Pecha Kucha Beijing 2008

Thanks Jan for the cover! Pecha Kucha Beijing will be held on May 18, 2008 for those who are interested.

PECHA KUCHA IN ROTTERDAM

Friend Ren Horng Yee, who presented at Pecha Kucha, with me and Ilmar, my classmate

View from the front row

Lesley Moore


Pecha Kucha in Rotterdam! There I was, yesterday night. (Yoda like...)

Having been to Rojak's and having been very impressed with jing's photograph's and boo jun feng's the changi murals, i must say pecha kucha rotterdam came across as quite a disappointment.

The evening had a foreboding start, and went on with a sequence of designers/artists who were either not able or not keen to share their work in a passionate and meaningful way. Some designers were downright bad. The selection of presenters could have been more stringent.

All was not gloom and doom however. The evening had its nice bits that overall, made the night worth it. The casual dutch atmosphere (as you can see in the photo) was one thing I thoroughly enjoyed. You can't find a more "bo chap" attitude in Singapore. The Rojak session that I attended was super-charged in quite a heady manner, what with the hosts making innuendos throughout the session; Pecha Kucha Rotterdam on the other hand felt like a really casual gathering of people with two less-than-competent-but-still-heartwarming hosts speaking in their second language, English.

The saving grace of the night was-besides my good friend Ren Horng Yee's presentation of his final project, and no this is not just a disclaimer- the works of a two-person design firm Lesley Moore. It puzzled me for some time where the name came from, since their names were not Lesley and Moore. The name of the firm is actually a pun on the phrase "Less is More"! They told me that Goethe was the one who first said it, so let's remember that, and not attribute it solely to Mies.

I was already immediately impressed by the fact that they do the layout of Mark magazine. They spoke about a series of really respectable works- a font inspired by escher's multidimensional staircase, a huge digital clock that was lit up in an analog fashion by friends turning the fluorescent lights on and off, a stencil typography that was formed by two basic shapes. A fantastic piece of work was a short clip they did for Dave Clark called White Noise. The concept is white powder exploding and arranging to form text, the white substance being an allusion to the white noise we see on screen. Conceptually very fierce!

Had a discussion with Ilmar during the break. I asked him what makes Dutch design Dutch. He observed that Dutch design has 3 characteristics:

1. Couldn't-care-less attitude
2. You have to make a joke out of everything
3. There has to be some subliminal message in the design
4. No sense of aesthetics (my addition)

I find these points really befitting Dutch designers.

The day ended with a nice chat with Karin and Alex from Lesley Moore.

Netherlands 1.06pm, signing out!

Frank Gehry asks "Then what?"

Who would know that an interview with Frank Gehry could be so entertaining? I like what he says about the Architect having to bring something of this own to the table in terms of aesthetics. He also speaks about collaboration, and I thought what was interesting from that was the people the person that he chose to collaborate with. While we often talk about collaboration with the community, with people from different disciplines, what was intriguing about this collaboration was it was between 2 brilliant people. I hope that motivates us to be brilliant at what we do. I believe, only then, can collaboration reach its fullest potential. Ganbante!

And the Pritzker goes to...

Monsieur Jean Nouvel. Here's an article about it (courtesy The Independent, UK):

Jean Nouvel looks like a villain from a James Bond movie. He is large. He is completely bald. He always wears black, except in the summer, when he always
wears white. He is celebrated for his rages but also for his generosity and his
long friendships, even with his rivals.

Yesterday, Nouvel, 62, the French architect who has designed some of the most memorable buildings in the world in the past 20 years, won the Pritzker prize – the Nobel of architecture. It was a poke in the eye for his many critics. It was a riposte to those who believe that all modern buildings look the same. Famously, no two Jean Nouvel buildings look alike.

He looks quite a bit like Lim Kay Siu if you ask me (see last picture)! That aside, Fivefootway has this to say about Nouvel's award, in the context of the larger picture, with a slight dash of cynicism and a serving of wit.


Me, it hasn't quite sunk in yet, but here are some images for a bit of that instant gratification.







A nice bald shave and a dapper black suit for whoever guesses the names for the three projects above correctly! (Images courtesy of rightful owners.)

Singapore 1:1 Exhibition at the URA

Had a chance to attend the Singapore 1:1 Forum last week, held in conjunction with the Singapore 1:1 Island exhibition at the URA Gallery, the second in what I hope is a (longer) series of exhibits on architecture in Singapore. The first was Singapore 1:1 City two years ago. The exhibition documents key architectural highlights in Singapore, chronologised into 'ages', from the 1960s til today.

