophies are quite distinct from each other.

For example, Romanticism is a movement in reaction AGAINST Industrial Revolution and the Age of Enlightenment. Age of Enlightenment or alternatively known as Age of Reason advocates the immutability of human reason over faith and superstition, which in part derives from Descartes' philosophy. Descartes mentioned that reason is the utmost important nature of human being, and despised human senses because sometimes they fool us.

Romanticism on the other hand, advocated feelings and emotions over reason, where Rousseau states that feelings cannot be quantified and analyzed by reason, therefore the importance of the feeling of awe and wonder, which they regard as the sublime. Romanticism is also a reaction against Industrial Revolution as cities like London and Paris become overcrowded, and that we have forgotten about the beauty of nature.

Art Nouveau although might share Romanticism's affinity for nature, it is quite distinct in that Art Nouveau embraced Industrial Revolution's invent of the wrought iron. Nevertheless, the main characteristic of Art Nouveau is the embrace of non-geometric, organic forms that are derived from nature. Some of these can be found in works of Victor Horta and Antoni Gaudi.

Rococo on the other hand is simply reproductions of Versailles' opulence and grandiosity in European art and architecture. It may lack a general philosophy but this is a testament to how influential Louis XIV's Versailles palatial architecture can be.

Baroque on the other hand predates Rococo, and it is about the dynamic reaction against Renaissance's static and linear development of Classical architecture. The popularization of opera and theater also influenced Baroque's overt emotion and highly dramatic characteristic.

There may be some truth in that Romanticism tries to take inspiration from darker realms, such as ruins and the now ancient Gothic architecture. However, what they are really looking upon is the feeling of mystery that is evocative in all ancient things. However Gothic Revival is a totally different scene altogether, since the movement (like the Westminster you mentioned for example) tried to sought justification in being a Christian identity, since Gothic is much more 'Christian' than Neoclassical that owes its origins in pagan foundations after all.

Beaux-Arts on the other hand upholds Neoclassicism, but the label itself derives from Ecoles de Beaux-Arts, the academy of architecture in France that is probably the most famous school of architecture in classical education. Well, I suppose that reputation predates what AA have now.

In short, Romanticism doesn't really have much output in architecture in that period, maybe the most famous being Etienne-Louis Boullee, where his paper architecture does evoke the sublime feelings, but I doubt any architectural historian will put it that away. Now that Romanticism has past, the current philosophy that upholds importance of feelings and senses in architecture is probably Pallasmaa. Like I've said, there are some works and practitioners in this era, probably labelled phenomenology or poetic architecture.

Books might have been the best primary source for general history in architecture. But some specific thesis are best found in journal databases, and I base most of my research on them. If you enjoyed architectural history, you might wanna read A Global History of Architecture, A World History of Architecture, Gardner's Art through the Ages and of course the most commended Frampton's Modern Architecture. I've given them a cover to cover treatment, and it does increase your knowledge and understanding tremendously.

This post has been edited by yangsquare: Jan 9 2011, 11:51 PM

I am very much aware of the 'opposition' that exist between the different movements & eras.

Nonetheless, all of the Romantic movements & revivals back in the 18th - 20th century time-line such as Art Nouveau, Rococo, Beaux Arts Classicism, & the Gothic Revival; were all happening within the time-period of what is known as the "Age of Enlightenment", which in turn upholds the infamous Industrial Revolution. The product of rational Neoclassical architecture back in the 18th century (earlier in the Age of Enlightenment) sparks-off the beginning of the Romanticism movement.

The Industrial Revolution came in after that in the mid-eighteen-hundredth, and it triggered off additional Romantic movements; most notably the decorative wrought-iron works of Art Nouveau mentioned; with France demonstrating a more mature/complex system of craftsmanship (in the metal works of the industrial revolution) than those works found in the U.K.

I would also just like to add that there were many problems during the 18th/19th century industrial revolution urbanization; living conditions were less than ideal, and overcrowding was indeed one of them; urban design, zoning & control in architecture came in then... Nevertheless, this was all not completely new; as back in the Baroque era, major cities, vistas, & boulevards were already in design & planning; architects already knew how to organize their cities based on the different functions of the various type of public & private buildings for example. However, the intention then (back in the Baroque age) was more about arranging the city to give prominence/hierarchy to certain important key structures/monuments/buildings, so that those may function as important key landmarks for visiting kings & queens from the other regions; the broad highways, vistas, & boulevards will automatically lead anyone from the outside of the city to the key buildings located in the central parts of the city. (Paris is one such good example, as is quite evident in this particular zone of the city with the planning & arrangement very likely to be original from the Baroque age):



As you may already know, The Rococo era took place during the last phase of the Baroque era, but Rococo architecture is really quite different; unlike the dense/heavy feeling of Baroque architecture with the overall darker scheme, the lighter & paler appearance of Rococo architecture tend to be more feminine & rich; the use of washed-out color schemes & richer more 'playful' decorations combined with the longing for far-away romance & utopia, which always tend to be "out-of-reached"; evoke feelings of surrealism, awe, & mysteries which may never be solved... (It is very much evident in the architecture and one can feel it all...)

