SkyscraperCity Forum banner

W KUALA LUMPUR HOTEL & THE RESIDENCES KLCC | Kuala Lumpur ( KLCC - Jalan Ampang ) | S.O.M. | 55 fl | 232m | Completed (2018)

407K views 1K replies 156 participants last post by  BeansOnToast 
#1 · (Edited by Moderator)
Do we want to save this house?



DRIVE along Jalan Ampang in Kuala Lumpur and you’re bound to notice the magnificent house standing forlornly back from the bustling road. The Bok House is a grand testament to the city’s architectural and social history. This single building encapsulates the hopes and loss of our built heritage, standing as it does with its structure intact, yet facing impending demolition.

In June, a Development Order for its site was filed with the Kuala Lumpur City Hall. Badan Warisan (the Heritage of Malaysia Trust) noted that the proposed development would include the razing of Bok House and the building of a 60-storey building.

On June 12, Badan Warisan nominated the Bok House for classification as important to national heritage, as allowed under the National Heritage Act 2005. They see this nomination as a test of the new Act, which was passed in March.

The non-governmental organisation deems the house one of the best examples of classical European architecture adapted to Malaysia’s tropical climate while retaining the principles of its Palladian villa inspiration.








The Bok House in an old photo (left) provided by the Architects Institute of Malaysia and as it is now (right): sadly diminished.







While it remains a Western building, much of the Bok House draws its concepts from Malay building traditions. The large verandas and anjung, or porte-cochere, give it a feeling of being built on stilts. More importantly, it uses the concept of rumah ibu and rumah dapur (literally, mother house and kitchen house), where the front building was the formal entertainment area while the adjoining smaller building was the less formal family area.

The Bok House was built by self-made millionaire Chua Cheng Bok, founder of the Cycle & Carriage Company. He commissioned Singapore-based architectural firm Swan & Maclaren, one of the best in the region then, to build the house in 1926. And there is the oft-told tale of why Bok did this: to impress the father of a woman he wanted to marry!

The building housed the Yokohama Specie Bank during World War II and was later a boarding house. Its heyday was during the 1960s and early 1970s when it was the grandly named Le Coq D’Or Restaurant. Since the restaurant closed in 2001, Badan Warisan noted that the structure has deteriorated badly and has suffered a lot of vandalism.

Badan Warisan executive director Elizabeth Cardoza says, “The Bok House has so much cultural significance for our heritage. It has high architectural, social and symbolic values. It is one of the last remaining buildings of its kind in Malaysia and has been well documented through the years.

“The question is, does KL want it or not?”
 
See less See more
1
#126 ·
odeon cinemas in jalan dang wangi is a good example...at any time the OWNER can demolished it to make way for a new building if he chooses to...because it's not a gazetted as a heritage building..(it will be a shamed if it were to happen because i think it's a wonderful piece of history)
 
#132 ·
The bok house already vanished.

I think it wont be demolished if the owner oso taking care of the house.
for example Saloma Bistro building..and many others old..historical building that the owner turned into business asset.

they are opted to keep it..or destroyed it.

unfortunately...the bok house are not located in a row of heritage/historical buildings.

its location alone are too commercial ...and belong to private owner.


the things is..govt only preserved if it is a public buildings such as post office..or a museum once.

i guess majority malaysian will protest if for example the old ktm building going to be demolish.

what if the govt wanted to preserved this building, how much govt need to pay to the owner.
or shud govt take over this building and give amount of compensation to the owner.i dont think the owner opted for compensation...

it is more profit to sell the land for commercial development.

its all about $$$.
err...saloma bistro is a completely new building...if not mistaken.

i put blame on may parties. why? simply unfair just to blame government on this. even when we say 'government', who are they? the DBKL? the ministry? or the barisan?

in this case;

the owner
1. have a total ownership of the property. 100%. they have fully right on their land.
2. fail to see the historical value of the building.
3. fail to regard the building as their family's heritage.
4. desperate to get money might be.

the new owner
1. unimaginative. fail to utilise the building into something profitable. boutique hotel for example.
2. stupid. fail to associate the building into the new structure. refer W Hotel project in BKK.
3. only think money come from highrise.

the ministry/DBKL
1. doesn't have clear guildeline on the definition of 'heritage' building.
2. doesn't have the vision on heritage conservation program throughout KL. they only think heritage buildings only exist in melaka and georgetown.

the rakyat as general
1. having mentality of 'old is ugly' and 'new is modern and progress'
2. ....aiseh, tak macam european lah how we see architecture. european put old building in respect. interesting that peoples in Beirut (not european anyway) rebuilt their properties after war damage in its previous facade. in other word, they rebuilt it. not replaced with glassy unimaginative new monster.