Moderated by Larry Ng, director of the Architecture and Urban Design Excellence (AUDE) programme at the URA, the forum was given its kick-off by Dr Wong Yunn Chii, the curator of the exhibition, who spoke on the processes behind curating the exhibition, and the mode of selection of its theme (and projects). In so doing, the audience was given a live commentary-cum-critique on many of the selected exhibited schemes, which felt like a Brief History of Modern Singapore Architecture 101 (in a most positive way, of course). It was enlightening, as it was my first time listening to a talk on curatorial thought processes, and on viewing the exhibition after the forum, it lended additional credence to the exhibition itself. The photography for some of these projects was pretty impressive as well.

Mr Arthur Aw of Jurong Town Corporation later gave his insight on his eight or so years of working at the Jurong Town Hall, itself a Brutalist-styled design from 1969 (by Architects Team 3) which still commands much awe, if audience response was anything to go by. A quote from Mr Aw: "If someone joined JTC, in the old building (Jurong Town Hall), I would have got to know him within three months. Now, if someone joins JTC, in the new building (Jurong Summit), it would take me a year to get to know him."

This simple comment brings forth further, deeper questions of modern office-space typologies, and is a silent criticism on developers' quests to go for taller, lower-footprint skyscrapers. The latter little more than fulfilling efficiency, and, in the case of Jurong Summit, are probably far less of an architectural marker in time, than buildings designed to make their presence felt - Jurong Town Hall would be a case in point.

Ms Rohani Baharin from CPG Airports then gave a detailed talk on everyone's favourite airport - Changi, documenting the progress it's made since the opening of Terminal 1 back in the 1970s. This was a very refreshing point of view - one uses or views an airport on a very microscopic level, compared to the people who are actually planning it, everything from its masterplanning to its infrastructure to the little architectural details that contribute to the airport being runaway best-in-the-world for several years running. (Nugget of interesting information: There are baggage carousels running underground from terminal to terminal, below the existing MRT line!)

The audience was treated to a video of the conceptualisation process behind T3 as well, with details of the now-famous skylighting flaps, and the green walls and large expanses of curtain-wall glass. Ms Baharin's talk ended off with optimistic hope for T4, which has now been confirmed to be in the pipeline.




Mr Tan Kok Hiang of Forum Architects gave an enlightening talk on the thoughts and design processes behind three of his projects - the Henderson Community Centre, the Assyafaah Mosque (model pictured above) and the new entrance for the Singapore Science Centre. Cultural significance and relevance lend themselves to Forum's projects, and these show up in details, both highly microscopic - for instance, in the Arabesque screens of the Mosque - and macroscopic, in the primordial Fibonacci Sequence system that guides the new landscaped plaza leading to the Science Centre. It left the audience with the feeling that architecture indeed innovates, and is meant to innovate, while serving more fundamental demands of space, form-making and client/programmatic demands.

The forum concluded with a colourful Q&A session, in which the speakers furthered their respective talks with commentaries on the future of architecture and architectural innovation in Singapore, while keeping true to what we've held proud thus far - efficient and "pleasant" design. This is a timely shot in the arm as we are seeking a myriad set of answers to the perennial "So, what's next?" question, in the context of local architecture.

All in all, it was a talk that neatly wrapped up the Singapore 1:1 Island exhibition, itself a neat set-up. I bought the concomitant book - even with slight reservations on its graphic design - as I know it will become a handy historical document on how far Singapore architecture has come, as it is itself a history-documenting book.

The Singapore 1:1 Exhibition has been extended til April 11th, and can be viewed during the URA's opening hours.

THEO JANSEN

Theo Jansen lectured in TU Delft last Thursday. Just a brief introduction for those who do not know him, he is a kinetic sculpture artist who builds wind powered walking "creatures" from wire ducts. He is a true-blue showman whose stage presence has already been tirelessly rehearsed- jokes from a Dutchman which are actually funny!

One cannot help but marvel at the extent the movement of these creatures makes one think of real animals. When the wind blows at the animals, it starts off a series of movements within the creature's complex joints that gives the illusion of walking. And it is this act of walking (which Jansen explains as an evolution of the wheel), stopping, and reacting to water, which makes these creatures so compellingly alive.

16 years of perfecting this art. I wonder if my short-lived interests will cut short my quest for excellence...back to the drawing board...

Lucid Dreaming Redux... Parallel Universes, Parallel Projects?

