The following article was recently published in the Straits Times. Seems like Singaporeans are getting frustrated with the lack of a 'skyline' in Singapore. I was wondering what the thoughts of people in this forum are?
_____________________________________________________________
Whither Singapore Icon?

Singapore seems to be architecturally impaired. The only structures
that invoke any attention are timeless landmarks such as the Supreme
Court, Raffles Hotel and religious places of worship, the majority of
which are products of our colonial past.

Our modern 'landmark' structures such as the New Parliament, Suntec City and buildings along Shenton Way are so insipid and monotonous that they do not even garner a second look.

About the only eye-catching modern design here is the
Esplanade and that too is more controversial than iconic. The question
beckons; where is our structural icon? Where is our architectural
ambition? In what direction are we heading towards aesthetically?

For so many years, Singapore has been a paradigm of urban planning and
development for other metropolitan areas around Asia and the world.
But over the past decade, while these other metropolitan areas (e.g.
Shanghai, Hong Kong and Kuala Lumpur) have embarked on ambitious
projects that are slowly making their mark as global icons, Singapore
has opted to be more cautious and drab in its approach to define
itself artistically.

Dubai, a case in point, epitomizes this drive to stand out aesthetically with its outstanding hotels, residential developments and urban themes.

Even London, Singapore's perennial metropolitan benchmark, has exhibited audacity teasing the eyes with a recent series of sublime modern landmarks that dot the skyline.

Are we too afraid? Will we be left behind in this global trend? Maybe we
should look towards the Middle East for inspiration much like they did
towards us not too long ago.

I agree.:)

I already suggested to the authorities to lift the height restriction for taller buildings to rise.

Well, our New Downtown masterplan is taking place, and already 1 tower completed, 2 u/c and 2 starting end of this year.

The article has some truth to it but is also exaggerated.

Singapore definitely has a richer architectural diversity (not just skyscrapers) than the cities mentioned in the article. The efforts gone into preserving these old treasures give Singapore a greater depth than a city like Dubai can hope to achieve.

Of course, there could be a more exciting visual array of skycrapers although its more likely that economics would dictate the outcome of those. Nevertheless, there seems to be a realisation of late that bolder designs can be incorporated (check out the new Marina Boulevard Apartments coming up). For me, the Esplanade Theatres are a powerful landmark for Singapore.

Whats more important besides creating icons for the sake of icons is the incorporation of these structures in serving the public, that will be more memorable for the people IMO. :cool:

$0.02

Taller buildings doesn't necessary constitute to better skyline or environment. Similarly, a "funky" form doesn't automatically makes the structure an icon. Icon in architectural terms, in my opinion, goes beyond how the structure appears on the outside. A national icon in the form of a piece of architecture has to recognise what its users require. An X factor that can pull the crowd. When was the last time you actually did something at the Esplanade rather than admiring the durian roofs. In contrast, the Citilink don't even have much of a facade to talk about but I can easily say that its a more dynamic place to be in. My only complaint........ it should have covered the Marina area, which is totally disconnected. Extending Citilink would have been a logical decision it seems. What's on the outside counts too but its what happens inside make it timeless.

Its true that architecture lacks identity here. Go find out who is actually designing the major projects here. I'm not so worried about being on the wrond end of the trend actually. I believe we can set our own trend instead of following blindly.

and who could deny that HDB flats are an architectural icon of Singapore?

How can people complain about a lack of skyline in Singapore ? There's already what is probably one of the most beautiful waterfront skylines in the world, if not the most beautiful. What Singapore may be lacking imo is a building such as the Eiffel Tower in Paris or Tokyo Tower. If it was up to me, I would locate it somewhere near Marina Bay ^^

Of course it would have to be architecturally outstanding, not yet another stupid observation-TV tower.

... and no more boxes, please! :angel1:

Actually, the 'lack of a skyline'(which i actually don't agree with) can be an icon too right? Haha! Just a casual musing.

Anyway, i believe Singapore does have a distinct style, just not one that many people pay attention too. For me, i find Singapore city beautiful because it seems to be a vibrant mix of old and new. The way the old riverside go-downs have been not only preserved but converted for new uses, and the way them seem to blend in so well into the cityscape is sublimely beautiful.

Shucks. I suck at writing these things.....

Many people think Singapore has a very small skyline, but in fact there are highrises everywhere.

Orchard is the prestigious residential, hotel and office district.Very dense.Condos rising to 30 storeys plus all over.

Novena, our newest skyline.Just started to boom in 2000.

Marina Centre is our smallest skyline.5 hotels, 7 office towers, 3 shopping malls, 2 lowrise office buildings and the Esplanade Theatres.

I think something has to be noted here, despite this being a high-rise forum, that the letter in question was actually more of a discussion on architecture in general rather then the kind of of stuff we would acredit towards helping to form the skyline?

Also, notice he was talking about relatively contemporary architecture, or rather, the lack of them, in invoking the same kind of X factor as previous masterpieces already in existance here, including our cute little shophouses that is.

Seen in this regard, I am actually in general agreement with the writer. Many a times, golden chances to create a truly iconic and impactful masterpiece has been thrown away due more often to over-riding concerns about costs, or in particular, the fear of asthetics and whether the building will "fit in." It is true indeed that pieces of architecture should show some form of harmony with its surroundings as a base for its own acceptance into the said environment, but when the culture here becomes overly concerned, be it from the way winning entries were selected in competitions and sending some sort of a signal to those in the profession, or by the architect's own decisions in what forms their work, the conservative mindset becomes increasingly obvious here.

When the URA has to roll out a "landmarks" plan a few years ago, does that not raise eyebrows with regards to how paradoxically "structured" a manner it is done to cultivate "spontaneity?" And goodness know why such a plan is needed at all...perhaps the authorities themselves have finally come to some form of realisation. But will they put plans to practise?

Its not like we need our cityscape to be dotted with all sorts of out-of-this-world architecture to be counted and seen. Many cities in the world have just one global icon and the city remains forever imprinted in people's minds. Its not an issue of quantity, obviously, but I find it disturbing why the landmarks plan seems to prefer a series of these "iconic" buildings, but all will perhaps end up being "half-rated"....aka the Esplanade. If any of our personal experiences whos, the impact of just one structure can over-ride the effects of 20 sub-rated ones!

The Esplanade is not yet so well known.Look at the respond in the world forums.

The Esplanade is not yet so well known.Look at the respond in the world forums.
And you have any idea why? ;)

Why?:)

but I find it disturbing why the landmarks plan seems to prefer a series of these "iconic" buildings, but all will perhaps end up being "half-rated"....aka the Esplanade.

Eh? Is that a direct quote from you or an article you read somewhere?

If its from you, I didn't had the impression that your opinion of that flop was "half-rated". Second thoughts?

Eh? Is that a direct quote from you or an article you read somewhere?

If its from you, I didn't had the impression that your opinion of that flop was "half-rated". Second thoughts?
That was my original quote. :D

Yeah I know you considers the Explanade as a flop, but I think it is not entirely a pile of shit thou. You can see it by observing who goes to the place, and what they do there. You wont find a lack of tourists taking pictures at its front entrance too.

In fact, I am a regular visitor to it myself, having gone there once every week for the past 3 months! :D

One example I would like to quote is the Pinnacle @ Duxton, not that it wasn't a good scheme though. Although there is a sense of randomness on its facades, the planning of the units doesn't reflect that at all. That randomness could have been applied throughout the scheme both internal and external to create more dynamic and interesting unit configurations. That's what I called experimentation. If you look at Sejima's Gifu Kitagata apartment, you'll know what I mean. Randomness happens with the configuration of varioud types of units forming a rectangular block. The cleverness of the building had to be experienced, rather than just looking on what's on the outside. Random and yet subtle, that's intelligent planning.

That was my original quote. :D

Yeah I know you considers the Explanade as a flop, but I think it is not entirely a pile of shit thou. You can see it by observing who goes to the place, and what they do there. You wont find a lack of tourists taking pictures at its front entrance too.

In fact, I am a regular visitor to it myself, having gone there once every week for the past 3 months! :D

Then how come its "half rated"? :bleh:

I remeber you telling me to go "experience it". Well, I did. My opinion still stands. If anything, its been strengthened. :)

actually, the esplanade theatres, while relatively provocative in a place like singapore, pales in terms of uhmmm interesting-ness (please insert better word yourself) when put beside many other projects in other cities...

Well, a landmark takes time to be noticed.:D

Esplanade would be, in time, a landmark that might even overtake the Merlion as the Singaporean landmark.

Then how come its "half rated"? :bleh:

I remeber you telling me to go "experience it". Well, I did. My opinion still stands. If anything, its been strengthened. :)
Haha.....yeah I told you to do it coz you have not been there before right?

Yes I would still consider it a semi-success, and I dont think my opinion has changed much for quite some time. It just dosent have that X factor needed, and btw, it is small by your non-artsy Singaporean's standards. :D

We have the Fullerton juxtaposed with the Maybank Tower, shophouses with skyscrapers rising behind them.

We also have lots of conservation areas and thousands of restored buildings.Turning slums and warehouses into chic hotels, offices and hip nightclubs.

Beside shophouses, we also have rowhouses, similliar in design, but no retail facilities below.

Haha.....yeah I told you to do it coz you have not been there before right?

Yes I would still consider it a semi-success, and I dont think my opinion has changed much for quite some time. It just dosent have that X factor needed, and btw, it is small by your non-artsy Singaporean's standards. :D

Actually I was there way before it opened, about 1 year before and met the "software" aka management people and attended their briefing, listening to their "great plans" that could fill up the whole calender. Didn't think the software could make it then. Now that the hardware is complete, didn't prove otherwise. :)

Nice to see you back, Kit.:)

Hope to see you more often...

Thanks.:)

Been pretty busy lately but I do hop in once in a while, a very long while sometimes.

Still studying?:)

Nope. Started working more than 3 months ago.:)

Still in Australia?:)

Back home already but yeah, miss Melbourne.

Oh, then you could take pictures of your favourite architecture works here? :D

Oh, then you could take pictures of your favourite architecture works here? :D

Unfortunately, I haven't had a single photography session since I started working. Got to get something started again though.

Okay, I'll be patient.I'm not good in photography and do not have a digicam.So its quite expensive and inconvienient for me. :(

Unfortunately, I haven't had a single photography session since I started working. Got to get something started again though.
Oh yes.....go save your portfolio with more photos and updates before it gets pruned away! ;)

:) I'm on it. Started putting together a portfolio of 10x15 prints. 8 images so far.

oh!! I think you meant the thread I started...... I thought it was long gone but somebody just found it again.:)

Actually, if you look at patterns, tall stuff does become iconic. To be more precise, sore-thumb-sticking tall is iconic.

Look at
KL and Petronas
Paris and Eiffel
NY and ESB
Tokyo and Tokyo Tower
HK and 2IFC
Taipei and 101
SINGAPORE AND OUB CENTRE

They all have the tallest being alot taller than the next tallest in the area.

I wonder why...

whatever it is, for SG to have an iconic thing, we need something that sticks out, like a 400m observation tower, or a 200m hotel complex on a barren island.

Hope they build a skyscraper hotel/casino on Southern Islands.Or an observation tower there or on Fort Canning, Ann Siang Hill, Pearl's Hill ,Mount Sophia, or Goodwood Hill (Mount Elizabeth).:D

But Ann Siang is mainly a conservation area, so I doubt it.

First of all, thanks huaiwei on that excellent post. You hit the nail on the head there when you correctly pointed out that architecture in general was questioned in the letter and not just the high-rise skycrapers that seem to be the more popular topics of discussion in this forum.

Moreover, I have to agree with huaiwei when he says that time and time again we have been given opportunities to construct buildings, monuments, residential complexes and etc. only to let our inherent conservatism limit the architectural capacities that I am sure our professionals here are well equipped with. Not to name any specific buildings, it seems like we are satisfied with mediocrity as long as it means we can avoid controversy.

On another point, i believe that we do need an icon although one that does not necessarily have to be tall as suggested by other posters. Look at Sydney, London and Rome for examples. An icon serves more than just pure aesthetic value. There are elements of national identity, collective vision and marketing value that need to be considered. An icon simply helps one remember because of the visually powerful image that is etched in one's head. KL never was easy to identify physically until the Petronas Towers were built. The same can be said of Paris or even Dubai with their respective icons. To put it simply, a study conducted by god-knows-who stated that if 75% of people who were asked to name a city via a sketch of a structure, the structure has succeeded in being an icon, purely in terms of marketing value that is. Singapore seems torn between the merlion, greenery, chewing gum, michael fay and singapore airlines.

On yet another point, while I agree with someone's suggestion that our HDB flats themselves are icons, I think it applies more to us heartlanders than it does to tourists and well accustomed foreigners. The trouble here is that the URA still engages in planning the country both from an urban planning perspective (which i think is necessary) but also from an architectural perspective (which leads to a lack of creativity). A planned skyline is not what we need now. It may have been the solution for a developing country in the 60s/70s but not for one that looks to metropolitans such as HK, London, NYC and Tokyo as equals or at least examples.

Finally, I think the writer of the letter was just trying to arouse attention and discussion and not to sincerely put forward an argument for a complete overhaul. I just feel that people are frustrated at the mediocrity that Singapore has turned out to be. It remains an imitator and not an innovator.

On yet another point, while I agree with someone's suggestion that our HDB flats themselves are icons, I think it applies more to us heartlanders than it does to tourists and well accustomed foreigners.

