|
Author Tay Kheng
Soon |
2002 I went to the Supreme Court to
view the model as announced in the Straits Times on 29.4.02. My impression of
the design has not improved.
What the issue comes down to, in the new Supreme Court design, is
appropriate symbolism. This problem is not confined to the new Supreme Court
design. I now realise that this is the
critical issue applicable to all major public buildings in this country. I
understand that the project has already been delayed because the client did
not find the original design satisfactory and a new designer had to be
appointed. We sympathise with the client and applaud them for their concern
for design quality signified by willingness to delay the project. But the
problem is process, not just product. The process did not surface
symbolic issues until this late stage. The public did not see anything until
the design is completed. So not much can be done and so, I want to go on from
here. In the next major public building, a new process must be put in place
where the architectural articulation of symbolism is given adequate gestation
time and lots of public airing. In the SMU discussions no discussion of
symbolics was possible. The subject was simple not on the agenda. We have
reached a critical stage in the new Supreme Court project. We have to go beyond the catch
up syndrome in our search for excellence. Nothing wrong in wanting to be
world class in our major public buildings but this has to be founded on
architectural symbols and qualities that are important and relevant to our
values and our context. Then our bid for world class status will be
meaningful and significant. In the process, a new consciousness of people and
place will be kindled. Public identification with the
symbols and values represented in our buildings are necessary parts of the
national psyche. Parliament House, the Singapore Arts Centre, the Indoor
Stadium, the new National Library or even SMU should all be eloquent icons of
our values but instead they are all silent and in some cases curious oddities
such that there is no public identification with them beyond noting their
existence. For sentiment to arise from familiarity, aesthetics and
appropriate iconic elements are needed for affection to arise. New States
need to consciously define and manifest these public values more than old
States. We need architectural talent to do this well. The artistic challenge
is serious. Often, it is not lack of talent that is the cause of
under-performance in design; it is poor usage of talent that is. This means that architects,
the client and the public must engage in an improved process that combines
symbols and quality technical execution. With regard to symbols, there
is no need to resort to stereotypical ethnic symbols. I would cite the
Vancouver Law Courts by Canadian architect Arthur Erickson where contemporary
values are effectively encoded in the design. The courtroom interiors are
intentionally designed to be visible from the public spaces within the
building and also from the surroundings through the huge sloping glass roof
which covers the public concourse. Here the transparency of the legal process
is symbolised by the architecture. There was no need to resort to any
artificial grafting of icons. Other design features were designed to engender
affection for the place by achieving a high degree of connectivity between
the public plaza by means of dramatic steps and ramps to the reach the upper
levels. A sense of public participation and civic amenity is thus achieved.
The public love the place. Architects have not succeeded
in impressing on client-bodies that excellence in design needs to have a
protracted period of funded cultural and technical exploration prior to
commissioning the design team with requisite provisions that support the
design vision as it develops.
The process presently is
simplistic. This is tied to a standardised funding procedure where regular
cost yardsticks are applied to room schedules to produce budgets and then
technical requirements are defined. A time schedule established and a budget
finalised. Some generalised remarks such as "symbol of justice"
etc. are stated and off the architects go. A panel reviews the results and
comes to a conclusion. For special projects the results are hit and
miss. At this present stage of
nation building, right at the beginning of an important project, it is
important to have an open architectural ideas competition followed by open public discussions of
the significant ideas advanced prior to selection of designs. If given
enough publicity and planning, this
procedure should generate much needed public discourse on what are
appropriate cultural symbols and which design strategies answer the needs better.
Following this, budgets prepared can be tailored to reinforce the ideas
rather than strait jacket them. Similarly with time-frames, any required
special R&D and any other special provisions necessary for the kind of
excellence envisaged can then be properly defined and provided for. Without
such a process, consciousness of quality and public symbolic values remains
at a rudimentary level continue to rely on renown and reputation to settle
issues of design excellence. This is not a pro-active approach. Singapore has
moved to a new stage, such methods do not fit new calls for creativity and
innovation. Quality is thus a test. Quality results can come only from a
pro-active quality process. What does it take to break out of the box? In the meanwhile, the lack of a new design procedure
will continue to result in missed design opportunities time and time again.
We should all resolve that in the
next major public building to be undertaken, the opportunity to engage the
imagination of the architectural profession and the populace as a whole must
not be missed. For that a new process is indispensable. |
|
|
|
|
|