A little bit of publicity...

...for the event organisers.


More at the main Archifest website.

Singapore 1:1 Exhibition at the URA

Had a chance to attend the Singapore 1:1 Forum last week, held in conjunction with the Singapore 1:1 Island exhibition at the URA Gallery, the second in what I hope is a (longer) series of exhibits on architecture in Singapore. The first was Singapore 1:1 City two years ago. The exhibition documents key architectural highlights in Singapore, chronologised into 'ages', from the 1960s til today.

Moderated by Larry Ng, director of the Architecture and Urban Design Excellence (AUDE) programme at the URA, the forum was given its kick-off by Dr Wong Yunn Chii, the curator of the exhibition, who spoke on the processes behind curating the exhibition, and the mode of selection of its theme (and projects). In so doing, the audience was given a live commentary-cum-critique on many of the selected exhibited schemes, which felt like a Brief History of Modern Singapore Architecture 101 (in a most positive way, of course). It was enlightening, as it was my first time listening to a talk on curatorial thought processes, and on viewing the exhibition after the forum, it lended additional credence to the exhibition itself. The photography for some of these projects was pretty impressive as well.

Mr Arthur Aw of Jurong Town Corporation later gave his insight on his eight or so years of working at the Jurong Town Hall, itself a Brutalist-styled design from 1969 (by Architects Team 3) which still commands much awe, if audience response was anything to go by. A quote from Mr Aw: "If someone joined JTC, in the old building (Jurong Town Hall), I would have got to know him within three months. Now, if someone joins JTC, in the new building (Jurong Summit), it would take me a year to get to know him."

This simple comment brings forth further, deeper questions of modern office-space typologies, and is a silent criticism on developers' quests to go for taller, lower-footprint skyscrapers. The latter little more than fulfilling efficiency, and, in the case of Jurong Summit, are probably far less of an architectural marker in time, than buildings designed to make their presence felt - Jurong Town Hall would be a case in point.

Ms Rohani Baharin from CPG Airports then gave a detailed talk on everyone's favourite airport - Changi, documenting the progress it's made since the opening of Terminal 1 back in the 1970s. This was a very refreshing point of view - one uses or views an airport on a very microscopic level, compared to the people who are actually planning it, everything from its masterplanning to its infrastructure to the little architectural details that contribute to the airport being runaway best-in-the-world for several years running. (Nugget of interesting information: There are baggage carousels running underground from terminal to terminal, below the existing MRT line!)

The audience was treated to a video of the conceptualisation process behind T3 as well, with details of the now-famous skylighting flaps, and the green walls and large expanses of curtain-wall glass. Ms Baharin's talk ended off with optimistic hope for T4, which has now been confirmed to be in the pipeline.




Mr Tan Kok Hiang of Forum Architects gave an enlightening talk on the thoughts and design processes behind three of his projects - the Henderson Community Centre, the Assyafaah Mosque (model pictured above) and the new entrance for the Singapore Science Centre. Cultural significance and relevance lend themselves to Forum's projects, and these show up in details, both highly microscopic - for instance, in the Arabesque screens of the Mosque - and macroscopic, in the primordial Fibonacci Sequence system that guides the new landscaped plaza leading to the Science Centre. It left the audience with the feeling that architecture indeed innovates, and is meant to innovate, while serving more fundamental demands of space, form-making and client/programmatic demands.

The forum concluded with a colourful Q&A session, in which the speakers furthered their respective talks with commentaries on the future of architecture and architectural innovation in Singapore, while keeping true to what we've held proud thus far - efficient and "pleasant" design. This is a timely shot in the arm as we are seeking a myriad set of answers to the perennial "So, what's next?" question, in the context of local architecture.

All in all, it was a talk that neatly wrapped up the Singapore 1:1 Island exhibition, itself a neat set-up. I bought the concomitant book - even with slight reservations on its graphic design - as I know it will become a handy historical document on how far Singapore architecture has come, as it is itself a history-documenting book.

The Singapore 1:1 Exhibition has been extended til April 11th, and can be viewed during the URA's opening hours.

The Penguin Effect

No profound philosophical or architectural debate here, but I thought this was a rather straight-forward and easy-to-understand clip from National Geographic which demonstrate on strategies that architects use in building small spaces. It does bring out certain issues for further thought though. I was just thinking, Japan's really tight space constraints has resulted in many innovative solutions. The refinement of these solutions result in architecture that is often efficient, clever and almost appear effort-less. The Japanese designers have managed to take something challenging and turn them into opportunities. That is certainly something we can learn from in Singapore.

So far, our space constraints have mainly led us to the same typology of HDB blocks year after year. As competition for space increases, the only thing that has really changed, is the HDB block growing higher and expanding laterally into a screen. Time for a re-think? More like overdue. Why should landed property only be for semi-detached houses and the like? Would it work to have a cluster of Penguin Houses, which though small, make it affordable for more people who want an alternative to high-rise living? It's all about creativity and offering choices, no? Which brings me to another interesting thought. Notice how penguins who live in some of the coldest, harshest environments still manage to look mighty gentlemanly and sophisticated in their simple but almost designer-like black and white suit ensemble? Now, that's some creative designing for you!

Ongoing Exhibitions at URA

Here's a bit of publicity for URA - definitely worth taking a look, especially since there're three of them, all under one roof!

