Don't Speak Unless You are Told to

Fellow readers,

Perhaps from this article we can deduce that if you not an architect, do not speak about architecture right? If you are not a doctor, do not cross examine yourself. If you not an engineer do not speak of structural parts.

It's wrong to think that one does not have an opinion over a subject. Maybe wrong to assume but never wrong to voice out our concerns and express our thoughts.

One does not need to read an article like this to be reminded that works of architecture can't be summarized into words:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2011/apr/14/roger-scruton-architecture-zaha-hadid

Field of architecture is an expressive one and the client has share the same amount of ambitiousness. We can read as many theory books about others but it is really down to experiencing the building or space before us that we truly understand.

For this I am inspired to embark onto a massive architectural journey in 2014. I will explore this more in my next entry.

Let Us Pick on Malaysian Architecture

The following news video from TheStar again made me sick, and what follows after the video is the Shanghai World Expo website showing Malaysia Pavillion making no references whatsoever to 'Minangkabau-inspired' roof/architecture.



It seems childish to link our nation's architecture with only one type of hut. Yeah, Minangkabau houses are all over in Minang (Indonesia) and also Negeri Sembilan(Malaysia) but to what extend should we copy and paste and with no articulation at all exhibit this particular style at the World Expo?

Why not Kutai house? Why not Kelantan/Terengganu houses? Why not go for a Sarawakian long house? Dato Seri Ng said, she wanted the pavilion to be 'eye-catching' to the visitors as they come into the site. Well, are other types of huts/houses not 'eye-catching' enough? I am pretty sure if you put a big steel box and colour it with glossy silver or gold paint, it will be indeed VERY 'eye-catching'.

Plus, the design of the traditional hut does not reflect this year's World Expo theme anyway, which is Better City Better Life. Ideally, at least to me, it has to show what our Malaysian architecture has come into terms with latest design and technologies. Yeah, recylable plastic wall is fine but the principle and gist of the pavillion itself has gone to dust.

Great architects like Ken Yeang, Hijjaz Kasturi, Jimmy Lim, and some others should stand up to this great shame! In one month time, we will be unveiling the pavillion for the eyes of the world to see. I'd say, Good Luck!

Read on and click on these articles. If you are a Malaysian, you will be ticked. *wink*

1. World Expo Shanghai 2010 - Malaysia Pavillion

2. Some Political Relations

3. Final Design Proposal - Spatial Organisation and 'Translation'

So Our Architects Are Not Good Enough eh?

This video showed that Minister of Tourism, YB Dato Seri Ng Yen Yen underestimating Malaysian architects who will not understand the construction and nature of Shanghai. Fair enough, but I do think we are allowed to "collaborate" with other local organisations. Very close example - Norman Foster and GDP Architects or the best example - Cesar Pelli and KLCC Architects for our very own Petronas Twin Towers.



Project Info: 3,000 sqm site at Shanghai World Expo
Dear friends, please tell me that I heard it wrong. She actually said:

1. She only understand when she was briefed IN Shanghai, not BEFORE. ok, sound fine with me. with the benefit of the doubt I assumed that she is indeed a busy 'wakil rakyat' (trans. people's representative)
2. She is very confident of the local company which did the design and construction of this pavilion.
3. You can't take things from Malaysia. Aik, cannot ar? We have a new thing called globalisation and for this reason, the internet will be handy for research and learning. Time to travel has been minimised by the advent of our aviation industry with hundreds of flights a day direct to Shanghai.

Please tell me I didn't misheard what she said because this pavillion's design is simply appalling!

The minister's comments should be recorrected because she is implying that Malaysian architects are not good enough. To me, this is a generalisation but the finalised design of the pavilion is just pathetic.

I hate to say this; I think I can do better design than that. Learn this Malaysia: please organise an open competition for this sort of things so that we dont get bombarded by racial-slurs and comments as this article on ArchDaily:

Malaysia Pavilion for Shanghai World Expo 2010

This is a disgrace to the architecture industry! No wonder we are having the 'brain drain' phenomena at the moment.

