280m is the limit for singapore?

[TropicalSQ744]

Originally posted by huaiwei

Maybe we should jus relocate to one of the southern islands..hehehe

Now....the building of Military aircraft carriers will surely raise eyebrows, er?

Yeah, who knows, they might follow us too if we do build such a thing

[Cliff]

Maybe I'm mistaken,(parallex error) since Singapore is so small. But I do see planes fly from behind and over to the distance.

That is sooo cute! Btw, how did you know where we live?

I did'nt know that Paya Lebar Airbase was so huge! Smack in the middle of housing estates. No wonder planes frequent my house, the runway is directed at it!

[huaiwei]

Originally posted by Cliff

That is sooo cute! Btw, how did you know where we live?

I did'nt know that Paya Lebar Airbase was so huge! Smack in the middle of housing estates. No wonder planes frequent my house, the runway is directed at it!

Simple....I know the condo where u and raff lives in. I also noe the block number that Heirloom lives in. All I then need to do it to ask for the block number of Rex and Tropical, and there u have it!

Yeah, imagine what will happen if they decide to expand Paya Lebar. All of us will be having wonderful views of planes, but goodness! The noise!!

Er..what you mean by the Paya Lebar runway being directed at you? I think it is more true that Seletar Airport's runway is aimed straight at you!

p.s. Now we know why rex complained earlier about plane noise. Poor thing!

[heirloom]

no actually i think i should be living just beside that y junction... i'm really at the edge of tampines...

you know i always fantasized about having an airconditioned-sunless habitat? yeah maybe they should build a huuuuuge building with hdb blocks / offices / condominiums / whatever as the support columns and have the airport on top. yeah so if we have to catch a flight we could just take the lift up to the 40th storey and check in or something.... sort of like one of those megaprojects envisaged for japan but bigger bigger bigger and probably uglier. it'll be a big plateau but we'll be sunless when we're in 'airport vale'

[heirloom]

heyyyyy dont laugh at it when i become a famous architect one day and i come up with an amazingly gorgeous 'airport vale' i'll make the planes land right above your house

[huaiwei]

I always suspected all of us regular sg posters are "unusual" or "wierd" in some way. This is just part and parcel of it!

[rEXxx]

wow huaiwei, cool job u did with the map! Fanta-bulous!

and yes...i do (as we can all see from huaiwei's cute little map) stay VERY near the freaking runway...go ahead and mock at my plight! sob sob...

[Cliff]

Originally posted by huaiwei


Er..what you mean by the Paya Lebar runway being directed at you? I think it is more true that Seletar Airport's runway is aimed straight at you!

Oh there goes my english again, it's supposed to be two seperate sentences, one referring about PL, and the other to S

Originally posted by heirloom


you know i always fantasized about having an airconditioned-sunless habitat? yeah maybe they should build a huuuuuge building with hdb blocks / offices / condominiums / whatever as the support columns and have the airport on top. yeah so if we have to catch a flight we could just take the lift up to the 40th storey and check in or something.... sort of like one of those megaprojects envisaged for japan but bigger bigger bigger and probably uglier. it'll be a big plateau but we'll be sunless when we're in 'airport vale'

I has a similar 'dream' I thought the whole of Singapore could be two stores high, and the first floor would be roads and transport, while the second will have huge skyscrapers with lush and beautiful gardens.

A more ambitious dream of mine was that Singapore be covered by a huge glass dome and is entirely air-conditoined!

[huaiwei]

Originally posted by Cliff

A more ambitious dream of mine was that Singapore be covered by a huge glass dome and is entirely air-conditoined!

How come every Singaporean has the same dream? Except that mine was mroe due to the concerns of sea level rise!

[rj2uman]

I agree build some aircraft carriers that will free up a lot of room in SG so that you would need to have so many landfills.

And back the to the topic the height limit seems to be kinda out dated with modern technology the plane issue isn't really a concern.

That is unless SG's AF is flying prop planes without radar........

