Okay, I'm doing this for fun, but I hope that it is realistic enough.

The building that I'm designing is for the Central Promontary Site
http://www.ura.gov.sg/pr/text/pr04-13.html#annex1b
Here's the rendering
http://img146.exs.cx/img146/5723/rendering39or.jpg
Info:
11 stories (10+1b1)
40m high
Site area: 4225 sqm
Gross internal area: 24420sqm
8 passenger lifts
4 fire lifts
4 stairwells

and here's the 2nd floor plan
http://img141.exs.cx/img141/8519/plan0aj.jpg

OH NOO!!!!! I forgot the toilets!!!!:D
I'll have to add them in, lol.

I see some cylindrical structures on the perspectives but not on the plan? Perhaps a litle write up of your idea regarding its form and planning is helpful. Remember, always design an idea, not a building. The building is just a tool to realise your ideas.

I have actually removed the large columns from the design completely, as they are too small to provide actual support for the building, and have replaced them with long rectangular protrusions seen on the top and bottom right of the plan, these rectangles add to the usable space and am more practical. The design, although less appealing, is more feasible, but still keeping to the main theme, which will be explained below.

What I wanted to portray in the design was to take the solid cubiod, so large and intimidating, and break it into smaller, more comprehensive units. The breaking of this boring, grey concrete block represents Singapore as conservative as it has always been portrayed, opening up to the arts. It opens in a slow and well spread manner, shifting and moving in all directions, revealing a glossy, all-glass within, shining and gleaming, a new age of modern art in Singapore.

I am using concrete for the outside, and glass on the inside. Reason for Concrete is to preserve the brutalist characteristic, and also to keep too much sunlight from entering the building and thus causing the greenhouse effect. The glass inside is to allow natural light in and to let it have a modern feel to it, and of course to illuminate the building from within its shell of concrete at night, reflecting the theme, of a new Singapore breaking from the old. The building will have many gaps, especially on the first floor. This is to allow the public to enter the building (to put it in a crude way) for free, to go into the building, to feel it, to be a part of it. This is designed to be a very public building, unlike the present museums here, where people can only enter the lobby.

And here is the new plan, with the toilets.:
http://img150.exs.cx/img150/5637/plan5nw.jpg

One problem with the design is that some parts of it are completely isolated from the rest of the building(bottom right) and can only be acessed from certain floors (above and below it), and of course the basement and first floor.

You've got to be careful when you use words like "Conservative", "Brutalist", etc... They are highly debatable. Be careful of the way you word your ideas and not expose yourself to responses that you are not prepared to handle. If you are designing public spaces, shouldn't it be open, user friendly, inviting and optimistic? How does a brutalist building work in this context? A reminder of what Singapore used to be? Does Brutalism have to be a negative thing altogether? Look at some works by Le Corbusier and Peter and Alison Smithson.

Since you've used an entire different set of structure altogether, do take note on how this change will affect the overall aesthetics of the building. Working on a grid system is a good start but knowing where to break free of that is equally important.

You did touch on materiality and architectonic issues in your design brief. Somehing a lot of architecture students don't. How and why does a glossy, all-glass within, shining and gleaming space represents a new age of modern art in Singapore? Does art in Singapore have to be expressed in what I would imagine a "sanitised" environment?

You did mention about penetration of natural lighting. Did you do a study of the sun path on the site? Where's north? Keeping the plan narrow is a good idea to avoid dark spots but without see the rest of the plans (and maybe some sections), I can't really tell if this strategy is working nicely. A study of the site is a must before you even engage with designing your ideas. You have to know your site and response well to it. What are the things you can use on site to enhance your design? How would the site benefit from the existence of your building?

Part of the building being isolated from the rest isn't a bad thing at all. It could be used for more private functions. Even though you've provided free spaces for activities, do make an effort to start speculating the type of events that might take place in your building. Think of it as though you are selling this idea to someone who know nuts about spacial design. Give him your suggestions.

Do take a look at what other architects have done for similar civic projects. Study their ideas and how they used buildings as a tool to realise their ideas. Its not easy though. Good luck.

You've got to be careful when you use words like "Conservative", "Brutalist", etc... They are highly debatable. Be careful of the way you word your ideas and not expose yourself to responses that you are not prepared to handle.


Ok, I'll take note of that when I prepare a real writeup


If you are designing public spaces, shouldn't it be open, user friendly, inviting and optimistic? How does a brutalist building work in this context? A reminder of what Singapore used to be? Does Brutalism have to be a negative thing altogether? Look at some works by Le Corbusier and Peter and Alison Smithson.


