View Full Version : Expansion of Funan?


RafflesCity
May 3rd, 2007, 03:35 PM
CapitaLand may build office on top of Funan DigitaLife Mall

3 May 07

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/imagegallery/store/phpUL2noA.jpg

SINGAPORE: CapitaLand has received provisional permission to build a nine-storey office tower on top of the existing Funan DigitaLife Mall.

This will include additions and alterations to the existing building, home of largely retailers of electronics and computer products.

Funan DigitaLife Mall has currently only utilised 3.861 of its allowable Gross Plot Ratio of 7.0.

It also has unutilised Gross Floor Area (GFA) of about 385,000 square feet.

To maximise the unutilised GFA, CapitaMall Trust is working out a plan with the Urban Redevelopment Authority.

According to CapitalMall Trust, the aim is to achieve a more efficient floor plate when developing the proposed office block and to minimise disruptions to the retail tenants.

CapitaMall Trust says more details will be released when the plans are finalised.

Singapor3
May 3rd, 2007, 03:37 PM
Whoa! More computer stores? Nice!

Pengui
May 3rd, 2007, 03:47 PM
Only 9 floors? Bah ^ ^

Singapor3
May 3rd, 2007, 04:10 PM
Only 9 floors? Bah ^ ^

My sentiments exactly! I was hoping for an extension of like 50-60 storeys :ohno:

kurakura
May 3rd, 2007, 05:33 PM
My sentiments exactly! I was hoping for an extension of like 50-60 storeys :ohno:

The foundations cannot support so much new weight.:)

Kit
May 3rd, 2007, 06:53 PM
They probably need new foundation for the additional 9 storeys anyway.

RafflesCity
May 4th, 2007, 03:01 AM
My sentiments exactly! I was hoping for an extension of like 50-60 storeys :ohno:

IMO I dont think that stretch along North Bridge Road should allow buildings too tall. They would compete with historic buildings like St Andrews & Supreme Court when viewed from across the bay.

Fortunately High Street Centre was recladded. Used to be an eyesore:cheers:

Gid
May 4th, 2007, 10:51 AM
IMO I dont think that stretch along North Bridge Road should allow buildings too tall. They would compete with historic buildings like St Andrews & Supreme Court when viewed from across the bay.

Fortunately High Street Centre was recladded. Used to be an eyesore:cheers:

I would still prefer the original plan that URA released years back, that called for the redevlopement of the entire area, including peninsula, high street, adelphi and several other older buildings. The whole areas was supposed to be rebuilt into a government admin zone to house more ministries alongside the parliament, supreme court, cityhall, treasury, mica and etc. A scenic light-rail line was even planned alonged Singapore River.

That, would have been awesome, IMO. But too bad the building owners rejected URA's offer.

RafflesCity
May 5th, 2007, 12:57 PM
I wish there was more awareness and determination to preserve precious historic buildings in that area before buildings like Peninsula Hotel or Adelphi were erected.

The buildings there now block off the view of Fort Canning. I guess redevelopments will occur piecemeal.

Kit
May 5th, 2007, 01:35 PM
I wish there was more awareness and determination to preserve precious historic buildings in that area before buildings like Peninsula Hotel or Adelphi were erected.

The buildings there now block off the view of Fort Canning. I guess redevelopments will occur piecemeal.

Tell that to someone who cares...... wait a minute... who still cares?

Andrew
May 5th, 2007, 04:55 PM
I care! That area is wrong for very tall buildings. OK an extra nine stories is not too much but more than that would be out of place in my opinion. Singapore doesn't need a forest of skyscrapers. Part of the character of the city centre area is that there are dense clusters separated by relatively low-rise historic areas. Throwing up skyscrapers in those low rise areas will firstly ruin those historic areas and secondly reduce the impact of the existing clusters of skyscrapers and thus create a less interesting skyline not more. I personally think the view of Fort Canning is important to the character of the area. It provides a break from the monotony of looking at endless tall buildings.

Kit
May 5th, 2007, 05:00 PM
I care! That area is wrong for very tall buildings. OK an extra nine stories is not too much but more than that would be out of place in my opinion. Singapore doesn't need a forest of skyscrapers. Part of the character of the city centre area is that there are dense clusters separated by relatively low-rise historic areas. Throwing up skyscrapers in those low rise areas will firstly ruin those historic areas and secondly reduce the impact of the existing clusters of skyscrapers and thus create a less interesting skyline not more. I personally think the view of Fort Canning is important to the character of the area. It provides a break from the monotony of looking at endless tall buildings.

again..... tell that to someone who cares....

spore123
May 6th, 2007, 01:38 AM
To everyone other than to Kit (since we know that he/she doesn't care):

I agree with Andrew and with RafflesCity. Fort Canning does provide a green lung for the area.

Maverick713
May 6th, 2007, 04:22 AM
Fort Canning Hill is not very tall anyway. Not much of a view to talk about in the very first place. Mount Faber or Bukit Timah Hill are in a different league and their views should be protected.

eighth8
May 6th, 2007, 07:42 AM
it seems that SG just wants to be like another Shanghai, HK or Dubai with many skyscrapers filling up the skyline etc. If only Capitaland has enough capital to acquire the whole stretch from Riverpoint or Rivermall something like that? (that beige orange "shopping centre" which is pretty dead to me all the way to Peninsula and create a mega IT Digital mall with just about 6-8 storeys high and the roof-top to be a mega outdoor exhibition fair once in a while.

btw, Peninsula Hong Kong looks so more grander and up to date than the one in Singapore, such a different league. The one locally just doesn't live up to its name.

