Thanks to the editors of Five Foot Way for featuring the Campaign to Save 23 Amber Road, the Butterfly House:
“Some members of the public are outraged that an iconic and landmark building has even been slated for redevelopment. Even the average Joe (or Beng) in the streets would agree, that the newly-proposed building clearly looks like an oddity slapped onto the site. It is certainly not aesthetically pleasing."
Saturday, 30 June 2007
Friday, 29 June 2007
Today: An Abode for the Soul
Buildings are more than just bricks and mortar
My tai tai life is so busy, but every time I drop by the Chinese Swimming Club for a swim, I still pause to gaze at the Butterfly House nearby. What started off as an admiring glance at the unique architecture has now turned into a homage tinged with mourning.
If nothing is done, this butterfly will soon have its wings clipped. Thanks to the controversy surrounding it, I now know about its pedigree.
Designed by Regent Alfred John Bidwell - the architect behind the Raffles Hotel, Goodwood Park Hotel and Victoria Memorial Hall - this is the only residential property in Singapore with curved wings.
Pretty impressive. But for me, at least, that pales in comparison to how the Butterfly House makes me feel. Its curves and impressive entrance take me back to a gentler age - a time when Singapore had a seaside community, when her people valued gracious living and pretty abodes over making money and en bloc sales.
Conservation campaigners have been told they are just being sentimental, and that it makes financial sense to demolish the place. But what these critics do not realise is a good building is more than just a parcel of land topped by a pile of bricks. It is art, designed to evoke emotions.
Good architecture speaks to the heart, not just the mind.
The Butterfly House may just be a simple bungalow, but from the uproar it has caused, it looks like some of us love it in the same way Parisians love the Eiffel Tower or New Yorkers the Empire State Building.
If anything, we are probably more passionate because there are so few of such heritage buildings left in Singapore. Go down any street corner in Paris or Rome and you will probably stumble upon more than a few charming places. But here, all we have to boast about are some shophouses and pre-war flats. Even buildings of obvious historical significance such as Alexandra Hospital are not considered heritage monuments, thus facing the threat of the wrecking ball.
Seafront bungalows have made way for walk-up apartments, which themselves have become victims of en-bloc sales. Hardly any building today is more than 20 years old - which is hardly long enough for us to build any emotional attachment to it.
It does not help that the attitude here towards conservation is quite lackadaisical. Owners do not like their buildings to be declared a heritage site because they think it would lower its value. They do not like that they cannot renovate the buildings their way, coupled with the
fact they cannot make a packet from condominium developers hungry for land.
Compare that to the practice in England, where owners apply for conservation status because they know they will be able to sell it off at a premium later to heritage lovers.
The other argument against conservation is Singapore is so small that every bit of land is precious. To which I say: Is that piece of land so valuable it's worth losing your soul over?
You never see tourists favouring a trip to admire HDB flats over St Andrew's Cathedral. Wedding shoots, for instance, are hardly done in Shenton Way, but instead at places such as Raffles Hotel, The Fullerton, the old Supreme Court and Chijmes. What is common is they are all situated on prime land, sensitively restored and testaments to the fact "where there's a will, there's a way".
The developers of the Butterfly House say they can only save the back of the building because the wings take up too much space. All it takes is a bit of imagination and smart architects who can look beyond the obvious.
Do not tell me that in our 42 years of independence and education, we have not been able to produce a local Bidwell?
I once asked the chief executive officer of a large property developer why her firm spent money restoring old bungalows in its condo developments, especially since those buildings did not have conservation status. She answered simply: "They add value to the property."
A wise move, indeed. See how the Grand Duchess sold out during the soft launch, aided no doubt by the two Straits Chinese bungalows on the property. The developers of the Butterfly House would do well to take note.
If they don't, they can count on me not buying a condominium unit in that new development. I cannot bear the thought of looking out of the window every day to see my poor amputated friend lying there with both its limbs chopped off.
Tabitha Wang will be appealing to the Ministry of National Development to save the Butterfly House before the July 7 deadline. Anyone wants to join her?
My tai tai life is so busy, but every time I drop by the Chinese Swimming Club for a swim, I still pause to gaze at the Butterfly House nearby. What started off as an admiring glance at the unique architecture has now turned into a homage tinged with mourning.
If nothing is done, this butterfly will soon have its wings clipped. Thanks to the controversy surrounding it, I now know about its pedigree.
Designed by Regent Alfred John Bidwell - the architect behind the Raffles Hotel, Goodwood Park Hotel and Victoria Memorial Hall - this is the only residential property in Singapore with curved wings.
Pretty impressive. But for me, at least, that pales in comparison to how the Butterfly House makes me feel. Its curves and impressive entrance take me back to a gentler age - a time when Singapore had a seaside community, when her people valued gracious living and pretty abodes over making money and en bloc sales.
Conservation campaigners have been told they are just being sentimental, and that it makes financial sense to demolish the place. But what these critics do not realise is a good building is more than just a parcel of land topped by a pile of bricks. It is art, designed to evoke emotions.
Good architecture speaks to the heart, not just the mind.
The Butterfly House may just be a simple bungalow, but from the uproar it has caused, it looks like some of us love it in the same way Parisians love the Eiffel Tower or New Yorkers the Empire State Building.
If anything, we are probably more passionate because there are so few of such heritage buildings left in Singapore. Go down any street corner in Paris or Rome and you will probably stumble upon more than a few charming places. But here, all we have to boast about are some shophouses and pre-war flats. Even buildings of obvious historical significance such as Alexandra Hospital are not considered heritage monuments, thus facing the threat of the wrecking ball.
Seafront bungalows have made way for walk-up apartments, which themselves have become victims of en-bloc sales. Hardly any building today is more than 20 years old - which is hardly long enough for us to build any emotional attachment to it.
It does not help that the attitude here towards conservation is quite lackadaisical. Owners do not like their buildings to be declared a heritage site because they think it would lower its value. They do not like that they cannot renovate the buildings their way, coupled with the
fact they cannot make a packet from condominium developers hungry for land.
Compare that to the practice in England, where owners apply for conservation status because they know they will be able to sell it off at a premium later to heritage lovers.
The other argument against conservation is Singapore is so small that every bit of land is precious. To which I say: Is that piece of land so valuable it's worth losing your soul over?
You never see tourists favouring a trip to admire HDB flats over St Andrew's Cathedral. Wedding shoots, for instance, are hardly done in Shenton Way, but instead at places such as Raffles Hotel, The Fullerton, the old Supreme Court and Chijmes. What is common is they are all situated on prime land, sensitively restored and testaments to the fact "where there's a will, there's a way".
The developers of the Butterfly House say they can only save the back of the building because the wings take up too much space. All it takes is a bit of imagination and smart architects who can look beyond the obvious.
Do not tell me that in our 42 years of independence and education, we have not been able to produce a local Bidwell?
I once asked the chief executive officer of a large property developer why her firm spent money restoring old bungalows in its condo developments, especially since those buildings did not have conservation status. She answered simply: "They add value to the property."
A wise move, indeed. See how the Grand Duchess sold out during the soft launch, aided no doubt by the two Straits Chinese bungalows on the property. The developers of the Butterfly House would do well to take note.
