Image: Photograph by Ronald L.K. Kam Singapore Identity and architecture AR2A010 Architectural History Thesis by Ronald L.K. Kam 4385934 Tutor: Carola Hein 1 History Thesis title page Type: Title: Author: History Thesis Singapore Identity and Architecture Kam, L.K. Summary: This study investigates the relationship between architecture and the construction of identity in Singapore. Since independence in 1965, Singapore’s image changed rapidly from a third-world country to a world-class advanced economy. Such change is clearly expressed in its architecture What are the political, social and economic forces that created the backdrop for such transformation? What is the role of architecture in reflecting the collective identity of SIngapore? How is the political and social agenda of constructing a new identity reflected in architecture?Looking at Singapore’s transformation from a third-world country to a world-class city, this paper will illustrate the gains, losses of in SIngapore’s search of a new identity. Keywords: Mentor: Singapore, architecture, identity, place identity Carola Hein Faculty: Department: Architecture History Programme: Hand-in date: Language: MSc Architecture 2015-05-31 English Study number: Submitter email: 4385934 l.k.kam@student.tudelft.nl/ ronaldkam@live.hk 2 Contents Foreword 4 Research and Aims 5 Introduction The Singaporean Identity: An Invention 6 1. Twilight of the British Empire, the emergence of Singaporean architects and the formation of an independent architecture (1918-60) 10 2. Experimental architecture and Singaporean modernism (1960-75) 22 3. The global city and the developmental-state (1975-90) 30 4. Remaking of Singapore (1990-Present) 40 5. The demolition of the National Theatre: Place Identity and Memories of Lost Space 46 Conclusion Architecture and Identity in a Global Era 54 Bibliography 56 3 Foreword ‘We shape our buildings; thereafter they shape us’ as the famous quote by Winston Churchill goes. The inter relationship between architecture and indentity has always been my personal facination. Identity is essentially the question of ‘Who am I’. Undoubtedly everybody has their own definition answer to that same question. However in the case of new independent countries there is often a need to establish a collective, national identity to bring the various members together as a unified people. Architecture and planning is often manipulated to make this collective imagination visible. What is the role of architecture in shaping collective idenity? How is aspirations of idenity reflected in architecture? How should the architects negotiate themselves between the old and the new aspirations for idenity? How do people develop a place identity and sense of belonging with the built environment? Born on a cuspof history where forces of colonialism, socialism, communism and capitalism clashes with often momentous and explosive consequences, there is perhaps no better place than Singapore to study how these invisible forces interacted and shaped the built environment. The question of ‘who am I’ is not an easy one in Singapore. It is therefore my facination to research and reveal the struggles, conficts and forces that is hidden behind Singapore’s handsome, modern cityscape today. It is hoped that through the research of Singapore architecture and identity, we can all gain a better insight towards the role of architect should play to situate their designs in a highly globalized, individualitic society where everyone has their own answer to the question of idenity. 4 Research and Aim This study investigates the relationship between architecture and the construction of identity in Singapore. Since independence in 1965, Singapore’s image changed rapidly from a thirdworld country to a world-class advanced economy. Such change is clearly expressed in its architecture increasingly dominated by icons designed by foreign architects, earning Singapore a global city image. At first, Singaporeans saw a heroic period of architecture in which the skyline is dominated by bold, fearless modernist buildings designed by local architects. At the same time, average Singaporeans are calling for the preservation of heritage building and some architects attempted experimental architecture in search of an alternative ‘Singaporean Identity’. What are the political, social and economic forces that created the backdrop for such transformation? What is the role of architecture in constructing a place identity for average Singaporeans? Looking at Singapore’s transformation from a third-world country to a world-class city, this paper will illustrate the gains, losses of in SIngapore’s search of a new identity. 5 Introduction The Singaporean Identity: An Invention ‘Who am I’ is both a cultural and philosophical question. It is particularly an important question for post-colonial Southeast Asian countries which acquired independence after the Second World War. The emphasis on national and cultural identity is a common phenomenon in these post-colonial countries responding to the needs and aspiration of nationalism. While other Southeast Asian countries has established their national identity through the an ethnic, nationalistic approach, the unique multiethnic composition and a history of turbulent ethnic riots meant that such an approach is not applicable for Singapore. How has the city-state attempted to invent its collective identity? How has the needs and aspiration for nationalism found its expression in architecture? Architecture and the built environment have always played a key role in expressing socio-cultural and political identity. Place identity1- the focus of study in diverse disciplines, such as architecture, urbanism, geography and sociology provides the stageset for the enation of our daily lives through its tangible and intangible characteristics. As noted by Brenda Yeoh, “Places have meaning when they become an integral part to people’s lived experience. In turn, places with which people can identify, which provide a manageable scale of meaning can help them gain; a sense of self-identity, safety and security in an uncertain world.” Furthermore, place has a dual character, as a repository of powerful elites (planners, architects, properties owners, developers) or state power and as a site of individual and collective struggle and resistance. (SIA, 1998, p. 259) Place-identity is an important concept to understand the built environment as an expression of identity. Furthermore, as memory is intimately connected with the construction of identity and that the built environment is an integral part of memory, architecture has the power of constructing tangible identity through the manipulation of space, the employment of materials and technology, and the resultant appearance and associated experience (spatially, materiality and tectonic experience). After all, the relation of man to place is not simply that of being able to orientate him in his surroundings, but has also to do with a much deeper process of identification. 1 Place Identity is sometimes called urban character, neighborhood character or local character. It has become a significant issue in the last 25 years in urban planning and design. Related to the worldwide movement to protect places with heritage significance, concerns have arisen about the loss of individuality and distictiveness between places as an effect of cultural globalisation. See Prosphansky, H.M., Faibian, A.K. and Kaminoff, R. (1983). ‘ Place-idenity: Physical world socialization of the self’, Journal of Environmental Psychology, Vol. 3, pp. 57-83 6 Before the discussion of what is a Singaporean identity and how is it expressed in various political, social and architectural aspects, it is helpful to understand the basic notions of cultural identity. According to William S.W. Lim, one of the most out-spoken critical Singaporean architects, cultural identity is constructed from three overlapping spheres. They overlap both in space and in time. They are: (a) (b) (c) Universal/ International cultural identity; Ethnical/ religious cultural identity; and National cultural identity. These spheres may be complementary to or in conflict with each other. (Lim, 1990, p. 21) Being a small country situated in a large globalized world with a multi-ethnic composition and a colonial historical past, conflicts in all spheres are unavoidable in the Singaporean context. Cultural identity, national identity and place identity are all important issues that could be studied independently in detail. However the purpose of this paper is not to dissect the issue of identity construction in these separate domains. The intention of this essay is to understand identity construction as a holistic entity expressed in architecture and urban planning. Existing Literature The issue of constructing identity in contemporary architecture has been discussed in Peter Herrle and Stepahanus Schmitz book ‘Constructing Identity in Contemporary Architecture: Case Studies from the South’. The book explores extensively on the role architecture plays in expressing and shaping national identities in these post-colonial countries. William S.W. Lim contributed an essay titled ‘Architecture, Art, and Identity in Singapore: Is There Life After Tabula Rasa?’ . However the writings largely deal with the issue from the perspective of architects and the rulers and largely neglected how the people reacted to the buildings, how they associated themselves with the built environment and developed their memories with the spaces. This paper attempts to cover this gap through the case study of the demolition of Singapore National theatre as a window to the issue of place identity and memories of lost spaces. 7 There are extensive literatures on Singapore architectural history. The book ‘Singapore Architecture’ (Powell, Singapore architecture : a short history of Singapore Architecture, 2003) by Robert Powell gives a good overview of the significant periods of Singapore architecture. However similar to other write-ups on Singapore architectural history, it mainly focuses on the architectural values of key buildings projects and do not discuss the role of the built environment in expressing and shaping identity in Singapore. On the other hand, the current literature on Singapore identity (Ortmann, 2009) focuses mainly on the politics of inventing national identity and the various cultural, racial policies to promote these invented identities but largely neglected how the identity inventions are expressed in and shaped by the built environment. How is the national, cultural and place identity expressed in architecture under social, economic and political circumstances? It is this question on which this paper focuses. Singapore Identity The notion of a Singapore identity did not come to place until 1965 when it became a truly independent state following the expulsion from Malaysia. However, the question of ‘who am I’ has always been relevant for Singapore residents ever since the establishment of the colony in 1821. While politically there is confusion in identity between its ‘motherland’ Britain, its geographical hinterland Malaysia and the ethnic homeland (eg. China, India, Malaysia), the great variety of architectural styles suggested that the multiethnic communities found their own answer of expressing their cultural identity through their dwellings and community buildings. Up until 1959, members of the different ethnic communities continued to identify themselves with their countries of origins. The extensive Chinese diaspora, with its concomitant cultural and business connections, added another dimension to the complex, hybrid identities of the migrants. Each ethnic community communicated in its own language or dialect, while Malay was the bridge language among the locals. This was the background from which the urgent need for a collective national identity emerged as a serious challenge to the new nation after its Independence in August 1965. 8 Faced with the conflicting conditions of cultural identity, the nation has to be considered a distinctly modern and decidedly constructed phenomenon. As 75 percent of the population is Chinese, 13.7 percent is Malay, 8.5 percent Indian and 2.6 percent is made up of other nationalities 1, it is obvious that it is problematic for a government in a multiethnic state to promote ethnic identity because it would favor one group over another and create tensions. Also with a relatively short precolonial history and a non-glorious colonial past characterized by the large number of slums and poor living conditions2, finding its root in history is not an option as suggested by the ethnic riots and conflicts in Singapore in the 50s. It is therefore more likely that national identity will be based on abstract non-cultural civic symbols like the constitution, an oath of allegiance or the flag. These identity constructions will be further elaborated in chapter 1. After independence, Singapore’s founders were convinced that Singapore could not be defined by its past, but would rather have to be built as a vision of the future, “to achieve happiness, prosperity and progress for our nation”, as the national Pledge reads.3 Starting new seemed the only viable solution for Singapore. Under the powerful political framework, the design and invention of a new national identity soon find its expression in architecture. The development of architectural identities is categorized and analyzed in this paper in the following chapters: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Twilight of the British Empire (1918-60); Experimental architecture and Singaporean modernism (1960-75); The global city and the developmental-state (1975-90); and Remaking of Singapore (1990-Present) The demolition of the National Theatre: Place identity and memories of lost space This paper will reveal how Singaporean architects mediate between their pre-colonial, colonial and post-colonial legacy, between the traditional and the modern, and the local and the global. Taking Singapore’s transformation from a third-world country to a world-class city as an example, this paper will illustrate the gains, losses of tabula-rasa developments in search of a new identity. 