Does Singapore need more 'funky' buildings?

[Kit]

http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/tal...21580,00.html?

What you guys think? Is he an optimist or does he need to get real and start realising the Esplanade is a white elephant afterall?

[Kit]

Originally posted by huaiwei

I suppose Architects are supposed to be trained in their fields to be mindful of certain issues with regards to the build form. Kit himself might give us better insight into this, while I am just guessing. Probobly they see things we do not, especially in terms of functionality. But when it comes to artisitic interpretation of the final product, which the vast majority of laymen tend to focus their attention on, it is probably more open to contestation.......

We are taught the fundamentals, history, theory, technology, etc. it is up to us to manipulate what's been taught and hopefully, it will result in something that really interests us. We can't make everybody happy. There's bound to be criticism in whatever we do. We have to deal with that. Sometimes, I can sense tremendous resentment towards architects who have been accused of getting it all wrong. What you guys think? We've been talking about favourite architects. What about architects you dislike? Not personally but the work they produced.

I tend to gauge a building not so much by how it look but more importantly (I think), how it feels and function. How does it feel to be at one particular spot of the building? Daniel Libeskind's Jewish Museum is a good example. A series of spaces that depict pain and suffering during the holocaust, nothing else.

[Cliff]

Originally posted by Kit

Aesthetics......... what's considered good looking to you guys? Funky form? Flashy cladding? Or a well lit building?

Look at the Esplanade. 2 technologically advance, funky looking(depending on who you ask), not to mention very expensive glass domes that look like fly eyes, durians, pair of microphone, whatever. What do you think they symbolise? Compare them to the Sydney Oprah House. Do you think the Esplanade stand a chance? Is there a building in Singapore that's worth being published in El Croquis?

Sorry, I can't answer your question for I do not know it my self, but for the following questions, I will tell you what I feel.

Nothing is really considered good looking or not, in fact every building in the world is bound to go through massive consideration and preliminary processes. (Except for HDB Blocks #2 and above). To me, architecture is good when functionality can be combined well with design. Also, it's not just how good looking it may be, the building must flow with it's surroundings, not just scream for attention. But for a definite answer to your subjective question, I say I like creativity in a building, not the sort of tackiness you see in some, but something like you cut a section out of a box to produce Maybank Tower, you twist a box to produce the Turing Torso, or even something as simple as the idea of the Linear, long and modern.

Comparing with the Sydney Opera House, the Esplanade is short of significance. The Sydney Opera House sits on the bay; it has white shell resembling sails of a ship, while the Esplanade just uses bold architecture to try to get the same inspiring result. But it does prove itself for functionality, as the metal 'spikes' provide shade from the sun in an extremely efficient and creative way. Unlike the opera house which just uses concrete to cover up the whole thing. This, with respect to Esplanade, is very impressive, as it brings out the tropical feeling of Sunny but warm Singapore, yet maintaining the modern style of architecture that it is.

Yes there are many buildings in Singapore that are worth being published in El Croquis. Buildings like The Esplanade, Millenia Walk, the Gateway, The Light at Cairnhill, and many others, I feel all can be published in the magazine.

So that's my 2 cents

[RafflesCity]

Yes, if public funds are being used in the project then of course the public should have a say in the process. Like in any decision-making, there should be compromise between all parties involved that would ideally take into account cost, aesthetics, environmental considerations etc.

[Kit]

Originally posted by Cliff

Sorry, I can't answer your question for I do not know it my self, but for the following questions, I will tell you what I feel.

Nothing is really considered good looking or not, in fact every building in the world is bound to go through massive consideration and preliminary processes. (Except for HDB Blocks #2 and above). To me, architecture is good when functionality can be combined well with design. Also, it's not just how good looking it may be, the building must flow with it's surroundings, not just scream for attention. But for a definite answer to your subjective question, I say I like creativity in a building, not the sort of tackiness you see in some, but something like you cut a section out of a box to produce Maybank Tower, you twist a box to produce the Turing Torso, or even something as simple as the idea of the Linear, long and modern.