How to Get There

The URA Centre, 45 Maxwell Road

Nearest MRT Station: Tanjong Pagar

Singapore 1:1 ISLAND

16 November 2007 - 11 April 2008

Singapore has been likened to a 1:1 scale, life-sized gallery ofarchitecture and urban design. "Singapore 1:1 Island" highlightsSingapore's architectural and urban design uniqueness through a selectionof architectural projects completed island-wide, outside of the citycentre, over the past four decades. For more information on the exhibition,please visit http://www.ura.%20gov.sg/spore1_%201/island/

President's Design Award 2007

15 February 2008 - 11 April 2008

The President's Design Award is Singapore's most prestigious award for itsdesigners and designs. It recognises the significant achievements andcontributions of the nation's design talents. The Award entered its secondcycle in 2007 and was conferred on seven Designers of the Year and sevenDesigns of the Year. This exhibition showcases the works of the 2007 AwardWinners. For more information on the President's Design Award, please visit http://www.designsi%20ngapore.org/%20pda/award.%20html

The National Art Gallery of Singapore

7 March 2008 - 28 March 2008

The National Art Gallery of Singapore (working title) is a new visual arts institution which will contribute to building Singapore as a regional and international hub for visual arts. To seek the best design concepts for theNational Art Gallery, the Ministry of Information, Communications and the Arts (MICA), in association with the Singapore Institute of Architects (SIA), launched a two-stage architectural design competition in Februarylast year. This exhibition showcases the three winning entries. For more information on the National Art Gallery, please visit http://www.national%20artgallery.%20sg/

The exhibitions are open Monday - Friday, 9am to 7pm; Saturday, 9am to 5pmand are close on Public Holidays. Admission is free.

While we're at it...

...there's also the Alvar Aalto exhibition, by the Alvar Aalto foundation and NUS Museums, on-going at the National University Museum (that's at the University Cultural Centre),

...and T3 (no Kristianna Loken though (or Arnie depending on who you like); the closest you get to cyborgs are perhaps the smiling SQ girls) which is open to the public during office hours and weekends for the public.

(Images from rightful owners)

Check here for more details! (A little bit of input required.)

UOB Plaza article - my response (Part 2)

And here is my email response to the article in the previous post on Tange's UOB Plaza.


Dear Calvin,

I wanted you to know that your column on the UOB Plaza was an engaging read that yielded some surprising discoveries that I would not have realized had you not brought it up. I can discern the massing of the old octagon tower in the lower UOB Tower now, hidden beneath the tiles!

A few critical questions persist, nevertheless, with regard to the UOB Plaza and I was disappointed to find that your column did not address them sufficiently. While I give the architects benefit of the doubt that their design was tailored to the specificity of the site, the context, the client and the brief, one cannot ignore the formal geometric similarities between the UOB Tower and the Tokyo Metropolitan City Hall completed a few years earlier.

Tokyo City Hall

This leads rise to the perception, rightly or wrongly, that the UOB Plaza is not an original signature, but a replicate cousin of the original. This, despite the beauty of the final product. A similar example would be Cesar Pelli’s acclaimed World Financial Centre in New York and his subsequent Canary Wharf Tower in London, with all their formal similarities…. even though the outcomes were still tailored differently to their respective contexts.

This observation alone perhaps explains why I find myself preferring the OUB Centre to the UOB Plaza. It just feels more fresh and dynamic.

The other connection that I was surprised your article did not pick up, (though I may not be 100% right about this point) is that Kenzo Tange was the masterplanning consultant for Singapore’s skyline – chief of which was the “layering” effect of placing the shorter buildings in front, and taller buildings behind (as viewed from the waterfront). What coincidence that he designs two of the three “prized” trophies within his own skyline tapestry!


Deyan Sudjic, in his recent book Edifice Complex wrote about “collect(ing) images of the rich and powerful, leaning over architectural models….” as evidence of the relationship between architecture and power. On the website of Kenzo Tange Associates (and also printed in a past issue of Singapore Architect magazine, in an article by Tsuto Sakamoto), there is a black-and-white image of Kenzo Tange alongside Lee Kuan Yew in front of a model.

The issue of Kenzo Tange building in Singapore is clearly much more than Tange’s own architectural vision in isolation. I believe that he happened to fit squarely with LKY’s [the REAL architect of Singapore] autocratic vision for a technocratic, cosmopolitan, modern city-state.

When you raise the example of Bawadi’s advertisement (which I have yet to see) where the UOB Plaza rubs shoulders against Petronas Towers, I fear that it is not because it “stands for the best of Singapore and its architecture” or is even iconic enough of Singapore’s urbanscape. It was probably chosen more because it fell within the iconography of the following formula:
grand-skyscraper = developed+cosmopolitan = $$$+ prestige.

Oddly enough, people describe Singapore’s “signature” skyline with reference to “Manhattan” with a strange kind of pride. (Our city planners, foreign journalists, travel journalists, etc). Few realize the irony that when they do so, the merit goes to Manhattan, not to Singapore.

I rest my case for now, and look forward to your next article.

Best Regards
Ronald Lim

UOB Plaza - Straits Times article (Part 1)

Most of you know by now my staunch support for informed commentary on architecture in the Singapore’s mainstream press. I just realised that this article on Kenzo Tange’s UOB plaza was published in the Straits Times a few days back. It was definitely a pleasant surprise.

As a next step, I look forward to seeing more in-your-face criticisms and critical questions being raised, instead of just an explanation of why-this-building-is-so-great. This article is nevertheless a wonderful step in the right direction. I will post my personal response the next post. Enjoy.

Twists and turns of UOB Plaza -
by Calvin Low

The process of constructing the building's iconic rotated motif led to an unexpected discovery about its original design

WHEN the Dubai developer of Bawadi, billed as the 'largest hospitality and leisure development in the world', put out full-page advertisements worldwide to draw investors last year, it borrowed one of Singapore's architectural icons for its pitch.

In the artist's impression of the mega-proposal, Singapore's UOB Plaza rose majestically in the night sky, as resplendently lit as you would see it when you walk down the side of the Singapore River.

Only, in this ad, it rubs shoulders with other montaged international landmarks such as Malaysia's Petronas Towers.

Clearly, Bawadi's developers wanted to attract the best in the world and, in its eyes, the UOB Plaza stands for the best of Singapore and its architecture.

A trait of classic architecture is its ability to remain timeless in its appeal - a result of balancing between seizing an inspired idea and honing it until it reveals its most essential expression.

