In this inaugural column (and the first part of a series), I think that it is most appropriate to firstly, broach the big topic about what local architecture means to each of us. Ideally, it should be both an expression of our past heritage and our hopes for the future. Whose heritage? Whose hopes? Whose future?

To answer these, we need to first examine where does our architecture come from - and who decides? Given the critical attitude towards the import of foreign architecture today, we should bear in mind that local architecture has always been incorporating and transforming alongside external influences. It is up to us to continue this tradition – less a critic, more active imaginations. Whose imaginations – from the elites and planners above, or from the people as an expression of their interests and concerns? Is local architecture defined by the sink down from ‘high’, by the rise up from ‘below’? Can there be interaction between the two?

Historically, yes - while Raffles stipulated “five foot way� in buildings to offer relief from the tropical heat, its real meaning was claimed and extended by the people through the conduct of everyday lives. However, today’s increasingly stricter codes and segregations are making it difficult to breathe life into local architecture. Even the so-called street life come not as a spontaneous act by the people, but planned for by the authorities. How do we make this, and our future, still meaningful to us?-FFW

Opinions >> Report

Who/What makes local architecture?