Well, shouldn't a country's icon be first appealing and familiar to its own people rather than foreigners? That's the problem now. We built too many crap that we think might put Singapore in the limelight, we've totally forgotten how to present ourselves. Things that are close to our daily lifes do appeal to foreigners because things we built that doesn't identify ourselves can also be seen elsewhere.

[QUOTE=dodo
Not to name any specific buildings, it seems like we are satisfied with mediocrity as long as it means we can avoid controversy.
[/QUOTE]

Well then let me be the first to congratulate The Esplanade!!! Not only is it mediocre, it had also successfully stirred up quite a bit of controversy.

Well then let me be the first to congratulate The Esplanade!!! Not only is it mediocre, it had also successfully stirred up quite a bit of controversy.

lol

Well the Esplanade is the most-talked about building in Singapore! :cheers:

When the URA has to roll out a "landmarks" plan a few years ago, does that not raise eyebrows with regards to how paradoxically "structured" a manner it is done to cultivate "spontaneity?" And goodness know why such a plan is needed at all...perhaps the authorities themselves have finally come to some form of realisation. But will they put plans to practise?


Do you have more info about this and what the planned landmarks are?

On another point, i believe that we do need an icon although one that does not necessarily have to be tall as suggested by other posters. Look at Sydney, London and Rome for examples. An icon serves more than just pure aesthetic value. There are elements of national identity, collective vision and marketing value that need to be considered. An icon simply helps one remember because of the visually powerful image that is etched in one's head. KL never was easy to identify physically until the Petronas Towers were built. The same can be said of Paris or even Dubai with their respective icons. To put it simply, a study conducted by god-knows-who stated that if 75% of people who were asked to name a city via a sketch of a structure, the structure has succeeded in being an icon, purely in terms of marketing value that is. Singapore seems torn between the merlion, greenery, chewing gum, michael fay and singapore airlines.
This paragraph in particular really set me thinking. How much really, do the height of buildings alone actually build a strong mental image of place and identity into people's minds?

Perhaps structures need not be the tallest at the time of their building, but they do need to be clearly visible and stand out from the crowd...aka the Statue of Liberty, which was the first thing migrants used to see when they sailed into NYC? Now imagine the same thing happening to the Merlion? :D

So many of these icons needed to be either tall, humongous, or just plain visible, and they seem to add that X factor. The Eiffel Tower, The Collossuem, the, the Acropolis are respective examples. But what is more notable is that they retain people's interests way beyond their contemporary times. The Eiffel tower may be the tallest when it was built, but why is it still so representative of height imaginations today?

Perhaps what Singapore really need, is to build a structure.....need not be the tallest, not not even be modt architecturally pleasing, but if it stands out from the skyline, perhaps from Fort Canning hill, then we will have that structure we have been yeaning for?

A huge LKY statue on Fort Canning, anyone? :D

Perhaps being "indentifiable" for Singapore is being none at all.

A huge LKY statue...


uh.. no! duxton plain flats are already like a landmark for lky...

An observation tower, lah!:D

uh.. no! duxton plain flats are already like a landmark for lky...
Please elaborate.....

hrm... i thought i wrote this story somewhere else before...

well here is a version of how the duxton plain flats came into being, as informed by my mother. i dont know how credible she is, but she works in a high level job search company and probably gets gossip that should have at least some truth in them. she also worked in pap office in toa payoh more than a decade ago.. dunno if that adds credibility to her gossip.

so here goes - tanjong pagar's mp is lky. he wanted to do something nice for his area as he knew he was retiring or something like that, like a nice arts centre or some landmark apartments. so he spoke to someone in hdb about it and thereby triggered a chain of events leading to the duxton plain flats. hdb, under normal circumstances, would probably not even consider the possibility of such a project, but lky's word overrules anything, so there you have it. and notice hdb says they're never going to do anything like this again, despite the roaring success of it.

wasn't there a plan to remove that communications tower on Ft. Canning and replace it with an observation tower? That'd be good!

How about an even bigger Merlion? :D A HUGE one right in the middle of the new marina development area! Bigger than the statue of Liberty etc! As long as it's not a musical fountain I'm happy! Come on, that'd be great! at the end of the linear park?

Singapore's getting a wheel, but that's London's new trademark! ....

Esplanade is good but it's never going to cut the mustard really.

Hmmm, it's quite true actually, what is singapore known for ... well, Raffles Hotel and the Singapore Sling is the only thing that the majority of people have heard of (especially in the UK).

Maybe a certain time in the future well have a big statue of the Senior Minsiter? :D ....

So simply, we need a huge tower or a huge merlion ... lets go with both!

and that casino idea on the southern islands will be a huge mistake, it's a farce! ... that's never going to be a landmark for singapore.

wasn't there a plan to remove that communications tower on Ft. Canning and replace it with an observation tower? That'd be good!

How about an even bigger Merlion? :D A HUGE one right in the middle of the new marina development area! Bigger than the statue of Liberty etc! As long as it's not a musical fountain I'm happy! Come on, that'd be great! at the end of the linear park?



Nice to know we have the same idea with regards building a monstrous merlion-skyscraper! :lol:

btw there is no more news of that observation tower.

i dont think a 160m merlion would look too good among the office buildigns..it would be quite beautiful if standing alone, like the statue of liberty or the eiffel or the 37 m merlion at sentosa, but not beside the office buildings. big structures with such distinctive shapes need to be alone i think..

Enough Merlions.An observation tower, please.

@redstone, I thought you were obsessed with the merlion once, claiming that the Merlion Tower at Sentosa was one of Singapore's top 10 most famous buildings!

Being famous does not mean I like it...

It's so short.

Enough Merlions.An observation tower, please.

And a beautiful and original one, please ^^

The idea of an observation tower itself is not original to begin with.:)

I think money would be better spent helping neighbours curb with their fire problem. If not, what's there to observe with the haze?

Actually, if you look at patterns, tall stuff does become iconic. To be more precise, sore-thumb-sticking tall is iconic.

Look at
KL and Petronas
Paris and Eiffel
NY and ESB
Tokyo and Tokyo Tower
HK and 2IFC
Taipei and 101
SINGAPORE AND OUB CENTRE

They all have the tallest being alot taller than the next tallest in the area.

I wonder why...

whatever it is, for SG to have an iconic thing, we need something that sticks out, like a 400m observation tower, or a 200m hotel complex on a barren island.
I've said it before, and I actually agree with the initial post - I think that Singapore architecture is pretty so-so. Not to say that there aren't great contemporary works around - because there are. But on the whole, the architectural landscape of Singapore is somewhat stale. Recent projects like Expo Station (why Foster is a living God in the UK I don't know, but he's hit and miss and this is one of his hits IMHO), Gallery Hotel (but already almost a period piece by the time it was built...it's so 1990s postmodern) and some great little works like some great houses and the Singapore Cricket Assocation Pavillion and the new entry to the Singapore Zoo, are a move in the right direction, but overall the CBD skyline is suffering from the same Tokyo-esque modernist staleness that afflicts, well, Tokyo. (Btw, has anyone ever considered whether UOB is considered a Japanese modernist, Brutalist or postmodern/metabolist tower?).

Nowadays, I find it hard to find any new skyscraper projects that excite me...there are probably only a handful around that world at the moment that I can even be bothered caring about...even in my own home city, there's only one project that I even keep track about...seriously, skyscraper design nowadays is soooooo unoriginal...out of every 10 that gets built, only 1 is worth getting excited about...the worst are the supertalls...(sigh)...oh, but this has nothing to do with Sing...just wanted to get it off my chest...:rant:

Those cities that Cliff listed have all been suffering from architectural staleness in the last 10 years IMHO (again, not to say that there aren't good works in those places, but they are not at the cutting edge recently)...KL, Paris, NY, Tokyo, HK, Taipei and...SINGAPORE. As for the Esplanade...I don't know about you guys, but IMHO, I just can't stand it! Same with Suntec city. Just awful IMHO...hehehe (now don't get sensitive about it)...I don't know if you think me controversial, but forum is for debate, right?

Actually, the issue of whether Singapore has "an icon" is separate from the quality of its contemporary architecture and also the symbol that its skyline projects. The Singapore skyline is like a great "composition" - one of the better "arranged" skylines that projects a staid but corporate image that doesn't pretend to be larger or more monumental than it is. I can think of many disproportionately small/large skylines around the world. Let me tell you a story...my home city Melbourne happens to have great skyscrapers, and as many if not more CBD towers of a significant height (say 120 to 150 m) as most similar cities its size (singapore, seattle, sydney, etc...eh, all "s" cities!). BUT...it is forever berated as having a skyline that doesn't look good from a distance (unlike Singapore's) because of the lack of "bulk" and "density", the gaps in the skyline, the fact that the towers are "spread out" even though they are all within a one mile by half mile CBD.

What about icons? OK - let me tell you another story - Melbourne also is a city that is forever accused of not having an "iconic" building like that "other city" (sydney)...and let me tell you, Melbourne is already full of great contemporary and Victorian-era architecture, even better than many cities older, more established or larger than it...the only thing is, there is no internationally recognised "sydney opera house"-style icon. But you know what? While many visitors and some locals still hold this view, those who scratch a little deeper and those who have lived here for long enough and know what the city has to offer know that Melbourne has lots of icons! The old trams trundling down the street, the Victorian streetscapes, the mad sporting culture, the cultural festivals, the European influence, etc etc...in other words, the question is...do we "need" an internationally recognised iconic building or built structure? In fact, we already have plenty...when Federation Square was built recently, it was one of the hottest projects in the architecture world...but you know what people said? "Oh no, it didn't turn out like the sydney opera house"! Well, it wasn't intended to - this isn't even a single building, but rather a composition of built structures over a whole city block encompassing many institutions and functions including a major art gallery of the best australian art collection in the world, tourist visitor centre, horse racing museum, showcase for local wines, indoor performance spaces, tv & radio studios for the most multiligual broadcaster in the world, digital cinema, the austrlaian centre for the moving image including a screen gallery for digital/multimedia art, retail & restaurants, to name a few. So who cares if there isn't a SINGLE iconic built structure? Walk the streets, and you will see icons everywhere, some are built structures, some are not - but who determines what is an icon? The locals.

So...if you think that Singapore doesn't have any icons, just think again...they are everywhere (and maybe some are just not built structures)! Why do you need a large merlion or a big wheel when the little merlion is itself an icon, recognised by the locals, for the locals?

That was interesting blabbyboy, but I also think it's important to take into consideration the singaporean psyche ... especially from the Government if not the people.

I am constantly consulting with the government etc on their plans for Singapore and what comes across is their desire to be bigger than they are. This comes in many facets, there's Sentosa ... it has HUGE plans to become the premier island resort company in Asia, regardless of present position it has a vision. Same with Changi airport, same with the zoo (the best there is, again, regardless of present position, it's their aim) ... this idea of being grand is central to the modus operandi of Singapore ... what does hinder singapore, and yet proves to be its greatest strength is the governments reluctance to support giant projects of no value, they demand a return, it has to be viable ... unlike KL's twin towers .... they're beautiful but there was no need for them at all, in terms of business.

However, that brings to a second facet of Singapore, their nation building process. Just look at the news recently "the next chapter" ... a "maturing nation". They are now looking for symbols to unite the people and project an image abroad.

Interestingly the skyline seems to be the number one thing used (In my opinion, being an outsider living here) ... the national anthem, images of singapore, whatever is happening, there's always a shot of the skyline ...

Singapore needs one giant building to make people go "ah yeah, that's singapore". It sounds odd, but it's a central phenomenon of developing an identity ... Singapore isn't a monarchy, it cannot rally around a palace, the idea of "the crown" ... it is a commercial entity, like hong kong, it's entire history and reason for being, is business.

I think singapore has an identity now, it has depth, it has a wonderful culture and I think it's quite a stable place as it is. However, I too sense there's not ONE thing that projects the country abroad.

We all know Singapore here, or have something to do with it so we comment with bias, but speak to those who have never heard of singapore (that's somewhere near china right? .... or hey, is that where the singapore sling comes from?") ... and trust me, many people don't really know of Singapore like they know of Hong Kong.

There are obviously more important things to spend the money on like pollution control but 800million sing is nothing and to build an icon well, it's worth it ... KL's twin towers have done wonders for Malaysia's image .... I mean, who gave a damn about Malaysia in the west? NO one, it was nothing, Thailand was more important, but one symbol kept knocking away until people abroad went "oh, yeah, Malaysia I know that place".

So what are the options? obersation tower wouldn't do much, it'd be cool but it wouldn't do much at all, unless it was the tallest in the world .... a giant merlion, that'd certainly do it cos it's unique ... alternatively (and I think this is what will happen) ... Singapore will develop it's new cbd and THAT will become the icon of Singapore, similar to how it is now ... look at hong kong, what do we know that for? the skyline..... So perhaps all we should ask for is quality skyscrapers, decent planning and hope not to repeat the nonesense of suntec, and marina area.

There you go, my opinion :D ...now, back to work!

somehow i'm not quite sure if the new cbd will do much to project singapore.. and remember it will likely be fully developed only in the next 50 years. that's a very very long time. for one thing to be outstanding, it needs to be exactly that - outstanding. the new esplanade theatres aren't all that outstanding - perhaps because of location. i dont think a wtb can be built in the (current) cbd without spoiling the nice silhouette. i dont think authorities will even lift the height limit in the forseeable future. a giant merlion may not do the trick - no one really visits hong kong to look at their giant buddha.

i guess perhaps a better way to garner attention would be to allow architects total creative control over a number of high profile large projects - and give them blank cheques too :D. a modern arts museum, a larger concert hall (i dont think esplanade's 1800 seat concert hall really cuts it), another underwater aquarium but supersized a la osaka, or perhaps a casino or uh.. whatever..