The UOB Plaza, designed by the late Pritzker Prize laureate Kenzo Tange in collaboration with Architects 61, exemplifies this balance.

It demonstrates Tange's genius in reconciling a pre-existing design with his own architectural vision.

The octagonal form of the towers is derived from the original 38-storey UOB Building by pioneer architect Lim Chong Keat of Architects Team 3, completed in 1974.

Instead of demolishing the original eight-sided tower, Tange followed up on its sculptural promise with a literal twist by adding more floors that are turned 45 degrees to the original geometry, thus giving the building's iconic rotated tower motif.

An additional unexpected situation, however, awaited the architects when re-cladding the original tower as Kenzo Tange's son, Paul, revealed in an interview last year.

It was discovered that the old building had been constructed with a slight, irregular twist along its height. This required fine-tuning the size of the supports of the new cladding panels to take up the geometric imperfection.

Today, most people would not associate UOB Plaza, completed in 1992, with a 33-year-old development. But look closely at the lower of the twin towers and the shape of Lim's original octagonal scheme is still clearly discernable, albeit dressed in grey granite instead of its original copper-tinted reflective glass.

Once the rotating architectural motif had been established with the original tower, it was applied to the design of its taller twin, which rises to the maximum aviation-regulated height of 280m. At 66 storeys, UOB Plaza joins Republic Plaza, by Kisho Kurokawa, and OUB Centre, also by Tange, as the three tallest buildings in Singapore.

A testament to the perseverance required in the creation of this prismatic paragon, the twin-tower scheme for UOB Plaza took 10 years to hone and involved, according to Paul Tange, 'about 100 different schemes'.

UOB Plaza's urban design is also exemplary. Sited between two historic nodes - Raffles Place and Boat Quay - a typical 'max out the ground floor' approach would have eliminated any connection between the two.

Instead, UOB opened about a quarter of the prime ground-floor area to the public in the form of a 'city room'. Flanked by its banking hall, the four-storey, sky-lit 'city room' is both a physical and visual bridge between Raffles Place and the Singapore River. That a constant flow of pedestrians passes through here at all times of the day and night is evidence of its civic importance.

Other public amenities in UOB Plaza include a mosque in the basement and an observation deck on the 42nd storey which offered mesmerising views of Singapore before access to the space was restricted.

From the ground, however, in sunshine or by moonlight when its chiselled charm is enhanced with architectural lighting, the UOB Plaza's twin towers will continue to be of allure long after flashy new icon-wannabes have become victims of architectural fashion.

Calvin Low is a writer who is trained in both architecture and journalism.

The Purpose of Details 2

Click image to enlarge.

Event details:

The Purpose of Details 2: The Malaysian Architectural Scene Through the Works of Three Practitioners
6 October, Saturday, 930 am at the Singapore Polytechnic Auditorium
Speakers: Lillian Tay, John Ding, Wooi Lok Kuang

Complimentary entry for all.

Should be pretty good; last year's was!

Asymptote...

...and their latest, the Penang Global City Centre. Pretty awesome, even if it seems rather no-holds-barred in its curving and torquing and faceting - such nice proportions and, well, (quite literally) asymptotic towers. I could perhaps be a little more critical and go, ah, purely stylistic, an abstraction of Madam White Snake's two dearest pets perhaps, doesn't seem to take Penangite 'character' into account, or a four-way Calatrava / Libeskind / Hadid / Diller-Scofidio hybrid, but this has really won me over head over heels.

Images above (click to enlarge) are courtesy of World Architecture News, and a further writeup on the project can be found here. A quick scan:

"The design achieves its elegance and stature through the simultaneous embrace of
natural landscapes and contemporary urbanism. The PGCC will become a vital new
precinct that complements and enhances the unique characteristics that typify
Penang as a remarkable island metropolis. The design of the iconic towers in
particular draws inspiration from not only the lushness and drama of the
surrounding mountains and seascapes, but also from the rich and diverse cultural
heritage that makes up the Malaysian nation and Penang in particular."

I'm not sure how exactly it draws from the "Malaysian heritage", but perhaps it could be a critique on collective Malaysian psyche and politics - that one tower's an abstraction of the 'bumis', and the other (better-feng-shui'ed one, maybe?) symbolises the Chinese, and that, given that they're asymptotic, never the twain shalt meet!

(That was just a joke and a light-hearted observation on the state of things slightly up North, not by any means a comparison or loaded remark!)

My Wishlist for Architecture in Singapore

1) Creation of a Department of Architecture and Design in the Singapore Art Museum (Or alternatively, a museum of architecture and design)
The department would be the guardian of Singapore’s design heritage, would be a home for a permanent collection of design drawings, documents etc related to Singapore architecture, and would provide dynamic and critical curatorial direction to affect critical discourse. (I’m thinking along the lines of how exhibitions like Henry Russell Hitchcock’s 1932 “International Style exhibition” , Paolo Portoghesi’s 1980 “Presence of the Past” or Mark Wiggley’s 1989 “Deconstructivism” left a profound impact on the movement of architectural discourse. ) Exhibitions on Singapore Architecture need to be more than just “showcasing Singapore’s design to the world” at fancy international biennales.


2) A permanent architecture column in the Straits Times, with a qualified resident or rotating architectural critic
I mentioned this in a previous post. If Singapore is serious about the development of architecture, we must also be serious enough to devote space in our print media to educate the public on the role and place of architecture in society and why good/critical architecture matters and what makes compelling architecture.


3) An annual speculative architecture competition for a temporary architecture installation/pavilion that goes up for 3 months each year.
I was thinking of something along the lines of MoMA’s annual PS1 competition that temporarily transforms their space in Queens every summer with a winning installation. It is often a rite-of-passage for up-and-coming architects before they “make it big”. It could alternatively take the form of a commission for temporary follies like the yearly Serpentine Pavilion or Kumamoto Prefecture’s Artpolis project.


