Lui Hon Fay: On Competitions, Projects and Architecture

Competitions are one of the best ways for talented but unknown architects and students to get noticed on the world stage. They range from the conceptual to the realistic; sometimes giving one the chance to take on real projects should you manage to win. Most large scale commissions these days are done by way of open competitions; with many architects all over the world (not just star-chitects) getting themselves involved. Tired of doing architecture all the time? Not an architect? Take it easy. Join the many other competitions out there; to prove that you can also do furniture, graphics, or even web design while you’re at it. The truth of the matter is that people are starting to realise that competitions are a good way of sourcing for real, raw talent that’s out there waiting to be discovered.

If you’re familiar with people from the National University of Singapore in recent years, you might have heard of Lui Hon Fay. Apart from being friendly and down to earth, Hon Fay, currently working at Architects 61 in Singapore, has also been awarded for his participation and display of talent in numerous architecture and design-related competitions. His well-received work can only be a pre-emptive signal of more to come from one of the bright sparks of Singapore’s architectural future. FFW speaks with Hon Fay, to find out what makes him tick; his take on competitions, and about architecture and planning in Singapore and in general.

 

FFW: Many will remember you as one of the ’star students’ of NUS in recent years given your long list of awards from various international competitions. What is your take on Bruce Mau’s line from his Incomplete Manifesto, “Don’t enter awards competitions. Just don’t. It’s not good for you.â€??

HF: I am definitely not a “Star Studentâ€?. I just believe that I could do more designs other than the main academic course works during school. Spending 100% of the time in our main project can be monotonous and very often we are so focused that we are totally uninspired. To me joining competition is nice “getawayâ€? because this is the chance for me to exercise my own mind and make my own design decision. In response to Bruce Mau’s line, I think that should be “Don’t enter awards competitions. Just don’t. Unless they give you learning opportunities and exposure to the design world.â€?

For me the fastest way to learn design is by designing your own works. Hence there is a difference between designing under certain guidance and designing on your own. It would be easy to sit back and criticize on other’s designs but once you join a competition, one need to go through the thinking process and understand how hard it is to come out with an original award-winning design. Joining a competition is the most direct way to learn design, because I need to control my own design, if i loss, I blame it on myself and my own design which is not good enough to attract judges to pick. If I win, it means my idea is recognised by some people (not all people!)

In addition, winning competitions gives fame. I believe with fame it would be easier for designers to do what they want. For instance in the case of Zahid Hadid, she started from winning competitions; others started giving her opportunities, she gained fame along the way and now she is at this position designing great buildings and products. Imagine a nobody designer proposing a Zahid Hadid-like design; chances are he/she would not be given a chance to realise. To me this is life, if people have not heard about you, they wouldn’t know if you had the capability to deliver.
Hence, rather than staying home and complaining that the local design scene is so boring that it “wastes” my talent, I join competitions to advance my career. Opportunity is everywhere in the world, especially with the Internet, information about competitions is easily available.

 

FFW: You mentioned that the value of design to you is to “think out of the box�. However, to do so requires time and may be costly and cumbersome but it is precisely this that allows breakthroughs to happen. Unfortunately, it is very difficult to sell a client a process that will not have a predictable outcome. How do you think one can deal with this?

HF: Very often under our own peers’ influence, we look forward in developing profound theories which laymen (or even architects!) cannot understand. It is not surprising that our great “out-of-the-box� ideas cannot not sell, simply because very few people can understand them. There is a difference between self-indulgent architects’ concepts and ideas which are truly meaningful to the users. I believe that architecture is mainly meant for non-architects and hence our “out-of-the-box� concepts should always be related to them. In reality unique designs generally cost money and it is our job to use the design to add value to people’s lives.

FFW: In an interview regarding your award winning thesis project, the Vertical SMU, you mentioned that “In expanding upwards, we can save the existing surrounding parks and greeneries.� These greeneries are definitely important public spaces within the city which assist in the creation of a collective memory for the people. How do you feel we, designers of the built environment, can help to build this collective memory for the public?

HF: The development of our cityscape is always dependent on what is already there. The process is a slow and graduate one, just like evolution which takes years. If we simply demolish some key, signature buildings and immediately replace with unrelated ones, the surrounding area would be awkward because the programmes would be difficult to integrate. In the case of SMU/old National Library, the library and greenery were replaced by a village of SMU buildings which has supposedly public “HDB-like� void deck spaces on the ground floor. In reality, after office hour the ground floor of SMU is a deserted place with tiny bars and food kiosks. It becomes a “privatised public space�. Are we sure that the planning of SMU adds values to the area? To me a good urban planning is always about adding value to the existing area. It does not mean that we simply conserve all old building. We have to justify ourselves that whatever we add in has a value.

FFW: How do you see the idea of vertical programmatic planning, which you used in your thesis project, being relevant in Asian cities?

HF: To me the idea of vertical planning is not only relevant in Asian cities. In Manhattan and many western cities for example, skyscrapers appears many years ago. In fact vertical planning is not new. It is natural for cities to grow upward because of the lack of space. In Hong Kong, schools are generally much higher (with elevators) due to the same reason. To me, my thesis is simply an investigation on whether SMU can work in a vertical setting. If it can and by doing this, the green park can be preserved, why not? I am easily related to this topic because I really feel sorry for the park.

FFW: If I am a piece of Architecture, I would be…

HF: What I built.

JJ is the co-founder of 5ft Creatives and he is now a legal alien in the USA