Does Singapore need more 'funky' buildings?

[RafflesCity]

Originally posted by huaiwei
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.

Got to agree with huaiwei. The place is proving itself very popular as a venue to draw the crowds, be it for the indoor mall, Library, the restaurants or the waterfront. I myself always head there whenever I can. Indeed, I sense a vibrancy from the people whenever I walk along the Esplanade and I cant really think of a similar location as strategic in Singapore so near the business district.
In fact, I notice that the place is rather popular with young people (as well as old) and thats important from the former's point of view as it can be a place where memories are shared and forged, and I daresay the place will definitely be an important anchorpoint in the civic consciousness of Singaporeans and foreigners. Hence it is rather too short term to label it an embarrassment or white elephant.

Power to the People!

[Kit]

Hmm........ I guess if the building truly reflects its worth then its ok but so far, the Esplanade doesn't, at least to me. I'm not against expensive buildings as long as its bang for the money.

Like I've said before, there are so many precedents out there that have done so much more for much lesser. The 2 projects I've mentioned above costs significantly lesser than the Esplanade but have much much greater impact.

I for one wouldn't forsee myself paying to see a performance in the Esplanade. Stage performances aren't my thing and I wouldn't want to spend money to go and pretend I really enjoy it (if you know what I mean). So if I were paying tax, how can I enjoy my tax dollars? Use the open spaces? Give me back the old Esplanade and satay club anytime.

Very few art venue earn profit in their first year of operations. The point is how much can you get from your dollar and be smart about it. Straighten out the priorities.

[RafflesCity]

Originally posted by huaiwei
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.

Yup..saw it in the URA's masterplan to revitalize the bay and turn it into an entertainment and cultural loop.

I believe the first step has been taken, and more good things are to come. Already someone astutely pointed out (huaiwei or tropical) that the Marina Square area was purpose built to house hotels and entertainment to take advantage of the skyline etc.

With such an asset as our waterfront, we should go all out to embrace it.

[Kit]

Originally posted by RafflesCity

Yup..saw it in the URA's masterplan to revitalize the bay and turn it into an entertainment and cultural loop.

I believe the first step has been taken, and more good things are to come. Already someone astutely pointed out (huaiwei or tropical) that the Marina Square area was purpose built to house hotels and entertainment to take advantage of the skyline etc.

With such an asset as our waterfront, we should go all out to embrace it.

Well, then let's all hope they don't throw in good money again and hop for the best.

[RafflesCity]

Originally posted by Kit

Well, then let's all hope they don't throw in good money again and hop for the best.

Well..I do agree that the esplande was a bit on the extravagant side, but I do realise its significance and I am sure its a one-off. I wonder what we will say of it say..20 years down the road?
As for the future plans, lets see if the public get more say in it

[Kit]

Sure hope it'll prove its worth for time to come because judging from the response from architectural publications, it doesn't have much value at all.

[huaiwei]

Originally posted by Kit

Sure hope it'll prove its worth for time to come because judging from the response from architectural publications, it doesn't have much value at all.

I think I understand your grievance, and it is actually a common refrain amongst most people here who, as being typical Singaporeans, tend to see things in monetary terms.

I too, hope the centre goes back to profitability soon, not because it will "gain more monetary worth", but because it might signal that the arts has taken a filmer root here. I am very much an advocate of the arts, even if I do not claim to be "Arty-farty" or that I appreciate every form of it. I am just someone who enjoys whatever sounds good or looks good to me. (this has no relations to the fact that I am from the arts faculty. )

Anyway, I tink dunt fret too much if it dosent gain much acceptance in the architectural circles. As we often say...the architectural field sometimes seems to be at odds with the wider community. Just because they appreciate something, it dosent mean the rest would, and vice versal. And I do not think architects share the same views about buildings in general either.