...in fact, takkanlah government nak purchase that house sampai beratus-ratus juta? is it worth for government to spend wang rakyat to buy the house while they can better spend the money for preserving Kampung Baru, the living heritage.

orang lain buat masalah, takkan government all the time kena wash their ass?


You all still trying to be ignorant when facts are presented to you all. Please read the earlier posts lah. It had been debated before.

First of all, like I said earlier (many many times), it is VERY EXPENSIVE to maintain an old building like Bok House. Most heritage houses are either bought by the govt or are owned by some corporation.

Saloma (or should I say MATIC), is a good example of a govt buy-out. It is previously a mansion owned by a Chinese tycoon. It is now a govt property after being bought over just right after Merdeka. Behind this historical building is the famed Dewan Tunku Abdul Rahman and the newer building adjoining is is the Saloma Theatre.

Usually the owners (esp families or trust funds) wouldn't be able to support and maintain such an old structure. It is not that they are greedy. If you all noticed, the same year Bok House was demolished, the govt wanted to buy over Coliseum Theatre and wanted to convert it into some sort of a cultural museum or something. You see how the govt got their priorities wrong by wanting to buy a living heritage instead of Bok House. Coliseum is a money-generator for its owner and it could and have been self-sustaining for the past 80 years or so. On the other hand, The Bok House couldn't be rented out to have it sustainable to be preserved after Le Coq D'Or closed down. Coincidently, both Bok House and the Coliseum are built by Chua Cheng Bok. So why the wrong priority here? Govt practising selective buying and preservation?

You all should see and read how the Little-Red-Dot most Malaysians hated so much did to preserved its heritage buildings. Most of not all owners are regulated and are 'compensated' for owning a historical building.

Putting the blame on the new owner is silliness at its peak. The building are demolished before it is even sold. Ignorant or just plain being stupid? You choose lah.......

Blaming the public is even worst. As far as I know, the public in general opposed to the demolition of the Bok House.

And not blaming the govt is also silly as it is proven all over the world that only very rich individuals, corporations and govt have the clout and moolah to save such structures.

Frankly speaking, we all do not care which govt dept should be blamed. The govt depts should all work in unison. It is the govt's job and initiative to buy over heritage property at 'special' prices and yes, all heritage properties are expensive and should be bought instead of the billions being spent on buying private jets and stuffs. Preserving Kg. Baru is out of topic so pls do not hijack this topic.
 
#130 · (Edited)
The bok house already vanished.

I think it wont be demolished if the owner oso taking care of the house.
for example Saloma Bistro building..and many others old..historical building that the owner turned into business asset.

they are opted to keep it..or destroyed it.

unfortunately...the bok house are not located in a row of heritage/historical buildings.

its location alone are too commercial ...and belong to private owner.


the things is..govt only preserved if it is a public buildings such as post office..or a museum once.

i guess majority malaysian will protest if for example the old ktm building going to be demolish.

what if the govt wanted to preserved this building, how much govt need to pay to the owner.
or shud govt take over this building and give amount of compensation to the owner.i dont think the owner opted for compensation...

it is more profit to sell the land for commercial development.

its all about $$$.
 