Jesus....I had an emmensely good time reading the above two posts by our two foreign friends here! Its always interesting reading comments from the the 3rd person perspective, and please...no worries about disliking anything! :D

Interesting, it appears that both have agreed that in the end, it boils down to the entire skyline itself becoming Singapore's icon?

outstanding, it needs to be exactly that - outstanding. the new esplanade theatres aren't all that outstanding - perhaps because of location.

The Esplanade was probably built on the best piece of prime land in that area. Regretfully, the building did not do justice to it at all. I've always said, that area do suffer from connectivity problems(not traffic lights don't count as connections) from the city, which could be addressed in the planning stage of those buildings in the vincinity. That, sadly did not happen.

To find an icon that identifies Singapore, perhaps we have to look deeper than the aesthetics(or the lack of) the skyline provides.

when i said location, i actually meant it wasn't in a location that its structure would best stand out in - sort of like the reverse of what you're saying.. anyway there's the other side of the benjamin sheares bridge still... pretty prime isn't it?

when i said location, i actually meant it wasn't in a location that its structure would best stand out in - sort of like the reverse of what you're saying.. anyway there's the other side of the benjamin sheares bridge still... pretty prime isn't it?

:) Trust me, the Esplanade will stand out "prominently" anywhere in Singapore.......

Serious mode on...... I don't really see any problem with the present location its sitting on. You can practically see it from anywhere because of its mass.... its hard to avoid.

well it just seems to blend in to me.. i keep having this image of the sydney opera house really standing out and everything else in sydney's cbd just fades into oblivion whereas for the esplanade theatres it looks quite gorgeous with the marina bay skyline but is just uh.. blending in?

I've always said, that area do suffer from connectivity problems(not traffic lights don't count as connections) from the city, which could be addressed in the planning stage of those buildings in the vincinity. That, sadly did not happen.
I dont remember seeing you mention that, but now that you have said it, that's good! :D

What exactly do you think is the problem about connectivity there?

well it just seems to blend in to me.. i keep having this image of the sydney opera house really standing out and everything else in sydney's cbd just fades into oblivion whereas for the esplanade theatres it looks quite gorgeous with the marina bay skyline but is just uh.. blending in?

Heh!! I actually thought the Esplanade was trying to be almost anything but blend it with its context.

The land on the other side was not meant to de developed until later. They wanted the Esplanade now. So to put an already bad building somewhere in the middle of nowhere............ you do the math:)

well... ok perhaps i thought it was blending in because the image i had was one with a very grey day.. but i still think its not nearly as attention seeking or beautiful as most instantly recognisable icons. some (many actually) are more shocking, some are just more artfully located eg eiffel tower.

i actually quite like how the esplanade looks from the outside... blends in well you see... but inside kinda disappointing... esp toilets and underground link...


if you think of tokyo, no single building comes to mind really - the tokyo tower is but a cheap imitation. rather you think of the most busy junction in the world and all those lights! that's pretty iconic.

I dont remember seeing you mention that, but now that you have said it, that's good! :D

What exactly do you think is the problem about connectivity there?

How do you get to Esplanade from say..... City Hall MRT? Via Citilink I supposed? How does it feel to have walked past the bustling Citilink and end up with a service corridor leading to the Esplanade. No, that's not all, that corridor had to bring you to a carpark before a sub standard lobby that brings you into the interior of the Esplanade. I saw some photos being displayed along the walls of the corridor and personally, I woould feel terribly insulted to have my pictures hung next to a service pipe or facing the door into the carpark. That's one major pedestrain walkway to the Esplanade for you.

Say.... if you don't take the Citilink route and use the traffic lights...... traffic lights, how bloody exciting is that to access an icon that's supposed to represent Singapore.

Walk around the perimeters of the Esplanade, especially the said facing the water. I've been there twice and twice, I can't find a decent pedestrain path from the main lobby taking you back to the traffic lights or the corridor leading to Citilink. I'm always forced to turn back when I come to the busy road with no proper apron or pathway buffering the development and the road. How's that for circulation? Total failure for a public project.

look how it blends in (to me)... it looks almost like another hotel part of the marina square complex

http://files.photojerk.com/sybarite/IMGP4152.JPG

well... ok perhaps i thought it was blending in because the image i had was one with a very grey day.. but i still think its not nearly as attention seeking or beautiful as most instantly recognisable icons. some (many actually) are more shocking, some are just more artfully located eg eiffel tower.

i actually quite like how the esplanade looks from the outside... blends in well you see... but inside kinda disappointing... esp toilets and underground link...


if you think of tokyo, no single building comes to mind really - the tokyo tower is but a cheap imitation. rather you think of the most busy junction in the world and all those lights! that's pretty iconic.

To me, the Esplanade does have a shocking impact but sadly, it doesn't last, especially after you've been in the building.

Look up some residential projects in Tokyo. You'll think different. One of those that comes tomind would be the Capsule Hotel.

Adding on.......

If you look at the whole Marina area, its all made up of individual separated parcel of land. With a crossing, bridge here and there....... don't you all find that you have to walk quite a distance most of the time to cross the road legally. Of course, I don't...I walk the road.:)

Singapore isn't a monarchy, it cannot rally around a palace, the idea of "the crown" ... it is a commercial entity, like hong kong, it's entire history and reason for being, is business.

Got to agree with that one, and I fully agree that Singapore is most often represented by its skyline. Adequate for projecting its corporate side I suppose. Also as Singapore isnt represented by a single religion, mosques, churches or temples dont really define the city although Singapore has an abundance of these.

think singapore has an identity now, it has depth, it has a wonderful culture and I think it's quite a stable place as it is. However, I too sense there's not ONE thing that projects the country abroad.

That identity is hard to define but the positive vibe is certainly there, of one being a real diverse and cosmopolitan society. And yes there is no real domineering physical icon that projects Singapore's image abroad...perhaps in the past Singapore's reputation for excellence was deemed sufficient for projecting the city's image abroad. Whether you agree or not, Changi Airport and SIA are definite icons of the country.

However, with increasing travel and Singapore's increased stature as a global city, the little treasures, the merlion and Esplanade here will increasingly become more memorable to visitors and how successful they are as icons depends on the memories and pics these foreigners take back with them. In that sense I guess I agree with Blabbyboy about Melbourne and Singapore being similar with regards to possessing powerful world famous icons or lack thereof.

Of course the shortcut to gaining fame would be to spend on a Guinness-beating structure. Anyway I look forward to seeing the chosen design of the competition for the new 350m-long pedestrian bridge across Marina Bay. I am sure more interesting/controversial structures will come Singapore's way in the future :yes:

Look up some residential projects in Tokyo. You'll think different. One of those that comes tomind would be the Capsule Hotel.

but for most architecturally ignorant people like me tokyo isnt really associated with any single building..

actually... i find that the marina crossings are usually at rather convenient locations except recently with the marina square renovations... except for millenia walk.. the connection to suntec city is so obscure. like... marina square to suntec you can go by either metro or citylink... marina square to millenia walk.. uh... a very big path.. and esplanade theatres to marina square it would be best to cross the road *with traffic light*

i think if one draws a map with all the crosssings it seems pretty ok...

i think if one draws a map with all the crosssings it seems pretty ok...

Really, if someone had to draw a map to instruct how a place should be assessed then the planning had failed...... miserably. Think of places which connects but didn't have its users thinking that he is merely using it to get from point a to b...... think Citilink.

@heirloom, in that pic u posted almost everything there seems to be in the same hue!

I know that the Esplanade stands out cos I definitely noticed its LOUD presence when I saw it for the first time and I was curious to explore (this was in 2002 before it was officially opened). Howevre now that I am so used to it I just accept it as part of the landscape. I'm sure Sydneysiders also just accept the Opera House or Londoners their Big Ben/ London Bridge in a similar way.

@heirloom, in that pic u posted almost everything there seems to be in the same hue!

I know that the Esplanade stands out cos I definitely noticed its LOUD presence when I saw it for the first time and I was curious to explore (this was in 2002 before it was officially opened). Howevre now that I am so used to it I just accept it as part of the landscape. I'm sure Sydneysiders also just accept the Opera House or Londoners their Big Ben/ London Bridge in a similar way.

Woooo yeah...... its definitely loud. What was this Hokkien adage about being loud but inaccurate? :runaway:

Woooo yeah...... its definitely loud. What was this Hokkien adage about being loud but inaccurate? :runaway:

cry mother cry father?

I honestly dont know! Please say, even if it may be vulgar as it could be a new tagline :D

cry mother cry father?

I honestly dont know! Please say, even if it may be vulgar as it could be a new tagline :D

Its definitely not vulgar..... frankly I can't remember how its being said. For what it means I was told....... think "empty vessels make the most noise".

singapore needs some noise i guess...

Really, if someone had to draw a map to instruct how a place should be assessed then the planning had failed...... miserably. Think of places which connects but didn't have its users thinking that he is merely using it to get from point a to b...... think Citilink.

hmm yeah you're right.. i just happen to be one of those that love exploring new routes..

"empty vessels make the most noise".

How typically Singaporean! :lol:

ok I was joking but I'm sure we all know of at least someone whose like that -an apt symbol for Singapore perhaps :D

singapore needs some noise i guess...

Yeah, that's what I thought at first. We could only hope 600 million dollars can turn noise into music to our ears(no pun intended).

How typically Singaporean! :lol:

ok I was joking but I'm sure we all know of at least someone whose like that -an apt symbol for Singapore perhaps :D

Erm.... clue me in... I really don't know who you're talking about. :dunno:

well i already quite like it... mainly because of the library and the restaurants really...

Erm.... clue me in... I really don't know who you're talking about. :dunno:

oh nvm..its just that recently I've encountered several people fitting that description :)

More generally it could also be one aspect of the 'Ugly Singaporean'

Aiyah, any landmark takes time to be accepted.

uh.. maybe nkf shows... i think the stunts are so stale... i just donate anyway

Aiyah, any landmark takes time to be accepted.

Erm..... being accepted in time to come and being acceptable at all is very different.:)

Better late than never, Kit.:)

oh nvm..its just that recently I've encountered several people fitting that description :)

More generally it could also be one aspect of the 'Ugly Singaporean'

I don't necessary think its an aspect of the Ugly Singaporean since they exist in different cultures too. Heck, I'm game enough to say we are all guilty of that at one time or another.

Better late than never, Kit.:)

Hehe.. yeah better late than never... if it ever........ :runaway:

I don't necessary think its an aspect of the Ugly Singaporean since they exist in different cultures too. Heck, I'm game enough to say we are all guilty of that at one time or another.

of course, but having it descibed in local terminology makes it seem so localised after all...

I do agree with redstone on his point. The fact that the Esplanade keeps getting debated (whether you like it or loathe it) will eventually pay off for it as being the most famous building in Singapore for a long time to come :yes:

of course, but having it descibed in local terminology makes it seem so localised after all...

I do agree with redstone on his point. The fact that the Esplanade keeps getting debated (whether you like it or loathe it) will eventually pay off for it as being the most famous building in Singapore for a long time to come :yes:

Yes, but being remembered is one thing but being remembered for what it is....... that's where timeless pieces stand out from the crap really. Some buildings were demolished, some people miss, some people can't even be bothered.

Taking the Sydney Opera House.It was called a white elephant.

Now look at its fame.

Taking the Sydney Opera House.It was called a white elephant.

Now look at its fame.

Its famed more for its built form.

But for a building that was promised to be a place for all Singaporeans, I just don't see how.

I would like to add that in architectonic terms, the opera house was much better built and designed.

i would bother if the esplanade was to be demolished.. as i said, i quite like it.. even though i'm not particularly impressed by it.

Kit, that's what makes Esplanade unique.

SOH is so um, static?

Esplanade looks as if it is moving at some angles.

huh? what makes esplanade unique?

Kit, that's what makes Esplanade unique.

SOH is so um, static?

Esplanade looks as if it is moving at some angles.

Erm..... uniquely good or uniquely bad? Same as being remembered. Good or bad or the not so successful? How successful can a building be, let alone an icon if the most interesting thing about it is being spoken, both good and bad and not the actual experience of being in and using a well designed building.

Being aesthetically pleasant, which is highly subjectively is only skin deep.

hmmm, I don't know where I stand on this esplanade thing ... it is certainly never going to be for Singapore what the Sydney opera house is for that city.

HOWEVER, it fills a gap in singapore's life (that sounds too deep) ... the arts ... it finally gives singapore a place to appreciate proper music, classical!

Esplanade was sold to singapore as a venue for the people ... RUBBISH, it's very much aimed at the middle + upper class + expatriot community. Although I hate the fact it allows people in to the theatre in jeans and stuff, that really gets to me, BUT cannot have everything.

I for one go to their concerts nearly every other week.

As for architecture ... I don't know, I often walk around that area ... it fits in, it looks ok, it's different ...but it doesn't knock you out like the Fullerton does ...

we shouldn't mistake talk of a need for a single building with the icons of singapore and what is singapore ...