Comparing with the Sydney Opera House, the Esplanade is short of significance. The Sydney Opera House sits on the bay; it has white shell resembling sails of a ship, while the Esplanade just uses bold architecture to try to get the same inspiring result. But it does prove itself for functionality, as the metal 'spikes' provide shade from the sun in an extremely efficient and creative way. Unlike the opera house which just uses concrete to cover up the whole thing. This, with respect to Esplanade, is very impressive, as it brings out the tropical feeling of Sunny but warm Singapore, yet maintaining the modern style of architecture that it is.

Yes there are many buildings in Singapore that are worth being published in El Croquis. Buildings like The Esplanade, Millenia Walk, the Gateway, The Light at Cairnhill, and many others, I feel all can be published in the magazine.

So that's my 2 cents

Thanks for your 2 cents.

I totally agree that creativity doesn't mean complexity or funky forms. I love boxes.

The Esplanade....... when I first saw it, I thought that's it. That's what Singapore needs...... badly. However, upon close look, the large expenditure seems needless and money could be better spent. For one, why place glass domes over 2 theatres that doesn't need natural lighting in the first place? They're created 2 huge green houses for which they have to fill up with cool air. Because of that, you need sunshaders......... isn't that inventing something to solve a problem which shouldn't exist in the first place? Sure, I'm all for natural lighting but is it necessary to have natural lighting over spaces that doesn't require it?

I fully understand the motive behind the design of the Esplanade but to me it just "cannot make it". They seem to have put in a lot of effort and money on something that gives a "wow" impression but sadly, that impression doesn't last, at least for me.

The Esplanade, to me is a textbook example of the Asian view where "hardware rules", nothing else matters.

[Cliff]

Originally posted by Kit

Thanks for your 2 cents.

I totally agree that creativity doesn't mean complexity or funky forms. I love boxes.

The Esplanade....... when I first saw it, I thought that's it. That's what Singapore needs...... badly. However, upon close look, the large expenditure seems needless and money could be better spent. For one, why place glass domes over 2 theatres that doesn't need natural lighting in the first place? They're created 2 huge green houses for which they have to fill up with cool air. Because of that, you need sunshaders......... isn't that inventing something to solve a problem which shouldn't exist in the first place? Sure, I'm all for natural lighting but is it necessary to have natural lighting over spaces that doesn't require it?

I fully understand the motive behind the design of the Esplanade but to me it just "cannot make it". They seem to have put in a lot of effort and money on something that gives a "wow" impression but sadly, that impression doesn't last, at least for me.

The Esplanade, to me is a textbook example of the Asian view where "hardware rules", nothing else matters.

Well, I'm sure thae Esplanade has it's reasons for that design, maybe opening up to the world and the people with it's translucent facade? A solid building will not appeal to everyone, it does not give a sense of welcoming, but rather of mystery, as you want to know what's going on inside. But for the Esplanade, that extra layer of glass 'brings' the people in, you feel one with the building, you don't feel like you are unwelcome, this and it still adds privacy with the enclosed theatre within. You step into the lobby, you see the shell, you're inside, not like you step into a lobby, and you see a wall with huge doors, you are just not 'in' the building.

[Kit]

To me, the Esplanade looks more over powering than welcoming. Actually, the shells do not appear to be translucent at certain spots, where the angle of the sunshaders are less steep. Also, creating 2 huge green houses in the tropics makes me wonder how energy efficient they are.

I appreciate the notion of immaterialising a building to make it look more welcoming but do we need such an expensive solution? There are more successful projects achieving much more for much less.

[Cliff]

You do have a point there.

[Kit]

I think we're getting O.T. I do apologise if I sounded less than desirable.

