features
The Built, the Dollar,
the Power and
the People
text by shirley surya images courtesy of urban redevelopment authority, marina bay sands pte ltd,
city developments limited, bfc development, keppel corporation limited and wikimedia commons
The Endless Race
With international headlines about cities like Dubai
and Shanghai rivalling each other with the latest
iconic architectural behemoths, the built environ-
ment is increasingly capturing the public’s imagina-
tion. By becoming the branding medium for insti-
tutions, cities and nations, architecture has gone
beyond space-shaping to image-making, and the
economic revitalisation of cities. Books such as The
Endless City by the Urban Age Project – findings on
patterns of urban transformation in six major cit-
ies – show the kind of phenomenal changes and
challenges cities face from rapid urbanisation and
the global race.
Though not of similar scale, Singapore is definitely
going through such transformation, especially in
recent years.
Since the Esplanade opened in 2005, the design of
our built environment has become the focus of the
mainstream media. Though architecture has always
been an integral part of Singapore’s development,
PM Lee Hsien Long’s reference to the built environ-
ment as part of the equation to create the “X-factor”
for a “vibrant, global city” in his 2004 National Day
Rally speech, raises the value of architectural and
urban design excellence to Singapore’s status as a
centre of commerce and culture, more than ever.
While celebratory rhetoric and optimism mark the
nation’s attitude toward its future iconic devel-
opments, architects and the public are skeptical
toward such developments in the West. This is espe-
cially so in regard to the use of starchitecture for
economic ends, its risks on the quality of the public
realm and design’s role to improve lives. iSh explores
where Singapore stands in regard to these concerns
in the spirit of the questions posed in The Endless City
– what kind of lives are we creating? Is the future city
a “a vision of hell or a force for civilised living” amid
these transformations?
110
Duxton Plain Housing Development (2009)
ARC Studio Architecture + Urbanism
Iconic and Economics
The race between Manhattan’s starchitect-condos
has led some to lament that architecture is being
reduced to arresting images and a cultural veneer
in the developer’s marketing strategy. Others ques-
tion the use of starchitecture as tourist attractions
to resuscitate cities – as epitomised by the Bilbao
Effect. In an article Bilbao, 10 Years Later, Gehry’s
Guggeheim is reported to have transformed the
gritty port city into a tourist magnet, yet Bilbao
still remains “very much a one-attraction town”
– attracting starchitects to build around the city,
but with few locals having visited the museum. Such
“disconnect between Bilbao the brand and Bilbao
the city” implies the risk of engendering
architectural cacophony by investing in a The use of starchitecture for economic ends and
slew of iconic buildings when the city has its risks on the quality of the public realm and
little else to offer visually and culturally. design’s role to improve lives.
Though these concerns may not directly apply
to Singapore, it is still worth asking the extent to
which she has banked on the image-factor of archi-
tecture. If starchitecture has been used to serve an
economic end, how much of it is about money than
function? If Singapore is indeed using the “build-it-
and-they-will-come” strategy, can we live up to the
brand we are promoting ourselves to be?
There is no question about Singapore jumping on
the bandwagon of iconic developments as an eco-
nomic necessity. It is afterall a force of globalisa-
tion a city cannot afford to not compete in. While
Moshe Safdie’s design of the Marina Bay Integrated
Resort (MBIR) is described as “a memorable image”
that adds a new dimension to the city skyline, the
double helix-structure bridge by Philip Cox is a
“masterpiece to put the wow right in Singapore’s
city centre”. The iconic criteria gives the much-
needed “X-factor” to achieve the city’s Urban
Redevelopment Authority’s (URA) goal of making
Singapore into a “City With Identity”. But unlike its
past architectural icons like I.M. Pei’s OCBC Centre
and the works of other Pritzker-winning architects
built between the late ’70s to ’90s, recent iconic
developments are not just symbols of Singapore’s
The Sail @ Marina Bay (2009) Marina Bay Sands (2009) Gardens at Marina South (2010)
NBBJ | Kiat Inc Moshe Safdie & Associates Grant Associates
| Aedas | Peter Walker &
Associates
economic prowess praised for their design innova- As much as the iconic factor of developments like
tion, but explicitly presented in the media as differ- the MBIR, Financial Centre, and luxury apartments
entiators to our skyline and a brand-name cachet like The Sail and Reflections have been utilised to
for the property and tourist market. attract foreign investments, their success comes
hand in hand with the city’s overall efforts such
The iconic factor sells – in reputation and in dollar as allowing easy immigration and staging of inter-
terms. When Monocle ranked Singapore as No. 17 national events. Business Times has also attributed
amongst the world’s Top 20 Most Liveable Cities for Singapore’s lead in property investment transac-
factors that included its “blossoming urban and cul- tions in Asia-Pacific in 2007 to its attractive living
tural landscape” featuring “international stars like environment, the two IRs and hosting of the F1
Moshe Safdie and Toyo Ito”, the Bilbao Effect seems race. “Though these projects are still in progress,
to play out. Just as the starchitect’s brand-name the positive impact is already felt with increasing
justifies a higher price point for luxury apartments visitor arrivals and foreign invest-
in Manhattan, “space users with more discerning ment, leading to greater demand Recent iconic developments are not just symbols
taste are willing to pay a premium for quality world- for offices, residences and hotels,” of Singapore’s economic prowess, but explicitly
class design and architecture here,” according to comments Kwee as she reveals presented in the media as differentiators to
Kwee Yilin, Vice President of Project Development Pontiac Land’s plan for “an ultra- our skyline and a brand-name cachet for the
at Pontiac Land – the developer behind high-pro- luxury hotel in Sentosa and two property and tourist market.
