Become a fan of ArchDaily on Facebook!

Punggol Waterfront Master Plan & Housing Design Program

By Sebastian J — Filed under: Housing , News , ,
 

aerea

Argentinian architects B4FS shared with us their proposal in the Punggol Waterfront International Housing Design competition in Singapore, which was shortlisted and awarded a Merit Prize (second prize ex aequo).

The two-stage design competition was launched in December 2008 to generate fresh, innovative and new design ideas for high-rise public housing along the waterway. Participating firms were required to incorporate new sustainable development concepts and features to realise the theme “Green Living by the Waters”.

The first stage required participating firms to propose urban and new architectural concepts for the housing district. The top five firms were then short-listed for Stage Two, where they further developed their design concepts proposed in Stage One into a more thorough and implementable architectural design that included landscaping and other detailing.

More images and architect’s description after the break.

desde_el_rio

MASTER PLAN / URBAN DESIGN

The dramatic increase of world population has a clear manifestation in the urban environment, either by extending the endless urban sprawl or by increasing density in the existing urban areas.

Considering these two possibilities, the process of densification is, without any doubt, the most sustainable alternative of urban growth. This statement can be argued for in terms of land and water resources management, energy and food crops production, pollution control, climatic amelioration, and increased porosity of land cover.

The rationality of the densification process, at the regional scale, is even stronger in countries with reduced territories. However, such density creates serious problems and challenges at the urban scale. The overwhelming presence of construction gives cities a sense of supra-human space of unmanageable size, together with a dramatic reduction of the open recreational space, with examples of levels less than 5% in cities such as Tokyo.

patio 2

The first objective of the proposed design is to extend the recreational space from the promenade into the area assigned to housing, leaving most of the ground floor unoccupied and free for sport, cultural, and social activities, all occupying a minimum indispensable area. The extension of the recreational space from the promenade, through the project, reaches the south side of the site, and incorporates a school, a church, and a sports activities area.

The project includes the landscape into its own logic, interlocking buildings and open spaces fluid and seamlessly in a continuity of fluxes of movements, activities and views that connect the surrounding city with the new park and the water.

PATIO TORRE PRUEBA 1

The buildings propose a three directional structure composed of towers and bridges, articulated in a way that gives a sense of totality as well as allowing the readability of each part. The buildings surround a network of open 31m x 40m patios, connected to each other through big portals. These patios conform a chain of gardens lushly vegetated with native trees and bushes at ground level complemented with roof top gardens at higher levels.

The whole project is organized in two sectors in correspondence with the two parcels. The two areas are articulated with a boulevard that materializes the north/ south connection. The connection east/west from the Punggol Walk to the Punggol Way through the “patios” incorporates a pergola for pedestrian movement. This connection also includes a continuous service driveway shaped by a permeable floor for vehicles such as ambulances and fire trucks, as well as for the refuse collection vehicles.

Both ground level and buildings terrace face down to the waterway. The building’s volumes vary, with maximum allowed heights at the external limit of the site, and descend as a cascade towards the waterway. This strategy provides the promenade’s public space with a sense of openness, complemented with views of the building’s roof gardens that terrace down to the river.

TERRAZA

The terrace solution applied to the buildings is also incorporated to the design of the waterway promenade. The proposal includes one level of activities complementary to the housing program, such as child care centre, communal use spaces, etc., and a lower terrace at water level with boat houses, cafes, etc.

Every building incorporates an area designated for communal activities, in a contiguous space to the entrance hall, for celebrations, funerals, communal meetings, etc. Each area could be open or defined by a metal mesh screen that encloses the space allowing cross ventilation.

ramblados

HOUSE DESIGN SCHEME

Each housing unit is related visually to both the system of courtyard gardens and the waterway’s linear park. This condition gives the apartment and its owners the sense of being part of a greater metropolitan landscape and at the same time, the fact of being strongly rooted to its own specific courtyard, with its local scale.

The unit’s design was based on the idea of flexibility considering the contemporary condition of dynamism and constant change. In order to obtain the maximum flexibility desired, the bearing structure of the building was located within the external skin. This exo-structure frees the interior plan of any element that could limit alternative interior organizations. Devoid of structural interior elements, each apartment is configured with movable partitions, whose positions could easily be altered. All the “wet” areas such as bathrooms and kitchen are then concentrated at specific point of the floor plan.

The proposal adequately articulates the public and the private, the buildings and the landscape, and the local with the metropolitan. This project is configured with a contemporary language, complex in its forms, but extremely rational in genesis and its technical solution, demonstrating that the high density required can be reached with a strong identity and a livable solution. It is a project for the future Singapore.

BOARD02-A3

 

28 comments »

minguinhirigue says:

I really have a problem with this kind of HUGE projects…

Do we are Rabbits ?

 
# November 26, 2009 at 12:49
    INawe says:

    agreed. the scale of this project is horrible. so many things wrong with this on an urban level and i don’t even want to get into the things wrong with the architecture.

     
    # November 26, 2009 at 13:07
    Montenegro says:

    this river should affect this architecture and definitely bring it more towards ground than it is. concept is too wrong and claustrophobic for this nature rich ground. Otherwise it looks interesting- kind of classy type of social living

    pozdrav!

     
    # December 3, 2009 at 14:56
archilocus says:

I have often seen comment criticizing the quality of some projects shown or archdaily, and always thought it was more a matter of aesthetic or personal preference…

but THIS… what does make it interesting to see to other architects? It is only a boring commercial housing complex. If somebody has a valid argument to say there is some quality here, you’re welcome, I’m very curious…

Please everybody, comment also to tell archdaily how bored you are of seeing such bad quality thing here!

And please, archdaily, if you decide to show up second prizes and not the first one, please be sure there is at least something to show!

