More than being a case of green eyes and sour grapes with regard to foreign talent, the recent “foreign over local architects� debate actually demonstrates how we (the so-called passive, non-opinionated citizens) want to be heard in residential design – because nothing can affect us more than how we conduct our private lives.

We worry that the employment of “star-chitectsâ€? subtly implies that a criteria of profitability and marketability take priority over the artistry, integrity and intellectual challenge that should have been undertaken with regards to the place and environment. We question how “star-chitectsâ€? can improve the way we live - are they simply to lend a brand name and some oomph to our otherwise supposedly “dull” state, or is this phenomenon a reflection of our society - so brand-conscious such that even architecture has become part of pop culture itself; a mere commodity, mesmerizing people with star power and novelty?

We reason with ourselves that globalization and such imported architects/ models of architecture can still be meaningful because they make available what we actually want - visions of sleek tall glass buildings and skylines. Others among us criticize these star-chitects, saying that their local works have not been as innovative or groundbreaking as they should have been. If these two disparate views are anything to come by, Singaporeans are definitely not giving foreign architects an easy job to do. And these debates may just be the beginning of an emerging public voice that is passionate and more actively involved in the design of everyday lives. -FFW

Image courtesy of www.urbanity.es

Opinions >> Report

Residential Architecture - Our Biggest Future?