A brutalist building works well with this as such designs incoporate numerous recesses and niches, for skygardens and entrences. It is actually positive rather than negative.


Since you've used an entire different set of structure altogether, do take note on how this change will affect the overall aesthetics of the building. Working on a grid system is a good start but knowing where to break free of that is equally important.


I think it should look okay, in fact there were supposed to be no columns at all, I added them into the rendering to show that there will be some kind of support present. The design was supposed to be completely cubist. Honestly, I don't know how to break free from this grid, as shifting the plan on one floor will affect those above it.


You did touch on materiality and architectonic issues in your design brief. Somehing a lot of architecture students don't. How and why does a glossy, all-glass within, shining and gleaming space represents a new age of modern art in Singapore? Does art in Singapore have to be expressed in what I would imagine a "sanitised" environment?


Thanks:)
The meaning of the design is not in the literal sense, but rather in its signifucance. The glass is contrasting(beautifully) from the concrete outside. Not saying that the arts scene in Singapore used to be "ugly" like concrete, but more of a whole new thing, a different art altogehter. Shining from within, both day and night.


You did mention about penetration of natural lighting. Did you do a study of the sun path on the site? Where's north? Keeping the plan narrow is a good idea to avoid dark spots but without see the rest of the plans (and maybe some sections), I can't really tell if this strategy is working nicely. A study of the site is a must before you even engage with designing your ideas. You have to know your site and response well to it. What are the things you can use on site to enhance your design? How would the site benefit from the existence of your building?


Well, I did consider the direction of the building:
http://img143.exs.cx/img143/9062/sun9rz.jpg

I don't worry too much of the direct west facing sun, as the Sail and ORQ will be blocking it. Its only the overhead sun and the angles before the sun sets behing the 250m buildings that I'm worried about, as this building is totaly unshielded from the inside. I'm not too worried about morning sun as it is not very damaging, and only shines early in the morning.


Part of the building being isolated from the rest isn't a bad thing at all. It could be used for more private functions. Even though you've provided free spaces for activities, do make an effort to start speculating the type of events that might take place in your building. Think of it as though you are selling this idea to someone who know nuts about spacial design. Give him your suggestions.

Do take a look at what other architects have done for similar civic projects. Study their ideas and how they used buildings as a tool to realise their ideas. Its not easy though. Good luck.


Okay, I'll seriously think of what will go on inside, thanks very much!:)

You might want to think about the practicality of the internal layout. What museum is going to want to lease a building with such awkward floorplates? Museums want generous exhibition space that creates a logical route for visitors. The irregular areas make space planning very difficult, and considerable areas look unusable because they are so small... i.e. the small slithers of space next to the cores. You have a lot of cores for that size of building (which is not suitable for a museum), and the confusing layout would be dangerous in a fire (evacuation would be a nightmare).

I imagine that build costs would be high due to the irregularity of the components and the complexity of the structure, and maintenance would need to be considered.

I'm also not sure I understand your point about materials and light... you want to keep sunlight out, but let daylight in? They are the same thing, and if you block out light entirely with a solid envelope, the internal environment could be very poor. Modern glass can be very intelligent... you can build in skins with louvres and automatic blinds that respond to the external environment and allow the building to breath, while providing an appropriate environment for whatever art or antiquities are to be displayed inside. I don't know what the situation is in Singapore, but in the UK, building regulations and the planning system wouldn't allow you to build something with inadequate levels of natural daylight... it is a very important consideration. Of course our humidity and temperature levels are different, but most buildings work better with natural light and ventilation, as well as being cheaper to run.

As Kit mentions, responding to your site is crucial. How does this building relate to neighbouring buildings? Think about height, mass, scale, alignment, materials, as well as less tangible considerations such as light (do you block light to any other buildings?), pedestrian movement etc.

If that's the case then I would suggest you leave "Brutalism" out of your brief. Take a look at works by MVRDV. They did some work which are similar to what you are interested in but I wouldn't consider them brutalists. Perhaps you would like to build up your arguement based on the spaces that you wish to achieve. Take a look at existing museums, you critique of them would be the answer to your design.

The grid......... to break free from what you've created, try to think what a set of grid does in a building. Try to imagine the grid as a set of canvas for you to paint on instead of only using it to mark out structures. What can be spaces in between the grid? Void? Circulation? Ramp? Nothing? Dense? Light? etc. To describe the Singapore arts scene as ugly concrete is debatable as well. Concrete can be a very attractive material.

