CODES + REGULATIONS + STANDARDS
FIRE CODES
I am contributing to the public information regarding the application of Fire Codes in the Design for Fire Safety that has been the core competency of Architects, in general.
BUILDING CODES
Building Codes comprise of a significant amount of legislation controlling the building industry i.e. Planning, HDA, Strata and Strata Management…
QUALITY CODES
n my normal course of work, Quality of construction works remained a significant no ending issues. This is a collection of standards and cases taken from pages of CONQUAS, QLASSIC and Visual cum Thermo-graph inspections.
DISCOURSE IN UTAR 2019
DESIGN CHALLENGE : Positively responsive to the Historical and Cultural background of the local Community in Kota Bharu.
Synopsis: Kota Bharu undergoes a relatively slow but steady development comparing to other big cities in Malaysia like Penang, Kuala Lumpur & Johor. Along with this development, it has brought a boon to a certain areas but at the same time also a bane to other areas; eg. old commercial zone. On the other hand, with its urbanization in progress, the city is expanding outward and causing stress to the old commercial area. Some of the aging shop houses owners chose to stop running business due to emergence of the much bigger players and new concept of hypermarket offering a “one stop” convenience to the younger generation. Hypermarket such as TESCO, MYDIN, PARKSON and many others are taking up the commercial lead in Kota Bharu.
Glad to be back to #UTAR #ArchitecturalSchool for a #Discourse in #Sem6 by invitation from Ong Hun Boon… many thanks! And not forgetting partnering with Ar Mel Soong who share the common ground of #UrbanDesign #Contextualism , You guys Rock!
DISCOURSE IN UTAR 2018
Alor Setar (or Alor Star between 2004-2008) is a city and the state capital of Kedah. The name of the city came from the combination of two Malay words which is ‘Alor’ which means ‘small stream’ and ‘Setar’ which is a name of tree ‘Bouea Macrophylla Griif’.Alor Setar undergoes a relatively slow but steady development comparing to other big cities in Malaysia like Penang, Kuala Lumpur & Johor. Throughout the past decades of development, Alor Setar experiences a shift in its socio economy, urban development under its city planning initiative.
DISCOURSE IN ARCHITECTURAL EDUCATION 2018
AN EXPERIMENTATION ON THE EMPLOYMENT OF DIALOUGE-DO-DOCUMENT (3Ds) MODUS-OPERANDI AS AN ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN PEDAGOGY WITH EMPHASIS ON MODEL BASED PARADIGM (MBP) AS A BASIS OF ARCHITECTURAL PRODUCTION
ABSTRACT: This paper is to present the findings employing the modus-operandi of Dialogue-Do-Document (3Ds), as an Architectural Design Pedagogy, with emphasis on using physical model as a basis of architectural production, hereinafter called the Model Based Paradigm (MBP). 3Ds stem from the assumption that a Dialogue: discourse, must first take place to enable the Idea/Intention to be crystalized, a process called Ideation. Translating such into action is an act of Do(ing): fabricating/manufacturing/prototyping. When the act is done, we obtained a product, be it a Play: model/drawings/essays, is collectively called a Production Model. When such is Document(ed), it becomes the seed for future dialogue to take place and this modus-operandi will continue ad-infinitum. An experimental testbed of Design Discourse in Sem-3;began with an architectural installation based on a narration; follow by a site intervention, called the Papan-Transcripts; and concluded by the design of Galleries. Each of these discourses, emphasis is given to Model Based Paradigm as a basis of architectural production; while others draw, we build; confronting function follow form; exploring context versus pretext; employing urban design and transitional spatial organizations. Key findings revealed that employing Model Based Paradigm, the Actors understood; Architectural Semiotics beyond mere representation; Urban Design where every building has its place; architecture solution versus interior/landscape solutions; design strategy of forms dictate spaces; transitional space planning; self and its personas; as in teamwork and the fundamental of design that stems from having fun.