4) Creation of a National Trust Fund for Historic Preservation (possibly a tax-free endowment fund) that will heavily fund or subsidise the acquisition, repair, maintenance, and adaptation buildings of heritage value that cannot withstand the onslaught of the free market and developmental pressures independently.
We all witnessed the controversy of the Butterfly House and the we-have-no-choice-but-to-tear-this-down-for-development lame argument. Singapore cannot rely on URA alone to safeguard our heritage because their ultimate responsibility is to focus on development. (note that R in URA stands for Redevelopment)

If any emotionally valuable piece of architectural heritage cannot stand up to the test of the free market, then it deserves a subsidy that is commensurate with its heritage value / design merit (that is often never factored in when people tear stuff down to rebuild and redevelop)

(As a loosely parallel example, Central Park in New York was restored after decades of degeneration with private money by way of the Central Parks Conservancy, independent of municipal authorities)

5) A set of incentives to encourage developers/clients to commit to innovative architecture. (e.g. a tax rebate on rent earned for every project that passes the scrutiny of a design jury, or that wins the President’s design award, etc)
Alternatively, we can tax ugly insensitive buildings. Like the Supreme Court. (just kidding) I prefer carrots to sticks.


But otherwise, I think URA and Design Singapore are coming up with a fascinating slew of initiatives. I only wish their intentions were more pure than "making Singapore a design hub of the world". ..... *sigh*

The Clients - our allies

Sometime back, Sy Lyng posted an article on the need for architectural “mediators” in Singapore. If I remember the gist of her posting correctly, she referred to such architecture mediators as people who were not career architects, but were important facilitators who took a sincere interest in enabling good architecture to be built.

Along the same vein, I wanted to devote this post to a special category of people who are not the architects but are as crucial to a project’s success. Without these people, many masterpieces and imaginative forms would not have been realized – they are the clients, or the crucial decision-makers in the commissioning process.

Whereas most architects believe that the ideal client gives the architect the free rein, I beg to differ, somewhat. The most successful commissions often begin clients who have a strong vision and intention of what outcome they want. They share with architects the faith in the power of architecture. The strength of their vision and intention often gives clarity to the parameters (and meaningful constraints) that they lay down for their architects. At the same time, they trust the architects to be their own.

Rarely are they followers seeking to commission a building similar in form to something that already exists somewhere else. Instead, they believe in that which has yet to come into existence and make discoveries together with the architects during the design process. In short, they care about the design of the buildings they commission but never usurp the role of designer.

Beyond all these, the strongest architect-client partnerships depend upon a deep affinity, chemistry, and mutual understanding in a highly personal relationship.

For architecture in Singapore to flourish, it is not only important for us to nurture design talent, but to cultivate interest within potential allies within the power circles (in real-estate, in decision-making processes, in academia, in administration) to share the belief in compelling architecture and powerful spaces. The architects cannot go it alone.

I raise here, examples of important people who made it happen because they had a vision and cared about design.



1. Hilla Rebay
Was the curator of Solomon Guggenheim’s personal collection of “non-objective art” She sought to exhibit his collection in a “temple of non-objectivity” and found that the only architect with whom she could share that vision was Frank Lloyd Wright.
The result: Solomon R Guggenheim Museum, New York



2. Jonas Salk
Envisioned a research space for scientists where “anyone with a mind in the humanities, in science, or in art could contribute to the mental environment of research leading to discoveries in science.” He wanted a space where a scientist could “invite Picasso”.
The result: the Salk Institute, (Louis Kahn)



3. Phyllis Lambert
Daughter of Samuel Bronfman, CEO of Seagram. When it was decided that a tower would be built to house Seagram’s headquarters, Phyllis Lambert personally insisted that a great architect be commissioned for the building. She ended up choosing Mies van der Rohe for his most successful skyscraper tower – the Seagram Building.



4. Deborah Jacobs
Head Librarian for the Seattle Public Library. Together with architects Rem Koolhaas and Joshua Prince-Ramus, visited every new library in America, consulted IT experts on the future of the printed book, to clarify the vision of the library of the 21st century.




5. Francois Mitterand
Francois Mitterrand initiated the French government’s decision to fund and build contemporary, audacious and sometimes controversial buildings to reaffirm France’s cultural leadership in the world. The spectacular result includes I.M. Pei’s Louvre extension glass pyramid, Jean Nouvel’s Institut du Monde Arabe, Bernard Tschumi’s Parc de la Vilette, Christian de Portzamparc’s Cite de Musique, Otto von Spreckleson’s Grande Arche de la Defense,





6. Zhang Xin
CEO of Beijing-based real estate firm SOHO China. As a bold personal initiative, she gathered 12 leading East Asian architects (including Singapore’s Tan Kay Ngee) to each design a villa by the Great Wall in a unique commission that has been compared to the historically important Weissenhof Siedlung housing exposition of the 1930s. For her efforts, she became the first non-architect to win a prize at the Vennice Biennale.



7. Simon Cheong
CEO of Singapore-based developer, SC Global. His commitment to high-quality design (in view of his target market of the high-end residential sector of single professionals) led him to commission signature residential projects, including Chan Soo Khian’s Lincoln Modern and Mok Wei Wei’s Three Three Robin.

(I know it sounds slightly lame, but I had to force in a Singapore example to give ourselves some optimism, much as I find it hard to personally buy into the “commodification of design” phenomena)

Architects, and the work that they did as students

Most of us regard an architectural career as a rite of passage. First is the romance of architecture school, of studio classes, model-making, drawings, charettes, sleepless nights. And then many start work in the real working world, to find it hard to transfer many of the wild (and possibly brilliant) ideas into built reality. When faced with real-world demands of cost, zoning, building code, achieving maximum usable square footage, and mechanical and structural demands, the days of school are inadvertently dismissed as the last place where we can truly play with ideas.