Singapore has depth and character ... thankfully (from my opinion anyway) it never had a rush of anti-Britishness, street names stayed the same, buildings were kept ... not like Hong Kong .... there is a historical feel to Singapore which I like ... Hong Kong has a totally different buzz .... the multi-cultural aspect hits you quite early ... indians, malays bla bla, then alongside this very, (dare I say) British feel ...

all in all, singapore is doing fine ... I approve of a place where I can get satay, putu piring, chilli crab and sugar cane juice cheaply and quickly :D

I think we're being a bit too critical ... the talk is really one of one symbol, one thing and singaporeans don't need to care as such, it's just the mental image ... which will be different from one person to the next, depending on how much interaction that person has with Singapore. However, for someone with no / or little interaction, what is that thing?

My ideas ... and all should be done .... good skyscrapers, and hopefully a couple more big ones ... remove that stupid benjamin sheares bridge and build one that is grand .... erm ... I'm sticking with my merlion idea, I like that ! ...

you must be more forgiving on singaporeans' dress sense! our income levels havent reached the level where most teenagers can afford to dress in dior homme for concerts :D

somehow i think benjamin sheares bridge 'fits in' very well... perhaps i've got bad imagination... but i can't picture an interesting bridge in its place? perhaps its because it goes from ground level up to uh... some significant height and back to ground level again. that's not really the same as spanning a river or something where the road stays level and you can have a flashy suspension bridge or something.

I don't know. I personally prefer to dress comfortably for any event. For a dress coded event, I'll try to avoid if I can because nothing beats being comfortably dressed and that usually means a pair of bermudas, polo-tees and a good o' pair of camper:)

That was what I was trying to stress on. Stop pushing out icons that doesn't mean more than what they appear on the outside.

It is inevitable to link an important public project to an iconic status because to many(admitting or not), an icon is tangible and of a considerable size. A building possess those factors.

Interestingly you see "kept buildings" in a positive manner. Many claimed they are boring, including myself at times. HK, with its unkept mannerism is what gave it strong characteristics and interests. That's what I experienced there.

the bridge does fit in ... but it doesn't stand out ...

it is quite high, and something could be interesting there ...

I just feel it could add to the bay area more than it does now.

i am pretty adverse toward unkemptness in any way... except my room

maybe the bridge should be lit like red or something...

That was interesting blabbyboy, but I also think it's important to take into consideration the singaporean psyche ... especially from the Government if not the people.

I am constantly consulting with the government etc on their plans for Singapore and what comes across is their desire to be bigger than they are. This comes in many facets, there's Sentosa ... it has HUGE plans to become the premier island resort company in Asia, regardless of present position it has a vision. Same with Changi airport, same with the zoo (the best there is, again, regardless of present position, it's their aim) ... this idea of being grand is central to the modus operandi of Singapore ... what does hinder singapore, and yet proves to be its greatest strength is the governments reluctance to support giant projects of no value, they demand a return, it has to be viable ... unlike KL's twin towers .... they're beautiful but there was no need for them at all, in terms of business.

However, that brings to a second facet of Singapore, their nation building process. Just look at the news recently "the next chapter" ... a "maturing nation". They are now looking for symbols to unite the people and project an image abroad.

Interestingly the skyline seems to be the number one thing used (In my opinion, being an outsider living here) ... the national anthem, images of singapore, whatever is happening, there's always a shot of the skyline ...

Singapore needs one giant building to make people go "ah yeah, that's singapore". It sounds odd, but it's a central phenomenon of developing an identity ... Singapore isn't a monarchy, it cannot rally around a palace, the idea of "the crown" ... it is a commercial entity, like hong kong, it's entire history and reason for being, is business.

I think singapore has an identity now, it has depth, it has a wonderful culture and I think it's quite a stable place as it is. However, I too sense there's not ONE thing that projects the country abroad.

We all know Singapore here, or have something to do with it so we comment with bias, but speak to those who have never heard of singapore (that's somewhere near china right? .... or hey, is that where the singapore sling comes from?") ... and trust me, many people don't really know of Singapore like they know of Hong Kong.

There are obviously more important things to spend the money on like pollution control but 800million sing is nothing and to build an icon well, it's worth it ... KL's twin towers have done wonders for Malaysia's image .... I mean, who gave a damn about Malaysia in the west? NO one, it was nothing, Thailand was more important, but one symbol kept knocking away until people abroad went "oh, yeah, Malaysia I know that place".

So what are the options? obersation tower wouldn't do much, it'd be cool but it wouldn't do much at all, unless it was the tallest in the world .... a giant merlion, that'd certainly do it cos it's unique ... alternatively (and I think this is what will happen) ... Singapore will develop it's new cbd and THAT will become the icon of Singapore, similar to how it is now ... look at hong kong, what do we know that for? the skyline..... So perhaps all we should ask for is quality skyscrapers, decent planning and hope not to repeat the nonesense of suntec, and marina area.

There you go, my opinion :D ...now, back to work!
I think that I understand the Singapore/Asian psyche. But that's the thing - Singapore was never in the same game as the other developing Asian economies - it just puts it head down and focuses on the things that matter (or at least, the things that the government considers matters). Even now, I don't think Singaporeans nor the sing govt yearns or itches for instantly-recognisable edifices. In that sense, sing is a much more subdued and staid presence in east asia - but my question was...who cares?! As for the projects you suggested, they are essentially profit-motivated commercial ventures, so there you can't draw the inference that just becos they want to be the best at something they do, that means that you want to do something that you're not yet doing. My advise to sing would be: don't go down the tacky path of thinking that biggest is the best. As for the new CBD, I don't think it will make much difference - it is well documented that sing has historically only developed as much as it needs - hence the drought of new (big)scraper developments since the last boom more than 10 years ago. This is not Shanghai or KL (and look what a mess (arguably) Shanghai's Pudong and even KL now turned out to be).

So many things mentioned in this and other threads already acknowledge the unique sing identity and the icons are everywhere from SIA to singlish to the singapore sling to kratong assam laksa to chewing gum to efficiency - why the itch for something tacky like a giant merlion or something like that?! That's just poor taste IMHO. Do you care what people who don't know where sing is think? That's just insecurity IMHO - look at M'sia - nation building my foot. Better to focus on things that really matter. Singaporeans may be nationalistic and proud, but I seriously doubt that there is a real yearning for a single iconic built structure (outside this forum). I think it's better to learn how to appreciate the icons you already have than try to create an "identity" from scratch. Why do you need a rallying point like a palace or royalty when you already have such a patriotic population?

Many people have mentioned the sydney opera house - well let me say quite openly that it may be an icon for the city and perhaps to some extent Australia - but anyone who has been to sydney will tell you that a city isn't made of one building.

This is not Shanghai or KL (and look what a mess (arguably) Shanghai's Pudong and even KL now turned out to be).

That's just insecurity IMHO - look at M'sia - nation building my foot.



KL's twin towers have done wonders for Malaysia's image .... I mean, who gave a damn about Malaysia in the west? NO one, it was nothing, Thailand was more important, but one symbol kept knocking away until people abroad went "oh, yeah, Malaysia I know that place".

The both of you should post your not-very-friendly-typically-holier-than-thou observations about KL on the Malaysian forum instead. Don’t chicken out next door. Learn to voice out politely and diplomatically.

The Petronas Twin Towers are the most important recent icons to Malaysia and KL in particular and why, even Asia if you may, standing as a reminder to the world. Remember that Malaysia was the first country in the world to drag the tallest skyscraper title out of the US, petty arguments aside.

Now on Singapore, you guys could perhaps generate something that’s ultimately Singaporean, nothing that’s been done before. The giant Merlion idea is slightly vague if you’d ask me. I’ve read that the lion from “Singapura” itself was probably a misidentified tiger. (and then have its head chopped and glued to a jolly good fish… why lar…). Nevertheless, the Merlion does a perfect job for Singapore in Malaysia, not that we need to identify with a Singaporean icon in anyway. We’re too close for that.

So what should the Singaporean icon be?

A Giant Statue? Already done.
The Tallest (Twin) Buildings? Done.
An Imposing Bridge? Done.
An Imposing Opera House? Done.
An Outstanding Skyline? Done.
A Giant wall? Done
A Huge Marble Tomb? Done Too.

I’m sure there’s place on the shelf. As someone pointed out earlier, let it be, Singapore the Innovator, not the Imitator. And don’t go about banking on multiculturalism, colonial architecture, broken-English and satay. We have that here too, in sunny M’sia. :D Cheers!

A new expressway would cross Marina Channel in the years to come.Another opportunity for a landmark?

Santiago Calatrava would be the ideal person for the job. :cool:

But he's old now, so...

The both of you should post your not-very-friendly-typically-holier-than-thou observations about KL on the Malaysian forum instead. Don’t chicken out next door. Learn to voice out politely and diplomatically.

The Petronas Twin Towers are the most important recent icons to Malaysia and KL in particular and why, even Asia if you may, standing as a reminder to the world. Remember that Malaysia was the first country in the world to drag the tallest skyscraper title out of the US, petty arguments aside.

Now on Singapore, you guys could perhaps generate something that’s ultimately Singaporean, nothing that’s been done before. The giant Merlion idea is slightly vague if you’d ask me. I’ve read that the lion from “Singapura” itself was probably a misidentified tiger. (and then have its head chopped and glued to a jolly good fish… why lar…). Nevertheless, the Merlion does a perfect job for Singapore in Malaysia, not that we need to identify with a Singaporean icon in anyway. We’re too close for that.

So what should the Singaporean icon be?

A Giant Statue? Already done.
The Tallest (Twin) Buildings? Done.
An Imposing Bridge? Done.
An Imposing Opera House? Done.
An Outstanding Skyline? Done.
A Giant wall? Done
A Huge Marble Tomb? Done Too.

I’m sure there’s place on the shelf. As someone pointed out earlier, let it be, Singapore the Innovator, not the Imitator. And don’t go about banking on multiculturalism, colonial architecture, broken-English and satay. We have that here too, in sunny M’sia. :D Cheers!
No, I do not see why Singapore must do something "different" from the rest of the world just to stand out and tell the world that we exist...provided we want to that is. I dont really care much about this "uniquely Singapore" tag which I personally find too tacky, but I dont think it has to be pushed too far, and certainly not in this regard.

Btw, the above two commentators were a Briton working in Singapore, and an Australian who has shown interest in Singapore's built architecture respectively. For this reason alone, they participate in this particular section of the forum, to voice out opinions about Singapore to and amongst local Singaporeans. And yes, their views are very much appreciated here indeed, including that from anyone else, Singaporeans or otherwise, and that includes yourself.

Cities need to learn from each other in order to succeed.

You cannot possibily do everything your own unique way all the time.Learn from others, and let other people learn from you.

Like now many cities learned Singapore's Electronic Road Pricing system, reducing jams at tolls.

Many countries are learning from Singapore, does anyone notice?

@huaiwei, I think Blabbyboy is from Malaysia...

@argory, welcome to the Singapore forum! :)

I doubt those two were bashing Malaysia, its more like they gave their opinions in passing I guess...

@huaiwei, I think Blabbyboy is from Malaysia...
Is it?? :eek: I honestly didnt know that!

Is it?? :eek: I honestly didnt know that!

Saw him say it before...maybe he would like to confirm?

Reading the last few posts,

I believe Singapore's icon is not really about building superlatives. Mr Nova himself claims that Singapore had several world tallest proposals before that werent pursued. (he sounded deeply bitter about it) I believe the true icon for Singapore would be its reputation for excellence and that is something that I'd say would touch its citizens more deeply. Its in simple things really, like when I was in London and upon mentioning I'm from Singapore, I've received comments like, "You guys have a vigorous education system" or "Hows things there, you guys handled the crisis (SARS) well" or "Which terminal? terminal three? Singapore Airlines yeah? good airline" but perhaps you will never hear, "oh Singapore! the city with that Esplanade Theatres by the water!" :D

In that sense I agree with Blabby that we shouldnt be over-obsessed with creating a physical landmark for the sake of it. The spinoff from having such discussions is that hopefully it creates an awareness amongst the public in appreciating the built form though:)

creating a successful physical landmark would give singapore a real solid image i guess - as opposed to the immaterial 'images' people have of singapore as you mentioned. it's not bad to have a reputation for excellence, but it won't hurt to have even more:)

but of course, thats what we;re trying to discuss anyway! :D

ah! how about air conditioned streets :D haha the permanent fantasy

ah! how about air conditioned streets :D haha the permanent fantasy
They arent exactly a fantasy...they already exist.

I am more interested in an aircon dome! :D

i meant like... maybt 90% of high traffic streets air conditioned.. not just one intersection..

PJCCCUK & Blabby's comment are certainly interesting since those are not coming from true-bred Singaporeans :okay: BUT Blabby's comment seems to be a bit offensive to Malaysians and I do not blamed Argory from mentioning a certain discomfort over such comment. ;)

First of all I would like to AGAIN clear the air about Petronas Twin Towers (I did this many times liao for the past 4 years!).

History first........PTT are envisioned by billionaire T. Ananda Khrisnan. He then presented the idea to Petronas which then leases 13 buildings around KL and are looking for a single project to hosts all of its offices. Even till today......Petronas still can't fit all of its operations within PTT with MISC and Petronas Dagangan still at its old HQ - Menara Dayabumi. At that time (1990) they are looking for a suitable land to built a supertall building and they purchased a land opposite Kuwait Embassy and Royal Selangor Golf Course for such purposes (now being developed as a super 'boutique' hospital).

