Saw worker today started fencing up the whole Central Promontary....no picture, sorry.....don't know what they're building ?

WHAT what ....what is going on guys :ohno:

Saw worker today started fencing up the whole Central Promontary....no picture, sorry.....don't know what they're building ?

Aren't they simply starting the work on the Marina Bay waterfront promenade?

no idea....they definitely doing fencing up... I asked the worker, they said no idea.... promenade could be too early as bridges not ready at Bayfront.....let's wait and see...or anyone got inside news from URA ?

WHAT what ....what is going on guys :ohno:

statue of LKY?!!

eyer

???

eyer

The fencing has got nothing to do with the Promontary. They are doing some cables work just at the edge where the fencing is

http://img141.imageshack.us/img141/4900/mce.jpg

Ground breaking ceremony for the MCE had begun today. MCE is the 10th Expressway in Singapore; the shortest but the most expensive one costing $4 billion to build. Yet another enhancement to the Marina Bay Downtown.:cheers:

that four billion can be used to construct another line of underground MRT of at least 8 stations.

Why so ex

They are tunnelling underneath the sea. This is big jump from what we have for CTE and KPE (under rivers). This is a very big engineering challenge and I'm not surprised at the price tag.

they scared of building another bridge.

^^
This project is worth its cost. The new MCE will channel traffic away from CTE and PIE, which currently have Singaporeans complaining about traffic jams. It will provide the basic infrastructure needed to support our upcoming industrial parks in Tuas and Jurong Island. For the sake of our economic infrastructure, this $4b is worth it. And I am sure the lambos and porsche owners would love the extra space to test their horsepower.

^^ This road could have been planned elevated as well. $4b for 3.5km is most complete waste of money I've seen in quite a long time.

^^
Well, increased govt spending during tough times helps create jobs/wealth for the local economy. Essentially killing 4 birds with one stone. Not only are they creating a critical infrastructure within the island, they are technically increasing the money supply in a hard-hit economy, and keeping the lower-class/construction industry happy. Building an elevated bridge would destroy the aesthetics of the skyline, marina barrage and the Gardens by the Bay, all of which promote open spaces within an enclosed city. Underground is the way to go in the sense that it frees up the costly premium reclaimed land that is Marina East and South, and entices future developments, which creates even more jobs for locals and expats alike. To put it in layman terms, why spend so much on reclaimed land only to build a major bridge/road over it? Rather than use the land, the govt can sell the land for future developments. My guess is that the opportunity cost from the sale of the land greatly outweighs $4b, thus encouraging the idea of an underground tunnel. From such a perspective, the plan to build MCE sounds like another brilliant concept.

^^exactly same multiplier can be created by spending the same money on something that makes more sense. Like accelerating new MRT lines.

I doubt there will be much development exactly above the expressway other than normal roads. Well, it takes just a little portion of Marina South and Marina East anyway.

Bridges can be pretty scenic and landmark-ish as well. I don't see a problem here.

Honestly, I think the freeing up land argument is b**s***t. It's not like you can really build something significant over that land.

It is also interesting to note that the MCE will be a 10-lane highway.

I don't know about you guys but I'm beginning to see why the HSR may not actually takeoff unless Malaysia becomes wealthy. Alot of the high costs of the MCE is attributed to tunneling under the sea, and I look and the Marina Channel is like at most 150m across at the point the MCE will cross it and I look at the Johor Straits, 1km long, and I can't imagine how much just that small phase of such a KL-SIN HSR project might cost.

^^
This project is worth its cost. The new MCE will channel traffic away from CTE and PIE, which currently have Singaporeans complaining about traffic jams. It will provide the basic infrastructure needed to support our upcoming industrial parks in Tuas and Jurong Island. For the sake of our economic infrastructure, this $4b is worth it. And I am sure the lambos and porsche owners would love the extra space to test their horsepower.

it doesnt channel away traffic. it just replaces a portion of the ECP that will be downgraded.

The Johor Strait and the Singapore Strait are two very different bodies of water. It's quite likely that it's easier to tunnel under the Johor Strait, so I wouldn't compare the two. Apples and oranges. But don't quote me.

ECP will be downgraded. I do not think so since they have spent billions linking ECP to the KPE and anyway likewise like what has been said., it is not utter waste of money. Freeing the road space meaning adding more vehicles. So to the government, with more vehicles, more taxes will be collected and thus it is much more profitable than having building an MRT.

it doesnt channel away traffic. it just replaces a portion of the ECP that will be downgraded.

you are so right. its just a replacement . infact its gonna take slightly longer to travel from ECP to AYE now that we cant use sheares bridge.

If anyone's interested, there will be a URA showcase at Marina Square over the weekend. I was there today (friday) and they were setting up the place complete with models of the Jurong Lake area and the city area.

Speaking of Nathan Road... I notice some of the BnW houses had been demolished. Some at Tyersall were also demolished within the past few years.

Freeing the road space meaning adding more vehicles. So to the government, with more vehicles, more taxes will be collected and thus it is much more profitable than having building an MRT.
At a time when most other developed economies are trying to reduce CO2 emissions and reduce dependence on private cars, does it not seem a little contradictory and counter-productive for Singapore to be investing such large ammounts of money in infrastructure that will increase car use not reduce it? Surely this would be better spent on public transport instead.

The point is to reduce CO2 emissions, not reduce car use. To be realistic, car usage can be discouraged but it can't be realistically flat out banned. It might be better to make sure that each car usage is as efficient as possible. So instead of turning the city into a giant parking lot where CO2 is being burned for no apparent reason, it's better to make sure that cars are running smoothly through, in, and out of the city.

Moreover, in several years, the cars might be able to use other sources of energies that emit much less or no CO2. ddes is right, the question is not to reduce the use of cars, but how to support the emergence of those technologies.

Abu Dhabi is already developing a city that does away with cars entirely:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masdar_City

But i guess Singapore's intention is also to perfect the clean emission prototype so it can get first mover advantage in selling it to other places.

So here's the question: is Singapore putting too many eggs into its basket? Instead of focusing in areas of real comparative advantage like finance or human services (like in HK), are we spreading our resources too thin to make any real value from our investments?

Or is everything really going to pay off in the future?

For any developed nation, the services sector is a natural evolution of such economies. Singapore is a developed nation, and we are established in the financial and services sector, especially in the high-end mile-high club of spenders, investors and bankers. They are comparatively few but are incredibly high yield.

This is similar to what Singapore Airlines chooses to focus on. SQ could be like Emirates, trying to appeal to all classes, including the leisure Economy and budget travelers but that is merely a number's game as First and Business is what makes airlines the most money with the least effort.

But for Singapore, as the economies around us get increasingly economically developed, they also begin to develop their services sector. And that's why HK is suspected to begin losing its financial and services position to Mainland cities like Shenzhen, Shanghai and Beijing.

The next logical step is to be a front-runner in a new industry; for developed nations like much of the EU, USA, Singapore. So everyone's going to try to look for the "next" cash cow, be it in the biochemical sector (that's why we have the Biopolis/Fusionopolis development), or the green industry sectors (planned building of solar power plants, development of electric cars) or something that the next great entrepreneur hasn't created yet.

amazingly, this seems like a reversal of hk and singapore in their economic strategy, singapore is gambling for high stakes here, and may fall flat on its face. hong kong is simply consolidating its financial sector towards becoming the financial center of asia.

http://www.fas.nus.edu.sg/ecs/scape/doc/24Oct08/Linda%20Lim.pdf

This is an interesting article debating singapore's high risk approach to deriving economic growth.

"In other words, the essence of both comparative and competitive advantage is specialization. Singapore cannot be internationally competitive and a world leader in semiconductors, life sciences, health care, education, financial services, creativeindustries and casino tourism all at the same time. If we try to do this, all sectors willface rising costs as they compete with each other for scarce land and talent, even if capital is abundantly available, and negative externalities will balloon,"

" It is instructive, for example, that according to Forbes magazine, HongKong, which has only 50% more people than Singapore, has five times the number of local billionaires—entrepreneurs who can lead in building and rebuilding the economy. Over the last 40 years, Hong Kong’s GDP growth rate and per capita income have surpassed Singapore’s, and were achieved with lower savings and higher consumption, reflecting a more efficient use of capital, and much lower salaries for highly-placed civil servants, reflecting a more efficient use of skills."

Debatable views, but important to consider.

"In other words, the essence of both comparative and competitive advantage is specialization. Singapore cannot be internationally competitive and a world leader in semiconductors, life sciences, health care, education, financial services, creativeindustries and casino tourism all at the same time. If we try to do this, all sectors willface rising costs as they compete with each other for scarce land and talent, even if capital is abundantly available, and negative externalities will balloon,"

I don't quite see how sectors as diverse as semiconductors, health care and creative industries would be "competing". Certainly not for talents, maybe for office space to some extent, but that's more because REITs have had cold feet building office space in the past few years and were popping up condominiums everywhere instead.

On the contrary, it seems better to me not to put all eggs in the same basket as if one sector is doing poorly and driving the economy down, other sectors can compensate. For example, even if now semiconductors industry and financial companies are not doing well, production companies and education are still doing well.

As for the comparison with HK, I have no idea ;-)

I don't quite see how sectors as diverse as semiconductors, health care and creative industries would be "competing". Certainly not for talents, maybe for office space to some extent, but that's more because REITs have had cold feet building office space in the past few years and were popping up condominiums everywhere instead.

On the contrary, it seems better to me not to put all eggs in the same basket as if one sector is doing poorly and driving the economy down, other sectors can compensate. For example, even if now semiconductors industry and financial companies are not doing well, production companies and education are still doing well.

As for the comparison with HK, I have no idea ;-)

The article had flawed assumptions; just like ur thoughts on talent, globalisation has certainly enabled us to import talents where needed. I think the writer was concerned more about the indigenous workforce, which is definitely spoiled for choice concerning career options. Maybe critical mass is needed for any one sector to be sufficiently developed? and you can't always rely on foreign talent.

But the whole diversification issue is really confusing me; with this being more a financial crisis than anything, why isn't hong kong's economy, which is 80-90% in finance and services doing as badly as singapore's?

Singapore is projected to slump 10% this year, that's massive, we've only averaged 5% in growth year on year this decade. We weathered the Asian Financial Crisis better with less eggs in our basket. Hong Kong is only projected to shrink 6%.

Seriously casts doubts on how good these eggs in our basket are now; when all our eggs are ultra high end, over innovative eggs, demand dries up first during crisis times. Who needs elaborate semiconductor chips and biotech implements when the whole world is poor? The way Hong Kong is riding this one out - seems like good decent services are the more resilient kind of industry you wanna be counting on.

Also, this raises thoughts on our financial center strategies - we are placing our bet on private banking and personal wealths of the filthy rich, this seems to be becoming our niche, and hong kong is consolidating basic fund management and stock market capacities to service corporations. Which one is the surer hallmark of being a financial center?

amazingly, this seems like a reversal of hk and singapore in their economic strategy, singapore is gambling for high stakes here, and may fall flat on its face. hong kong is simply consolidating its financial sector towards becoming the financial center of asia.

Risk is always carrying high returns. Without taking risks, one would not achieve many things.

While HK consolidating the financial sector, Singapore is diversifying its economy and finding its niche where it can capitalize before other cities catch up with Singapore.

For example, Singapore was the only container port in Southeast Asia. It capitalize on containerization business for so long that other countries in Southeast Asia sit up and start to compete.

With more ports catching up, Singapore has to move away and find the niche which cities lack of.

Hong Kong has a gateway to China market. Singapore is also gateway to entire Southeast Asia with diverse cultures and languages. Different cities would achieve differently.

So Singapore is capitalizing on high tech industries by bringing scientists, engineers, researchers to base their laboratories in Singapore and grow the new industries. Oil refineries are one fine examples. We do not produce oil but refine the fuels for oil producing countries.

So one cannot really compare Hong Kong and Singapore after all as both serve differently. Hong Kong is part of China and has huge resource next to it. Singapore has no huge resources to speak of, just human resources, nothing to exchange or barter with other nations. We can only serve with skills.

Singapore is projected to slump 10% this year, that's massive, we've only averaged 5% in growth year on year this decade. We weathered the Asian Financial Crisis better with less eggs in our basket. Hong Kong is only projected to shrink 6%.

This is a government projection, remember.
It may just be a way to later put a spin on it by saying something like "we actually only shrinked by 2%, because we at the government did a really good job".

I notice the govt is being very, very pessimistic about things in general this year. Predicting a 10% slump, and has spent alot of PR time convincing Singaporeans that the H1N1 virus is about to attack Singapore now!

This is a government projection, remember.
It may just be a way to later put a spin on it by saying something like "we actually only shrinked by 2%, because we at the government did a really good job".

The Economist predicts the same :(

The Economist predicts the same :(

It's been my bible for over 32 years (every issue -- cover to cover) ... and I trust The Economist most of the time ... I would be worried too :ohno:

heirloom has less trust in what the govt said. i doubt too sometimes....but rest assured emerging markets like China & India will help us to pull thru somehow better...like this mornnig China disclosed new stimulus plan for cities but yet to provide the date. Our export shoot up in Mar'09 mainly due to some shipments to northern China, down again 12% in April. Keep our finger cross that we'll be able to weather thru this severe downturn. Marina Bay will emerge as the new playground once over.....

I just hope they launch the parcel of land between MBFC & the Sail asap to complete the skyline with a super tall.....328m sound good in cantonese.....

^^

What is the significance of 328 in cantonese?

333m is a nice number :D

I just hope they launch the parcel of land between MBFC & the Sail asap to complete the skyline with a super tall.....328m sound good in cantonese.....