A consequent dichotomy ensues. On one hand, the many architects too deeply entrenched in real-world architecting find it hard to create compelling designs. On the other, the many academic practitioners focused on pursuing personal creative research ideas fail to translate their whimsical graphics, subject to the vagaries of architectural fashion, into real workable buildings (and consequently fail to win real commissions). This begs the question – how then does one inhabit that fine line that separates creative idealism and real-world workability? (knowing that it is the synthesis of the two that leads to a compelling result)

Having raised the above questions, I wanted to bring up a few examples of architects, both in Singapore and abroad, whose professional work were a direct extension from their student work.

Tan Kok Hiang, Forum Architects

Student thesis project: reinterpretation of a mosque

Professional creative work : Assyafah Mosque – a critical work that dislodges itself from the traditional iconography of the mosque and re-adapts itself to the realities of a cosmopolitan city-state.

Mok Wei Wei, W Architects

Student thesis project: re-experiencing the sensuality of Chinese courtyard spaces in sequence (or something to that end)

Professional creative work : the most direct reference is his Morley Road house, which literally recreates strong sequencing and courtyard experiences in a modernist idiom. But the strong element of sequencing in his work can also be discerned in his other work, such as the Da Paolo e Judie restaurant, National Museum extension, and his installation design for the Overseas Chinese exhibition.

Wong Mun Summ, WoHa

Student thesis project: vision of tropical high-density city (or something to that end)

Professional work: Many work that deal with the specifics of tropical climate in architecture, including Moulmein Rise (and its monsoon windows), Singapore Arts School (with its internal linkways, lush vegetation, and inner courtyard spaces), Tan Quee Lan Suites (high-density apartment configurations with inner courtyard spaces) The most direct reference is probably his scheme for the Duxton Plain public housing competition.

Zaha Hadid

Student thesis project: readapting Kazimir Malevich’s “Tektonics” painting (of overlapping geometric forms suggesting a city floating in space) into a 14-storey inhabitable bridge spanning the Thames.

Professional work: the first work that brought her to fame, the competition for the Peak tram station in HK, was an application of the same Malevich-ian formal imagination into architecture.


My point is this, just before we let our student work in our portfolio fade away into a bygone era, we must remember that in each studio project lies the seed of our future design careers, as long as we continue to nurse the ideas developed as students and synthesize them with what we now learn at work. That, coupled with faith, persistence, and idealism, (and experience!) may well produce something truly compelling some years from now.

This leads me to wonder what would be the final result of Sernhong's Pirated City or Hann's Mediaworms and Telepods years from now.

PUB Building - my response

As mentioned in my earlier post, I found myself rather impressed with the tone and content of the article that appeared in Straits Times, though I disagreed to certain points being made. I wrote an email to the email address provided at the end of the article and it turned out to bounce back. I shall hence reproduce my unread email here as an 'open letter' to the journalist... to stimulate the thoughts of anyone interested in the topic.

Dear _______,

Allow me to congratulate you on your article on the Singapore Power Building. I have long desired to more sophisticated critiques on Singapore architecture in the ST than the usual "nice, sleek, chic, trendy, elegant" lifestyle issues and I think your article did justice to the building. I felt that you would appreciate some comment/disagreement by someone else who is interested in the subject matter, and so I thought I'd drop you an email.

Judging from the tone of your article, I was unsure whether you felt that the recladding of the Singapore Power building was a success, or whether you felt that the recladding did some damage, but was at least better than total demolition.

Given the brightness of the Singapore sun and the reflection off the new cladding, I feel that the newly refurbished Singapore Power building has lost some of its weight. The weight of the massing in brutalist architecture, in my opinion, depends greatly upon solid mass, shadows, and matte surfaces (which explains Corbusier's love for beton-brut as a finishing) In this regard, the metal skin is unsympathetic to its massing.

Also, the shiny metallic reflection makes the building uncomfortably conspicuous, a bit like coloured gables added to a naked HDB slab block to ask for attention, or a girl who dresses in an uncomfortably flashy blouse. I wonder if the building is comfortable in its new skin. It perhaps epitomizes Singapore perpetual discomfort with oldness and aging, and her insecurity complex of having to always be new and modern.

Another key disagreement that your designation of the PUB building as a "corporate building". Corporatisation of Singapore infrastructure only took place in the 1990s, starting with Singtel in 1991, then SBC and PUB in the mid 1990s. As such, at the point when the design
competition was organized in 1971, this was to be a public/civic commission that would house a government statutory board (the then PUB).

I raise this point because the vision of a modern Singapore in the years of early independence (1965 – early 1970s) was that of a modern socialist state. The idea of global capitalism / corporatism only started to sit in toward the mid-late 1970s when the government pushed for more capital-intensive industries instead of labour intensive industries. (Architecturally, this would perhaps correlate with the completion of Pei's OCBC Tower in 1976.)

I find it hard not to infer a link between a brutalist aesthetic and the prevailing public commissions in the late 1960s and early 1970s in socialist states. (ie. most of western Europe, for example) In my personal opinion, the PUB building belongs not only to the same family
as the Subordinate Courts, Jurong Town Hall, and Science Centre, but also to the family of similar publicly commissioned Brutalist buildings in Europe and USA. It was but part of an international wave that Singapore eventually picked up, with some lag time.

I strongly agree with you that Couvent the Sainte Marie de La Tourette should not be compared with PUB Building because its nature, patronage, etc (basically everything except its massing) is different. However, I feel that the PUB Building rightly deserves to be examined
alongside Kallman, McKinell & Knowles' Boston City Hall. Both are inherently different buildings, suited to different program briefs, in different cities, but both are important public commissions housing government functions. Also, the Boston City Hall was completed in
1968, whereas the PUB building design competition took place in 1971.

Boston City Hall - by Kallmann, McKinnell & Knowles

Hence, I would not be surprised that the architects of the PUB Building were indeed aware of the Boston City Hall and its "inverted ziggurat" massing at the time of the design competition. I believe that the PUB Building was definitely not a conscious copy, but my basic argument is that it was definitely under the influence of the prevailing trends.

