|
The Straits Times 3rd May, 2002
How much
say should public have over public buildings?
When The Straits
Times published a computer-generated picture of new Supreme Court complex
last week; it generated a series of Forum letters. Perhaps the most vocal
was of architect Tay Kheng Soon, who feels the design could have been
better if the public had engaged in a dialogue on it
By Arthur
Sim
PIONEER architect Tay Kheng Soon has once again spoken out strongly
about architecture in Singapore.
|
|
|
DESIGN
LOOKALIKES: Tay Kheng Soon says architectural symbolism is
important to Singapore architecture, which leaves one to wonder
what the disks over the proposed Supreme Court design and the
earlier Expo MRT Station (above), also by British design
consultancy Foster and Partners, symbolise.
|
The last time the 61-year-old took a stand, it was about the demolition
of the National Library in Bras Basah. He was opposed to its demolition
but could not argue for its preservation.
He has now made a cause celebre of the design of the new Supreme Court
complex in the former Colombo Court site.
His sentiments, published in a Forum letter in The Straits Times on
April 25, could not be less emphatic. He wrote: 'I was appalled by the
design.'
PWD Consultants is the project coordinator behind the new Supreme Court
complex, which is scheduled to be completed in 2004. British design
consultancy, Foster and Partners, was selected from a shortlist of 13
international architectural firms drawn up by PWD Consultants.
The design of public buildings often becomes controversial as members
of the public feel they have a right to be consulted. But design is not an
easy entity to qualify and exactly who should be held accountable is even
less clear.
One of Tay's major grievances is that being a potentially important
civic building, the public should have been allowed to give its feedback
at the onset of the design, and not after the design had been approved for
construction.
Apart from obtaining government approval, the Urban Redevelopment
Authority (URA), the nation's planning authority, does not actually
require that the Supreme Court make the design public.
However, the URA did have certain safeguards against 'appalling'
designs in the civic district. But its design advisory panel, the
now-defunct Architectural Design Panel (ADP), was dissolved in 2000.
A URA spokesman confirms that the design of the Supreme Court had not
undergone the panel's scrutiny. He says: 'The ADP had been dissolved in
2000, before the Supreme Court was designed.'
The ADP has since been replaced by the Design Advisory Committee (DAC)
and the International Panel of Architects and Urban Planners (IPAUP).
Like the ADP, the DAC and IPAUP provide design guidelines along major
corridors, to ensure that new structures are sensitive to the existing
context. But unlike the ADP, clearance from the DAC and IPAUP is no longer
required on important buildings as a condition of URA's planning approval.
Speaking to an audience of architects in April 2000, Minister for
National Development Mah Bow Tan, who announced the ADP's dissolution,
said: 'With the maturing of our architectural profession and a better
appreciation of the value of good design, there is a general consensus
that the panel may no longer be necessary.'
Indeed, the URA's position is not to dictate design, and more
bureaucracy is certainly not the answer either.
But the president of the Singapore Institute of Architects (SIA), Mr
John Ting, thinks that consultations with relevant professional bodies are
useful. The SIA is the only professional body recognised by the government
which represents the architects and the profession. Tay was himself a
former SIA president.
Of the controversy over the design of the new Supreme Court complex,
Ting feels the SIA should have been consulted.
'The more learned among us should be party to the formulation process
rather than be standing on the outside, reacting to the design,' he says.
But he acknowledges that a more comprehensive consultation process with
the SIA could still have resulted in a design that is not so different
from the final one.
He says: 'Yes, the building might be the same in the end, but at least
they would have made the effort to inform the audience.'
OTHER DESIGNS IN QUESTION
BUT not all architects agree with him on the final design of the
Supreme Court.
Tay is one of the more vocal exponents of the architecture scene, but
his is by no means the only voice calling for a more considerate approach
to civic planning.
Architect Tan Hock Beng gave Parkview Square, a building opposite Bugis
Junction, the thumbs down.
In an interview with The Straits Times on Feb 4, he said: 'It seems too
out of place and has bad elements of Las Vegas and Hollywood put
together.'
