May 01, 2007
SINGAPORE has had its share of iconic buildings.
Remember the old National Theatre? Or the old National Library at
Stamford Road?
Both have been demolished.
So, what messages are we sending out to these architects?
Is this the end of good architecture in Singapore?
With the loss of these historical landmarks, are we sacrificing our
heritage too?
Architect Tay Kheng Soon argued that while every architect wants to
make sure his project contributes to the society, but if the
society doesn't appreciate it, then it has no value.
He said: 'This concerns far more than the architect, it's about
preserving the nation's memories. Not all buildings have to be kept
but those with memorable landmarks must be preserved.
'A society with no respect for its past has no future.'
Architect Chong Nan Hing felt that certain buildings here should be
preserved because they represent a certain era, like Pearl Bank
Apartments, which represented the emergence of modern architecture
in Singapore.
He said: 'Of course I'll feel sad if my building is torn down, but
I can't do anything about it. It's a commercial decision. In
Singapore, we can't afford to keep every building especially now
when we've to cater to a bigger population.'
Dr Kevin Tan, the president of the Singapore Heritage Society,
questioned that if every building here gets torn down after a few
years, why should architects put their heart and soul into
designing a building?
He lamented the loss of an architecture era here, where many
buildings built between the 1920s to the late 1970s have since been
torn down.
He said: 'Currently, we've a mix of very old conserved buildings
and many new buildings but nothing in between. There's a big gap
there that's missing and it's just weird.
'Yes, out of 100 buildings, perhaps we may not even find one iconic
one. But if we do find one, we should do our best to keep it.
Whatever we have, we must keep the outstanding ones or the country
will have no character.'
If left to market forces, it's inevitable that some iconic
buildings will get axed because it just makes more monetary sense
to do so, said Dr Tan.
Like Beverly Mai, which was the first condo built here in 1974. It
was featured in Singapore 1:1 City. The project went en-bloc last
year.
Other planned en-bloc sales include the 16-storey Golden Mile
Complex at Beach Road, which was also featured in 'Singapore
1:1'.
Mr Tai Lee Siang, president of the Singapore Institute of
Architects, argued that an en-bloc sale is a natural process of
development.
He added: 'Old areas are brought up to date with modern
architecture and facilities. Architects will always design
buildings that will last for a long time and not be deterred by
en-bloc sales. It is something that cannot be predicted depending
on how the city intensifies over the years.'
On landmark or iconic buildings which went or may go en-bloc,
buildings worthy of this status are few, he said.
Added Mr Tai: 'To name a few potential ones, there are Golden Mile
Complex, Futura, Habitat and Pearl Bank. There is an urgent need to
debate the historical value of these buildings notwithstanding
their fate nearly or being sealed.
'We, collectively with the occupants, developers and Government
need to question if these buildings are truly significant in the
history of Singapore's physical development. Mere aesthetics alone
is insufficient reason to try to prevent the demolition
ball.'
Golden Mile Complex has long been an icon that signifies a new
typology of urban renewal not just in Asia but also
worldwide.
Iconic though they may be, these buildings are typically owned by
private individuals who have the freedom to exercise their rights,
to sell and dispose of the property as they wish, said Assistant
Professor Muhammad Faishal of the NUS Department of Real
Estate.
He explained: 'Sometimes, the basic need for buying a property is
not just about having a roof over one's head, but capital
appreciation. If these are individual owners who agree to the
en-bloc, that's their intention, that's their prerogative.'