Considering the GFA and the potential roof/spire, this supertall may rise up to 350m. The last I heard was that the aviation authority has the final say on our height restriction, so this project might just be another fantasy. But then again URA has displayed this model for quite some time now, maybe they got a positive response?

http://i655.photobucket.com/albums/uu276/wonuraimo/MarinaBay023.jpg

It's been my bible for over 32 years (every issue -- cover to cover) ... and I trust The Economist most of the time ... I would be worried too :ohno:

Well I'm no economist... But I hope that you're all wrong and I'm right anyway ^ ^

Well I'm no economist... But I hope that you're all wrong and I'm right anyway ^ ^

Lord Pengui ... we all hope the Economist is wrong .... and it does not have a 100%record anyway :) The Economist has made huge boo-boos ranging from pro-Bush then pro-H.Clinton in politics to glaring errors as to EUR USD crosses ... and there are countless more :lol:

URA seems serious this time. They have invested a lot in this twin 300m+ supertall plots by building the Promontory, Central Linear Garden and the Landmark station close to it. I certainly hope that this plan will materialize so our skyline can become more dazzling. 350m would be an ideal height for both towers in keeping the visual balance of the skyline. Obviously they shouldn't have spires, but rather feature even more geometric shapes as part of their roof structure to complement the triangular OUB, squarish RP and the circular UOB.

According to the URA, they seem to want a Jinmao Tower/1WTC lookalike at the Central Promontory and a SWFC/Maybank S'pore lookalike at the end of it.

its just massing la.

i'm sure they're going to tender the projects out to consortiums like the casino project; design should be paramount! don't play play!

better be good. I want very iconic one.

its just massing la.

i'm sure they're going to tender the projects out to consortiums like the casino project; design should be paramount! don't play play!

yea its just massing...URA cant simply impose a request and "want" a certain design. URA is just a regulatory body, the most it can do is to "encourage" certain guidelines...

^^
Well if that's the case I'd say they did a pretty good job with the "encouraging" part. Just look around, iconic esplanade, iconic ION, iconic Sands, iconic Flyer, iconic Youth Park, iconic Gardens by the Bay, iconic Promontory, iconic Central Linear Garden, iconic Iluma, iconic Sail. I'm pretty sure these 2 supertalls will have some iconic design as well. They just have to if they want to blend in with the skyline.

its interesting why u didnt label the MBFC as "iconic"...
haha, i think many of us are silently dissapointed with MBFC...

^^
Well I mean MBFC is like a typical residential/commercial project, not really meant for tourists. Nonetheless it's still very beautiful, and helps strengthen the glassy skyline. But it probably won't be an iconic national symbol like the merlion, esplanade, Sands or the new National Stadium.

Skyline taking shape

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v427/rotpics03/maypano.jpg

They need to fill up the gap between MBFC and sands soon to provide a better panoramic photo. Another Iconic building?

They need to fill up the gap between MBFC and sands soon to provide a better panoramic photo. Another Iconic building?

These will be taken up by cluster of skyscrapers in future that form the skyline .

supertrees maybe?

Supertall

^^
This is just a personal opinion, but I'd rather they deliberately keep the bayfront buildings short so that the future skyscrapers all the way to Marina South can be seen and appreciated with a nice gradual stepdown in height towards the bayfront.

This is very much like our old CBD with the front row, from Fullerton to Hitachi tower, kept at a low height to create the unique "city" feel and support the taller OUB,UOB and RP which are further away from the marina bayfront. One can also see that Hong Kong and Chicago tend to keep their "front" rows short so as to not block their more prominent towers. From such a perspective, The Sail and ORQ should not be this close to the bay. Because of their current positioning, many beautiful and unique future towers like Marina Bay Suites, One Shenton and Asia Square towers will be blocked from the bayfront skyline view. For future developments in the new CBD to be seen as part of the skyline, they would need to be taller than 245m.

y cant they build something awesome like petronas twin towers?
forget about the paya lebar base. I dun think thats an issue. the hong kong old airport has been doing it for decades

y cant they build something awesome like petronas twin towers?
forget about the paya lebar base. I dun think thats an issue. the hong kong old airport has been doing it for decades

It's more than just an issue with landing flight paths to airports. Singapore also have to consider the protection of its small airspace and airbases with ground-based air defence missiles and artillery which is something HK planners don't really have to worry about. The heights of nearby buildings are parameters the air defence commanders have to consider in their planning.

^^
This is just a personal opinion, but I'd rather they deliberately keep the bayfront buildings short so that the future skyscrapers all the way to Marina South can be seen and appreciated with a nice gradual stepdown in height towards the bayfront.

I totally agree on that. Having a step down approach will makes the landscape a real city feel. Although those short frontage building should not be made with green or blue glass. Given that their backdrop is already made of glass, an all glass landscape will look rather dull. A mix of bricks, colours, cement as well as rooftops like those at the piers of new york or quays in copenhagen..

y cant they build something awesome like petronas twin towers?
forget about the paya lebar base. I dun think thats an issue. the hong kong old airport has been doing it for decades

You need to understand where was the location of Kai Tak airport first and the location of planes landing. Then u draw the location of airport and runway on papers and the location of city area. Then put the box as mountain and painted the red and white.

And then u bring plane models and try to land these models like what the real plane did.

Real planes had to turn sharply upon seeing red and white before descending and landing.

Video - Cockpit view of jet landing at Kai Tak (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFZFFFRBejw)

Video - Plane landing - visible at frame 1:52. There are also skyscrapers on the sides (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3PCOcyt7BPI)

Before you compare the Petronas Towers, you need to look other than awesome towers. Are these towers fully occupied and well used?

I totally agree on that. Having a step down approach will makes the landscape a real city feel. Although those short frontage building should not be made with green or blue glass. Given that their backdrop is already made of glass, an all glass landscape will look rather dull. A mix of bricks, colours, cement as well as rooftops like those at the piers of new york or quays in copenhagen..

I think we more or less have an idea of how the massing will look like. The shorter blocks will be located between the MBFC and Sands to create that step-down.

Given that MBFC, Sail and ORQ are already 245m high, the future landmark peak will be important to define the new skyline.

Well at least this is what URA portrays:

http://www.marina-bay.sg/img/map_pan_big.jpg

Beyond this, I am keen to see how they define the heights and massing of the developments around the Gardens...

^^ And that's what I'm "worried" about. The new peak is crucial in defining the new skyline and if it doesn't get approved by the CAAS or whoever, it's going to spoil the image that they had intended.

screw the CAAS or whoever think that 300 above is not ok....ahem.
i guess back to basic we will get a 280m one in between all the 245m. Still prominent in the location though.....
Maybe the building is 280m, the crown structure can be 30m high.....on top of the 280m, just like the millenia tower crown.

This supertall fronting the bay makes the skyline look just like Hong Kong. I agree with those who said it would be better to keep smaller buildings on the water front. That's also my feeling.

The bayfront row needs to be low as URA are considering view from Barrage not to be completely blocked and bayfront building office residences can still appreciate the old CBD skyline better without feeling all buildings are dwarfed if they're looking from >200m high.

they should not barricade the area near the floating platform. wats the pt of the bridge then?

Anyone know what the two "slugs" in the far distance are on the right hand side, next to Marina Barrage?


And more interestingly to me, is the view that the render is made from.
Is that actually possible to see the bay like this say from Millenia tower or elsewhere on Raffles Blvrd?

delete

^^

A rendering of the 'slugs'

http://img229.imageshack.us/img229/1323/jlkhqe9.jpg

Massing showing their size and the Gardens:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3384/3592317462_a8309e092f_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3407/3591510799_b840341cbe_o.jpg



And more interestingly to me, is the view that the render is made from.
Is that actually possible to see the bay like this say from Millenia tower or elsewhere on Raffles Blvrd?

Yes. That would be the view from buildings and hotels along Raffles Boulevard:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v133/RafflesCity/sky7.jpg

It will take a really long space to fill up all that... Consider that it took something like 30 years to fill the smaller space between Chinatown and Shenton Way... There's development space for another century or so, I'd say... And that's assuming continued global growth for all that time of course, which I wouldn't say is the obvious course ^ ^

^^

We also need to consider the Marina Centre cluster (Suntec, Millenia, hotels, Esplanade) which I feel, was really 'phase zero' of creating Marina Bay. Its skyline took 10 years to fill up on the reclaimed land, starting with Pan Pacific in the mid 80s, to Suntec and Millenia around 1996-1997.

Fortunately since 2004, the new downtown skyline has progressed in a linear fashion, with something constantly adding to the skyline profile every year. Giving priority to the parcels immediately by the waterfront will help the skyline 'grow' faster.

I think the URA will do so once the macro turns positive next year. It's a signature skyline they can bang on it to get tourism revenue as well as recognition of the world on Singapore....

those goons should have planned to have the gardens right at the squarish part of marina bay.

This supertall fronting the bay makes the skyline look just like Hong Kong. I agree with those who said it would be better to keep smaller buildings on the water front. That's also my feeling.

I don't think the Singapore skyline can be made to look like HK's... the latter has a very dramatic backdrop of green mountains and forestry (imagine in your mind HK skyline without the mountains behind and you'll know what I mean), has more flashy and signature buildings (whereas Sg ones are more geometrical and very much more subdued) and rely a lot on lighting effects, lasers shows etc (something which Sg is emulating to same extent but not to its tacky limits).

A few good things going for Sg's skyline is the (relatively) cleaner air and water, and the fact that the whole Marina Bay area is a flat blank canvas, compared to HK's skyscrapers which are restrained to a narrow linear stretch on the north side of Hong Kong Island. One other thing that's unique about Sg's skyline is that it offers slightly different perspectives depending on where you place yourself (Marina Centre vs Helix Bridge vs Merlion and vs. Future Marina East developments), so you may not recognise it instantly if you see a postcard of, say, a cluster of Marina Square/Suntec City buildings.

I think Sg planners in general are not going for mass (like US cities - NY, Tokyo) or architectural loudness (HK, Shanghai), but a more subdued skyline with classic shapes and selective lighting effects here and there. :cheers:

... and the four structures around the Bay can be informally designated as our "Uniquely Singapore" icons which somewhat portray our way of life or what we stand for - the arty-farty Durian (Esplanade), the ever turning hamster wheel (Sg Flyer), the ancestral offering to 3 jossticks (ArtScience Museum and IR) and two half cooked "hum" (Marina South Park Conservatories) :lol:

Well, yes and no.
What's especially recognizable about Singapore skyline, I would say, is precisely the massing with the 280m peak at Raffles Place. Most angles with a sufficient distance will give you that. Having a 300m+ tower sticking out in the bay will break this massing. It would be possible to extend it to the reclaimed land, but that would be better done by having a new 350-400m cluster between Marina Bay MRT and Shenton Way.

Also, this tower at the promontory will block the perspective formed by the park between the Business Financial Center and the Sail. That's a bit of a waste imo.

I am kind of surprised that many people haven't noticed or emphasized on it yet. But don't you agree that the most unique thing going for the Singapore skyline is that it is probably the world's first CURVED skyline from Raffles Place to Sands?

The world is bored with a straight skyline massing like New York, HK, Chicago, Shanghai, Dubai, Sydney, Toronto and the list goes on. Singapore offers something different by curving the skyline around a water source, and this is our game right here.

^^ That's the reason why they have to have another 300m plus peak at where the Central Promontory is because the 280m triple peaks now find themselves at the extreme edge of the skyline.

What I really hate about Singapore's skyline is that you need to be in the middle of it, within the Marina Bay promenade to appreciate it, and when you're there, you can't see it in the entirety. From the Barrage, it's clear how weak the skyline is, and the plateau of skyscrapers is really apparent.

^^

LOL you make it sound like some elusive mystique :D

^^ That's the reason why they have to have another 300m plus peak at where the Central Promontory is because the 280m triple peaks now find themselves at the extreme edge of the skyline.

What I really hate about Singapore's skyline is that you need to be in the middle of it, within the Marina Bay promenade to appreciate it, and when you're there, you can't see it in the entirety. From the Barrage, it's clear how weak the skyline is, and the plateau of skyscrapers is really apparent.

:ohno:Central Prom ... darned infernal Central Prom :ohno:

:ohno:Central Prom ... darned infernal Central Prom :ohno:

Ha!
I thought you wouldn't like the 300m thingie either ^ ^

Ha!
I thought you wouldn't like the 300m thingie either ^ ^

"They shoot horses don't they ?" .... URA --> just put me out of my misery BEFORE you announce some darned 300 m CP "thangie" :ohno:

"They shoot horses don't they ?" .... URA --> just put me out of my misery BEFORE you announce some darned 300 m CP "thangie" :ohno:

wait, who's building a 300m thingie on the central promotory? isn't it zoned for a low rise dvp?

and i disagree about the one vantage point for Singapore skyline; there are at least 3 which are epic:

1. From Padang, the classic postcard image with emphasis on the trinity

2. From Esplanade promenade, which the future peak will be best visible from

3. From Chinatown, where you can see shophouses rise into Shenton Way into Stock Exchange into the 2 future 320m.

Compare this to HK? Where the only good views are from Kowloon, or the peak?

Worse, New York, which doesn't really have a prime vista or a 'waterfront'.

Singapore's skyline is really quite meticulously composed! Taking full advantage of waterfront views, old / new contextual juxtapositions and form making. Where you know at least the skyline that is recognisable today will not be lost by indiscriminate future development ala HK and NYC.

There isn't really a skyline-conscious institution on the level of URA that is protecting HK or NYC from the vagaries of developer profit taking. Look at what happened to the WTC project! or what almost happened to West Kowloon!

