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.'