Why do you think a cubist building would best fit the context? And don't let "cubist" restrict what you can design. Look at Le Corbusier's Villa Savoye. A "cubist" building that revolutionalised movement within it premises. Also, take a step backward and visualise how your building will appear on the actual site. Do you think a strong, solid sube would do justice to a piese of prime bay side location? Remember, its not only about your building. Consider the existing infra-structure and design your building to work with them. The Marina area has got too many "one-off" pieces of crap that doesn't relate to anything. This is your chance to be different.

I agree with Britannia. Do consider the mass of your building and don't see it as an individual object on the site. One more project to look at, Yokohama Terminal by Foreign Office Architects.

You might want to think about the practicality of the internal layout. What museum is going to want to lease a building with such awkward floorplates? Museums want generous exhibition space that creates a logical route for visitors.


Hmmm....I didn't really think about the space as a whole, my previous consideration was of individual galleries, which could be housed in each large area. I'll have to think about that.


The irregular areas make space planning very difficult, and considerable areas look unusable because they are so small... i.e. the small slithers of space next to the cores. You have a lot of cores for that size of building (which is not suitable for a museum), and the confusing layout would be dangerous in a fire (evacuation would be a nightmare).


The small spaces are simply passeges to the restrooms and lifts, so are not to be used in the first place.
I thought of adding numerous cores of twin lifts to make decent/accent more convinient, instead of all concentrated into one main service core. I assumed this to be a building with high traffic, so I added more cores.
I could alternately shift all cores to the centre of the building. My only concern of this is that when the main core is blocked, all paths to exit the building would be eliminated.
As for confusion, I have to admit that it is a poblem that I overlooked.


I imagine that build costs would be high due to the irregularity of the components and the complexity of the structure, and maintenance would need to be considered.


The building is mostly of standard blocks over each other, the bridges could use trusess to construct. It does not have any special parts, eg. curves, so the construction can be completely pre-fabricated with standard 6.5m beams. The cost would be low, except for the concrete outer shell. This building can be compared to an international-styled building, so I forsee only basic maintainence necessary.


I'm also not sure I understand your point about materials and light... you want to keep sunlight out, but let daylight in? They are the same thing, and if you block out light entirely with a solid envelope, the internal environment could be very poor. Modern glass can be very intelligent... you can build in skins with louvres and automatic blinds that respond to the external environment and allow the building to breath, while providing an appropriate environment for whatever art or antiquities are to be displayed inside. I don't know what the situation is in Singapore, but in the UK, building regulations and the planning system wouldn't allow you to build something with inadequate levels of natural daylight... it is a very important consideration. Of course our humidity and temperature levels are different, but most buildings work better with natural light and ventilation, as well as being cheaper to run.


The sunlight in Singapore is very strong. When I say to keep sunlight out and daylight in, is the same as the simple analogy of having a room facing west which is still bright during the morning even though the sun is on the other side. Light can enter the building, just not the harmful rays of the sun.

The building's interioir can recieve adequete light as each block is fairly far apart from each other, a gap of 6.5m. Also, floors above the 7th storey are totally unblocked. The only problem that I must admit to is that the first four floors may really recieve inadequete natural lighting.


As Kit mentions, responding to your site is crucial. How does this building relate to neighbouring buildings? Think about height, mass, scale, alignment, materials, as well as less tangible considerations such as light (do you block light to any other buildings?), pedestrian movement etc.


The building height has already been considered by the URA of <50m, and so the 40m height fits into this criteria. The building is quite massive, but still its scale is not overwhelming, being 65m wide and 10 storeys high it is about as big as the podium of the neighbouring Sail development. I can't say how it will relate to the neighbouring buildings, as they have yet to be designed.:) The only clue is that the land in front of it will be a park and diagonal to it, will be the sail@marina bay.

im amazed, i didnt understand how difficult architecture is! i might try something else.

Why do you think a cubist building would best fit the context? And don't let "cubist" restrict what you can design. Look at Le Corbusier's Villa Savoye. A "cubist" building that revolutionalised movement within it premises. Also, take a step backward and visualise how your building will appear on the actual site. Do you think a strong, solid sube would do justice to a piese of prime bay side location? Remember, its not only about your building. Consider the existing infra-structure and design your building to work with them. The Marina area has got too many "one-off" pieces of crap that doesn't relate to anything. This is your chance to be different.

