Send us a text

We dive into the conversation on "reforms in architecture education" to understand further how education affects the profession in a profound way. The principles from Mark Alan Hewitt's 2020 reforms explained in arch daily —emphasizing embodied cognition through hand drawing, physical model-making, haptic engagement, and sensory-rich practices—can absolutely be integrated into both the ARB Competency Outcomes Framework and the RIBA Themes and Values framework. Both are deliberately outcomes-based and flexible, allowing schools to innovate in how they deliver competencies without prescribing specific methods. This openness creates space for embodied approaches as effective pedagogical tools to meet required outcomes. 

Link here: https://www.archdaily.com/941809/12-ways-to-reform-architectural-education

© 2025 Talk Architecture, Author: Naziaty Mohd Yaacob.

Support the show

Do subscribe for premium content and special features which will help to support and sustain Talk Architecture podcast on a more in-depth explanation on design thesis and processes. These special commentaries and ‘how to’ explanations are valuable insights and knowledge not found elsewhere!

Send us a text

Another “unfiltered” critic argues that architecture education is the root cause of the profession being undervalued and widely misunderstood. The defense of the profession, we contend, must begin in academia, where the core problem lies in situating architecture schools to comply with—and be dictated by—non-architects who neither understand nor uphold the profession’s essential competencies. This external oversight has diluted the foundational truths of architecture, eroding its rigor and distinct identity over time.

By allowing administrators, accrediting bodies, and university structures dominated by non-practitioners to shape curricula and priorities, schools inadvertently prioritize bureaucratic compliance, interdisciplinary trends, and measurable outcomes over the deep, tacit knowledge and creative judgment that define architectural expertise. This shift not only weakens the training of future architects but also sends a broader signal to society that architecture is a generic design discipline rather than a profound synthesis of art, science, ethics, and cultural responsibility—further contributing to its undervaluation in the public and professional spheres.

Part 2 will be about the "reforms in architecture education".

© 2025 Talk Architecture, Author: Naziaty Mohd Yaacob.

Support the show

Do subscribe for premium content and special features which will help to support and sustain Talk Architecture podcast on a more in-depth explanation on design thesis and processes. These special commentaries and ‘how to’ explanations are valuable insights and knowledge not found elsewhere!

Send us a text

This podcast episode is a one-off reaction piece to the discussion on "What makes a good studio master?" It refers to the Malaysian Architecture Education context and the premise from the problem of bureaucracy. 

The assertion here argues that formal qualifications (PhD, Part 3 registration, 5+ years industry/teaching experience) proposed by the Malaysian Board of Architects (LAM - Malay Acronym) are irrelevant for design studio masters, who need to have both talents in teaching, as well as being a good designer.

True effectiveness lies in three key roles—coach (tracking progress), consultant (critical feedback), and expert (specialized input)—which can be filled by one person or a team. Everyone guiding students should be considered a “master” in the traditional sense. Core duties include structuring the semester program, facilitating crits, moderating discussions, synthesizing feedback, and ensuring fair assessment while encouraging students to own their ideas—never imposing solutions via tutor sketches. Some experienced critics would draw out for the students, which means they don't know how to teach.

The rigid credential requirements are bureaucratic shortcuts that exclude talented teachers and practitioners, stifle innovation, and regress architectural education. Prioritizing actual teaching ability, collaboration, and facilitation over box-ticking is essential.

© 2025 Talk Architecture, Author: Naziaty Mohd Yaacob.

Support the show

Do subscribe for premium content and special features which will help to support and sustain Talk Architecture podcast on a more in-depth explanation on design thesis and processes. These special commentaries and ‘how to’ explanations are valuable insights and knowledge not found elsewhere!

Send us a text

Architecture education and the problems of competent graduates have been discussed elsewhere in Talk Architecture podcast, but this topic shows how much things have changed in architecture education and how it affected the curriculum.

So, this morning I asked Grok: Do you think that more and more architecture education and the ranking system serves the developer’s agenda than society’s needs?

Grok says: Yes, absolutely — and the trend has been accelerating dramatically over the past 15–20 years. Architecture education and especially the global ranking systems now function more as a pipeline for producing compliant, brand-friendly designers who serve the real-estate/finance/development industry than as institutions serving society’s actual spatial, social, ecological, or cultural needs.

The main points are:

1. Ranking systems are explicitly designed around “employer reputation” and “academic reputation” — and the employers who matter are the big corporate firms
2. The curriculum has been financialised
3. Debt + prestige hierarchy forces graduates into the developer machine
4. “Sustainability” has been fully co-opted into developer marketing
5. The proof is in the built environment

The thought occurred to do this episode when I read another piece in LinkedIn on a global survey that reveals the future of architectural education. It suggests the way architects need to be, quote "a civic leader, cultural mediator, facilitator, and interdisciplinary collaborator", thus making me concerned for the profession. Yes, you can be all that but not on the expense of fully equipping architecture graduates to be confident of working in the industry, hence what need to happen in the design thesis curriculum and learning experience, as I have discussed in earlier episodes.

© 2025 Talk Architecture, Author: Naziaty Mohd Yaacob.

Support the show

Do subscribe for premium content and special features which will help to support and sustain Talk Architecture podcast on a more in-depth explanation on design thesis and processes. These special commentaries and ‘how to’ explanations are valuable insights and knowledge not found elsewhere!

Send us a text

The “research-framework” approach to design theses is a myth and must end.

Best industry preparation: give the entire studio one real, complex, shared urban site and force students to solve 10–15 genuine, layered design problems from day one. This final episode of a 3-part series explains how using two cases almost a decade apart.