I must admit I do have a strong view on this project, especially after meeting some of those people who's running it. They appeared to be more interested in pushing the Esplanade as a piece of hardware with little consideration to its contents. Because of the high building costs, I'm not sure how many local production houses can actually afford to use that place.

600 million dollars to build a piece of hardware is extravagant considering how much starving artists get from the government. Money could have been better spent.

[huaiwei]

Very interesting discussion. But let me touch on the Esplanade first.

I do not noe if you guys are aware but the original design actually did NOT have those spikes. It is amazing how the professionals could think of creating two glass domes in the tropics. And mind you, they arenot translucent. They are was clear as normal glass would. I have been inside the esplanade on many occasions, and I actually love to stare through the glass shell at the skyine!

The architect himself realised, perharps a tad too late later, that those glass domes are going to be greenhouses. He personallly added the spikes later, and funnily, it was the spikes that caused the uproar. Now people are demanding why the spikes are there. It is like a clash between issues of functionality and asthetics, a very common dillemma.

Come to think of it, during the Esplanade design competition phase, and when this design won, I recall people writing into the press complaining that those "blobs of dough" do not look deserving of a win! The architects explained they wont look like those simple "blobs", that they would be detailed and so on. On reflection, they actually did plan to have a simple glass canopy....and no spikes!

As for comparison with the Sydney Opera House, I think we have to be reminded that it was a classic case of asthetics over functionality. No doubt, the tiling of the shells was an engineering marvel and all. The glass was the longest continous pieces or something? But the fact is that they overlooked even the most fundamental things like carparking. Many of my friends who are visitors to that place tell me....beyond those shells, there is really nothing you can do there as a visitor, other then attending performances.

I feel our esplanade did realise its important role as a civic institution. Since its inception, it planned to become a focal point for the general public to just walk around outside and in for the heck of it. From personal observations, I actually think it succeeded overwelmingly in this regard, despite the fact that the mall was puny in size. (I recall on the grand opening day, thousands upon thousands of people descended on it thinking they have a huge mall to walk in, and had to be urshered out of dead-end corners).

Ths esplanade transformed the character of the Marina Promenade forever. Today, you walk along it in the evening, and I can assure you it has become one of the top destinations for people to congregate just to enjoy the view and for simple relaxation. I personally love the Library in the Esplanade. It was a destination in itself. The eateries has already earned a name for themselves, and are doing exceptionally well. People descended on it just to look "up-market" I suppose!

For that, I personally feel the Esplanade has scored top marks for becoming a civic institution to be loved. It brings art to the masses by the regular and frequent free performances, some during the lunch hour for the office workers, and others during the evenings and weekends for families. At the same time, it reserves the feeling of exclusivity for paid performances. You know you are going to a good performance when you pay, because they are selective with who gets to perform. It became a top target for photographers, and sooner or later, those images will filmly stick it to us as a Singaporean icon recognisable the world over.

I do not wish to sound like I am over defending this thing. If you ask me, I think it could have been better designed. There are things lacking here and there. But for all its shortcomings, I think its the human feel that won me over.

[huaiwei]

Originally posted by Kit

http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/tal...21580,00.html?

What you guys think? Is he an optimist or does he need to get real and start realising the Esplanade is a white elephant afterall?

Err....let me go read my hardcopy version first before I think about it! I hate reading off the PC screen.

p.s. maybe you might want to just copy and paste the whole articel here. STI has a irritating policy of forcing us to pay after 3 days, and the link wont work by then.

[Kit]

That's a fair assessment I must say.

Yeah, I remember seeing pics of the model. It was white and "bald" with absolutely nothing to suggest how its going to look after completion. Some said they looked like papayas. The Esplanade might have fulfilled its role as a civic destination but what about the role it was designed to play? I mean, really spending 600 million on 2 theatres with a combined seating capacity of less than 4000 with bits and pieces of retail and restaurants plugged in? Do we really need to spend such a fortune for what it does? I don't think so. Given the economy situation, I'm not sure how many Singaporeans can still afford to look "up-market". Might be wrong though.