f ile buildings like the upcoming Capella Hotels prestigious residential projects in
and Resort by Foster + Partners. This has caused District 10.”
developers, especially those in the luxury market,
to engage starchitects to meet such shift in custom- By investing in the built, not in expense of the public
ers’ expectation and demand. realm and the buzz, Singapore seems to not be fully
prone to the “build-it-they-will-come” syndrome
But with the inevitable use of the iconic for eco- and has prevented any disconnection between its
nomic ends, it seems to be held in tension with people, the city, and its aspired status of a vibrant
other factors. Under Singapore’s planning policy global metropolis.
that takes into account all stakeholders, the iconic
is not necessarily built at the expense of function, Is Large-Scale Upscale or Social
especially in its relation to the quality of the public Innovation for All?
realm. While addressing real estate developers at
a Cityscape conference, CEO of URA Cheong-Chua With the much-desired public recognition of the
Koon Hean expressed that in assessing develop- design profession, few would question celebrated
ments for approval, URA looks not only at the architects designing the city’s most luxe apart-
iconic feature but also how the overall design fits ments or a mega masterplanning projects. But for
the context in terms of its contribution to impor- some, the rise of starchitect-condos is not a sign
tant criteria such as the creation of public spaces, of architecture going mainstream but celebrated
efficiency for transportation and pedestrian com- architecture becoming lifestyle signifiers of the
fort. The substantial amount of prime land reserved rich and famous. Others wonder if starchitects’
for open space and public use at the Marina Bay turn to planning large-scale developments that
Development, and the public promenades and are increasingly bound up with that of the upscale
pedestrian connectivity in landmark developments is a sign of gentrification becoming the preferred
like the MBIR, are examples of URA’s commitment urban renewal strategy. Some even questioned if
to these criteria, as stewards of the public realm. all these are in any way compatible with Modern
111
 Punggol Point Walk (2010) Scotts Tower
Look Architects OMA
architecture’s essentially utopian foundations – a
notion most likely absent to designers here where
Modernism is often reduced to a stylistic whim of
chic minimalism, far from the Modernists’ aspira-
tion at the turn of the 20th century – that design and
art could, and should, transform society and cre-
ate a better world for all. More importantly, some
have challenged how much of these innovations
have gone beyond the tectonic and architectural
to that of the social. The reality of the global capi-
talist economy easily renders design’s social goals
futile. But whether good design is only accessible
to the upper echelons, manifested in gentrification
and not wielded to improve everyday living for all,
remain significant issues.
With headline-making projects in Marina Bay – its
Financial Centre, The Sail and Collyer Quay revamp
– housing premium office spaces, high-rise apart-
ments, hip retail stores and dining areas, and rad-
ical projects like the Scotts Tower and residential
complex by Office of Metropolitan Architecture
(OMA) as high-end dwellings, gentrification seems
widespread in Singapore. But there’s no need for a
blame game. Market forces and the continued influx
of well-heeled foreign expats have led to inevitable
demand of such high-end developments that bring
in much-needed capital – revived physical spaces
lead to increased investment, property market val-
ues, and government revenue – to keep this city at
a competitive edge.
Yet, there remains quite a fair distribution of land
resources between commercial and public interests
that seems to reflect the government’s commitment
to “achieving a sustainable balance between eco-
nomic growth and the quality of the living environ-
ment” – as expressed by Mah Bow Tan, Minister of
National Development at the 2008 URA Corporate
Seminar. Unlike countries in the region, where pub-
lic facilities are often relegated to a state of dilapi-
dation and good design is utilised by private funds
for commercial spaces, Singapore is marked with
many existing and upcoming well-designed facili-
ties in parks, transportation hubs, public housing
and civic plazas.