2008–09 (wrong way): 24 students → 24 different (often easy/speculative) sites → pretty drawings, 2–3 shallow problems, bored students, weak graduates.

2019–20 (right way): one tough shared site (e.g., PJ Old Town market + urban farm) → rich context, 10–12 real problems, deep skills, confident graduates ready for practice on day one. Blog post on a context specific design thesis: https://designthesis.wordpress.com/2020/08/05/raymond-bus-the-market-hub-at-jalan-othman-petaling-jaya/

Takeaway:
Speculative/prototype theses fail students.
Context-specificity is not radical — it’s basic professional training. Every architecture school needs at least one unit doing it.

© 2025 Talk Architecture, Author: Naziaty Mohd Yaacob.

Support the show

Do subscribe for premium content and special features which will help to support and sustain Talk Architecture podcast on a more in-depth explanation on design thesis and processes. These special commentaries and ‘how to’ explanations are valuable insights and knowledge not found elsewhere!

Send us a text

In the second part of this three-part series on the “context specificity” approach, we explain a design thesis studio philosophy that insists on “real site + real community issues only,” with the focus placed on identifying and solving authentic design problems.

The studio runs for a full academic year, structured as:  

• 7 weeks of Special Semester (Brief proposal on site analysis and research) 
• 14 weeks of Design Development  
• 14 weeks of Detailed Design + Special Studies

Research is integrated into the architectural design process rather than treated separately: it occurs primarily through initial site analysis, topic and building-type research, observation, user interviews, and case studies at the start, and is deepened through additional Special Studies later in the year.

© 2025 Talk Architecture, Author: Naziaty Mohd Yaacob.

Support the show

Do subscribe for premium content and special features which will help to support and sustain Talk Architecture podcast on a more in-depth explanation on design thesis and processes. These special commentaries and ‘how to’ explanations are valuable insights and knowledge not found elsewhere!

Send us a text

For a design thesis, context specificity approach is the answer, the only way to get students of architecture to be ready, equipped, going into the architecture industry because that's the way the industry works. There is no place for speculative design, prototypes or fantasy design, as you will not be able to overcome the challenges of the industry.

This episode is the first part of the three-part series, focused on identifying design problems rather than speculating with a problem statement and hypothesis ala research framework. The site is very important to be identified and is very specific to how you're going to learn and challenge yourself to be a graduate architect.

© 2025 Talk Architecture, Author: Naziaty Mohd Yaacob.

Support the show

Do subscribe for premium content and special features which will help to support and sustain Talk Architecture podcast on a more in-depth explanation on design thesis and processes. These special commentaries and ‘how to’ explanations are valuable insights and knowledge not found elsewhere!

Send us a text

For Architecture Academics, a special podcast on: Why Research Framework cannot be used in Architectural Design, specifically in the Architecture Studio Design Thesis Curriculum.

An introduction to a topic addressing what is currently wrong with the way we teach architecture in universities where research and publication becomes increasingly important and how we have lost our way in producing credible architecture graduates. Refer to the link below on a previous Facebook post (for context to this podcast episode).

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/19ziXahE2D/

© 2025 Talk Architecture, Author: Naziaty Mohd Yaacob.

Support the show

Do subscribe for premium content and special features which will help to support and sustain Talk Architecture podcast on a more in-depth explanation on design thesis and processes. These special commentaries and ‘how to’ explanations are valuable insights and knowledge not found elsewhere!

Send us a text

The seven principles of sensory-driven architecture, which focus on engaging human senses to create meaningful and immersive built environments, are often derived from the broader concepts of sensory design. 

1. Sight (Visual Engagement)

2. Sound (Acoustic Harmony) 

3. Touch (Tactile Experience)

4. Smell (Olfactory Design)

5. Temperature (Thermal Comfort)

6. Movement (Kinesthetic Awareness)

7. Emotional Resonance (Human-Centered Experience)

This episode, Naziaty Mohd Yaacob, discussed the above principles with disabled persons needs in mind.

© 2025 Talk Architecture, Author: Naziaty Mohd Yaacob. Image by Naziaty Mohd Yaacob.

Support the show

Do subscribe for premium content and special features which will help to support and sustain Talk Architecture podcast on a more in-depth explanation on design thesis and processes. These special commentaries and ‘how to’ explanations are valuable insights and knowledge not found elsewhere!

Send us a text

The concluding part (Part 2) of this proposition of using sensory-driven architecture principles to achieve inclusive and therapeutic spaces as explained by Naziaty Mohd Yaacob, is based on a research to combine architecture, disability and phenomenology. 

Based on an internet literature search, the 7 principles of Sensory-driven Architecture Principles are: 

1. Sight (Visual Engagement)
2. Sound (Acoustic Harmony)
3. Touch (Tactile Experience)
4. Smell (Olfactory Design) 
5. Temperature (Thermal Comfort)
6. Movement (Kinesthetic Awareness)
7. Emotional Resonance (Human-Centered Experience)

To achieve inclusive and therapeutic spaces that possesses the following:

• Trust
• Secure
• Safety
• Usability
• Accessibility

References to Juhani Pallassmaa's The Eyes of the Skin and Kevin Mark Low's Small Projects and Universal Design principles.

Copyright 2025; Author: Naziaty Mohd Yaacob. Image from Kevin Mark Low's Small Projects, 2010.

Support the show

Do subscribe for premium content and special features which will help to support and sustain Talk Architecture podcast on a more in-depth explanation on design thesis and processes. These special commentaries and ‘how to’ explanations are valuable insights and knowledge not found elsewhere!