DISCOURSE IN SEM-3 2017
d:KON 4
All designed objects, whether conceived by an architect, artist or designer, tell a story. Their stories can sometimes be discerned easily, or need to be discovered through thoughtful consideration. The story can be as simple as a metaphor or as complex as a novel. The exploration of narrative in architectural design creates a level of meaning and connection to people that can be engaging and provoking. The ability for the observer to learn something beyond the obvious causes them to remain rather than pass by. Narrative architecture evolves from an introspective exploration of the client’s mission and passion; the building program or function; its site context; and often its place in history. Editing the message into a simple theme and then expanding it into a complete story creates the fullness of the experience. Materiality, structure, form and detail become the vehicles to impart the message(s). During the first project, students will be grouped into teams of 4, each team is challenged to translate a story from Sybil Kathigasu’s ‘No Dram of Mercy’ into a descriptive installation. Students are encouraged to ‘craft’ the artwork with all kinds of material/elements that could help describe the story.
This studio will explore the relationship between architecture and site through the design of Memorial to commemorate the story of Kathigasu family and the forgotten history during world war two happened in Papan, a small town in Perak. The studio will be expressly concerned with the issue of design methodology, and a particular focus of the studio will be how to develop a project, as much as what is designed. Students will learn how to analyze design research and establish priorities among the many factors that influence a particular design, and how to develop concepts relating to those priorities. Studio members will learn how to translate their abstract concepts into architectural terms, using space, structure and materiality to articulate and communicate these concepts, and learn how detailing and tectonics can be used to reinforce the overall building concepts. Important to this discussion is the communication of ideas, and the studio will concern itself with how ideas and building concepts are clearly communicated, both verbally, graphically and three dimensionally. Students will learn how to develop and coordinate the many tools—drawings, text, graphics, models, verbal presentation—at their disposal in developing a consistent message about their project design.
Visit the Studio Here ->
The Actors
Design discourse in Sem-3 began with a design vehicle of an installation narrating the writings of Sybil. Little was known that the actors attempted to interpret their ideations as arrays of representation such as, blue represents unity, white purity, red bravery, yellow royalty and so forth, very similar to how our secondary school design pedagogy of the meanings of our national flag. Such pedagogy was rather artificial and lacked of a deeper understanding of the order of things.
The Installation
Deploying the deconstruction design pedagogy, the notion of Architectural Semiotics were applied by first deconstructing the commonly known notion then reconstructing into an uncommonly known notion. The actors were guided into deconstructing the writings of Sybil into reconstructing an entire new notion of narrative into their installations, we called the act.
The Site
Such act required a stage. The stage is Papan. Confronting Papan, the deconstruction design pedagogy took another twist called the invocation of the stage – a soap box theater. Stand upon this very soap box and view Papan in diorama – the site model was born.
The Transcript
Such diorama was reconstructed into another form of narrative – the Papan Transcripts. The actors deconstructed the common site analysis strategy into a play, completed with its own scripts that mimic the adventures of a ninja to the various locations within Papan, as the individual selected site for the actors’ own proposal.
The Lecture
To further depart from the Papan transcript, a hypothetical brief was given – A Gallery to Memorialize Sybil and her Story. The deconstruction design pedagogy was further reinforced into the understanding of the notion of Memorial and Gallery. These notions of Memorial and Gallery were given an entirely new meanings. Memorial of a person is no longer vested in her existence but by her non-existence. The idea of existentialism crept in. Gallery as a space was entirely magnified into a townscape. The new townscape shall be the gallery inside out. Every new interventions shall be the object of showmanship while the observer traveling along the paths linking these nodes shall be the subject matter of spectatorship. These are the notions of de/re-constructing the Memorial and Gallery.
The Model
As a result of these notions of de/re-constructing the Memorial and Gallery, the galleria was formed. While many other non-actors may attempt to interpret the brief rather literally and deployed the design pedagogy of inside-out or spaces dictate forms, the actors deployed the design strategy of outside-in or forms dictate spaces. Confronting space planning within the confined of the existing structure led to non-actors embarking on interior or landscape architecture. While confronting forms into relating to the existing site context and the neighboring potential developments of their fellow designer colleagues, led to the production of architecture and urban design. Thus, by definition, architecture is the building scale allowing interior and landscape spaces to be created and failing to adhere to this fundamental principle, it may rendered such architectural product null and void.
