View Full Version : Which Place/Building/Statue That Make Singapore Famous?
July 30th, 2005, 09:51 AM
Is it ?
1) Orchard Rd (Famous for shopping paradise)
2) Marina Bay (Row Of International Hotels)
3) Raffles Stamford (Founder Of Singapore)
4) Merlion (Half-lion Half-fish)
5) UOB Building (280m)
6) Swissotel (Tallest Hotel in Singapore)
7) Esplanade (Singapore version of Sidney Opera House)
8) Intergrated Resort (finishing 2009)
9) Changi Airport (voted one of the Best Airport in the World )
July 30th, 2005, 11:25 AM
July 30th, 2005, 07:05 PM
Amongst Asians (SE Asians, Japanese) I think it would be Orchard Rd & Changi Airport.
For the wider world perhaps Raffles Hotel, his statue, and Changi Airport.
To be frank, I think none of our skyscrapers are well associated with Singapore (except for scraper freaks), but Singapore is famous for being a highrise city with an impressive skyline.
July 30th, 2005, 08:01 PM
It really depends on what Singapore is famous for to what kind of foreigners.
I'll pick the airport anytime. I don't think any of those you've mentioned has that much influence as an individual or structure. They work in a package. Something that amazes but still remains a "mystery" to foreigners would be the HDB flats I think.
August 2nd, 2005, 04:00 PM
August 3rd, 2005, 04:41 AM
oh yes, one more, the port.
August 15th, 2005, 04:36 PM
whats interesting is that dimsumdollies this year has a segment called icons of consequence whereby they spoofed the IOC and paraded Singapore icons next to such other city symbols like the Tour Eiffel, Petronas and Lady Liberty.
Their point was that Singapore has no Icons Of any Consequence (IOC) because they were conceived for such paltry reasons of tourism. Without sound philosophical justification, these icons lacked the kind of ambient fascination that would have otherwise ensured their bona fide iconography. Lady Liberty was a bold statement of the revolution, and she has since graced the movement of democratisation around the world. Tour Eiffel was an architectural achievement, being the first cast iron sculpture to go so high. the Petronas was an emblem of modernity for Malaysia. Meanwhile, the Merlion remains an awkward amalgamation of historical references, created for the sake of directing STB promotion under its tail. Generations of Singaporeans have grown up mistaking it for Sang Nila Utama's Lion, and dilletantes who understand kitsch when they see it smirk around its presence.
A real icon might have been something like the facade of Chinatown shophouses, given its just about the only credible piece of local iconic architecture that packs more of a Singapore legacy into it than anything else that doesn't have negative connotations. I was talking to my professor at school about it, and where architecture may be considered the debris of a society's sociology and social mores, it is probably Singapore's unsophisticated understanding of its cultural diversity and nationalism that has left such icons of inflated kitsch and ersatz style all over the urbanscape.
August 15th, 2005, 04:38 PM
Open ur PM box... ;) :D
August 15th, 2005, 04:42 PM
Open ur PM box... ;) :D
huh no lah i jut come here from time to time. i get pretty bz rushing for aki submissions in school. and i don't really see a need to be so involved in discussions anymore.
August 19th, 2005, 06:51 PM
New era of brand names beckons
16 Aug 05
By Koh Buck Song
For The Straits Times
RECENT debate in this newspaper over the brand 'Marina Bay' highlights an aspect of Singapore's past that is set to change beyond recognition.
Critics of the proposed plan to market Marina Bay internationally have a good point - the name 'Marina Bay', by itself, is just too generic to achieve any real impact.
To make any headway, it has to latch itself onto something else - like adding '@Singapore' to piggy-back on the much longer marketing, and brand recognition, of the country.
The brand ineffectiveness of 'Marina Bay' reflects a feature of the earlier years of independence that may have hampered Singapore's progress as a candidate for global city status. Individual identity was suppressed in favour of a collectivist homage to conspicuous nationalism. This is why nearly all the public buildings and structures of the early years have nationalistic names like National Theatre, National Stadium, etc.
There was also not enough time for enough heroes to emerge. For instance, it was only after some years that a school was named after the first president, Yusof Ishak, and a highway bridge bore the name of the second president, Benjamin Sheares.
Naming something 'National' this or that is just not the same as, say, calling the performing arts complex in New York 'Lincoln Centre'. Or 'Wembley Stadium' in London. These names are more interesting, evocative and memorable - and hence, more successful as brand names.
Simply calling the national arts centre here 'The Esplanade' could have been a mistake in branding. What gives it more meaning is the tagline 'Theatres on the Bay'. The unofficial nickname 'durians' may also prove a blessing in disguise.
The lack of noted icons with character contributes to Singaporeans lacking confidence that Singapore has what it takes to be a noted international city. But this is set to change in a big way.
The trend now is to carry the names of people in many more places than before. This is evident most obviously in the sphere of education, from the C J Koh Law Library at the Law Faculty of the National University of Singapore to the Lee Kong Chian School of Business at the Singapore Management University.
The universities have begun to go into sourcing for donations from alumni and other benefactors in a concerted way, with whole fund-raising departments set up, foreign talent brought in and strategies mapped out. For potential donors, the opportunities being created for having their names engraved on something run the gamut from professorial chairs to garden sculptures.
Securing donations can be big business, as Singaporeans are beginning to appreciate. What is interesting now is what might be called the 'democratisation of Singaporean philanthropy'. In the past, only tycoons and towkays could contemplate seeing their names carved onto the grand archways of buildings. Today, with the rise of private wealth, an explosion of naming platforms and a decline of ostentatious nationalism, anyone with reasonable savings can do their bit for the community. They stand a chance of 'immortality'.
The pool of donations can only expand. The social norm now is for more people to remain unmarried and to have no children. This means there will be more people without offspring to leave an inheritance to. Couple this with a rise in awareness of doing good for society, and what you have is a substantially enhanced desire to leave something behind for a good cause.
A boom in personal philanthropy and individual naming may also bring about a parallel development - an improvement in the general capacity to honour our fellow countrymen. For too long, the scope of naming, and branding identity, had been limited by a value system that puts politicians and businessmen at the apex. It looks certain that corporate naming will blossom, with companies getting their names onto more buildings and institutions.
But for truly national icons, the circle from which names are picked should expand beyond politics to include notable persons from other fields, including civil society and the arts. Whether this will happen remains to be seen.
Meanwhile, one thing seems certain: The day may already have arrived when nothing will ever just be called 'National' this or that again.
September 14th, 2005, 11:29 AM
Undoubtedly it has to be RAFFLES - the hotel, not the statue of him.
To people around the world that is, people that might not be familiar with Singapore's landmarks that is. (Especially the newer ones).
To even half-intelligent people, you just have to say the word Raffles and instantly it makes them think of Singapore and its Hotel.