Petronas at that time are on a quest to attain foreign assets and to boost its overseas image. They wanted to built an iconic building to boost their image and at the same time - tinkering with other ways like investing in F1 and the motorsport Grand Prix. So the idea of an iconic building isn't just to enhance Msia's image but also Petronas'. That is why it isn't Malaysia Twin Towers ( it would have been if the govt is directly involved! :D ) It is like killing 2 birds with a stone. ;)

So by saying PTT are built for ego and it isn't economically-viable - well......half is true and the other isn't. Isn't economically viable is downright silly as they are renting Tower 2 with premium rents and Suria KLCC is their cash-cow. Not to mention their profit-making car park. Petronas could afford many many PTT with their profit (after tax). PTT actually isn't expensive as it cost only USD 1.7 billion and in comparison - HSBC HQ in HK cost USD 1 billion to built! :eek:

Now the company that owns KLCC (incl PTT) is making lotsa money and they are listing on the Msian stock exchange very soon. They are competing KLCC's 2nd-phase by next year and would be starting its 3rd phase soon. So by saying it is a white-elephant or not economically-viable (or profiting from it for that matter) is certainly wrong as it had been proven otherwise. Oh....and Petronas is also giving away free tickets to the skybridge visit! :S


Blabbyboy> And what is so messy about KL and Shanghai's Pudong that you failed to mentioned? IMO Pudong is the most well-planned not to mention the most awe-inspiring district of Shanghai.....

While I appreciate your opinion on the subject matter but your belittlement and patronization of Malaysia (PTT in particular) are not done tastefully. Comparison is fine but my saying "Nation-building - my foot" is particularly insulting. I personally do not expect you to say nice things bout Malaysia but please do not post defamating remarks and ignorant comments.



And back to topic:

I personally do not see any harm in having an iconic physical structure. The Esplanade Theatres did wonders as a landmark and so does the Merlion at Marina Bay. But these 2 doesn't have the awe-factor of the Eiffel Tower or the Statue of Liberty. Although an iconic structure isn't important but it is definitely a pulling factor for a tourist. Every iconic city has an iconic structure. I see it as a bonus for Singapore as Singapore does shares many cultural uniqueness with Malaysia. ;)

No, I do not see why Singapore must do something "different" from the rest of the world just to stand out and tell the world that we exist...provided we want to that is. I dont really care much about this "uniquely Singapore" tag which I personally find too tacky, but I dont think it has to be pushed too far, and certainly not in this regard.

Btw, the above two commentators were a Briton working in Singapore, and an Australian who has shown interest in Singapore's built architecture respectively. For this reason alone, they participate in this particular section of the forum, to voice out opinions about Singapore to and amongst local Singaporeans. And yes, their views are very much appreciated here indeed, including that from anyone else, Singaporeans or otherwise, and that includes yourself.


I hope I’ve not stirred up wrong emotions here. I do not have the slightest right to deny anyone of their views except to hope that they duly refrain from making offensive statements, even in passing. This is also why I quoted only segments of their posts, which if devoid of them, made an interesting read nonetheless.

Thanks a million Rafflescity, for the warm welcome and you too, Huaiwei.

An icon to an average individual is a visual representation of an object/ person or a scene that is well communicated through images or symbols. Simply related examples are The Eiffel Tower (Paris) and the Holy Cross of Jesus (for the Christians) and maybe even the Courtesy Lion (S’pore’s Courtesy Campaign mascot, if I got that one right.) So icons make you identify better with something and the only “difference” suggested here is for originality within its context. This, instead of standing out exclusively, will also be eventually acknowledged and internationally accepted, somewhat like the PTT.

Indeed Singapore is not bent on superlatives and never did I propose as such for the Singaporean icon. However, is it only ironic that most world-identified icons are indeed superlatives?
Why of course Singapore has the ERP and unblemished efficiency but how do you put them into visual representations of an ultra-progressive nation?

Now this of course is assuming that Singaporeans find it necessary to do so. It’s worth mentioning though, that an acceptable icon is probably harmless if not completely beneficial altogether.

When one says there was no need for the twin towers we don't mean it as a necessary put down. What we generally mean by it in the consultancy industry is that there was little demand at the time of building for the addition of such a large amount of office space. I.E. the building created a high 'vacant' office space ratio for KL.

Most buildings fill an anticipated demand and rarely build with the idea of "well, one day it will be full, don't know how, but it will".

However, it does not mean the buildings are/where white elephants, far from it ... infact it would be interesting to study (but virtually impossible to prove) the intangible benefits of those towers in terms of increased business through tourism and how much of an impact it add on people deciding to locate there. I believe it has had a significant impact, just hard to prove.

The benefit is something similar to what the Singaporean Senior Minster described in his books, the provision of the "wow, what a place!" factor. In singapore it's the greenery, drive from the airport to the city and it's wonderful, it makes you like the place ... the twin towers do that for KL, they make you go "wow!"

Plus you're right, it was an ego boost to the country and a boost to the image ... it did have an economic purpose, just that the full benefit of the building took longer than usual with buildings to be reached.

Also, we have to differ from economic mindsets and account mindsets. Most people in Britain etc have an accountancy mindset "WHAT? It cost HOW much?!" ... and there is often demand for things to balance out, whereas an economic approach doesn't necessarily demand a fixed financial return, it takes into account the intangibles, so if a building can provide something more, than just office space, then good ... I wish London would take notice :(

One of the great lessons of Singapore / Malaysia is their ability to plan and take the country from point a to b. These are lessons not just for developing countries but for Europe, Britain et al.

so is singapore's icon the green city? hmmmmmmm

(I still want a big merlion :D )

There are two promontory spots along Marina Bay that had been alocated for Civic & Commercial Institutional uses, and would be 'landmark' buildings.

The 'Sail Condos' would be launched soon.Singapore Flyer is due in 2005.BFC due in 2008 (?).

The govt. is trying to make Marina Bay a landmark area.

perhaps a reputation for being the place at the forefront of one aspect of leisure or more would do good - eg berlin or somethign like that?

Nightclubbing in Asia?

AUG 21, 2004
Wanted: Enduring, spirited icons

I READ with interest Mr Hamesh Mehta's letter, 'Whither Singapore icon?' (ST, July 30).

Indeed, it is a struggle to name any single building that can represent Singapore, without falling back on the cultural and colonial remnants of Lau Pa Sat, Thian Hock Keng Temple, Fullerton Hotel, Raffles Hotel and the Old Supreme Court.

Souvenirs and postcards, often depicting the familiar conglomeration of CBD buildings set against these timeless individual pieces, are indirect, and perhaps ironical, testimonies of this dearth of 'sublime modern landmarks' that Mr Mehta referred to.

The Esplanade could be the only new building we can sell abroad, on top of those already recognisable.

It does seem Singapore has fallen short in creating celebrated architecture in keeping with its economic progress.

While it may be necessary to create buildings that will make the Republic stand out among metropolitan cities, aesthetics aside, the landmarks should be both enduring and spirited.

It should not become a race to build the biggest and the most spotlighted. It should not be a foreign object that looks bold but fails to take root in the local landscape.

It also should not be a case of replicating those found elsewhere. And it must not be a case of creating these objects for the tourist dollar, at the expense of the Singapore cityscape.

Interestingly, the Ferris wheel at the new Marina Downtown drew comparisons with the London Eye at the River Thames. It is unclear as to how it will feature as part of the cityscape, but was public opinion sought? Could it be manifested in another form, programme or location?

It can be argued that there already exists a spectrum of sublime architectural pieces in our cityscape. Internationally acclaimed architects and their works, for instance Paul Rudolph's Concourse, I.M. Pei's Gateway and Kenzo Tange's UOB, are beautiful in their own right and have been assimilated as part of our skyline.

The upcoming Supreme Court, National Library, National Museum and its subterranean train station, La-Salle and SMU City Campus, and the Pinnacle@Duxton housing project promise exciting additions that will give the city and public new spaces and landmarks. Many of these are the result of open discussions and competitions, which is laudable.

The newest addition, the Esplanade, has turned the once-quiet coastline into a bustling environment. It has done, on a lesser scale, what the Guggenheim museum had done for the city of Bilbao.

It is iconic not only because of its controversial appearance but also because of something deeper - it tugged at the public's heartstrings.

It is unique yet familiar. The nation's ambitions and the people's interest are represented.

The authorities have taken steps to invite the public and designers to participate in future city developments. It is my hope that they will open up more. On our part, let us speak up for more meaningful icons that do not just look good, but also feel good.

PHUA HONG WEI

Copyright @ 2004 Singapore Press Holdings. All rights reserved.

^
I definitely agree with the author of that article, especially on the last part - optimistic. :cool:

29 Oct 04

A facelift for S'pore architecture

Singapore - despite being thoroughly modern on the surface - is a city in need of regenerating, says UK-based architect and urban planner Will Alsop. GEOFFREY EU finds out how Singapore can have buildings that capture the imagination

THEY don't give away prizes for mediocrity in modern architecture, but if they did, there would be no shortage of buildings up for consideration here in Singapore. At least, that seems to be a commonly held view among members of both the local and overseas architectural community, who agree that Singapore could do with more interesting buildings - something along the lines of an architectural makeover.

http://business-times.asia1.com.sg/mnt/media/image/launched/2004-10-29/gearch-223029.jpg
Clarke Quay


There is no simple explanation for this current state of architectural affairs, architects say, but one significant issue - from the perspective of local firms anyway - concerns a lack of opportunity rather than a dearth of talent. As it is, a good number of architects have gone regional in search of work and established themselves to such an extent that the Singapore Architect is now a familiar brand in high demand in the region.

Meanwhile, despite the presence here of several big-name 'designer' buildings - those bearing the signatures of world-famous architects like I M Pei, Kenzo Tange and Richard Meier - the consensus is that the examples found here are not among their best works, as the architects themselves would probably agree.

While the four-decade-long exercise in nation-building has been a key component of the Singapore Success Story, good urban planning and good architecture is not necessarily the same thing. Sure, our city skyline is justifiably rated one of the most impressive in the world - especially so on the drive in from Changi Airport - but it is also true that Singapore has yet to produce a public building with the iconic impact of, say, the Sydney Opera House or the Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao. Yet there is no real reason why it shouldn't be able to.

'It doesn't need to be something like the Sydney Opera House, but we have missed many opportunities,' says Tan Kok Hiang, principal of Forum Architects, who advocates a more level playing field during the decision-making process to select firms for major projects. There was no open competition for The Esplanade, for instance, and having open competitions for significant projects is more desirable than simply short-listing a few firms and asking them for proposals, he says.

'Because of the small base, the potential for architects to develop a track record is tougher for Singaporeans,' adds Mr Tan. 'In places like Washington DC you can visit a different museum every Saturday for a whole year - this is obviously not the case here. Maybe without the critical mass, this 'eminent architecture' concept doesn't work. The architecture doesn't need to be on the scale of a Guggenheim, but it can be done.'

Mr Tan emphasises that such projects should be sympathetic to the local context rather than simply mimic something from abroad, but he also says that the opportunity to do so must come from those at the top, and the entire architect selection process should be re-evaluated. 'If you want competent buildings built on time and on budget, a lot depends on the vision of the decision-makers, who are fearful of the risks they have to take.' He adds: 'Pockets of good work are still possible, but it's a struggle - it need not be so. There should be the right conditions to do good work.'

According to UK-based architect and urban planner Will Alsop, principal partner of Alsop Architects, the notion of architectural tourism, whereby a building is able to attract attention to such an extent that it becomes a destination in itself, is a useful way to regenerate a tired or faded urban area. And Singapore - despite being thoroughly modern on the surface - is a city in need of regenerating, he says.

Mr Alsop was in Singapore as a keynote speaker at the inaugural regional forum of the International Union of Architects (UIA), an organisation that represents over one million architects globally. The event was held at the Biopolis biomedical research complex (a recent example of the preference for overseas designer chic - it was built by Pritzker Prize winner Zaha Hadid) and was jointly organised by the Singapore Institute of Architects (SIA) and Reed Exhibitions.

Exciting buildings

'Singapore has become a modern city, but other cities have caught up and overtaken it,' says Mr Alsop. 'If Singapore is to maintain its place as a world city, it needs more varied architecture, and in particular to look at the quality of life at street level - meaning to encourage people to occupy the streets. The big revolution in architecture is that people have discovered that they like interesting, exciting and modern buildings.'

While he approves of the exterior shell look of The Esplanade, Mr Alsop says the interior is 'very disappointing - am I going to a cultural centre or a shopping centre? Buildings need to say something about what they are but it doesn't have to be obvious.'

Mr Alsop, whose eye-catching building projects in England, Europe and North America include city masterplans, railway stations, libraries and medical centres that range from the racy to the radical, has a particular interest in raising urban areas from the dead.

His firm has also been commissioned by CapitaLand to revive Clarke Quay, which was first restored a decade ago but has suffered a malaise stemming from a general lack of traffic. It is undergoing the first phase of a two-year renovation designed to increase commercial and leisure activity.

Mr Alsop says that one of the reasons foreign architects are selected for local jobs is that they bring 'different sensibilities' to the specific project. 'We have perhaps a greater awareness of what's going on in many places in the world.' He adds that, on the other hand, the rest of the world is also open to Singapore architects. Many of the best architectural students from Singapore and Malaysia work abroad because there are more challenges, he says.

'A building first has to do the job that it is supposed to do, but it also should have that something extra that captures the imagination,' says Mr Alsop, adding that his brief for Clarke Quay was to bring life back into the area and make the project more diverse.

The first phase will deal with bringing people closer to the river edge while later stages will include building a footbridge across the Singapore River to make the area more accessible.

His vision of Clarke Quay includes 'lily-pad' shades along the river's edge and 'thermal chimneys' or cooling 'angels' that channel air from the river and help to lower temperatures in pedestrian areas that are further in from the river, as well as a new entertainment block facing River Valley Road. However, local planners rejected his proposal to incorporate some residential elements into the project.