[Monkey]

Aren't you wandering a bit OT here? At any rate you haven't helped me make up my mind on whether that 280m limit needs to go.

OK lah, so the conclusion is:

Singapore needs no supertall, whether WTB or not, 245 m height is OK, except that:

1 - To make it a viable investment on the expensive land and high constr cost, and use the allowed plot ratio, you got to build a chunky box (in fact, look at One Marina NTUC building and its 50-storey neighbour under construction - all boxes)

2 - For some reason, no one was allowed to put a strong spire on any of the dominant buildings in the CBD (i.e. those above 200 m), the rumour is due to someone's superstition...

3 - Singapore developers (and Govt is the leading one, basically) are very conservative in high-rise design compared to its twin sister, KL; something like KLCC or Menara Telekom obviously would never happen here, seems too outrageous for the one-track-mindset (I TRIED it, I know)

So, a combination of conserative mindset and requirement for returns on expensive input cost will result in boxy structures, when talking about dominant CBD skyscrapers (I am not talking about those small 30-level condos in Novena).

That is exactly opposite of KL, where a free-wheeling developer mindset and a very proactive government (plus coming closure of Sungai Besi airfield which affected heights - now Plaza Rakyat can go much higher), and extravagant designs, mixing Art Deco, Islamic, Chinese and other influences, will result in several more really STUNNING slim ultratalls being started and completed within the next 5 years, one of them a possible WTB.

Add to it the very low land and concrete costs there, and certain "quantum leap" moves to be made to attract much more people to KL, and... he he...

Anyway, it really will be nice, SG and KL will then complement each other very very well... and over time, the land values and rentals will come closer, too.

[huaiwei]

It seems like you have an innate desire to compare everything here only with KL. With all due respect, it makes me wonder why you settled here in the first place!

Let me point out a few things first:

1. I wonder why you seem to be picking only on those buildings in the New Downtown in particular, and using that to jusge the entire city. Just because the intial ones happen to be boxy dosent mean the rest will be so. Land prices are just as high in the existing CBD, in fact, higher the in the New Downtown, and there isnt bland boxes poping up everywhere.

2. I am not sure about what superstition you are talking about, but if you are a developer, and you are given a 280m bpx of space to build a building in, would it make more sense for you to build all the way up to that height, or build a smaller building and just stick a broomstick up to that height limit?

3. When you say the government is the leading developer, are you assuming it is the chief builder of buildings in the CBD? I do not know what you mean by "bland" and "conservative", and how that is supposed to tie in with some sort of governmental conspiracy, but I would then be shocked if for the past years, the government itself is encouraging private developers to design buildings that are more unconventional? You consider the KLCC as "innovative"? I would say smallish Parkview Square has a even more daring design! Would you call Capital Tower conservative? And can you find a similar design to the Explanade?

I do not consider a government which have more relaxed height controls is necesarily the factor to determine it as being more "pro-active" then another. I also do not consider private developers that chose to build according to market sentiments as being less "free-wheeling".

As we have emphasized so many times, Singapore can do without mega talls then stand empty, or tonnes of construction relics (aka high-rise ambitions and egos) that stand uncompleted every time the economy goes down. Abandoned high-rise projects that stand half completed are almost unheard of in this country. I can only recall one project that was stopped while it was still in the groundworks stage (the one in Ang Mo Kio Centre), and thankfully, at least they are still actively modifying the plans and reconfiguring the site. And that makes big news too, for your info, because it is such a rare case!

To sum up, high construction costs do not mean bland, ugly boxes all the time. Developers DO recognise the need to create high-rise works of art that ATTRACTS tenents when they have such a vast number of towers to choose from! Being tall is certainly one of the key ways to attract attention, but if the height limit is constant throughout an entire district, then what better way to beat the crowd then go out of the box?

Huaiwei,

Well, I am a Singaporean, just like you, except the imported variety :-)

Yes, I have been in two development teams (one of them from the guy who created Republic Plaza project and later sold it to CDL - CDL was NOT the one who made that!) which fought long and hard battles to put a PROFITABLE, VIABLE and BEAUTIFUL WTB in SG, both times stopped by the Government. The subject was simply untouchable.

