What's your opinion of design in Singapore?

From what I see, from condo renderings and in the streets, it seem that architecture here lack the 'x' and 'wow' factor.

Most buildings are similiarin shape or design. Most being cubic, with square windows. Now I seem to see that protuding square windows seem to be more popular with architects.

And the other is buildings which are not aethestically pleasing at all. Example is S'pore Recreation Club. But luckily these are not common.


I think S'pore generally lacks creativity in archi.

hmmmm do you mean specifically the condos? with all the full height glass and baywindows etc? if so well that is the fault of the developer and URA, because the developer wants the most out of the land as they want $$$$$$ and URA gives all the restriction on GFA that prevents you from having a creative design and yet giving the client their demands.....

No... with any building for that matter...

Design was in a stump when I came back 2 years ago. Its still is and I don't see us moving out of the well in the forseeable future as well.

I think S'pore generally lacks creativity in archi.

I have to correct this. Its not so much about lacking in creativity but the readiness and mindset to accept something new. Contrary to what some people may think, we are very very far behind.

I want to see the likes of Frank Gehry and Santiago Calatrava here. They think out of the box, having unconventional designs.

Norman Foster, Richard Meier, KPF, etc would bridge the gap between the conventional and unconventional.


Esplanade is just one small step. Yes i agree with you, kit. People think this is ugly, but I think it would be a great landmark. All this is personal.

Or are most people's minds fixed by the cubic HDB flats? :lol:

I want to see the likes of Frank Gehry and Santiago Calatrava here. They think out of the box, having unconventional designs.

Norman Foster, Richard Meier, KPF, etc would bridge the gap between the conventional and unconventional.


Esplanade is just one small step. Yes i agree with you, kit. People think this is ugly, but I think it would be a great landmark. All this is personal.

Or are most people's minds fixed by the cubic HDB flats? :lol:

You don't think all starchitects died a horrible death here say maybe with the exception of Ken Yeang? Look at I.M.Pei's Raffles City and you compare it with the Louvre.

A good design will only be as good as the design brief and those who commissioned the design. There's only this much an architect can do if his/her unconventional designs are not being accepted not because it didn't fulfill the requirements but due to fixed mindset.

It doesn't matter if its a cube or something with 6000 sides. What matters most is how its being designed. If its a well designed cube, then so be it. Look at the residentials that are coming up now. What breakthrough do you see in space planning do you see since the time I don't even bother to remember. There are precedents you can look at e.g. MVRDV.

Having a flashy skin is not good enough to make good architecture. What's happening inside is just as important, which is why I have so much problem with the Esplanade. It was a great opportunity lost. So is the Marina I.R.

Singaporeans are too ficke mindes imo, and subject to influences, with a mindset like that, we cannot go far. Look at the Ir proposal by DP, look at the sudden surge in glass facades, which reminds me, I'd better do that writeup on how Singapore copied Le Corbusier's city plan, lol.

what I notice in most new condos/apartment in Singapore the base usually they use ""poles" in the ground

URA apparently has relaxed some guidelines on condos in the Central area, allowing them to grow taller and perhaps give more room for more elaborate crowns:

Circular No : URA/PB/2006/13-CUDD
Fax: 6220 3201
Our Ref : DC/ADMIN/CIRCULAR/PB_06
Date : 5 Jun 2006


CIRCULAR TO PROFESSIONAL INSTITUTES


RELAXATION OF RESIDENTIAL BUILDING HEIGHTS IN THE DOWNTOWN CORE, ORCHARD AND ROCHOR (PART) PLANNING AREAS WITHIN CENTRAL AREA


Objective
This circular is to inform developers, building owners and qualified persons on the relaxation of the storey height controls for residential buildings within parts of the Downtown Core, Orchard and Rochor Planning Areas. The relaxation is to allow for more flexibility in the design of residential developments


Effective Date
With effect from 5 June 2006


Who Should Know
Architects, engineers, developers and building owners


Background

Within the Central Area, residential developments located within commercial and mixed-use areas, are subject to urban design (UD) storey height controls, as shown in the Master Plan 2003 Special & Detailed Controls Plan - Building Height Plan.


Developments are additionally subject to development control floor-to-floor height controls. For a typical floor, these are 3.6m for residential developments and 5.0m for commercial and hotel developments.


As a result of the combined controls, residential developments in commercial and mixed-use areas are generally lower in height than those of adjacent commercial and hotel developments.