'Because modern Singapore is like a new city, you don't tend to think of it in terms of rejuvenation - but perhaps you should,' he says. 'In Singapore, everything looks okay, feels okay, but you don't see that it's all getting a bit tired. It's time to say what we are, who we are and do what we need to do to maintain our position.'

To that end, culture is very important, says Mr Alsop, adding that city planners need to be a little more flexible when it comes to building regulations. 'The Singapore of 30 or 40 years ago needed some organising but now, planning regulations should be less rigid, more flexible. Rules should be open to discussion so that the city becomes a more fluid organism.'

In the end, it doesn't matter whether you're in Singapore, Chicago, London or Toronto, says Mr Alsop. 'People like to be in places where they can just do nothing. Singapore is a very exciting place but it needs to let it 'hang out' a bit and be a bit looser.'

As an example of more innovative design, he cites his firm's recently completed Ontario College of Art and Design in Toronto, which incorporates a new box shape building on stilts into a site with older existing buildings.

'You can teach people to find the best in themselves but you can only teach so much,' says Mr Alsop. 'They must also observe and feed the imagination - Singapore needs to have more places where there is public access to the work. There is a lot of office space here, but what is the future of working in offices?'

He says: 'You can take a genuinely old piece of architecture and put a radical new piece next to it. What doesn't work is to build new buildings in a traditional style - it's like lying.' He adds: 'The biggest threat to life anywhere is boredom. Sadly, up to 90 per cent of new buildings are unremarkable - the general public should demand much more of its planners and designers.'


Mr Alsop, who has worked on masterplans to regenerate cities like Bradford and Barnsley in the north of England and built the much-heralded Peckham Library outside London, says he has never worked with a big budget in his career.

Dollars and sense

'If you put the effort in, you can do it at an average cost. You can't do it on the cheap, but you'll find it increases the value of the building, so it's also good business sense.' He says the Peckham Library now caters to three times as many people as it was intended to. 'I want to wake up in the morning and be excited by a new building.'

Jaime Lerner, president of the UIA and another keynote speaker at the regional forum this week, says a city's ability to improve its quality of life is not a question of scale or funding. 'To make it happen, you have always to propose a scenario that everyone understands is desirable. It is an equation of co-responsibility - if everyone understands that, they will help you to make it happen,' says Mr Lerner, an architect and three-term term mayor of Curitiba in Brazil who had a reputation for finding innovative urban solutions and implementing quality projects (such as a mass transit system) at low cost.

Curitiba has a 312-year history and preserving architectural heritage is like thinking of your home city as an extended family photo, says Mr Lerner - meaning that everything that contributes to your reference to the city should be maintained and enhanced. 'Sometimes, you integrate the old with the new, giving new context to old buildings; sometimes you add new history to old history. Even if they are not important as landmarks and not beautiful, they are your references.'

Creating mediocre architecture is one thing but not knowing or refusing to acknowledge it as mediocre, that's like smashing into a wall........ time and again. That's the sad part. Most country will encounter this stage of making mistakes and gaining from it but to gain from it, you first have to realise that its a mistake to begin with.

About the only eye-catching modern design here is the
Esplanade and that too is more controversial than iconic.


Give the Esplanade some time. When the Eiffel Tower and Sydney Opera House were first built, there were huge outcry about how ugly, how controversial and the massive cost over-runs. Sounds familiar doesn't it. The next generation will look on the Esplanade more generously.

Hi people, stumbled upon this interesting forum and was very fascinated with all the buildings that you guys showed here. Never know Singapore has such an impressive, rich history for buildings. Something struck me while i was browsing through... i was wondering... Which landscape would be Singapore's foremost national symbol? I mean you can associate paris with eiffel tower, Australia with Sydney opera house etc. What about singapore? Just a thought.... hee...

:) elaine

The Merlion. Everyone knows the Merlion. Though personally I would have preferred it if they associated with Singapore with the Esplanade Theatres or at least the upcoming landmark residential towers under construction, The Sail @ Marina Bay.

the merlion has had more than 40 years of exposure, being used in the tourism ads etc. esplanade needs more time, but i'm sure it will catch up :)

but i think people don't really associate singapore with any one building... it's the wonderful juxtaposition of the shophouses and skyscrapers and greenery all smack in the middle of the city that makes people go wahhh.

ok maybe raffles hotel?

Merlion is no doubt a tourism icon... but as a nation symbol for us... it's kinda ambivalant and mixed right? there are some crticism of Merlion such as "tacky" and "totally unconvincing". So should Singapore foremost national symbok be the Merlion? In what way can we relate ourselves to the merlion?

New Supreme Court is bound to be another landmark. Also it is desidned by the world famous Norman Foster. :)

I've never really liked the merlion. Just don't see how it is relevant to Singapore. Incidently, did lions ever exist on Singapore? Probably not. The Asian lion went extinct 400 years ago. Sang Nila Utama was probably a bit cockeyed and mistook a little pussy cat for a fearsome beast.

I think the Esplanades have great potential, but igno is right. No one building properly accentuates Singapore's uniqueness. Foreign friends tell me the whole of Singapore serves as it's own icon. The cleanliness and orderliness seem to interest them most, and the way Singapore is arranged.

We had a long debate about what is Singapore's suitable icon, please check it out here

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=123528

and welcome to the forum Elaine :)

As for throwing up suitable candidates:

Merlion
Esplanade
Changi Airport
Raffles Hotel
Orchard Rd Marriot Hotel

are some of my suggestions :cool:

Uniquely Singapore! :D

http://files.photojerk.com/RafflesCity/merlion4.jpg

by heirloom
http://imagehost.biz/ims/pictes/99452.jpg

Hi people, stumbled upon this interesting forum and was very fascinated with all the buildings that you guys showed here. Never know Singapore has such an impressive, rich history for buildings. Something struck me while i was browsing through... i was wondering... Which landscape would be Singapore's foremost national symbol? I mean you can associate paris with eiffel tower, Australia with Sydney opera house etc. What about singapore? Just a thought.... hee...

:) elaine

Singapore's foremost national symbol? Isn't it obvious? HDB flats of course.....

how about the changi airport control tower... i always get this warm fuzzy home sweet home kinda feeling whenever i come back from abraod... It's an indication tt "hey im in singapore!" when i finally touched down...

may be raffles hotel should be one? with very rich historical value, events and giving focus to the collective memroy of people. but i do find it hard to associate myself with raffles hotel.. seem too posh for me....

Esplanade, no doubt might be the next sydney opera house in time to come.. after all, the opera house took decades for people to accept it as an icon.. but still... it still lacks of the historical value...

Aint it kinda sad tt we still dun have any symbolic building that is of great significance for Singaporean to be able to identify with? :bash:

Esplanade, no doubt might be the next sydney opera house in time to come.. after all, the opera house took decades for people to accept it as an icon.. but still... it still lacks of the historical value...


It might sound weird but sometimes, historical value doesn't have to come with age. Take a look at Libeskind's Jewish Museum in Berlin. The spaces he created captured the sufferings of the Jews without a single piece of exhibit. That....... is history reincarnated in comtemporary works.

Singapore's foremost national symbol? Isn't it obvious? HDB flats of course.....

Perhaps you're right... it is the only so called true singaporean iconic landscape... It has shown the effort tt the HDB has put into nation-building and community relations to avoid the prospect of the ghettoisation of public housing which has been experienced elsewhere in the world.

Yet one must not forget that sense of place and belonging does not involve only the physical imageability of a locality, but also the experiential relevance of the place which develops out of social interactions among the community. In this aspect, Personally i dun think HDB flats has been very successful. I dun interact alot with my neighbours... unlike last time... where this "kampong spirit" prevails...

Perhaps you're right... it is the only so called true singaporean iconic landscape... It has shown the effort tt the HDB has put into nation-building and community relations to avoid the prospect of the ghettoisation of public housing which has been experienced elsewhere in the world.

Yet one must not forget that sense of place and belonging does not involve only the physical imageability of a locality, but also the experiential relevance of the place which develops out of social interactions among the community. In this aspect, Personally i dun think HDB flats has been very successful. I dun interact alot with my neighbours... unlike last time... where this "kampong spirit" prevails...

Unlike some comtemporary stuff, HDB flats were not conceived as an icon in the first place. It achieved its status through its functionality.

If you've been to the older estates, the kampong spirit still exists, especially among the older generation. This shift in social behaviour has more to do with how we forward as a country rather than how flats are designed.

New Supreme Court is bound to be another landmark. Also it is desidned by the world famous Norman Foster. :)
Hell no, and to hell with norman foster! :D

Welcome to the forums too, Elaine. :wave:

Hell no, and to hell with norman foster! :D

Welcome to the forums too, Elaine. :wave:

Drove passed the site today and they closed 2 lanes so that a 150 tonne crane could lift a huge load of marble finishes onto the roof. Those marbles could just be their big break at creating an icon. :bleh:

how about the changi airport control tower... i always get this warm fuzzy home sweet home kinda feeling whenever i come back from abraod... It's an indication tt "hey im in singapore!" when i finally touched down...

may be raffles hotel should be one? with very rich historical value, events and giving focus to the collective memroy of people. but i do find it hard to associate myself with raffles hotel.. seem too posh for me....

Esplanade, no doubt might be the next sydney opera house in time to come.. after all, the opera house took decades for people to accept it as an icon.. but still... it still lacks of the historical value...

Aint it kinda sad tt we still dun have any symbolic building that is of great significance for Singaporean to be able to identify with? :bash:

Yes the Changi Airport control tower is indeed a good example of a Singapore icon - heck that Bashir guy wanted to target it remember?

The Raffles Hotel has the strange position of appealing more to foreigners than the Singaporean psyche somehow. Perhaps because historically, it has never been the place for the Singapore people, but appealed more to the snotty colonial ruling class.

But my biggest bet would be on the Esplanade. Like it or hate it, it has made its way very quickly into the cityscape.

a pic posted by nazrey
http://img111.exs.cx/img111/2324/esp.jpg

Drove passed the site today and they closed 2 lanes so that a 150 tonne crane could lift a huge load of marble finishes onto the roof. Those marbles could just be their big break at creating an icon. :bleh:

yup the smooth pink marble panels dont look all that bad

Drove passed the site today and they closed 2 lanes so that a 150 tonne crane could lift a huge load of marble finishes onto the roof. Those marbles could just be their big break at creating an icon. :bleh:
Huh...the saucer will be wrapped in marble??

Huh...the saucer will be wrapped in marble??

Now that would be quite a sight wouldn't it? Nah...... probably for some interiors.

The facade is faced in marble. There's a huge hole in the base, where a road 'rins into' it.

Well I am sure while the new Supreme Court is controversial, I highly highly doubt it will be THE icon of Singapore. Location not iconic enough is 1 reason.

Well I am sure while the new Supreme Court is controversial, I highly highly doubt it will be THE icon of Singapore. Location not iconic enough is 1 reason.

Well, what I would say is " Ask not what the location can do for you but what you can do for the location...."

has anyone thot of newtown circus? the market... it is sorta like a marginalised landscape... altho nothing architecturally spectacular... it is one of the must go tourist stops to try out our authentic singaporean delicious food...

has anyone thot of newtown circus? the market... it is sorta like a marginalised landscape... altho nothing architecturally spectacular... it is one of the must go tourist stops to try out our authentic singaporean delicious food...

well, in one book, the hawker centres of Singapore were featured as amongst the top100 places of the world to go.

The food culture in Singapore is a tourist attraction in itself, and so are places like Lau Pa Sat & Newton Hawker Centre :yes:

has anyone thot of newtown circus? the market... it is sorta like a marginalised landscape... altho nothing architecturally spectacular... it is one of the must go tourist stops to try out our authentic singaporean delicious food...

Its near my place but I haven't been there for ages. Same as Raffles Hotel and Changi control tower, seemingly iconic but how has that impacted your life? Makes me wonder if we are choosing icons for ourselves or tourists.

well, in one book, the hawker centres of Singapore were featured as amongst the top100 places of the world to go.

The food culture in Singapore is a tourist attraction in itself, and so are places like Lau Pa Sat & Newton Hawker Centre :yes:

Now we all know that the best food doesn't come from there don't we? :)

Well I am sure while the new Supreme Court is controversial, I highly highly doubt it will be THE icon of Singapore. Location not iconic enough is 1 reason.

Maybe it's the location... but i would think tt it is more of how supreme court can be brought to our daily life and routine... HDB is more identifiable with singaporean simply becos we live in it... but as for the supreme count... no doubt it has rich history dating back to the old colonial times... but how many people can actually identify with it??

Maybe it's the location... but i would think tt it is more of how supreme court can be brought to our daily life and routine... HDB is more identifiable with singaporean simply becos we live in it... but as for the supreme count... no doubt it has rich history dating back to the old colonial times... but how many people can actually identify with it??

Haha.... frankly, I would hate to imagine the days where we use the Supreme Court more often than now.

Well, what I would say is " Ask not what the location can do for you but what you can do for the location...."

perhaps, but I doubt the new Supreme Court would have the visual impact like the old one

Supreme Court is actually quite 'new', only built in 1939.

perhaps, but I doubt the new Supreme Court would have the visual impact like the old one

I didn't think the old one had that much visual impact either. Probably because its been there longer than I care to remember and seen too many times. I'm also not the kind of person that's easily interested in visual impacts I guess.