If they don't, they can count on me not buying a condominium unit in that new development. I cannot bear the thought of looking out of the window every day to see my poor amputated friend lying there with both its limbs chopped off.
Tabitha Wang will be appealing to the Ministry of National Development to save the Butterfly House before the July 7 deadline. Anyone wants to join her?
Straits Times: The Case for 23 Amber Road
Heritage conservation can make good economic sense
By Tan Kar Lin , Ho Weng Hin and Dinesh Naidu, For The Straits Times
HERITAGE conservation through 'adaptive reuse' of a historic building is a well-established architectural and development strategy. This involves upgrading services and facilities to fulfil current needs, structural consolidation to ensure building stability, as well as cleaning, repairs and restoration to original finishes. Attention is paid even to floor materials, interior decoration and furniture, to ensure the integrity of the building's heritage value.
In many cases, varying degrees of new architectural additions are introduced in the process, giving rise to a synthesis of old and new.
As a strategy that aims to meet competing needs - conservation, the market, and architectural aesthetics and function - an adaptive reuse proposal can be assessed in terms of its architectural merit, integrity of heritage value and commercial viability.
Architectural merit
ADAPTIVE reuse projects with new additions in contemporary materials such as glass and steel are architecturally successful when the juxtaposition is sensitive and well-considered - significantly, it communicates a meaningful dialogue between the historic 'old' and the 'new'.
A good example is the Central Fire Station at Hill Street.
Regrettably, the juxtaposition of 'old and new' in the 23 Amber Road proposal is incongruous. Not only is there a mismatch between scale and design, but also it is exacerbated by the proximity and immediacy of the disparity. Rather than engaging in dialogue, the two conflicting architecture styles appear grafted together in a Frankensteinian fashion. Instead of complementing each other, old and new are seriously compromised in a forced marriage of agendas as yet reconciled.
Heritage integrity
ONE of a small and diminishing number of stately historic family houses, 23 Amber Road exemplifies the sea-fronting residential architecture that evolved with the development of the Katong area in the early 20th century.
The charmingly laid-back yet cosmopolitan character of the eastern coastal enclave gave rise to a distinct ambience and a rich cultural heritage that is still palpable today.
In response to its coastal context, architect R.A.J. Bidwell, of the eminent local European firm Swan and Maclaren, designed the house with generous sea-facing verandas, extended along curved 'butterfly' wings to maximise both views and sea breeze circulation, creating an inimitable crescent-shape structure unlike any other along the seashore.
The house has two dissimilar fronts - one facing the main road, the other embracing the seafront in symmetrical crescent curves.
Although the shoreline has receded from the house with successive reclamation, the building remains key to the history of Katong, which is at risk of losing its characteristic appeal to an increasing number of indifferent new constructions.
In the proposal put up by the developer which bought the land, only the part facing the main road is to be retained. The signature crescent wings will be demolished, to be replaced by the new condominium.
Even though a portion of the building will be 'saved', by disregarding the critical historic significance of the building, the proposal debases the integrity of the heritage value of the house, and that of the Katong historic enclave.
Commercial viability
THE current proposal for 23 Amber Road is clearly tilted towards commercial concerns: It seeks to 'conserve' plans for the new condominium before making any accommodation for heritage purposes.
The initiative of Goodland Development is commendable, and the efforts of the URA to negotiate between various government departments for waivers and concessions are well appreciated. Still, it is apparent that these concessions are meant only to save, literally, the leftover remains of the house after ensuring the economic sanctity of the condominium development.
Even then, it is questionable if the effort will be worth it, for the unsatisfactory architectural solution has the effect of undermining the very act of heritage conservation it set out to achieve. The disembodied remains of the house would end up consuming valuable space without a corresponding payback in terms of heritage value and prestige to the new development.
Rather than a win-win solution, we could end up over-compromising all round in a lose-lose situation.
Rethinking priorities
THERE are many ways to approach adaptive reuse projects, but the common principle centres on the integrity of the historic building, which should form the basis of the design, regulatory, or commercial decision.
The best adaptive reuse projects are those that manage to strike a sensible and sensitive balance between the three factors of integrity of heritage value, commercial profitability and architectural merit, through considered commercial programming and innovative design, facilitated by sophisticated conservation policies and regulatory flexibility.
Most importantly, these are premised upon the care and priority placed on history and built heritage by all parties. As such, heritage conservation projects speak volumes about the importance that a society places on history, how it relates to its past, and where its values lie.
Not unlike the Cathay Building, 23 Amber Road suffers the unfortunate fate of belated conservation, after development plans have been set in motion. Given the limitations in such cases, we hope that solutions outside the proverbial box can be explored, especially by the URA, including floor area ratio substitution or even property swop.
Even if compromise is unavoidable, we hope it will be a meaningful and dignified one.
Rethinking architectural heritage
MUCH as original manuscripts and paintings are one-off and irreplaceable evidence of history, architecture constitutes an important material heritage. Most of the time, it is impossible to even reconstruct due to the loss of traditional craftsmanship and building materials that are no longer in production, such as the Malayan rubber tiles in the old Supreme Court.
The significance and communicative power that a tactile and spatial experience of a properly restored heritage structure provides cannot be substituted, whether by virtual simulation, paper documentation, commemorative plaques, or by saving totemic building parts.
To break out of the confusion that often confronts the pro-development state of conservation, it is necessary to challenge the notion that heritage conservation means stagnation and an obstacle to progress.
In many post-industrial economies, including the United States, Britain, Scandinavia and the European Union, heritage conservation has become a highly developed and progressive industry. It has spawned its own research and development fields, as well as exportable high- end technology and specialised services, playing an increasing role in the economy beyond tourism.
Heritage conservation projects are more labour-intensive compared to new constructions of similar finance. When heritage rehabilitation occupies a larger share of the construction industry, it generates proportionately more skilled and specialised employment.
Singapore is well past the phase of massive urban development that was necessary to address its housing shortage. There is no better time than now to actively address the shortfall in the state of heritage conservation. We should aim to move beyond totemic efforts that belie an uncompromising stance towards profit-making, at the expense of a healthy appreciation of our history.
The writers are with the Singapore Heritage Society.
By Tan Kar Lin , Ho Weng Hin and Dinesh Naidu, For The Straits Times
HERITAGE conservation through 'adaptive reuse' of a historic building is a well-established architectural and development strategy. This involves upgrading services and facilities to fulfil current needs, structural consolidation to ensure building stability, as well as cleaning, repairs and restoration to original finishes. Attention is paid even to floor materials, interior decoration and furniture, to ensure the integrity of the building's heritage value.
In many cases, varying degrees of new architectural additions are introduced in the process, giving rise to a synthesis of old and new.
As a strategy that aims to meet competing needs - conservation, the market, and architectural aesthetics and function - an adaptive reuse proposal can be assessed in terms of its architectural merit, integrity of heritage value and commercial viability.
Architectural merit
ADAPTIVE reuse projects with new additions in contemporary materials such as glass and steel are architecturally successful when the juxtaposition is sensitive and well-considered - significantly, it communicates a meaningful dialogue between the historic 'old' and the 'new'.
A good example is the Central Fire Station at Hill Street.