1 Singapore Department of Statistics (1983), p.7 2 In the 1950s, over fifty urban kampongs stood in a discontinuous belt on the margins of Singapore outside the Central Area, the colony’s administrative and economic heart. The cheap wooden housing in the kampongs were home to a quarter of Singapore’s urban population in 1961 (HDB AR 1961: 4), largely low-income Chinese nuclear or semiextended families. 3 The National Pledge was written by Sinnathamby Rajaratnam in 1966 shortly after Singapore’s independence. See < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singapore_National_Pledge> 9 Chapter 1 Twilight of the British Empire, the emergence of Singaporean architects and the formation of an independent architecture To understand how an independent architecture is formed, the colonial past of Singapore must be studied. For a long time since its establishment as a colony, there was a stark asymmetry of power between the colonized and the colonizers. Sir Stamford Raffles, representing the East India Company, landed on the island and swiftly negotiated the trading rights and boundaries of settlement with the original Malay rulers in the region. Lieutenant Philip Jackson1, the colony’s engineer and land surveyor quickly draw the ‘Jackson Plan’ to for planning the settlements. The plan imposed a highly regulated spatial system by segregating the races and privileging the rich and powerful colonial masters. Singapore was characterized by a social stratification system along the lines of ethnicity and class. According to Brenda Yeoh, “ the colony authorities, through local institutions of urban governance such as municipal authorities, attempted to structure the urban built environment in such a way to facilitate colonial rule and express colonial aspirations and ideals.” All major governmental buildings were built strictly according to British colonial styles and the architectural scene was largely dominated by British architects working privately or in the government institutions. This is evident in the Jackson Plan2 of Singapore (fig. 1.01), where inhabitants of different ethnicities are grouped into different areas including the ‘Chinese campong’ (which later developed into China Town) (fig. 1.02) , European town (fig. 1.03), ‘Arab campong’ and ‘Bugis Campong’ (fig 1.04). The British administrative and commercial districts are placed in the center and are planned with an open square which would become today’s Raffle’s place. 1 Lieutenant Philip Jackson was the engineer and land surveyor tasked to oversee the physical development of Singapore. 2 This plan outlines Raffles’ vision of the Singapore town: orderly and rational. Note that different ethnicities spatially separated from one another in the ‘Chinese Campong’ on the left, European Town right next to the important public buildings and open square including the church, government office, botanical garden and battery, the arab kampong and Bugis campong on the right. Fig. 1.01 (on the right page) : Plan of the Town of Singapore by Philip Jackson 10 11 Fig. 1.02 Panorama of the roofs of China Town, 1870 Fig. 1.03 View of the European Town from Fort Canning Early 1860s Fig. 1.04 Malay Village, possibly Kampong Bugis, 1870s 12 Fig. 1.07 St. Joseph’s Institution While the prime objective of this plan was to improve the disorderliness of the city, the division of settlements in ethnic functional subdivisions shows the dominance and legitimacy of the British colonial power through spatial planning. The spatial arrangement not enables easier control and administration of the ethnic population; it also has a significant influence in the development of identity in the spatially separated residential districts. Being spatially separated from one another, the ethnic residential areas developed very strong individualistic cultural characters reminiscent of the ethnic origins. Different ethnic communities funded and built their own institutional buildings and places of worship, often in the style of the respective community’s architectural traditions. This is clearly expressed in the architecture and significant public buildings of each neighborhood. Examples include the Sultan Mosque (1824), (fig.1.05) in the Bugis Campong, Thian Hock Kheng Temple (1842) (fig. 1.06) in the Chinese campong and St. Joseph Institution (fig. 1.07) in the European town. The ethnic communities remain segregated from each other and members of each ethnic group continued to identify themselves with their ethnic origins. Fig. 1.05 View of Sultan Mosque An awareness of an independent national identity did not appear until the outbreak of Second World War, let alone the development of an independent architecture. However, the basis of an independent architecture was laid in the colonial sphere well before the outbreak of WWII when the Singapore Society of Architects (SSA) was formed in 1923. Fig. 1.06 Thian Hock Kheng Temple, 1870s 13 Singapore Society of Architects The architectural and planning profession has long been dominated by British born and educated professionals since the establishment of the colony. A medium for the exchange of architectural and planning ideas for and from Singapore did not exist until the establishment of the Singapore Society of Architects. Fig. 1.08 Caricature of Oscar Wilson, drawn by Denis Santry circa 1925 The Singapore Society of Architects was formalized with the main concern of professional architectural registration. The society gained significance when it successfully had the Architects Ordinance passed in 1926 by the municipal government despite strong opposition from engineers. (SIA, 1998, p. 19) By January 1927, architecture became a protected, respectable and remunerative profession. In 1929, the Singapore Society of Architects Incorporated (SSAI) was formalized with a register of 46 licensed persons. Most of the original signatories to the SSAI were fellows of the RIBA who followed similar developments in London very closely. (Soumyen Bandyopadhyay, Guillermo Garma Montiel, 2013, p. 182) The society also operated as a platform for the exchange of ideas among its member through its monthly journal JSSAI. Oscar Wilson (fig.1.08), the first Honorary Secretary of the SSAI, singularly undertook the responsibility to produce and edit the journal. The task of the SSAI was to forge a city with a modern architectural outlook. The JSSAI was strongly independent in tone and promoted Wilson’s modernizing crusade on all matters of practice, business and law. It also revealed a benevolent sense of technology and information transfer in architectural design, practice bureaucracy and town planning in relation to latest modern architecture. All this was pursued with a zealous yet aggressive approach as shown by a paragraph of his first editorial foreword: It is hoped that in time to come the shophouse fetish may be destroyed and that building owners, and even building authorities may cease to think of building schemes only in terms of shophouses, and Singapore cease to be a city of mean streets, and with a few notable exceptions, mean buildings; and much may be done by a journal such as this in assisting the cause of town planning, in the development of vulgar monstrosities, which disigure the suburban districts. (JSSAI Jun 1929: 1) The JSSAI (fig. 1.09, fig.1.10) was published with the address of Wilson’s office, whereas the JSSA publications before them had no recorded address of publication. This sense of personal commitment and lack of neutrality is worth remarking as it reflected the colonial expatriate’s stake in the colony. Wilson’s chief editorial targets were the slums in the city, the standard of health and the quality of architectural practice. After that, critical articles, lectures were fired at the ineffectiveness of the municipal government clearing slums. This included George Duckworth’s 14 republished RIBA lecture ‘Making, prevention and unmaking of a slum’, a total of four successive articles by the Townplanner, more rants by Wilson against th municipal bureaucratic machine, an anonymous article on the clearance of slum and ‘The slums’ by John Angus (JSSAI Feb 1930:9). The journal had the desired effect on the Singapore Improvement Trust to act sooner. Consequently the first clearance of slums commenced in 1931. Despite the fact the profession is still dominated by foreign born and educated architects, it is evident that a locally aware and concerned community of architectural and planning professionals was growing, and it was increasingly becoming more and more independent from London in bringing about positive changes in the built environment of Singapore. It was also worthy to note that the age of municipal governance in Singapore sat undecidedly between the extremes of a totally modernized mind where anything colonial was to be discarded, and a pure colonial mentality that aimed to replicate British life and standards, remaining dutifully subordinate to the Empire. The oscillation of identity was also evident in the typical expatriate architect of the time. This is reflected by the fact that while utilitarian projects like Kallang Airport (completed 1937) (fig.1.11) and mass housing (fig.1.12) adopted modern architectural expressions, all of the other important governmental buildings including the General Post Office (completed 1928) (fig. 1.13), City hall (completed 1929) (fig.1.14, 1.15), the Supreme court (fig.1.16, 1.17) (completed 1939) and the former Hill street police station continued to be built in strict colonial style while adopting modern constuction techniques. Nonetheless, both foreign and local business enterprises commissioned expatriate architects to design their buildings, no matter they are private houses or office buildings, in the style of the early Modern Movement. Fig. 1.09 Journal titles, prewar from 1923-41 Fig. 1.10 Journal titles, post-war from 195169 Fig. 1.17 Fullerton Building (General Post Office) with modern construction techniques 15 Fig. 1.11 (Top) Crowds at Kallang after the official opening on 12 June 1937 Fig. 1.12 (Left) Tiong Bahru Estate in 1938, showing modernist design aesthetics Fig. 1.13 (Right) Component of the 14-ton Allegory of Justice photographed before installation in the Supreme Court pediment 16 Fig. 1.14 (Top) Municipal Building (City Hall) shortly after completion in 1929 Fig. 1.15 (Left) Workman of R. Nolli & Co, manufacturer of the classical components, posing on an inverted Ionic Capital Fig. 1.16 (Right) Supreme Court building, Singapore’s last colonial classical building 17 In terms of civilian architecture, the terrace houses (fig. built outside the traditional town during this period provided an excellent laboratory for cross-cultural synthesis of the Chinese, European and Malay motifs, architectural styles and façade treatments. They have produced a vernacular architecture of a cross-cultural eclectic style unique to the ex-colonial countries of Southeast Asia. Characteristic examples of these are found at Blair road (1920s), Owen Road (1920s) and Petain Road (1930s). The architectural identity remained divided between the colonial, early modernist and the vernacular eclectic styles. However, the modernist won completely as the socio-political changes in the United Kingdom has produced a new generation of socially more responsible architects. Much of the public housing estates produced were modernist attempts to respond positively to climatic and social conditions. One example is the Tiong Bahru Housing Estate (1954) by the Singapore Improvement Trust. 18 The emergence of local architects Overseas trained local architects also emerged after the war. Ng Kheng Siang became the first Singaporean to become a member of the Royal Institute of British Architects and had a huge practice with a wide spectrum of work. His most lasting project was the Asia Insurance Building completed in 1954 and was the tallest building in Singapore. It signaled the start of an era of Singaporean architects producing a modern regional architecture. Moreover, the post war period, to quote Seow Eu Jin, brought ‘a young generation of Singaporean architects trained in Australia, England, Canada and the United States, whose heroes ranged from Le Corbusier, Gropius, Mies, Neutra, Breur and Kahn… to Maekawa, Tange, Kurokawa and Pei’. In the wider political and social context, the questions of state and nationhood, allegiances to socialism or communism, were choices thrust upon the polity. Singapore entered a confusing phase of territorial identity when Federation of Malaya gained independence on 31 August 1957. Singapore was technically still a crown colony. There was great political uncertainty as there was indigenous communist insurgency to contend with, and negotiations for self-governance status stalled due to urban riots. No one really knew whether to look back to a safe colonial era or look forward to an undefined future. Fig. 1.17 (Left, top) Terrace House on Koon Seng Road showing cross-cultural synthesis of Chinese, European and Malay motifsFig. Fig. 1.18 (Left, Bottom) Tiong Bahru Estate completed in 1954 Fig. 1.19 (Right) Asia Insurance Building by Ng Keng Siang 19 The fifties was a decade of tension and disorder for Singaporeans. The island underwent a painful process of decolonization. Violence and disturbances were part of the life of Singaporeans of the time, which included the widespread racially based Maria Hertogh riots in 1954, major strikes by left-wing unions in 1955 and the collapse of constitutional negotiations in 1956. The People’s Action Party (PAP) was formally inaugurated on 21 November 1954. In 1959 the party won 43 of the 51 seats in the island-wide general elections. Following the 1959 elections, the new constitution of 1958 giving full internal self-government to Singapore came to force. The PAP was eager to forge unity and a common identity. However, the issues of state formation and Singaporean-centered consciousness was not given priority as the PAP was still firmly committed towards the unity of Singapore and Malaya. In the years following up the brief merger with Malaya from 1963 to 1965, Malayan culture and the Malay language were actively promoted by the leaders so as to create a national image deemed acceptable to the Malayan leadership. The PAP also suppressed the communist aggressively to eradicate divisive and anti-government elements. In education, the government planned to replace the Chinese-oriented identity with a Malayan-oriented consciousness. Despite government actions, ethnic based tension became a catalyst behind the growing crisis between Malaysia and Singapore1. Nonetheless, the political and social changes created the necessary framework the development of a unified, independent Malayan/ Singaporean identity for the very first time in the history of Singapore. 