Its near my place but I haven't been there for ages. Same as Raffles Hotel and Changi control tower, seemingly iconic but how has that impacted your life? Makes me wonder if we are choosing icons for ourselves or tourists.

A true singaporean icon instead of touristic icon... it's hard to separate these two themes... because what is singaporean will be our nation identity tt will be used to attract tourist... to differentiates ourselves from other countries... We maybe one of the Asian countries... but what exactly make us unique?? The multi racial, multi cultural identity? Then how abt little india and chinatown??? They are being criticised for being too commercialised after the revamption and attempts to preserve these districts...

true...I didnt shortlist the Supreme Court because, perhaps, it doesnt partake so much in the daily life of locals or tourists. Also, on a world scale, there are many similar structures to it, so maybe its not so uniquely Singapore. Nevertheless as a structure fronting the Padang, it would be recognizable to practically all Singaporeans and is a worthy landmark in its own right. One thats suitably lighted up on occasions as befits a landmark.

http://e.1asphost.com/sssc/Others/Supreme%20Court.jpg

Actually it was built on a very tight budget as the British had to finance the war, too.

So actually the dome is supported by metal trusses below instaed of a 'normal' painted rotunda top.

A true singaporean icon instead of touristic icon... it's hard to separate these two themes... because what is singaporean will be our nation identity tt will be used to attract tourist... to differentiates ourselves from other countries... We maybe one of the Asian countries... but what exactly make us unique?? The multi racial, multi cultural identity? Then how abt little india and chinatown??? They are being criticised for being too commercialised after the revamption and attempts to preserve these districts...

Which is why I said the HDB flats are successful in being the icon for locals. They're iconic not because of flashy materials, funky forms, etc. Its iconic because it ubiquitous and served the people well. It doesn't need foreigners to recognise it as an icon before becoming one. Frankly, it had became an icon without even people know it and took it for granted too many times over.

Which is why I said the HDB flats are successful in being the icon for locals. They're iconic not because of flashy materials, funky forms, etc. Its iconic because it ubiquitous and served the people well. It doesn't need foreigners to recognise it as an icon before becoming one. Frankly, it had became an icon without even people know it and took it for granted too many times over.

I would agree that the HDB flats and HDB dwelling reflect the icon for Singaporeans and the Singapore conscience of post independence Singapore.

However when placing Singapore on the international stage, how famous are our HDB flats? Many Chinese cities are now also building mass housing blocks.

How about pre-independence Singapore? but as you said, depth of history may not be necessary

These have to be considered before we decide on the Singaporean icon - it should be recognizable at home and abroad.

$0.02

I would agree that the HDB flats and HDB dwelling reflect the icon for Singaporeans and the Singapore conscience of post independence Singapore.

However when placing Singapore on the international stage, how famous are our HDB flats? Many Chinese cities are now also building mass housing blocks.

How about pre-independence Singapore? but as you said, depth of history may not be necessary

These have to be considered before we decide on the Singaporean icon - it should be recognizable at home and abroad.

$0.02

HDB flats are actually study models for many countries in the process of deriving their own solutions to public housing. Its certainly has a much lower profile than your "tourist icons" but that doesn't means its not recognised at all. So yes, I would say they are pretty famous. For something to be an icon, you don't necessary have to sell it to tourists.

Like Elaine said, its really a difficult to find something that can fulfill both parties, locals and the rest of the world. I don't see anything that has that potental right now.

HDB flats are actually study models for many countries in the process of deriving their own solutions to public housing. Its certainly has a much lower profile than your "tourist icons" but that doesn't means its not recognised at all. So yes, I would say they are pretty famous.

Being partially recognisable is not the point

to be the ultimate Singapore icon they have to be convincingly astoundingly famous the world over such that when people look at HDB flats they think "Singapore".

I doubt it. In a recent thread I posted a sample of HDB flats in Guess the City and some people thought Bangkok or China.

I might even say the Port is more iconic than general high rise public housing when capturing the imagination of Singapore

I would agree that the HDB flats and HDB dwelling reflect the icon for Singaporeans and the Singapore conscience of post independence Singapore.

However when placing Singapore on the international stage, how famous are our HDB flats? Many Chinese cities are now also building mass housing blocks.

How about pre-independence Singapore? but as you said, depth of history may not be necessary

These have to be considered before we decide on the Singaporean icon - it should be recognizable at home and abroad.

$0.02



Eh... i would disagree with mass bousing blocks because HDB has responded to its strongest criticism tt its estates are uniform and monotonous. For example in Pasir Ris, HDB has attempted to create a more picturesque housing estate. The skyline of PAsir Ris is characterised by multi coloured pitched roofs and dormers, with motifs tt reflect indigenous influences are used to give it distinctiveness... I can say every new town look somewhat different from one another. Unlike maybe LA where the urban sprawl makes the whole city dull and mundane... not a pretty sight... :eek2:

Eh... i would disagree with mass bousing blocks because HDB has responded to its strongest criticism tt its estates are uniform and monotonous. For example in Pasir Ris, HDB has attempted to create a more picturesque housing estate. The skyline of PAsir Ris is characterised by multi coloured pitched roofs and dormers, with motifs tt reflect indigenous influences are used to give it distinctiveness... I can say every new town look somewhat different from one another. Unlike maybe LA where the urban sprawl makes the whole city dull and mundane... not a pretty sight... :eek2:

of course, in fact nowdays some HDB flats even look like private condominiums and its becoming harder and harder to define a HDB flat :P

Being partially recognisable is not the point

to be the ultimate Singapore icon they have to be convincingly astoundingly famous the world over such that when people look at HDB flats they think "Singapore".

I doubt it. In a recent thread I posted a sample of HDB flats in Guess the City and some people thought Bangkok or China.

I might even say the Port is more iconic than general high rise public housing when capturing the imagination of Singapore

Same thing can happen to other recent major projects. They can be everywhere. There are more than one way to gauge an icon. Its impact can be tangible or intangible. Like I said, its an icon and you might not even know that its one.

If an icon has to be instantly recognised by foreigners, then that might be the reason why foreign design consultants are engaged for major projects here. Probably want to paint Singapore like they know it.

I dont disagree...the Statue of Liberty was made in France

I dont disagree...the Statue of Liberty was made in France

but who designed it?

Its like saying "we are building with bricks from China".

but who designed it?



Gustave Eiffel a Frenchman

but who designed it?

Its like saying "we are building with bricks from China".
Someone from France? He created it to look like his mother. :D

Haha.... tell that to the yanks!!

Haha.... tell that to the yanks!!
I am quite sure they should know it. They dont want to harp on it, thats all. :D

I guess the whole point of this discussion is an attempt to find out what represents us as a nation. I see it this way....... for something to become a representation of us, it has to be first endorsed by us, like it or not. I fail to see the point of building something flashy and selling it to the world saying that this represent us when it doesn't even come close to impact our lives. Is that us? I don't think so. I firmly believe that icons should be grown and take root, not planted.

well yes, Singapore I would say is in itself searching for a solid national identity, hence the search for a representative icon as well.

well yes, Singapore I would say is in itself searching for a solid national identity, hence the search for a representative icon as well.

In the process of finding an identity, I feel that we inevitably fall into a trap of trying to create one rather than finding.

Perhaps we have already found it...... an identity that's indescriptable, intangible...... a non-identity. An identity that simply says "we are who we are". Beats trying to create one given the relatively short amount of time we have behind us.

so it all goes back to my original qs... which landscape should represent Singapore? sigh...

Perhaps we should not even be asking this question to ourselves? Hmm....

Eh... so we dun even have a sense of identity and belonging tt we can proudly proclaim it to be a true singaporean icon?? tt would be pathetic...

so it all goes back to my original qs... which landscape should represent Singapore? sigh...

Everyday on my way to the office, I see.....

1) My neighbour painstakingly cleaning bird droppings off his S class. (Cars are precious commodities)

2) Uncles in their 70s feeding on kopi O and watching their birds singing.

3) Drivers cutting lanes with no prior signals.

4) Kids getting a ride to school.

5) White collared, black ties having a plate of chai tou kway with soya bean milk

the list goes on........ that's my landscape of Singapore.

Eh... so we dun even have a sense of identity and belonging tt we can proudly proclaim it to be a true singaporean icon?? tt would be pathetic...

My point is, the identity is there for all to recognise. It all depends on whether if you want it or not. It doesn't have to be tangible or take physical form, definitely doesn't have to be a structure that's for sure. We don't have to yell out our identity to others because they will find it somehow.

A singapore icon should represent singaporeans interlocking and collective histories, as testimonies to the forging of nation... So in my opinion... however distant and foreign to our daily lives... city hall, supreme court, raffles hotel, St andrew's Cathedral should be and already are considered as the few more well known landscapes in Singapore.

If we define our icon to represent a more vibrant, cosmopolitan, globalised city... it would be changi airport, esplanade, merlion?

If we want something to be something truely unique and singaporean... HDB flats??

Is that how we classify these various landscapes in singapore?

A singapore icon should represent singaporeans interlocking and collective histories, as testimonies to the forging of nation... So in my opinion... however distant and foreign to our daily lives... city hall, supreme court, raffles hotel, St andrew's Cathedral should be and already are considered as the few more well known landscapes in Singapore.

If we define our icon to represent a more vibrant, cosmopolitan, globalised city... it would be changi airport, esplanade, merlion?

If we want something to be something truely unique and singaporean... HDB flats??

Is that how we classify these various landscapes in singapore?

If you were to ask any person on the streets what the City Hall, Supreme Court, Raffles Hotel, etc is all about, what are the chances that he/she will tell you something more than what's already been written in the brochures? So if these icons haven't made that deep an impression on us to know more than the brochures do, then how can we convince foreigners that they represent us? Urban scape wise, yes. I can say that they're pretty iconic but are icons only skin deep?

For me, an icon of Singapore should be something that Singaporeans associate with, and the world associates with representing the place called Singapore. It would be a symbol that gives powerful imagery to the place.

Just like Eiffel Tower symbolizes Paris, Big Ben symbolizes London, Golden Gate Bridge San Francisco, so a Singaporean icon should likewise symbolize Singapore.

Eh... so we dun even have a sense of identity and belonging tt we can proudly proclaim it to be a true singaporean icon?? tt would be pathetic...
Well, I dont really think it has to be seen as pathetic. If you are asked to think of an icon for Seoul, Tokyo, or Melbourne, what would you think of? Notice that many international cities round the world may not have a singular and globally recognised physical icon either, but are they any poorer for it? I dont think it is neccesarily so...

Rather interesting discussion. If we think an icon has to be a structure or something tangible....... remember 911? What's left of an icon? How vulnerable is an icon? I would imagine an intangible (be it an environment, a way of life, etc) one would be harder to destory.

Rather interesting discussion. If we think an icon has to be a structure or something tangible....... remember 911? What's left of an icon?

but i think that was the point of this thread though, or I may be wrong.

something from the landscape that would qualify as an icon, or whatever that means

but i think that was the point of this thread though, or I may be wrong.

something from the landscape that would qualify as an icon, or whatever that means

That would depends on how you define landscape. For me, its made up of not only structures but the activities that comes with it or the other way round. Landscapes includes both hardware and software that makes up an environment. Time, moment, activities, speech, noisy, walk, sit, stand, drive, run, eat, look, watch, you name it. My landscape contains more than just concrete and steel.

Landscape....help...that reminds me so much of that bloody geographi theory exam i just had yesterday! :D

I would think the starter of the thread was referring to the built environment, as she has listed similar examples overseas, and in that context used the term 'landscape'.

Now of course it is in the landscape that we form our collective experiences but I still think Elaine was most likely looking for a tangible building or structure to define as a Singapore icon...

I think you yourself proposed HDB blocks?

Landscape....help...that reminds me so much of that bloody geographi theory exam i just had yesterday! :D

this thread must be giving you nightmares huh? :lol:

I would think the starter of the thread was referring to the built environment, as she has listed similar examples overseas, and in that context used the term 'landscape'.

Now of course it is in the landscape that we form our collective experiences but I still think Elaine was most likely looking for a tangible building or structure to define as a Singapore icon...

I think you yourself proposed HDB blocks?

I have no doubts about that but what I'm also doing is to provide an alternative view to the issue. I did mentioned HDB flats because I think they best represent us as built forms but another part of the point I'm trying to make is, icons doesn't have to be tangible. This is a response to her saying that finding an icon that could fulfill both locals and foreigners is difficult. Not saying that banking on a tangible icon is wrong but there's no harm in looking at other alternatives. Tangible icons? Its still HDB flats if you ask me.

Btw, if you've been to Sydney, you'll find out that the Operah House is not all that is to Sydneysiders either. Its just another building in that part of the city. We thought it represents Sydney because they sold it to us, the tourists. I would imagine the same for Eiffel Tower and Golden Gate Bridge.

Yup I know that an icon doesnt need to be tangible and so many facets can be looked at to find the unique Singapore experience

however the problem is that when it comes to searching for a definite tangible icon, there is no one collective answer as seen by the different suggestions thrown up by different people.

Btw, if you've been to Sydney, you'll find out that the Operah House is not all that is to Sydneysiders either. Its just another building in that part of the city. We thought it represents Sydney because they sold it to us, the tourists. I would imagine the same for Eiffel Tower and Golden Gate Bridge.

that is surely to be expected I'm sure. Same in a similar way to the Raffles Hotel.

However what might perhaps be expected of an iconic landmark might perhaps be some 'larger than life' quality, or something more than the mundane, the extra factor that inspires, the stuff that icons are made of.