Regrettably, the juxtaposition of 'old and new' in the 23 Amber Road proposal is incongruous. Not only is there a mismatch between scale and design, but also it is exacerbated by the proximity and immediacy of the disparity. Rather than engaging in dialogue, the two conflicting architecture styles appear grafted together in a Frankensteinian fashion. Instead of complementing each other, old and new are seriously compromised in a forced marriage of agendas as yet reconciled.
Heritage integrity
ONE of a small and diminishing number of stately historic family houses, 23 Amber Road exemplifies the sea-fronting residential architecture that evolved with the development of the Katong area in the early 20th century.
The charmingly laid-back yet cosmopolitan character of the eastern coastal enclave gave rise to a distinct ambience and a rich cultural heritage that is still palpable today.
In response to its coastal context, architect R.A.J. Bidwell, of the eminent local European firm Swan and Maclaren, designed the house with generous sea-facing verandas, extended along curved 'butterfly' wings to maximise both views and sea breeze circulation, creating an inimitable crescent-shape structure unlike any other along the seashore.
The house has two dissimilar fronts - one facing the main road, the other embracing the seafront in symmetrical crescent curves.
Although the shoreline has receded from the house with successive reclamation, the building remains key to the history of Katong, which is at risk of losing its characteristic appeal to an increasing number of indifferent new constructions.
In the proposal put up by the developer which bought the land, only the part facing the main road is to be retained. The signature crescent wings will be demolished, to be replaced by the new condominium.
Even though a portion of the building will be 'saved', by disregarding the critical historic significance of the building, the proposal debases the integrity of the heritage value of the house, and that of the Katong historic enclave.
Commercial viability
THE current proposal for 23 Amber Road is clearly tilted towards commercial concerns: It seeks to 'conserve' plans for the new condominium before making any accommodation for heritage purposes.
The initiative of Goodland Development is commendable, and the efforts of the URA to negotiate between various government departments for waivers and concessions are well appreciated. Still, it is apparent that these concessions are meant only to save, literally, the leftover remains of the house after ensuring the economic sanctity of the condominium development.
Even then, it is questionable if the effort will be worth it, for the unsatisfactory architectural solution has the effect of undermining the very act of heritage conservation it set out to achieve. The disembodied remains of the house would end up consuming valuable space without a corresponding payback in terms of heritage value and prestige to the new development.
Rather than a win-win solution, we could end up over-compromising all round in a lose-lose situation.
Rethinking priorities
THERE are many ways to approach adaptive reuse projects, but the common principle centres on the integrity of the historic building, which should form the basis of the design, regulatory, or commercial decision.
The best adaptive reuse projects are those that manage to strike a sensible and sensitive balance between the three factors of integrity of heritage value, commercial profitability and architectural merit, through considered commercial programming and innovative design, facilitated by sophisticated conservation policies and regulatory flexibility.
Most importantly, these are premised upon the care and priority placed on history and built heritage by all parties. As such, heritage conservation projects speak volumes about the importance that a society places on history, how it relates to its past, and where its values lie.
Not unlike the Cathay Building, 23 Amber Road suffers the unfortunate fate of belated conservation, after development plans have been set in motion. Given the limitations in such cases, we hope that solutions outside the proverbial box can be explored, especially by the URA, including floor area ratio substitution or even property swop.
Even if compromise is unavoidable, we hope it will be a meaningful and dignified one.
Rethinking architectural heritage
MUCH as original manuscripts and paintings are one-off and irreplaceable evidence of history, architecture constitutes an important material heritage. Most of the time, it is impossible to even reconstruct due to the loss of traditional craftsmanship and building materials that are no longer in production, such as the Malayan rubber tiles in the old Supreme Court.
The significance and communicative power that a tactile and spatial experience of a properly restored heritage structure provides cannot be substituted, whether by virtual simulation, paper documentation, commemorative plaques, or by saving totemic building parts.
To break out of the confusion that often confronts the pro-development state of conservation, it is necessary to challenge the notion that heritage conservation means stagnation and an obstacle to progress.
In many post-industrial economies, including the United States, Britain, Scandinavia and the European Union, heritage conservation has become a highly developed and progressive industry. It has spawned its own research and development fields, as well as exportable high- end technology and specialised services, playing an increasing role in the economy beyond tourism.
Heritage conservation projects are more labour-intensive compared to new constructions of similar finance. When heritage rehabilitation occupies a larger share of the construction industry, it generates proportionately more skilled and specialised employment.
Singapore is well past the phase of massive urban development that was necessary to address its housing shortage. There is no better time than now to actively address the shortfall in the state of heritage conservation. We should aim to move beyond totemic efforts that belie an uncompromising stance towards profit-making, at the expense of a healthy appreciation of our history.
The writers are with the Singapore Heritage Society.
Thursday, 28 June 2007
Five Foot Way: A Butterfly Without Wings
Thanks to the editors of Five Foot Way for featuring the Campaign to Save 23 Amber Road, the Butterfly House:
“Take another good look at the new proposal, and then glance back at the 23 Amber Road; and ask yourself if you’d really prefer to show your kids a 32 storey condominium, (with a stump of a colonial building at its base) instead of the last surviving piece of residential Butterfly Style architecture in Singapore."
“Take another good look at the new proposal, and then glance back at the 23 Amber Road; and ask yourself if you’d really prefer to show your kids a 32 storey condominium, (with a stump of a colonial building at its base) instead of the last surviving piece of residential Butterfly Style architecture in Singapore."