Let's be clear: One third of Petronas Tower 2 IS EMPTY, but NOT because they can't find tenants - on the contrary, ask our friend Szehoong - they are REFUSING many prospective tenants because they are too selective on who to let in, even at the astronomical Raffles Place - level rents they charge there (over S$ 5 per square foot, or 2.5x normal good building rent in KL). After all, Parkview Square owners in SG are even more tenant-selective for a 90% empty tower, why don't we then say Singapore buildings are empty too?

I have done my first 3-D model of downtown Singapore for those developers in 1993, and we analysed it zillion times for prospective WTB or simply tall developments at Raffles Place, Tg Pagar and New Downtown, everyone could see how greatly SG skyline would benefit from a strategically placed tall tower here which would create money and have a proper observation deck, not like that laughing stock of a ferris wheel with a good part of view blocked by a wall of tall chunky bldgs like Millenia and Suntec City...hah even the current Natl Devt Minister Mah Bow Tan saw some of that, he was generally supportive but somehow things got canned.

The spire superstition thing is known, and is very political, I risk being arrested if I "elaborate" in written... My circle are architects, developers and bureacrats in this arena, and, well, sometimes, the most unbelievable stories might just be the truth...

KL has other "obstacles" but generally, those get easily resolved by talking to the right person at a right time in a right way... :-)

You may argue that, if KL gets the next WTB, it will be an ego show, but I can tell you it might ALSO be a greatly profitable building, a worldwide crowd puller, a "quantum leap" for them, and, well, a statement of foreign investment confidence in Malaysia too... so yes, with some kind of rapid transport in between, you'll be able to alternate between "city of boxes" and "city of spires" in no time :-)

Sorry, I am really biased in favour of tall, thin, spire-tipped Art Deco towers - I was born in a communist country whose box-full capital, New Belgrade, after Goh Chok Tong' and S'pore delegation's visit in 1978, supposedly a model for some new HDB towns, you won't believe how similar the building designs are!!!

... and oh yes, you may remember the mid '80's during previous economic crisis, when Singapore was full of uncompleted high-rises standing still (Marina Square etc)... everyone passes through that stage sometimes, the KL gang has learned their mistakes and, with improving property market there, and proper developers instead of crooks, most of those stalled things will be completed or re-done.

Finally, if I am a Singaporean, doesn't mean I must love the way it looks or agree with whatever Govt decides... I got my own mind and my own imagination :-)

[RafflesCity]

Originally posted by Nova Singapore

After all, Parkview Square owners in SG are even more tenant-selective for a 90% empty tower, why don't we then say Singapore buildings are empty too?

But then Parkview Square is hardly the WTB is it? I believe huaiwei was citing it as an example of your atypical 'box'. Not to mention its atypical vacancy rates As for me, I cant take my eyes off it especially at night

Go around Singapore and look at the postcards. What do you see on them? The skyline. The way it looks now..is it screaming for a WTB or some spired top? Maybe you disagree but I think not. Get over it.

As I already said in my first reply, I and I'm sure all of us would love to have a WTB. But havent you noticed just how tiny our island is? We may not be able to have the Tower of Babylon, but at least we can provide uncluttered access to our runways. Which is more important to you? Do share!

[TropicalSQ744]

Originally posted by Nova Singapore

The simple question - we're being turned into a city of fat bulky 245 m boxes, with those old three sticking out just a bit, while KL will soon get another tall slim ultratall going... becoming a city of beautiful spires, FlashGordon-like...

Is it a time to petition the Govt to remove the height limit at Raffles Place? Should SG have a WTB?

Firstly, simply because 1 Marina Boulevard and 1 Raffles Quay is bulky/boxy dosen't mean the other buildings that are gonna be built in the New Downtown site will be that way.

