[COMPLETED] Redevelopment of Funan Mall | 1x6 (Retail), 2x6 (Office), 1x9 (Apartment) Floors | 2019

raptorsuperb said:

My sentiments exactly! I was hoping for an extension of like 50-60 storeys hno:

Click to expand...

IMO I dont think that stretch along North Bridge Road should allow buildings too tall. They would compete with historic buildings like St Andrews & Supreme Court when viewed from across the bay.

Fortunately High Street Centre was recladded. Used to be an eyesore:cheers:

RafflesCity said:

IMO I dont think that stretch along North Bridge Road should allow buildings too tall. They would compete with historic buildings like St Andrews & Supreme Court when viewed from across the bay.

Fortunately High Street Centre was recladded. Used to be an eyesore:cheers:

Click to expand...

I would still prefer the original plan that URA released years back, that called for the redevlopement of the entire area, including peninsula, high street, adelphi and several other older buildings. The whole areas was supposed to be rebuilt into a government admin zone to house more ministries alongside the parliament, supreme court, cityhall, treasury, mica and etc. A scenic light-rail line was even planned alonged Singapore River.

That, would have been awesome, IMO. But too bad the building owners rejected URA's offer.

RafflesCity said:

I wish there was more awareness and determination to preserve precious historic buildings in that area before buildings like Peninsula Hotel or Adelphi were erected.

The buildings there now block off the view of Fort Canning. I guess redevelopments will occur piecemeal.

Click to expand...

Tell that to someone who cares...... wait a minute... who still cares?

I care! That area is wrong for very tall buildings. OK an extra nine stories is not too much but more than that would be out of place in my opinion. Singapore doesn't need a forest of skyscrapers. Part of the character of the city centre area is that there are dense clusters separated by relatively low-rise historic areas. Throwing up skyscrapers in those low rise areas will firstly ruin those historic areas and secondly reduce the impact of the existing clusters of skyscrapers and thus create a less interesting skyline not more. I personally think the view of Fort Canning is important to the character of the area. It provides a break from the monotony of looking at endless tall buildings.

Andrew said:

I care! That area is wrong for very tall buildings. OK an extra nine stories is not too much but more than that would be out of place in my opinion. Singapore doesn't need a forest of skyscrapers. Part of the character of the city centre area is that there are dense clusters separated by relatively low-rise historic areas. Throwing up skyscrapers in those low rise areas will firstly ruin those historic areas and secondly reduce the impact of the existing clusters of skyscrapers and thus create a less interesting skyline not more. I personally think the view of Fort Canning is important to the character of the area. It provides a break from the monotony of looking at endless tall buildings.

Click to expand...

again..... tell that to someone who cares....

it seems that SG just wants to be like another Shanghai, HK or Dubai with many skyscrapers filling up the skyline etc. If only Capitaland has enough capital to acquire the whole stretch from Riverpoint or Rivermall something like that? (that beige orange "shopping centre" which is pretty dead to me all the way to Peninsula and create a mega IT Digital mall with just about 6-8 storeys high and the roof-top to be a mega outdoor exhibition fair once in a while.

btw, Peninsula Hong Kong looks so more grander and up to date than the one in Singapore, such a different league. The one locally just doesn't live up to its name.

raptorsuperb said:

Well, who doesn't want skyscrapers? I'll rather have tall buildings with people living or working in it than preserving buildings that doesn't have any use. I know it sound offensive but I think old buildings should be cleared and the land being made used of, leave the history in books..

Click to expand...

I absolutely guarantee that you would regret that sentiment if it actually happened. Maybe not straight away, but soon the novelty of having a totally modern city would wear off and you'd realise just how sterile and devoid of culture and identity such a place would be.
You think like Le Corbusier, who wanted to replace this...


...with this


Erm, yeah, progress!

Interestingly of all the people to have influenced Singapore's built environment, Le Corbusier seems to have been the most extensixe:


Don't get me wrong, I don't think that's a bad thing because most of these estates were built on previously undeveloped land. However, I believe that this type of development should not be at the expense of already established communities.

The academic way of viewing things.....

Do you think that buildings here were preserved because they deserved to stay? You've been to Boat Quay? Did you know that the row of shophouses there were slated for the sledgehammer if the government wasn't convinced that they coould reap in tons of money from them? We don't get the novelty of living in a totally new city because we started tubula rasa, people just don't realise it.

Been to Chinatown? You thought that represents our culture?? Did you know that the amenities around the area were so badly designed after the re-works that the residents couldn't use them? When you walk around Chinatown is like a Hollywood set where buildings are only skin deep. They made it up so that it could become a tourist trap. There is nothing, absolutely nothing about culture. That's preservation for you. Its all about money.

Been to Bugis Junction? How do you find those shophouses? Nicely preserved? What if I told you the original shophouses were completely demolished and what you see, are replicas of original? And the whole point of that?? Selling an "preserved" identity that is no longer there.... how's that for preservation? Preservation doesn't necessary means preserving anything.

Preservation is not a dirty word, depends on the intention.

Andrew said:

I absolutely guarantee that you would regret that sentiment if it actually happened. Maybe not straight away, but soon the novelty of having a totally modern city would wear off and you'd realise just how sterile and devoid of culture and identity such a place would be.
You think like Le Corbusier, who wanted to replace this...

...with this

Erm, yeah, progress!

Click to expand...

On a side note, Paris as you can see it on your first picture rose in only a few decades from the ruins of the older city, that was almost entirely razed to make space for the new one, under Napoleon III and thanks to this man:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baron_Haussmann

Truly most people nowadays including me think Paris is one of the greatest cities in the world, but at that time Haussmann was heavily criticized for putting such a mess. The city was almost bankrupted by the end of it, in fact ^ ^

Sorry for the off-topic but I thought it would be of interest to the people here, considering the debate