An Invite to the [Pirates] Den

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 …

ROJAK 08

(Illustration courtesy of FARM)

ROJAK #8.

National Stadium (West entrance).

9th day of the month.

8th hour after noon.

7th year of the new millennium

6th month of the year.

5th day of the week.

Aargh, I'll stop being silly and just say it's 8 pm, 9th June (Friday).

I'll be talking a bit bout my work, What is Your City?, way late into the session whence everyone is lulled and gullible.

(There probably will be presentations which will probably be more interesting than that!)

REAPS - ReAct Portfolio Sharing #1, 25 May 07

The architect's living room. (Suleen's, in this case.) Nary an unused spot.

Share, and share alike.

Ranidia expounding on some of the corporate projects she had worked on prior.

Spent the evening of May 25th snuggling up over... well, a laptop, and a few samples of another architectural implement that's homonymous with Oreo. Yes, it was re:ACT's first portfolio sharing session, which very much came about after we realised we were beginning to lose track in what each one of us (at least, those of us who were in Singapore at that point in time) was actually doing, with regards to our respective individual creative pursuits.

(On a side note, can I call such sessions REAPS (REAct Portfolio Sharing)? I know it sounds extremely like any other acronym that government bodies are much too fond of (GEMS! SGEM! LOBO! NATO! - ok, so the last two aren't really from government bodies)... but it's a little take on the exposure we get from these sessions. Alternatively we could call it SOW (Sharing Our Works!) but that also sounds like the effeminate term for a rather unattractive animal. (Yet, SOW would actually be some sort of a tongue-in-cheek nod to another local creative group, FARM. Then again, so does REAPS I suppose??)

Got acquainted with some of the work that the core re:ACT members have been doing, whether for their architectural thesis in school, or at work (non-confidential projects, of course). The occasion was made all the merrier by "friends of re:ACT" - Pey Haw, Delft-grad and architect at MKPL; Wei Hui, recent NUS-grad and architect-to-be at DPA, and Ranidia, AA-grad who's currently at HOK's new office in Singapore.

We were also graced - not in physical presence but in digital-portfolio-presence - by Sern Hong, who introduced some work (electronically) on his thesis at SCIarc. It has quite a bit to do with Pirated Cities, and nothing at all to do with the utter misinterpretation of Singapore (and Singlish) in Pirates of the Caribbean (At World's End). Watch this space for more updates.

Suleen then showed us her very intricate model of her interpretation of what the *Scape Youth Park at Somerset should've been, which was also her design thesis project. This was followed by Ranidia's sharing on her work at various practices, as well as her thesis at the Architecture Association, London. I then shared images of my thesis (without actually expounding on the theories, influences and peripheral details), before we called it a very good night.

You might notice the large shift in scale from last year's exhibition-cum-forum (Let's TAP! / Architect-in-a-Bottle) into something that's a lot more, well, grassroots. That to us is very much a necessary step in first of all understanding ourselves, and what makes our creative personas tick. It's part of a long search for who we really are and what we really want to do, now that we're slightly more mature and slightly more capable of identifying - specifically - what it is that re:ACT is really about. You could say that one's greatest strength is actually in knowing what his strength is (I totally made that up - didn't get it from Confucius or Sun Tzu or anyone like that - props!!), and it's sessions like these in which we learn, grow, and learn to grow.

Someday soon we'd be able to set up feed off and into similar Pecha Kucha initiatives; one which immediately comes to mind in our context would be ROJAK. (Which will be talked a bit more about in my next blog entry here.)

Next REAPS (SOW??) session would tentatively take place on June 29th, possibly at my place at Sunset Way, 8 pm. Keep your calendars marked; invitations open to all who chance across this space. More updates soon.

Job opening at MOD

ARE YOU BRIGHT, ARTICULATE, AKI-TRAINED AND HIGHLY CREATIVE? MOD WANTS YOU.