#131 ·
err...saloma bistro is a completely new building...if not mistaken.

i put blame on may parties. why? simply unfair just to blame government on this. even when we say 'government', who are they? the DBKL? the ministry? or the barisan?

in this case;

the owner
1. have a total ownership of the property. 100%. they have fully right on their land.
2. fail to see the historical value of the building.
3. fail to regard the building as their family's heritage.
4. desperate to get money might be.

the new owner
1. unimaginative. fail to utilise the building into something profitable. boutique hotel for example.
2. stupid. fail to associate the building into the new structure. refer W Hotel project in BKK.
3. only think money come from highrise.

the ministry/DBKL
1. doesn't have clear guildeline on the definition of 'heritage' building.
2. doesn't have the vision on heritage conservation program throughout KL. they only think heritage buildings only exist in melaka and georgetown.

the rakyat as general
1. having mentality of 'old is ugly' and 'new is modern and progress'
2. ....aiseh, tak macam european lah how we see architecture. european put old building in respect. interesting that peoples in Beirut (not european anyway) rebuilt their properties after war damage in its previous facade. in other word, they rebuilt it. not replaced with glassy unimaginative new monster.

...in fact, takkanlah government nak purchase that house sampai beratus-ratus juta? is it worth for government to spend wang rakyat to buy the house while they can better spend the money for preserving Kampung Baru, the living heritage.

orang lain buat masalah, takkan government all the time kena wash their ass?
 
#133 ·
i blamed the owner(the previous one) who destroyed the building..and for the incompetent of the government to quickly intervened to saved(acquired) the building

..by selling the mansion to another party AFTER having destroyed the building which means they were greedy for development...correct me if i'm wrong but if they were to sell it(building intact)...to the government, they might not get much as the building would have been gazetted as a heritage building....(what are the heritage laws and such..anyone care to elaborate..)the government would probably had persuade the previous owner to accept a lesser amount

if it were an empty plot of land...they can sell to another party probably for a bigger amount...and the government can't do anything about it..

i never said anything about the new owner...
 
#136 ·
You are partially right bout the owner wanted to sell the building intact with the land or an empty piece land which could worth a lot more.

From my knowledge, the building upkeep is high and there are laws which regulate the upkeep and maintenance of buildings by DBKL. So to create a win-win situation, the owners decided to demolished the building. They did not do so hastily, still got time for the various govt depts to ding-dong but see what happened?

Under any Heritage Act all across the world, the owners usually have not much benefit like you've said but once gazetted, they can't touch the building. So it is to the whim and fancy of the govt to save the building whether it is for a cheap price to buy over or not. This is not a win-win situation and the owner stand to lose a lot. The govt still have the final say. But why are they not lifting a finger?

Yes....the govt could do lots and the ball is in their court to save the building. But they chooses not to. Lastly I did not say you said anything bout the new owner......it was Cullen and I replied you both together so read my post carefully.
 
#147 ·
:lol:James as i can remember its not the first!I used to frequent the old le coq dor restaurant:cheers:How i miss the wonderful times i had there in the evenings enjoying my:cheers:.Another thing if its dijaya, it will be interesting to see two uncompleted sites by the famous brothers:eek:hno:eek:n the same street less than 600m apart.:):)
 
#152 ·
Managing director Datuk Tong Kien Onn tells City & Country that Dijaya is planning a residential-cum-commercial project on 1.2 acres of freehold commercial land on Jalan Ampang, where the Bok House used to stand — just a stone’s throw away from the Petronas Twin Towers. Dijaya acquired the plot for RM123 million or about RM2,200 psf in late 2009.

The project is expected to be spectacular as a renowned international architectural firm has been assigned to it. “We have appointed US-based Skidmore, Owings & Merrill Architects (SOM), which is now working on the concept for the proposed development,” says Tong.
 
#155 ·
Cesar Pelli



Notable buildings
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/César_Pelli
- Two International Finance Centre, Hong Kong
- Petronas Twin Towers, Kuala Lumpur



-
Norman Foster
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Foster_(architect)



Notable buildings
- 30 St Mary Axe, London
- The Hearst Tower in New York City.
- The Troika, Kuala Lumpur (U/C)
- Ilham Baru, Kuala Lumpur (U/C)



Jean Nouvel



Notable buildings
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Nouvel
- Torre Agbar, Barcelona
- Le Nouvel, Kuala Lumpur (U/C)



- Owings & Merrill Architects (SOM)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skidmore,_Owings_and_Merrill



Notable SOM buildings
-Burj Khalifa, also known as the Burj Dubai
- Jin Mao Tower



 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top