what i meant was, there's no open scholarship given explicitly for architecture students. well, none that covers the entire expenditure of the course, that is. but the common/public scholarships/loans are still available (PTPTN, JPA, MARA etc). nowadays, certain firms offer their own personal scholarships as well, but these dont come too often, and normally focused on how well u have performed in ur earlier years.

roughly, an architecture student would spend around RM400-600 per semester.

PTPTN + economic diets everyday..........
Try 2 get JPA if u wan life easier~

Just one thing I thought about lately;

What is Malaysian architecture? How should it really look like? And are there any existing/hypothetical examples around?

From what I can see, most of the buildings in Putrajaya such as the prime-minister's office and the mosque for example, are primarily Islamic with the borrowed designs/motives from the west & the middle-east as such. In addition, the entire layout & style of the city, such as the Islamic steel arch framing the Islamic courthouse design, are also borrowed from the middle-eastern Islamic architecture concept.

Do IPTAs like UTM for example research into the quest for Malaysian architecture? Are the students exposed/brought to the awareness of it?

Or is Islamic architecture just the way to go in this country?

What will be the Utopia of architecture for this country/nation?

This post has been edited by Benjamin911: Jan 22 2011, 11:40 PM

Malaysia Architecture = Get Overseas Big Architects to Design Our Best Landmarks.

On the other sideline: We create symbolism of islamic nation, crap profitable architecture fundamentals & loose our culture cohesiveness of life & great bond of culture pride. (blame perkasa)

Look at vision 2020, if you just stare at a moment again, i`m sure KLCC tower is in, include other landmarks.

Its all of Politician trying to be Architect of the Environment(hardcore) but not the Architect of our nation development(softcore)

Now, thats Malaysia Architecture.

Watch this,



This post has been edited by KVReninem: Jan 23 2011, 11:42 AM

in IPTAs, we have a saying:

architecture in malaysia is not necessarily malaysian architecture.

meaning, most of the things u see are not actually malaysian architecture, but adaptations of another architecture in malaysia. first u have those buildings excessively borrowing from middle eastern, supposedly being more islamic in nature, but does not respond climate. we are very wet, after all, hence domes on flat roofs is reduced to a water catchment area. then u have the private homes excessively borrowing from western architecture, particularly rooting in roman, greek and those in the classical to rennaisance period.

malaysian architecture ultimately is something that responds to the local needs, climate, culture and community. a lot of this are actually present and more common that most thinks. masjid negara and the parliament is the epitomy of malaysian architecture. ken yeang and his bioclimatic movement is also another approach towards malaysian architecture, only that he's now more into creating an architecture for the whole region in the tropics .

hijjas kasturi is also one of the top guy in promoting malaysian architecture. try and read his writings, there's a lot of insight on why he design each buildings like that. it's like a whole learning process, where he evolved since the 70s, exploring ideas and technology, and trying to achieve something that is malaysian - not malay, not islamic, not chinese - but malaysian.

there are literally thousands of buildings that have explored one aspect of malaysian architecture or the other. i dont understand why people, architects included, still look at visual treatment of islamic architecture. it doesnt have to. heck, even u students are keen at looking at it that way.

masjid negara is one excellent example that a mosque doesnt have to have the islamic image treatment. it has no dome, no elaborate ornaments and almost no walls. it's purely functional, and made no attempt to market itself as the most islamic building in malaysia. but somehow, it's JUST IS.

I think architecture is something that is evolved over a long period of time (more like centuries) as can be seen in the history of world civilisations. It has to do with the culture, religion, politics, climate of a place, amongst others. It is certainly not for the politicians to tell us what a country's architecture should be (though there was such a thing in history called Nazi architecture).

The search for a Malaysian identity in architecture has been going on since the country gained independence. There is the tendency to equate Malaysian architecture to Islamic architecture, which is obvious from the architecture in Putrajaya, which is supposed to exemplify the Malaysian identity. In the first place, Islamic architecture is not just about domes, arches and minarets, elements which a lot of the Malaysian public buildings are so fond of using.

There is also the tendency to equate Malaysian culture with only Malay culture though we take pride in the fact that ours is a multi-racial country with diverse cultures.

Look at the Malaysian Pavilion in the 2010 Expo in Shanghai, which is supposed to portray an image that is quintessentially Malaysian. Do you think it has done justice in portraying that image?

http://blog.malaysia-asia.my/2010/05/malay...world-expo.html

---

Added on January 23, 2011, 12:15 pm


The geometry of the roof in the form of a star is a distinct Islamic motif. This is also adopted in plan form of the Dayabumi builidng and the Petronas Twin Towers. Yes, I agree that's a timeless beauty, comparable to the iconic old Parliament House.