Monday, 25 June 2007
早报: 建筑保留课题历久弥新
保留旧建筑等于保留集体记忆，这已是新加坡人的共识。市区重建局1989年开始推行有关计划，至今已保留了超过6500座建筑，可说成绩斐然。
但是，属于市建局1967年首批发售、加冷公园地段的水上餐厅——海京楼突然被征用的消息，却让一些公众认为，它是新加坡著名地标之一，走进历史未免可惜。
《早报星期天》昨日的一篇特写《留住老屋 留住记忆》，争议的焦点是加东安柏路一栋有95年历史的老洋房。老房子被业主卖给发展商，准备兴建高楼公寓，引起60名热心人发动称为“历史建筑拯救计划”的一项保屋运动。
再往上推，史丹福路国家图书馆的红砖建筑，大坡牛车水区的旧同济医院，福康宁山麓的国家剧场，都在不同时期引起公众的议论，甚至发起情绪激昂的挽留运动。这让我们意识到，保留旧建筑的课题永远不会过时，历久弥新。
为什么会有这些争议？6500多座建筑得以保留，还不够吗？人们到底争议些什么？
集体记忆是个牵涉层面很广的复杂课题，不同的建筑，对不同的社会群体，意含也是不一样的。然而，要是沿着民众的“声音来源”作一探索，再对照资产转手的决策过程，归纳起来，矛盾其实不光出在经济发展与感情记忆的简单对立。“话语权”的因素，也应该是其中之一。
安柏路老房子为什么没法保留？市建局说，研究的结果是“最后因考虑到洋房的地段太狭窄，若强制保留洋房，将意味着发展商根本无法在这个地段兴建任何建筑”。
海京楼为什么看来也无法保留？社会发展、青年及体育部发出的信息是：海京楼是否拆除，取决于同体育城有25年合约的财团，因此“如果中选的财团决定不保留海京楼，（当局）希望新加坡人能够理解。”
具有讽刺意味的是，21年前，海京楼曾面对过一次拆除的命运，只是因为有关方面对兴建水上运动设施的条件谈不拢，此楼因此得以“保留”。据记者的了解，两次的何去何从，海京楼的业主都“蒙在鼓里”，差别只是在于有没有听到“突然征用”的消息罢了。
换句话说，人们要求保留某项建筑，固然是有许多个别的感情因素，比如海京楼提供的番薯粥和台湾小吃、史丹福路图书馆曾是年轻人安乐窝等等；但大家共同体验的，则是一种对记忆的“保留”所面对的无力感。
发展自然是硬道理，根据经济原则，政府和发展商的确可以提出建筑物或某些建筑必须拆除的充分理由。与之相比，民众的声音是薄弱的，“理由”可能亦不够充分。但是在拆与留之间，在6500多座建筑的具体成绩之外，有关当局或许也可以从一些软性的层面，多开一扇听取与兼纳民意之门。
因为民众会根据一些“拆除－发展”的旧例，评估当时拆除的理由：比如质疑国家剧场留下的平地，有些什么经济意义。我们也看到，旧同济医院曾有一位业主，花了数百万元装修旧楼，准备经营餐饮业，但在得知这栋房子的历史与华人祖辈的奋斗不可分割后，毅然退出。
再如前南洋大学的牌坊，虽因大学的重建而失去了原有功能，但它的拆除，却找不到承包商来承担。云南园内的小型复制品，也引来“真假西天”的感慨。
诚然，建筑保留的课题，反映的是许多“人同此心”的民情，普世的价值观。
但是，属于市建局1967年首批发售、加冷公园地段的水上餐厅——海京楼突然被征用的消息，却让一些公众认为，它是新加坡著名地标之一，走进历史未免可惜。
《早报星期天》昨日的一篇特写《留住老屋 留住记忆》，争议的焦点是加东安柏路一栋有95年历史的老洋房。老房子被业主卖给发展商，准备兴建高楼公寓，引起60名热心人发动称为“历史建筑拯救计划”的一项保屋运动。
再往上推，史丹福路国家图书馆的红砖建筑，大坡牛车水区的旧同济医院，福康宁山麓的国家剧场，都在不同时期引起公众的议论，甚至发起情绪激昂的挽留运动。这让我们意识到，保留旧建筑的课题永远不会过时，历久弥新。
为什么会有这些争议？6500多座建筑得以保留，还不够吗？人们到底争议些什么？
集体记忆是个牵涉层面很广的复杂课题，不同的建筑，对不同的社会群体，意含也是不一样的。然而，要是沿着民众的“声音来源”作一探索，再对照资产转手的决策过程，归纳起来，矛盾其实不光出在经济发展与感情记忆的简单对立。“话语权”的因素，也应该是其中之一。
安柏路老房子为什么没法保留？市建局说，研究的结果是“最后因考虑到洋房的地段太狭窄，若强制保留洋房，将意味着发展商根本无法在这个地段兴建任何建筑”。
海京楼为什么看来也无法保留？社会发展、青年及体育部发出的信息是：海京楼是否拆除，取决于同体育城有25年合约的财团，因此“如果中选的财团决定不保留海京楼，（当局）希望新加坡人能够理解。”
具有讽刺意味的是，21年前，海京楼曾面对过一次拆除的命运，只是因为有关方面对兴建水上运动设施的条件谈不拢，此楼因此得以“保留”。据记者的了解，两次的何去何从，海京楼的业主都“蒙在鼓里”，差别只是在于有没有听到“突然征用”的消息罢了。
换句话说，人们要求保留某项建筑，固然是有许多个别的感情因素，比如海京楼提供的番薯粥和台湾小吃、史丹福路图书馆曾是年轻人安乐窝等等；但大家共同体验的，则是一种对记忆的“保留”所面对的无力感。
发展自然是硬道理，根据经济原则，政府和发展商的确可以提出建筑物或某些建筑必须拆除的充分理由。与之相比，民众的声音是薄弱的，“理由”可能亦不够充分。但是在拆与留之间，在6500多座建筑的具体成绩之外，有关当局或许也可以从一些软性的层面，多开一扇听取与兼纳民意之门。
因为民众会根据一些“拆除－发展”的旧例，评估当时拆除的理由：比如质疑国家剧场留下的平地，有些什么经济意义。我们也看到，旧同济医院曾有一位业主，花了数百万元装修旧楼，准备经营餐饮业，但在得知这栋房子的历史与华人祖辈的奋斗不可分割后，毅然退出。
再如前南洋大学的牌坊，虽因大学的重建而失去了原有功能，但它的拆除，却找不到承包商来承担。云南园内的小型复制品，也引来“真假西天”的感慨。
诚然，建筑保留的课题，反映的是许多“人同此心”的民情，普世的价值观。
Sunday, 24 June 2007
HARP: Historic Architecture Rescue Plan
Welcome and a big THANK YOU for your interest in HARP, the Historic Architecture Rescue Plan.
The very fact that you’re taking time to read this little document shows that you are somewhat interested or at least intrigued by our aims and what we hope to accomplish with your help and support.
What is HARP?
The Historic Architecture Rescue Plan is an interest group which was formed after the sudden and unnecessary demolition of a 1930s Art-deco building at Allenby Road which formerly housed the film archives of a local film maker.
HARP members are known as Rescuers and all Rescuers believe there is a need to create an increased awareness of noteworthy buildings which may be in danger of demolition and deserve conservation.
How do I join HARP?
To sign up, send an email to harp_rescue@yahoo.com
What does HARP aim to achieve?
HARP’s long term goal is to foster an environment where owners of heritage properties are aware of the social responsibility they shoulder as proprietors of such unique properties and will voluntarily come forward to offer to put their buildings on the URA’s conservation list. Through the collective effort of HARP Rescuers, HARP hopes to persuade owners of old buildings that conservation should not be viewed as a hindrance but as a way to build and design creatively.
Isn’t this what the URA is doing?
The URA has done well in managing to gazette more than 6000 individual properties as heritage properties but many more buildings which possess significant historical / architectural merit continue to be in danger of demolition due to soaring land prices.
Surprisingly not all properties inside “historic districts” such as Geylang, Katong or Jalan Besar are protected from demolition. Because the URA believes in striking a balance between sentiment and financial prudence, it does not require everything within a historic enclave to be preserved. Most conserved properties are those which line the main roads while buildings in the inner areas are often not conferred conservation status.
Click on the links below to see the areas which are conserved and those which have been left out.
www.ura.gov.sg/conservation/balestier.htm
www.ura.gov.sg/conservation/gey.htm
More examples may be found at www.ura.gov.sg
Click on “Conservation of built heritage” at the bottom left and further click “Areas and Maps”
Is HARP just living in the past and being unrealistic?
Singapore’s stock of colonial era buildings is finite and dwindling. By this we do not just mean shophouses but rather a whole gamut of buildings ranging from hospitals, factories, schools, warehouses, fire stations and even humble residential house (like the traditional Malay house on stilts that can still be found in the Joo Chiat area). These all have great historic and social significance and are just as part of the “Singapore Story” as the Padang or Fullerton Building.
Isn’t it also interesting to observe that newly industrialising states like China are feverishly building faux-Baroque towns or rebuilding exact replicas of former colonial era buildings in Shanghai while owners in Singapore are razing their old properties? Why is Singapore throwing her away treasured heirlooms?