Who cares about the "different" vantage points? The idea of a skyline is to have at least one vantage point where people can look at it on a postcard and immediately recognize it.

Hong Kong and New York, and even the supposed "mess" of Dubai now have something that Singapore is trying it's best to achieve, an identity. Both HK and New York have skylines which are traditionally driven by profit-maximizing, ego driven developers and money and that comes up through their skylines. Their supposedly ugly supertalls become a symbol of their ambition to maintain their ambitions and power as "world cities". I feel the 2IFC makes a very powerful statement. New York on the other hand, it's new WTC development being very symbolic of the events post 9/11, surviving against all odds seems to be the new WTC's theme. Dubai's speaks of its daring ambitions. Even Tokyo's "skyline" which is really more at the ground-level rather than a skyline of skyscrapers has it's own identity.

We can no longer just sell "Singapore" brands anymore. We cannot be defined in a few brands like Singapore Airlines, Creative, SingTel, Tiger Beer, Marina Bay Sands... We need to sell Singapore for what it is.

It's not about how Singaporeans perceive it, it's not about creating a beautiful bonsais with cuboids covered in glass, it's about having a skyline that speaks to people about its own people, it's about how well Singapore can sell itself in a single picture.

How to have an image that can best represent Singapore in all its complexity, diversity and contradictions. That is a challenge. How can we tie all that in to the skyline or is that really hoping for too much. At the end of the day, the skyline no matter what needs to be aesthetically pleasing, not least for those that live with it on a daily basis. It then becomes an extension of one's own identity, and will also jive with whatever image needs to be portrayed externally.

In the book Raffles, story of Singapore, by Raymond Flower published in 1984, the closing chapter describes the scene as the author leaves for the airport, "accelerating over the great harbour bridge to give a last blazing glimpse of this tremendous city: a city whose full vibrant flavour no artist, no composer, no poet has yet managed to recapture.."

there are at least 3 which are epic:

1. From Padang, the classic postcard image with emphasis on the trinity

2. From Esplanade promenade, which the future peak will be best visible from

3. From Chinatown, where you can see shophouses rise into Shenton Way into Stock Exchange into the 2 future 320m.



This perspective, is to me, the more interesting one. One can actually tell the story of Singapore's start as a settlement here along the old shoreline of Telok Ayer with its shophouses, to the post-independence years with the development of Shenton Way, to the 21st century with the new downtown taking shape where used to be sea. Layers of history physically manifested side by side. And unlike the usual emphasis of Raffles landing by the Singapore River which only glorifies its colonial beginning - this view is really about the nameless individuals that started off here.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v427/rotpics03/ctownpano.jpg

The model showing how the future buildings coexist with the present skyline.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v427/rotpics03/citymodel1.jpg

This perspective, is to me, the more interesting one. One can actually tell the story of Singapore's start as a settlement here along the old shoreline of Telok Ayer with its shophouses, to the post-independence years with the development of Shenton Way, to the 21st century with the new downtown taking shape where used to be sea. Layers of history physically manifested side by side. And unlike the usual emphasis of Raffles landing by the Singapore River which only glorifies its colonial beginning - this view is really about the nameless individuals that started off here.



This is right. The immigrants who came to Singapore all way from their home countries, built their home here in Singapore. Founding of modern Singapore started on 29th January 1819, exactly 190 years! So much achievements were quietly gone past.

The Singapore skyline never cease changing. It is constantly changing. Its identity is constantly taking shape on its own. Things just fall in. It is really like a giant canvas. Urban planners of different generations have given the different skyline strokes in decades on the canvas - this has become its signature. Different signatures blend well.

The model showing how the future buildings coexist with the present skyline.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v427/rotpics03/citymodel1.jpg

Contrary to popular belief, Singapore's strongest skyline perspective comes from the Chinatown vantage point, which captures everything from OCBC to the Stock Exchange goal posts to Capital Tower to the soon-to-be completed Pinnacle at Duxton. The 2 320m towers is also best appreciated from this perspective, as well as the future developments like One Raffles Place tower 2 (which will be visible from Chinatown, but not from the bayfront), OFC (might be slightly blocked by RP), One Shenton, Asia Square towers, Lumiere, which all serve to strengthen our skyline.

The main selling point of this Chinatown perspective is that we can see the PERFECT gradual stepdown in height from the chinatown buildings to the future supertalls. The length of the skyline will also be very strong, try walking from George Street to Tanjong Pagar Mrt to Pinnacle@Duxton and you'll know what I mean. This is how you build a beautiful skyline.

^^ thats gonna be epic. Cant wait till its done, and hope the 2 320s will get built eventually..

Who cares about the "different" vantage points? The idea of a skyline is to have at least one vantage point where people can look at it on a postcard and immediately recognize it.

Hong Kong and New York, and even the supposed "mess" of Dubai now have something that Singapore is trying it's best to achieve, an identity. \We cannot be defined in a few brands like Singapore Airlines, Creative, SingTel, Tiger Beer, Marina Bay Sands... We need to sell Singapore for what it is.


I think what you mean by "an identity" in a skyline isn't what we should be persecuting our urban planners for. You're talking about the ethos of the cities you mentioned: Dubai is recklessly ambitious, Hong Kong is rich and New York is flashy, these are as much myths about the people as they are about the skylines.

As far as a skyline goes in conjuring a city's image, the least you can credit Singapore for is efficiency and care in the way the skyline is pruned and shaped, and i say URA is doing a very good job, representing the very ethos of our culture.

Considering ourselves second best to anyone is the whole problem with our culture, and this affects the way we sell our image. Parisians don't have much of a skyline, but they don't give a piss about skyscraper rankings, and you're likely to agree with them that Paris is in its own league. Singapore is in its own league as well! We are absolutely not what Hong Kong or Dubai or New York are, overcrowded, flashy and messy.

wait, who's building a 300m thingie on the central promotory? isn't it zoned for a low rise dvp?

Oops, maybe I confused the two plots, sorry ^ ^

I think the URA has overdone it in terms of pruning and efficiency.

I'm sorry but really, like the nation, people seem to be at odds about things. People feel that what URA is doing is great but in its efforts to prune, architecture has to be moderated and the resultant effect is bland-looking buildings we are seeing. But on another thread, people feel buildings need to be funky, and not realizing that'll entail the disruption of URA's efforts.

I feel it is rather hypocritical to aim for the skies, but when people know we can't make it, then we dismiss the comparisons and rankings as being insignificant. But when we achieve critical acclaim, we shout it out like it was the only thing we live for.

I think the URA has overdone it in terms of pruning and efficiency.

I'm sorry but really, like the nation, people seem to be at odds about things. People feel that what URA is doing is great but in its efforts to prune, architecture has to be moderated and the resultant effect is bland-looking buildings we are seeing. But on another thread, people feel buildings need to be funky, and not realizing that'll entail the disruption of URA's efforts.

I feel it is rather hypocritical to aim for the skies, but when people know we can't make it, then we dismiss the comparisons and rankings as being insignificant. But when we achieve critical acclaim, we shout it out like it was the only thing we live for.

Why bother about the opinions of the people? Their opinions are not going to change anything to the skyline.

The ones who can change the skyline are engineers, contractors, developers, architects and URA planners. Those who complain about blanding looking ones would not know that it would be hard to clean the buildings more efficiently. For Concourse building and National Library building at Bugis, these buildings pose challenges to cleaning contractors and require cleaning specialists to use ropes and belts. These specialists are the ones who are familiar with hills/mountain climbing techniques, would be able to help to clean. Such specialists would cost alot of money and time consuming compared to conventional ways of cleaning.

One must understand the role of parties. URA's role is to control and maximize usage of land. It dictates the height of the buildings to carefully shape the skyline from all angles. It has done good job since 1974. URA has further flexed its muscle in 1990s after it took in Planning department and Research & Statistic Unit from the Ministry of National Development in 1989, explaining vast differences of skylines in 1980s and 1990s. 1991 saw the review of 1971 Concept Plan and implementation of 1991 Concept Plan to build up the identity. The rest is history.

From URA website:
Thus, the challenge for urban planning in the 1990s was a more qualitative one as Singapore strove to be the first developed city on the equatorial belt, with its own identity distinct from cities in the west.

To achieve this, a major review of the 1971 Concept Plan was undertaken and completed in 1991. It stressed quality, identity and variety when planning for a population of 4 million.

End of the day, it is the architect who decides how the building should look. Engineers and contractors would find ways to build such buildings in efficient way. The developers are the ones who have the intentions to develop the buildings according to the rules set by URA on the plots of land. All these parties are responsible for shaping our Singapore skyline of today and tomorrow.

http://www.straitscafe.com/postcards/padang1960s.jpg
1960 Singapore

http://www.zeesleepvaart.com/Singapore1970.jpg
Early 1970 Singapore

http://202.172.178.226/DJVUServer/getImage.jsp?file=/picas_data/tn_pcd/19980007530-8263-3201-0183/img0064.jpg
Late 1970 Singapore

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v427/rotpics03/baypano1002.jpg
2007 Singapore photo posted by RafflesCity in other forum

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v427/rotpics03/maypano.jpg
2009 Singapore

Veru has to thank Baby again.....this evening I walked into the construction fence up area along the promenade.....was told :

1) building a garden at central promontary
2) the land between Sand IR and MBR (nearer to MBR) will be building a visitor centre of 4 storey...completing by Jun 2010.

"They shoot horses don't they ?" .... URA --> just put me out of my misery BEFORE you announce some darned 300 m CP "thangie" :ohno:

In a span of 30 years. Lots has been change.

I thought the visitor centre is something temporarily....when space is constraint in future....when everything is fully developed....i guess they just need to rent a shop lot in the MBS. Why wasting money now?

After 5 years, that land between Sand and MBR can be sold at double or triple current price...

I thought the visitor centre is something temporarily....when space is constraint in future....when everything is fully developed....i guess they just need to rent a shop lot in the MBS. Why wasting money now?

I thought the visitor centre is something temporarily....when space is constraint in future....when everything is fully developed....i guess they just need to rent a shop lot in the MBS. Why wasting money now?

Definitely temporary... This is to draw tourists... ha.

Maybe a short iconic building... something round with an open roof for viewing and bars or a cafe. somthing like the waterboat house at the old merlion.

I thought the visitor centre is something temporarily....when space is constraint in future....when everything is fully developed....i guess they just need to rent a shop lot in the MBS. Why wasting money now?

Got visitor centre meh?

Central promo should NOT be another clubbing / f&b destination cos there's already some along Collyer Quay. Best to be a modern "cutting edge" cultural venue, like Guggenhiem Museum. Design wise, it must be the new Singapore landmark, public / social friendly. Wide plazas surrounding it, with underground links to all the surrounding buildings.

The buildings along the Central Linear should have a retail "five foot way" on the first floor fronting the edges of the park. Park should be integrated with the urban fabric of the immediate areas surounding the park. Best is not to have any vehicular roads around it, instead have predestrian malls. If not the park would be cut off and people would be less willing to visit it. But guess it's too late to implemend it now that the roads had been laid down.

June 11, 2009

New footbridge for Marina Bay

By Tessa Wong

PEDESTRIANS will have more space on a new, broader bridge to be built between the Esplanade and Merlion Park.
To cost an estimated $20 million, the structure will curve over a 220m distance through Marina Bay and complement the existing eight-lane Esplanade Bridge used by vehicles.

The Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA), in documents released this week, could not say when the bridge will be completed. It is now sourcing for consultants for the project.

The 6-m-wide bridge is being built mainly to improve the pedestrian's trek between the Esplanade and Merlion Park.

The Esplanade Bridge's 2-m-wide walkway was built before the two tourist landmarks were redeveloped and thus not designed to take large numbers of people, said the URA.

During the National Day Parade and New Year's Eve, for example, hundreds of people are known to jostle there for a good view of the fireworks that are a fixture on the programmes of these two events.

Bottlenecks also occur on on either end of the walkway on the staircases, which were designed as emergency escape routes, not as part of a pedestrian route.

And when marathons are held in the downtown area, the entire Esplanade bridge has sometimes needed to be closed off to traffic. The new bridge, at thrice the width of the walkway, will thus accommodate such sporting events.

When completed, the curved bridge will become part of a smooth 3.5km pedestrian route around Marina Bay linking its various attractions.

On the other side of the bay, another pedestrian bridge, one shaped like a double helix, is taking shape next to one being built for vehicles.

The Straits Times

^^

Saw the schematic diagram in the Straits Times. I'm concerned if this will clash with the aesthetics of the existing Esplanade Bridge:

http://www.straitstimes.com/STI/STIMEDIA/pdf/20090611/NewBridge12.pdf

i like this idea instead of walking up esplanade bridge. it must be leveled to the promenade of one fullerton. better be iconic again...to counter the double helix bridge opposite. but yet again.....view from this bridge will not be fantastic as from the helix bridge.

The much shorter helix bridge took almost 3 years to do..........this one longer, how messy the construction will bring to Merlion and Esplanade for 4 years ? Wish they drop it !!! Save money for the poor.

Couldn't they just extend the pedestrian path outwards instead? I don't like this narrowing of the bay area.

12 Jun 09

http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking%2BNews/Singapore/Story/STIStory_389417.html

http://www.straitstimes.com/STI/STIMEDIA/image/20090612/ndpwall.jpg

http://www.straitstimes.com/STI/STIMEDIA/image/20090612/ndpwall1.jpg

A UNIQUE giant cylindrical wall will go up next month, floating on the water between the Esplanade and Merlion Park.

For the month of August, it will show real-time video dedications related to National Day that Singaporeans send in via multimedia phone messages or the Internet, as well as show a live broadcast of the National Day Parade.