While I was reading up on Philip K Dick (on Wikipedia, I must admit), and on recollecting some of the themes of films that have been adapted from his work, it occurred to me that a recurring theme in his work are that of parallel universes and simulacra. These tend to become plot vehicles and/or set pieces for the antihero characters in his novels... say, the possibility of viewing "parallel scenario of the future" which allows prospective criminals to be apprehended before the crime is actually committed, in "Minority Report"; or multiple identities, and therefore multiple trajectories of life, courtesy of a mind-altering drug, in "A Scanner Darkly".

(On the same page, for a truly trippy experience, rent "Altered States" which starred a younger and more follicled Ed Harris.)

I couldn't help but notice that Sern Hong's "Pirated City" thesis project bore themes that reverberated with the above. The constant link-up of his projects between Los Angeles and Singapore - and even the mechanics of the execution of the projects (Jawn's and Sern Hong's collaborative "Verticity" being one of them) - is somewhat akin to drawing a line in an attempt to connect those parallel simulacra (in this case, the time-space trajectory in LA and that in Singapore, or visions of which). I might be pushing it here - and it's likely that Sern Hong drew from similar sources - but what we might be looking at is a treasure-trove of material that can be drawn from, and which are still being drawn from, three decades after Dick's seminal work. (No pun or innuendo intended at all.)

Pirated City

Bleak cities in various stages of dystopia, which in this day and age could just well be defined as those which pride digital media exchange over the power of physical architecture, as backdrops of Philip Dick's protagonists - "Bladerunner" being the best example, mirroring Los Angeles in dystopia) - could've also led to that thought...

Blade Runner

Reading that Dick drew upon Carl Jung's theories and hypotheses was something very enlightening (and slightly goosebump-raising) as well, as his "collective unconscious" theory was something substantially referenced in my M.Arch thesis. This may be a bit of a far reach, but the whole rhizome idea which premises the thesis project - whether biological or Deleuzian - bases itself on multiple entities which function independently, and are almost mutually exclusive save for their source. One could (in a state of lucidity, probably) allude this to parallel space-time universes which begin from the same event, or multiple personalities originating from the same person, each personality functioning and behaving differently and taking completely different trajectories.

The Deleuzian Rhizome (or its unfathered variant) in the flesh!

And as Hollywood draws upon these great works on existentialism and the multiple self from yesteryear, so too do architecture students in various states of delirium, and boy, isn't that a whole lot of fun. For if space and time keep going in an endless continuum, and if we think there are multiple "space-time" entities, then it would follow that there will always be parallel universes from which our imagination (and architecture ideas!) can be drawn.

Lego Architecture

What do you get when you bring a group of architects together, throw them a pile of white lego bricks and ask them to just have fun and engage spontaneously with the materials? Loads of creativity!

The Building Asia Brick By Brick project done in collaboration between Andrew Maerkle of Art AsiaPacific and Wei Wei Shannon of People’s Architecture seeked to to promote awareness of architectural preservation in Asia where much urban development occurs at the expense of historically significant or unique buildings. In raising awareness, the project hoped to get people to look at their environments critically.

I was personally quite impressed with the end results of many of the projects. It just proves that we can certainly come up with more creative alternatives to the heavy-handed tear down and rebuild approach that many developing countries are taking, in the name of economic growth. I also noticed that the goals of the Building Asia Brick By Brick project was very much similar to what we do in re:act! Perhaps we could get Lego to sponsor the next Design My Place or YUP project? That would be great wouldn't it?

Read more here

RICHARD SERRA & THE MATTER OF TIME

corten stairs


corten sculpture

corten steel and rusting compliments phenomenological ideas of time, impermanence and emotions. if anyone is familiar with the telok ayer stairs of WOHA, climbing up and down a phenomenological object for two years, some say, may take away some of its aura and bring it back to the reality of everyday. thinking back, i actually enjoyed climbing up and down that circular corten stairway. it was a place to stop and chat (it echoed a lot in the stairwell), the lights were soft, and every step you take goes bong-bong-bong-bong.

phenomenological everyday.

sigh, nostagia descends.

anyway, read the article "In Praise of Rust: Technics and Poetics of the Ferrous Patina" by Cheah Kok Ming in Singapore Architects 242. It is a well researched article with many examples of corten use in various ways. one of my favourite examples in his article is Gigon-Guyer's signal box in Zürich (Stellwerk Vorbahnhof) which is, ironically, NOT made out of corten but concrete with iron oxide pigments.

a rare well-written article in a magazine. i pored over it assiduously.

Stadiums for the community??

Just a thought came to my mind as I read through a sports news article titled "Seedorf's SOS for soccer". In the article, Seedorf, a famous soccer player for Netherlands who was born in S. Africa, spoke of solving the issues of sports violence and players' welfare through the design of stadiums. As of now, there are increasing incidents of violence from the spectators stands and in some cases, the police are the ones getting hurt.