The omission of carparks was seen as a major flaw in the case of the opera house. However, having spent the last week in Sydney, I began to wonder if they actually need more cars to enter the Sydney CBD. The Sydney Opera House sits right next to Circular Quay with access to trains, buses, taxis and ferries, so getting there is certainly not a problem. In fact, judging from the current situation in Sydney, taking public transportation might just be the better way in and out of the city. I would say perhaps a major flaw is a blessing in disguise. I do agree that there's nothing much else to see though.

At the risk of sounding like a snob, the Esplanade has been operating for a more than a year. Yet, I haven't seen any significant architectural publication featuring it, which is quite unusual given Singapore's status in the world stage.

[Kit]

I don't mind but will that be an infringement?

[huaiwei]

Originally posted by Kit

I don't mind but will that be an infringement?

Of coz not. Everybody do it all the time. It is prefrable to state the source and the writter thou, not just bec of issues of "copyright", but also for others to form opinions based on the source of the articles.

[Kit]

Ok, here goes.....

THE E-MAIL INTERVIEW: BENSON PUAH
Who says I'm arty farty
By Wong Kim Hoh

IT'S not an easy job running the Esplanade - Theatres on the Bay.

You have to fob off critics who think the $600 million arts complex is either an eyesore, an elitist extravagance or a white elephant.

You have to contend with tart remarks about your programming. You have to grovel for funds. And you have to make sure it makes money.

Small wonder that one Sars-scarred year and a deficit of $3.67 million later, there are rumours aplenty that the Esplanade's chief executive Benson Puah is throwing in the towel.

He says he's not. 'So long as I am able to drive the Esplanade forward, I am happy to continue contributing,' he told The Straits Times last month.

And the 46-year-old is doing so in his inimitable, stoic style.

'We knew there would be people who would be sceptical and take every opportunity to criticise or belittle us but, you know, fair game. We do what we must do. What we are trying to do is not self-serving.'

He prefers to concentrate on the positives - eight million visitors and nearly two million in attendance, both ticketed and non-ticketed, since it opened.

A pragmatic man, Mr Puah believes 'the results of the Esplanade's value will be realised, but probably not in this generation. It won't happen today, perhaps because it is too close to us; it's too sudden a transformation'.

But he doesn't mind being in the hot seat. 'Somebody's got to do it.'


Q Your signature style is a jacket thrown over a T-shirt. Very Sonny Crockett. You're not a rabid fan of Miami Vice, are you?


A It's what I wear to work but my true signature style is beach shorts and a comfortable T-shirt, preferably worn on a nice beach somewhere. Possibly Miami.

Q Last year, 25 statues by Chinese artist Yue Minjun dotted the Esplanade and they all bear an uncanny resemblance to you. Not a blatant exercise in egocentrism, was it?

A Actually, they bore an uncanny resemblance to a man with a receding hairline, slanted eyes and a big toothy smile. I thought the statues by Yue Minjun were great. They were actually his self-portraits. And I've been told I do look like him, or him me.

Q You drive an aubergine-coloured Lexus. According to one website, people who like purple have 'a degree of vanity' and 'are easily incensed, and verbose when witnessing misfortune'. Does that describe you?


A Really?! Must be a website for the sidewalk pyschoanalyst! I've also driven white, black, silver, red, green and blue cars.

I do admit to a fondness for cars. I choose the colour that, in my view, best suits the car. I don't have a favourite colour.

Q Do you use the F-word a lot? After all, funds and funding are rather thorny issues with the Durian.

A Absolutely - funds and funding frequently! I also use a lot of other words, a lot. I find it keeps me mentally alert, to try words composed with other letters of the alphabet... It helps greatly when pleading for funds.