Ministry of Design is looking for designers comfortable with the whole spectrum of design, ranging from architecture to interior design.

Benefits:

Join an internationally reputed Design Firm known for its "no-holds barred" approach to design – every project begins on a fresh slate, and we apply the same rigorous approach to "disturb, question and redefine".
Engage in a democratic studio-like atmosphere and work closely with Design Director Colin Seah to progress seamlessly between form, site, object and space.
Gain exposure to a variety of international projects in interior architecture and architecture as our work expands beyond China, Dubai and Singapore.
Widen your horizons and design thought as Ministry of Design continues its positioning as a multi-disciplinary design firm, crossing to realms like Graphic and Product Design.
Enjoy competitive remuneration packages reviewed at least twice a year, and a generous and secure Medical & Hospital Benefits Package.
Work in an environment that prizes creativity, efficiency and work-life balance.
Ministry of Design was awarded a string of prizes late 2006, one of which is the coveted President's Design Award, the Nation's highest award for design, for the New Majestic Hotel in Singapore. The hotel was also included on Conde Nast Travellers 2006 Hot List as a Top 60 Best New Hotels in the World. Ministry of Design was also awarded 5 times over by Interior Confederation of Singapore, including the top 'Colour My World' Award for Actually Boutique in Singapore.

Through our architectural & interior architectural explorations, MOD is positioned as an integrated spatial-design practice that consciously blurs prevalent intellectual & literal boundaries between interior space & exterior form. Acknowledging the limitations of these distinctions on our design process, MOD's explorations are created amidst a democratic studio-like atmosphere and progress seamlessly between form, site, object and space.

Design Director Colin Seah was also recently nominated for the Marcus Corporation Foundation Prize 2007 as an emerging architect with potential for greatness, 2006 winner was the internationally acclaimed Dutch firm MVRDV. For more details on our work, see www.modonline.com

If you possess the following, we would like to hear from you:

Architectural training/background
3 to 5 years' experience with emphasis on Hospitality, Retail & High-end Residential sectors
Strong in Design and original thought
Performance-oriented team player with utmost commitment to deliver
Meticulous, careful with details and an ability to complete projects with high level of excellence
Highly proficient in English; fluency in Mandarin a plus
Please email a comprehensive resume, stating your design aspirations, detailed work experience in each of the relevant sectors, current and expected salary, date of availability, and why you would like to join MOD. Please also include images of your design projects you are most proud of.

Attention:

Talent Management, Ministry of Design Pte Ltd

studio@modonline.com, 16B Trengganu Street Singapore 058470

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!

I MET BERNARD TSCHUMI

TU Delft organised a series of lectures: Architecture Positions. Two architects with differing opinions were pit against one another, with a critic as a moderator.

And today was one of the most exciting: Bernard Tschumi one of the forefathers of modern architecture, was in town! Topic of debate: Monumentality and public representation. Hundreds of students streamed into zaal A when the doors opened at 5.45pm. Excitement was in the air as students chatted excitedly. Tschumi was coming!
So what did Tschumi say about monumentality? It is a non-issue as far as he is concerned, because "Architecture is not a knowledge of form, it is a form of knowledge." His emphasis was on the logic and ideas of architecture, and how they could be executed as concepts. Tschumi was pit against Hans Koolhof, a german architect passionate for the facades of old, because in these facades you could see the representation of a face. Tschumi was polite and detached, while Hans Koolhof got slightly peeved with a student's question. Deyan Sujdik was the moderator, but I felt he did a pretty poor job moderating, although he gave a passionate speech in the beginning about architecture and power. His statement: Architects may be better off with megalomaniac dictators than they are now with with liberal democrats.
Although I disagree with Tschumi's stance (he is ignoring the outcome of monumentality by focusing on the process of design; seems to me like a case of closing one eye...just because) I am won over by Tschumi's professionalism and politeness. ps: check out Tschumi's work for the Dominican Republic. Oval overkill!