The 8m-tall digital video wall, which is 10m in diameter, will be connected to land via submarine cabling.

The outdoor wall, which cost 'a few million' to build, is the brainchild of PGK Media, a Singapore company that will be showcasing it at next week's BroadcastAsia tradeshow here.

In future, smaller versions of the digital canvas will be put in places like shopping centres, hosting interactive advertisements. Shoppers can wave their hands in front of it to access maps of the mall, view scenes from cameras placed inside stores, or even ask shop assistants what the latest promotions are, PGK's chief executive Giulio Dorrucci said.

Couldn't they just extend the pedestrian path outwards instead? I don't like this narrowing of the bay area.

How much more narrowing is it? It approves accessibility between two popular locales and if anything to go by, it will look good. I approve.

Couldn't they just extend the pedestrian path outwards instead? I don't like this narrowing of the bay area.

Yup agreed. The bay getting more and more crowded. Also save cost.

Add outward extension from Esplanade Bridge, maybe add a few pods as viewing areas, extending out to the sea. Use the existing foundations of the bridge as support, elegant curving steel structure.

Unless their plan is to make the entire waterfront connected. Then can make a dramatic pedestrian bridge, something like a Calatrava. But Esplanade Bridge would be too big visually for such a small bridge.

Can try a suspension bridge.

Admittedly the walk from Merlion Park to Esplanade Theatres has been cumbersome, especially for older folk and those using prams or wheelchairs. They would have to navigate the narrow steps at the Esplanade Bridge or do a detour. During festive occasions those stairs become bottlenecks.

Visitors visting Merlion Park / One Fullerton would naturally gravitate towards the Esplanade area so I can see how this proposal tries to ease pedestrian comfort. The design however is very important as this new bridge will be extremely highly photographed with the skyline backdrop, possibly more so than the double-helix bridge:

A pic from flickr:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3182/2978574303_7e796c4eef_b.jpg

why they dun plan it one shot. now patch here and there. very messy

We may have the best organized & well planned downtown but others are catching up.....

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=791630

Above link let all Singaporean reads what happened in our region.

Honestly, some of the projects in the thread above have been in the pipeline for a decade and few of them are happening at all. None above 350m. Supertall towers just don't make sense in the context of developing economies, I guess.

I don't think there is any doubt that in the not-so-distant future, cities like Jakarta, KL, Bangkok, Ho Chi Minh and Manila will grow their skylines and supertalls will begin to pop up. Already, KL and Bangkok have many buildings higher than our tallest. These cities have the luxury of having their skies above not affected by aviation restrictions because approach patterns are far from their downtowns.

Even so, a supertall alone doesn't maketh a skyline. I think Singapore, even with a 300m (if that ever happens) or just a trinity of 280m peaks, can bring something to ASEAN and Asia by extension. We may not have the vibrancy of Shanghai or Hong Kong but we're pretty close.

One supertall can make all the difference... look at Taipei and KL...

Somehow i just don't buy the air restriction nonsense that has deprived our city the icons it needs to remain interesting. The philosophy that we don't need stunning architecture is scrapping the limits of delusion. We are one of the biggest financial centers in the world and we don't have a skyline that reflects that? Our most significant skyscrapers are a handful of 80s, 90s Japanese towers?

One supertall can make all the difference... look at Taipei and KL...

Somehow i just don't buy the air restriction nonsense that has deprived our city the icons it needs to remain interesting. The philosophy that we don't need stunning architecture is scrapping the limits of delusion. We are one of the biggest financial centers in the world and we don't have a skyline that reflects that? Our most significant skyscrapers are a handful of 80s, 90s Japanese towers?

Taipei and KL need landmarks and icons of the countries. Every city has weaknesses and strengths.

Singapore has nice skyline that is constantly changing and growing. We are small nation. There is no big market in Singapore to flood the needs of skyscrapers. There is no actual definition of skyline for financial centres. Do we really need many skyscrapers or supertall skyscrapers to become financial centres?

To become financial centres, the city must have good conductive environment that allow financial transactions to take place with minimum legal restrictions and ease of doing taxation on corporates. This would draw many international financial companies to base their offices in the city.

Global Financial Centres Index - (GFCI) March 2009 (http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/8D37DAE2-5937-4FC5-A004-C2FC4BED7742/0/BC_RS_GFCI5.pdf)

This shows that the most of cities that made to top 10 of the GFCI do not have supertall skyscrapers! This will answer your question whether we need such skyline to reflect this.

Taipei and Kuala Lumpur have been ranked 41st and 45th respectively. Shanghai (at rank of 35th) needs many skyscrapers to cater to its huge population and growing bases of corporates. New York (at rank of 2nd) is home to many skyscrapers which house many great international and domestic companies to cater to its domestic market and international market.

New York has numerous skyscrapers but London, lacking of many skyscrapers managed to stay at rank of 1. Skyscrapers do not actually reflect the status of financial centres. These skyscrapers are in form of icons, landmarks and prides of the cities. Even Zurich made to 5th.

don't u think its very sad that we have every reason to go sky high, and the technology and the capacity, but we prefer to eschew the skyscraper race because we are afraid of thinking big like Dubai, Shanghai, HK and even KL?

Its not like we have something else undeniable that is like Paris' or Rome's urban planning, London's gothic revival, or New York's art deco legacy; not having any of these things leaves us on the sidenotes of history.

Singapore was the birthplace of the skyscraper in Asia, how can i forget that!

don't u think its very sad that we have every reason to go sky high, and the technology and the capacity, but we prefer to eschew the skyscraper race because we are afraid of thinking big like Dubai, Shanghai, HK and even KL?

Its not like we have something else undeniable that is like Paris' or Rome's urban planning, London's gothic revival, or New York's art deco legacy; not having any of these things leaves us on the sidenotes of history.

Singapore was the birthplace of the skyscraper in Asia, how can i forget that!

Skyscrapers are not the only items that make city BIG, or even think BIG.

Massive land reclamation off Changi, Tuas, Marina South and Marina Bay are all possible due to many years of planning.

Because of far sighted planning, we are able to build integrated resorts in short time and build up many heavy industries and expand towns. We also have Newater, desalination plants, Changi Water reclamation plant - all located at Changi. Newater is the most essential to Singapore. Changi Airport and PSA ports keep on pushing the standards over years. Already running MRT lines including 2 fully automatic lines - NEL and CCL.

The entire world is looking at Singapore, not because of its skyscrapers. They are still amazed at how we manage to come up with many solutions that many cities with taller skyscrapers fail to resolve the traffic congestion, water shortage and urban renewal as well as pollution.

We have massive advantage over other cities - Singapore owns almost most of lands - state land. So we are able to create realities out of dreams almost immediately.

Compare to Shanghai and Kuala Lumpur - they may have taller skyscrapers. They are bogged down with traffic congestion and pollution. Citizens have been putting up with all craps in their cities.

Singapore is not exactly birth of skyscrapers but it has timeless success of urbanisation - all thanks to brilliant people behind the urbanisation. It is feat that Singapore pulled off without natural resources to fall back. The only resource is people.

Don't judge the skyscrapers alone, but judge the changing skylines throughout the years. I rather have sustainable city than showcase city!

Well said!!

i guess i'm just sick of seeing all these polls about skylines and beautiful cities that don't mention Singapore anymore.

When will Singapore get her IMPei Bank of China? Our only internationally noteworthy architecture was from the 70s!!!

Well, nothing much to add besides what JediAlf already said. Singapore's scarcity of land is pretty much a legend. Singapore's a small country, true, however it is a rather large city. Hong Kong and New York have good reasons to build skyscrapers. Perhaps Singapore will get there in the distant future.
Singapore does have some architectural landmarks, just not monumental ones. Those will probably come given enough time. This is still one of the world's youngest nations after all :-)

the coming lotus shape art & science museum of sands, i bet it will be a monumental landmark in every postcard.

the upcoming lotus shape art & science museum of sands, i bet it will be a monumental landmark in every postcard.

i guess i'm just sick of seeing all these polls about skylines and beautiful cities that don't mention Singapore anymore.

Relax, my fellow Singaporean. I humbly suggest you take a good morning walk around Marina Bay whenever you are free, and have a good look at all the construction that is going on. You should also probably visit the URA Gallery, they have a beautiful model of the new downtown, which promises higher and taller buildings.

When will Singapore get her IMPei Bank of China? Our only internationally noteworthy architecture was from the 70s!!!

Hong Kong may have Bank of China, but we have the Sail, both of which are definitely iconic. And Maybank's lighting scheme is no less beautiful than Bank of China's. The iconic Sands, and the circular Flyer is something that Hong Kong does not have. Do take note of the upcoming One Raffles Place Tower 2, which is a flashy beacon in its own right. The rising 245m OFC will help strengthen the skyline. The MBFC towers will also have their own unique roof structures and night lighting schemes. Have you seen Straits Trading and how its beautiful roof structure blends together with the skyline? And don't forget about the Asia Square towers and One Shenton. By now I hope you realize that most of these buildings are above 200m in height, which supports the general notion that buildings in Singapore will eventually go taller and taller. We are moving and will continue to move forward as a country, for our success story is something all Singaporeans should be proud of.

i guess i'm just sick of seeing all these polls about skylines and beautiful cities that don't mention Singapore anymore.

When will Singapore get her IMPei Bank of China? Our only internationally noteworthy architecture was from the 70s!!!

Don't let polls overwhelm you. Ignore them. Polls are just opinions of people. This won't alter anything. Historians would still write and record the achievements of Singapore for thousands of years to come.

Singapore is small - red dot on world map. Naturally not many people know of Singapore. When Marina Bay Sands opens for business, this will form the new chapter of our country's progress. Having an international brand of Sands would carry Singapore to new height.

What Singapore needs is the maximum marketing of Singapore brand to the world.

I'd like to see a new tallest as well, but I think Singapore already has an impressive skyline. As some have already mentioned, compare her skyline with the European capitals.

Sometimes Singaporeans just amaze me at what hypocrites they can be. When they know they aren't the best, they'd do their best to ignore polls and surveys, dismiss them as insignificant and all. But when they come out tops, Singaporeans shout out and proud of their achievements in those same polls and surveys.

A good example is those people in SQTalk forums, Singapore Airlines won Skytrax airline of the year in 2008 and they were all happy and expressing their joy but when it reverted back to Cathay Pacific, they blasted Skytrax...

Just so typical.

Just so typical.

It's actually the same everywhere in the world, not only in Singapore... This is why flattery is such a powerful tool of power, people don't like to be told they are not the best or unique.

Relax, my fellow Singaporean.

okayyyyyyy

I humbly suggest you take a good morning walk around Marina Bay whenever you are free, and have a good look at all the construction that is going on.

LOL. There's no point just walking around Singapore and then getting impressed. I took walks around Hong Kong (last month) and Taipei (last week) before making said comments about my homebase. Construction in Singapore is impressive, but we know we're not getting groundbreaking architecture.

Hong Kong may have Bank of China, but we have the Sail, both of which are definitely iconic. And Maybank's lighting scheme is no less beautiful than Bank of China's.

How can BOC and the Sail, or BOC and Maybank even 相提并论? You wouldn't find any respectable journal attempting the same. There are icons, and then there are real icons that have made their mark in history. What buildings in Singapore can you confidently claim is in the same league and calibre as the following:

Hong Kong: Bank of China (I M Pei), HSBC (Foster)
Shanghai: Jinmao Tower (SOM)
Taipei: Taipei 101 (CY Lee)
KL: Petronas Tower (Cesar Pelli)
Sydney: Sydney Opera House (Utzon) [please do not say Esplanade n insult ourselves]

Lest the above be construed as a mere litany of world's tallest buildings, can i say that i believe height did not make these buildings, but real design prowess, something that is the circumstance of innovation, milieu and gumption, not merely the market forces of GFA and rentals that still dictate Singaporean developments.

totally concurred with you.

It has never been easy to reach and attain the iconic term, not even the architect himself rendering the project in the drawing stage.

We had missed a couple of chance of really world class architecture submission during the IR competitions.

My take for this architectural break through is perhaps, our up and coming residential project situated at Keppel Bay, called Reflections.

Hong Kong: Bank of China (I M Pei), HSBC (Foster)
Shanghai: Jinmao Tower (SOM)
Taipei: Taipei 101 (CY Lee)
KL: Petronas Tower (Cesar Pelli)
Sydney: Sydney Opera House (Utzon) [please do not say Esplanade n insult ourselves]


I have to agree that the Sydney Opera House is a historical landmark, but the rest do not deserve such stature. Apart from HSBC, your list seems like a mere recital of the world's tallest buildings in the past 10-20 years. Let's put it this way, had Jinmao tower, Taipei 101 and the Petronas been constructed at Maybank's height of 175m, they certainly would not enjoy their current fame. All this boils down to marketability, with the names and images of the tallest skyscrapers appearing repetitively in front of a person's eyes through pamphlets and rankings of the world's tallest.

We have the landmarks in the form of the Singapore river, the Merlion, and a beautifully shaped skyline around the bay. A historical landmark is more than just eye candy, it must visually convey the history and lives of the people. The Merlion does just that. Its "fish-like" structure depicts the founding of Singapore as a small fishing village. The sprouting of water through the Merlion's mouth conveys the tough but flowing lives of our forefathers along the Singapore river, and more importantly emphasizes Singapore as a key port in Asia. It is just like how the Statue of Liberty embodies freedom in America, and how the Golden Gate Bridge portrays the California Gold Rush. Our landmarks are here to stay, we just need to market our landmarks to a wider audience through the platforms of F1 and the Sands.