The galleria with its simple, Spartan liked space planning befitted the Design discourse in Sem-3, coherent to the Board’s recommendation. Spatial organization were emphasized upon transitional spaces within the buildings yet potentially blend into the site context both in urban elements and contextual. Being contextual, we had departed from the notion of bastardization and duplication of existing forms. Being contextual was to introduce a new element while respecting the ground rule set forth by the existing conditions be it scales, elements or forms yet not sacrificing the potential of exploiting the better sides of the given context as the roads, abandoned lots or the lakes.
As a concluding note, the actors had brought home the 10 following values in this discourse: –
- Understanding the Architectural Semiotics beyond mere representation.
- Understanding the notion of Deconstruction beyond just a branch of Architectural Semiotics.
- Understanding the purpose of Urban Design, where every building has its place.
- Understanding the de/re-constructing of the Brief.
- Understanding the true nature of the product of Architecture as compared to Interior or Landscape Architecture.
- Understanding the design strategy of outside-in or forms dictate spaces.
- Understanding the simple spatial organization with emphasis upon transitional spaces.
- Understanding the model based paradigm (the art of building) instead of the drawing based paradigm (the art of drawing).
- Understanding the self and its personas, ego and noia.
- Understanding the fundamental of design that stems from having fun as compared to complying to a rule book.
DISCOURSE IN SEM-6
DISCOURSE IN SEM-6
3D modus operandi:-
Dialogue – Intention
Do – Action
Document – Production
The whole process will therefore repeat itself ad-infinitum in the generation of ideas, events and hopefully, product of architectural significant. The essences of dialogue are the crystallization of ideas and architectural discourse at a theoretical level in amplifying the objectives of a given design vehicle of which studio participants are required to engage in debate, forum, talk-shop, soap-box and other experimental verbal discourse such as songs, poems and others at a subliminal level called INTENTION. Subsequently such intentions are translated into doing such an experiment like crafting, building, drawing, sketching, painting, sculpturing, photo-managing, computing and others as transformation of subliminal forms into something tangible with or without the impact on the school, studio or the society at large almost known as ACTION. The result of these collective works are the document as a substance for further discourses and again at a subliminal level to provide food of creativity for the future works ad-infinitum named PRODUCTION of portfolios.
All participants are requested to perform at both individual and in groups of which they will be graded at both counts as collectively and individually. All group must have the following characteristic of Group Name & Logo, Project Manager and Crews, Philosophies, Identities
These groups are assigned with a certain task to be completed within the group members and are subject to inter-group competitions, business arrangement and joint-studios. The assignments are classified under the following categories of Major Project (Mj), Minor Project (Mi), News Letter (N) to be carried out both individually (I) or collectively (g) and be graded evenly. Therefore, failure to execute on one category may effect the grade of other category.
Major projects are projects to be carried out for the whole semester of which to be graded at the end of the semester and these projects must contained therewith the following conditions of Urban analysis or Site planning (group works), Full scale 1:500 site model (g), 6 A1 fully mounted site investigation drawings (g), 6 A1 fully mounted urban design approach drawings (g), Full scale 1:500 massing model (g), A3 Planning & Urban Design Reports (g)
Construction of the Brief (individual works), The Themes (I), The Allocated Functions (I), The Objectives (I), The Strategies (I)
Architectural Design (individual works)
The Study Model @ 1:100 scale (I), Site Context Model @ 1:100 scale (I), Design Development Sketches in A3 (I), 6 A1 fully mounted Architectural Standard Drawings (I), 3D Drawings (I)
Technical Studies (individual works)
1 A1 Sectional Perspective @ 1:200 scale (I), 2 A1 Sectional Details @ 1:75 scale (I), 4 Construction Detail Model @ 1:1 scale (I)
Final Crit (individual works)
6 A1 fully mounted Architectural Composite Drawings (I), Full scale 1:100 and 1:500 final models (I), Collective works from item 1 to 4 (I)
Minor projects are projects to be carried out for the realization of personal and group potentials toward the contribution in the aspect of the major projects and these projects must contained therewith the following conditions of Group leadership and team players (group works), Roles in group, Logo & Identities, Philosophy, Name, Studio Space Arrangement, Ventures (group works), Weekly Essays (to be reproduce in the Newsletter), Commerz & Sponsorship (marketing of architectural product), Design & City (group works), Active Intervention in KL (hit the city like a Tsunami), The Coffin and its Path (1:1 actual product to fit 1 person), Children Theatre (costume, scripts, stage)
Design Competition (group works), 3 A1 Architectural Composite Drawings (Compete in an architecture idea competition), Design Exhibition & Forums (group works), Presentation of papers (architecture workshop), Public Exhibition (architecture workshop), Others (to be determine later)
Moderation shall be conducted at the end of the semester by means of Portfolio Evaluation.