Our urban planning authorities have shown that they want a Singapore that is aesthetically pleasing and if I'm not wrong the planning guidelines here are one of the most strict in the world. (huaiwei can confirm this)

So how did you come to conclude that Singapore "is being turned into a city of fat bulky 245 m boxes"?

[huaiwei]

We all know that Republic Plaza was once supposed to be built by the Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi. So basically, you do not have a government body building another spireless and unexciting building. It remains to be seen why you allege that the government is the biggest developer of boxes in the city.

I do not understand why you have to constantly harp on this PTT being empty and so on. I do not think anyone has shown their ignorance in that respect. However, what remains to be compared is the office occupancy rates of the varous cities. It is a pity I cannot find a more updated set of data, but here is one example:



Office vacancy rates for all of Singapore dropped to 4% at the end of the year 2000. For the begining of this year, however, it jumped to as high as nearly 18%. Given such an economic situation, does it make any sense to build a WTB? If a 90% empty tower in the form of Parkview Square is considered a shockingly negative figure according to you, then do we need a 99% empty WTB?

If you say that "KL has other "obstacles" but generally, those get easily resolved by talking to the right person at a right time in a right way...", that starkly brings into question the sanctity of the laws of the land. If plans can be changed at their whim and fancy, then the planning department can close shop.

Sure, you can choose to love "spire-tipped Art Deco towers" all you want, and if your background from a box-full city is supposed to add credit to that, then it makes me wonder why our folks here do not seem to share your preference in such a passionate manner, especially if you seem to be suggesting this city here is supposed to be choke-full of tears-inducingly uninspiring ugly boxes.

It makes me wonder if a building which is not a WTB cannot be profitable, viable or beautiful. And also.....bulding a WTB can attract foreign attention and all that. Yeap, the logic is there. But if you are so much in love with spires, I am afraid a 280m tower with a 200m spire probably isnt going to make us very well-liked to certain segments of the global populance...

well OK, Parkview Square is a beautiful building, and it is atypical (and atypically empty), I am simply looking at several landmark structures now under construction in Raffles Place and Tg Pagar: the Marina Boulevard NTUC, its twin boxy neighbours, then the Icon condo near International Plaza (really hideous proportions, like an obese person), etc. Combine them with Suntec City, Raffles City, and many other boxy bldgs downtown, and what do you get?

Secondly, Singapore is not that small compared to other cities, you must remember that New York may be 18 million++ population, but Manhattan is less than 3 million, and Manhattan island is maybe what, like 1/3 size of Singapore? The size of Singapore skyline, the density push and high prices due to lack of space easily justify multiple profitable supertalls - I saw professional feasibility studies on this, that were submitted to the govt. And I can say this, there were (and still are) two excellent locations at Raffles Place itself, and one at Tg Pagar, from soil conditions to transportation, realisable sale/rent value etc.

I have been to all Top 10 WTB worldwide, including late NY WTC, and the new Taipei101 just a month ago (even many Taiwanese consider it hideous). Anyway, these buildings do instill an added sense of pride for the city folks, and do bring a lot of indirect income to the surrounding... ever thought that the "Top Three" in Singapore look like similar-size loose book-ends from Sheares bridge, in the words of the original Republic Plaza developer?

So OK, fine, I agree, let's just leave it at 245 m and be done, let others focus on going taller for whatever reason - but then, why that ridiculous ferris wheel? In a location where its view towards the centre of the island is almost completely blocked by the chunky wall of 180+m Suntec/Millenia buildings? At construction costs approaching the London Eye yet nearly impossible to charge even a third of (very very expensive) London Eye tix fee?
I know the guy who's doing that one, too.

Some of our neighbours are laughing at that one - eh, the original URA masterplan called for a nice 245 m landmark conic highrise grouping there to mark the mouth of Marina bay - kinda high rise version of Sydney Opera...

BTW, Huaiwei, I harp on the PTT issue coz whenever there is talk abt KL skyline, someone (from US, Singapore, wherever) will bring up how they're building empty monoliths... which isn't really true. There are some half-empty Class B, old, buildings there, so what?