112
CapitaLand Residential Complex Woodlands Waterfront Project (2010)
OMA Urban Redevelopment Authority
Competitions have sought innovative designs for
public projects like the Circle Line MRT stations,
Duxton Plain Public Housing, and Gardens by the
Bay. The winning design for future Bras Basah MRT
station by WOHA Architects, features a reflection
pool that is both a skylight and cooling agent to
reduce artificial lighting and air conditioning; the
future design of Duxton Plain housing by another
local architecture firm ARC Studio is a series of high-
density blocks linked with sky parks to maximise
views and recreational space to fully utilise the ben-
efits of high-rise living; while the gardens at Marina
Bay by UK-based Grant Associates and Gustafson
Porter will feature Cool Conservatories, terraced
water gardens and the latest sustainable and water
technologies that capitalise on Singapore’s tropi-
cal climate and nearness to the water. Other exist-
ing facilities that demonstrate the public
sector’s role as patrons of good design The reality of a global capitalist economy
are the bio-climac tic design of the easily renders design’s social goals futile. But
National Library Board building by T.R. whether good design is only accessible to the
Hamzah & Yeang and the characteristic upper echelons, manifested in gentrification
design of Bishan Community Library by and not wielded to improve everyday living for
Look Architects – all of which are highly- all, remain significant issues.
accessible and thriving public spaces.
Not only does the affordability of public housing
offset the negative effects of gentrification, plans
for “heartland rejuvenation” in the form of new
spaces built for greater community participation
and ownership to encourage social integration
like the upcoming Punggol Point and Woodlands
Waterfront are also in the works. These will be new
coastal promenades built to offer great views and
recreational spaces, with award-winning firm Look
Architects commissioned to design the waterfront
promenade that opens to the Punggol Coast. With
these initiatives, governmental efforts, however
imperfectly, have certainly kept the social goal of
design in mind by wielding innovative design to
create a whole new way of living for a community
in the tropics.
Marina Bay Financial Centre & Residences (2010-2012) South Beach Development (2012)
Kohn Pederson Fox | DCA Architects | Architects 61 Foster + Partners
Are We There Yet?
By integrating people and money, and offsetting
the costs of urban gentrification, Singapore seems
well on the path of achieving a culturally specific
model that’s both economically and socially viable.
But just as its leaders are not resting on its laurels
amid the heated race of being a global city, more
can be done to face unforeseen challenges of future
urbanisation.
With redesigns for a new shopping and
We can ride on this to raise the right kind waterfront experience portrayed in f ire-
of awareness to help the public define what works and glitz, and dwellings marketed
architectural and urban design “excellence” for its “ultra-chic balcony” and “dramatic
means to people in Singapore. architectural structures”, there is a need
to go beyond the rhetoric of sustainability
and design toward breakthroughs in environmental
impact and social innovation. According to archi-
tect Tan Su Ling, who once worked in the design and
planning department of HDB and URA, even when
“sustainability” and “eco-precincts” have become
the buzz word she is not sure if architects and urban
designers have understood this enough to impact
the way they think and design buildings and the
city. Though projects like Treetops@Punggol and
the upcoming South Beach Development by Foster
+ Partners are touted as examples of Singapore
going green with their energy conservation tech-
nologies, Tan believes more research and resources
should be placed in this area so that sustainability is
not reduced to planter boxes, solar panels or green
lungs, but truly environmentally-friendly buildings
and a city that respond to the tropical climate. To
Tan, this is what she considers to be “a genuine way
to define and approach ‘design excellence’.” So are
architects in Singapore saying “We’ll do an environ-
mentally-responsible building if you want one” or “I
won’t do a building unless it’s green”? There needs
to be a real passion and wisdom that goes beyond
the sustainable rhetoric.
Changes must also affect the city at the level of
urban systems rather than superficial piecemeal
interventions to address deeper issues to do with
the interrelated and systemic problems of urbani-
Reflections at Keppel Bay (2013)
Studio Daniel Libeskind
sation. Can design achieve more than the status of
an iconic tourist destination or part of a marketing
equation for luxury dwellings? If the Chinese gov-
ernment can encourage private developers to build
quality housing for the aging population, if firms
like Related can be recognised as America’s private
developer of transformative mixed-used projects
and affordable housing while working with archi-
tects like Meier and Gehry, can developers here be
encouraged to diversify their portfolio for a socially
innovative cause?
But cities are complex. In an article about The
Endless City by the book’s co-editor Deyan Sudjic,
he noted that The Urban Age Project is “not only
for those who spend their time thinking about cit-
ies, but also those who have to tried to do some-
thing about them.” It is not enough to offer a range
of solutions solely through the eye of a critic. But
despite the complexities, Sudjic seems confident
of one observation: “cities that work best are those
that keep their options open, that allow the possi-
bility of change, while a city that has been trapped
by too much gentrification, or too many shopping
malls, will have trouble generating the spark that is
essential to making a city that works.”
There may not be a set of solutions for Singapore,
but it is well-advised to avoid a monolithic view of
what a city ought to be or the icons it should emu-
late amid the race. With the risks that the iconic
and economics may bring – gentrification, reduc-
ing architecture to image and money more than a
function for social innovation, it has nevertheless
brought about, more than ever, greater public con-
sciousness of the built environment. We can ride on
this to raise the right kind of awareness to help the
public define what architectural and urban design
“excellence” means to people in Singapore. Perhaps
only when the public plays a more active role in the
shaping of their environments, would there be new
confidence engendered to create not just an attrac-
tive city for its iconic developments, but the heart of
the people that characterise them.
113