Here's a quote from him,
<< At Milan's Champions League 1-1 draw at Benfica's ultra-modern Stadium of Light last week, Seedorf saw where Italy had gone wrong and that new grounds attract calmer fans.

'In Lisbon, it was a great stadium, very public-friendly. Simple things make a difference,' he said. 'That's what we need in Italy. We need to build new stadiums. Outside of Italy, people are addressing these issues.' >> published 07 dec 2007, The Electric New Paper, Sports

image from www.wayfaring.info/tag/soccer/

image from www.nytimes.com

It's an interesting observation and I just want to point this out, given the recent hype about the sports hub designs in Singapore. Maybe we can explore new ways, new typologies of looking at sporting facilities' designs.

What are the implications of future sports arenas, facilities? Can stadiums do more for the community? What new architecture discourses can be derived by the changing sporting experience?

While we're at it...

...there's also the Alvar Aalto exhibition, by the Alvar Aalto foundation and NUS Museums, on-going at the National University Museum (that's at the University Cultural Centre),

...and T3 (no Kristianna Loken though (or Arnie depending on who you like); the closest you get to cyborgs are perhaps the smiling SQ girls) which is open to the public during office hours and weekends for the public.

(Images from rightful owners)

Check here for more details! (A little bit of input required.)

UOB Plaza article - my response (Part 2)

And here is my email response to the article in the previous post on Tange's UOB Plaza.


Dear Calvin,

I wanted you to know that your column on the UOB Plaza was an engaging read that yielded some surprising discoveries that I would not have realized had you not brought it up. I can discern the massing of the old octagon tower in the lower UOB Tower now, hidden beneath the tiles!

A few critical questions persist, nevertheless, with regard to the UOB Plaza and I was disappointed to find that your column did not address them sufficiently. While I give the architects benefit of the doubt that their design was tailored to the specificity of the site, the context, the client and the brief, one cannot ignore the formal geometric similarities between the UOB Tower and the Tokyo Metropolitan City Hall completed a few years earlier.

Tokyo City Hall

This leads rise to the perception, rightly or wrongly, that the UOB Plaza is not an original signature, but a replicate cousin of the original. This, despite the beauty of the final product. A similar example would be Cesar Pelli’s acclaimed World Financial Centre in New York and his subsequent Canary Wharf Tower in London, with all their formal similarities…. even though the outcomes were still tailored differently to their respective contexts.

This observation alone perhaps explains why I find myself preferring the OUB Centre to the UOB Plaza. It just feels more fresh and dynamic.

The other connection that I was surprised your article did not pick up, (though I may not be 100% right about this point) is that Kenzo Tange was the masterplanning consultant for Singapore’s skyline – chief of which was the “layering” effect of placing the shorter buildings in front, and taller buildings behind (as viewed from the waterfront). What coincidence that he designs two of the three “prized” trophies within his own skyline tapestry!


Deyan Sudjic, in his recent book Edifice Complex wrote about “collect(ing) images of the rich and powerful, leaning over architectural models….” as evidence of the relationship between architecture and power. On the website of Kenzo Tange Associates (and also printed in a past issue of Singapore Architect magazine, in an article by Tsuto Sakamoto), there is a black-and-white image of Kenzo Tange alongside Lee Kuan Yew in front of a model.

The issue of Kenzo Tange building in Singapore is clearly much more than Tange’s own architectural vision in isolation. I believe that he happened to fit squarely with LKY’s [the REAL architect of Singapore] autocratic vision for a technocratic, cosmopolitan, modern city-state.

When you raise the example of Bawadi’s advertisement (which I have yet to see) where the UOB Plaza rubs shoulders against Petronas Towers, I fear that it is not because it “stands for the best of Singapore and its architecture” or is even iconic enough of Singapore’s urbanscape. It was probably chosen more because it fell within the iconography of the following formula:
grand-skyscraper = developed+cosmopolitan = $$$+ prestige.

Oddly enough, people describe Singapore’s “signature” skyline with reference to “Manhattan” with a strange kind of pride. (Our city planners, foreign journalists, travel journalists, etc). Few realize the irony that when they do so, the merit goes to Manhattan, not to Singapore.

I rest my case for now, and look forward to your next article.

Best Regards
Ronald Lim

UOB Plaza - Straits Times article (Part 1)

Most of you know by now my staunch support for informed commentary on architecture in the Singapore’s mainstream press. I just realised that this article on Kenzo Tange’s UOB plaza was published in the Straits Times a few days back. It was definitely a pleasant surprise.