If we had a WTB or a supertall one here, like say Jin Mao in SH, the forum would probably be full of proud praises for it, isn't it?

Now the story abt Republic Plaza, the original design was an 88-storey, 400+ m tower with a pyramid cap and a spire which was never approved - they scaled it down to 66 levels and 280 m. It also covered the present The Exchange site, and had 4 huge banking chambers for Citibank, ABN-Amro, Bank of Tokyo and Mitsubishi Bank (they were separate then) - it was supposed to be the foreign banking center in SG. More on that next time, RP took umpteen years to finalise... there were unbelievable political complications with it related to the MND and the minister who originally approved it then commited suicide (I guess not bcoz of that though)...

Anyway, if you mean the US netizens would b upset with a 280+200 m "spired monster", I really don't give a damn what does anyone of them think about it... it is any place's prerogative to decide what they do - so OK, if SG people support the 245 m limit, let it be, if KL people support a 2,000++ footer, let it be... to each his own - let's close the discussion at that

[RafflesCity]

Originally posted by Nova Singapore

I have been to all Top 10 WTB worldwide, including late NY WTC, and the new Taipei101 just a month ago (even many Taiwanese consider it hideous). Anyway, these buildings do instill an added sense of pride for the city folks, and do bring a lot of indirect income to the surrounding... ever thought that the "Top Three" in Singapore look like similar-size loose book-ends from Sheares bridge, in the words of the original Republic Plaza developer?

Maybe. Definitely there are marketing advantages to be had with a WTB (if only we could, given the constraints). But civic pride? I read that many NYers detested the WTC twins. I believe that in Singapore, pride is expressed less in grandiose structures but more in the aspects that Singapore is famed worldwide for.
Take a look at the newly opened waterfront outside the Esplanade Theatres. Look how popular it is with the locals and tourists who throng it, sitting outside there, enjoying the calm seabreeze or the city lights and taking pictures against...the backdrop of the 3 book-ends
Seriously, I love the unique 3 pillar effect those 3 have on the skyline profile, and whenever my plane descends into Changi, I am looking out for their skyward thrust in the distance..and their beauty and the smallness and bigness of Singapore at once is just an indescribable feeling

if SG people support the 245 m limit, let it be, if KL people support a 2,000++ footer, let it be

We're not arguing with any KL people here are we? Why do you feel the need to be their spokesperson?

[huaiwei]

Oh I am not done with my previous reply, so since you decided to add more "whining" into this thread, allow me to reply to it later.

In general, I gather from your posts that you seem to think it is your duty to plant a WTB on this soil for some reason, and you seem to be holding a personal grievience towards them for scuttling your plans, leading you to launch this vendetta against them. I can almost picture you going the world over admiring other people's tall buildings and whining to others how people down here dunt appreciate your plans. Makes me wonder what is the purpose of this thread in the first place.

I wonder if you bothered to read our replies so far. It might sound crappy, but its more then meets the eye. I wonder if you served National Service, because you do not seem to possess even the slightest grasp of understanding of the reasons for keeping certain sensitive airspace free from your beloved pins and needles. Its quite clear that most of us are dissapointed with the height limits too, and why would we NOT want a WTB, but apparently we at least can have a more intelligent discussion of why it is so rather then painting the government as some sort of North Korean regime who exterminates anyone who builds spires by the push of a button?

If you really think so, I can symphatise with your background. Perhaps you can try PMing us to explain this taboo of spires here. I can assure you Lee Kuan Yew dosent log into my account.

As for your constant reminders that you are "a Singaporean, a Singaporea, a Singaporean", I honestly do not think that building a WTB here makes you more Singaporean. It also dosent make you more Singaporean to parrot whatever the government says, or to agree with everything they say. Then, we might end up asking what is a Singaporean. Well, I consider myself a Singaporean simply because I was born and grew up here. As for your case, it is entirely up to you to define your nationality, but sometimes, actions do speak louder then words.