Beaux Arts Classicism architecture on the other hand can simply be more opulent or "ornate" instead. (I can go on with a list.)

In modern day nonetheless, richness like these would be labeled simply as "decadent" & "murder" of the highest order; as society's lay-mans think of how much more others out there would be deprived & starved to death as the result of one's own personal self-indulgence in such elaborate display of decadent richness.

It is all about "kingly" richness & the poor of a complete "bankrupt" here.

However, as an architecture student in the modern world & society of today, I really personally cannot help it from being truly fascinated by all of this.

Regards.

This post has been edited by Benjamin911: Jan 10 2011, 06:58 PM

I don't think you quite get it. Romanticism is one of many movements between Renaissance and Modernism, and it does not encompass Art Nouveau, Rococo, Beaux-Arts or Gothic Revival. Age of Enlightenment also do not really overlap into Industrial Revolution, it probably begins with Descartes' treatise and ends with French Revolution in the end of 18th century. Romanticism probably begins almost at the end and in reaction against Age of Enlightenment. After French politics started to crumble, the European power mostly shifted towards Britain, which is the scene of Industrial Revolution. Neoclassicism do not spark-off Romanticism as you said but rather started as the reaction against Age of Enlightenment's nature of overdependent on reason.

Urban planning in Paris is significant due to Hausmann's aggressive renovation. In a way it massively transformed how the Paris skyline by demolishing older sections of the city and attracted huge controversy. The opposition is so great that many people doubt if the renovation is influenced by French authoritarian and militarism policy. I doubt the renovation is influenced by Baroque urban planning maybe except for the fact that Hausmann tried to strengthen some prominent axis in the city.

There is no doubt that Modernism attempted a tabula rasa treatment of all the decorations and ornamentation of previous influences. But to say the same thing on Romanticism is different altogether. Since Romanticism believed that feelings and senses are much more supreme, I think that this philosophy is closely related to Pallasmaa's phenomenology.

Also, the 'murderous' ornamentation that you mentioned have somehow been resurrected in the name of Post-Modernism though I believed historical architecture should belong to their time. In essence, why we have been learning about these classical notions of architecture despite the modern condemnations is to understand the philosophies behind it and try to judge for ourselves what is our design philosophy in our time and age, rather than treating history as a retrospective past that we should resurrect again and again.

I have no arguments with all that.

However, I would just like to share a relatively interesting comparison in respect to the left brain & right brain:

Reason (left brain) vs Passion (right brain);

Nature is defined as human nature vs Nature is defined as natural environment (woods, mountains, etc)
Society more important than individual vs Individual more important than society
Imitation vs Originality
Tradition vs Experimentation
Rules and order vs Freedom
Mechanical form (imposed from outside) vs Organic form (growing from inside)
Logic vs Intuition
Reason vs Imagination, Emotion
Attempted objectivity vs Accepted subjectivity
Town or cultivated landscape vs Country, preferably untouched nature
Constraint vs Spontaneity
Conformity vs Independence, Rebellion
Cultivated, formal, social vs The 'primitive' becomes focus

From what I can see, Romanticism belongs to the right brain category (Passion), wheres rational eras or movements such as Neoclassicism belongs to the left brain category (Reason).

It is not too difficult to figure out the category of the various movements/eras, although it would not be surprisingly to find some of them that shares, or have elements from either category.

This is all what makes architecture so interesting & exciting. It breaths life into this otherwise lifeless/boring/mundane profession in general - (just remembering what my lecturer said.)

This is very complex.

One can get truly inspired & tap from the emotional or logical essence of it (anything in a particular style or movement). For example, one might get truly inspired by the powerful & souring glory of Gothic architecture, or another by the mystical romance & mystery of Rococo architecture.

In the end, it is for every 'designer' to have their own dream, vision, inspiration, passion, and (or) philosophy. One can be put to the test by being assigned to build oneself a 'house' with unlimited space & budget, and yet on the other hand be assigned to build a public building with limited space & a realistic budget; it would be interesting to see the results/outcome, which would then tell alot about the person/designer. How one student design or what sort of design one produces in the studio can tell alot too.

Regards.

This post has been edited by Benjamin911: Jan 10 2011, 11:39 PM

Hi, this year I'm going for industry training, do u guys have any recommendations in Klang valley, especially somewhere nearby Petaling Jaya?

thanks