1 Singapore Malays felt increasing disappointment that the merger priviledges accorded to Malays in the peninsula. One manifestation of communalist violence at that time was the Prophet Mohammed Birthday Riots of 1964. See Turnbull (1977), p.291 20 Fig. 1.19 PAP Victory rally at City Hall steps, 3 June 1959 Establishment of School of architecture The School of architecture was established in the Singapore Polytechnic (SP) in 1958 (later transferred to the National University of Singapore in 1969) and produced its first local graduates in 1963. The socio-political conditions of this period shaped this generation of architects in significant ways. The architecture course at SP was established as part of an expansion of tertiary and technical education in the British Empire in the 1950s. At first, tertiary education were deemed irrelevant to the colonial economy and was much neglected. The British government decided to invest in tertiary and technical education as part of a lager colonial development and welfare program initiated in the 1940s to address the anti-colonial movements throughout the British colonies. Subsequently, architecture schools were established for the very first time in colonies such as Kenya, Nigeria, Hong Kong and Singapore during the 1950s. Contrary to the hopes of the British administrators, the program did little to stop the anti-colonial protest or the halt to march towards independence. It only succeeded in hastening the process of decolonization. The emergence of locally trained architects coincided with the decolonization and a rising consciousness of their role in building an independent nation. The difficult transition from colony to nation exposed these pioneering local architects to the inequalities of colonial rule and they strove to be free from it. They understood to attain genuine independence meant not only becoming a sovereign political entity and a modernized economy but also social and cultural independence. Despite the fact that the architectural industry was still largely dominated by expatriates in the 1950s, an independent architecture is quietly developing in the background with a new generation of fearless, visionary and exuberant architects waiting for the opportunity to perform their creative talent in pursuit of a new national Singaporean architecture. 21 Chapter 2 Experimental architecture and Singaporean modernism (1960-75) “Looking back, the sixties to mid-seventies were simply liberating and flourishing periods for Singapore’s architect”, remarked by Ken Yeang, a prominent Malaysian architect. (SIA, 1998, p. 270) It was the “heroic period” when local architects and urbanists made their mark with many innovative public and commercial buildings on the new architectural and urban landscape. It saw the development of an un-self-conscious fearless architecture that had all the possibilities of becoming endemic architecture for Singapore. This chapter will look at the various conditions which triggered the ‘golden age’ for Singaporean architecture, and the development of a Singapore Identity expressed in architectural works of this time. On 9 August 1965, Singapore stood alone as an independent nation-state. Its population was about 1.9million with 76% Chinese, 15% Malay, 7%Indian and 2% others. Its land area was 581.5km2 which subsequently increased to the current 718.3km2 through reclamation. It had an unemployment rate of 10% and its per capita GDP was S1,600. Following Singapore’s expulsion from Malaysia, the policy of Malayanisation was hastily aborted. In this context the PAP government embarked on the immense task of economic survival, state formation and national identity formulation. First, immediately following the political expulsion from Malaysia, the government promoted pragmatic values, which were geared towards economic growth. Survival of the nation as an independent social, economic and political entity took top priority. The ruling party- People’s Action Party (PAP) – considered economic and political survival of paramount importance and all other issues secondary. Survival became a national ideology driving Singapore society. National identity was gradually subsumed into state policies and cultural identity was hence totally regulated and intertwined with economic functions and political agendas. (Stephanus Schmitz; Peter Herrle, 2009, p. 234) This meant that there was no need to pay any attention to cultural aspects, which were still regarded as an obstacle to the development plans. It was not the government’s intention to generate strong nationalist sentiments during this era. 22 Nonetheless, the government did initialized measures to promote a sense of national identity during its first phase. The rulers were aware that Singaporeans needed to be motivated to achieve prosperity for economic growth, which was the primary impetus for fostering a sense of identity during this period. The government promoted the idea of a harmonious society that was collectively working to achieve prosperity for Singapore as a whole. The PAP embarked on a series of policies to build national identity, which included compulsory national service for males of 18years of age, massive housing scheme by the Housing and Development Board (HDB), the promotion of national symbols like the flag, anthem and pledge. The aim was to forge a common Singapore identity of “one unified people, regardless of race, language or religion, to build a democratic society based on justice and equality.” To promote the new agenda of cultivating a common Singapore identity, Chinese education was again reoriented. With the disintegration of Chinese schools, the political detention of the editors of the Chinese daily, Nanyang Siang Pau, on the charge of Chinese chauvinism (1971) and the climax of the closure of the Chinese language Nanyang University (1978)1, the desinicization in Singapore was complete, producing a shocking sense of cultural disorientation for the Chinese-educated community. Similarly, the large-scale clearance of squatters and Malay kampongs produced similar disruptions to ethnic based identities and traditions in other ethnic groups. The process of eradicating ethnic identities and traditions were further exacerbated and catalyzed with the concurrent massive public housing program, destroying existing ethnic social networks and forcing its inhabitants to adopt a modern life style in the highly regulated HDB (Housing and Development Bureau) units. Over the years government actions had effectively neutralized voices and agencies of contestation. Thus, a lack of resistance from the grassroots enabled the political leadership to undertake an unprecedented and deliberate act of tabula rasa culminating in near total urban destruction in later years. The conviction held by Singapore’s founder that Singapore could not be defined by its past, but would rather have to be built as a vision of the future coincided with the architectural modernists’ ambition to realize the new ‘citizen’, the new ‘social’ and the new reified ‘economics’; ones that are different from the colonized past. It was an age of invention, innovation and creation for Singapore. 1 In 1978 the Nanyang University Council announced that it had accepted the Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew’s suggestion to merge the University of Singapore with Nanyang University to form the National University of Singapore. 23 In the excitement of the immediate postcolonial period, nationalism and idealism offered architects, planners and intellectuals a considerable space to contribute and express their aspiration for the new nation. Shortly after its election to power in 1959, the PAP government decided to implement massive, ambitious, effective, public improvement programs in spite of its severe budget constraint. Within a short period of time, large numbers of schools, public housing and important public projects such as a huge industrial estate in Jurong were constructed. Several of these public projects were selected from architectural competitions restricted to the participation of local architects. Major public projects included National Theatre by Alfred Wong Partnership (1963) (fig. 2.01, 2.02) , National Trade Union Congress (NTUC) Conference Hall by Malayan Architects Co-Partnership (1965) (fig. 2.03, 2.04) , Singapore Telephone Board Exchange by Design Partnership (1969) , Jurong Town Hall by Architects Team 3 (1970) , Public Utilities Board (PUB) Headquarters Building by Group 2 Architects (1971-1977) , Subordinate Law Courts by Kumpulan Akitek (1975),and Singapore Science Centre by Raymond Woo and Associates Architects (1975). The National theatre built in 1963 in particularly important in understanding the construction of national identity through architecture since it was a public building jointly funded by the public and the government. The significance of this building in illustrating the place identity of Singapore will be further explained and elaborated in chapter 5. In the private sector, governmental policies also played a significant role in shaping the architectural and urban landscape in the sixties. A very significant piece of legislation related to the economic and physical development was passed in the sixties. The Land acquisition Act (1966) allowed the government to compulsorily acquire land for development purposes. This enabled the government to construct roads and industrial estates, implement a large scale public housing program and build new towns in strategic areas. Moreover, the Act provided opportunities for the private sector to obtain prime sites for development projects, through the sales of consolidated sites acquired and released by the Urban Redevelopment Department (URD) and subsequently the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA). 24 Fig. 2.01 (Top) The National Theatre, completed 1963, was built to commemorate Singapore’s self-government in 1959 Fig. 2.02 (Middle, Left) Drawings of the National Theatre Fig. 2.03 (Left) NTUC Conference Hall, showing typical influence of the late modern era and architectural features reminiscent of typical Malay architecture Fig. 2.04 (Right) Elevation drawing of NTUC Conference Hall 25 Fig. 2.05 (Left) People’s Park Complex by Design Partnership, 1972 Fig. 2.06 (Right) Plan of Podium, Section of People’s Park Complex 26 In 1966, an Urban Renewal Program was initiated to revitalize the city, resulting in the replacement of obsolete properties in the Central area, with comprehensive planning of pedestrian and vehicular traffic systems in the city centre. Subsequently in 1967, 1968 and 1969, three large scale land sale offered a large number of prime sites for development. Physical erasure of spatial identity was carried out at an unprecedented scale and pace for the rapid construction of large hotels, shopping centers and tourist facilities. The Urban Renewal Program created valuable opportunities for local architects to engage in large projects with local developers. Outstanding private projects include Hotel Malaysia by Alfred Wong Partnership (1968), Singapore Airline (SIA) Headquarters by Architects Team 3 (1969), People’s Park Complex by Design Partnership (1972), Futura by Timothy Seow and Partners (1976), and Golden Mile Complex by Design Partnership (1974) While there is not a conscious movement or ‘-ism’ in the professional sphere of architects, many of the works exhibited a remarkable unanimous heroic stance of modernism as it was taught in the established architectural academies in Australia, Britain and the United states. In many of the works of architects like Lim Chong Keat, William Lim show fragments of Van Doesburg, Alvar Aalto, Le Corbusier, H. Meyer and others. (SIA, 1998, p. 256) The Singapore Conference Hall, with its auditorium surrounded by a series of layered enclosures can be said to resemble Finlandia Hall by Alvar Aalto. Similarly the notion of mass, pilotis and slit fenestration in the PUB building recalls similar elements found in La Tourette. However, the most predominant architectural influences from overseas for the young architectural firms were the works of the experimental Japanese architects, the Metabolist Group (Kiyonori Kikutake, Kisho Murokawa, Arata Isozaki and Kenzo Tange) as well as the Brutalist movement in the UK (Denys Lasdun, James Stirling, Peter and Alison Smithson). The young generation of Singaporean architects adapted and modified these architectural ideas to suit the local climatic and social conditions. Western architectural processes and ideas were imposed and produced and appropriated within the Singapore context. Fig. 2.07 (Left) Golden Mile Complex by Design Partnership, 1974 Fig. 2.08 (Bottom, Right) Section and Elevations of the Golden Mile Complex 27 One of the most notable examples is the shopping and residential project called People’s Park Complex by Design Partnership (William Lim, Tay Kheng Soon, Koh Seow Chuan). The big ‘city room’ concept owned much to the ideas of the Metabolist group in Japan. A giant retail space is built to house many of the resettled bazaars which existed previously on the site. It was a major contribution to the discovery of shopping as recreation in Singapore- a pattern that is to be followed by many subsequent developments. Design partnership followed this up with the Who Hup Complex which was later renamed the Golden Mile Complex. It is clearly influenced by the Brutalist Style of Peter and Alison Smithson, the interlocking geometries in the work of Alfred Neumann and Fumihiko Maki’s work on collective form. (Powell, Singapore architecture : a short history of Singapore Architecture, 2003, p. 82) The stepping of the floors effectively shields the lower floor from the tropical sun, offering adequate terraces for the development of small sunlit gardens and allowing national cross-ventilation of the office and residential units. These two seminal works of architecture alongside a large number of innovative projects of acceptable international standards signaled the emergence of a creative, confident and independent Singaporean architectural identity. 