[huaiwei]

Originally posted by RafflesCity

Well..I do agree that the esplande was a bit on the extravagant side, but I do realise its significance and I am sure its a one-off. I wonder what we will say of it say..20 years down the road?
As for the future plans, lets see if the public get more say in it

As they say....the huge amount they spent on the opening fiesta was one-off too. In suppose in this kind of thing, you only have one chance to show it to the world. Cut it down, and it makes us wonder if we should have done something better before. I think I sound kinda drama-drama now, but as I watched the fireworks racing across the entire Marina Bay, I almost felt like screaming for joy at what I so very much hope to see here, and that was the acceptance and maturity of a city that noes how to forget about the economy (remember it opened during an economically traumatic period), forget about dollars and sence, and just spludge and enjoy ourselves.

And btw, this looks unlikely to be the only major civic institution here to get so much attention. Watch out for the two prominent sites at the New Downtown, both of which might very well upstage the Explanade in this regard.

[huaiwei]

BTW..after reading the article, it dosent sound like a very serious interview was it?

[TropicalSQ744]

Originally posted by huaiwei

BTW..after reading the article, it dosent sound like a very serious interview was it?

It's more of an informal Q&A session.

[huaiwei]

Yeah I dont think I would make some form of analysis from this interview about the esplanade?

[RafflesCity]

Originally posted by Kit

Back to the original question...

Nope we don't need more funky buildings. What we need are buildings that can help identify what Singapore is really about. Perhaps buildings that could reflect and enhance the lifestyle of Singaporeans. Forget about funky forms, flashy materials or branded architects. If buildings are not designed with users in mind, they don't work.

That is a good point. The best is if we can combine practicality with interesting details and somehow get it to fit/enhance its context. Not sure if the new Supreme Court would be up to it, although it does scream for attention.

Speaking of architecture, there are 2 books on Singapore architecture. One is a hardcover book with detailed fllor plans/diagrams called 'Singapore - Architecture of a Global City' and a new one forgot the name, but it has quite a lot of entries, especially old ones that redstone should like.

[redstone]

The first book I've read before in the library.

The other book ,is it red paper-back.The cover featuring detailed shot of the Hill Street Police Station?

[Cliff]

Originally posted by RafflesCity

Speaking of architecture, there are 2 books on Singapore architecture. One is a hardcover book with detailed fllor plans/diagrams called 'Singapore - Architecture of a Global City'

I like that book!!! But I can't afford it, its S$70+ at Kinokuniya's Architecture section.

[Kit]

Go to Bashir at Brash Basah. Probably cheaper and I can find some really good publications that aren't available in Page One. E.g. Page One is hopeless in getting JA publications.

[RafflesCity]

Heres interesting reading.

How much say should public have over public buildings?

Arthur Sim, The Straits Times, Singapore

When The Straits Times published a computer-generated picture of new Supreme Court complex last week; it generated a series of Forum letters. Perhaps the most vocal was of architect Tay Kheng Soon, who feels the design could have been better if the public had engaged in a dialogue on it.

PIONEER architect Tay Kheng Soon has once again spoken out strongly about architecture in Singapore.

The last time the 61-year-old took a stand, it was about the demolition of the National Library in Bras Basah. He was opposed to its demolition but could not argue for its preservation.

He has now made a cause celebre of the design of the new Supreme Court complex in the former Colombo Court site.

His sentiments, published in a Forum letter in The Straits Times on April 25, could not be less emphatic. He wrote: 'I was appalled by the design.'

PWD Consultants is the project coordinator behind the new Supreme Court complex, which is scheduled to be completed in 2004. British design consultancy, Foster and Partners, was selected from a shortlist of 13 international architectural firms drawn up by PWD Consultants.

The design of public buildings often becomes controversial as members of the public feel they have a right to be consulted. But design is not an easy entity to qualify and exactly who should be held accountable is even less clear.

One of Tay's major grievances is that being a potentially important civic building, the public should have been allowed to give its feedback at the onset of the design, and not after the design had been approved for construction.