As a next step, I look forward to seeing more in-your-face criticisms and critical questions being raised, instead of just an explanation of why-this-building-is-so-great. This article is nevertheless a wonderful step in the right direction. I will post my personal response the next post. Enjoy.

Twists and turns of UOB Plaza -
by Calvin Low

The process of constructing the building's iconic rotated motif led to an unexpected discovery about its original design

WHEN the Dubai developer of Bawadi, billed as the 'largest hospitality and leisure development in the world', put out full-page advertisements worldwide to draw investors last year, it borrowed one of Singapore's architectural icons for its pitch.

In the artist's impression of the mega-proposal, Singapore's UOB Plaza rose majestically in the night sky, as resplendently lit as you would see it when you walk down the side of the Singapore River.

Only, in this ad, it rubs shoulders with other montaged international landmarks such as Malaysia's Petronas Towers.

Clearly, Bawadi's developers wanted to attract the best in the world and, in its eyes, the UOB Plaza stands for the best of Singapore and its architecture.

A trait of classic architecture is its ability to remain timeless in its appeal - a result of balancing between seizing an inspired idea and honing it until it reveals its most essential expression.

The UOB Plaza, designed by the late Pritzker Prize laureate Kenzo Tange in collaboration with Architects 61, exemplifies this balance.

It demonstrates Tange's genius in reconciling a pre-existing design with his own architectural vision.

The octagonal form of the towers is derived from the original 38-storey UOB Building by pioneer architect Lim Chong Keat of Architects Team 3, completed in 1974.

Instead of demolishing the original eight-sided tower, Tange followed up on its sculptural promise with a literal twist by adding more floors that are turned 45 degrees to the original geometry, thus giving the building's iconic rotated tower motif.

An additional unexpected situation, however, awaited the architects when re-cladding the original tower as Kenzo Tange's son, Paul, revealed in an interview last year.

It was discovered that the old building had been constructed with a slight, irregular twist along its height. This required fine-tuning the size of the supports of the new cladding panels to take up the geometric imperfection.

Today, most people would not associate UOB Plaza, completed in 1992, with a 33-year-old development. But look closely at the lower of the twin towers and the shape of Lim's original octagonal scheme is still clearly discernable, albeit dressed in grey granite instead of its original copper-tinted reflective glass.

Once the rotating architectural motif had been established with the original tower, it was applied to the design of its taller twin, which rises to the maximum aviation-regulated height of 280m. At 66 storeys, UOB Plaza joins Republic Plaza, by Kisho Kurokawa, and OUB Centre, also by Tange, as the three tallest buildings in Singapore.

A testament to the perseverance required in the creation of this prismatic paragon, the twin-tower scheme for UOB Plaza took 10 years to hone and involved, according to Paul Tange, 'about 100 different schemes'.

UOB Plaza's urban design is also exemplary. Sited between two historic nodes - Raffles Place and Boat Quay - a typical 'max out the ground floor' approach would have eliminated any connection between the two.

Instead, UOB opened about a quarter of the prime ground-floor area to the public in the form of a 'city room'. Flanked by its banking hall, the four-storey, sky-lit 'city room' is both a physical and visual bridge between Raffles Place and the Singapore River. That a constant flow of pedestrians passes through here at all times of the day and night is evidence of its civic importance.

Other public amenities in UOB Plaza include a mosque in the basement and an observation deck on the 42nd storey which offered mesmerising views of Singapore before access to the space was restricted.

From the ground, however, in sunshine or by moonlight when its chiselled charm is enhanced with architectural lighting, the UOB Plaza's twin towers will continue to be of allure long after flashy new icon-wannabes have become victims of architectural fashion.

Calvin Low is a writer who is trained in both architecture and journalism.

My Wishlist for Architecture in Singapore

1) Creation of a Department of Architecture and Design in the Singapore Art Museum (Or alternatively, a museum of architecture and design)
The department would be the guardian of Singapore’s design heritage, would be a home for a permanent collection of design drawings, documents etc related to Singapore architecture, and would provide dynamic and critical curatorial direction to affect critical discourse. (I’m thinking along the lines of how exhibitions like Henry Russell Hitchcock’s 1932 “International Style exhibition” , Paolo Portoghesi’s 1980 “Presence of the Past” or Mark Wiggley’s 1989 “Deconstructivism” left a profound impact on the movement of architectural discourse. ) Exhibitions on Singapore Architecture need to be more than just “showcasing Singapore’s design to the world” at fancy international biennales.


2) A permanent architecture column in the Straits Times, with a qualified resident or rotating architectural critic
I mentioned this in a previous post. If Singapore is serious about the development of architecture, we must also be serious enough to devote space in our print media to educate the public on the role and place of architecture in society and why good/critical architecture matters and what makes compelling architecture.