28 In the ten years after independence, the embryonic Singapore architectural profession was beginning to make appearance in the world stage and a strong portfolio of experimental architecture was emerging, driven by the enthusiasm of a small number of dedicated architects. What were clearly evident in the architecture of the period were the sheer intrepid exuberance and the high level of creative independent design work. These architectural works clearly show the spirit of the time and the formation of a truly original Singapore collective identity, ones that is different from the colonized past. Notwithstanding, this burst of energy by the emerging Singapore practices was effectively undermined by the introduction of the Land Sales Policy. It was to have a far-reaching side effect on the development of the local profession. Fig. 2.09 (Left) View of Chinatown 1973 showing the newly completed People’s Park Complex Photo Credit: Jerome Lim Fig. 2.10 (Bottom, Right) Land reclamation at Marina South in the 70’s 29 Chapter 3 The global city and the developmentalstate (1975-90) In 1975, the completion of the IM Pei-designed OCBC centre marks a dramatic change not only in the architectural landscape but also the direction which Singapore is heading to establish its identity as a nation-state. The skyline of Singapore became increasingly dominated by gleaming towers designed by foreign architects. These towers are like signposts making strong statement that Singapore stood to become a new modernist city. From 1975 to 1990 Singapore’s image was increasingly becoming defined and promoted by these architectural landmarks designed by foreign architects. While identity is essentially the question of ‘Who am I’, it was a paradox that Singapore addressed its identity with architectural icons borrowed from the west. Why were Singaporean architects pushed to the background with very little of their works made known to the world? What were the causes for this desire-for-foreign phenomenon? Fig. 3.01 (Top) OCBC Centre, 1980 Fig. 3.02 (Below) Plan of Podium, Section of People’s Park Complex 30 In 1972, Foreign Minister of Singapore, S Rajaratnam first argued that Singapore should become a new kind of city- a global city. He held the opinion that Singapore should be less dependent on its neighbors but rather, become an effective niche player in the rapidly expanding global economic system. With the 1973 oil crisis and the abrupt end of the Vietnam War in 1975, the PAP government was increasingly aware of the necessity for Singapore to strengthen its ties with the Western bloc, particularly with the United States for its political and economic survival. The Singapore government urgently sought new strategies and a new international image to establish its place in the increasingly globalized world. Accepting the indisputable dominance of first-tier global cities like New York, London and Tokyo, Singapore aspired to become a secondary global city by providing supporting services to the global economies. This was the background of which the PAP-led government firmly believed that the visual and spatial character of the city required drastic changes in order to comply with the imagery of a global city-state that welcomes investors from all origins. The ambition to turn Singapore into a global city is also backed with the 1971 Concept Plan. The concept plan was drawn based on a report titled “Growth and Urban Renewal in Singapore”. The report was developed from a United Nations mission carried out by 3 experts- the American Charles Abrams, the Japanese Susumu Kobe, and the German Otto Keonigsberger. Their report1 highlighted the urgency of the demographics: “We must prepare for at least 3.4 million inhabitants by 1982 and expect to pass the 4 million mark well before 1990” “Because Singapore is a fast-growing city, it will need new housing than re-housing, more new development than redevelopment. However much we may wish to concentrate on urban renewal.” “We shall have to build ive new housing units for every old one we demolish” The UN expoerts proposed a Ring City in their report for the development of Singpaore. The proposal was then further developed into the 1971 concept plan, clearly outlining the future development strategy of the island state. Outlining the importance of redevelopment and new development, both plans were drawn as if Singapore was an island with no history, no settlement. Residential areas are proposed without acknowledgment of the existing settlements and villages. Together with the Land Acquisition Act introduced in 1966, all the basis for a complete make-over of Singapore is well in position to actively transform the city-state in the years to come. 1 Abramss, Kobe and Koenigsberger, “ Growth and Urban Renewal in Singapore,” p.9,10. In 1994, Singapore has 2.7 million inhabitants Fig. 3.03 (Below, right) Ring City Proposal by Koenigsberger, 1963 Fig. 3.04 (Next page) Singapore 1st Concept plan, 1971 31 32 Besides, the introduction of the Government’s Land Sales Policy in 1967 also encouraged the trend of hiring foreign architects in large-scale landmark projects. The policy was part of a strategy for the comprehensive development of the central area as detailed in the previous chapter. Under this policy private developers would have to submit proposals to the Urban Renewal Department where the proposal deemed most suitable will be selected. While the same policy provided abundant opportunities for the local architects at the early stage of its introduction, it occurred later that a key factor in winning bids appeared to have been the choice of internationally acclaimed architects to head the design team, with a local practice as signatories of the drawings who was responsible for the compliance with local regulations and contract documentation. This was further exacerbated by the increasingly educated and affluent private clients who have a feeling for their achievements, and wished these achievements to be expressed in a certain way. As noted in the Singapore Institute of Architects Rountable on 3, September 1997, ‘These clients will not take chances with local architects, who have not yet practiced in major cities throughout the world.” (SIA, 1998, p. 282) Fig. 3.01 (Top) OCBC Centre, 1980 Fig. 3.02 (Below) Plan of Podium, Section of People’s Park Complex Fig. 3.03 (Below, right) Ring City Proposal by Koenigsberger, 1963 Fig. 3.04 (Next page) Singapore 1st Concept plan, 1971 Mainstream foreign corporate architects were given preferential treatment in the endeavor to make Singapore a modernist city in the visual imagery of American capitalism. The OCBC Centre, the result of the Second URA Sale of Sites in 1968 exuded “a sense of strength and permanence.” It is also, to quote Edwards and Keys, ‘an exceedingly forceful statement of mega-structural power’. John Portman and Associates, in association with BEP Akitek, were responsible for the design of The Pavilion Intercontinental Hotel (1983). It was Portman’s first commission for a hotel outside the USA, and the first use of an internal atrium in Singapore. Portman later worked in collaboration with DP architects on Marina Square (fig.3.05, 3.06)- the hotel, shopping and entertainment complex which is based on North American models. It was the largest development of its kind in Southeast Asia. It had three international hotels all utilizing the Portman trademark- the internal atrium, which was employed earlier by the architect for the Peachtree development in Atlanta, USA. 33 There were others: Raffles City (1985)(fig. 3.07) by IM Pei in association with Architects 61, the UOB Centre (fig. 3.08) by Kenzo Tange with SAA Partnership, Moshe Safdie’s Habitat at Ardmore Park (1986) with RDC, Paul Rudolph’s the Colonnade (1985) and the Concourse (1994) with Architects 61, Kenzo Tange’s Singapore Indoor Stadium (1990) with RSP Architects, just to name a few. However, many of the aforementioned architects openly admitted that their work in Singapore was not their best work. As noted by Ken Yeang, “In effect, the Singapore market got the goods, but apparently not the best of the imported stock.” (SIA, 1998, p. 275) Local architect Tay Kheng Soon even remarked that “None of the major projects taken by foreign architects in Singapore have received any international acclaim. “ This is an arguably awkward situation given the vast extent and tremendous scope of the building program over the years of rapid development. Nonetheless these architectural icons did to an arguable extent fulfill Singapore’s political rulers’ desire to express progress and modernity. The ‘desire for foreign’ phenomenon had a detrimental effect on the local architectural profession. As noted by William Lim at a UIA conference in the UK in 1987, “The large scale introduction of international style buildings may provide a superficial image of process and modernity. However it often destroys the fragile experiment in the evolutionary development of localism and identity.” His point was echoed by Tay Kheng Soon at another 1987 conference, “Foreign expertise has not broken any new ground. No new design issues or themes intrinsic to Singapore have emerged. Moreover, the designs are conceptually conventional and conservative. They have not addressed any Singapore issues.” While the influx of foreign firms’ work into Singapore did enabled the quick transfer of design technology such as improved documentation standards, internal management skills, use of latest CAD technology, it had a much more devastating and demoralizing effect on the creative energy of the local architectural community. First it meant that local architects did not have the opportunity to design large scale projects, which would have helped to hone their design standards and bring them to the forefront of world attention. Ken Yeang even compared the implementing role of the Singapore architects to that of a ‘surrogate mother’, where the local architects get paid for the job but all the design credits and acclaims went to the foreign architect but not to the Singapore firms. (SIA, 1998, p. 275) Furthermore, as international style designs were accepted by the market as the norm, the Singapore architecture firms entered into the Fig. 3.07 (Top) Raffles City by IM Pei, 1987 Fig. 3.08 (Below) UOB Plazas by Kenzo Tange, 1997 34 vicious cycle of producing and churning out anonymous, culturally and aesthetically unchallenging corporate architecture at great speed in a period of continuous economic growth. William Lim also remarked that “Local architects found themselves pressured into following the aesthetics of accepted international styles and taking up supporting roles to foreign architects in order to stay commercially viable.” (Lim, 1990, p. 254) However, the government was indifferent to the concerns of the profession and remained pragmatic in response. In 1991, at the Singapore Institute of Architects annual dinner, the then Minister of State for National Development, Dr. Lim Boon Yang, still maintained that, “Singapore will be better off judiciously tapping the experience, expertise and creativity of selected internationally recognized architects.” Though pleasing to the eye, the architectural identity of Singapore is dominated by an uninspiring homogenous mainstream architecture. This was even exacerbated by the fact that there was a rigid demarcation between the work of public authority architect and the private practitioners. Tay Kheng Soon noted that “the volume of work allocated to the public sector architects of the HDB, Public Works Department (PWD) and Jurong Town Corporation (JTC) was seven times the volume taken by the architects in private practice.” (Powell, Singapore architecture : a short history of Singapore Architecture, 2003, p. 83) The complete insulation of the private and public architects prevented the development of a diversity of design approaches. Ideas from outside of each domain were rare. The imbalance of work done by the government and the private architect meant that the shape, identity of the city and the predominant architectural image was generated by one single agency only. The result is the conventionalization of design ideas. The public works were also taken by the government as a means to fulfill its political agenda of establishing not only an international global image but also strengthening local identity. Fearing the impact of de-culturalization and the appeal of contemporary Western values, a set of controversial state-imposed ideology inscribed as Asian Values was promoted and morally valorized against “Western” ideas of liberal individualism. Massive public housing estates were constructed by the HDB. While these housing estates incorporated many common facilities and embodied the dimension of social responsibility, public housing was largely a part of a pragmatic agenda to speed up the population’s transformation into a disciplined industrial work force. 