I agree with Britannia. Do consider the mass of your building and don't see it as an individual object on the site. One more project to look at, Yokohama Terminal by Foreign Office Architects.


In circumstances like this, what should I do? Do I manupilate answers to such questions that will justify the design, or do I make actual changes in the design itself?

Just asking, before I go even more in depth into the design itself.

Another question, when faced with problems like Britannia's irregular spaces, where I know is part of the design, do I still keep to this naturally impractical design altogether? Can I find ways to add to this design to make it more practial and regular, while not making a complete change to it all?

As I'm going to sleep, this question came up:
Why do architects have to sleep late? I thought buildings take months to design, so whats the rush?

Oh, btw, thanks Kit and Britannia for the comments, it really made me think.

I'll continue this project tomorrow, after thinking it through.;)

quickly, before u go offline read the pm i sent you!

i think about designing buildings sometimes in my dreams.

In circumstances like this, what should I do? Do I manupilate answers to such questions that will justify the design, or do I make actual changes in the design itself?

Just asking, before I go even more in depth into the design itself.

Another question, when faced with problems like Britannia's irregular spaces, where I know is part of the design, do I still keep to this naturally impractical design altogether? Can I find ways to add to this design to make it more practial and regular, while not making a complete change to it all?


That's called post rationalisation and it works for some who can talk their way out of anything. Unfortunately, that doesn't necessary equate to good architecture.

Before you start designing something, you should always start with a little write up. Set out your ideas and things you want to achieve. Then you start designing your idea.

Its true that designing a building takes month but bear in mind, that's not the only responsibilities architects carry. In most cases, design stage will probably only take up 15% to 20% of the contract period. Besides designing, architects have to manage the project on site during its construction stage and handle the authorities. All these will take up the bulk of an architects time. Also, an architect will most likely not handle a single project at any one time, he/she will starve. Its not unusual for an architect to handle 6 to 7 projects at a time (with the help of other specialists). So whatever I've mentioned above, multiply it by 6 or 7 times. That'll explain the long hours.

Okay, got it.
But since Ih ave alread ystarted on the design, I might as well find solutions for the problem I've created. I am already considering adding some slithers of curved protrusions to make the passegeways to the toilets wider.:)

Hey Cliff. Are there any photos of the surrounding area? I'm curious to contemplate how your building could improve.

Since I'm an architecture major (albeit I have several years to go) maybe I can be of help also.

Okay, here are some pictures of the area(circled in red)
http://img145.exs.cx/img145/3006/sitepics0hx.jpg

And here is a model that I made of the building itself, using lego.:D
I think its easier to see how the building would look like, but of course, this model is quite rough, and some parts are inaccurate.
http://img145.exs.cx/img145/7933/modelofgallery3dn.jpg

Here is the location, the Central Promontary Site.(taken from ura)
http://img145.exs.cx/img145/9269/location7tz.jpg

I wanto say thanks to everyone on this thread, i m just a passer by. i am currently going into 3rd year of my architecture degree. As i was readin this thread, I found there are so much more i needed to learn. some of the ideas and comments here really helped my thoughts and ideas alot more when i design.

cheers

Erm, school has started, so I may be a little slower in the process. However, I have just bought a book on Museums and gallerires of New York, which I think might be useful.

Is it just me or do your floor plans sort of resemble a swastika?

it kinda does, but the bottom part of the 'swastika' is separated from the rest
nice building btw

Am i the only one who sees and inversed swastika in the overhead view of the floor plans?

happy birthday cliff!

I'm no expert but cool!

Definently I'm not an expert but it's cool. I hope it turns to a building someday :)

Am i the only one who sees and inversed swastika in the overhead view of the floor plans?
Jesus Christ u neo-nazis won't give up will ya!!! ;) :)

i think it would be nice as an art museum :D

I'm sorry I found this thread so late as I like giving a good crit. I think a lot of the main comments have already been made but I just wanted to say well done for tabling your design. It can be daunting putting your knob on the block for everyone to have a go at (mixing my metaphors most distastefully). :runaway:

I look forward to seeing the next iteration taking onboard your proxy-client's comments :)

When I read the press release, it seems that what's being asked is a business and financial center. But you said you're designing a museum? Am I missing something here Cliff?

When I read the press release, it seems that what's being asked is a business and financial center. But you said you're designing a museum? Am I missing something here Cliff?

The enitre area would be based upon a Buisness and Financial Centre, however, the site that I am designing on is for for a gallery/museum.