Lest I get carried away I should end here. All in all, I just wanted to say that it was very refreshing to read your piece on the Singapore Power Building (despite my disagreements) and a welcome respite from the usual articles couched in "design-lifestyle" terms. Perhaps it's time ST got a proper architecture critic in the likes of Nicolai Ourousoff or Ada Louise Huxtable.

Best Regards
Ronald Lim

PUB Building - and architecture criticism in Singapore

Early last month, an article appeared in the design pages on the Straits Times Life! section on the PUB Building. I found myself impressed with the article for its relative sophistication (as compared to the standard articles on "sleek lines", "chic", "resort touch") The author carried the tone of an "architectural critic" rather than a "design correspondent", and took into account the history of its making.

I personally believe that it would be a good thing for Singapore's architecture scene if the Straits Times had a resident architectural critic who writes "think" pieces on Singapore architecture in relation to its history and culture - for the discerning public. [ My reference points are personalities such as Ada Louise Huxtable, Nicolai Ourousoff, Paul Goldberger, Edwin Heathcote who write/have written extensively on architecture in The New York Times, the New Yorker, the Financial Times] I reproduce the article on the PUB Building here. I will post a personal response to the article separately.

Staying Power - The 30-year-old Singapore Power Building, with its recently refurbished facade, is an enduring symbol of modern architecture

AT A time when Singapore's modern architectural heritage is at the mercy of being sacrificed for quick gains in en bloc sales, the Singapore Power Building (SPB) in Somerset Road is a beacon of hope and reason.

It may be argued that unlike residential developments like Beverly Mai, Futura or Pearl Bank Apartments which have been sold or are waiting for buyers, the SPB faces no such danger since it is a commercial building and corporate headquarters.

History, however, has shown that this is no guarantee of survival. The iconic Singapore Airlines Building (1969), designed by Lim Chong Keat, was demolished and replaced by a pedestrian, if much larger, building for the same owner.

The Alfred Wong-designed Hotel Malaysia (1968) in Tanglin Road was torn down for an unremarkable residential development.

Thankfully, Singapore Power chose not to redevelop its corporate HQ, opting instead to refurbish and reclad the 30-year-old building in silvery metal last year. Even so, the success of the latter exercise was not a given.

Directly across Devonshire Road from the SPB, the Orchard Telephone Exchange (1970), one of Singapore's last good examples of Brutalist architecture, has been brutalised with the insensitive application of similar metal cladding.

Its masculine Brutalist look, originally expressed in the rough Shanghai plaster finish, is now hidden by a shiny new skin.

Thankfully, the SPB's architecture proved more resilient than its Brutalist neighbour's as it is less dependant on its original ceramic tile finish. Its newly clad fins also manage to retain their original delicate proportions, a key element of the SPB's tropical modern architecture.

The SPB was originally called the Public Utilities Board (PUB) Building. A contest to design its corporate HQ was launched in July 1971. Of 23 submissions, four were picked by a jury headed by then PUB chairman Lim Kim San.

The proposal by the now-defunct Group 2 Architects, formed by Ong Chin Bee and Tan Puay Huat, won.

While the other three finalists sought to project a corporate presence with imposing towers, the winning design, in the jury's words, allowed 'natural form and function to achieve character and dignity' for the building.

The design proved that 'corporate' need not mean 'tall'. Instead, the horizontal was emphasised in the design, rendering the building approachable and accessible, and befitting PUB's role as a public supplier of gas and electricity.

Beating the tear-down mood The building, completed in 1977, is a 'ground-scraper', comprising two parallel slab blocks facing north and south connected by a lift and stair core. Between the two blocks is a landscaped court.

The horizontal emphasis of the building's facade is achieved with distinctive rows of vertical fins, arranged in a staggered manner that emphasises horizontal movement and reportedly limiting exposure to the sun by 60 per cent.

A secondary horizontal rhythm is established by grouping two or more rows of these fins in blocks, and emphasising them with chamfered parapets at the ends.

In the original facade finish, two-tone bands of tiles further accentuated the horizontality of these grouped rows of fins. Unfortunately, this subtle but important effect has been lost in the current monochrome metal cladding.

The SPB's defining architectural motif is its 'inverted ziggurat' facade. Again, this breaks down the vertical scale of the building and emphasises its horizontality, while leading the eye to the building's entrances.

As a result of this architectural manipulation, the SPB appears considerably lower than its 17 storeys. Instead, it projects a welcoming human-scaled street presence.

The 'inverted ziggurat' motif achieves two further functions. It reflected the actual distribution of office spaces required by PUB's departments at the time, with more space needed on the upper floors. And they also create overhangs that help shade the finless floors below.

Hence, though critics have compared the SPB with the 1962 Boston City Hall by Gerhad Kallmann and Le Corbusier's La Tourette monastery (1957-60) for the use of fins and the inverted ziggurat motif, the similarities are stylistic and superficial. The SPB's architecture, an organic response to its functional and climatic requirements, has become an enduring symbol of the PUB and SP.

One of the hallmarks of corporate buildings of the 1970s was its dedication of the ground floor to public access and use. Despite today's overriding concern with security, the refurbished SPB has managed to retain just that.

The building is entered via wide steps under columns that soar three- or four-storeys high. Graced by the original wall-relief sculptures, this public concourse visually and physically connects Somerset and Devonshire roads.

From the concourse, steps lead to upper and lower public service areas, a cafeteria and carparks. This naturally ventilated concourse offers an airy, shaded tropical experience where the line between what is interior and exterior space is blurred.

While the refurbishment is to be applauded, a conservationist would still prefer a faithful two-tone ceramic retiling of the facade and express regret at the much enlarged penthouse, which is draped in contrasting green glass and aluminium panels.

But, given the tear-down mood of the times, better this than be relegated to the pages and panels of architecture books and exhibitions.

Calvin Low is a writer who is trained in both architecture and journalism.

‘PIRATED’ City --- Augmenting Reality through Fiction (work in progress, 3 more mths to go!)