Something thats just another building, yet also a special building, duly acknowledged by locals.

Yup I know that an icon doesnt need to be tangible and so many facets can be looked at to find the unique Singapore experience

however the problem is that when it comes to searching for a definite tangible icon, there is no one collective answer as seen by the different suggestions thrown up by different people.

and hence my question...... then why is there a need to find a tangible icon when that are so many options to pick from? Because its easier to sell a tangible icon to foreigners? If that's the case, then maybe we should have different sets of icons for different crowds. Things that we can sell and things that represent us but then on, in no way will I ever want to hear that whatever they're selling actually represents us. Which remains truer to us, I leave that to you all.

that is surely to be expected I'm sure. Same in a similar way to the Raffles Hotel.

However what might perhaps be expected of an iconic landmark might perhaps be some 'larger than life' quality, or something more than the mundane, the extra factor that inspires, the stuff that icons are made of.

Something thats just another building, yet also a special building, duly acknowledged by locals.

and yet after numerous tries, I have yet to see that building.

I see an icon as being something that can relate to its context. Not something that you just build and sell. It can be acknowledged in many ways. Acknowledge the fact that its physically there and nothing beyond or acknowledge it because it represents what we are, who we are.

and what we want to achieve, to become

an aviation hub, a centre for the arts, a maritime hub, a financial powerhouse, a world class global city with first class infrastructure...

perhaps then these aspirations do throw up room for more than 1 icon....

and what we want to achieve, to become

an aviation hub, a centre for the arts, a maritime hub, a financial powerhouse, a world class global city with first class infrastructure...

perhaps then these aspirations do throw up room for more than 1 icon....

These all have impacts with respect to financial gains and not that there's anything wrong with it. Again, to make these work, we have much to consider other than just hardware structures. In this case, structure alone don't make an icon I'm afraid.

*applaused* :cucumber: :master:

These all have impacts with respect to financial gains and not that there's anything wrong with it. Again, to make these work, we have much to consider other than just hardware structures. In this case, structure alone don't make an icon I'm afraid.

I know, these are just symbols.

Its just like the cross symbolises the Christian religion. But holding the cross alone doesnt make you a Christian.

anyway money is very very much associated with the Singaporean psyche and rapid economic progress is one measure by which Singaporeans define their country IMO.

ok..i think i shall go now. Gd night!

I know, these are just symbols.

Its just like the cross symbolises the Christian religion. But holding the cross alone doesnt make you a Christian.

anyway money is very very much associated with the Singaporean psyche and rapid economic progress is one measure by which Singaporeans define their country IMO.

ok..i think i shall go now. Gd night!

Again, nothing wrong with that but is that all that is to it for us? I don't think so. There is an underlying layer of mundaneness, everyday life, whatever that makes us who we are. This is what represents us on a different front altogether and we don't even have to sell this. Those who come will find out themselves soon enough.

I think the conclusion that we can get is, there is no single definite answer to an icon and there really isn't a need for something that can fulfill all parties.

Landscape....help...that reminds me so much of that bloody geographi theory exam i just had yesterday! :D

hahah! the classic exam-trauma!;) :)

I always thought the skyline itself was an icon already.

Haha. To me, it's this simple: Singapore is home. There's no real need for firm symbology, just firm roots.

I think the only think that Singapore is TRULY famous for is its chewing gum ban.

I think the only think that Singapore is TRULY famous for is its chewing gum ban.

And how our laws are especially harsh...

And the fact that despite all this, prostitution is still legal.....

Something tall in Novena would do nicely. :cool:

Something tall in Novena would do nicely. :cool:

:lol:

the most famous historical landmark for Novena would be the church, which can hardly be seen. But a 45-50 storey building there would fit in nice :yes:

This article by Tay Kheng Soon might shed some light...

1990
ARCHITECTURE AND NATIONAL IDENTITY

None of the major projects undertaken by foreign architects in Singapore have received any international acclaim. This is a curious situation given the tremendous scope of the building programme over the years of rapid development. For excellence to grow, there has to be a critical climate of opinion with appropriate mechanisms for criticism.The expression of critical views is more than being disparaging. One major characteristic of critical thinking is the ability to finely differentiate categories and meanings.

Criticality is therefore the capacity to uncover the under-lying assumptions behind an action or design. Only when there is good quality criticism can improvements come about. Talent is also sharpened and focused by criticism. It is obvious that in Singapore, we do not have enough criticism; therefore design
is not pushed and the ideas are not stretched. The result is a certain mediocrity of ideas.


Until all major buildings undergo critical review, even retrospectively, we will not be able to make progress. We must delve deeper into the nature of designing for a modern, Asian tropical city.


The main disappointment with the last generation of buildings designed by foreign architects in Singapore is that they are not at all outstanding when put on the world stage. The disquiet with the foreign architect syndrome is therefore not just a rice bowl issue, it has to do with national conscience and national sentiment. Architecture, it is argued, can help foster National Identity.

When the Singapore National Identity ultimately comes to be recognised in its architecture, it will be because it has been able to integrate Singapore's modernity with its Asianess and the fact of its tropicality all together. Architecture can project modernity, tropicality and promote a style of life that is true to the place so that we can be what we are and not a parody of something else.

Author

Tay Kheng Soon
Singapore August 1990

So in a nutshell, we have to bitch more about our buildings before it gets better right? I agree. Now lets wish the architects shall all come to this forum. :D

So in a nutshell, we have to bitch more about our buildings before it gets better right? I agree. Now lets wish the architects shall all come to this forum. :D

We all hate bitching, heck I hate bitching. But 8 years of architecture education told me that bitching can wake you up, push your ideas further and better equip you as a designer. Oh well...... still learning.

This particular statement caught my attention.........

"The main disappointment with the last generation of buildings designed by foreign architects in Singapore is that they are not at all outstanding when put on the world stage. The disquiet with the foreign architect syndrome is therefore not just a rice bowl issue, it has to do with national conscience and national sentiment. Architecture, it is argued, can help foster National Identity."

Why is I.M. Pei's Louvre so damn great and his Raffles City is just another tall building in town? Something to ponder over.

We all hate bitching, heck I hate bitching. But 8 years of architecture education told me that bitching can wake you up, push your ideas further and better equip you as a designer. Oh well...... still learning.
You hate bitching? Actually I dont mind it sometimes. :D In fact, this forum has almost become a bitching avenue for me siahz....helps to release steam buildup!

Raffles City is a very big disappointment. :(

You hate bitching? Actually I dont mind it sometimes. :D In fact, this forum has almost become a bitching avenue for me siahz....helps to release steam buildup!

Think I need to re-phrase. I love bitching but hate being bitched at.:)

I wouldn't consider Raffles City a big disappointment. Just wondering why it didn't get the same recognisation that other Pei's projects are getting. Same for Foster's Expo station and upcoming Supreme Court. Its just weird how an important project designed by such an important architect can go un-noticed by the international architecture community.

Hahaa now thats different. ;)

As for that concern, is it more to do with the setting then the buildings themselves?

Hahaa now thats different. ;)

As for that concern, is it more to do with the setting then the buildings themselves?

Yes, context do play a big part in the success of a building but a tall hotel in downtown Singapore, I just don't see anything wrong with that. I must point out that Raffles City is suspiciously similar to Hotel Sofitel in Melbourne though, also by Pei and also doesn't get the amount of recognisation associated to a Pei project.

Well, Changi Prison and The Singapore Zoo are the only things shown on interntional documentaries as shows on their own, could they be our key to iconism??

CP is no more! :cry:


Why tear down a world-famous historic landmark?
Why didn't preserve the landmark???!!! :bleep:
At least the clock tower too!

Yes, context do play a big part in the success of a building but a tall hotel in downtown Singapore, I just don't see anything wrong with that. I must point out that Raffles City is suspiciously similar to Hotel Sofitel in Melbourne though, also by Pei and also doesn't get the amount of recognisation associated to a Pei project.
Hmm....could it be more then just the immediate setting, but the city setting as well? As in....perhaps architectural circles just dont associate Singapore with spectacular architecture?

Yes, context do play a big part in the success of a building but a tall hotel in downtown Singapore, I just don't see anything wrong with that. I must point out that Raffles City is suspiciously similar to Hotel Sofitel in Melbourne though, also by Pei and also doesn't get the amount of recognisation associated to a Pei project.

maybe the concept of a tall 'cylindrical' hotel of at least 70 stories had already been done by John Portman in the 70s with the Westin Peachtree..so the Westin Stamford wasnt as radical?

but the project was one of Singapore's largest redevelopments...

Raffles Institution is worth the sacrifice, I think...

Swissotel brought pride to us for almost 10 years as the tallest hotel in the world.

CP is no more! :cry:


Why tear down a world-famous historic landmark?
Why didn't preserve the landmark???!!! :bleep:
At least the clock tower too!

It was presicely the going of the building that brought it international recognition.(and of course the POWs)

It is historic, priceless...
Thousands of POWs suffered in there. It should had been a monument to them.


Is wasting a few millions of dollars, a few less golf courses worth the sacrifice of the most famous war relic here? :bleep:

maybe the concept of a tall 'cylindrical' hotel of at least 70 stories had already been done by John Portman in the 70s with the Westin Peachtree..so the Westin Stamford wasnt as radical?

but the project was one of Singapore's largest redevelopments...

No, no, no....... a successful project doesn't have to be radical. It however, has to work well with its intended users. Look at the Louvre, what's so radical about an underground structure with a huge inverted pyramid skylight? Its a nice idea though. Creating additional spaces with minimal impact on its surrounding.

Hmm....could it be more then just the immediate setting, but the city setting as well? As in....perhaps architectural circles just dont associate Singapore with spectacular architecture?

Yes, that's what I'm asking. Why isn't Singapore being known for its architecture? Lots of thinking and questions to be asked and answered.

What cites in the world are known for their architecture?

oh, and btw, is it true that the Glass Pyramid above the Louve is made up of 666 triangles?

What cites in the world are known for their architecture?

oh, and btw, is it true that the Glass Pyramid above the Louve is made up of 666 triangles?


Think what Guggenheim did for Bilbao.
Think what Capsule Hotel did for Tokyo.
Think what Jewish Museum did for Berlin.

Of course its not possible for a city to be well known for all its buildings, but if there's 1 or 2, that's great.

2nd question......... I don't know.

Call to promote S'pore icons that bind

18 Jan 05

Feedback group says familiar faces and places help people forge emotional links to S'pore

By Natalie Soh

CELEBRATING the accomplishments of icons such as former sprinter C. Kunalan, the late playwright Kuo Pao Kun and centenarian volunteer Teresa Hsu can help anchor and give Singaporeans a sense of rootedness to the country.

So, too, can promoting landmarks such as Chomp Chomp in Serangoon Gardens, the Night Safari, Geylang Serai market and even the Zouk nightspot, as these can evoke a sense of emotional attachment and stir warm memories.

The idea behind looking to such diverse people and places, said the Political Development Feedback Group, is to help give Singaporeans a stronger sense of home.

Faced with the twin challenges of scarcity of talent to ensure long-term success, and the possibility of losing talent in a borderless world, the group says Singapore must develop and nurture people and talent by leveraging on emotional linkages.

Drawing on familiar people and places is but one approach, it said in a report released yesterday.

The report, which has been given to ministries, will be discussed at a Jan 29 conference where various feedback groups will present ideas gathered almost a year ago.

'Singapore does not lack the history or the tradition. What is lacking is an emphasis on and appreciation for this heritage...

'National symbols, faces and places provide a rich tapestry that we can draw on to anchor our young people to the nation,' said the group's report, presented by chairman Viswa Sadasivan.

But it also suggested other approaches - including having a broader definition of citizenship, which would tap into the large number of Singaporeans who are working, studying or have emigrated abroad.

'Many Singaporeans, as well as ex-Singaporeans, still have a strong sense of loyalty to Singapore as a country they were born and brought up in,' the report said.

It cited a telephone survey of 538 people here last November, in which eight out of 10 respondents said they 'could be overseas, but Singapore is home'.

This indicated that a sense of rootedness and belonging to a country is not restricted to where they reside.

'Singapore should step up and reinforce the message to our fellow citizens abroad that we still consider them part of our extended family; that we are interested in what they are doing, how they are faring and most certainly would like to share their joy of success,' the report added.

And one way to signal that they are valued is to involve them in the electoral process, by allowing them to vote in the General Elec- tion.

The group also said the Government had to address the perception of a 'climate of fear' surrounding political discussion in Singapore.

'Despite all the measures and talk of opening up, people still feel this way. Something must be done to change it,' said Mr Viswa, who said the group encountered it during their dialogue sessions.

In a straw poll the group did with 118 young people in the universities, junior colleges and Institute of Technical Education, almost three in 10 were reluctant to give their opinions on national issues for fear of offending the Government.

This, said Mr Viswa, could explain why Singaporeans were not coming forward.

Singaporeans by nature are not uncaring and apathetic and the recent overwhelming response to the Asian tsunami disaster proved that, he said.

The Government could be more 'open-minded' when it comes to organisations or individuals lobbying for a cause.

By discouraging people from petitioning or lobbying, 'we would allow apathy to creep into their lives'.

Said Mr Viswa: 'If the Government is seen as taking the lead in solving all problems, then the sense of passion, ownership and belonging is lost.'

He also said there was a need for the Government to give the assurance that Singaporeans will not get rapped for saying things that go against the grain.

On the issue of national education, the group suggested, among other things, that it be made 'a lot more hip, interactive, exciting and a multi-sensory experience'.