Here's the requirement:
"Single integrated development for public attraction uses# (such as art gallery, museum, science centre, performance theatre, planetarium or aquarium) with or without convention facilities."

Thanks for the comments to ya'll, and I will continue with the thing as soon as I can, eddied.:)

hmm.. I see the buddism sign on the building, which is the opposite of the Nazi thing. There is a Buddist story that the Nazis go to China, and like the Buddist philosphy. But they got everything backwards, so hence the backwards buddist sign.

In general I like this one. Keep in mind that that's a high facade/m2 ratio, which is usually quite uneconomical. It also seems that you are not utilizing the open space within the design. Simular designs (allthough that's probably not what you like to hear ;) ) incorporate this space into the building. This is better for the climate within, and it allows you to use that space.

Not built design for the ABN Amro Bank in Amsterdam
http://207.44.228.232/images/B01/1235.jpg

Keep in mind that that's a high facade/m2 ratio, which is usually quite uneconomical.

What's facade/m2 ratio?

I personally love that building(never seen it before). However, it would be a problem for Singapore due to the green house effect, the whole building will be an oven. My plans are actually to incoporate the terraces into outdoor sculpture gardens.:) But still, I must admit, its still not ideal.

Anyway, I will try to expand the size of the floor plates as much as I can.

Btw, after doing some research, I found out that most museums don't need large continuous floors, but are usually small galleries of themed art pieces. If the floorplate is large, they are still divided later on. So I guess this design isn't such a problem after all.:D

Thanks for the comments still.

What's facade/m2 ratio?

The number you get when you divide the total area of the exterior area by the gross floor area. A high number indicates relative high facade maintanace costs. In our (mild) climate, it also means relatively high heating costs, but I overlooked the fact that's not quite the case with your idea. :)

Dutch architect Willem Jan Neutelings designed this museum for Antwerp. It's a anther good example of how the extra space can be used:

http://museum.antwerpen.be/museumaandestroom/html/img/gebouw/321.jpg

http://www.nai.nl/pagjpgs/agendaactjpgs/nra_museum.jpg

Thanks for telling me jan.

Anyway, here is a render of the basic gallery unit in my museum.
http://img178.exs.cx/img178/3102/galleryrender4du.jpg
The little block at the corner in the room represents a 2m high man, while the funny thing near it is a table.
Its poor quality, but you get the idea.:D

That's looking quite good. It just popped to mind we should have some kind of showcase for students and young architects for stuff like this.

That's looking quite good. It just popped to mind we should have some kind of showcase for students and young architects for stuff like this.

Thanks! Don't we already have such a section? "Your skyscraper art" I posted it there, but apparently, its not a very popular section of the forums.:)

Looks good. Try and get rid of internal columns though in the gallery / museum spaces if you can, they're quite dominant. This makes the internal space more flexible as any curator and move around demountable display walls or exhibits over time. Also, how are the objects inside displayed? Not much solid wall there by the looks of it. Are they objects that are sensitive to high light levels?

Also, following on from the other comments about the building's skin, you should do a skin study in it's own right. First off, what's your philosphy towards this? Is this building an object encased in a lightweight skin (artefact in display case perhaps like the renderings posted by Jan) as some have suggested or is it an entirely inward-looking object (encouraging the visitor to discover what's within - and not unhelpful in dealing with the climate). If the former, and glass is going to cook people then think about how the facade of your building would deal with that, different shading on each facade perhaps? Perhaps the shading adapts during the course of the day to deal with that? Look at Toyo Ito's tower of winds perhaps, or some the Herzog & de Meuron signal boxes.

Just a couple of suggestions. :cheers:

Looks good. Try and get rid of internal columns though in the gallery / museum spaces if you can, they're quite dominant.



I could get rid of it, but I'm just worried that its not strong enough, you think trusses are good?

Also, how are the objects inside displayed? Not much solid wall there by the looks of it. Are they objects that are sensitive to high light levels?



The place is supposed to be mostly open with any walls added later on, according to the needs of the galley, like a sculpture gallery would require big open spaces while a photo gallery would have lots of walls and passages.:)

The light thing, I may add blinds or build an artifical wall covering the length of the windows, with the outer side of the wall dividing out a seating area.



Also, following on from the other comments about the building's skin, you should do a skin study in it's own right. First off, what's your philosphy towards this? Is this building an object encased in a lightweight skin (artefact in display case perhaps like the renderings posted by Jan) as some have suggested or is it an entirely inward-looking object (encouraging the visitor to discover what's within - and not unhelpful in dealing with the climate). If the former, and glass is going to cook people then think about how the facade of your building would deal with that, different shading on each facade perhaps? Perhaps the shading adapts during the course of the day to deal with that?