This post has been edited by tehtmc: Jan 23 2011, 12:17 PM

1. No doubt of Dr.Ken Yeang of his sustainable architecture, i guess most also know he`s champion of it but How many of those Architect Registered/Want to be embrace the idea that Malaysia now is better sooner will be a sustainable type of architecture? I belief our counterpart like singapore had beat us in this, 1-0..so when will Malaysia Architect wake up?

Its like sitting on a good pot of culture & diversity, & yet failed to erect something grand from it.


2. For islamic architecture, there is no doubt about it, but then If one to really read pre-islamic architecture..its still trace back to the middle eastern during the early time when religion.
3. Why is Malaysia capital tend to fond for such Architecture?

No doubt about that stupid design pavilion, who ever the minister is & commission it as a design representing our Malaysian.

Ok , back to diversity & multi cultural. I would say Malaysia is no where actually in that category besides having just the input. Australia is much into that then Malaysia. Its much that dictation of How we suppose to be in Malaysia rather be about.

I noticed,Malaysia have the method that how to solve housing issue in short run but long runs, we are still building massive unsustainable houses to live in.

Alright, so I have not been uninformed after all.

I can see that these are the very common approaches typically. (Agreed that it has all been around.)

You are also very correct about students tending to associate & depict Malaysian architecture as Islamic architecture instead. I have observed this happening.

Accordingly, our very own ministers, politicians, and (or) governments are also into it, or just simply looking at it that way.



The foreign architects? how much do they know about the culture of Malaysia, as compared to the country's very own locals? Nevertheless, the Patronas Twin Towers is indeed a beautiful Islamic icon, as the Burj Khalifa in Dubai is.



Islamic architecture may or may not just be about these building elements you mentioned, but these elements may be looking good/beautiful/inspiring to the beholder, therefore I would not say that there is anything wrong in using these elements in Islamic building designs.



I agree that the architecture represented here is very much one sided, and the message/slogan, instead of being successfully conveyed through a strong design, is instead being weakly conveyed through such a literal manner as in words/signage.

Regards.

@Benjamin911
I'm glad that there has been quite a lot of questioning in the search of Malaysian architectural identity. For starters, Putrajaya and KLCC is rather a political shout-out than a true Malaysian architecture. Since masonry times architecture has been used by politicians for propaganda. Malaysia therefore being a Islamic nation although constitutionally secular, leaders has adopted the Middle-Eastern forms. Like what Azarimy said, such forms - domes for example - has been questioned for climate compatibility for Malaysia, reason being a tropical country. Is Taj Mahal Indian architecture? Certainly not, Mughal yes, Islamic yes.

@azarimy
I agree that the National Mosque is a quintessential Malaysian architecture, rather than Putrajaya or KLCC duds. The umbrella rather than the domed roof explains that Malaysia does not always equal Islamic. However, such change from National Mosque to Putrajaya forms can also tell us that Malaysia is moving from being a secular country to an Islamic one, though many of you may disagree with that. See for example our original independence buildings like the Parliament, and now look at contemporary Malaysian governmental buildings.

Yes, it is no doubt that Hijjas Kasturi experimented a lot with what Malaysian architecture should be. However I am for one that is very critical of his works. Hijjas' works are rather overtly emblematic, and architecture should not be treated the same as sculpture. You'll learn that much of his works resemble Malaysian motifs; keris, songkok, bamboo shoot and so on. Hence, I doubt his works are pretty much equivalent of Malaysian architecture.

Ken Yeang's works, although an approach to resolve Malaysian climate; is rather under the connotation of sustainable architecture rather than Malaysian architecture. Nevertheless, I applaud his efforts on exporting climate sustainable architecture outwards, in essence establishing Malaysia as a perfect experimental grounds for sustainability. Also, amongst all Malaysian architects - Ken Yeang is probably the most internationally acclaimed, probably chipping in that climate architecture can equal national architecture; as what Glenn Murcutt did for Australian architecture.

@KVReminem
Your outlook is very broad among the general populace, heck especially the Malaysian public. Inviting foreign architects to design in their own country has been true for many countries; developed or developing nations alike. Examples include the Danish Jorn Utzon for Sydney Opera House, Swiss Herzog & de Meuron for few Beijing Olympic landmarks, even Le Corbusier and Louis Khan have their massive works in India and Bangladesh. Bringing in foreign architects to design landmarks, even national ones sometimes can import newer insights into the local architectural scene. Sometimes their remarks surprise local architects or builders on what can be done other than following the conventional manner. However this is a double-edged sword, while it might increase local architecture awareness, it also prompts criticism against the local context; climate and culture for example.