Details of Relaxation


URA is pleased to announce that residential developments within parts of the Downtown Core, Orchard and Rochor Planning Areas, which are predominantly commercial or mixed use in nature, are allowed to be built up to the maximum allowable building height1 for commercial and hotel developments (see Appendix 1).


The revised residential building height controls are applicable to:
Residential developments; and


Residential blocks within mixed-use developments (on sites zoned White, Commercial, Hotel, Commercial & Residential and Residential with Commercial at 1st storey only).

For example, within a 20-storey height zone, a residential development will be allowed to be built up to 100.0m – i.e. 20 x 5.0 (to the top of the floor slab above the highest floor), regardless of the number of storeys (as shown in Appendix 2). This translates to 28 storeys (based on a average floor-to-floor height of 3.6m) to 33 storeys (based on a average floor-to-floor height of 3.0m).


All developments will continue to be subject to the maximum allowable GPR under the Master Plan 2003. The current development controls on maximum floor-to-floor heights for residential buildings will also apply.


To encourage more dynamic roof designs to the crown of buildings, articulation of the roof top are allowed beyond the top of the highest floor, but not exceeding the technical height control of the area.


Please note that the relaxation is not applicable to the following:
Developments within Conservation Areas;


Developments within Special Detailed Control Areas, including those guided by street block plans and envelope controls; and


Developments within height control of 6 storeys or less.

____________________________
1Maximum Allowable Building Height for commercial and hotel developments is based on the maximum floor-to-floor height of 5.0m for every floor multiplied by the maximum allowable storey height. It refers to the building height to the top of the floor slab of the highest floor of the building, excluding roof articulation, rooftop M&E services, and roof screening, except for developments in areas subject to Absolute Building Height Controls.

Commercial and hotel developments will continue to be subject to the maximum storey height control under the Building Height Plan.


I would appreciate it if you could convey the contents of this circular to the relevant members of your organisation. If you or your members have any queries concerning this circular, please do not hesitate to call Architect Angela Low at Tel: 63293503 (email: Angela_Low@ura.gov.sg) or our DCD Customer Service Hotline at Tel: 6223 4811. For your information, the past circulars to the professional institutes are available from our website http://www.ura.gov.sg.


Thank you.





MICHAEL KOH
DIRECTOR (URBAN PLANNING AND DESIGN)
CONSERVATION AND URBAN DESIGN DIVISION
for CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
URBAN REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

hmmmm do you mean specifically the condos? with all the full height glass and baywindows etc? if so well that is the fault of the developer and URA, because the developer wants the most out of the land as they want $$$$$$ and URA gives all the restriction on GFA that prevents you from having a creative design and yet giving the client their demands.....

I've worked with many kinds of restrictions but fails to see why GFA can adversely affect my designs. URA does use GFA to encourage certain design perimeters that they want to promote. Care to elaborate?

GFA more then pay more loh ....

I've worked with many kinds of restrictions but fails to see why GFA can adversely affect my designs. URA does use GFA to encourage certain design perimeters that they want to promote. Care to elaborate?

sure, i did not intend to mean that the URA uses GFA to control our designs but rather becuase the developer wants the most out of their property to generate revenue, most architects will usually resolve to ''GFA exemption clauses'' such as baywindows, balconies etc (in which URA wants the buildings to look more creative) to satisfy the developers' wish (as we know that GFA=money) but this result in a way that some condos and even cluster terrace housing looks partially similar, for it cannot be the fact that all the architects have the same design in their minds but more rather due to another factor.

Hence in a way, GFA can affect the design, with relevance to the developers. hope i have made it much clearer :)

Ah I see. I usually classify those as restrictions imposed upon by the clients. On the other hand, GFA can really help in making good designs but unfortunately, it cannot change mindset.

I don't think there's anything surprising in not seeing very striking designs in condo projects... I mean most apartment towers around the world look quite boring and unimaginative. I think that's because people who buy the flats are actually not going to see the outside of it all the time, so they don't care so much about the outside design, especially they might see it as a waste of money, while the design will have an impact on the selling price.

For office building, it's a different matter. I'd say the architects don't have to care so much about the floorplate layout, so if it's a bit funny it's allright. Office buildings also don't need to care about such things as balconies. Also, those companies may want the building's design to be adequate with their brand image (e.g. classy, modern, innovative, wealthy, adventurous, classic, whatever... )
So those big wealthy MNC might be ready to pay a small extra to rent office space in an outstanding building.

So why we're not seeing a lot of striking design, imo is mainly due to the fact that no one is building offices. Except for the BFC which is a government project, very corporate and a big boring although ambitious.