3) An annual speculative architecture competition for a temporary architecture installation/pavilion that goes up for 3 months each year.
I was thinking of something along the lines of MoMA’s annual PS1 competition that temporarily transforms their space in Queens every summer with a winning installation. It is often a rite-of-passage for up-and-coming architects before they “make it big”. It could alternatively take the form of a commission for temporary follies like the yearly Serpentine Pavilion or Kumamoto Prefecture’s Artpolis project.


4) Creation of a National Trust Fund for Historic Preservation (possibly a tax-free endowment fund) that will heavily fund or subsidise the acquisition, repair, maintenance, and adaptation buildings of heritage value that cannot withstand the onslaught of the free market and developmental pressures independently.
We all witnessed the controversy of the Butterfly House and the we-have-no-choice-but-to-tear-this-down-for-development lame argument. Singapore cannot rely on URA alone to safeguard our heritage because their ultimate responsibility is to focus on development. (note that R in URA stands for Redevelopment)

If any emotionally valuable piece of architectural heritage cannot stand up to the test of the free market, then it deserves a subsidy that is commensurate with its heritage value / design merit (that is often never factored in when people tear stuff down to rebuild and redevelop)

(As a loosely parallel example, Central Park in New York was restored after decades of degeneration with private money by way of the Central Parks Conservancy, independent of municipal authorities)

5) A set of incentives to encourage developers/clients to commit to innovative architecture. (e.g. a tax rebate on rent earned for every project that passes the scrutiny of a design jury, or that wins the President’s design award, etc)
Alternatively, we can tax ugly insensitive buildings. Like the Supreme Court. (just kidding) I prefer carrots to sticks.


But otherwise, I think URA and Design Singapore are coming up with a fascinating slew of initiatives. I only wish their intentions were more pure than "making Singapore a design hub of the world". ..... *sigh*

The Clients - our allies

Sometime back, Sy Lyng posted an article on the need for architectural “mediators” in Singapore. If I remember the gist of her posting correctly, she referred to such architecture mediators as people who were not career architects, but were important facilitators who took a sincere interest in enabling good architecture to be built.

Along the same vein, I wanted to devote this post to a special category of people who are not the architects but are as crucial to a project’s success. Without these people, many masterpieces and imaginative forms would not have been realized – they are the clients, or the crucial decision-makers in the commissioning process.

Whereas most architects believe that the ideal client gives the architect the free rein, I beg to differ, somewhat. The most successful commissions often begin clients who have a strong vision and intention of what outcome they want. They share with architects the faith in the power of architecture. The strength of their vision and intention often gives clarity to the parameters (and meaningful constraints) that they lay down for their architects. At the same time, they trust the architects to be their own.

Rarely are they followers seeking to commission a building similar in form to something that already exists somewhere else. Instead, they believe in that which has yet to come into existence and make discoveries together with the architects during the design process. In short, they care about the design of the buildings they commission but never usurp the role of designer.

Beyond all these, the strongest architect-client partnerships depend upon a deep affinity, chemistry, and mutual understanding in a highly personal relationship.

For architecture in Singapore to flourish, it is not only important for us to nurture design talent, but to cultivate interest within potential allies within the power circles (in real-estate, in decision-making processes, in academia, in administration) to share the belief in compelling architecture and powerful spaces. The architects cannot go it alone.

I raise here, examples of important people who made it happen because they had a vision and cared about design.



1. Hilla Rebay
Was the curator of Solomon Guggenheim’s personal collection of “non-objective art” She sought to exhibit his collection in a “temple of non-objectivity” and found that the only architect with whom she could share that vision was Frank Lloyd Wright.
The result: Solomon R Guggenheim Museum, New York



2. Jonas Salk
Envisioned a research space for scientists where “anyone with a mind in the humanities, in science, or in art could contribute to the mental environment of research leading to discoveries in science.” He wanted a space where a scientist could “invite Picasso”.
The result: the Salk Institute, (Louis Kahn)



3. Phyllis Lambert
Daughter of Samuel Bronfman, CEO of Seagram. When it was decided that a tower would be built to house Seagram’s headquarters, Phyllis Lambert personally insisted that a great architect be commissioned for the building. She ended up choosing Mies van der Rohe for his most successful skyscraper tower – the Seagram Building.



4. Deborah Jacobs
Head Librarian for the Seattle Public Library. Together with architects Rem Koolhaas and Joshua Prince-Ramus, visited every new library in America, consulted IT experts on the future of the printed book, to clarify the vision of the library of the 21st century.