35 Designed with a pragmatic and efficient mentality, the public housing estates are built in simplistic and rigid modernist style lacking in excitement, character and identity. They are fixed in repetitive layouts that are readily replicated all over the island in vast quantity indiscriminately to different neighborhood without contextual considerations. The uninspiring living space reflects Singapore’s cultural rootlessness and still evolving identity, struggling between modernity and Asian communitarianism. Sociologist Chua Beng Huat argues that, in Singapore, earlier concepts of Confucianism and collectivized form of political-cultural ideology have been reduced to a single dimension of communitarianism. The top-down planning and design method taken by the HDB combined with the this form of politico-cultural ideology meant that there were very limited opportunities for people to externalize their subjective experiences, cultural characteristics and personal identities in the spaces they live. Nonetheless, several local practices resisted the trend towards working in association with foreign firms. Among the group of the non-complying minority architects, two local architects, Tay Kheng Soon and William S.W. Lim were most notable. They resisted working with the international firms and persevered to produce numerous non-mainstream and experimental projects. The result was that they were generally denied the chance to work on large projects, but as a consequence they became more critical designers. They dominated the local theoretical discourse for many decades. While the theory of critical regionalism entered into the architectural discourse in the 1980s and offered an important framework for understanding identity within the built environment of postcolonial countries, Singaporean architects were aware that the theory is often location bound and tends to be nostalgic. They vigorously adopted transformed and integrated traditions to reflect contemporary realities such as fast evolving cultures, values and lifestyles. They developed the notion of contemporary vernacular. (Soumyen Bandyopadhyay, Guillermo Garma Montiel, 2013, p. 256) It can be defined as a conscious commitment to uncover a particular tradition’s unique responses to spatial arrangements, place and climate and thereafter exteriorize these established and symbolic identities into creative form. Heinz Paetzold has clearly elaborated: “The concept of contemporary vernacular is neither nostalgic nor a return to regional practices as such.” Rather, it “describes an architectural practice that attempts to rearticulate the regional culture.” 36 Tay Kheng Soon, of Akitek Tenggara, was the key protagonist of tropicality in Singapore. He wrote and theorized extensively on the subject. He argued the need for imported architectural models to be carefully reassessed in terms of their climatic and cultural responsibility. Seeing the indiscriminate building of glass enclosed, mechanically ventilated and artificially illuminated corporate architect, he was aware and acutely critical of how Western cultural hegemony shaped and dominated architectural aesthetics. He sees the obsession of the box aesthetics as both a social and climatic problem. “The challenge to the development of the new tropical aesthetics is… predicated on both an understanding and appreciation of the inherent characteristics of the tropics as the aesthetics of shade and shadow as well as a parallel process of deconstructing modern-western hegemonic aesthetics and culture.” He developed an architectural language which he called “line, edge and shade”, contrasting with the emphasis on volume, plane and light in the modernist architecture of the temperate zone. The best illustration of Tay’s architectural language and idea of tropicality is his design for the Tropical House (1989) at King Albert Park. The project was designed in response to the tropical climate, with a strong emphasis on the need to provide shade from the tropical sun through deep overhangs, louvres, and zones of transitional spaces. It is also designed to facilitate natural ventilation for cooling through the use of porous walls and screens, the elevation of parts of the building on pilotis and the development of the one-room thick principle in planning the spaces. His other notable works include Parkway Builders Centre (1985) (fig. 3.07, 3.08), the Institute of Technical Education at Bishan (1986) (fig. 3.09), the Mega-Cities in the Tropics publication (1989). Tay’s proposals for tropical architecture and urbanism were not simply ecological visions of cities and buildings in the tropics, they were also ideas that challenged the economic dominance and hegemony of the West. He observed that “Singapore will never be a first-class city if it cannot initiate basic and fundamental ideas on what it is and what it can become. Singapore will always remain in my mind a second-class, provincial town with global pretensions if it is not able to focus on the specifics and poetics of place.” His observation served as a powerful interrogation on uncritical acceptance of imported architectural models to define Singapore’s architectural identity. Fig. 3.09 (Top) Tropical House by Tay Kheng Soon (1985) Fig. 3.10 (Middle) Institute of Technical Education at Bishan by Tay Kheng Soon (1986) Fig. 3.11 (Bottom) Section of Tropical House by Tay Kheng Soon (1985) 37 William Lim has also fulfilled a similar role in developing architecture of resistance. He constantly questioned accepted norms and was convinced of the dire need for new design directions beyond the sterility and rigidity of modernism. His projects including the Yeo Hiap Seng Factory (1981)(fig 3.12) and Unit 8 Apartments (1983) (fig.313) were experiments in breaking the rules of Modernism. Tampines North Community Centre (1989) (fig.3.14) was a seminal building, which redefined the role of a community centre in the Singapore context and can be seen as a design experiment based on fragmentation of elements. The Reuters House (1990) critically addressed the issue of a contemporary vernacular architecture and how to be modern yet rooted in one’s own culture. The mid-1980s also saw the emergence of conservationists. Many citizens increasingly became aware, alarmed and saddened by the pace of indiscriminate demolition and destruction of valuable old buildings. Lee Kip Lin wrote a number of books that highlighted the value of memory, incuding ‘Emerald Hill’ in 1984. Another book, ‘Pastel Portraits’ by Gretchen Liu highlighted the remarkable beauty of the surviving heritage. There were numerous articles, discussions and workshops. One of the highlight was the much publicized theoretical conservation project called Bu Ye Tian (1982) initiated by Goh Poh Seng and William Lim, which was subsequently adopted with some modifications to become today’s Boat Quay (fig. 3.15). In general, the conservationist subscribed to the belief that in adaptive reuse of old buildings, “retaining old structures provides continuity; allowing these structures to evolve new uses, supports change.” Fig. 3.12 (Top) Yeo Hiap Seng Factory (1981) Fig. 3.13 (Middle) Unit 8 Apartments (1983) Fig. 3.14 (Bottom) Tampines North Community Centre (1989) Fig. 3.15 (Lower right) Boatquak today 38 There was also a shift of attitude in the authority in heritage preservation in the 1980s. While conservation areas were not identified by URA until 1986, the idea of conservation first appeared in 1978 when Lee Kuan Yew stressed the importance of keeping ‘a lifeline to the past’ (The Strait Times, 6 June 1978). In 1982, S.Rajaratnam explained his view on the significance of historical sites in the Strait Times “A man without history is like a man who had lost his memory. And a man without memory is an incomplete man. Likewise, if Singapore were to knock down all its old buildings, discard all its traditions and forget its old people, it will be an incomplete society- a society without a past.” (The Strait Times, 25 November 1982). The government is increasingly aware of the need of preserving its architectural heritage as tangible reminders of the past. The URA undertook the environmental improvement of Emerald Hill area in 1982 and identified 10 areas for conservation, including China Town (Bukit Pasoh, Kreta Ayer, Telok Ayer and Tanjong Pagar), Little India, Kampong Glam, Singapore River (Boat Quay and Clark Quay), Cairnhill and Emerald Hill. 32 shophouses in the Tanjong Pagar Conservation Area were restored with joint public-private participation in 1986. It was subsequently officially appointed as the national conservation authority in 1989. In the same year, it prepared the Conservation Master Plan, setting out the strategy for protecting the best of Singapore’s historic areas, national monuments, bungalows and other areas. It also gazetted the 10 conservation areas to be protected by law. The state marked out certain nodal points and areas in the landscape as of historical significance as a means of providing ‘sign-posts from the past to the present’ which creates a sense of historical continuity and local cultural identity. The all-in efforts into heritage preservation, references to the plural cultural roots of Singapore in the latter half of the 1980s contrasts sharply with the mood at the beginning of the decade. However, the conservation efforts taken by the URA was highly selective and was performed in a strictly top-down approach. Little was done in consulting the public, particularly those directly affected by conservation or the lack of it. For example, Eu Court was demolished despite appeals by Singapore Heritage Society, a NGO which champions the values of heritage. Crescent Flats in Meyer Road, believed to be the oldest apartment block in Singapore, was razed to make way for condominium development despite letters to the press from the public appealing for its preservation. (SIA, 1998, p. 267) Also, the identification of monuments and conservation areas often slice up the organic form and texture of the cultural hearth in an arbitrary fashion. By privileging the ‘inside’, conservation projects diverted attention from wholesale destruction of other heritage ‘outside’. It creates the illusion that the things outside the boundary are not historical. These conflicts showed the problems of a top-down approach and called for a greater flexibility and public involvement in formulating conservation strategies. Nonetheless, it was clear that both the public and the authorities were appreciating historical monuments as tangible reminders of the past of particular value to future generations as well as sources of character, individuality to the place. 39 Chapter 4 The Remaking of Singapore (1995-Present) The latter half of the 1990s saw the rapid development of Information Technology and globalization, together with the present pace of unprecedented changes in the values and lifestyles of the younger generation. Questions about established norms of traditions and hierarchical, top-down modernity was increasingly prevalent in Singapore. It becomes obvious that it is important to accept differences and consider alternatives. Seeing how culture has become integral to political life, Glenn Jordan and Chris Weedon argue in Cultural Politics: Class, Gender, Race and the Postmodern World that there is no singular truth. “Truths are discursive constructs which differ across histories and cultures, as well as between different interest groups within the same culture. Whoever has the power to define Truth in any society also has the power to define others.” 1The PAP government was aware of this trend and was increasingly aware of the difficulty to maintain a singular national identity. However instead of keeping a loose hand and allow the natural development of a pluralistic identity, the PAP government believe that it should be the sole agent in directing the ‘Remaking of Singapore’. Since the 1990s the government has become even more active in directly promoting national identity, which is reflected in the relative increase in academic studies and government reports on the topic. The reasons for this are the need for legitimacy that goes beyond mere economic performance and the idea that a “branding of Singapore” would be a competitive asset (Institute of Policy Development 2006). In 1991, a three-year study to evaluate national identity was started, which was used as a reason to reevaluate the national identity. There was the belief that “sense of belonging and feeling of togetherness will not develop naturally in a heterogeneous society” (Wah 1992) and the government had to become more active in this process. There gradually emerged an official statement that fundamental policy issues regarding Singapore society needed to be re-examined. It was also recognized that the consultation process needed to be broadened so as to garner a greater and more diverse pool of solutions for Singapore’s problems. In 1997 Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong launched “Singapore 21”, a vision of what Singaporeans want for the future of the nation.2 After two years of 1 Jordan; Weedon (1995), p.545 2 Singapore 21 Committee (1999), p.13. The SIngapore 21 Committee was set up in 1997 and was chaired by Rear-Admiral Teo Chee Hean. 40 intensive discussions over the meanings of such intangibles as social cohesion, mutual responsibility and sense of belonging, the Singapore 21 report was produced in 1999. The government also established the Remaking Singapore Committee in 2002, which produced its first report in 2003. While the former stressed the importance of having a sense of rootedness and cosmopolitanism at the same time, the latter was only interested in strengthening Singaporeans’ pride in their own country. While a greater degree of public consultation was introduced, the topdown mentality is still dictating. Between the years 2002 and 2003, the government initiated two important studies: the Economic Review Committee Report and the Report of the Remaking Singapore Committee. The former identified the economic challenges facing Singapore and made specific recommendations for major economic restructuring. It recognized that “Singapore cannot fall back on tried and tested strategies”. It further stated that within the global context, “every country has to carve a niche for itself by excelling in some areas”. The latter report indicated two objectives: to enhance national identity, cohesion and a sense of belonging, and to foster an environment conducive to creativity, knowledge, experimentalism and entrepreneurship. Despite the government’s vigorous efforts, national identity in Singapore has not been effectively internalized within Singaporeans. With the Remaking Singapore exercise, the deep seated anxiety over national identity once again surfaced. Stuart