Apart from obtaining government approval, the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA), the nation's planning authority, does not actually require that the Supreme Court make the design public.

However, the URA did have certain safeguards against 'appalling' designs in the civic district. But its design advisory panel, the now-defunct Architectural Design Panel (ADP), was dissolved in 2000.

A URA spokesman confirms that the design of the Supreme Court had not undergone the panel's scrutiny. He says: 'The ADP had been dissolved in 2000, before the Supreme Court was designed.'

The ADP has since been replaced by the Design Advisory Committee (DAC) and the International Panel of Architects and Urban Planners (IPAUP).



Like the ADP, the DAC and IPAUP provide design guidelines along major corridors, to ensure that new structures are sensitive to the existing context. But unlike the ADP, clearance from the DAC and IPAUP is no longer required on important buildings as a condition of URA's planning approval.

Speaking to an audience of architects in April 2000, Minister for National Development Mah Bow Tan, who announced the ADP's dissolution, said: 'With the maturing of our architectural profession and a better appreciation of the value of good design, there is a general consensus that the panel may no longer be necessary.'

Indeed, the URA's position is not to dictate design, and more bureaucracy is certainly not the answer either.

But the president of the Singapore Institute of Architects (SIA), Mr John Ting, thinks that consultations with relevant professional bodies are useful. The SIA is the only professional body recognised by the government which represents the architects and the profession. Tay was himself a former SIA president.

Of the controversy over the design of the new Supreme Court complex, Ting feels the SIA should have been consulted.

'The more learned among us should be party to the formulation process rather than be standing on the outside, reacting to the design,' he says.

But he acknowledges that a more comprehensive consultation process with the SIA could still have resulted in a design that is not so different from the final one.

He says: 'Yes, the building might be the same in the end, but at least they would have made the effort to inform the audience.'

OTHER DESIGNS IN QUESTION

BUT not all architects agree with him on the final design of the Supreme Court.

Tay is one of the more vocal exponents of the architecture scene, but his is by no means the only voice calling for a more considerate approach to civic planning.

Architect Tan Hock Beng gave Parkview Square, a building opposite Bugis Junction, the thumbs down.

In an interview with The Straits Times on Feb 4, he said: 'It seems too out of place and has bad elements of Las Vegas and Hollywood put together.'

The building, a 24-storey office block, is not a public one, so there was even less need to consult the public on the design.

But more serious, perhaps, are his views about public buildings like the 'aesthetically confused' The Esplanade - Theatres On The Bay.

He says: 'If you take the roof off, no one would be able to tell what the building is. The roof is just a little hood, multiplied a hundred times. The form has no sense of the activity, energy or jubilation it contains.'

THE ISSUE OF FOREIGN TALENT

THAT both The Esplanade and Parkview Square were designed by foreign architects is perhaps a particularly prickly thorn-in-the-side of many Singaporean firms.

Briton Michael Wilford was responsible for The Esplanade and American James Adam for Parkview Square. Both parties, however, collaborated with local firm, DP Architects.

It is not said explicitly, but many architects here feel developers still believe only a foreign architect can produce good work.

Architects like Tan argue that getting a foreigner is no guarantee of a good building, regardless of the firm's reputation.

He says that of the many big-name architects who have built in Singapore, like I M Pei, Kenzo Tange and Philip Johnson, 'not a single building designed by them for Singapore is internationally acclaimed'.



Tange designed the UOB Plaza and the Indoor Stadium; Pei was behind Raffles City while Johnson conceptualised Millenia Walk.

Is the problem of design in Singapore just a matter of transparency?

Tan thinks not.

'It's a question of the design brief. If you have a conventional brief, you can't expect spectacular architecture,' says Tan, pointing his finger at developers.

Robert Powell, a former lecturer at the Department of Architecture, National University of Singapore, agrees that it is not simply a matter of whether an architect is local or foreign.