5. Francois Mitterand
Francois Mitterrand initiated the French government’s decision to fund and build contemporary, audacious and sometimes controversial buildings to reaffirm France’s cultural leadership in the world. The spectacular result includes I.M. Pei’s Louvre extension glass pyramid, Jean Nouvel’s Institut du Monde Arabe, Bernard Tschumi’s Parc de la Vilette, Christian de Portzamparc’s Cite de Musique, Otto von Spreckleson’s Grande Arche de la Defense,





6. Zhang Xin
CEO of Beijing-based real estate firm SOHO China. As a bold personal initiative, she gathered 12 leading East Asian architects (including Singapore’s Tan Kay Ngee) to each design a villa by the Great Wall in a unique commission that has been compared to the historically important Weissenhof Siedlung housing exposition of the 1930s. For her efforts, she became the first non-architect to win a prize at the Vennice Biennale.



7. Simon Cheong
CEO of Singapore-based developer, SC Global. His commitment to high-quality design (in view of his target market of the high-end residential sector of single professionals) led him to commission signature residential projects, including Chan Soo Khian’s Lincoln Modern and Mok Wei Wei’s Three Three Robin.

(I know it sounds slightly lame, but I had to force in a Singapore example to give ourselves some optimism, much as I find it hard to personally buy into the “commodification of design” phenomena)

Architects, and the work that they did as students

Most of us regard an architectural career as a rite of passage. First is the romance of architecture school, of studio classes, model-making, drawings, charettes, sleepless nights. And then many start work in the real working world, to find it hard to transfer many of the wild (and possibly brilliant) ideas into built reality. When faced with real-world demands of cost, zoning, building code, achieving maximum usable square footage, and mechanical and structural demands, the days of school are inadvertently dismissed as the last place where we can truly play with ideas.

A consequent dichotomy ensues. On one hand, the many architects too deeply entrenched in real-world architecting find it hard to create compelling designs. On the other, the many academic practitioners focused on pursuing personal creative research ideas fail to translate their whimsical graphics, subject to the vagaries of architectural fashion, into real workable buildings (and consequently fail to win real commissions). This begs the question – how then does one inhabit that fine line that separates creative idealism and real-world workability? (knowing that it is the synthesis of the two that leads to a compelling result)

Having raised the above questions, I wanted to bring up a few examples of architects, both in Singapore and abroad, whose professional work were a direct extension from their student work.

Tan Kok Hiang, Forum Architects

Student thesis project: reinterpretation of a mosque

Professional creative work : Assyafah Mosque – a critical work that dislodges itself from the traditional iconography of the mosque and re-adapts itself to the realities of a cosmopolitan city-state.

Mok Wei Wei, W Architects

Student thesis project: re-experiencing the sensuality of Chinese courtyard spaces in sequence (or something to that end)

Professional creative work : the most direct reference is his Morley Road house, which literally recreates strong sequencing and courtyard experiences in a modernist idiom. But the strong element of sequencing in his work can also be discerned in his other work, such as the Da Paolo e Judie restaurant, National Museum extension, and his installation design for the Overseas Chinese exhibition.

Wong Mun Summ, WoHa

Student thesis project: vision of tropical high-density city (or something to that end)

Professional work: Many work that deal with the specifics of tropical climate in architecture, including Moulmein Rise (and its monsoon windows), Singapore Arts School (with its internal linkways, lush vegetation, and inner courtyard spaces), Tan Quee Lan Suites (high-density apartment configurations with inner courtyard spaces) The most direct reference is probably his scheme for the Duxton Plain public housing competition.

Zaha Hadid

Student thesis project: readapting Kazimir Malevich’s “Tektonics” painting (of overlapping geometric forms suggesting a city floating in space) into a 14-storey inhabitable bridge spanning the Thames.

Professional work: the first work that brought her to fame, the competition for the Peak tram station in HK, was an application of the same Malevich-ian formal imagination into architecture.


My point is this, just before we let our student work in our portfolio fade away into a bygone era, we must remember that in each studio project lies the seed of our future design careers, as long as we continue to nurse the ideas developed as students and synthesize them with what we now learn at work. That, coupled with faith, persistence, and idealism, (and experience!) may well produce something truly compelling some years from now.

This leads me to wonder what would be the final result of Sernhong's Pirated City or Hann's Mediaworms and Telepods years from now.

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!

10TouchPoints. Better Living. Better Design.

Hey, I really think we can take part in this!