Hall remarked: “Identities are never unified and, in late modern times, increasingly fragmented and fractured, never singular but multiply constituted across different, often intersecting and antagonistic discourses, practices and positions…subject to a radical historicization and are constantly in the process of transformation…They are more the product of marking of difference and exclusion than they are the sign of an identical, naturally constituted unity.” His remark is crucial to understand identity as a pluralistic, fluid and unstable entity. Identity is continuously constructed and reproduced by the collective imagination of the community. However, national identity formation outlined in the government has tended to privilege official statism. Despite the fact that identity formulation in Singapore has gone through different phases, adapting to time and circumstance, the fundamental understanding and approach towards identity is still definitive. The state still firmly believes in the need of defining each stage of identity formation. Nevertheless, from the mid-nineties, the gov- 41 has tended to privilege official statism. The state still firmly believes in the need of defining each stage of identity formation. Nevertheless, from the mid-nineties, the government recognized that it must develop and support a creative environment and a vibrant local art and architectural community in order to move towards a cosmopolitan Singapore. The non-complying architects continued to produce numerous non-mainstream and experimental projects. William S.W. Lim continued to produce experimental works to critically address the issues of Contemporary Vernacular architecture and how to be “modern yet rooted in one’s own culture” before retiring to concentrate on writing and lecturing on the culture of Asian cities in the context of postmodernity, glocality and social justice. His last major architectural works were Marine Parade Community Centre (2000) and The Gallery Hotel (2001) with Tang Guan Bee. On the other hand, Tay Kheng Soon continued his architectural practice on a more modest scale, spending more time teaching and has expanded his architectural design parameters from tropicality to include sustainability and ecology. He remains Singapore’s most vocal public intellectual on architecture and the urban environment. He was able to pursue these ideas on a modern tropical architectural language in his design for the Kadang Kerbau Hospital (1997), which took the notion of a language of “Line, Edge, Mesh and Shade” to a new level of sophistication. He holds the firm belief that Singapore (government) should have more self-regard and refrain from always looking towards a Western solution. “How can a new architecture arise without faith in one’s innate autonomous capability?” The near absence of serious design practice from older architects, other than those mentioned earlier, has facilitated the rapid rise and dominance of a younger generation of local architects in the new millennium. Most of them were born around the time of independence and are increasingly occupying centre stage in the city-state. Many of them set up their own practice in the mid-1990s with works of various design approaches and aspirations and are comparable with the best produced anywhere in the world. Fig. 4.01 (Top) Marine Parade Community Centre Interior Fig. 4.02 (Middle) Kadang Kerbau Hospital (1997) Fig. 4.03 (Bottom) Kadang Kerbau Hospital (1997) Fig. 4.04 (Lower right) Marine Parade Community Centre Exterior 42 In particular WOHA-architects was established in 1994 with Wong Mun Summ and Richard Hassell. The firm rejects direct application of the western model and endeavored to develop an architecture that transformed and adapted vernacular and passive responses into contemporary technologies and the highrise form. Aware of the devastating effect of modernism, they are searching for a humanist, climate-responsive architecture that celebrates the diversity of the individual. These ideas can be illustrated in 1 Moulmein Rise (2003), where its innovative “Monsoon window” can be opened during raining times which is clearly inspired by similar element found in the traditional village houses found in Borneo, Malaysia. The façade was also developed as a system of climate-modifying façade modules of overhangs, planters, bay windows, sliding windows and sunscreens which is arranged to form a ‘genetic’ façade with variations, giving a place for the individual to identify himself. It challenges the common repetitive, homogenous facades in most housing projects of the time. Fig. 4.05 (Top) 1 Moulmein Rise (2003) Fig. 4.06 (Middle) Podium garden view of Pinnacle @ Duston (2010) Fig. 4.07 (Bottom) Skygarden of Pinnacle @ Duston (2010) The government authorities also reformulated its policy to open up the construction and design of public housing to the private sector. The Design and Build Scheme (DBSS) was introduced by the Housing and Development Board in 1991 to inject more variety into public housing design. Under the scheme, private architectural and construction firms are invited to take part in the design and construction of HDB flats, where they will be handed over to the HDB for sales and maintenance after completion. Also the government made adjustments to and relaxation of planning and building regulations, particularly those governing the design of condominium housing during the new millennium. In response, the younger local architects have generated new design solutions that challenges well accepted architectural typologies. In 2001, an international architectural design competition was conducted by the Urban Redevelopment Authority for a 2.5 hectare prime site in Tanjong Pagar. 202 entries were received and the proposal by ARC Studio Architecture + Urbanism was selected, which subsequently become the Pinnacle @ Duston(2010) today. The project features the world’s two longest sky gardens of 500 meters each on both the 25th and 50th floor, linking the 7 towers into a giant residential complex. While highrise external and community spaces have long been experimented in different geographical contexts, Pinnacle@Duston stands as a statement for Singapore’s answer to skystreets and sky parks as social spaces addressing the alienation of highrise buildings. The popularity and success of the project has called for more innovative and bolder designs for public housing. 43 The idea of ‘sky parks’ and ‘sky streets’ is further developed into ‘sky village’ in WOHA’s Skyville@Dawson (2015) and RDC architect’s Skyterrace@Dawson (2015) . After 50 years from the 1960s, Singapore architects see themselves working again in a ‘fearless era’ on a freer, more romantic style of postmodernism. These architectural icons are highly adapted to the context of Singapore and stood confidently to contrast the corporate buildings designed by foreign architect. A new Singapore architectural identity has emerged. The change in attitude towards identity is also visible in the URA. In recent years, the URA has adopted many new policies in response to the changing environment. Besides the Chairman, all board members were newly appointed in the year 2000. The URA has also organized many exhibitions to inform and obtain feedback from the public. The “Identity Plan: Keep Our Shared Memories” exhibition held between 2002 and 2003 is a significant move as it illustrates that identity is now an officially recognized agenda. However, the acceptance and employment of new design ideas did not receive the same treatment in the urban planning of new development areas. The URA continues to rely on the Singapore Concept Plan (last revised 2011), which is based on a pragmatic interpretation of early modernist planning theories. Cosmetic changes have been made to the city while the theoretical basis of planning and urbanism in Singapore remains untouched. The downtown expansion proposal in the Master Plan of 2003 which part of it developed into today’s Marina Bay Sands Complex shows the continued endorsement of the physical model plan of American-style late capitalism. While looking impressively iconic, it has not broken any new ground when compared with Marina Square constructed in 1985. The new concept plan in 2011 continued the notion of sustaining a high quality living environment by providing good affordable homes, integrating greenery into the living environment, providing greater mobility, sustaining a vibrant economy with good jobs and ensuring room for growth in the future. It gives little consideration to the diverse impact of IT, network societies and the changing values, cultures and lifestyles of the younger generation. The diagrammatic simplicity and rigidity in urban planning stand in ironic contrast to official slogans of flexibility, creativity and of generating exciting cosmopolitan substances. It is clear that the authority is still suspicious in allowing a bottom-up approach in both urban planning and identity building in Singapore. 44 William Lim has also noted that what is glaringly missing in Singapore is an architectural culture anchored in local peculiarities and specificity as well as in theoretical and academic discourse. (Stephanus Schmitz; Peter Herrle, 2009, p. 276) The theoretical discourse is still largely dominated by the older generation architects like Tay Kheng Soon and William S.W. Lim. It is clear that to support and promote the development of a vibrant architectural culture in the context of a rapidly changing creative design environment and fast evolving new urban theories, both professionals and policy makers need to be better informed. The collective talents and energies of the profession must strive beyond commercial success and mainstream recognition and continue with their own experiments to provide alternative design solutions. Cutting edge writing and creative analyses as well as research and investigative discourses, particularly about Singapore and the Asian region, are essential for achieving diversity, excellence, and critical connectivity between local and global, practice and theory, as well as pluralism and essentiality. Fig. 4.03 (Bottom) Aerial photo showing Marina Bay development area, still highly characterized by American-style capitalism 45 Chapter 5 The demolition of the National Theatre- Place Identity and Memories of lost space The previous chapters mainly focus on the issue of identity construction from the perspective of the architects and the rulers. People’s reaction to the buildings, their memories associated with key urban spaces and the place identity of a place are often neglected in the study of architecture and identity. The notion of place identity and memory is in itself very rich and is specific to different places; people of different ages and cultural backgrounds even only with-in the context of Singapore. The demolition of the National Theatre and the subsequent commemorative installation of a scaled reconstruction of the theatre provide a valuablet lens to observe how average Singaporeans associated themselves with important public buildings. It gives us a glimpse of how average Singaporeans situated themselves with the peculiar phenomenon in Singapore that identity is constantly defined by the new, not the old. The National Theatre was opened in 1963 to commemorate Singapore’s achievement of self-government in 1959. It was also known as the ‘people’s theatre’ as members of the public had contributed towards the theatre’s building fund through various fundraising activities.1 Despite it being well-loved by the general public, the theatre closed in 1984 after being declared structurally unsafe and was eventually demolished in 1986 to make way for the construction of an expressway.2 The National Theatre is particularly important as it is the first national public building built to commemorate the self-governance of Singapore. Plans to build an open-air theatre for the cultural entertainment of mass audiences in Singapore was first announced in early November 1959 by then Minister for Culture S. Rajaratnam. 3Rajaratnam declared that the National Theatre would be an affirmation of the people’s will to build a national monument based on their loyalty4 to Singapore. The theatre would also serve to dispel the myth of Singapore as a culturally backward nation where people were only interested in making money. Through an architectural competition, the design by local architect Alfred H.K. Wong was eventually adopted. His design featured a five-pointed façade representing the five stars 46 1 Koh, T. T. B., et al. (Eds.). (2006). Singapore: The encyclopedia. Singapore: Editions Didier Millet in association with the National Heritage Board, p. 374. (Call no.: RSING 959.57003 SIN-[HIS]); National Theatre for S’pore. (1959, November 9). The Singapore Free Press, p. 1. Retrieved from NewspaperSG. 2 ational Theatre will be no more. (1984, January 28). The Straits Times, p. 19. Retrieved from NewspaperSG; Curtains for a dame: The National Theatre will be all gone within weeks. (1986, July 21). The Straits Times, p. 9. Retrieved from NewspaperSG 3 National Theatre for S’pore. (1959, November 9). The Singapore Free Press, p. 1. Retrieved from NewspaperSG. 