Hey, thanks Hann, for helping to elaborate my thesis at the REAPS #1 (so this is the official name? sounds good!).

Yeh, I am excited and at the same time quite daunted by the scope and goals of this thesis I am attempting. Many ideas, many agendas, many plans.

What I have below is a more detailed description of what my thesis is about and hopefully then, if you can, to help send any stuff you think will be helpful to me. Appreciate it lots.

* I will be putting up an online ‘work in progress’ website + blog of my thesis (together with some other thesis of similar genre) within the next 1-2 weeks, so do look out for it), look forward to your feedback.

Thesis Statement:
Pirated City - Augmenting reality through fiction. To consider the potential of augmented reality as a transformative force that interactively informs, architecture, thus rendering the design process no longer exclusively a conscious and intentional act.

Thesis Intention:
To explore how previously ostracized influences and strategies can 're-infect' the city through virtual parallel universes activated by scenario planning mechanisms and deep understanding of the political, economical, social and site issues and simulating them real-time.
These alternative universes may then serve as a retroactive polemic for individuals to think critically and perhaps redefine the 'city'.

Thesis Project:
Pirated City propose to project the future of the city (Singapore) with reference and simulation from a certain past, gathering failed/rejected strategies and to implement these 'Pirated forces' to create ‘Pirated Singapores’ to explore new possibilities, unexplored paths and avoided strategies. Goal is to generate 2-3 scenarios.

Much Needed information:
1) 2d & 3d models and digital files
2) important news and planning articles involving the site Marina Bay or Singapore in general
3) information on rejected/failed strategies. Even strategies that have been announced but not yet fulfilled. (eg. world cup 2010)
4) photos, videos, clips, archives
5) analysis of the Marina Bay development
6) any other related information

Thanks for reading through all these. Hope you find it interesting and meaningful.

Power And Architecture

In the dawn of the 21^st century, perhaps the word ‘EMPIRE’ would seem best to describe the world of today. Boundaries of cities are disappearing, while the influence of the world wide web and interest-based organizations are dictating the perception of the new boundaries for the ‘neo-nomads’ of the world. In the light of this, I personally would say this is perhaps a phenomenon of ‘POST-EMPIRE’, a term I understand it as a state where the mind overwhelms the body, where the perception becomes the consciousness of the person. On a larger city, global scale, I see the post-empire characteristics lies in the open-source content of the Internet or specifically Web 2.0, which has re-defined the way people, interacts, and the way global economy, politics and architecture work.

Where do all these lead me to? I am very much intrigued by the notion of ‘post-empire’ and I believe in its geopolitical implications. I see the seeking of the ‘Power’ in architecture also as a post-empire characteristic, one in which architects of the coming times should consider in order to have their discipline depicting the impact on the world, as it should be. (At least, that’s what I personally think)

Power in various terms of:

1) Power within the architecture world

2) Power with various disciplines

What defines power? What are its manifestations?

In the example of Singapore, the popular urban planner Liu Thai Ker has in a way transcended in this arena. The way he uses the power of urban planning and city developments, and in collaboration with the geopolitical issues, is commendable. From a tiny city state of Singapore, it is an amazing feat that his influence goes beyond to many other bigger Asian cities, even China, where government authorities often respectfully call him as “Boss Liu”.

In Singapore, utilities and standard of public housing has the power to give the politicians an edge. All these design of amenities, and infrastructure includes contributions from architects who spend countless energy to ‘make them work’. But they remain behind the scene or rather; many just want to remain behind the scene. They might not care OR they do not understand yet the extent of such a power they can hold.

Now with the youth of Singapore given so much youth initiatives. Are they/we ready? Can the architecture discipline be pushed? This is my personal burden in the post-empire cities we live in today …

Architecture City Exhibition @ Vivocity, 24 to 28 May

Hi all! (i.e. EVERYONE and anyone at all who might be interested in Architecture, and who will be in Singapore from May 24th to 28th!)

The annual Architecture City Exhibition is on! It is held from May 24th to 28th, at Vivocity (click on above image for details of where exactly). Concurrently, the Internal Exhibition is held at NUS Architecture itself, from 24th May all the way til 4th June.

My thesis project will be featured as well, so do go down and take a look! =P

Here's a little write-up that I did for the publicity of the event. Questions posed by this year's TAS committee.

...

1) How would you describe this year's exhibition and what makes it different from last year's?

The first thing that probably strikes me is the venue of this year's set-up at Vivocity. The selection of Vivocity, to me, is one that bears a semblance of an allegory - that new, budding ideas, from Singapore's premier university, no less - are hatching within the belly of (what may or may not be seen as) an architectural masterpiece from Toyo Ito, himself a genius of an architect.

We have yet to see the outcome of this year's exhibition, but having looked at the preparations, it certainly seems to be a step in the right direction - well-evolved from last year's. Having co-organised the exhibition last year, Project'n at Marina Square, I can feel the pain that the organising team this year must have gone through thus far. If anything, that's reason enough for anyone at all - at least, anyone with any ounce of interest in architecture and/or design - to visit the exhibition!

Naturally, the injection of fresh ideas and the change in display mechanisms would set the backdrop for an exhibition that I hope would be more engaging than ever before, especially for public viewers. The idea, perhaps, is not to do an exhibition that is perfect, but rather one that generates excitement, imagination and plants the seed for greater ideas in the exhibitions to come. This certainly applies to the exhibits themselves as well - visions of architecture from youth, who themselves are raw, unpolished and full of zest (and naivete!).

Well, I for one am certainly anticipating it.

...

2) What role does this exhibition have in affecting the average Singaporean's view of architecture?

The large crowds that last year's exhibition drew - if that's anything to go by at all - were certainly made aware of the wealth of talent, craft and intellect (or dare I say, lack thereof, depending on who was viewing the exhibition!) behind the various student projects on display.