My plan is the second one "an entirely inward-looking object (encouraging the visitor to discover what's within - and not unhelpful in dealing with the climate). " You can see from the other side of my prototype gallery being totally covered up.
The sun will be blocked mostly by the building itself. Other areas might use shades.

Thanks.:D

From the looks of it, you might want to look into multiple box beam structures.

I'm quite uncomfortable with the choice of form, especially when the building is sitting on a prime piece of shoreland. My personal view is that this has had more than its far share of distinctive individual objects that doesn't relate to their context. Its a huge disappointment when you walk around there, nothing connects. There is more than one way to create an inward looking building. Think I.M. Pei's Louvre. Think stealth. What if you can create a series of spaces that can't be detected on ground level? What if you can scatter your exhibits on the landscape around your building?

You might want to take a step back and rethink your strategies. Architectonic stuffs can come later.

Hmm... I think Kit may have a point there about taking a step back. It's quite important I think not to get too seduced by one particular form too early. With all architecture but arguably especially cultural buildings like museums, legibility is very important, and that flows from clarity of concept. You may have done this but in explaining your building to someone, you need to build up the layers; explain the process of thinking behind it. Otherwise, you'll only ever get reactions like "ooh it's a pretty shape" or "I don't like the colour" and no-one will appreciate the sheer depth of your genius! ;)

For example, you say this is an inward-looking building, but the walls in your rendering are largely glass? How does that work? Also like Kit alludes to, good architecture always stems from an understanding of it's context. That doesn't mean it has to directly reference it, it may be that it stands in justaposition to it's surroundings. As I don't know this site that well it's difficult to comment but this again is where the concept is again important as it informs what route you want to take.

Again, just throwing things in, if you had to explain this project in 5 minutes to someone in the pub by scribbling on a napkin, what would you draw?

From the looks of it, you might want to look into multiple box beam structures.


Whats that?


this has had more than its far share of distinctive individual objects that doesn't relate to their context. Its a huge disappointment when you walk around there, nothing connects.


What do you mean by dosen't relate to context?


There is more than one way to create an inward looking building. Think I.M. Pei's Louvre. Think stealth. What if you can create a series of spaces that can't be detected on ground level? What if you can scatter your exhibits on the landscape around your building?

You might want to take a step back and rethink your strategies. Architectonic stuffs can come later.


I think the place does not allow much underground stuff, being so close to the sea, but I'll think about it.

Whats architectonic?

Thanks in advance.:)


With all architecture but arguably especially cultural buildings like museums, legibility is very important, and that flows from clarity of concept.


Whats legibility?


Also like Kit alludes to, good architecture always stems from an understanding of it's context. That doesn't mean it has to directly reference it, it may be that it stands in justaposition to it's surroundings.


What does that mean again?


Again, just throwing things in, if you had to explain this project in 5 minutes to someone in the pub by scribbling on a napkin, what would you draw?


I would explain:

Ok, theres this piece waterfront of land in Marina Bay, which will be used for museum puropses. I have this idea of a single building which is made of multiple structures forming a cuboid form. It will have a concrete profile with glass covering its cravasses.
http://img193.exs.cx/img193/3585/napkin5cf.jpg

Here's a quick diagram to show the facade as a whole, and the concept of concrete outside, glass inside.
http://img174.exs.cx/img174/6739/gal0es.gif

Box beams are cubic/rectangular concrete structures on 4 sides and the other 2 sides open. Rarely used now I believe.

Context wise, think of how your building can work with the elements around your site. Like I said before, your building should complement the site as much as the site should complement the building. Or what eddied mentioned, your building could be a total contrast to the site. Irregardless of what your design is, make your stand with what you think is the best solution.

The new downtown area do have a series of underground services. Just because its near the sea doesn't mean you can't go downwards. I do not see in the brief that restricts you from designing something subterranean. So why self impose restrictions on yourself?

Architectonic stuffs are things you've mentioned............ the windows, facades, benches, etc...... You have to know them but you don't have to decide what they're going to be at this stage of design. You need to step back and look at your design on a macro level, then go back to the micro stuffs again to complete the building.

"Ok, theres this piece waterfront of land in Marina Bay, which will be used for museum puropses. I have this idea of a single building which is made of multiple structures forming a cuboid form. It will have a concrete profile with glass covering its cravasses."