Malaysia Pavilion at Shanghai World Expo

First of all, apologies for not be able to keep up with times and update this blog.

Secondly, I am truely and utterly disgraced by what I have stumbled upon this morning. And have been enraged ever since.

Well, I should be proud that Malaysia has its own pavilion design this year at the prestigous Shanghai World Expo 2010. BUT... I am feeling very very very disappointed by the sheer fact that there is no articulation of design in its conceptual diagramme thus reflected on the form for that matter. In short - Badly Designed.

Put politics aside, RM20million would be spend to promote Malaysia as a nation and to be able to do so, one has to design a pavilion to reflect my beautiful country. Architecture wise, one has to be able to demonstrate that Malaysia has deep mixed cultural roots that can be traced back to the 12-14th century. One has to articulate the best design/features for the pavilion.

So what do we get? A direct copy-paste rendition of one of the traditional houses and blown up to accomodate "commercial" scale. I will paste them in my next post so that I can put my own commentaries on them. (More like scrutinizing)

Apparently the pavilion was designed by Design Evolution Architects Sdn Bhd, and the final design was their second submitted to the ministry. Honestly I liked the first proposal because the architects have injected some intelligence into it.

This is their first proposal:



I liked it as much as I have liked our National Library on Jalan Tun Razak, KL.
I admitted that this one has a little bit more thinking on the spatial features.
I found that this design incorporated Sarawakians' tribal motives, Chinese letterings (because it is in Shanghai), more generic and Malaysian-theme elements.
This pavilion simply answered our theme for this year's expo - Better City Better Living

Architecture Scene in Malaysia

Although I live in Australia, I am still interested in my own country's affair especially the architectural social circle. I am still in contact with most of my friends, picking out the gist of what is good and what is controversial.

I always read up on Prof Tajuddin's writing on TheStar.com. and always buy the paper which has his article whenever I am at home. He himself is no stranger in the business. He has a few books to his name and I do admit that his arguments are solely for the benefit of nation building, in this case, Malaysia.

Link: Architecture Inside Out

I wonder what he would say to the following articles or opinion posted by The Star readers on LAM Architect Registration.

Read up these two articles and I think the president didn't really address the issue. Issue that needed to be addressed are:

Article 1: Big stumbling blocks for architects

Article 2: No answers to exam queries

1. Transparency - so only 9% passed the exam. Why? Specific cases please? Can you please disclose unwanted answers that actually has been answered for the exam? Considering that the exam is only once a year and thinking of all the studying done is for nothing. I think the examination council has to publish a 'post-mortem booklet' to all unsuccessful applicants so that they know what has gone wrong and with this they'll remember what NOT to do next.

2. Up-to-date information on the internet - with the current wide world of web, website of an architectural organization should be beneficial to its members and also to the community who wish to seek answers regarding the profession. LAM/PAM doesn't do this - at least not extensively. Basic information has been posted just enough so that people grasp the idea, but if you have any questions, please contact the office. I dont mean to juxtapose unfairly to my own country but if you have a look at other architecture associations throughout the world, their websites has some substantial information.

Recently, I have contacted the office of LAM, asking about Part 1 & Part 2 recognition. The answer I got was that as long as the degrees are recognized by AACA (Architects Accreditation Council of Australia) we should be able to register for Part 3 straightaway.

So this means that I have to register as a graduate architect for at least a year, fill up my log book and -voila!- ready for Part 3 exam.

It doesn't seem that easy nowadays...

3 Rs - Reduce, Re-use, Recycle

I was taught of these three principles in Year 4 of my first degree. We were exposed to a plethora of sustainable projects and construction materials. At that time, I thought - Wow, if we use these principles carefully we can really make an impact. So years went by and the principles became one of my criteria of observing the environment.
I went to further study for the professional degree (some called it B.Arch, some called it Post-Grad degree, some called it Masters now) and my observation became a thesis in implementing sustainable ideas. Although I never use any sort of sustainable principles directly into my student projects, my peers' arguments sometimes made me wonder.