HARP will complement the work of the URA
In 2002, a special study was undertaken by a group of eminent people in Singapore and recommended several actions to be taken to preserve the old world charm of certain areas in Singapore. In this report, numerous buildings were listed as possible candidates for conservation given their special roles in their respective neighbourhoods. However, being listed in this study report does not necessarily guarantee conservation as clearly seen in the sad episode of the former movie archive at 3 Allenby Road.
The report may be viewed at
www.ura.gov.sg/pwbid/documents/owcmerge.pdf (refer to page 15)
The URA may only recommend areas or specific properties be conserved but the final decision will lie with the property’s owner.
It is now time for conservation work to move up a few notches in Singapore to commensurate with our status as a First World Nation. Property owners should realise that as proprietors of notable heritage properties, they too have an added social responsibility of keeping them for further generations. Conservation should not be viewed as a hindrance but as a way to build and design creatively as seen in many URA conservation award winners. Let owners of non-gazetted “heritage properties” come forward and offer their properties for conservation and fulfil their duty of helping forge a national identity.
Why does HARP think it’s so important to save old buildings?
Old buildings are Singapore’s most visible claim of being a cultural melting pot of East and West since the day it was founded. Building styles in the past may have been predominantly European oriented but these have been designed and executed by Singaporeans and hence represent the sweat, genius and industry of our forefathers. We need to ask ourselves if we would ever refuse an inheritance.
Not only does the razing of buildings and the subsequent environmental damages involve a terrible waste of resources, more importantly, it contributes to a sense of impermanence and unrootedness in Singapore.
Singularly old buildings may not have much value but their social value is priceless. Old buildings are store houses of social memory and integral blocks of national identity. Dare anyone say that our national identity can be less valuable than $800 psf?
What tangible benefits are there when we support HARP’s ideals?
Old buildings and other heritage properties of architectural and historical merit collectively form the genius loci (spirit) of an area and it requires a collective effort to maintain the old world charm of a district. What claim does Katong have as the place where Peranankans built their Edwardian Baroque villas if Mountbatten Road was lined with modern steel and glass houses? Would you find pleasure in visiting Joo Chiat when it looked like any modern housing estate?
Using Serangoon Gadrens as an more tangible example, wouldn’t it be great if certain streets of single storey terraced or semi-detached houses could remain as they are without having their twin demolished and replaced with a modern 3 storey structure which dwarfs the entire neighbourhood and sticks out like a sore thumb? What old world charm is left to speak of ?
What can I do to help?
1. HARP encourages you to contact us by sending us an email to express your desire to be a Rescuer
Every Rescuer is a valued member of HARP and you will be our eyes, mouth and ears. If you see any noteworthy building which you think may be in danger of demolition but deserves some notice, write to your local MP, the National Monuments Board, and the URA or to the newspapers to tell them about what you think this building is special. Do also send your photos to our mailing list so that you may share your findings with fellow Rescuers!
2. Volunteer to put your heritage property on the conservation list
If you own property which was built before 1965 or which has some noteworthy aspects which deserve preservation, why not tell the URA you wish to up the property up for conservation status? If you know someone who has a heritage property outside a gazetted conservation area, you may also try to explain the importance of conservation as listed in this FAQ.
3. Tell local legislators some suggestions that HARP has formulated
The government can extend huge tax concessions for MNCs to set up shop here. It must therefore be possible to offer some tax incentives for individuals and firms who conserve their properties. Such a scheme would not be too different from the existing National Heritage Board scheme of offering donors a tax rebate of twice the amount donated.
We ask that all HARP Rescuers write to their MPs, the National Monuments Board and the URA to tell them that you of your desire to see the above mentioned tax benefits extended to building conservation.
4. Share your admiration and love for old buildings
Every one of us must have a favourite old building which we see every now and then. Why not tell the owner of the house that you admire his property? Everyone likes to be complimented so go tell people you like their homes. It’s exactly like telling your friend that you like his new painting or her new piece of jewellery. HARP believes that if property owners are aware that so many people actually are so fond of his home, he may think twice about pulling it down and replacing it with a cookie cutter modern house.
The HARP list of endangered buildings and structures
(list is not exhaustive)
1. Old KK hospital
2. Field House (25 Gilstead Rd ; home of Leslie Charteris, author of cult TV series “The Saint”)
3. Alexandra hospital
4. Old Yan Kit swimming pool behind Tanjong Pagar Market
5. Old single gate post along Stevens Rd (at the start of White House Rd)
6. Horseshoe shaped seaside villa of the Cashin family at 23 Amber Rd
7. Singapore Aerated Water Co factory along Serangoon Rd
8. Old central police station (beside Peoples Park)
9. The White House (beside former Traffic Police HQ at Maxwell Road)
10. Former NAFA campus on Mount Sophia
11. Georgian style house at Eng Hoon St (Tiong Bahru)
12. Old fire station at the Upper Bukit Timah Rd (near the former Ford Factory)
13. Ellison Building at the junction of Selegie and Mackenzie Rd (the only shophouse with twin domes; used by the governor to watch the races at the old race track at Race Course Rd.)
14. Atbara (Former French embassy at Gallop Rd)
But I don’t even know my cornices from my Corinthian columns. What help can I be?
Not all our members are architects. HARP’s founding members include homemakers and students who have no knowledge of architectural terms but share the same passion of admiring works of art done in concrete, plaster and brick and the fiery determination to save them from demolition.
By joining HARP, you are sending out a clear, loud and firm message that buildings of architectural merit should and MUST not be wantonly razed.
Suggested list of references
Websites
www.lookingatbuildings.org.uk
www.greatbuildings.com
www.ura.gov.sg (click on “conservation of built heritage” )
Books
In Granite and Chunam by Gretchen Liu (Landmark Books)
Black and White by Julian Davison (Talisman Publishing)
The Singapore house and residential life 1819-1939 by Norman Edwards (Oxford University Press)
The Singapore House 1819-1942 by Lee Kip Lin (Times Publishing)
DVD
“Site and sound” by Julian Davison (originally telecast on Arts Central but now sold in Borders)
Official website with trailers and write ups: www.siteandsound.tv
One final reason you should join HARP
We already are unable to show our children and grandchildren the red brick stairs old national library which stood as silent witness to countless first dates. How many of us have gone back to the house we were born only to find that it has been redeveloped into a row of non-descript modern terrace houses? Wouldn’t it be nice for post 1960ers to be able to show their children how the Singapore of their youth was, without having to go to specific conservation areas only? Don’t you think that is a going to feel very contrived?
HARP’s role in conservation in Singapore was featured in the TODAY newspaper on 11 Nov 2006
What are you waiting for? Be a HARP Rescuer today!
Everyone can play a part in widening the net of conservation in Singapore. It has been done well till now but let’s help make it better!
To sign up, send an email to harp_rescue@yahoo.com
The very fact that you’re taking time to read this little document shows that you are somewhat interested or at least intrigued by our aims and what we hope to accomplish with your help and support.
What is HARP?
The Historic Architecture Rescue Plan is an interest group which was formed after the sudden and unnecessary demolition of a 1930s Art-deco building at Allenby Road which formerly housed the film archives of a local film maker.