Maybe the pros will think I'm completely wrong, well that's fine, I'm nowhere near a specialist in that matter, but at least that's how I see things ;-)
Actually I think we're quite lucky to have a number of relatively outstanding residentials getting built, mainly because the very high-end residential market is performing well :-)

I think that the vibe of a city influences the quality of its architecture. While its also true vice versa, and great cities are sometimes made great on account of its architecture, i suppose that many a starchitect's "horrible death" in SG is due to an uninspiring urban context. I'm thinking that Foster approved the UFO because Singapore hardly comes to the top of his agenda, because there's little about our system that makes him as inspired as Hong Kong, which he waxes lyrical about constantly.

hmmm... some condo designs are quite similar. Like the Nexus and Tessarina which are next to each other. Garden Vista down the road looks somewhat like them too.

Nexus
http://i65.photobucket.com/albums/h204/hyapic01/DSC_1338.jpg

http://i65.photobucket.com/albums/h204/hyapic01/DSC_1339.jpg

Tessarina (looks a bit like Caribbean at Keppel Bay too at this angle)
http://www1.singaporeexpats.com/singapore-property-pictures/condo/the-tessarina/the-tessarina.jpg

Like someone mentioned earlier, its trend. Clients like to build something they saw somewhere else. Fresh concepts are worth a dime a pound here. Windows in the Nexus are so close together I can imagine leaping from one unit to another. I consider allowing other people to peer into my room from their windows a crime of unspeakable proportions.

agree... like Four Seasons, Seasons Park and Tanglin View. Very similar designs

Can tell which is which? :D
http://www1.singaporeexpats.com/singapore-property-pictures/condo/tanglin-view/tanglin-view.jpg

http://www1.singaporeexpats.com/singapore-property-pictures/condo/seasons-park/seasons-park.jpg

http://www1.singaporeexpats.com/singapore-property-pictures/condo/four-seasons-park/four-seasons-park.jpg

heehee... about the windows being too close... agree no privacy. also, it's too near to the road.

But, quite easy for proposing and borrowing salt/sugar etc. :colgate:

they are by Far East Org, perhaps its their trademark :D

i do hope that Scotts HighPark will have a diffferent design, considering they are going for larger homes....and not small cubicles! but its a long plot of land with little frontage :(

erm... Four Seasons Park is by HPL Properties Pte Ltd. I don't think they are by Far East.

Anyway, the answers are:

Four Seasons Park (Mother of this design - Completed in 1994)
http://www.singaporeexpats.com/singapore-property-pictures/condo/four-seasons-park.htm
http://www1.singaporeexpats.com/singapore-property-pictures/condo/four-seasons-park/four-seasons-park.jpg
by HPL Properties Pte Ltd

Seasons View (Completed in 2000)
http://www.singaporeexpats.com/singapore-property-pictures/condo/seasons-view.htm
http://www1.singaporeexpats.com/singapore-property-pictures/condo/seasons-view/seasons-view.jpg
By Orchard Parade Holdings Pte Ltd

Seasons Park (Completed in 2000)
http://www.singaporeexpats.com/singapore-property-pictures/condo/seasons-park.htm
http://www1.singaporeexpats.com/singapore-property-pictures/condo/seasons-park/seasons-park.jpg
by Pidemco Land Ltd

Tanglin View (Completed in 2002)
http://www.singaporeexpats.com/singapore-property-pictures/condo/tanglin-view.htm
http://www1.singaporeexpats.com/singapore-property-pictures/condo/tanglin-view/tanglin-view.jpg
by Far East Organisation

**shocked** they are by different developers **shocked**

oh my that makes it even worse! Similar designs.... :(



lol also bishan point also looks like some of the condos here....




the condo that i know of that has a slight and decent design is Iridium....like thier ''slash'' accross and their 10th storey swimming pool :)

With the likes of Tay Kheng Soon, Mok Wei Wei, Tang Guan Bee, Wong & Hassel, LOOK, SCDA and other prominent firms here, it's sad that generally S'pore firms do not make it big overseas as compared to people like Ando, Tange, Ban, IM Pei. :(

And DP's designs, honestly I do not really like. For CPG, it's very varied. At times they produce nice works, at times not so.


WoHa, SCDA have great potential, personally speaking. :D

Can you give some examples of works by Singaporean architects that you like?

KK Hosp and ITE Bishan (no relation to me) by Kheng Soon.