Singapor3
May 6th, 2007, 08:07 AM
Well, who doesn't want skyscrapers? I'll rather have tall buildings with people living or working in it than preserving buildings that doesn't have any use. I know it sound offensive but I think old buildings should be cleared and the land being made used of, leave the history in books..

Andrew
May 6th, 2007, 03:39 PM
Well, who doesn't want skyscrapers? I'll rather have tall buildings with people living or working in it than preserving buildings that doesn't have any use. I know it sound offensive but I think old buildings should be cleared and the land being made used of, leave the history in books..
I absolutely guarantee that you would regret that sentiment if it actually happened. Maybe not straight away, but soon the novelty of having a totally modern city would wear off and you'd realise just how sterile and devoid of culture and identity such a place would be.
You think like Le Corbusier, who wanted to replace this...
http://www.pics.kaybee.org:81/Vacations/Europe1997/France/Paris/EiffelTower/.thumbs/med-aerial.jpg

...with this
http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e126/nattyboom/radiant_20city_img_1.png

Erm, yeah, progress!

Interestingly of all the people to have influenced Singapore's built environment, Le Corbusier seems to have been the most extensixe:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2a/BukitBatok.JPG/800px-BukitBatok.JPG

Don't get me wrong, I don't think that's a bad thing because most of these estates were built on previously undeveloped land. However, I believe that this type of development should not be at the expense of already established communities.

Kit
May 6th, 2007, 07:31 PM
The academic way of viewing things.....

Do you think that buildings here were preserved because they deserved to stay? You've been to Boat Quay? Did you know that the row of shophouses there were slated for the sledgehammer if the government wasn't convinced that they coould reap in tons of money from them? We don't get the novelty of living in a totally new city because we started tubula rasa, people just don't realise it.

Been to Chinatown? You thought that represents our culture?? Did you know that the amenities around the area were so badly designed after the re-works that the residents couldn't use them? When you walk around Chinatown is like a Hollywood set where buildings are only skin deep. They made it up so that it could become a tourist trap. There is nothing, absolutely nothing about culture. That's preservation for you. Its all about money.

Been to Bugis Junction? How do you find those shophouses? Nicely preserved? What if I told you the original shophouses were completely demolished and what you see, are replicas of original? And the whole point of that?? Selling an "preserved" identity that is no longer there.... how's that for preservation? Preservation doesn't necessary means preserving anything.

Preservation is not a dirty word, depends on the intention.

shao_ye
May 6th, 2007, 07:41 PM
Everything goes back to the basics, $... Sad but true... haha...

Pengui
May 7th, 2007, 01:27 PM
I absolutely guarantee that you would regret that sentiment if it actually happened. Maybe not straight away, but soon the novelty of having a totally modern city would wear off and you'd realise just how sterile and devoid of culture and identity such a place would be.
You think like Le Corbusier, who wanted to replace this...
http://www.pics.kaybee.org:81/Vacations/Europe1997/France/Paris/EiffelTower/.thumbs/med-aerial.jpg

...with this
http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e126/nattyboom/radiant_20city_img_1.png

Erm, yeah, progress!

On a side note, Paris as you can see it on your first picture rose in only a few decades from the ruins of the older city, that was almost entirely razed to make space for the new one, under Napoleon III and thanks to this man:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baron_Haussmann

Truly most people nowadays including me think Paris is one of the greatest cities in the world, but at that time Haussmann was heavily criticized for putting such a mess. The city was almost bankrupted by the end of it, in fact ^ ^

Sorry for the off-topic but I thought it would be of interest to the people here, considering the debate :-)

RafflesCity
May 7th, 2007, 03:29 PM
btw, Peninsula Hong Kong looks so more grander and up to date than the one in Singapore, such a different league. The one locally just doesn't live up to its name.

I dont think they are related.

kurakura
May 8th, 2007, 03:15 AM
Some buildings must be ugly so the good looking ones will stand out more.:lol:

babystan03
May 13th, 2007, 07:58 AM
Brought one of my friend to funan challenger megastore while he was in Singapore, and he was really impressed by the megastore......:yes:

I guess it would be a good idea to expand the mall further given the potential in the downtown area......:yes:

Next one to go should be Adelphi (very old design i think but I love the audiophile shops...:happy: ) and High Street Retail mall(which is a disgrace)

eighth8
May 13th, 2007, 09:24 AM
I dont think they are related.

Really? Thanks for clarifying.:)

Kit
May 13th, 2007, 09:55 AM
Speaking of Peninsula(HK), you guys should try sipping mango volkas at Felix if you happen to drop by. Don't forget to visit the toilet too.

redstone
May 13th, 2007, 02:56 PM
Next one to go should be Adelphi (very old design i think but I love the audiophile shops...:happy: ) and High Street Retail mall(which is a disgrace)


Got such a place? :?

Maverick713
May 14th, 2007, 06:14 AM
Got such a place? :?

I think he is referring to the High Street Centre. There are several old Indian-run electrical and electronics goods stores there. Looks obsolete.

Excelsvr
September 30th, 2007, 08:03 AM
Brought one of my friend to funan challenger megastore while he was in Singapore, and he was really impressed by the megastore......:yes:

I guess it would be a good idea to expand the mall further given the potential in the downtown area......:yes:

Next one to go should be Adelphi (very old design i think but I love the audiophile shops...:happy: ) and High Street Retail mall(which is a disgrace)

Well, The Adelphi's exterior is really fugly and doesn't deserve to be in the CBD. But the interior is good! Walls and tiles are good, ventilation is ok. I think it would be good if they refurbished it. Both cost-saving and time-saving.