HARP members are known as Rescuers and all Rescuers believe there is a need to create an increased awareness of noteworthy buildings which may be in danger of demolition and deserve conservation.
How do I join HARP?
To sign up, send an email to harp_rescue@yahoo.com
What does HARP aim to achieve?
HARP’s long term goal is to foster an environment where owners of heritage properties are aware of the social responsibility they shoulder as proprietors of such unique properties and will voluntarily come forward to offer to put their buildings on the URA’s conservation list. Through the collective effort of HARP Rescuers, HARP hopes to persuade owners of old buildings that conservation should not be viewed as a hindrance but as a way to build and design creatively.
Isn’t this what the URA is doing?
The URA has done well in managing to gazette more than 6000 individual properties as heritage properties but many more buildings which possess significant historical / architectural merit continue to be in danger of demolition due to soaring land prices.
Surprisingly not all properties inside “historic districts” such as Geylang, Katong or Jalan Besar are protected from demolition. Because the URA believes in striking a balance between sentiment and financial prudence, it does not require everything within a historic enclave to be preserved. Most conserved properties are those which line the main roads while buildings in the inner areas are often not conferred conservation status.
Click on the links below to see the areas which are conserved and those which have been left out.
www.ura.gov.sg/conservation/balestier.htm
www.ura.gov.sg/conservation/gey.htm
More examples may be found at www.ura.gov.sg
Click on “Conservation of built heritage” at the bottom left and further click “Areas and Maps”
Is HARP just living in the past and being unrealistic?
Singapore’s stock of colonial era buildings is finite and dwindling. By this we do not just mean shophouses but rather a whole gamut of buildings ranging from hospitals, factories, schools, warehouses, fire stations and even humble residential house (like the traditional Malay house on stilts that can still be found in the Joo Chiat area). These all have great historic and social significance and are just as part of the “Singapore Story” as the Padang or Fullerton Building.
Isn’t it also interesting to observe that newly industrialising states like China are feverishly building faux-Baroque towns or rebuilding exact replicas of former colonial era buildings in Shanghai while owners in Singapore are razing their old properties? Why is Singapore throwing her away treasured heirlooms?
HARP will complement the work of the URA
In 2002, a special study was undertaken by a group of eminent people in Singapore and recommended several actions to be taken to preserve the old world charm of certain areas in Singapore. In this report, numerous buildings were listed as possible candidates for conservation given their special roles in their respective neighbourhoods. However, being listed in this study report does not necessarily guarantee conservation as clearly seen in the sad episode of the former movie archive at 3 Allenby Road.
The report may be viewed at
www.ura.gov.sg/pwbid/documents/owcmerge.pdf (refer to page 15)
The URA may only recommend areas or specific properties be conserved but the final decision will lie with the property’s owner.
It is now time for conservation work to move up a few notches in Singapore to commensurate with our status as a First World Nation. Property owners should realise that as proprietors of notable heritage properties, they too have an added social responsibility of keeping them for further generations. Conservation should not be viewed as a hindrance but as a way to build and design creatively as seen in many URA conservation award winners. Let owners of non-gazetted “heritage properties” come forward and offer their properties for conservation and fulfil their duty of helping forge a national identity.
Why does HARP think it’s so important to save old buildings?
Old buildings are Singapore’s most visible claim of being a cultural melting pot of East and West since the day it was founded. Building styles in the past may have been predominantly European oriented but these have been designed and executed by Singaporeans and hence represent the sweat, genius and industry of our forefathers. We need to ask ourselves if we would ever refuse an inheritance.
Not only does the razing of buildings and the subsequent environmental damages involve a terrible waste of resources, more importantly, it contributes to a sense of impermanence and unrootedness in Singapore.
Singularly old buildings may not have much value but their social value is priceless. Old buildings are store houses of social memory and integral blocks of national identity. Dare anyone say that our national identity can be less valuable than $800 psf?
What tangible benefits are there when we support HARP’s ideals?
Old buildings and other heritage properties of architectural and historical merit collectively form the genius loci (spirit) of an area and it requires a collective effort to maintain the old world charm of a district. What claim does Katong have as the place where Peranankans built their Edwardian Baroque villas if Mountbatten Road was lined with modern steel and glass houses? Would you find pleasure in visiting Joo Chiat when it looked like any modern housing estate?
Using Serangoon Gadrens as an more tangible example, wouldn’t it be great if certain streets of single storey terraced or semi-detached houses could remain as they are without having their twin demolished and replaced with a modern 3 storey structure which dwarfs the entire neighbourhood and sticks out like a sore thumb? What old world charm is left to speak of ?
What can I do to help?
1. HARP encourages you to contact us by sending us an email to express your desire to be a Rescuer
Every Rescuer is a valued member of HARP and you will be our eyes, mouth and ears. If you see any noteworthy building which you think may be in danger of demolition but deserves some notice, write to your local MP, the National Monuments Board, and the URA or to the newspapers to tell them about what you think this building is special. Do also send your photos to our mailing list so that you may share your findings with fellow Rescuers!
2. Volunteer to put your heritage property on the conservation list
If you own property which was built before 1965 or which has some noteworthy aspects which deserve preservation, why not tell the URA you wish to up the property up for conservation status? If you know someone who has a heritage property outside a gazetted conservation area, you may also try to explain the importance of conservation as listed in this FAQ.
3. Tell local legislators some suggestions that HARP has formulated
The government can extend huge tax concessions for MNCs to set up shop here. It must therefore be possible to offer some tax incentives for individuals and firms who conserve their properties. Such a scheme would not be too different from the existing National Heritage Board scheme of offering donors a tax rebate of twice the amount donated.
We ask that all HARP Rescuers write to their MPs, the National Monuments Board and the URA to tell them that you of your desire to see the above mentioned tax benefits extended to building conservation.
4. Share your admiration and love for old buildings
Every one of us must have a favourite old building which we see every now and then. Why not tell the owner of the house that you admire his property? Everyone likes to be complimented so go tell people you like their homes. It’s exactly like telling your friend that you like his new painting or her new piece of jewellery. HARP believes that if property owners are aware that so many people actually are so fond of his home, he may think twice about pulling it down and replacing it with a cookie cutter modern house.
The HARP list of endangered buildings and structures
(list is not exhaustive)
1. Old KK hospital
2. Field House (25 Gilstead Rd ; home of Leslie Charteris, author of cult TV series “The Saint”)
3. Alexandra hospital
4. Old Yan Kit swimming pool behind Tanjong Pagar Market
5. Old single gate post along Stevens Rd (at the start of White House Rd)
6. Horseshoe shaped seaside villa of the Cashin family at 23 Amber Rd
7. Singapore Aerated Water Co factory along Serangoon Rd
8. Old central police station (beside Peoples Park)
9. The White House (beside former Traffic Police HQ at Maxwell Road)
10. Former NAFA campus on Mount Sophia
11. Georgian style house at Eng Hoon St (Tiong Bahru)
12. Old fire station at the Upper Bukit Timah Rd (near the former Ford Factory)
13. Ellison Building at the junction of Selegie and Mackenzie Rd (the only shophouse with twin domes; used by the governor to watch the races at the old race track at Race Course Rd.)