But I also agree with your view of having a supertall, as it helps improve ease of marketability. I seriously hope that the 2 future 320m-350m supertalls will materialize.

remember our Asia Insurance Bldg, its height vantage merely gave it instant fame and not its architecture might, so the instant fame cannot last forever. only qualify as Landmark status temporary.

So, does the fate of Petronas, Jinmao tower & Taipei 101.......

I think Shanghai's Jinmao tower is an exception. Despite never being the world's tallest at any point, in my opinion, it is destined for historical symbolism. The only reason why Shanghai's skyline will matter is symbolic; the representation of China's accent to being an economic superpower, being seen as the future economic counterweight to New York city, with Jinmao being Shanghai's Empire State (the architect said it themselves), with Shanghai Tower the 1WTC of Shanghai.

Singapore's downtown, for vantage point reasons, needs the 2 supertalls that URA has in their models because once fully built up, the Raffles Place skyline will be a weak representation of the Marina Bay downtown, and really, the whole place would be a bland plateau, like Manhattan without the upcoming WTC developments, as well as without the Empire State.

If Singapore can't go for height, it should go for looks, and I mean architecture, like Beijing and Paris. Our Marina Centre has a nice mix of architecture but sadly, it hasn't been marketed that much. Esplanade is wasted potential because its original design was landmark worthy.

We need not pay big architectural names to design boring cuboids like One Raffles Quay or MBFC. We need them to give us something that is icon-worthy.

Historical Landmarks exist because people hear about them, want to visit them, do so, take photos, write stories about them, tell other people about them and come back to see them again.

e.g. Marina Bay and IR very soon. :cheers:

Singapore is doing OK.

Re: Shanghai, the Oriental Pearl Tower ruins it for me. It already looks dated. Singapore's tallest troika, on the other hand, has stood the test of time.

Any new additional of building is already part of progressing skyline and Singapore history regardless of types of architectures or status of architects.

To become a historical landmark of the city, it has to withstand throughout the times. Just like Empire State Building and Chrysler Building in New York. Chrysler Building has became one of great skyscrapers in New York and is heavily featured in cover of architectural books and magazines. Empire State building is frequently used as backdrops or main plot in the movies.

Now there are scores of new skyscrapers. They would have to demonstrate why they are great and contribute to the skyline.

Polls and surveys are remained as opinions of people. These are often not very accurate because these do not cover the wide spectrum of the studies and even the entire population. These can lead to bias.

Will people flock to Dubai to see the tallest modern skyscrapers or Kuala Lumpur's Petronas towers? Would it better to see Great Wall of China or Egypt's Pyramids - the era in which modern machines do not exist?

What makes Empire State Building so great? It is not really just about its height. But it is due to its massive size and numerous floors as well as the bravery of construction workers. These workers help to erect the building without safety belts and modern helmets. This make this building memorable and magnificent.

http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/empire-state-building-1.jpg

Empire State building and Chrysler Building (http://seeker401.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/empire-state-building-007.jpg)

Surrounding buildings of all sizes help to make these great skyscrapers standing out...

According to David Childs, the project architect of the new 1 World Trade Center (formerly Freedom Tower),

"Freedom Tower will be a symbol of the entire project, as well as marking the memorial, and it occupies a very important piece of New York City property: the sky.

We really wanted our design to be grounded in something that was very real, not just in sculptural sketches. We explored the infrastructural challenges because the proper solution would have to be compelling, not just beautiful. The design does have great sculptural implications, and we fully understand the iconic importance of the tower, but it also has to be a highly efficient building. The discourse about Freedom Tower has often been limited to the symbolic, formal and aesthetic aspects but we recognize that if this building doesn't function well, if people don't want to work and visit there, then we will have failed as architects."

According to David Childs, the project architect of the new 1 World Trade Center (formerly Freedom Tower),

"Freedom Tower will be a symbol of the entire project, as well as marking the memorial, and it occupies a very important piece of New York City property: the sky.

We really wanted our design to be grounded in something that was very real, not just in sculptural sketches. We explored the infrastructural challenges because the proper solution would have to be compelling, not just beautiful. The design does have great sculptural implications, and we fully understand the iconic importance of the tower, but it also has to be a highly efficient building. The discourse about Freedom Tower has often been limited to the symbolic, formal and aesthetic aspects but we recognize that if this building doesn't function well, if people don't want to work and visit there, then we will have failed as architects."

Freedom Tower will stand as a historical indictment of developer incompetence, conceit and chicanery. Sorry i'm being harsh, but Larry Silverstein is one of the more despised creatures in New York's real estate industry right now, for rendering the whole design competition pointless and then slicing up the whole development into piecemeal brand name fodder, and worst of all, putting up an absolutely clueless design that is neither breath taking nor inspired by the original in any way, or by the outstanding top 5 designs that came out of the competition. There was apparently an ego feud between Silverstein and Libeskind that resulted in the developer cutting the architect out.

Any building that stands through time is bound to be historical, but they can still suck historically...

I think Shanghai's Jinmao tower is an exception. Despite never being the world's tallest at any point, in my opinion, it is destined for historical symbolism. The only reason why Shanghai's skyline will matter is symbolic; the representation of China's accent to being an economic superpower, being seen as the future economic counterweight to New York city, with Jinmao being Shanghai's Empire State (the architect said it themselves), with Shanghai Tower the 1WTC of Shanghai.

Singapore's downtown, for vantage point reasons, needs the 2 supertalls that URA has in their models because once fully built up, the Raffles Place skyline will be a weak representation of the Marina Bay downtown, and really, the whole place would be a bland plateau, like Manhattan without the upcoming WTC developments, as well as without the Empire State.

If Singapore can't go for height, it should go for looks, and I mean architecture, like Beijing and Paris. Our Marina Centre has a nice mix of architecture but sadly, it hasn't been marketed that much. Esplanade is wasted potential because its original design was landmark worthy.

We need not pay big architectural names to design boring cuboids like One Raffles Quay or MBFC. We need them to give us something that is icon-worthy.

Absolutely.

The Jinmao pulled all the right punches: acknowledgement of a Chinese accent, an innovative and stylish enough abstraction of the pagoda motif, high tech prowess, extraordinary spaces and what a silhouette on the skyline. It defines Shanghai as much as the kitschy Pearl (as tacky that might be, but a grand way of being tacky don't you think?)

This is real design; not the bloated-for-psf Sail by Marina Bay, blocks for ORQ, MBFC... which can also exist anywhere else in the world.

We need heroes like the Concourse building again! The Concourse is such a monument to the whole era of heroic mega structure and metabolist, tropical architecture of the 70s/80s.

The NDT has so much potential, and the planners have done so much already, now we need the architecture!

Whats the original design of Esplanade by the way, is it going to be another, shit what a wasted opportunity?

Freedom Tower will stand as a historical indictment of developer incompetence, conceit and chicanery. Sorry i'm being harsh, but Larry Silverstein is one of the more despised creatures in New York's real estate industry right now, for rendering the whole design competition pointless and then slicing up the whole development into piecemeal brand name fodder, and worst of all, putting up an absolutely clueless design that is neither breath taking nor inspired by the original in any way, or by the outstanding top 5 designs that came out of the competition. There was apparently an ego feud between Silverstein and Libeskind that resulted in the developer cutting the architect out.

Any building that stands through time is bound to be historical, but they can still suck historically...

This is internal conflict which Americans would have to live with this. No need to drag this in. The bottomline is the developers and architects must work together and build the skyscraper that is beautiful and practical as well. Architects would have to live with criticism compared to artists.

How about Effiel Tower? It met scores of criticism from French people in early developments. However, it has became icon of France eventually.

This is internal conflict which Americans would have to live with this. No need to drag this in. The bottomline is the developers and architects must work together and build the skyscraper that is beautiful and practical as well. Architects would have to live with criticism compared to artists.

How about Effiel Tower? It met scores of criticism from French people in early developments. However, it has became icon of France eventually.

agree... only time can tell whether something will eventually become an icon. nothing is permanently an icon; buildings can fade away after time and old understated buildings can become new icons for cities.

What Singapore really needs is time. We have quite a few potential landmarks here already and much more coming up. But its all new and it takes years of tourist arrivals, international media events (F1 for instance, heard of Redbull Race being mulled) and movie productions.

How many of us would know LA's skyline and cityscape so well without Hollywood blockbusters? Or SF, Las Vegas or even New York? We are bombarded with these sights since early childhood and thats what makes them legendary in our perception. A well discussed example, HK, beside its local-orientated movie productions has been featured in many Hollywood movies, like Rush Hours or Dark Knight. I am not a media expert and can't say why Hollywood never choses Singapore, but its certainly what STB should pursue next.

How about Effiel Tower? It met scores of criticism from French people in early developments. However, it has became icon of France eventually.

The safest bet on whether a building becomes a powerful icon is to ask, "Where is the vision?" The Eiffel Tower was so clear about its vision that it had to become an icon. This is exactly whats missing in many contemporary developments. The clearest way to judge Singapore developments is to ask what their architectural visions are. It can be a controversial vision but it has to be a strong, identifiable one.

Eiffel Tower was a vision of industrialisation, pure structure and prefabrication that changed cities during the 1930s and 1920s.

Empire State Building and Chrysler were visions of the art deco movement, marrying machine elements into building design.

Jinmao is a vision of the Oriental vernacular. This was a powerful movement in its own right, also resulting in Taipei 101.

Petronas is a vision of modern Islamicism.

What is the vision of buildings in Singapore? Why is the most popular landmark in Singapore still the Merlion, a monumental statement of kitsch? Thats because it might be a trashy vision, but its a very clear vision: fish + lion = sea port lion city.

Our buildings on the other hand... don't say much beyond being examples of the International Style, or high tech, or environmentally friendly (dubiously).

Which amongst our controversial icons will eventually be an Eiffel Tower icon? Are any even as visionary?

A well discussed example, HK, beside its local-orientated movie productions has been featured in many Hollywood movies, like Rush Hours or Dark Knight. I am not a media expert and can't say why Hollywood never choses Singapore, but its certainly what STB should pursue next.

thats easy, Hong Kong is the new skyscraper city of the world, its the nearest vision of the future hollywood can get. It has icons / buildings recognised the world over.

Singapore certainly has that potential, but right now it still says, garden city, without famous architecture, celebrities, or icons. who want to film?

the casino might be the herald of a stronger Singaporean vision though. bring in the glitz and glamour!

Singapore certainly has that potential, but right now it still says, garden city, without famous architecture, celebrities, or icons. who want to film?

Thats seems a egg/chicken situation to me. Of course, not considering cases like Empire State or Eiffel Tower, but well, I'd be very surprised if anyone in the theater could name IFC or Bank of China Tower for a movie set in HK or Oriental Pearl and Jin Mao Tower for Transformers 2, yet majority do recognize them. It was in the movies they were put on the display first.

Singapore has any kind of venue for any genre of a movie. But local industry is grossly underfinanced to make a globally marketed movie and indeed, HK is simply more dramatic for a Hollywood to pick. But the vicious circle must be broken someday. I actually heard STB is already offering $10m grants to filmmakers who opt to film here.

Thats seems a egg/chicken situation to me. Of course, not considering cases like Empire State or Eiffel Tower, but well, I'd be very surprised if anyone in the theater could name IFC or Bank of China Tower for a movie set in HK or Oriental Pearl and Jin Mao Tower for Transformers 2, yet majority do recognize them. It was in the movies they were put on the display first.

Singapore has any kind of venue for any genre of a movie. But local industry is grossly underfinanced to make a globally marketed movie and indeed, HK is simply more dramatic for a Hollywood to pick. But the vicious circle must be broken someday. I actually heard STB is already offering $10m grants to filmmakers who opt to film here.

ya, but actually mda is making waves, its really splurging on film grants, remember the billboards at Cannes film fest saying "I made it in Singapore" featuring wannabe film makers? all sponsored by govt. I was studying in america last year, and my film maker friend was telling me that hollywood directors really want to get involved with MDA because its throwing money at the industry like crazy. Unfortunately its not guaranteed that hollywood wants to base anything in Singapore, because, like the chicken and egg story, Singapore as a setting has to work for any storyline first.

HK and Shanghai are natural choices for blockbusters (like Transformers) because it makes sense that they represent the East. Singapore? Everyone only remembers it for chewing gum fine and michael fay. Our concept isn't clear. Its Asian but its not asian enough.

And our film makers also need time to mature la. There's really a lot of financing now i hear. So much that most of it goes to Hong Kong and Hollywood productions anyway. Many Raintree films are really 99% Hong Kong films!

Well, we are going to have the most organized/clustered skyline in the next few decades, as can be seen from some of my older pics. I guess that is something to look forward to in the midst of all the claims that Singapore does not enjoy the same skyline status as New York, Shanghai and Hong Kong.