4 Keep up the spirit of loyalty and unity – Mr. R. (1959, December 10). The Straits Times, p. 4. Retrieved from NewspaperSG and a fountain representing the crescent moon depicted on the national flag of Singapore. The defining character of the theatre is the magnificent 150-tonne cantilevered steel roof overhanging an open-air auditorium. (fig. 5.01, 5.02, 5.03) Fig. 5.01 National theatre with the iconic facade symbolizing the stars and the crescent on the national flag Fig. 5.02 (Middle) Competition drawings submitted by Alfred Wong for the National Theatre, Singapore 47 Fig. 5.03 (Top) Competition plans by Alfred Wong for the National Theatre, Singapore. Fig. 5.04 (Bottom) Performance Setting of the National Theatre Fig. 5.05 (Right, top) “This is a photo of my mother as a baby sitting in front of the National Theatre”, Photo credit: Bryan Chew Fig. 5.06 (RIght, middle) The patriotic facade of the theatre is a common backdrop for snapshots. Photo credit: Tan Hoon Ngoh Evelyn Fig. 5.07 (RIght, low) Same place, many years later – a photo of a student (above) taken at the National Theatre and another image of her with her son many years later, as a mother. For many Singaporeans, the National Theatre is one landmark that had seen them through their times. Photo credit: Seow Shin Horng Fig. 5.08 (Right, bottom) An early black and white photograph of a group of young men standing in front of the grand fountain outside the National Theater of Singapore. Photo credit: Loo Zihan 48 Throughout its service life from 1963 to 1984, the national theatre was well-loved by the public and was deeply associated with the lives of average Singaporeans as it was the venue of many important events and performances, including the annual National Day rallies (1966-82), and university convocations. The theatre was also graced by the Russian Bolshoi Ballet, the Sadler’s Wells Royal Ballet, the Louis Armstrong Jazz Band, the Duke Ellington Orchestra, Woody Herman & His Thundering Herd, Johnny Mathis, Shirley Bassey, The Bee Gees, the Hollies, the Walker Brothers, the Yardbirds and Herman’s Hermits, among other famous artistes and performing groups. The building was very popular among the public and was evident from various personal photographs (fig. 5.05-5.08). It was a popular backdrop for taking family photos. It was also featured on various postcards. (fig. 5.09, 5.10) Victor Koo, a Singporean recalls his memories of the theatre on his blog post. 1 “If this old memory of mine serves me right, in the late 1970s I attended a concert by the pop group America in the theatre. My recollection is that a resplendent fountain (by 1960s standard) stood at the front of the theatre. At the back, the distinctive feature of the building was its cantilever roof which provided spectators some form of shelter from the sun and the rain. It was however quite useless during heavy downpours as some rain could still get in. Being open at the back also meant that there was no aircon – a minus point which most 1960s folks didn’t seem to mind. (There weren’t many places with air-con then anyway. Even public buses were cooled by natural breezes from their open windows.) Besides, being a ‘semi-open air’ theatre somehow meant that people need not bother to dress up for the shows – they could come as they were, in their singlets, shorts and char kiaks (wooden clogs). The gate keepers (don’t remember there were any ushers as it was free-seating), would never stop you because you were not properly attired so long as you did not over expose yourself. Yet another great advantage was that if the tickets for any show were sold out, you could still catch a free glimpse of the performance by standing on the hill slope (Fort Canning) which was overlooking the back of the theatre. It was even better if you had brought along a pair of binoculars.” 1 See < http://victorkoo.blogspot.nl/2005/09/vanishing-scenes-of-singapore-part-1.html> 49 Fig. 5.09 (Top) Commemorative stamp for the South-east Asia Cultural Festival released on the opening day, 8th of August 1983. From the book “Our Collective Memory” by Koh Eng Soon. Fig. 5.10 (Middle) National Theatre on postcard Despite the popularity of the National Theatre among the public, the theatre was slated for demolition in 1986. It was closed on 16 January 1984 as it was considered ‘structurally unsafe.’ 1However, the architect revealed on their website that the firm of Ove Arup was requested to make a check on the steel structure and reported no major problems as regards to the structure itself.2 The decision to demolish the building was made to make way for a flyover along Clemenceau Avenue and two underground tunnels directly under the site of the theatre. The authorities came to the conclusion that the construction of the elevated eight-lane expressway would cause noise and pollution, thus rendering the theatre unsuitable for stage performances. Eventually the theatre was demolished without any commemorative events. Members of the public were saddened by the demolition but were convinced that it was necessary. 1 Lim, P. H. L. (Ed.). (2009). Chronicle of Singapore: Fifty years of headline news 1959–2009. Singapore: Editions Didier Millet in association with the National Library Board, p. 187. (Call No.: RSING 959.5705 CHR-[HIS]); Curtains for a dame: The National Theatre will be all gone within weeks. (1986, July 21). The Straits Times, p. 9. Retrieved from NewspaperSG. 2 See < http://awparchitects.com/projects/category/civic-cultural/singapore-national-theatre/> 50 To commemorate the 50th anniversary of the National Theatre, architect Lai Chee Kien created a replica of the façade at Tank road right across its original site for the Singapore Biennale (entitled National Theatre@50) (fig.5.11). This installation evoked emotions of the old generation and was heavily featured in the newspaper and various blogs. James Seah, a Singaporean writes on his blog after seeing the installation:1 “Among the audience at the South-East Asia Cultural Festival at the National Theatre, I was seated at the back rows with my late second brother-in-law. He had joined a long queue on the first day for the sale of the tickets and the “bricks” at the National Theatre. He brought me from Bukit Ho Swee where I stayed and then sent me home after the show by bus. I didn’t realize that I had participated in the history of the former National Theatre. Memories of the performance 50 years ago for me was vague. I prefer to watch the Chinese “kungfu” movies at the Atlantic Theatre in Great World Amusement Park in those days” While the decision of why a place of such important significance to national idenity was demolished in favor of infrastructural development is still unclear until today, the demolition and installation of a replica gives us a glimpse of how people associated themselves with place, how they developed fond memrories with the built environment and their sentiments when such spaces were gone forever. It also shows the part the the ‘ghost’ of lost spaces could play to remind people of their lost places, stiumulate the sharing of old memories and emotions and a reflection upon the past. The demolition and remembering of the National theatre showcases the dilemma that Singapore faces when deciding on conservation and development. There is the protagonist view that being a small and young country, many old buildings must be demolished to make way for the new. The antagonist, however, believes that as Singapore is small and young, the historical relics are so precious and few that must be preserved. The decision by the government to demolish the national icons that commemorates the national independence, national aspirations for infrastructural development shows that the protagonists are favored over the antagonist. 1 See < http://blogtoexpress.blogspot.nl/2013/12/national-theatre-50th-anniversary.html> 51 Fig. 5.12 (Left) The National Theatre@50, with the audience gathering in front of the “stage”. Photo Credit Jerome Lim Fig. 5.13 (RIght) People looking at Installation Photo Credit Jerome Lim Fig. 5.14 (Bottom) Poetry session with audience Photo Credit Jerome Lim 52 It is particularly interesting that 20 years after the demolition a new theatre Esplande- Theatres on the Bay is proposed and constructed as a new national icon. While the new theatres maybe functionally superior to its precedence, the fond memories, personal affiliations and place identity with the old theatre could only exist in the memory of the people. The fate of the National Theatres stands as a strong testament to the statement that Singapore’s identity is to be defined by the future, not the past. Fig. 5.11 (Bottom) National Theatre@50 – The Singapore Biennale 2013 artwork sits at the foot of the hill, as an homage to the original site 53 Conclusion Architecture and Identity in a Global era Attempts have been made in this essay to highlight events and historical circumstances that have been instrumental in molding Singapore architecture and the Singapore identity. The Singapore state was born on a cusp of history where forces of colonialism, socialism, communism and capitalism clashes and coincided with momentous and often explosive consequences. The early period of its formation saw a chaotic time which ushered in a wave of creative energy trying to define the new aspirations of the new nation. The political entity that merged harnessed for a time the great potential of this wave of creative energy, turning it into a formidable and united productive force. However, 1975 marked a turning point for Singapore when it turned its developmental future onto American-led capitalism. The local intellectuals were displaced to the periphery and critical discourse was suppressed. It also proves that for Singapore, there is no simple, single answer of the difficult question “Who am I”. Of course, national identity as perceived by a government is inherently tied to the image it wants to project in the national arena. The opinion held by Singapore rulers’ coincided with the sociologist Wallerstein’s view that the state, through its monopoly of policies and recourse, can create a national culture over time, even when it lacks one to begin with (Wallerstein 1991). However, can one really ‘design’ national identity? Moreover, can this national identity by designed by a foreign power? These are questions often faced by the politicians who governed the newly independent states. Architecturally speaking these dilemmas were also faced by the architects and planners who worked with these politicians. Looking back in history with a distance, it is obvious that identity should be understood as a pluralistic, fluid and unstable entity that changes with times of different social, economic and political conditions. In today’s globalized world, identity is more marked by the management of diversity rather than the replication of uniformity. Such a management would inevitably include a respect for the past, the mediation between the traditional and the modern, an acceptance of the colonial legacy and dealing with the effects of globalization and the new world order. 54 The damaging years from 1975 to 1995 and the emergence of local architects in the millennium shows clearly that identity are more the product of marking of difference and exclusion rather than an identical, naturally constituted unity. The transplant of western models foreign models achieves little more than a borrowed image of progress and does not address the issue of identity. Contrarily, it has a tremendous negative effect of suppressing new concepts and innovation from local architects. The more a nation-state relies on transplanted model, the less likely is the state to develop its own identity. However, all architects must ask themselves what is the role of identity in the architectural profession in the globalized world of today. Globalization has brought about a significant erosion of local traditions. Identity in architecture could perform two important roles. It should not only express the social, political and cultural peculiarities of the present time, but it would also need to be an instrument for resisting the destructive effects of globalization. From the case of Singapore, it is evident that the solution of resolving identity in architecture is more likely to be found by looking forward rather than looking backward. The identity conveyed by architecture should also reflect the movement towards cultural differentiation but not homogenization. The innovative works of WOHA and other young Singapore architects give us hope in how a new future can be pursued with traditional knowledge re-interpreted and adapted to suit present day design questions, both socially and climatically. Can the Singapore government respond to the growing cry for greater diversity, flexibility and creativity? Finally, is Singapore ready for a bottom-up construction of pluralistic, diversified identities? As a concluding remark, while the relationship between architecture and identity have been vastly explored and discussed in this paper, many research opporunities still exist. For example, the issues of idenity in architecture has been mainly focused at the perspective of the planners and the architects but rarely from the perspective of the people. More research has to be carried out to evaluate how people react, attach themselves to the built environment and ultimately, develop a place idenity for the places where they develop memories of. The gap is to be further researched and explored to fully evaluate in what way can architecture and the built environment help the citizens develop identify and associate themselves as citizens of a place. 55 Bibliography Chang, J.-H. (2010, March). Deviating Discourse: Tay Kheng Soon and the Architecture of Postcolonial Development in Tropical Asia. Journal of Architectural Education Volume 63 Issue 2, pp. 153-158. Klassen, W. (1984, 12). First Asian Congress of Architects and Asian Identity: A Search for a Meaningful Role. Philippine Quarterly of Culture and Society, Vol. 12, No. 4, pp. 271-305. Koolhaas, R. (1995). Singapore Songlines: Portrait of a Potemkin Metropolis...or Thirty Years of Tabula Rasa in Small, Medium, Large, Extra-Large. New York: Monacelli Press. Lim, W. S. (1990). Cities for People: Reflections of a Southeast Asian Architect. Singapore: Select Books Pte Ltd. Liu, G. (2007). Singapore A pictorial History 1819-2000. Surrey: Curzon Press. Ortmann, S. (2009). Singapore: The Politics of Inventing National Identity. Journal of Current Southeast Asian Affairs, pp. 24-45. Powell, R. (1989). Innovative Architecture of Singapore. Singapore: Select Books. Powell, R. (2003). Singapore architecture : a short history of Singapore Architecture. Singapore: Pesaro Publishing. Quek, R. (2012). Dramatic pre-emption in Singapore’s National. Gold Coast: Bond University. Selina Lim, Wai Wai Yang, Chan-Hoong Leong, Jerrold Hong. (2014). Reconfiguring the Singapore identity space: Beyond racial. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 43, pp. 13-21. SIA. (1998). Contemporary Singapore architecture 1960’s to 1990’s. Singapore: Singapore Institute of Architects. Soumyen Bandyopadhyay, Guillermo Garma Montiel. (2013). The Territories of Idenity: Architecture in the age of evolving globalization. London: Routledge. Singapore Department of Statistics (1996): Singapore 19651996 Statistical Highlights, A Review of 30 Years Development, Department of Statistics, Singapore. 56 Stephanus Schmitz; Peter Herrle. (2009). Constructing identity in contemporary architecture: Case Studies from the South. Münster: LIT Verlag. T.T.B.Koh. (2006). Singapore: The Encyclopedia. Singapore: The Singapore Free Press. Tajudeen, I. n. (2005). Reading the Traditional City of Maritime Southeast Asia. Journal of SoutheastAsianArchitecture Vol 8, p. 25. Tim Bunnell, Lisa B. W. Drummond, K.C. Ho. (2002). Critical Reflections on Cities in Southeast Asia. Singapore: Times Media Private Limited. The Journal of the Singapore Society of Architects The SIngapore Free Press 57 Images Chapter 1 1.01 Jacksons Plan of the Town of Singapore. Lieutenant Philip Jackson, Liu, G. (2007). Singapore A pictorial History 1819-2000. Surrey: Curzon Press. P.23 1.02 Panorama of the roofs of China Town, 1870 Liu, G. (2007). Singapore A pictorial History 1819-2000. Surrey: Curzon Press. P.64 1.03 View of the European Town from Fort Canning Early 1860s Liu, G. (2007). Singapore A pictorial History 1819-2000. Surrey: Curzon Press. P.41 1.04 Malay Village, possibly Kampong Bugis, 1870s Liu, G. (2007). Singapore A pictorial History 1819-2000. Surrey: Curzon Press. P.68 1.05 View of Sultan Mosque Liu, G. (2007). Singapore A pictorial History 1819-2000. Surrey: Curzon Press. P.214 1.06 Thian Hock Kheng, 1870s Liu, G. (2007). Singapore A pictorial History 1819-2000. Surrey: Curzon Press. P.64 1.07 St. Jospeh’s Institution Unknown, Retrieved from: www.sji.edu.sg 1.08 Caricature of Oscar Wilson, drawn by Denis Santry circa 1925 Soumyen Bandyopadhyay, Guillermo Garma Montiel. (2013). The Territories of Idenity: Architecture in the age of evolving globalization. London: Routledge. P.183 1.09 Journal titles, prewar from 1923-41 Soumyen Bandyopadhyay, Guillermo Garma Montiel. (2013). The Territories of Idenity: Architecture in the age of evolving globalization. London: Routledge. P.191 1.10 Journal titles, post-war from 1951-69 Soumyen Bandyopadhyay, Guillermo Garma Montiel. (2013). The Territories of Idenity: Architecture in the age of evolving globalization. London: Routledge. P.193 58 1.11 Jacksons Plan of the Town of Singapore. Lieutenant Philip Jackson, Liu, G. (2007). Singapore A pictorial History 1819-2000. Surrey: Curzon Press. P.23 1.12 Panorama of the roofs of China Town, 1870 Liu, G. (2007). Singapore A pictorial History 1819-2000. Surrey: Curzon Press. P.64 1.13 View of the European Town from Fort Canning Early 1860s Liu, G. (2007). Singapore A pictorial History 1819-2000. Surrey: Curzon Press. P.41 1.14 Malay Village, possibly Kampong Bugis, 1870s Liu, G. (2007). Singapore A pictorial History 1819-2000. Surrey: Curzon Press. P.68 1.15 View of Sultan Mosque Liu, G. (2007). Singapore A pictorial History 1819-2000. Surrey: Curzon Press. P.214 1.16 Thian Hock Kheng, 1870s Liu, G. (2007). Singapore A pictorial History 1819-2000. Surrey: Curzon Press. P.64 1.17 St. Jospeh’s Institution Unknown, Retrieved from: www.sji.edu.sg 1.18 Caricature of Oscar Wilson, drawn by Denis Santry circa 1925 Soumyen Bandyopadhyay, Guillermo Garma Montiel. (2013). The Territories of Idenity: Architecture in the age of evolving globalization. London: Routledge. P.183 1.19 Journal titles, prewar from 1923-41 Soumyen Bandyopadhyay, Guillermo Garma Montiel. (2013). The Territories of Idenity: Architecture in the age of evolving globalization. London: Routledge. P.191 1.20 Journal titles, post-war from 1951-69 Soumyen Bandyopadhyay, Guillermo Garma Montiel. (2013). The Territories of Idenity: Architecture in the age of evolving globalization. London: Routledge. P.193 59 Chapter 2 2.01 The National Theatre, completed 1963, was built to commemorate Singapore’s self-government in 1959 SIA. (1998). Contemporary Singapore architecture 1960’s to 1990’s. Singapore: Singapore Institute of Architects. P.38 2.02 Drawings of the National Theatre SIA. (1998). Contemporary Singapore architecture 1960’s to 1990’s. Singapore: Singapore Institute of Architects. P.38 2.03 NTUC Conference Hall, showing typical influence of the late modern era and architectural features reminiscent of typical Malay architecture Retrieved from: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/5lT3AEUQGpg/TyoO6Ur6k1I/AAAAAAAAAfc/NiIzOFGQYIA/ s1600/dlyn11.jpg 2.04 Elevation drawing of NTUC Conference Hall, Retreived from: http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-jrgvGfMHYZo/TyoPGBwoI_I/ AAAAAAAAAfo/I7QRMxJtk2E/s1600/Singapore%2BConferenc e%2BHall%2Brendering.jpg 2.05 People’s Park Complex by Design Partnership, 1972 SIA. (1998). Contemporary Singapore architecture 1960’s to 1990’s. Singapore: Singapore Institute of Architects. P.43 2.06 Plan of Podium, Section of People’s Park Complex SIA. (1998). Contemporary Singapore architecture 1960’s to 1990’s. Singapore: Singapore Institute of Architects. P.43 2.07 Golden Mile Complex by Design Partnership, 1974 SIA. (1998). Contemporary Singapore architecture 1960’s to 1990’s. Singapore: Singapore Institute of Architects. P.43 2.08 Elevation, Section of Golden Mile Complex Koolhaas, R. (1995). Singapore Songlines: Portrait of a Potemkin Metropolis...or Thirty Years of Tabula Rasa in Small, Medium, Large, Extra-Large. New York: Monacelli Press. p.1072 2.09 View of Chinatown 1973 showing the newly completed People’s Park Complex Photo Credit: Jerome Lim Retrieved April 5, 2015, from The Long winding road: https://thelongnwindingroad.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/02peoples-park-complex.jpg?w=510&h=370 60 2.10 Land reclamation at Marina South in the 70’s SIA. (1998). Contemporary Singapore architecture 1960’s to 1990’s. Singapore: Singapore Institute of Architects. P.53 61 Chapter 3 OCBC Centre, 1980 URA Singapore, Retrieved from: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/5lT3AEUQGpg/TyoO6Ur6k1I/AAAAAAAAAfc/NiIzOFGQYIA/ s1600/dlyn11.jpg 3.02 Singapore skyline in 1980 showing OCBC Centre (designed by I.M. Pei) in the background Family of Kouo Shang Wei and National Library Board, Singapore 2007 3.03 Ring City Proposal by Koenigsberger, 1963 Abrams, C., Kobe, S., & Koenigsberger, O. (1963). Growth and urban renewal in Singapore (pp. 63–84). Retrieved August 1, 2014, from MIT Students’ Portal website: http://stuff.mit.edu/afs/ athena/course/11/11.337/www/MIT_Workshop_Material/MIT_ Workshop_Material/readings/abrams%20kobe%20koenigsberger_singapore_1963.pdf; The Straits Times, 23 Mar 1970, p. 8. 3.04 Singapore 1st Concept plan, 1971 Urban Redevelopment Authority. (2014). Concept Plan 1971. Retrieved June 5, 2014, from Urban Redevelopment Authority website: http://www.ura.gov.sg/uol/concept-plan.aspx?p1=ViewConcept-Plan&p2=Concept-Plan1971 3.05 Hotel at Marina Square by John Portman SIA. (1998). Contemporary Singapore architecture 1960’s to 1990’s. Singapore: Singapore Institute of Architects. P.49 3.06 Section of Hotel at Marina Square by John Portman SIA. (1998). Contemporary Singapore architecture 1960’s to 1990’s. Singapore: Singapore Institute of Architects. P.49 3.07 Raffles City by IM Pei, 1987 SIA. (1998). Contemporary Singapore architecture 1960’s to 1990’s. Singapore: Singapore Institute of Architects. P.55 3.08 UOB Plazas by Kenzo Tange, 1997 SIA. (1998). Contemporary Singapore architecture 1960’s to 1990’s. Singapore: Singapore Institute of Architects. P.249 62 3.09 Tropical House by Tay Kheng Soon (1985) CHANG, J.-H. (2010, March). Deviating Discourse: Tay Kheng Soon and the Architecture of Postcolonial Development in Tropical Asia. Journal of Architectural Education Volume 63 Issue 2, pp. 154 3.10 Section of Tropical House by Tay Kheng Soon (1985) CHANG, J.-H. (2010, March). Deviating Discourse: Tay Kheng Soon and the Architecture of Postcolonial Development in Tropical Asia. Journal of Architectural Education Volume 63 Issue 2, pp. 154 3.11 Institute of Technical Education at Bishan by Tay Kheng Soon (1986) CHANG, J.-H. (2010, March). Deviating Discourse: Tay Kheng Soon and the Architecture of Postcolonial Development in Tropical Asia. Journal of Architectural Education Volume 63 Issue 2, pp. 154 3.12 Yeo Hiap Seng Factory (1981) Stephanus Schmitz; Peter Herrle. (2009). Constructing identity in contemporary architecture: Case Studies from the South. Münster: LIT Verlag., p.262 3.13 Unit 8 Apartments (1983) Stephanus Schmitz; Peter Herrle. (2009). Constructing identity in contemporary architecture: Case Studies from the South. Münster: LIT Verlag., p.262 3.14 Tampines North Community Centre SIA. (1998). Contemporary Singapore architecture 1960’s to 1990’s. Singapore: Singapore Institute of Architects. P.258 3.15 Boat quay today chensiyuan. (2008). Boat quay. Retrieved April 5, 2015, from Wikepedia: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Boat_quay_ sct.JPG 63 Chapter 4 4.01 Marine Parade Community Centre Exterior Urban Redevelopment Authority. (2014). Marine Parade Community Club. Retrieved April 5, 2015, from Urban Redevelopment Authority website: https://www.ura.gov.sg/skyline/skyline07/skyline07-06/images/pg3_pic_5.jpg 4.02 Marine Parade Community Centre Interior Sengkang. (2007). Marine Parade Community Building. Retrieved April 5, 2015, from Wikepedia: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Marine_Parade_Community_Building_4,_ Sep_07.JPG 4.03 Kadang Kerbau Hospital (1997) Aga Khan Award for Architecture. (2000). Kadang Kerbau Hospital. Retrieved April 5, 2015, from Archnet: http://archnet.org/ system/media_contents/contents/17648/original/IAA8639. JPG?1384696132 4.04 Kadang Kerbau Hospital (1997) Aga Khan Award for Architecture. (2000). Kadang Kerbau Hospital. Retrieved April 5, 2015, from Archnet: http://archnet.org/ system/media_contents/contents/17650/original/IAA8641. JPG?1384696133 4.05 1 Moulmein Rise (2003) WOHA Architect. (2003). 1 Moulmein Rise. Retrieved April 5, 2015, from detailonline: http://it.detail-online.com/uploads/ pics/1-2_01.jpg 4.06 Podium garden view of Pinnacle @ Duston (2010) Retrieved April 5, 2015, from Architecturelab: http://architecturelab.net/pinnacle-duxton-singaporeby-arc-studio-architectureurbanism/ 4.07 Skygarden of Pinnacle @ Duston (2010) Retrieved April 5, 2015, from Architecturelab: http://architecturelab.net/pinnacle-duxton-singaporeby-arc-studio-architectureurbanism/ 64 4.08 Aerial photo showing Marina Bay development area, still highly characterized by American-style capitalism Retrieved April 5, 2015, from World Finance Conference: http://www.world-finance-conference.com/sites/default/files/Marina-Bay-Sands-Traffic-Singapore_0.jpg 65 Chapter 5 5.01 National theatre with the iconic facade symbolizing the stars and the crescent on the national flag Retrieved April 5, 2015, from AWP Architects: http://awparchitects.com/projects/category/civic-cultural/singapore-nationaltheatre/ 5.02 Competition drawings submitted by Alfred Wong for the National Theatre, Singapore Quek, R. (2012). Dramatic pre-emption in Singapore’s National. Gold Coast: Bond University. P.12 5.03 Competition plans by Alfred Wong for the National Theatre, Singapore. Quek, R. (2012). Dramatic pre-emption in Singapore’s National. Gold Coast: Bond University. P.13 5.04 Performance Setting of the National Theatre Retrieved April 5, 2015, from AWP Architects: http://awparchitects.com/projects/category/civic-cultural/singapore-nationaltheatre/ 5.05 “This is a photo of my mother as a baby sitting in front of the National Theatre”, Phto credit: Bryan Chew Retrieved April 5, 2015, from Singapore Memory Project: http://www.singaporememory.sg/contents/SMA-ada9496bde90-491b-8496-a498d8b58eb1 5.06 The patriotic facade of the theatre is a common backdrop for snapshots. Photo credit: Tan Hoon Ngoh Evelyn Retrieved April 5, 2015, from SG Snaps: http://sgsnaps.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/012_4893737x1024.jpg 5.07 Same place, many years later – a photo of a student (above) taken at the National Theatre and another image of her with her son many years later, as a mother. For many Singaporeans, the National Theatre is one landmark that had seen them through their times. Photo credit: Seow Shin Horng Retrieved April 5, 2015, from SG Snaps: http://sgsnaps.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/0051732x1024.jpg 66 5.08 An early black and white photograph of a group of young men standing in front of the grand fountain outside the National Theater of Singapore. Photo credit: Loo Zihan Retrieved April 5, 2015, from SG Snaps: http://sgsnaps.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Loo-Zihan770x470.jpg 5.09 Commemorative stamp for the South-east Asia Cultural Festival released on the opening day, 8th of August 1983. From the book “Our Collective Memory” by Koh Eng Soon. Retrieved April 5, 2015, from SG Snaps: http://sgsnaps.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Koh-EngSoon_Postage.jpg 5.10 National Theatre on postcard Quek, R. (2012). Dramatic pre-emption in Singapore’s National. Gold Coast: Bond University. P.15 5.11 National Theatre@50 – The Singapore Biennale 2013 artwork sits at the foot of the hill, as an homage to the original site Retrieved April 5, 2015, from Lux-mag: http://sgsnaps.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Koh-EngSoon_Postage.jpg 5.12 The National Theatre@50, with the audience gathering in front of the “stage”. Photo Credit Jerome Lim Retrieved April 5, 2015, from The Long winding road: https://thelongnwindingroad.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/jeromelim-277a9947.jpg?w=510 5.13 People looking at Installation Photo Credit Jerome Lim Retrieved April 5, 2015, from The Long winding road: https://thelongnwindingroad.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/jeromelim-277a9935.jpg?w=510 5.14 Poetry session with audience Photo Credit Jerome Lim Retrieved April 5, 2015, from The Long winding road: https://thelongnwindingroad.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/jeromelim-277a9949.jpg?w=510&h=340 67