You are not explaining your architectural ideas. You are merely describing how your building looks like. You've got to actually write out what you feel about this project and your visions about it and how you are going to achieve it. By saying there will be glass and concrete doesn't really answer the question at all, since most buildings in Singapore comes with glass and concrete. I guess you really have to convince yourself and the others why is your building so special.

You are designing a building without an architectural proposition. Think of it this way, you design an idea and the building is just a tool to realise that idea.

Here's a quick diagram to show the facade as a whole, and the concept of concrete outside, glass inside.
http://img174.exs.cx/img174/6739/gal0es.gif


This diagram only shows what it looks like on the outside, not a architectural proposition. Perhaps you might want to have a look at Eisenman's diagrams which communicate propositions.

Whats legibility?


Legibility in this context is the ability to read something, i.e. the building. It's a clarity of vision and execution.

Basically, people feel confortable in a building they understand and can navigate around. That doesn't mean it can't have complexity within it's design. Take Libeskind's Jewish museum in Berlin; in some ways it's a very complex, chaotic building, but the concept behind it is simple and this concept is pursued ruthlessly through every facet of it's execution. My personal view is that this makes it a very legible building. People instantly understand what it's about, at least at some level.

(Juxtaposition / context)
What does that mean again?


Context is physical (how it sits in the landscape), cultural, technological, financial.... and a number of things besides. Your building, like all architecture will be one part of many larger stories and you can chose to reflect that in your design or even stand in contrast to it (juxtaposition). The best architecture IMO always has a strong understanding of it's context, however it goes on from there.


I would explain:

Ok, theres this piece waterfront of land in Marina Bay, which will be used for museum puropses. I have this idea of a single building which is made of multiple structures forming a cuboid form. It will have a concrete profile with glass covering its cravasses.
http://img193.exs.cx/img193/3585/napkin5cf.jpg

Ok that's the 'what'.

My next question is 'why?'

Had enough yet??? :) ;)

Thank you very much kit and eddied for the comments and definitions, I will give it much thought, and give my answers/replies on friday.

Now I have to study for my chinese test on thursday and physics test on friday, sorry.:)

Context wise, think of how your building can work with the elements around your site. Like I said before, your building should complement the site as much as the site should complement the building. Or what eddied mentioned, your building could be a total contrast to the site. Irregardless of what your design is, make your stand with what you think is the best solution.



So is this like manupilating the design with words?


My next question is 'why?'



The whole idea of it, was to take a simple shape, in this case, a cuboid, and complicate it. To cut off parts and to replace others. The shape of the entirty will be emphasised by the concrete shell, to represent a concrete cuboid. On the inside will be the pure glass, that will reflect the glass walls adjacent to it,etc. The glass will shine, day or night, to show the light radiating from within. The glass and concrete completments the elements of Marina Bay cuddled by the promanades and esplanades that surround it.

The idea, was to represent a box of the present opening up to reveal the new era, the future. While at the same time, not forgetting the past and present by the reminants of concrete. I refer the glass to the future because of its qualities, pure, glossy, transluscent, it reflects what is being shone on it, like how the future is based on what we do now. The concrete, however, as beautiful as it may be, will not be affected by its surroundings, solid and strong, what supports the furture, as it does in the building, literally.

So is this like manupilating the design with words?



On the contrary, its having a design idea and expressing it in words. Not the other way round.

The whole idea of it, was to take a simple shape, in this case, a cuboid, and complicate it. To cut off parts and to replace others. The shape of the entirty will be emphasised by the concrete shell, to represent a concrete cuboid. On the inside will be the pure glass, that will reflect the glass walls adjacent to it,etc. The glass will shine, day or night, to show the light radiating from within. The glass and concrete completments the elements of Marina Bay cuddled by the promanades and esplanades that surround it.

The idea, was to represent a box of the present opening up to reveal the new era, the future. While at the same time, not forgetting the past and present by the reminants of concrete. I refer the glass to the future because of its qualities, pure, glossy, transluscent, it reflects what is being shone on it, like how the future is based on what we do now. The concrete, however, as beautiful as it may be, will not be affected by its surroundings, solid and strong, what supports the furture, as it does in the building, literally.

You are getting warmer but you still have to convince others why concrete and glass are the most appropriate materials to represent past, present and future. Why not e.g. titanium? You don't have use concrete to have a strong look but they can be clunky and clumsy looking. Some pragmatic issues since you mentioned reflective glass. The sun shining on the water surface can create an incredible amount of glare. Imagine that being reflected off your building. Imagine what the surrounding of the building is going to be. Don't think I like being there at 4 in the afternoon. To put this in another way, you haven't been sensitive to the site yet.