So to implement sustainability, there are 3 Rs - Reduce, Re-use, Recycle. So at uni, what do we learn?
Reduce - not reduce the workload! I think in a way reduce the independence of the subjects that are offered. I found that the subjects are too different with each other that it is so riddiculous to inter-relate. For example, at my uni, my thesis subject has no connection whatsoever with the major design subject. Well, although the old syllabus supported this, not the one I took. So I did miss out on the integrated part of the study. Oh well, so much for $20k a year.
Re-use - plagiarism. While its good to develop one topic over and over, this facility might be taken for granted by students who just wants to copy other people's work. But how much originality can one produce? Its a hard and tough world and not many has the ideals to bringforth into the real working world.
Recycle - I loved the recycle bin at uni! When I did my first degree, for the first 2 years I didn't buy much model materials because we picked up things from the recycle bin. Like they said, 'Someone else's trash is someone else's treasure'. I agree with that because we might find a diamond in the rough. Different textures and colours give the model a little spice.

So the proper way to Sustainable futures? Implement 3 Rs deep inside your hear first.

Responsibilities of an Architect

It is Sunday today and yet it is not a good lazy one. I am struggling to understand the order of the world, in architectural views. I was reading an article from Dianne Y. Ghirardo, titled From the Margins to the Maintsream, and a few questions arises from the 42-page Introduction.
To sum up the things I am going to say, I'd concentrate on the Responsibilities of an Architect, related to the progression of time and style in architecture. Many styles have developed since the first house of Catal Huyuk and the monumental Pyramid of Giza, but yet architects seemed to detach themselves from the ideal reality of the world we live in. Architects market their style through 'taste culture', what is generally accepted is right, and anything other than that is rather...strange. Not wrong but strange.
Modernism jumpstart the world into production and new civilization, from the war times and demands for buildings has made architects went for 'practical' and 'functional' buildings. This movement made me contemplate; Does architecture has to simplify the complexity of the life of its inhabitants OR Does architecture has to adhere to the complexity of life? The statement above was mostly obvious in the west, due to the fact that culture or traditions doesn't interfere with technology. But in the East, Traditions had been preferred over Western Modernism, resulting in a lot of fusion-style buildings and technology during the high time. New technology has always been the reason to kill the traditional ways of making building, thus claiming it to be more 'efficient' and 'modern' just because it has been produced by the machine.
Another point that pulled my interest in this essay is the actual responsibility of the architect. While big time corporations has CSR - Corporate Social Responsibility, I reckon architects should go for Historical Social/Public Responsibility, in short, HSR. The importance of knowing and studying the background of a project is so vital that the failure to do so might result in low 'human energy', something similar to 'chi' in Chinese in order to make a building 'alive'. Remember when we are doing Masterplanning of a city of even figuring out our building programme for a urban site, we will always look for 'human flow'. History makes it easy. History ranges from anthropology to even psychology for current mindset of a certain population. People's needs changes from time to time, from a dynasty to another. HSR is important so that every architect would not lose its ground and forget their existence. Having lived in an era where money has the veto to everything, we -as a profession- have succumbed to what they called the entrepreneurial capitalism. Yes to money, Yes to power, Yes to opportunity to oppress. But we forgot the real objective why architects are here; or there is no objective for us at all in the first place.
People like Sam Mockbee made little contributions to society that sometimes big-time architects found hilarious to even have time 'helping others'. I am not targeting anyone, I am just concerned with the way our society is turning into. In some places in the world where bribery and corruption is rampant, 'charity' has lost its glory. Charity is always seen as a cheap way to gain sympathy thus making a real cause not real anymore.
My most deepest condolescences go to the people in the profession who forgot that helping people is also our obligation, making things better is not just a marketing term and architect is not a job to selfishly fill up our bank account. Good things are for everyone to share and with this I will spread the good essay, please read this:

Ghirardo, Dianne Yvonne, 'Introduction:From the Margins to the Mainstream', Architecture after Modernism, Thames and Hudson, New York, 1996, pp. 7-42.