The building, a 24-storey office block, is not a public one, so there
was even less need to consult the public on the design.
But more serious, perhaps, are his views about public buildings like
the 'aesthetically confused' The Esplanade - Theatres On The Bay.
He says: 'If you take the roof off, no one would be able to tell what
the building is. The roof is just a little hood, multiplied a hundred
times. The form has no sense of the activity, energy or jubilation it
contains.'
THE ISSUE OF FOREIGN TALENT
THAT both The Esplanade and Parkview Square were designed by foreign
architects is perhaps a particularly prickly thorn-in-the-side of many
Singaporean firms.
Briton Michael Wilford was responsible for The Esplanade and American
James Adam for Parkview Square. Both parties, however, collaborated with
local firm, DP Architects.
|
|
|
|
LANDMARKS,
BUT ONLY IN SINGAPORE: Some architects argue that getting a
foreigner to design a building is no guarantee that it will become
internationally acclaimed. Examples mentioned include (from left)
I M Pei's Raffles City, Philip Johnson's Millenia Walk and Kenzo
Tange's UOB Plaza.
|
It is not said explicitly, but many architects here feel developers still
believe only a foreign architect can produce good work.
Architects like Tan argue that getting a foreigner is no guarantee of a
good building, regardless of the firm's reputation.
He says that of the many big-name architects who have built in
Singapore, like I M Pei, Kenzo Tange and Philip Johnson, 'not a single
building designed by them for Singapore is internationally acclaimed'.
Tange designed the UOB Plaza and the Indoor Stadium; Pei was behind
Raffles City while Johnson conceptualised Millenia Walk.
Is the problem of design in Singapore just a matter of transparency?
Tan thinks not.
'It's a question of the design brief. If you have a conventional brief,
you can't expect spectacular architecture,' says Tan, pointing his finger
at developers.
Robert Powell, a former lecturer at the Department of Architecture,
National University of Singapore, agrees that it is not simply a matter of
whether an architect is local or foreign.
'We should not put the blame for mediocrity solely on foreign
architects. Local architects, too, have produced much mediocrity. The
Parliament House, which could have been a landmark for the nation, is a
timid building with no presence.'
Like Tan, Powell also feels that the quality of architecture depends on
the working relationship between the client, architect and building
authorities.
'If there are too many compromises or any failure of nerve, the Supreme
Court will end up like others, for example The Esplanade, a good rather
than great building.'
But no matter who is assigned the blame, many still feel the
architecture in Singapore is, at best, mediocre.
Having had a closer look at the model of the Supreme Court complex, Tay
now feels that the design lacks an 'appropriate design symbolism'.
Left with no clue on how to understand and read the architecture, or
how designs evolve, important landmarks are reduced quickly to the level
of caricature.
The Esplanade, with its two distinctive parts, is already fast becoming
referred to as the 'durian' or 'fly' building.
And in the case of the Supreme Court, some question why the same
floating disk appears in the design of another local building - the Expo
MRT station at the Singapore Expo in Changi, which was also designed by
Foster and Partners.
Unfortunately, this is probably not a question that will be answered as
the design for the building has already been approved and it is now
waiting to be built.
BUDDING HOMEGROWN FIRMS
BUT not all hope is lost. On April 30, over 200 competition entries for
the design of the much-touted Duxton Plain public housing went on display
at the URA Centre in Maxwell Road.
The event was publicised widely eight months ago, in Singapore and
internationally, and drew contestants like internationally-acclaimed
architects Tange, Zaha Hadid and Will Alsop.
It might not be the most important public building, but it will
certainly be the biggest.
Tay himself took part in the competition. But the first prize went to
ARC Studio, a very young and small Singapore firm.
With the competition, it seemed every possible measure was taken to
ensure the best design was selected. This meant a judging panel that
included several renowned architects. The competition was also the first
for public housing in Singapore.
With so much effort made to get the perfect design for Duxton Plain,
will Singapore get a good example of local architecture finally?
Tay, who was present at the exhibition, did not want to comment. It
seems the public will have to decide.
|