@tehtmc
While I agree that architectural identity is much more resilient when it has been developed for centuries, your view is rather retrospective than forward-looking. There is always opportunity to experiment on Malaysian architecture and it should be encouraged. I rather believe that architecture moves us, both emotionally and historically. Take a look at Japanese architecture for example, and look at how their vernacular architecture progressed into magnificently modern, often minimalistic homes. Theirs might have been influenced by western modernist ideals, but both vernacular Japanese and western modernist ideas has culminated into something that is architecturally distinctive Japanese architecture. Even the Japanese contemporary context of the lack of space has been factored into their architecture.

It is true that the Malaysian identity should embrace the multiracial context rather than the purely Malay influence. I think that the common spaces among Malaysians such as shophouses and housing communities should be a great experimental ground for Malaysian architectural identity. However it should not be viewed as solving the housing problem as mentioned by KVReminem. In my opinion architecture should not be viewed as single-handedly as social solutions, as it will always result in disregarding other important elements. Low-cost housing solutions in particular devaluates architecture. In fact they are mere buildings, not works of architecture.

Malaysian pavilion for the recent Shanghai Expo is obviously a blow to the reputation of Malaysian architectural scene. I doubt it that the politicians properly consulted with local architects on what should be done. While all other pavilions have shown the progressive view towards the future, Malaysia and China too has offered a poor hindsight that the past is the best we ever have done message.

---
I think that the quintessential Malaysian architectural identity will result by encompassing multiple values of Malaysian culture. It should strike us deep in heart that this is Malaysian, not just Islamic, Malay or even sustainable architecture. Like what Azarimy mentioned, I too agree that the National Mosque is a good but not perfect example. Works like Kevin Low's do particularly strike me as particularly Malaysian. The bare concrete and perforated bricks resonate very well to the Malaysian materiality. I think that concrete in itself has a huge potential to be recognized as Malaysian materiality, thanks to the pervasive usage in Malaysian construction in general. Well only if the Malaysian public can recognize the beauty of bare concrete.

This is a very interesting discussion on Malaysian architectural identity. I might post this on my blog, if any of you wants to object - please let me know.

Superlike this thread!

In my opinion, sustainable design should not be the design concept itself; instead, it should be positioned under the design concept.

Sustainable design should fall under the category of "features", and never be the design concept of its own; as most students tend to be doing.

Think of it this way;

An executive level luxury sedan is being marketed/advertise for its elegance & high end taste of classicism/luxury/executive fashion; the sedan is being conveyed/depicted as a timeless classical masterpiece beautifully crafted for a royal/kingly taste. Nothing is being mentioned about the crude "technicalities" of it although this sedan do feature some of the most advance & sophisticated engineering feats of all, and a list would not be enough to depict the marvels of engineering in it. This car also comes with a twin-turbo V12 engine, (very cool), but that is however being placed under the category of its "features", and is not being used to represent the car in the big picture (the design concept).

Likewise, the same should apply to a building.

Last but not the least;

The term "culture" is not just limited to the topic of "race" alone, as most students tend to be thinking about. In fact, culture also encompasses aspects like the intellectual mindset, character, & personality of a mature community of professors in a university environment type for example, or the culture of "play & work" among younger colleagues in a Google office concept based environment. (As such.)

Regards.

This post has been edited by Benjamin911: Jan 24 2011, 08:50 PM

Sustainable architecture is not an architectural style. Sustainability which is about taking cognizance of and being sensitive to the climate and enviroment and conservation of resources, is one of the many design considerations(back to Architectural Design 101). Ken Yeang stands out from the rest because he is very articulate in promoting his works. He has written books and gives lecturers extensively about his ideas of the tropical skycrapers and environmental filters. To be successful, you also have to 'sell' your designs.

Hijjas Kasturi is famous for his bold, iconic buildings, the earlier ones which brought him fame being the Maybank HQ (winning entry in a national competition) and the LUTH/Tabung Haji Building (hour-glass shaped). I think many of his buildings lose out in terms of functionality and details. Take a closer look at Menara Promet and the MPPJ Building and you'll know what I mean, they don't stand up to the test of time.

yang2
What I said has nothing to do with being retrospective or forward looking. I said the process for an architectural style to evolve and develop is a slow and gradual one which goes through a period of trials and testing of ideas of course.

There are not many countries in the world which have their own distinctive architectural styles. For example, there is no distinctive Australian style or New Zealand style. It has a lot to do with the cultural identity of a place which is tied to the history of a country or region. You find that young countries like Australia/NZ do not really have a distinct cultural identity to speak of due to their relatively short history. Countries in Europe or China or Japan on the other hand, being rich in culture and steeped in history, have their own distinctive styles of architecture. However, with globalization, styles are internationalised to follow the prevailing trends in architecture, notably, from the transition from post-modernism High- Tech in the 90's to the current modern and minimalistic style. That's why the new buildings you see in all modern cities around seem to have a lot in common, as if to keep up with the latest in fashion.

