A public service proposal by Tay Kheng Soon and MA(UD) 1999/2000 Students
THE PROPOSAL
Although the site selected is Bras Basah Park and its immediate surroundings, it was felt after due reflection that the park should not be built-on in any significant manner as this would destroy a major spatial marker in the city.
Bras Basah Park serves as a major transition point for several important city districts. Orchard Road to the North terminates at this point. The City to the South begins here. Fort Canning Hill to the West presides over the historic/civic district of the city at this point. The Selegie/Serangoon corridor to the Northeast emanates from here. Bras Basah Park, as an urban space articulator must therefore not be lost. How then to build the campus of a new Urban University?
Expanding
the conceptual field beyond the immediate site to include the entire city,
it is possible to see other possibilities. The city could be seen as a
campus, albeit a living and working campus. If a structure could be found
to gather all the energies of the city together, such a structure would
indeed be a new force in the life of Singapore. This thus is the ambition
of the plan. Transportation systems could stitch the campus together.
The Singapore River could be a major transport and spiritual resource
of the campus. The Padang, the hills, the major historic parts of the
city could all be stitched together into one comprehensive whole! The
building of the new urban university is thus seen as an opportunity to
redefine the role and nature of life in the city. In the 21st. Century,
the most important resource is knowledge, wisdom and culture. The urban
university is the key to unlock new potentials hitherto untapped.
Such a structure could take the form of a bold linear structure, which
embraces the city. By doing so it redefines it. It could be aligned to
connect Mt Sophia to Fort Canning Hill and from there to Pearl's Hill.
Here in one stroke, the hills are commandeered as spiritual resources
of the city. Whereas the hills have been whittled away by sporadic developments
except for Fort Canning, now is the occasion to reassert their presence.
There was never an occasion to articulate such a vision. This is one.
The lineal structure would be 15 stories in height with a 5 storey clear
colonnaded space below for visual and physical crossings of roads and
rivers.
From Kirk Terrace the linear block emanates ramping and connecting to the educational facilities on Mt Sophia. It frames Cathay Building, Singapore's first skyscraper landmark building at this location.
The linear block then springs from Mt Sophia across Orchard road to meet Fort Canning. A gateway is thus defined where the structure crosses Orchard Road. This resolves the urban design dilemma at this location. A direct link from the Campus to Dhoby Ghaut MRT station is achieved.
The civic
and cultural facilities along Bras Basah Park and the Bencoolen/Waterloo
districts are accessed from the campus via an under-ground passage from
Dhoby Ghaut Station. The proposed alignment of Stamford Road, in the Museum
DGP, is swung all the way to run parallel with Bras Basah Road rather
than intersecting Bras Basah Park. This frees the Park completely for
a sunken water garden and park which sweeps all the way upward to Fort
Canning, thereby re-establishing its original presence in relation to
the city.
The linear structure of the proposed campus accommodates all the facilities
of the campus In addition, a campus hotel is located where the linear
structure meets Fort Canning rather than on a separate plot as shown in
the DGP.
A Media Centre and communications tower completes the composition on the Singapore skyline. It is anchored on the High Street Axis. Electric buses and bicycles operate on the roof of the linear structure. Lifts and escalators provide access to all departments. The roof deck level is public space. It therefore provides access to all the three hills, which are difficult of access.
Beyond Fort Canning, the linear structure hovers above Clemenceau Avenue. Not utilising urban land, the structure takes development pressure away from existing urban sites such as Bras Basah Park. The total potential floor area produced is approximately 800.000m2. The urban university for a student and staff population of 25,000 requires not more than 375,000m2.
The structure
can be implemented in segments. Each segment can function independently.
A new image of a new Singapore could come about.
REVIEW
The principal criticism of the scheme was that it was a mega-structure. Another view expressed was that of surprise at the unusual approach, which has no precedent in the planning of urban universities, nor in urban development in free market economies in general.
The assumption in the criticism against mega-structures is the lack of humanism inherent in the form. It was remarked that Lewis Mumford's humanism was to be preferred.
There are many levels of opacity in the sentiments expressed that need clarification. While it is true that authoritarian administrations are capable of large structures. It does not follow that democratic administrative systems are incapable of large projects. The difference in their inherent capability is not in size but in the character of the structures they create. The essential difference in the structures they create is the difference between closed and open structures, be they towns, buildings or system architectures. Authoritarian systems will create closed structures whether large or small. Democratic systems will create either large or small but open structures.
Closed structures
depend on total consistency of all parts for their integrity. As such
they are closed systems. They have therefore to be implemented through
only one governing vision and through only one design strategy. Bigness
therefore needs to be distinguished. Large open structures such as the
Internet for example are capable of indefinite intervention and openness.
The protocols are also not deemed oppressive. The fact of largeness is
not an unredeeming feature.
Open and closed mega-structures must be distinguished. Closed mega-structures
could be criticised because they are inflexible and unaccommodating. However,
at the intellectual level, the advocation or repudiation of mega-structures
as a concept must not be justified on the basis of personal preference.
At the intellectual level, no solution should be ruled out of hand. If
under certain circumstances and in certain locations, either open or closed
mega-structures can be demonstrated to be beneficial why should they be
ruled out simply because they are big?
In a situation of intense urban pressure for redevelopment, such as in Singapore, where there is need to defend existing civic urban values and where outward spread of the city calls for a bold comprehensive approach to allocate land, mega-structures may have solutions to offer where small interventions may not. If large-scale concepts are ruled out simply because they are large, the palette is ruled through default by small interventions which together may actually whittle away the civic urban values we seek to uphold. This will result in a level of uniformity distinguished only by decorative differences.
The issue of bigness is therefore not an issue related to mere size but an issue of appropriateness. An open form is one in which the integrity of the overall form is not compromised by independent but coherent interventions. Open forms, even though large, can thus allow for implementation in small increments by different actors, and allow for variations and adaptability to specific local deviations required. Whereas closed forms require a consistent unified approach.
The linear structure proposed for the urban university is also to be seen as both a strategy to liberate urban land through the exploitation of air space above roads and to create a coherence and connectivity to enhance the existing urban context. It is not a willful imposition on the city but an ally. On the contrary, the many small interventions currently the only form of intervention will actually compromise the civic urban values they seek to protect when applied universally.
In terms of the impact on the strategic allocation of land resources in Singapore, the linear concept has beneficial effects. When applied to other suitable air spaces above some of the highways in Singapore can have beneficial effects on the overall planning by relieving the stress on available land but also on local environmental quality. At these locations, there will be less exposure to adjacent road-induced noise, dust and pollution. Accessibility for developments at such locations will be enhanced.
As to the matter of precedence, this is a matter of unfamiliarity. In a democracy which strives towards increasing transparency and rationality in the conduct of human affairs, the logic of good-sense must finally prevail rather than the preference of influential individuals who may be well intentioned but ill-informed and therefore prejudiced.