Q My neighbourhood mee pok man cannot understand why the Government is spending millions to fund the Esplanade. He thinks it's a wasteful edifice built for elitist pursuits and indulgences which alienate his salt-of-the-earth compadres. What would you say to him?

A If he's the famous chap at that corner coffee shop in Siglap, I would tell him it takes longer waiting for his mee pok than it does to catch a show at the Esplanade. I would also tell him that when his compadres tell him they can't make it for their weekend kopi sessions, it's probably because they're spending their time at one of our many shows.

Q Since you run the Esplanade, can one assume you breathe Rachmaninov and know every soliloquy from Macbeth? Are you arty farty, a true blue culture vulture?

A Safer not to assume anything about me. I enjoy all sorts of art forms and always with an open mind. I'm a romantic at heart, so yes, Rachmaninov does press some buttons, but so do many other artists.

My taste is eclectic and my CD collection defies description. It ranges from opera to heavy metal and most things in between. Arty farty, culture vulture tags alienate people because they're labels. Art isn't supposed to do that; it's meant to bring people together.

Q Artistes and performers have been known to be temperamental and imperious. How do you deal with difficult stars?

A They are also people. They are artists because they fly off the sensitivity scale. They have precious gifts and they translate their inner sensitivities in ways that we can relate to and which bring pleasure to many. We therefore naturally treat stars and all artists with great care.

Difficult is relative. Some of the reputedly most difficult stars have been through our doors and have been easier to handle than amateur artists.

Q You have said that the value of the Esplanade will not be recognised in this generation. You are either a masochist or a martyr to take the hot seat...

A Someone has to do it.

Q Do you catch every act that performs at the Esplanade? What if someone said he had caught you nodding off at a performance?

A I try to catch most acts and, yes, I do have moments when I'm really challenged. Or I could say, who you really saw nodding off was Yue Minjin, or one of many small, Chinese men with receding hairlines, slanted eyes and big toothy smiles! We're all over the place!!

Q Do you harbour any great artistic fantasies? Do you, for instance, think you would have made a great Cirque du Soleil trapeze artist or African tribal dancer?

A I can do a great impersonation of a famous artist who had 25 statues at Esplanade recently. OK, I did use to play quite a few instruments, danced, acted, and then realised very quickly that I would starve as an artist, being totally devoid of any talent. Better to promote talent than try to be one.

Q Finally, is it Espla-naid or Espla-nard?

A Esplanade in the old days was always Espla-naid, as in lemonade. This was the place that people used to go for simple pleasures like chiak hong, literally 'eating wind'. We are the renewed Esplanade for this generation and the future, taking off from the Esplanade of old, and you can still come and 'eat wind' - this time with music wafting through!

[huaiwei]

Actually i tot singapore was never even considered an architectural haven, or was I wrong? Did our buildings feature that often in those international publications? I remember someone saying the Esplanade did start appearing in some global architectural publications or something...or was it the press that said so? It has been one year...my memory is fading.

For Sydney, wat I am aware of was the fact that downtown parking is almost never an option, simply because it was far too expensive. Most people would rely on public transport. But come to think of it. What kind of market segment does the SOH serve? If they happen to be well-heeled folks, surely they can afford downtown parking. Just an assumption.

As for the 600 million, I actually do not know if it is considered too large a sum. Is there an industrial standard to compare with? Not too sure in this, but if we use it to compare with local spending, I suppose it is kinda unfair. A building of this size will definitely cost alot, and for that matter, it costs even more to maintain. They were in a lost (as expected) in their first year of operation as was reported not too long ago, and some belt-tightening can be expected.

But if you were to ask me as an arts patron, I cant say I think the money is not well-spent! The experience was fantastic. No longer do I have to put up with the squeeze in the Victoria Concert Hall. And basically, it does mean the entry of many well-known and world class international acts which previously would never have come.