14. Atbara (Former French embassy at Gallop Rd)
But I don’t even know my cornices from my Corinthian columns. What help can I be?
Not all our members are architects. HARP’s founding members include homemakers and students who have no knowledge of architectural terms but share the same passion of admiring works of art done in concrete, plaster and brick and the fiery determination to save them from demolition.
By joining HARP, you are sending out a clear, loud and firm message that buildings of architectural merit should and MUST not be wantonly razed.
Suggested list of references
Websites
www.lookingatbuildings.org.uk
www.greatbuildings.com
www.ura.gov.sg (click on “conservation of built heritage” )
Books
In Granite and Chunam by Gretchen Liu (Landmark Books)
Black and White by Julian Davison (Talisman Publishing)
The Singapore house and residential life 1819-1939 by Norman Edwards (Oxford University Press)
The Singapore House 1819-1942 by Lee Kip Lin (Times Publishing)
DVD
“Site and sound” by Julian Davison (originally telecast on Arts Central but now sold in Borders)
Official website with trailers and write ups: www.siteandsound.tv
One final reason you should join HARP
We already are unable to show our children and grandchildren the red brick stairs old national library which stood as silent witness to countless first dates. How many of us have gone back to the house we were born only to find that it has been redeveloped into a row of non-descript modern terrace houses? Wouldn’t it be nice for post 1960ers to be able to show their children how the Singapore of their youth was, without having to go to specific conservation areas only? Don’t you think that is a going to feel very contrived?
HARP’s role in conservation in Singapore was featured in the TODAY newspaper on 11 Nov 2006
What are you waiting for? Be a HARP Rescuer today!
Everyone can play a part in widening the net of conservation in Singapore. It has been done well till now but let’s help make it better!
To sign up, send an email to harp_rescue@yahoo.com
Straits Times: Frankenstein buildings?
Some experts think the 'hybrid' condo idea to replace unique Katong bungalow does not work
By Melissa Sim
ONE half colonial bungalow, and one half glass and steel skyscraper, the proposed condominium at 23 Amber Road has some people calling it a 'Frankenstein building'.
The crescent-shaped half of the stately 95-year-old Neo-Renaissance-style bungalow on the site will be hacked away to make space for a modern 18-storey condominium.
The plan was announced last week, after the Historic Architecture Rescue Plan (Harp) group lobbied to save the whole house.
Similar patched-up conservation works are common in the face of rapid redevelopment here, such as Gambier Court in Kim Yam Road and the commercial building The Cathay.
Some work. Others, not so much, said architects interviewed.
To successfully integrate old buildings with new developments, several considerations must be made: first, conservation of the old, and second, relating new designs to the old.
Singapore Institute of Architects president Tai Lee Siang said: 'It is important to understand the principle of scale and proportion between the old and new so that they can forge a strong relationship.'
The Amber Road plan fails on all counts, say experts.
First, its design is slated for a very tight space - just 11,786 sq ft - which will make the new building look as though it is stuck onto the old.
Mr Tai said: 'I can't see a direct relationship between the old and new buildings and because of the tight site, I can't say it looks comfortable.'
Secondly, not only will half of the building be demolished, experts say it's the wrong half.
Singapore Heritage Society president Kevin Tan said: 'The crescent part used to be the front of the house, facing the sea. If you cut that off, it's like slicing off the face and keeping the backside.'
One building which has already suffered a similar fate is The Cathay. There, Mr Tan feels, the 'transition' between the old facade and the new glass buildings at the back 'is too stark'.
But the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) feels that the plan for Amber Road is a 'great solution', adding that keeping the building's crescent section would be difficult because it sits in the middle.
Mr Tan Chee Beng, one of the directors of developer AG Capital, thinks it has done all it can.
In fact, the site was due for development, with 'no conservation at all', he said.
'But as good citizens, we were willing to explore various options with URA.'
Still, some say more can be done. Singapore Heritage Society's Mr Tan suggests constructing the new building on pillars so apartments start higher up - a method that saved the Tan Chin Tuan house in Cairnhill.
The house, which belongs to the family of philanthropist banker Tan Chin Tuan, now sits below a new 20-storey condominium, Tan Chin Tuan Mansion.
The head of Harp, Mr Terrence Hong, 26, said: 'In 10 years, if you want to dismantle the building above the house, it can still be done and the house will be intact.
'At Amber Road, it will be irreversible.'
But successful hybrids do exist, such as residential properties Sandalwood in Tembeling Road, Grand Duchess in St Patrick's Road and Gambier Court.
Gambier Court's 'cross' motif on the old terrace houses were repeated on the balconies of the 10-storey condominium.
Mr James Toh, group managing director of the ACT Group of Companies Singapore, which developed Gambier Court, said materials for the new building were inspired by the originals.
Mr Tan from the Heritage Society said: 'It doesn't jar and it works seamlessly.'
Unfortunately, such sensitivities seem lacking at The Cathay and the proposed Amber Road condominium, said experts interviewed.
The public has till July 7 to send their feedback on the proposed plan for 23 Amber Road to the Ministry of National Development.
By Melissa Sim
ONE half colonial bungalow, and one half glass and steel skyscraper, the proposed condominium at 23 Amber Road has some people calling it a 'Frankenstein building'.
The crescent-shaped half of the stately 95-year-old Neo-Renaissance-style bungalow on the site will be hacked away to make space for a modern 18-storey condominium.
The plan was announced last week, after the Historic Architecture Rescue Plan (Harp) group lobbied to save the whole house.
Similar patched-up conservation works are common in the face of rapid redevelopment here, such as Gambier Court in Kim Yam Road and the commercial building The Cathay.
Some work. Others, not so much, said architects interviewed.
To successfully integrate old buildings with new developments, several considerations must be made: first, conservation of the old, and second, relating new designs to the old.
Singapore Institute of Architects president Tai Lee Siang said: 'It is important to understand the principle of scale and proportion between the old and new so that they can forge a strong relationship.'
The Amber Road plan fails on all counts, say experts.
First, its design is slated for a very tight space - just 11,786 sq ft - which will make the new building look as though it is stuck onto the old.
Mr Tai said: 'I can't see a direct relationship between the old and new buildings and because of the tight site, I can't say it looks comfortable.'
Secondly, not only will half of the building be demolished, experts say it's the wrong half.
Singapore Heritage Society president Kevin Tan said: 'The crescent part used to be the front of the house, facing the sea. If you cut that off, it's like slicing off the face and keeping the backside.'
One building which has already suffered a similar fate is The Cathay. There, Mr Tan feels, the 'transition' between the old facade and the new glass buildings at the back 'is too stark'.
But the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) feels that the plan for Amber Road is a 'great solution', adding that keeping the building's crescent section would be difficult because it sits in the middle.
Mr Tan Chee Beng, one of the directors of developer AG Capital, thinks it has done all it can.
In fact, the site was due for development, with 'no conservation at all', he said.
'But as good citizens, we were willing to explore various options with URA.'
Still, some say more can be done. Singapore Heritage Society's Mr Tan suggests constructing the new building on pillars so apartments start higher up - a method that saved the Tan Chin Tuan house in Cairnhill.
The house, which belongs to the family of philanthropist banker Tan Chin Tuan, now sits below a new 20-storey condominium, Tan Chin Tuan Mansion.