10TouchPoints is an initiative by Design Singapore Council to redesign the 10 items that people use in Singapore that they want to be made better. It is a national redesign programme that is made up of 3 interdependent phases. Phase 1 is a call for public nominations and votes for what could be better designed. Phase 2 is when the top 10 voted items are crafted into 10 design briefs for a design competition open to Singapore-based designers. Phase 3 is the review and implementation of the winning designs from the competition. (Read the blog on possible design issues here!)

The programme is already in its 2nd Phase and they are right now calling for people to register to participate! I thought the way this was initiated was quite in line with what we exist for - multidisciplinary, socially conscious, environmentally sustainable design! We can form up to a group of 5 to take part. Or you can do so individually too lah.

I am already considering joining this with Keng San (for those of you who know him) and another friend who studied graphic design. I think even for the fun of going through the investigation process and talking to people and coming up with a solution that takes into consideration the different challenges, it is something worth doing!

The exhibition of the final 10 design issues that will be chosen to be redesigned will be on, this Saturday, 31 Mar 07 from 10am - 1pm at National Library Board Building, Level 7. Anyone interested?

Oh, and I thought it was a wonderful model, this competition. Perhaps it could be replicated and refined for architecture, like the design of homes maybe? Haha. Something we could look into in the future as part of our initiatives? Oh well... chew on it.

In the meantime, enjoy the publicity Youtube videos that have been making their rounds... you will find someone familiar in one of them. (No, not me lah. Hann, you should recognise him!) Heh!

Architecture at UCLA

Models and graphics taken from the UCLA architecture exhibition hall.

...a sheath for airplane wings?!

Having been in the West Coast for close to two months now, I've had a chance to have a taste of the recent fad that is CNC milling, both in SCIArc and in the UCLA School of Architecture. It almost seems like the attention to craft and handiwork (more so in UCLA than in SCIArc) has been relegated to a thing of the past, now that the milling machine or stereolithographer can do it better than anyone can anyway.

Yet, where does this lead to? Might we see a swing of the proverbial pendulum towards a design direction that places full emphasis on how nicely curvaceous one's architectural forms are (similar to how you might describe a lady vamp), and therefore, a misplaced emphasis on much mastery over the modelling tools you have. Except that I could be wrong - what seems, to me, to be a dangerous fad could actually be the harbinger of a new "ism" in architecture and construction!

This is tangential to the titular post, but a similar swing of (again) the pendulum can perhaps be attributed to our attitudes towards 3D animation cartoons. When Pixar released Toy Story back in 1995, we heaved a collective "whoa". When whatever studio it is releases Happily N'ever After in 2007, we yearn for the latest Studio Ghibli production, or the Disney classics of yesteryear (as far as animation goes anyway). Notwithstanding even a great storyline or the most lovable critters one has ever seen, the fad of 3D animated films seems to have wore very, very thin.

Toy Story, Pixar, circa 1995

Happily N'ever After, (?), circa 2007

Howl's Moving Castle, Studio Ghibli, circa 2004

Same goes for photorealism in architectural visualisations. What were awesome visualisations, in 3D Studio no less, in the 1990s now look terribly cheap, in the light of what Brazil, V-ray and other engines can achieve. There is no end to the quest for photorealism in visual simulations, yet, after a while, would anyone really care how photorealistic your images really look?

Which leads me to this. There's a talk on the quest for impossibly photo-realistic images at the UCLA Broad Art Centre (kudos to Jawn for the heads-up), scheduled for 13 February. (More info here, down the middle of the page.)

An excerpt on the matter of discussion:

"Historically, the holy grail of the computer graphics community has been to produce highly realistic images simulating lifelike environments, objects and characters. As advances in photorealistic CG tools, realtime graphics and displays race ahead, we can begin to wonder further: How and when will digital content eventually afford the viewer immersion and transport to holographic, alternate phantasms for entertainment and education? What are the stepping stones along that path? Let's turn an examining light on our energetic, unselfconsious quest for this holy grail. We’ll rewind and fast forward our thoughts on the topic with experts from the research and film communities."

In some ways, it is actually very encouraging (and for me, previously unencountered) that members of the creative industry are actually going, hey, let's stop this for a while and take a step back, and see where we've come and where we could be headed. Much, much resource has been put into the quest for photorealism - the development of newer, better, best rendering engines, the massive processing power needed for these efforts, the massive number of man-hours that have been put in in order to make the leaves on every single tree in the animation rustle, when more could've been put into screenplays, storylines - or in the case of architecture, the architecture itself.

So maybe, a few years down the road, we might just see the same thing happen in architecture, insofar as an over-reliance on CNC milling, parametric design, etc. are concerned.

I could be wrong, of course. Much of what is deemed meritorious in any creative vocation is, after all, a question of taste.