This post has been edited by tehtmc: Jan 25 2011, 06:05 PM

Do 1st year arch students have to sketch any other things besides house/building plans and elevations? If yes, is it freehand or u will be assisted with drawing instruments

Depends on the school and lecturer i guess. For mine i had to sketch a few random objects and scenery for our visual communication class. We are only allowed to use pencil. No pen, no eraser, no ruler.

I saw UTM's students had to sketch something from a given poetry.

I also saw UiTM's students once drew and paint something abstract on a A2 size paper.

depends. what i can say for sure is that you WILL be sketching something .

in UTM, we often change the subject matter each year. this is to keep things exciting, both for the student group and us lecturers (who keeps repeating the same thing every year lol!). it would also mean that the junior cant copy senior's work bcoz they are totally different subject. (we do this with most subjects as well).

sketching architecture is quite common. but eventually u will be drafting them, not just sketch. draftmanship is geometrical drawing assisted by instruments, while sketching is usually defined as freehand pencil sketch. those in my class, i wouldnt even allow erasers. sketches will almost always be based on reference, be it pictures/images, other drawings or live subjects. subject could be inanimate objects, environment, architecture, people, animals etc. i personally like superheroes for my group .

so literally, it depends.

Sketching(using freehand) and drafting(using equipment) are two different things/skills.

Sketching is important because it is the first thing that an architect does when he starts on a design. Same thing goes for all other fields of design, be they graphic design, fashion design, product design, etc. You may be wondering why they ask you to sketch things other than buildings. I know some sketching classes overseas even get naked models as objects for sketching. The idea is to train you in the skill of sketching, the subject does not matter so much.

Sketching is part of the thinking process. It is through sketching that ideas are conceived, visualised, take shape, developed, fine tuned and tested. It is like you manually focus image on a camera - from the blurry to sharp. It is when ideas have taken shape that you get down to drafting - prepare accurate drawings from the sketches probably using a drafting programme like Autocad these days. Or presented in 3D using Sketchup programme. Even after the design is drawn up, it would need to be refined and improved on, and you need to go back to the sketching process again.

This post has been edited by tehtmc: Jan 27 2011, 11:21 AM

It is normal to be sketching any other things besides buildings in 1st year.

The 1st year is also crucial, where you'll be trained to sketch, make models, & draft on butter/tracing paper using precise drawing instruments & technical pen/pencil set, which is classic. But than at the upper years, it all starts getting mundane as all students churn out generic hard-line CAD drawings one after another; CAD drawings that you just need to 'read' once & then toss aside for good. You'll always be noticing piles & heaps of abandoned/rejected CAD drawings (trash) in studio; so typical is the sight, because it has become so easy for students to be producing AutoCAD drawings nowadays, until it has become insignificant; just like printed text. (You need to be really good or different, in order to be able to stand out from the rest.)

Regards.

Dear azarimy, I like this thread and every piece of your guidance. Appreciate a lot~

Though, I am having few questions here which may mislead my architectural path. Yes, I am here referencing for my future pathway.

1) I just done my SPM, probably going continue STPM because STPM is needed to enter Bachelor position in Architecture. Based on your Architecture FAQs 1.1, you seems to be explaining that SPM>Diploma can lead to Bachelor as well rather than SPM>STPM>Diploma. Is that true?

*I am actually planning to be a professional architect, so it means I must reach Bachelor position.*

2) I did not take Arts or whatever Art related subject in SPM / my secondary school life. I am not really good at water-colouring (Or should I say the sketchpads are low quality and easily torn due to watercolour usage which affect my art a lot.) where I often practice my drawing ability by drawing abstract things (Like lines, geometrics or designing patterns) with pen. Back to topic, so if I drew some stuffs and bring to interview- Would it really help?

actually, u dont go to diploma if u already have STPM. diploma qualification is lower than degree, hence why it only needs SPM for entry requirement.

although art is not exactly a requirement, it's an advantage for qualifying purposes. i mean, if each school offers 50 spots and there are 1000 applicants each, u will need all the boost u can get.

Mr.Azarimy, architecture engineering is different from architecture or civil engineering, they are qualified as engineer but nt as architect, they are similar to civil engineer, just that they expose more to architecture and they study about building services engineering as well. Sheffield 1 is 4 years MEng of Structural engineering and architecture, the only 1 of its kind that recognized by RIBA as Part 1 and institution of structural engineers in uk. Just dont know BEM recognize it or nt..
check this link about architectural engineering..http://www.engineering.unl.edu/academicunits/architectural-engineering/What_is_AE.pdf

This post has been edited by coollove: Jan 30 2011, 07:22 PM