'We should not put the blame for mediocrity solely on foreign architects. Local architects, too, have produced much mediocrity. The Parliament House, which could have been a landmark for the nation, is a timid building with no presence.'

Like Tan, Powell also feels that the quality of architecture depends on the working relationship between the client, architect and building authorities.

'If there are too many compromises or any failure of nerve, the Supreme Court will end up like others, for example The Esplanade, a good rather than great building.'

But no matter who is assigned the blame, many still feel the architecture in Singapore is, at best, mediocre.

Having had a closer look at the model of the Supreme Court complex, Tay now feels that the design lacks an 'appropriate design symbolism'.

Left with no clue on how to understand and read the architecture, or how designs evolve, important landmarks are reduced quickly to the level of caricature.

The Esplanade, with its two distinctive parts, is already fast becoming referred to as the 'durian' or 'fly' building.

And in the case of the Supreme Court, some question why the same floating disk appears in the design of another local building - the Expo MRT station at the Singapore Expo in Changi, which was also designed by Foster and Partners.

Unfortunately, this is probably not a question that will be answered as the design for the building has already been approved and it is now waiting to be built.

BUDDING HOMEGROWN FIRMS

BUT not all hope is lost. On April 30, over 200 competition entries for the design of the much-touted Duxton Plain public housing went on display at the URA Centre in Maxwell Road.

The event was publicised widely eight months ago, in Singapore and internationally, and drew contestants like internationally-acclaimed architects Tange, Zaha Hadid and Will Alsop.

It might not be the most important public building, but it will certainly be the biggest.

Tay himself took part in the competition. But the first prize went to ARC Studio, a very young and small Singapore firm.

With the competition, it seemed every possible measure was taken to ensure the best design was selected. This meant a judging panel that included several renowned architects. The competition was also the first for public housing in Singapore.

With so much effort made to get the perfect design for Duxton Plain, will Singapore get a good example of local architecture finally?

Tay, who was present at the exhibition, did not want to comment. It seems the public will have to decide.

[RafflesCity]

Philippine artist turns Alkaff Bridge into Singapore's first 'art bridge'

29 Jan 2004



SINGAPORE: The Alkaff Bridge is now covered in paint of every colour you can imagine. But it's not graffitti. It's the result of one month of painstaking work by an artist and a team of rope specialists. They've turned the dull grey bridge into a one-of-a kind structure.

They looked like they're gearing up to climb a mountain.

But they're actually preparing to put the final touches to their labour of love.

For Philippine artist Pacita Abad, the chance to use Alkaff Bridge as a gigantic canvas was simply too good to pass up.

But it took plenty of preparation before a single drop of paint was applied.

Matin Tran of the Singapore Tyler Print Institute, said: "It's a big challenge, to put this together. There's a lot of requirement to fulfil in order to do this project. We had to seek approvals from LTA and get permits from various agencies and the STB was very supportive and helped us get the approvals."

Said artist Pacita Abad: "I love colours, it's my obsession. We should have more colours so we can enjoy life and loosen up. I think it's important when you walk in and you smile or you just get angry, at least you get a reaction to it."

And that's exactly what she got.

"Oh candies, I totally love candies so this is really my type of bridge, very colourful like candies and cookies," said a Singaporean.

Quipped another: "I think it's really cool, adds some colour to the Singapore River which is what this place needs."

The artist and her crew of helpers used 52 different colours and more than 900 litres of the industrial strength paint.

And the paint makers said Singaporeans will be able to enjoy the vibrant colours for at least the next five years. - CNA

[RafflesCity]

Playground? Dunno but I am sure kids will like it. It looks so naughty and fun! LOL

[huaiwei]

But I am sure even adults will feel like they are walking into a playground?

[RafflesCity]

LOL..kinda I guess.

Heres a pic showing the powerful night lighting effects of The Concourse. Not many buildings are lighted up at night like this one is.