My personal thoughts............ its seems like you are creating an individual object on the site which really doesn't work too well it. Not saying that its wrong but you do have precedents to look at around that area. They just don't work in my books. If I were you, I would do a study of say....... 15mins walk radius around the side and see what I can get out of it. Within 15mins walk from your building, how are you going to make your building special and its presence felt? For 1 week, forget about how your building is going to be and concentrate on studying and designing your context. You might surprise yourself and force you to re-think how your building will work. At this moment, you building seems too precious to you since you've locked into its design. Start with a blank page.

If I were you, I would do a study of say....... 15mins walk radius around the side and see what I can get out of it. Within 15mins walk from your building, how are you going to make your building special and its presence felt? For 1 week, forget about how your building is going to be and concentrate on studying and designing your context. You might surprise yourself and force you to re-think how your building will work. At this moment, you building seems too precious to you since you've locked into its design. Start with a blank page.

Well, that I can't do as it is sealed off. However, I could forget about the old design and make a whole new one from scratch.

Btw, I still don't know what is context. I checked the dictionary and it said:

"the parts of a discourse or treatise which precede and follow a special passage and may fix its true meaning"

huh???

I notice that you keep using that word, so I feel its best if I know exactly what it means. thanks.

In the meantime, I will come out with a new design which will carry out my vision if a modern museum both efficiently and aesthetically.

Here is the idea that I will work upon:
A building or set of buildings that represent a new age of modern art in Singapore, defining the present while reflecting the future.

My aim is to make it an interntional icon for Singapore, something that people can refer to when they think of Singapore. Like the Eiffel Tower in Paris, the Sydney Opera House in Sydney, it will be representitive of Singapore.

Well, that I can't do as it is sealed off. However, I could forget about the old design and make a whole new one from scratch.

Btw, I still don't know what is context. I checked the dictionary and it said:

"the parts of a discourse or treatise which precede and follow a special passage and may fix its true meaning"

huh???

I notice that you keep using that word, so I feel its best if I know exactly what it means. thanks.

In the meantime, I will come out with a new design which will carry out my vision if a modern museum both efficiently and aesthetically.

Here is the idea that I will work upon:
A building or set of buildings that represent a new age of modern art in Singapore, defining the present while reflecting the future.

My aim is to make it an interntional icon for Singapore, something that people can refer to when they think of Singapore. Like the Eiffel Tower in Paris, the Sydney Opera House in Sydney, it will be representitive of Singapore.

Context. What is happening on your site? How do you access your site from the nearest MRT station, bus stop, taxi stand, etc? From where can you enjoy the best view of your site? What views do you have from your site? Just to name a few. Its almost ridiculous for them to ask for designs and seal off the site at the same time.

Come out with at least 3 different ideas. They don't have to be worked out in details but at least you have some choices to work on and not fall into the trap of concentrating on 1 too early.

Calling my buildings an international icaon is a huge risk that I wouldn't want to take myself. What if it didn't turn out to be an icon? You've got precedents to look at. Again, you are throwing words out that you can't be sure if you can handle the responses. Let's just concentrate on just an idea and a building shall we? I for one, firmly believe that icons are grown into and not built from scratch. Just go to the town, we see icons being tauted everywhere. How many of them would be one in 50 years? Do you want to be another statistics?

Looks very Steven Holl to me! LOL!

Come out with at least 3 different ideas. They don't have to be worked out in details but at least you have some choices to work on and not fall into the trap of concentrating on 1 too early.

Let's just concentrate on just an idea and a building shall we? I for one, firmly believe that icons are grown into and not built from scratch.

Okay, once I get the designs, I'll post them.:)

Oh, and it DOES looks like Steven Holl's stuff!!!!:D

I am just being honest: It is very simple and I don't see much of "architectural-value" in that building, and that isn't because of the graphics of the drawing... still you might have added something else that na table... a bench would be better in a museum... and if there are to be exhibitions, where are the objects or paintings to be placed? Oh, by the way... you might want to try using another free* program... : http://www.artifice.com/free/dw_lite.html
I don't know how it works... I honestly haven't tried it myself, but I can imagine myself the results being of better quality...

Is it just me or do your floor plans sort of resemble a swastika?

indeed...although reversed... the swastika is a symbol of peace in many cultures though