The head of Harp, Mr Terrence Hong, 26, said: 'In 10 years, if you want to dismantle the building above the house, it can still be done and the house will be intact.
'At Amber Road, it will be irreversible.'
But successful hybrids do exist, such as residential properties Sandalwood in Tembeling Road, Grand Duchess in St Patrick's Road and Gambier Court.
Gambier Court's 'cross' motif on the old terrace houses were repeated on the balconies of the 10-storey condominium.
Mr James Toh, group managing director of the ACT Group of Companies Singapore, which developed Gambier Court, said materials for the new building were inspired by the originals.
Mr Tan from the Heritage Society said: 'It doesn't jar and it works seamlessly.'
Unfortunately, such sensitivities seem lacking at The Cathay and the proposed Amber Road condominium, said experts interviewed.
The public has till July 7 to send their feedback on the proposed plan for 23 Amber Road to the Ministry of National Development.
Thursday, 21 June 2007
Today: A Home for Our Heritage
Important historical value in preserving old buildings
Letter from Ken Lee
Thank you for your report, "Butterfly House escapes wrecker's ball" (June 19). To me, this is an important issue concerning the way Singaporeans think about our material history. This issue is not something that merely concerns "architecture buffs"; it should worry all Singaporeans.
There is important historical value in this house not only because of its designer, age or even its unique architecture. For many residents of Katong like myself, it has gained a life of its own.
During my childhood, my brother and I saw it as an abandoned, haunted house. In my teenage years, I found out that a good friend of my grandparents grew up in the house during the 1930s. This gentleman, Mr Lee Kip Lee, set much of his memoirs - a published book titled Amber
Sands - in the house. As I read the book, it opened my eyes to the important human value embodied by this structure.
Recently, I have begun to see the Butterfly House as a reminder of a Katong gradually lost to high-rise developments. Today, it is a grand old dame ageing with quiet dignity.
To lose the house would be akin to losing an actual human being. Looking at the artist's impression of the projected development soon to rise up around it, I cannot help but agree with the Historic Architecture Rescue Plan's (Harp) view that we need to protect distinctive buildings vital to our heritage.
When will our current craze for integrating the old and the new in such a draconian, absurd fashion end? When will we, as a country, without the help of groups such as Harp, realise the need to preserve the very tangible structures that remind us of our past?
Letter from Ken Lee
Thank you for your report, "Butterfly House escapes wrecker's ball" (June 19). To me, this is an important issue concerning the way Singaporeans think about our material history. This issue is not something that merely concerns "architecture buffs"; it should worry all Singaporeans.
There is important historical value in this house not only because of its designer, age or even its unique architecture. For many residents of Katong like myself, it has gained a life of its own.
During my childhood, my brother and I saw it as an abandoned, haunted house. In my teenage years, I found out that a good friend of my grandparents grew up in the house during the 1930s. This gentleman, Mr Lee Kip Lee, set much of his memoirs - a published book titled Amber
Sands - in the house. As I read the book, it opened my eyes to the important human value embodied by this structure.
Recently, I have begun to see the Butterfly House as a reminder of a Katong gradually lost to high-rise developments. Today, it is a grand old dame ageing with quiet dignity.
To lose the house would be akin to losing an actual human being. Looking at the artist's impression of the projected development soon to rise up around it, I cannot help but agree with the Historic Architecture Rescue Plan's (Harp) view that we need to protect distinctive buildings vital to our heritage.
When will our current craze for integrating the old and the new in such a draconian, absurd fashion end? When will we, as a country, without the help of groups such as Harp, realise the need to preserve the very tangible structures that remind us of our past?
Friday, 15 June 2007
Last Chance to Save 23 Amber Road
After an active campaign and many months of waiting, the URA has finally published its proposals for 23 Amber Road.
According to the proposal, only a small portion of the house comprising the porch and stairhall structure will be saved. The proposal allows the developer to destroy the rest of the building, including the distinctive crescent portion which has given the house the nickname “the Butterfly House”.
We encourage you to submit your feedback on the proposal to try to save the building in its entirety.
How to Send Feedback
Any objections or representations to the proposal need to be made in writing. They need to be sent in no later than 7th July 2007.
The address to send to is “Permanent Secretary, Ministry of National Development, Maxwell Road, Singapore 069110”. You can also email your feedback to the Permanent Secretary at
tan_tee_how@mnd.gov.sg
We have made up some letter and email templates, which you are free to use as a basis for your letters.
If you prefer to write your own letters, please do so, but make sure you cite “Notice 1717 in the Gazette of 8th June 2007” and “Proposed Amendment No. 37/07” in your letter.
Possible Reasons for Objecting
The Proposed Amendment does not adequately protect the Butterfly House from inappropriate development and destruction We feel that the Butterfly House should be preserved as a whole.
Here are some reasons why you might agree with us:
According to the proposal, only a small portion of the house comprising the porch and stairhall structure will be saved. The proposal allows the developer to destroy the rest of the building, including the distinctive crescent portion which has given the house the nickname “the Butterfly House”.
The developer proposes to dovetail an 18 storey modern condominium on the porch to make a hybrid building, which looks like the product of a genetic experiment gone wrong. This Frankenstein building would be an "eyesore on the seashore".
We encourage you to submit your feedback on the proposal to try to save the building in its entirety.
How to Send Feedback
Any objections or representations to the proposal need to be made in writing. They need to be sent in no later than 7th July 2007.
The address to send to is “Permanent Secretary, Ministry of National Development, Maxwell Road, Singapore 069110”. You can also email your feedback to the Permanent Secretary at
tan_tee_how@mnd.gov.sg
We have made up some letter and email templates, which you are free to use as a basis for your letters.
If you prefer to write your own letters, please do so, but make sure you cite “Notice 1717 in the Gazette of 8th June 2007” and “Proposed Amendment No. 37/07” in your letter.
Possible Reasons for Objecting
The Proposed Amendment does not adequately protect the Butterfly House from inappropriate development and destruction We feel that the Butterfly House should be preserved as a whole.
Here are some reasons why you might agree with us:
- Historic buildings should be conserved as an integral structure (the URA Conservation Guidelines make this very clear).
- The porch and stairhall structure are integral to the structure of the house, and do not “make sense” without the rest of the house.
- The crescent arms of the Butterfly House are what make it special and worth preserving.
- The crescent arms of the Butterfly House were designed by the architect to let in the sea breeze, to let in the light and to get the best view of the sea. The crescent arms allowed maximum enjoyment of the seaside location.
- The crescent wings are therefore in a real sense the raison d'etre of the house. Without them, the entire context of the house in its seaside location is lost.
- The house was by Regent A J Bidwell, who was the architect who designed the Raffles Hotel, Victoria Concert House, Stamford House and the Goodwood Park Hotel.
- The house is the only private residence designed by Bidwell in the "Butterfly Style" (semi-circular).
- There are other buildings in the Butterfly Style in Singapore, but these are all public public buildings which were built for a different purpose and with different considerations.
- The house was built in 1912 and because of its age it should be saved.
- If the developer cannot be trusted to come up with a sympathetic proposal that preserves the character of the building, then perhaps it is time for the Government to step in and acquire the land.
- It would be a bold step, but this may be the only way to protect and preserve the building for the benefit of future generations of Singaporeans.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
