White Site.
The concept of the “white” site was introduced by the Urban Redevelopment Authority of Singapore to give developers more flexibility in development options on certain land parcels sold by the State. “White” sites are sites in which a range of uses are allowed. Why is this important to the architecure fraternity?
Developers will also have the flexibility to decide on the mix of uses and respective quantum of floor space for each use, as long as the total permissible Gross Floor Area (GFA) for the whole development is not exceeded.
Successful tenders of “white” sites may, during the lease period, change the mix of use or quantum of each use as stipulated in the conditions of tender without the need to pay differential premium. For example, a successful tender may decide to have less retail space in a “white” site development. He could, however, in future decide to convert some other uses to retail space should the demand arise, without the need to pay differential premium.
Hence, “white” sites allow developers to respond to changing market conditions without incurring additional land premium. Developers will also enjoy greater transparency and certainty as the range of allowable uses or mix of use for each sale site is made known at the onset.
(1)
One Raffles Quay Pte Ltd: The First New Downtown White Site
I AM MY PAST.
While we acknowledge the benefits of the white site, one must remember that we are all here today because of our past. Our history and heritage precedes us and we are simply an accumulation of our past. The migration of our forefathers to Singapore, the World War, Independence; all were contributing factors to make us what we are today.
Similarly, cities and buildings have their own heritage. To coin an example, the linearity of Orchard Road is a relic of the presence of plantations there in the past. As true as the passage of time itself, history and culture give character to place. Places collect meaning over time and new interventions attempt to (or may not) relate to the history and unique conditions of the site.
How then does one deal with a site that is completely man-made? A site where the only history it had stemmed from the economic motivations of its creation. A site with no past with which to feed its tormented designer. What then becomes important when designing on a white site? -FFW
Adib is the co-founder of 5ft Creatives and he loves to walk on the FIVEFOOTWAY.
Discussion
4 comments for “White Site.”
Post a comment
Related Post
- 5ft Creatives » Blog Archive » Canteen Brick Down on Canteen Brick-Down
- Popo Danes: Architect with a green conscience | aboutCREATION on Popo Danes: Architect with a green conscience
- Scoorbroyarry on Call for entries: 2008 International Bauhaus Award
- Kyu Sung Woo wins Ho-Am Prize | aboutCREATION on Kyu Sung Woo wins Ho-Am Prize
- abhijeet on Are you cut out to be an Architectural Journalist?
ADVERTISEMENTS
As much as we argue for heritage preservation, one has to be critical to prevent falling in to the tendency to believe that the past is the best. Blind preservation of the “good old past” isn’t always possible or appropriate.
Culture and heritage is always evolving. What is deem “ugly” today can become iconic symbol for us in the future. The Esplanade (aka “The Fly”, “Two packets of chicken rice”, or “The Durian” ) is an example of how architecture has the uncanny ability to first “white-wash” the history of the site, yet create a new heritage for itself.
just a thought!
Junhao - That’s true; if what you say is true, then it is as if ‘Culture and Heritage’ as a phenomenon is in fact more of a dynamic creature rather than the static, stone-set permanent nature that many of us think it possesses. The fact remains that we human beings do adapt and accept some things after some time.
The past isn’t always the best, no; but, from an ‘interventionist’ point of view, what would make a relevant ‘future’?
As an interventionist, would it be lunatic to suggest a culture of “disposable” architecture or heritage? Staying relevant to the times, changing according to the prevalent needs and wants? Of course, this is contrary to the ideology of nation building, where unchanging heritage and tradition is of utmost importance.
If my biaised opinion is anything to go by - I somewhat like your ‘disposable’ idea - Maybe it isn’t a static nation that we are trying to build, but a place - like you say - stays relevant to the times, to needs and wants. Singapore has gone from zero to hero in the past century. Can we say that we’ve had unchanging heritage and sense of place? Hardly. It’s almost as if we have an unchanging heritage and tradition of constant flux!
Architecture’s long known concrete-ness has rendered a lot of experimental architecture, well, un-architecture. Think instead of the bamboo concert stages in Indon, or even the quickly-constructed wayang stages here in Sg. These temporary structures address adhoc events and needs. Why shouldn’t the architecture of today respond likewise?
Coming back to the idea of the National Art Gallery, if we may, perhaps the answer lies in the consideration of a ‘diaphragm’ architecture, that could re-adjust, re-align and respond to changing conditions, needs and demands.