The desire to go taller is clear. Future "trinity" at tanjong pagar?
http://i655.photobucket.com/albums/uu276/wonuraimo/MarinaBay001.jpg


The desire to go taller is even clearer in this pic.
http://i655.photobucket.com/albums/uu276/wonuraimo/MarinaBay026.jpg


Which of these will be our "new face" of Singapore?
http://i655.photobucket.com/albums/uu276/wonuraimo/MarinaBay005.jpg


How will this skyline compare with Hong Kong, Shanghai and New York?
http://i655.photobucket.com/albums/uu276/wonuraimo/MarinaBay003.jpg


I would also like to point out that we have 2 separate skylines, soon to be 3.
http://i655.photobucket.com/albums/uu276/wonuraimo/MarinaBay097.jpg


Future skyline at Jurong?
http://i655.photobucket.com/albums/uu276/wonuraimo/MarinaBay013.jpg


Future Orchard skyline?
http://i655.photobucket.com/albums/uu276/wonuraimo/MarinaBay015.jpg


Gardens by the Bay, potential future landmark?
http://i655.photobucket.com/albums/uu276/wonuraimo/DSC01131.jpg

Gardens by the Bay, potential future landmark?
http://i655.photobucket.com/albums/uu276/wonuraimo/DSC01131.jpg

yes yes.. im really excited about this one.. only one that gives me the whole futuristic vibe. something that people are going to stop, stare and go wow..

lets all hope that it turns out to be as magical as its supposed to be

yes yes.. im really excited about this one.. only one that gives me the whole futuristic vibe. something that people are going to stop, stare and go wow..

lets all hope that it turns out to be as magical as its supposed to be

Its already miles better than hong kong's 'world class' waterfront public park, which saw really amazing concepts at competition level, but in reality is just going to become a parade square and gardened promenade. why reclaim all that land just to build a 'festival piazza'? The whole thing is so contrived.

http://www.pland.gov.hk/p_study/comp_s/harbour/harbour_finalreport/images/fig7_4.jpg

http://www.pland.gov.hk/p_study/comp_s/harbour/harbour_finalreport/ch7.htm


Now the Lion towers and conservatory, that's a compelling concept right there. Go Gardens by the Bay!

Its already miles better than hong kong's 'world class' waterfront public park, which saw really amazing concepts at competition level, but in reality is just going to become a parade square and gardened promenade. why reclaim all that land just to build a 'festival piazza'? The whole thing is so contrived.

Now the Lion towers and conservatory, that's a compelling concept right there. Go Gardens by the Bay!

Marina South is a huge reclamation. The park was already built there in first place. Just that the planners expanded the park to larger area and trying to transform it into world class park. The site which SMU buildings now sits used to be city park which was not really attractive. So the reclamation land is the best choice to create a new downtown park, new residential town (Marina South), transport hub (Cruise, ferry, MRT and bus interchange), new extension of downtown core which is still growing.

The Gerdens by the Bay was in planning decades ago. So the planners are actually laying them and watch their blueprints transforming into reality. It is like watching a seedling slowly changing into a giant tree over years. Many cities just grow and grow to mould their identity.

The safest bet on whether a building becomes a powerful icon is to ask, "Where is the vision?" The Eiffel Tower was so clear about its vision that it had to become an icon. This is exactly whats missing in many contemporary developments. The clearest way to judge Singapore developments is to ask what their architectural visions are. It can be a controversial vision but it has to be a strong, identifiable one.

Eiffel Tower was a vision of industrialisation, pure structure and prefabrication that changed cities during the 1930s and 1920s.

Empire State Building and Chrysler were visions of the art deco movement, marrying machine elements into building design.

Jinmao is a vision of the Oriental vernacular. This was a powerful movement in its own right, also resulting in Taipei 101.

Petronas is a vision of modern Islamicism.

What is the vision of buildings in Singapore? Why is the most popular landmark in Singapore still the Merlion, a monumental statement of kitsch? Thats because it might be a trashy vision, but its a very clear vision: fish + lion = sea port lion city.

Our buildings on the other hand... don't say much beyond being examples of the International Style, or high tech, or environmentally friendly (dubiously).

Which amongst our controversial icons will eventually be an Eiffel Tower icon? Are any even as visionary?

Singapore is constantly searching for the identity that stands out from the rest. This is the aim of URA when it was established.

Controversial icon - Esplanade theatres were met with disapproval over the shapes of theatres and criticism. It needs time to get used to this and this would become part of icons eventually just like what French people did to Effiel Tower.

Here is the interesting information about Effiel Tower which you have remarked that "Eiffel Tower was a vision of industrialisation, pure structure and prefabrication that changed cities during the 1930s and 1920s."

Effiel was actually built in 1889 - to celebrate 100 years of French revolution and in time for Universal Exhibition. The tower was supposed to be demolished after 20 years of standing. But it was spared as it found a new usage of the tower - communication purposes - thanks to creator of Gustave Eiffel who designed this tower. In his mind, he had science on his side to save it from being demolished. His intention was to use Effiel Tower as laboratory for scientific measurements and experiments. Effiel Tower played a major role in communication and facilitating the television broadcasting.

In a twist, it has connected history with lighting. In 1987, it was transformed into giant christmas tree with 30,000 bulbs.

Source: Effiel Tower history (http://www.tour-eiffel.fr/teiffel/uk/documentation/pdf/about_the%20Eiffel_Tower.pdf?id=4_11)

What does it mean? Time is the judge. It shapes the fate of the buildings. City of Rome in ancient times used to have many buildings that have similar architectures and varying sizes. To romans in ancient times, they would think nothing about their vast city. What makes them so magnificent are the architectures, the size of the city and clean grids of the city streets and buildings that put them in advanced city ahead of other cities in ancient times. One cannot describe them in words.

So let Singapore take time to show its true identity. It takes decades to realize the visions. What is your vision of the skyline? How would you like the buildings to be visionary?

Sorry...double posting..

Here is the interesting information about Effiel Tower which you have remarked that "Eiffel Tower was a vision of industrialisation, pure structure and prefabrication that changed cities during the 1930s and 1920s."...

To romans in ancient times, they would think nothing about their vast city....

So let Singapore take time to show its true identity. It takes decades to realize the visions. What is your vision of the skyline? How would you like the buildings to be visionary?

Eiffel was built in 1889, and it took Parisians years to appreciate it, you did your homework well, it became a TV mast; but i think Parisians love it not because its their TV tower but because its the icon of an industrial era. Its like the Chinese love the Pearl Tower because its Ching Chong not because it gives them TV; or Americans being proud of the Empire State because it was the tallest building in the world, not cos of the TV mast... I think thats what i meant... The TV mast is entirely superfluous, Eiffel was not designed as a TV mast, but as an icon for the World Expo.

The Romans were dead certain they were living in the greatest city in the world, and thats because they invented paved roads in Europe, had the greatest empire, and the biggest population. Hyperbole counts for something here:

A visionary building tells me what its vision is, and its acknowledged the world over, usually because its original and amazing and therefore receives media coverage:

Hong Kong is Hollywood's vision of the great Oriental city, because it took dense living to unseen levels, and has great architecture and a great skyline.

Similarly, Shanghai and Dubai are relying on the world's tallest buildings and architecture to stand out, even though they aren't bonafide financial centers. Their skyscrapers are visions of the future.

That's where i wish Singapore had a similar strategy with its urban form: come out with something less prosaic, more ambitious, more visionary, that will make the world sit up and notice. It has to happen now right? Or when will it ever happen?

Eiffel was built in 1889, and it took Parisians years to appreciate it, you did your homework well, it became a TV mast; but i think Parisians love it not because its their TV tower but because its the icon of an industrial era. [...] The TV mast is entirely superfluous, Eiffel was not designed as a TV mast, but as an icon for the World Expo.


Just to reinforce what JediAlf said about time, the Eiffel Tower has become an icon only after a very long time.

It has not really been a success when it was erected, except shortly during the Universal Expo, mainly from curiosity. Many Parisians wanted it down and most French artists of that time gave it very nasty nicknames. At the end of the leasehold, in 1909, Mr. Eiffel saved his creation only by convincing the authorities to use it as a radio mast (TV came much after :) )

It is only after World War I that the Eiffel Tower became, slowly and silently, a landmark in the skyline of Paris. It took decades to become the icon it is today.

Time is the judge, and icons don't always come where you expect them to be. Eiffel Tower was not designed to be iconic, but just to show the French know-how at the end of the 19th century. Eiffel was especially interested by creating an engineering exploit than thinking its tower would last more than 100 years. The Eiffel Tower became iconic afterwards, over time, his creator even died without knowing it.

And the Eiffel Tower was brought in because....??

What does Singapore currently or will have, that will stand the test of time, especially in such a land-scarce nation like Singapore's?

The Eiffel Tower was one of the many constructions for the Universal Expo in Paris celebrating the centenary of the French Revolution in 1889. Universal Expo, especially at that time, were to show the rest of the world the extent of a nation's know-how in science and engineering. The Eiffel Tower was just here to boast that in France, we can make the world tallest free standing structure with an innovative metal structure. All these constructions were designed to be temporary and most of them have been torn down like the Grand Gallery of Industry on what is now the Champs de Mars, or the former Chaillot Palace on Trocadero hill. The Eiffel Tower was supposed to follow this path, but you know its fate.

You actually barely never know what will stand the test of time, and you are sometimes surprised by what becomes what people praise the most. On the other hand, things that were supposed to be hype and stay have already faded away (like the London Millenium dome for example)
I can't tell right now what in Singapore could become the equivalent of an Eiffel Tower. Maybe the upcoming Marina Bay Sands or a future landmark skyscraper? Maybe Singapore's skyline around the Bay embellished with original buildings like the Esplanade, the Flyer and the future flower-shaped museum? Maybe this unique blend of colonial buildings in the Civic District, Collyer Quay and Boat Quay with the modern skyline as the background?



On another note, I don't understand why the land scarcity of Singapore always appears to be a problem for many of you. If you look at places like Monaco or Vatican, they have much more land scarcity problems than Singapore, and still they are renowned and/or accomodate very iconic buildings. Hong Kong is not much bigger than Singapore if you take only the built area. Though, they are often praised for their beautiful skyline made of bold buildings. On the other hand, many places have a lot of space and haven't put anything sexy on it. Singapore being small doesn't mean its creativity and appeal have to be the same. One should let those who want make this city beautiful and reputed for that, to come up with what would make it unique.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v331/nicholasliha/asiancopy.jpg

Just a project i've been working on... seeing developments in relation to each other; this survey of Asian icons suggests a few things:

1. That the new downtown cluster for 2020 is similar in scale to HK's 1998 trinity (albeit zoned lower)
2. That Singapore's new downtown icons aren't much bigger than the existing trinity

I think the new downtown buildings could afford to go up to 400m; given that sail and mbfc already plateau at 240m, this could give our new skyscrapers up to 150m of 'crown design', which constitute large portions of some other skyscrapers here, and allow buildings to really stand out, instead of being boring volumes like ICC and IFC and WFC (that have 'such' visionary titles).

What about a third supertall for Singapore? At the rochor corridor behind Suntec and Gateway? That one can really afford to pierce the sky upwards from 500m...

oh man i hope u see why i'm so upset at our height restrictions here. why are we SUCH a conservative country!

;)

And the Eiffel Tower was brought in because....??

What does Singapore currently or will have, that will stand the test of time, especially in such a land-scarce nation like Singapore's?

Effiel tower is the example of a landmark that stood for decades. It was not erected as a symbol of icon initally. Time shaped and sharpened its usefulness. The Empire State building was erected in the race of being tallest skyscraper. Terrorists managed to destroy another skyscrapers that workers spent hard work to build. Singapore has many low rise buildings that are being saved. Old Supreme Court, City Hall, Fullerton Hotel, Chinatown shophouses etc. Many of old skyscrapers disappear.

UOB Plaza One and UOB Building would have to undergo the test of time. The future generation would be able to appreciate the skyscrapers that were built in 1980s and 1990s as compare to modern huge skyscrapers in 2100 onwards - 100 years later. Who knows 50 years later, these office buildings would turn into mixed usage of office, hotel and residential in bid to save them from being demolished.

Time will tell. Size and height of skyscrapers would eventually emerge in decades to come. Architects in year 1800, would not expect that tall skyscapers would line behind the shophouses in Chinatown as we see now. Architects in year 2000 would not expect huge monstrous skyscrapers start to emerge in year 2200 like what many science fiction movies love to show.

When time goes, modern technology would evolve and improve. Aviation navigation in 2050 would be different from 2009. We have to wait for the scientists and engineers to fine-tune the system. With this, the authorities would be able to build such skyscrapers.

If the shortage of office is really bad, then the need of supertall would be justified. So far the demands of office space do not exceed the supply of current office spaces.It is up to the developer to walk to URA and ask the URA to change its height policy and discuss with CAAS. The developer has to convince the authorities.

We have to be patient. Time has bigger influence over our skyscrapers.

Coruscant - Star Wars movie (http://images.wikia.com/starwars/images/5/5c/Coruscant_at_night.jpg)


This will happen eventually down 100-200 years later... judging the growth of the city and the size of buildings from past and present.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v331/nicholasliha/asiancopy.jpg

1. That the new downtown cluster for 2020 is similar in scale to HK's 1998 trinity (albeit zoned lower)


Hong Kong triplets at 360m? This is ludacris. Their heights are way inflated because of the antennas!!! I am so angry right now. :ohno:

Going by actual roof height (as with all sg buildings):
Bank of China = 305m
Central Plaza = 309m
The Center = 292m

Please do not portray them as being visibly taller than our trinity, because they are NOT. Take away their antennas, and we won't be able to tell any palpable height difference from 50m away. Singapore Pride baby!!!

These countries are just putting 60m long antennas to make their building "look" taller on paper. Heck if they are doing it, why don't we put 300m long antennas on our trinity? That way our OUB, UOB and RP would come in at 580m, and would so own this meaningless top 10 tallest building ranking. This is the reason why I prefer to look at roof height instead of building height. If the tallest rankings would include roof height as a more relevant measure, our trinity will definitely rank better.

Personally, I'm not too concerned with height. If the twin 320m towers are realized, it's great, if not, I'm not going to be very bitter about it for long.