Too many designs by WoHa to name. :cool:

SCDA no preference. :D

Gallery Hotel by Tang Guan Bee (his company called Tangguanbee). :cool:
But I don't like his Eastpoint design. :(

Kheng Soon was from SP, btw.

Kheng Soon was from SP, btw.

so was Tang Guan :runaway:

so was Tang Guan :runaway:

Guan Bee lah! ^ ^

Somehow I don't like some of his works, but some appeal to me.

Guan Bee lah! ^ ^

Somehow I don't like some of his works, but some appeal to me.

ok! lol; anyway you should look at the houses he design, i think he designs better in houses then in commercial buildings :)

Mok Wei Wei was fom NUS and had worked under William Lim. Wei Wei's ( ^ ^ ) houses can be amazing.

And then there's William Lim hmself, a great architect.
He set up Design Partnership, which produced the Golden Mile Complex.

Suprisingly some famous architects have no website.... :(



Okayyyy......

Tay Kheng Soon
William Lim
Mok Wei Wei
Tang Guan Bee
Wong & Hassel
SCDA
DP
RSP

So far WoHa, SCDA has great potential.
Kheng Soon and William are perhaps more well know in archi circuits.

Think would Tay Kheng Soon and William Lim ever be shortlisted of Pritzker in the future?

URA, CapitaLand win land use awards

14 Jul 06

Honours given by US-based Urban Land Institute

(SINGAPORE) The Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) and Singapore-listed property giant CapitaLand have bagged the Urban Land Institute (ULI) 2006 Awards for Excellence: Asia-Pacific, a prestigious international recognition for responsible land use.

http://business-times.asiaone.com/mnt/media/image/launched/2006-07-14/BT_4429339_13_07_2006.jpg

The URA won the award for Singapore's conservation programme, and CapitaLand for the development of its Glentrees condo project on the former Grenville condo site at Mount Sinai Lane. This is the second year running in which the developer has clinched the award. In 2005, its Nassim Hill condo, The Loft, took the honours for its innovative land presentation.

ULI is a US-based global education and research institute championing responsible leadership in land use to enhance the total environment. The awards are made by region - Americas, Europe and Asia-Pacific. This year's Asia-Pacific awards attracted 25 entries. After written submissions and site inspections, five winners were picked, including the two from Singapore.

For the URA, winning the award will help to market Singapore in the race for investments and visitors. The authority's chief planner and deputy CEO (physical planning and conservation and urban design), Koh-Lim Wen Gin, said: 'After being a finalist in Asia-Pac award, we hope we'll be selected for ULI's global award' which will be announced later this year. 'All these awards help to promote the value of a city. The world is very competitive. For example, China, Dubai, everyone competing for the same pie. So we in Singapore must market ourselves more and make it known to the world that this little red dot - or little green dot - has a lot to offer. Although we're very little, we are a global city and also a city with a sense of history. We have lots of variety to offer.

'I think the starting point of conservation is city planning, but the spin-off is tourism as well.'

Last year, 2.7 million tourists are said to have visited the historic conservation district of Chinatown, while two million toured Little India.

Singapore's conservation programme, spearheaded by the URA, has seen some 6,560 buildings being gazetted for conservation over the past 20 years, despite the constant challenge of meeting development needs with Singapore's limited land area of just less than 700 square kilometres. 'It is the first large-scale urban conservation programme in South-east Asia, protecting areas, settings and vernacular buildings of architectural and historical value,' the URA observed.

The citation by ULI's jury states that 'Singapore's modern conservation programme preserves its rich heritage of vernacular buildings and colourful neighbourhoods, thanks to a collaborative effort among government organisations and the public that balances free-market economics with cultural conservation'.

CapitaLand's Glentrees condo is a unique architectural interpretation of a low-rise condominium, tucked amidst a mature landed estate at Mount Sinai Lane. The design concept centres on creating a garden for every home.

'This 2-hectare (4.9-acre) site provides views and a plantable garden terrace for the residents of this five-storey, 176-unit condominium development in land-scarce Singapore,' ULI says on its website.

CapitaLand Residential Singapore CEO Patricia Chia says: 'The stepped-back architecture and creation of balcony gardens in the apartments represent a new interpretation of condominium living.'

The ULI competition recognises the full development process of a project, not just its architecture or design. The criteria for the awards include industry leadership, contribution of the community, innovation, public-private partnership, response to societal needs and financial success in addition to environmental protection and enhancement.

By KALPANA RASHIWALA

Who's the architect?