Newsletter are projects to be carried out for the documentation of studio performance toward the contribution in the aspect of the major projects and these newsletters must contained therewith the following conditions of Studio Events, Group Events, Essays & Dialogues, Graphics discourses
Graphic Design & Communication
Newsletter shall be circulated within the campus at an appropriate price to generate income for the group. Format A4 B&W minimum 4 pages per issue and 1 issue weekly to be published by each group respectively at a rotational basis. Based on the information given, student to submit the followings of Site Model as an entire studio, Site Investigation (9A1 Board) of the locality to be decided by the group
Student shall be divided into the respective groups and to submit the followings, A3 Board About Myself, A3 Board About the Group. Based on site analysis, student to submit the followings, Site Massing Model as an entire studio, Revision 1,2,3,4…. Student to submit the followings, Micro-Planning – Determine the Brief Individually & as a group, Idea generation, based on previous student work to produce and submit, The Column, The Mask, The Costume, The Script, The Play/Recital. Based on the above said exercises, student to submit the followings, Detail Model Individually (1:100), Arch. Drawings Individually (9A1 Boards Min) Based on the above said design, student to submit the followings, Part Detail Model Individually (1:10), Arch. Drawings Consisting of At least 1 Sectional 3D Drawings Individually (9A1 Boards Min). Student to exhibit and presents the followings, All as the above in a presentable manner complete with A3 Brochure Folded with both sides printed to be handed over to the critic as and mat be required. Student to submit the followings, Newsletter to be published by the respective group at a weekly basis – every Thursday & Wednesday (Studio Sem-2), To sell the newsletter to other people. Provide 1 set each to studio master – in full color prior to the date of sale.
DISCOURSE IN SEM-6 CON'T
DISCOURSE IN UTM 2014
The revisit shows a significant improvement in the product but lack the guts to go above the Brief. The Unit known as REFORM seems to be toned down to CONFORM. The presentations are very down to earth without any attempt to break through – the sky still look Blue and the Grass still look Green. The conceptualization through the abstract does not appear to be presence. Even the level of discourse are in the realm of the mundane. It truly lacks the aura of philosophical and sophisticated touch.
I am happy to be given the opportunity to be part of the academic circle. I am happy to have met a towering figure, Prof Tajuddin. I am happy to meet the actors in person. My observation is that there is a drop in quality across the board and the weakness stem from the inability of the actor to understand the issue sufficiently to enable one to formulate a scheme via the vehicle of architecture as a socio-cultural intervention. There is a sheer lack of maturity in thought and fear in presenting discourse confidently. It seems to me that these generations are locked up in a box of misguided democracy. Their inclination to work with Computer Aided Drafting has resulted in a myopic approach diminishing the very important aspect of Architecture of understanding of 3D spaces, experiential with materiality, communicating ideas via sketches and endless discourse. For such, they are the “zombies” our University has created. A revivalism of the production model is urgently called for.
DISCOURSE IN UM 2014
I stand dwarf among the Giants of Practicing Architects liked Lilian Tay, Suzanne, Sonny Chan and the rest but I find the similarity of concerns that the programmes are too generic and not much gravity was given to addressing issues and how one use Architecture as a mean to address such issues. There are plenty of efforts on technical skills but as compared to other institutions, credit is given to the use of model, computer rendering and sketches as tools for design. The revisit shows a significant improvement in the product but lack the guts to go above the Brief. The Unit known as REFORM seems to be toned down to CONFORM. The presentations are very down to earth without any attempt to break through – the sky still look Blue and the Grass still look Green. The conceptualization through the abstract does not appear to be presence. Even the level of discourse are in the realm of the mundane. It truly lacks the aura of philosophical and sophisticated touch.