What I'm more concerned about is the lack of determination and dare to push the envelope in terms of architecture in the new downtown, especially with the very FIRST project; MBFC. I had hoped with the Esplanade (even with its current design), the Milennia Walk development, Iluma, Ion Orchard and the Singapore Flyer, that the new downtown would herald in something that might make me, and perhaps the world go "wow". ORQ was then fine because even though it's a green cuboid, it was something that Singapore never had before. Then came the Marina Bay Sands; which is fine I guess. But the biggest disappointment would be the MBFC, the blandest, most boring looking buildings, especially its significance as the first real office development in the Marina Bay area. Being the first, and having such boring architecture, speaks alot for high or low the URA has set the bar for such a landmark development.

I bring in the cliched land scarcity thing. Yes, Vatican, Monaco and Hong Kong have really bold buildings. But land scarcity also means that there is a limit to how much space we have reserved for "bold" buildings, or shall we just fill the entire downtown with generic looking buildings.

ddes, they want to blend well with older part of CDB....cannot be too bold.
I do hope the 320m, or just 300m is the next parcel of land to be opened for sales. I've wrote to URA Marina Bay Planning Division they responded yes, it's going to be landmark but not sure when will be released. Disappointed is the respond said no plan to revise 280m limit.

ddes, they want to blend well with older part of CDB....cannot be too bold.
I do hope the 320m, or just 300m is the next parcel of land to be opened for sales. I've wrote to URA Marina Bay Planning Division they responded yes, it's going to be landmark but not sure when will be released. Disappointed is the respond said no plan to revise 280m limit.

Then wait for Government to shut down the Paya Lebar Airport and move the entire base and maintenance base to Changi. We got to be patient.

some singapore buildings i like

- esplanade
- bank of china
- fullerton hotel
- upcoming marina bay sands
- upcoming circle line stations (bras basah, stadium, marymount)
- ION orchard
- orchard central
- iluma
- vivocity
- preserved shophouses at ann siang hill/kreta ayer
- pearl bank apartments
- national library
- the sail

Then wait for Government to shut down the Paya Lebar Airport and move the entire base and maintenance base to Changi. We got to be patient.

Sooner or later they will shut down when we run out of space. They can free up the area and build next to changi newly reclaimed area which i think is slated for T4. Siao...T3 & T2 already half utilized.

Sooner or later they will shut down when we run out of space. They can free up the area and build next to changi newly reclaimed area which i think is slated for T4. Siao...T3 & T2 already half utilized.

This will be decades later...

Hong Kong triplets at 360m? This is ludacris. Their heights are way inflated because of the antennas!!! I am so angry right now. :ohno:

Going by actual roof height (as with all sg buildings):
Bank of China = 305m
Central Plaza = 309m
The Center = 292m

Please do not portray them as being visibly taller than our trinity, because they are NOT. Take away their antennas, and we won't be able to tell any palpable height difference from 50m away. Singapore


Which is exactly why i have arranged all the buildings by height of tallest floor, placing our 320s above their trinity.

i hope ura relaxes the 320 rule to allow antennas to pierce that limit.

Personally, I'm not too concerned with height. If the twin 320m towers are realized, it's great, if not, I'm not going to be very bitter about it for long.

What I'm more concerned about is the lack of determination and dare to push the envelope in terms of architecture in the new downtown, especially with the very FIRST project; MBFC. I had hoped with the Esplanade (even with its current design), the Milennia Walk development, Iluma, Ion Orchard and the Singapore Flyer, that the new downtown would herald in something that might make me, and perhaps the world go "wow". ORQ was then fine because even though it's a green cuboid, it was something that Singapore never had before. Then came the Marina Bay Sands; which is fine I guess. But the biggest disappointment would be the MBFC, the blandest, most boring looking buildings, especially its significance as the first real office development in the Marina Bay area. Being the first, and having such boring architecture, speaks alot for high or low the URA has set the bar for such a landmark development.

I bring in the cliched land scarcity thing. Yes, Vatican, Monaco and Hong Kong have really bold buildings. But land scarcity also means that there is a limit to how much space we have reserved for "bold" buildings, or shall we just fill the entire downtown with generic looking buildings.

AGREED. I also don't give too much shit about height, i just want really daring architecture!!!

Like Jedialf's Eiffel Tower, daring architecture can be shit at first but at least they are daring, and they might become really powerful icons years down the road. Our architecture right now doesn't possess any vision that might give us our Eiffel Tower, none! waiting for 'time' is pointless unless you know you have a controversial design from the start. if it doesn't raise an eyebrow from the onset, it never will.

and it might be strategic to raise our height limits so that real architects will give upcoming projects the attention they are due, ever wondered why Foster and Pei have given us second best projects? Because the design briefs weren't worth their time in the first place. Moshie Safdie tried his best and you know the Sands will at least be one of his more accomplished designs, because this is the first casino project in the world of this scale.

We need visionary projects and a vision for a really visionary city! We can't have the world's tallest, but we can damn well afford solid skyscrapers that are worth the energies of the world's greatest designers, 320m?! Won't even scrap top 10 tallest. Remember how OUB was such a big deal and one of Tange's crowning achievements - because it was the tallest building outside of America when completed.

Identity is built on superlatives. You can be sure Hong Kong would be just as identityless if it looked like Singapore; once the skyscrapers came in, people could at least say something about Hong Kong, and appreciate its cultural essence. Singapore's identity is just like a murmur in its reticent skyline, so much to unveil underneath, but who want to open the packaging?

AGREED. I also don't give too much shit about height, i just want really daring architecture!!!

Like Jedialf's Eiffel Tower, daring architecture can be shit at first but at least they are daring, and they might become really powerful icons years down the road. Our architecture right now doesn't possess any vision that might give us our Eiffel Tower, none! waiting for 'time' is pointless unless you know you have a controversial design from the start. if it doesn't raise an eyebrow from the onset, it never will.

and it might be strategic to raise our height limits so that real architects will give upcoming projects the attention they are due, ever wondered why Foster and Pei have given us second best projects? Because the design briefs weren't worth their time in the first place. Moshie Safdie tried his best and you know the Sands will at least be one of his more accomplished designs, because this is the first casino project in the world of this scale.

We need visionary projects and a vision for a really visionary city! We can't have the world's tallest, but we can damn well afford solid skyscrapers that are worth the energies of the world's greatest designers, 320m?! Won't even scrap top 10 tallest. Remember how OUB was such a big deal and one of Tange's crowning achievements - because it was the tallest building outside of America when completed.

Identity is built on superlatives. You can be sure Hong Kong would be just as identityless if it looked like Singapore; once the skyscrapers came in, people could at least say something about Hong Kong, and appreciate its cultural essence. Singapore's identity is just like a murmur in its reticent skyline, so much to unveil underneath, but who want to open the packaging?

Yes, Singapore is not very daring in their arts/media/fashion industry but I really feel that it is slowly evolving!

How about ION Orchard! That building is instantly hypnotic.
I also find the Singapore skyline one of my favorites!
Compare this with our neighboring countries...

AGREED. I also don't give too much shit about height, i just want really daring architecture!!!

Like Jedialf's Eiffel Tower, daring architecture can be shit at first but at least they are daring, and they might become really powerful icons years down the road. Our architecture right now doesn't possess any vision that might give us our Eiffel Tower, none! waiting for 'time' is pointless unless you know you have a controversial design from the start. if it doesn't raise an eyebrow from the onset, it never will.

and it might be strategic to raise our height limits so that real architects will give upcoming projects the attention they are due, ever wondered why Foster and Pei have given us second best projects? Because the design briefs weren't worth their time in the first place. Moshie Safdie tried his best and you know the Sands will at least be one of his more accomplished designs, because this is the first casino project in the world of this scale.

We need visionary projects and a vision for a really visionary city! We can't have the world's tallest, but we can damn well afford solid skyscrapers that are worth the energies of the world's greatest designers, 320m?! Won't even scrap top 10 tallest. Remember how OUB was such a big deal and one of Tange's crowning achievements - because it was the tallest building outside of America when completed.

Identity is built on superlatives. You can be sure Hong Kong would be just as identityless if it looked like Singapore; once the skyscrapers came in, people could at least say something about Hong Kong, and appreciate its cultural essence. Singapore's identity is just like a murmur in its reticent skyline, so much to unveil underneath, but who want to open the packaging?

The best thing you can do is to become architect and do something for Singapore skyline or join URA to become planners. This way, you would not get frustrated over the skyline and architectures. It is pointless to make noises over the rankings and the comments generated from other people. Rankings are only temporary because everything would be eventually taken over. As what proverb said "Good things must come to an end."

You may walk to URA and give the planners lengthy lecture on the skylines and cite all examples that you come up with and comparison.

Do you study architecture?

What I like about our skyline is that there's a Singapore feel to it, and that it is unique in its own way.

What I like about our skyline is that there's a Singapore feel to it, and that it is unique in its own way.

This is right. I also feel the same.

Which is exactly why i have arranged all the buildings by height of tallest floor, placing our 320s above their trinity.

i hope ura relaxes the 320 rule to allow antennas to pierce that limit.

Tall buildings aren't always the highlight of the city...
Look at Yokohama for example... Yes the tallest building in Japan is 295m (almost 300) but that isn't why Yokohama's Minato Mirai is so successful... its because of what goes on around it.

Tokyo/Yokohama are very well planned cities, and its not because of daring tall buildings or any of that sort...

As I said, I find upcoming Singaporean architecture very daring.
In Japan (because of earthquake precautions), sometimes daring architecture is only in low rise or mid rise buildings... and that's very up and coming in Singapore at the moment.

Tall buildings aren't always the highlight of the city...
Look at Yokohama for example... Yes the tallest building in Japan is 295m (almost 300) but that isn't why Yokohama's Minato Mirai is so successful... its because of what goes on around it.

Tokyo/Yokohama are very well planned cities, and its not because of daring tall buildings or any of that sort...

As I said, I find upcoming Singaporean architecture very daring.
In Japan (because of earthquake precautions), sometimes daring architecture is only in low rise or mid rise buildings... and that's very up and coming in Singapore at the moment.

Exactly! This is right!

You may walk to URA and give the planners lengthy lecture on the skylines and cite all examples that you come up with and comparison.

Do you study architecture?

Lol. that is exactly the plan.

http://www.swide.com/luxury-magazine/en/Life/HoWhere/Design-gets-a-new-Seoul/2009/03/26/

Design gets a new Seoul!

This article highlights all the extra-exciting projects Seoul has lined up for its 2010 hosting of World Design Capital honours, including new financial centers, including Lotte Super Tower, set to become one of the world's tallest buildings , city greening and a whole new super futuristic township.

Now these projects have a reallll vision, even if they are trashy.

Maybe Singapore can bid for this World Design Capital thing and give its design industry a boost, and maybe justify the construction of a real super tall.

As I said, I find upcoming Singaporean architecture very daring.
In Japan (because of earthquake precautions), sometimes daring architecture is only in low rise or mid rise buildings... and that's very up and coming in Singapore at the moment.

I think the 2 IRs, Gardens by the Bay and the rejuvenation of Orchard Road seem to support more daring architectural designs.

07July09

Quite a lot of work going on....
http://www.smugmug.com/photos/584592307_8Vyfp-XL.jpg


What will this be?
http://www.smugmug.com/photos/584596641_awBoY-XL.jpg

This article highlights all the extra-exciting projects Seoul has lined up for its 2010 hosting of World Design Capital honours, including new financial centers, including Lotte Super Tower, set to become one of the world's tallest buildings , city greening and a whole new super futuristic township.


Lotte Super Tower has been in plans since before Skyscrapercity was called Skyscrapercity. I'll believe in South Korea super talls once I see them rising... Best (only?) hope right now is in Busan, not Seoul ;-)

But then again, Lotte is a private company I think, headed by some truly egomaniacal people, that's why they want supertall buildings ;-) Singapore doesn't have any such company, and is unlikely to get one in the foreseeable future with such a small local market.

07July09

What will this be?
http://www.smugmug.com/photos/584596641_awBoY-XL.jpg

This is the next phase of Common Services Tunnel. Downtown MRT Station is just between the MBFC and the CST.

PERI Common Services Tunnels (http://www.periasia.com/projects.cfm/fuseaction/showreference/reference_ID/1618/referencecategory_ID/67.cfm)
Browse the images. You will find the same characteristics in these photos...

Thanks
This is the next phase of Common Services Tunnel. Downtown MRT Station is just between the MBFC and the CST.

I think the 2 IRs, Gardens by the Bay and the rejuvenation of Orchard Road seem to support more daring architectural designs.

To be fair, I think Singapore has both the very 'ohbiang' (did I say it right) and the very stylish...

I liked both the post-independent architecture and the current ones...
The 80s/90s designs were quite disappointing in my opinion.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2028/2076332610_cb4f0576c8_o.jpg
Thanks to chumpon who has been posting photos of Singapore roads. The bridge under construction in old days is Benjamin Sheares.

At a press briefing held yesterday, URA revealed details of the promenade design and this includes plans for the Central Promontory site to be used as an interim event space and public space during national events such as the Marina Bay Countdown.


A bit confused with above sentence on URA website. Does "used as an interim event space and public space" means

1. used in the interim, as an event space and public space
or
2. used as a space for interim events, and space for public events?

:nuts:

or in short, what are they going to build there permanently?! :)

i heard they have no plans for it yet, except it is going to be institutional, like a museum or amenity.

A bit confused with above sentence on URA website. Does "used as an interim event space and public space" means

1. used in the interim, as an event space and public space
or
2. used as a space for interim events, and space for public events?

:nuts:

or in short, what are they going to build there permanently?! :)

It means that in the interim period until long term proposal comes in for development, they will allow the space to be used for events and for the public to enjoy. (Events are usually interim by nature too).

