Singapore is sick, architecturally
Buildings manifest the health of a city, revealing whether architects, planners and leaders connect to the majority of the people. By that measure, Singapore is sick because Singaporeans are not consulted enough when it comes to our city, our living environment.
Starchitects failed to build the Singapore architecture Icon
After being worked on by starchitects Sir Norman Foster twice, I.M.Pei twice, Kenzo Tange multiple times and now Moshe Safdie twice, Singapore still lacks an iconic building. The defining Singapore photograph had to be assembled - the representative Merlion had to be relocated to the front of the neoclassical Fullerton Hotel while making sure the Esplanade "Durian shells" could still be framed in the same picture. You know, just to be sure tourists know they are in Singapore. Tange's UOB Building becomes background, though his Indoor Stadium is somewhat more successful - it dominates the other side of the Bay.
Why doesn't Singapore have a Bank of China when we had I.M.Pei?
Missing the elements of Singapore?
Cities often tap on their history to constract distinctive buildings - Jinmao tower in Shanghai pays respect to pagoda architecture. In contrast, Singapore's architecture neglected our short but rich modern history - there is no reference to Peranakan architecture and no nod towards kampungs or other places that were at least very Singaporean upon a time. In fact, Singapore made some mistakes in not preserving even what we had - Koolhaas is known to have been furious at Singapore for tearing down parts of historic Chinatown.
Missing feedback
Perhaps there is no need to have Singaporean elements for the sake of it. Being kitsch doesn't help create an icon. Quite simply the reason might be that projects in Singapore lack criticism and feedback. Singaporeans lack the avenues to criticize loud enough. Such a role is usually played by the local media. Singapore's media silently let the architecture aspects of a huge project like the Marina Bay Sands get by when it flouted Feng Shui rules. The three hotel towers have been compared to joss sticks used for praying. Sticking chopsticks into a bowl of rice is rude. Superstitious gamblers are sure to frown on the design. Why the silence then? If the media dwells more on the architecture aspect, they then have to shine some light on the political aspects of the casino. Maybe that is the root of the issue.
Missing diversity
In Singapore, we have been known to complain of how bland HDB blocks are. HDB blocks would actually be classified as "Brutalist" architecture, in the same category as Le Corbusier's Unite d'Habitation, which architecture tourists travel to see. HDB blocks have nothing inherently inferior about them architecturally - the problem is that we lack diversity of styles. Fourty years and nothing seems to have changed? Typically, architecture is a pendulum that swings between extremes - a period of opulence is preceded by a trend of minimalism, and ensued by another opposing style. Public housing projects elsewhere have seen variations - in Singapore we have seen more of the same. Why are we missing diversity in architecture? Why aren't there new movements to challenge the old? Are we missing diversity in views only in architecture, or are there other things we should also be worried about?
Even though Gehry is known for his "Bilbao effect," even if he's part of the winning team for the second casino, I don't think he can cure us of our architecture illness. The cause is deeper, and we have to address that first.
Related links:
- Safdie talks about the Sands (his idea of Singapore is "arts and sciences.")
- A collection of photos of Singapore architecture with voice notes
- Gehry is visiting Singapore (opens a PDF)
- A related discussion - The Singapore Flyer vs Sands Sky Garden
3 comments:
Hi,
I'm no architecture historian, nor critic, and I've written my own post on Sands and the paradox of the Singapore Flyer.
I'm not sure who built the old apartments in Tiong Bahru (were they pre-hdb?) but they have a lot of life and character to their design, and offer opportunities for all sorts of interesting interiors.
However, our architecture in the HDB does reflect the powers' desire to create societal clones. Everything is the same, pre-planned, and pre-built.
As to what constitutes the Singaporean element in our architecture, perversely, would it be possible that the blandness of our architecture reflects our society (regardless of renowned architects who are constrained by the contracts they sign?)
E.o.M.
Hey
thanks for your comment.
The motivation behind my post was the question of why doesn't Singapore have an architectural icon? The Sands might be our shot at it, but I feel the lack of public, visible discussion has caused the project to be weaker than it could have been. In some cases in other cities, public resistance led to unfortunate cases where iconic buildings were not built (Aalto's plan in downtown Helsinki, for example). In our case, it seems like the project has not been refined by public opinion.
I like to put it this way - famous DJs don't work very hard at Zouk because they don't have to...clubbers seem to only care about their star power. Starchitects don't work very hard in Singapore, because there is no public voice questioning them.
I understand that speed might sometimes be of the essence, but for buildings, they last at least decades, and iconic buildings have the power to last much longer...so why don't we take it a bit slower and make it a bit better?
---
Well there is some kind of chance I suppose - Duxton Plain. The coincidence is that the same Sands architect judged Duxton Plain, and both Sands and Duxton have the "Sky Parks"
---
I might have seemed rude when writing the post. I think there are great architects in Singapore, but as my friend who quit architecture school lamented, the environment isn't great. That said, Singapore architects don't have to work in Singapore.
You can see an interesting example of a "Singapore" architect here http://www.kayngeetanarchitects.com/
I would think that it reflects on us as a society very succintly when Anon 11:50 said that "the environment isn't good". SG architects can become famous and successful, but not in Singapore.
SG's facing a huge serious problem of brain freeze (not drain.) People are just refusing to think independently, and as long as it continues, other cities out there will continue to outdo us, or catch up and overtake us as we slide into global irrelevancy.
We're boring. Its a tag that sticks. We're acquiescent to every demand made of society by its government. We're just HAMSTERS!
E.o.M.
Post a Comment