The Vegasification of Singapore

[img: Will the new Singapore look like "Paris?"]

With URA's new lighting plan, Singaporeans will soon experience unprecedented freedom in choosing their paths - at the Orchard and Bideford road junction. At other decisive junctions, STB remains firmly in control.

In the 90s, Singapore was Disneyfied to attract more tourist dollars. The historic Tiger Balm Gardens was insensitively developed into the multi-million dollar theme park "Haw Par Villa." A new Chinatown was constructed because the living version was not sanitary for tourist consumption. In September 1993, William Gibson named Singapore "Disneyland with the Death Penalty" in Wired magazine. Rem Koolhaas followed with an even more scathing critic:

Well, Singapore has succeeded in removing any trace of authenticity. It is a culture of the contemporary. And many Asian cities are like this now, seeming to exist of nothing but copies - in many instances bad copies - of Western architecture.

Now as we enter the age when the ash has settled from the failures of the commercial Haw Par Villa and Sentosa's Volcano Land, when Dubai has become more Disneyfied than us, we decide to enter the next stage: Vegasification. Developments like the XL mall Vivocity and two future casino resorts aren't enough - we need bright lights a la Times Square or the Strip. The city is already warm enough and guzzling enough energy, but we now have the CBD in a "blue-white glow" that does as much as air-con in truly bringing down the outdoor temperature of Singapore.

Why are we doing this? The Straits Times vodcast suggests that we can't be contended "after being voted number two most exciting city for dining and nightlife, the city will certainly have a glowing future ahead and become number one."

Yes, it's back to being number one again. Meanwhile, let's relocate Geylang next to the casino resorts - what is Vegas' exciting nightlife without the seedy side?

Related posts:

• Singapore is sick, architecturally
• $100 in Singapore

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