Its anyone's guess how long this interim period will last. What is known from the Masterplan is that the land is meant for Civic use. I heard that there have been a number of proposals (what they r I've no idea) for the site, but it seems to be that Singapore would rather wait it out until something truly worthy of such a plum site is found :nuts:

in that case, given my exeprience with SimCity, the only thing worthy will be a giant flag pole, or a statue of liberty, or a 'wonder of the world'...something useless that is only good to see...



It means that in the interim period until long term proposal comes in for development, they will allow the space to be used for events and for the public to enjoy. (Events are usually interim by nature too).

Its anyone's guess how long this interim period will last. What is known from the Masterplan is that the land is meant for Civic use. I heard that there have been a number of proposals (what they r I've no idea) for the site, but it seems to be that Singapore would rather wait it out until something truly worthy of such a plum site is found :nuts:

it could always become guggenheim, pompidou or a cultural center ma

Marina sunset

http://i980.photobucket.com/albums/ae282/SCskysc/Marina%20Bay/marinasunsets-2.jpg

it could always become guggenheim, pompidou or a cultural center ma

We already have a Guggenheim in Singapore, (which is City Harvest Church in Jurong) :lol:

Maybe we canwork towards a Pompidou now? :nuts:

We already have a Guggenheim in Singapore, (which is City Harvest Church in Jurong) :lol:

Maybe we canwork towards a Pompidou now? :nuts:

I think we could count Orchard Central as Pompidou?? :lol:

I think we could count Orchard Central as Pompidou?? :lol:

So so true! :lol:
but Singapore always creates a more conservative, practical version

Bilbao's has a museum, Singapore has a church

http://www.freewebs.com/daanvandenberg-b1229966/guggenheim%20bilbao.jpg
Guggenheim Museum

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e8/City_Harvest_Church_Jurong_West_Building.jpg
City Harvest Church

http://www.galinsky.com/buildings/pompidou/pompidou1.jpg
Pompidou

http://www.timeoutsingapore.com/contentFiles/image/venues/orchard-central-482x402.jpg
Orchard Central

Paris has a cultural centre, Singapore has a shopping centre.

Now is it just me or do I feel that many iconic buildings are now owned by megachurches?

City Harvest Church has got their own building in Jurong West like the Guggenheim Museum, and New Creation Church will have their services in the cultural hub at One-North. Also consider Lighthouse Evangelism's campuses in Tampines and Woodlands.

Churches, and other religious buildings have traditionally been one of the more iconic buildings in a community; with money and power, they could build the most grandest, nicest buildings in ancient times. So I think that these new generation of religious buildings, not just these megachurches but mosques, the newly built temples, catholic churches, are experiencing a renaissance in terms of architecture.

Churches, and other religious buildings have traditionally been one of the more iconic buildings in a community; with money and power, they could build the most grandest, nicest buildings in ancient times. So I think that these new generation of religious buildings, not just these megachurches but mosques, the newly built temples, catholic churches, are experiencing a renaissance in terms of architecture.

oh yeah! there's a pretty interesting mosque in bukit batok, but that doesnt have a dome though. i think in my opinion singapore's buildings are going through a lot of structural changes all for the better :)

Marina sunset


Very beautiful! :)

We need more cultural venues in Marina. Promenade-side shopping? Guggenhiem or modern art museum on Central Promontory.

[QUOTE=lexovator_mhjpn;40962618]So so true! :lol:
but Singapore always creates a more conservative, practical version

Bilbao's has a museum, Singapore has a church

Guggenheim Museum

Orchard Central

Paris has a cultural centre, Singapore has a shopping centre.


Good comparison. thanks.

I think we could count Orchard Central as Pompidou?? :lol:

Why are we always aspiring to be followers? :ohno:

We should not, we should be trailblazers, but sadly the authorities tend to be very conservative.

Clients too monetary minded, unwilling to accept wild proposals.

a marina view at dusk

http://i980.photobucket.com/albums/ae282/SCskysc/Marina%20Bay/IMG_2907-Copy-Copy.jpg

Nice pic there CityGlide. Remind me of smog days :lol:

Nice pic there CityGlide. Remind me of smog days :lol:


Haha, thanks LS. It was getting dark and I was using a pocket camera.

A new skyline in the making.

An evening work.

http://i980.photobucket.com/albums/ae282/SCskysc/Marina%20Bay/ScreenShot186.jpg

Night View.


http://i980.photobucket.com/albums/ae282/SCskysc/Marina%20Bay/NightView14sep09a.jpg

Hi cityglide, u walked all the away on the empty space for the garden by the bay to take this?

Hi. It was taken from the Marina Bay Golf Course. You can see a row of trees in front.

wah..nice...

Read the news in wanpao that the two parcels of lands next to IR are currently given to Malaysia in exchange of the 217 hectares of land in Tanjong Pager that the authority plan to divert KTM station to Woodlands.

I hope it actually does happen! This is very, very big news.

And here's a source:
http://themalaysianinsider.com/index.php/malaysia/38310-light-at-end-of-tunnel-over-ktms-singapore-land

HOW CAN THEY GIVE THE REMAINING PIECES OF OUR SKYLINE PUZZLE TO MALAYSIA?!

JUST TO EXCHANGE FOR SCRAPS OF LAND NEXT TO AN OLD RAILWAY??!?!?!

WHAAAT?!?!

^^ i know! such a foolish decision TT_TT

WHAT? Give to them? Then what are they going to do to the land parcels?

WHAT? Give to them? Then what are they going to do to the land parcels?

I think we are going to build our 2nd national mosque there :banana:

WHAT? Give to them? Then what are they going to do to the land parcels?

Build a giant statue of Mahathir flipping us a bird. Dono what about the other parcel.

Bye bye HSR as well, but come on you guys, just how cool will that be to redevelop the station and the depot instead?? Ok i doubt its going to work out fine for us. Doubt a lot.

WHAT? Give to them? Then what are they going to do to the land parcels?

build a jusco with free parking :banana:

haha.....i think probably commercial building. IF malaysia agreed, the building is 60% owned by Khazanah and 40% by Temasek, so URA still got a say in design so that our skyline will not be spoilt.

Personally, I think it's a great idea.

Firstly, a site in Marina Bay demonstrates our sincerity of how important we value our neighbors.

Secondly, it will certainly help us fill the gaps in the Marina Bay skyline, as well as kickstart the next phase of development, the Marina Station Square area. I can trust the Malaysians, if they are agreeable, to present us with a development of iconic and landmark proportions that might just be the piece of the puzzle that the Marina Bay skyline requires.

^^ Well, I like the idea of fostering integration, the land area in Tanjong Pagar is larger and hopefully comparable in value, URA can make sure what they build isn't an eyesore and Malaysians might start building fast, not leave the parcel void for years.

The point I dislike in this idea is that we will never have an HSR, as it would not get its conceptual directness compared to the airports.

If KTM ever upgrades the tracks on the causeway, the link will still be inconvenent. There is no way to integrate MRT with the new station in Woodlands as the track is 800 meters away from Kranji, just 200 meters closer than Tanjong Pagar MRT to the existing station.

Bukit Timah is a better idea with DTL u/c but still not flaw-free, I can imagine it won't be comfortable for anyone with luggage, same as Changi Extension. Intercity railway to Malaysia would never reach the status of railways of eg. UK or HK.

But ok lets look at the bright sides of life, I cant wait for the depot at Tanjong Pagar to be demolished. Its a piece of third world infrastructure in our CBD.

but then the track along the way to tanjung pagar will be return to sg as well?

On the contrary, I don't see it as eliminating the possibility of HSR. Yes, it does eliminate the possibility in the near term, but honestly, noone sees it ever being built in the near future anyway.

What it does, is that it opens up possibility for a new route, and opens up the real possibility of the next generation HSR trains capable of reaching 350km/h, because I doubt the KTM alignment can support a train accelerating to 350km/h due to its curves and all. Yes, the speeds while slowing into Singapore is not that important BUT the departure from Singapore is.

Like the Hong Kong-Guangzhou Express line, what we will need is a HSR track from downtown Singapore and basically running as straight as possible into Malaysia, the infrastructural constraints of which can be solved by going underground.

anyway, HSR in taiwan has just been reported to be a huge financial mistake with losses running into the billions every quarter; and it is supposed to serve Taipei's hinterland - a Sing - Msia connection might not even make as much sense because of lower traffic between both countries.

yes. you are right

HSR in Europe is not a huge financial success neither. Except a few lines, it survives only due to generous subsidies from governments.

Nevertheless, HSR is very convenient from the traveller point of view.

http://www.mymarinabaymyinspiration.com/v1/

http://www.mymarinabaymyinspiration.com/v1/images/p1_splash.jpg

http://www.mymarinabaymyinspiration.com/v1/

^^ Raffi, will you be coming up with a Flag design?

nah..that would be too abstract for me to handle :lol:

My deepest aspiration would be for the increased verticality of the skyline, that'd be the best news ever. :yes:

sg not so adventurous the best is have a 280m building with 20 basements level or so. haha

sg not so adventurous the best is have a 280m building with 20 basements level or so. haha

That would be quite the task. Too many subway tunnels, electric cables and sewage to consider. In the end, if such a project is to happen, it would definitely take a very long time.......Anyway, I wonder if there is still any update on the Tanjong Pagar KTM.

IMO when the status of that is known the planners can devise a masterplan for a gateway into the city, linking Vivocity through to Tanjong Pagar. It seems the priority is now on Marina Bay as well as building up the Rochor corridor and Kallang waterfront, and the latter two have yet to take off.

New ERP gantries in Marina

14 Jan 2010

THOSE who drive or cab to the Marina Sands integrated resort or Marina Bay Financial Centre will face a new set of electronic road-pricing gantries planned for the area.

The Land Transport Authority announced on Thursday that four new gantries will be set up in Marina Centre, north of the East Coast Parkway, as the area is part of an enlarged Central Business District. An existing gantry in Central Boulevard will be removed.

The four new gantries are in Marina Way (an exit road from the Ayer Rajah Expressway); Marina Station Road (near the new MRT station); and two on either direction of the new three-lane dual-carriageway Bay Bridge that links the new business and entertainment hub to Raffles Avenue.

The additions bring the number of ERP gantries in the CBD to 69, from 66 today.

LTA chief executive Yam Ah Mee said the new gantries are necessary because they form a cordon around the expanded CBD. Without them, motorists will use the new roads there to bypass congestion-priced roads in the city centre, he added.

The erection of the new gantries will be done in stages. The first one on the Bay Bridge leading out of Marina Centre will be up in April, while the others will up some time in the third quarter. The Marina Sands resort is expected to open from April, while the Marina Bay Financial Centre is due to open by the third quarter.


http://www.straitstimes.com/BreakingNews/Singapore/Story/STIStory_477218.html

update:

http://i980.photobucket.com/albums/ae282/SCskysc/Marina%20Bay/ScreenShot465.jpg

There is a subtle change of lighting colour over time.

http://i980.photobucket.com/albums/ae282/SCskysc/Marina%20Bay/ScreenShot476.jpg

Nice. Would be good if Suntec Towers resumed with their original lighting scheme.

http://www.streetdirectory.com/stock_images/travel/simg_show/11238324220788/1/suntec_tower_one/

^^ I think Suntec had mentioned that those lights were enormously expensive to maintain. And in reality, without proper maintenance, there'd be patches where certain rows of lights just wouldn't light up. Sighs.

It's a pity that CBD looks so sleepy at night, only a few lights on and no wonderful lighting schemes.

It's a pity that CBD looks so sleepy at night, only a few lights on and no wonderful lighting schemes.

It's not at all a pity but a model all cities should follow. Why waste electricity when the majority of the possible observers are asleep anyway? I think it's good that they turn off lights sometime after midnight.

While wandering about today, I saw the Marina Bay logo inscribed on these. Branding, branding! Looks pretty nice:

http://i1013.photobucket.com/albums/af255/spr4ttel/P1010697.jpg

http://i1013.photobucket.com/albums/af255/spr4ttel/P1010696.jpg

Nice. Would be good if Suntec Towers resumed with their original lighting scheme.

http://www.streetdirectory.com/stock_images/travel/simg_show/11238324220788/1/suntec_tower_one/

yes i miss the old lighting style of Suntec. Now it looks so boring at night.

can steal the steel caps :)

Downtown skyline update.
OFC is 60% of final height.

http://i980.photobucket.com/albums/ae282/SCskysc/Marina%20Bay/omch143-C.jpg

Downtown skyline update.
OFC is 60% of final height.

http://i980.photobucket.com/albums/ae282/SCskysc/Marina%20Bay/omch143-C.jpg

Very beautiful shot CityGlide! :)

Its interesting how the skyline has now evolved into a cool mix of green and blue, where previously it seemed to greyish and whitish.

:applause:Cityglide:applause:

Downtown skyline update.
OFC is 60% of final height.

Very nice CityGlide, thank you.

We do need taller buildings than just 280 meters! Even North Korea has taller than that.
:(

We do need taller buildings than just 280 meters! Even North Korea has taller than that.
:(

Well, I guess that is because the city area is along the route for the landing path for Paya Lebar Air Base. For the tall buildings,I think the govt is not interested right now. They seem to be more interested in going underground...:)

will regret it one day lah

will regret it one day lah

King Kurakura --- you are almost at the 2,500 posts landmark -- wow :lol:

King Kurakura --- you are almost at the 2,500 posts landmark -- wow :lol:

wow! i didnt realise that :banana:

wow! i didnt realise that :banana:

OFCOURSE you know it kk ---we want a BIG PARTY at post # 2,500:cheers:

Night shot

http://i980.photobucket.com/albums/ae282/SCskysc/Marina%20Bay/nite.jpg