On the other hand, I also remember there were arguments that the Esplanade actually kills smaller arts groups. There is still no mid-sized performance venues, which would have catered more to them and so on. The Esplanade is far too selective to promote startups, contrary to the general argument that it is supposed to encourage the spawning of the arts here. If there were any benefits, I feel it was largely a "trickle-down" effect. The exposure to world-class acts might make us more descerning viewers, and this might up the pressure on upstarts to improve on themselves. Perhaps it becomes the dream of every arts group to finally earn the reputation good enough to perform in THE Esplanade!

[huaiwei]

Ok thanks. Gimme about 30 mins or so while I go for my lunch and read the papers. Come to think of it, do you have MSN or something? We seem to be using this like Instant Messenging!

Just send me a private message if you dont mind sharing your icq or MSN number/email. Mine is already in my profile as well for your added convenience.

[Kit]

2 examples I can think of.

Federation Square in Melboure. Costs - A$500 million (This figure us taken when the exchange rate between SGD and AUD was almost on par).

Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao. Costs a "mere" US$100 million (Which translate to roughly about $170 million SGD).

Also, there're reports that the actual building costs of the Esplanade is close to 1 billion. Outstanding debts owned to sub contractors and such.

Going for a dinner appointment now. More later.

[Kit]

The Marine Parade C.C. and Hotel Grand Evason (both by William Lim) was featured in Monument, an australian publication.

In Sydney, you can still find parking as long as you're willing to pay. About $20 for an overnight spot. The problem is getting into and around the city especially during peak hours. Its gridlock so public transportation is a more sensible way of getting around the city.

The Esplanade was planned with the intention of nurturing an artistic culture in Singapore. So to suggest that local artists have to "improve" themselves to fit into the venue kinda defeats the purpose of having the Esplanade in the first place. Moreover, I think there are many deserving local artists around, they just can't afford such expensive venues.

My point is, the Esplanade is not an all rounded venue that can cater to different needs so how can it be described as the nurturing ground for arts in Singapore. If you asked me, 600 million dollars spent on serving a niche market is not worth it, not at all.

The interview with Benson Phua revealed that the Esplanade suffered a deficit of more than 3 million in its first year of operation. Mind you, they spent 13 million on the opening night alone. Those money can definitely be better spent.

[huaiwei]

Hmm....I just read the article, and frankly, it looks more tongue-in-cheek then a more realistic assessment of the situation!

I do not think the Explanade is an all-rounder when it comes to offering venues for the performance arts, although it does indeed have a smaller recital studio, other smaller rooms, and outdoor performance areas. I recall there were initially plans for a third mid-sized theathe, but that, unforunately, was taken out.

BTW, there is also a possiblity that this is just the first phase of the arts centre. Apparantly space has been set aside for its future expansion, or the introduction of another complimentary insitution in the empty space beside it towards the Benjamin Sheares Bridge.

In a nutshell, perhaps we should not be too uptight over the costs spent on this project? I mean....you need money for good stuff, and it often gets to nowhere when people argue if a certain sum of money was well-spent or not. I personally dunt really want to judge it base don how cheap it costs to built it, and how much it costs to promote it. I think the one huge lump sum spent on the opening festival was actually a success in itself, because for one, I get to enjoy an unforgetable experience on the opening day itself. And in the subsequent one month of special performances, I could not believe it when I failed to get seats to watch the London as well as the NY Philhamonic performances, when both sold out within 2 weeks. Attendance for the performances was far higher then expected.

I was really sceptacle of it myself, I have to say, when it opened. As I watched the crowds around me during opening day, I kept wondering if these people are going to come back in future. I wondered if this will be the only day the Esplanade sees people walking through its premises. I wondered if the seaside promendade will lapse back into a ghost town. I have to say that my fears were surprisingly unfounded. You have to come back and walk around that area more often to get what I mean.

I think eveyrone also expected the centre to have a deficit in the first year of operation. In fact, I expected a deficit for many more years. I think that is quite normal? Not sure of this, but are there major arts venues overseas that earn a profit from day one?