At some level, it certainly changes the perception of architecture as a trade that's meant for the upper crust, a chichi pursuit, so to speak. Exhibitions such as these have brought architecture to the hoi polloi, the very people for whom architecture is meant.

This has been some sort of a running theme in the city exhibitions of the past few years. I recall one in which the exhibits were actually plastered onto hoardings for what is now the Coffee Club along Orchard Road - how's that for bringing architecture to the people! While unpolished, I guess it made people subconsciously aware of the work that goes on behind the insular ivory walls of the University. The following year's, People Architecture at Paragon, carried on the theme of "architecture for the people", and that certainly rubbed off on the exhibition that my committee organised last year, Project'n, which identified with the (architectural) hopes and dreams of that particular crop of students.

The Bohemian-ness of "harbouring hopes and dreams for the betterment of people" is what we
architects/architecture students thrive on. Even if that means we're wildly deluded, at least we're making meaningful drawings and fancy models out of it.

And curiously, the inherent chichiness of the graphics and fancy models is the very thing that the average consumerist Singaporean would appreciate! Oh, the irony.

...

3) There are opinions that siting an architectural exhibition in a shopping complex reduces architecture to a consumer product; degrading it into nothing but styles and trends. What are your thoughts on the siting of the City Exhibition?

Unfortunately, it might be construed as such. However, the siting of the exhibition in a shopping centre is more to catch the large traffic flow along the circulation channels rather than to sell architecture as a consumer product, I feel. Yet, no one can deny that style and trend are inseparable bedfellows of architecture, whether that really is a good thing, or not.

We are, in some strange way, selling our ideas and visions of architecture to the masses (at least, as far as the Vivocity "invisible populace" goes), albeit not for money. If the visitors look hard enough, they'll realise that there's much within and behind these ideas.

I do think what makes the architecture exhibition a bit more consumerist in nature is not just in its siting, but its being in tandem with the industrial design exhibition. Now, those guys really are designing consumer products! (And boy, do they do it well.) Hopefully, the architecture exhibit can be the little conscience, the little Jiminy Cricket that tells the viewer that, hey, the vast majority these projects were borne out of an awareness for a certain social condition, responding towards a certain social malaise... that they are - and I say it once again - for the people.

...

4) The most obvious question regarding any exhibition is the selection of exhibits. Could you describe and give your views on the selection process and criterion?

Well, I can't really say much to this, as I don't quite know what goes on behind the selection processes. It is probably widely assumed that the top projects from each year gets selected - and there's a whole gamut of variables, and maybe a whole other set of criteria, behind that.

What exactly deems a project a "top" project? I have no idea. Perhaps it has to be in line with the theme of the exhibition. (Although Concept:Reality is a broad enough theme to encompass any hypothetical architectural project!) Perhaps it has to be visually captivating. Or perhaps it has to lobby for world peace.

What I also know, again from behind the scenes of last year's exhibition, is that given more
exhibition floor area, a wider range of projects would have been exhibited. That's the sad result of having to pay a hefty rent for the floor space that we do get....

5) If you had to predict the future of Singapore architecture based on this exhibition, what would the future be?

I haven't actually seen the undergraduate works that are to be exhibited, but from my impression of the graduate thesis projects, each harbours the greater wish for design sophistication and social consciousness in architecture. Having been to several schools of architecture in Asia, Europe and America, I would concur that the NUS projects are actually of a rather high quality. Surprise, surprise.

I'm not saying this out of ego or loyalty or delusion, it really is the case. What might be lacking, however, is the free-spiritedness and the rogue quality that you might find in the average European/American student. Singapore students - and Singapore architecture - tends to follow norms and styles (although they often do quite a sophisticated job out of it!).

What is heartening is that this is beginning to change, for the better. Many of the thesis projects are nothing like you've seen before - they've rubbed themselves off of the "NUS style of projects" - and are beginning to show signs of that rogueness and carefree (yet wary) abandon.

And while the future of Singapore architecture may, on land, only go as far as 699 square kilometres would allow, it also means that the only way that it will go is up.

...

I'll post some preview images of some of the work that will be exhibited in due time!

The Open Hand

Attended a lecture on Corbusier and Chandigarh. What brought the Swiss architect and Nehru, the first Prime Minister of Indian Republic who fought for India's independence with Ghandi, together? Why would Nehru invite the westerner to design the Capital of Chandigarh, the new capitol of the Indian Punjab State?

When the British Colonial power left, they divided the Punjab State in Northwestern India into half according to religion. The silly categorization of human led to ten million people exchanging border: Muslims were forced to the Pakistani half and Hindus, or rather the rest of the non-Muslims population were forced to the Indian half. Lahore, the original capital ended up on the Pakistan side, hence Chandigarh was chosen to serve as the new capital for the Indian Punjab State.

Nehru and Corbu envisioned a modern city for the state. What they had in mind was not a modern city which imports the industrialization or market economy of the west, but a city which embraces the modern idea of independence. It was the era of Cold War, every nation has to decide which side of the two sides to take, but Nehru refused to pick either. He maintained the position of "Non-Alignment", believing in the independence of man, of nation-state. Corbu supported his vision wholeheartedly, and the Open Hand was the symbol of this partnership in faith. That was the foundation that Chandigarh and the Chandigarh Capitol project was founded upon.







We all know already Corbu's other architectural visions for Chandigarh. How he spent tremendous amount of time observing the Indian way of life, the people that he is building for, the cows that he thought was part of the plaza. He knew he had to take into account the village to the north of the capital, how the complex would be built with baskets concrete passed down on the heads of the Indian women chain. He felt with his heart, measured on site with his eyes, and went back to plan with his mind (Cubist operation). Deeply humanistic. At this point, he was rethinking about his position in archi in general. Machines and modular man helped him understand something, but it was not it. Ronchamp, La Tourette and Firminy were to follow (my personal fav).

Nehru and Corbu shared two common things: Vision + Deeply Humanistic heart. And made Chandigarh possible.