 
# November 26, 2009 at 13:09
One says:

Only if the elevation was little bit bter, animated and permiable…. great pitty…

 
# November 26, 2009 at 14:09
JS says:

How boring is it and how typical it is? What kind of image that you would like to see? Building which jumps around…transforming and everchanging facade like a robot or something like that…?
Don’t be so narrow minded. Appreciate it.

 
# November 26, 2009 at 14:31
drinn says:

I wouldn’t want to live at lower apartments. If you watch first pic, it looks like you won’t get sun light there at all.

Looking pretty interesting other wise though.

 
# November 26, 2009 at 15:44
Бојан says:

Looks like “Borik” in Banja Luka

 
# November 26, 2009 at 15:59
Rob.i says:

sorry guys, not even flowers and palms can get your project better

 
# November 26, 2009 at 18:24
public eye says:

Who won the first prize?

 
# November 26, 2009 at 21:20
Architist says:

I totally agree with some viewers here taking into account to what they see and their preferences towards architecture. This project shown the visibility of sustainable archittecture.
This project look like the arab world where we see appartments being clustered over each other. The facade maybe boring.

 
# November 26, 2009 at 22:11
Rupesh Jamkhindikar says:

The rising profile of buildings probably reduces the claustrophobic impact and the site plan seems interesting, but the buildings rise too high for the given courtyard type of arrangement and look monstrous for the green spaces.

 
# November 26, 2009 at 22:39
aar kay says:

density is a given…unless ur hitler or stalin……..and this was the best amongst the submitted entries……so stop cribbing…..if ur so good compete next time….cheers!!!

 
# November 27, 2009 at 02:10
aar kay says:

hmmm….forgot cost and ease of construction are sumthin most folks like us deal with everyday……so unless ur zaha hadid…learn!!!

 
# November 27, 2009 at 02:13
Miguel says:

I’m in between extremes on this one. I understand the argument for less costly architecture, and the given premise of density. However the cost of a building is nothing compared to the cost of living in a building. And I think that this is a typology prone to failure. If in the concept there are bridges between buildings, then these should be exacerbated and further cut outs or less storeys introduced. Like it has been said the courtyards are far tooo small for the height of the buildings, especially once they’ve gone higher. There is nothing here that a developer wouldn’t be able to come up with in any suburb of any city. And that is a fault for me, this type of building being a given… Thats all

 
# November 27, 2009 at 03:57
archilocus says:

@JS / aar kay: You can make quality without making extra-ordinary architecture. You’re the one being narrow-minded here, if you believe the only alternative to this thing is a Gehry funky bulby UFO.
We see almost everyday on archdaily brilliant architecture with relatively small means, even by young architects. Cost, sustainability, not having better competitors or not being Zaha should NEVER be an excuse to conceive such bullsh*t. Have some ambition !

@architist: where do you see sustainability? Thought it also included how long a building would last. This only recalls 1960s, we’ve seen this plenty of times, and looking at how all those buildings look like right now, I’m not so sure they fulfill the “sustainability” parameter.

 
# November 27, 2009 at 04:52
    devenish says:

    One of the key reasons of a successful urban development is ‘contextuality’. In Singapore, where 85% of the population stays in public housing, a development this dense is not just normal but required. Scarce land for development calls for it. A well connected and successful public transport catchment calls for it. The use of 90% building precasting and maximum buildability ratios call for it. The Unit type ratios call for it. For those concerned on the cost, the concept of public housing in singapore isn’t about cheap builds, but rather hugely government subsidized builds. No compromise there.
    I do know in some countries this kind of density would be unacceptable, or even to the extent of being detrimental to the general urban scape. However, anywhere you look in Singapore, this is a norm and perfectly acceptable. Of course they could have come up with a better facade articulation cause its horrendous, and the courtyards could have been larger, and the terrace down to the river is exaggerated somewhat, and green living is not dictated by landscaped roof decks (cause no one uses them due to the ridiculous heat in singapore), but in principle, it still would work. Good attempt.

     
    # November 27, 2009 at 05:47
aar kay says:

@miguel…i agree……@archilocus….u have defined the problem well…but pls give a solution based on available proven techonolgies and cost….and keeping in mind urban densities that can be implemented keeping the current status quo,what i am trying to say is lets not discuss broadacre city ……please give concrete suggestions about what can be done here…..i will be greatfull if we can come down to specifics and not paint an ideal world….maybe mention some othr project of this scale u like??? .

 
# November 27, 2009 at 08:32
Ali Manco says:

I recently read in Economist that there is a huge “sand crisis” Singapore is suffering under. The neighboring countries reduced the amount of entirely stopped exporting sand to Singapore to be used for making concrete. Now there’s debate on whether Singapore should shift its concrete driven construction industry toward steel. But that is not that easy regarding the crucial need for skilled labor for successful steel construction.

 
# November 27, 2009 at 14:42
mikeyc says:

pish!

 
# November 27, 2009 at 18:09
peyman says:

good

 
# November 28, 2009 at 04:29

This is the worst design I’ve seen. Looks like a modern day ghetto or some post modern dystopian nightmare.

Too crammed, not enough privacy, lack of context, everything is wrong here

 
# November 28, 2009 at 10:22
tommo hcmc says:

Clearly half the people on here have never set foot in this part of asia before, it is bloody crowded and this kind of FAR is a given – open your minds for once! In fact, one need only compare to the OMA/Koolhaas ‘Interlace’ project featured here 3 months ago to see where perceptions lie… according to you lot, “huge cantilevers = YES” and “realistic, economical housing = NO”

go figure.

Personally, the perspectives do let this concept down- something the firm should consider from a human scale next time.

 
# November 29, 2009 at 20:57

Links to this article »

Leave a Reply »

Want to have your own avatar? Get yours at Gravatar.

Latest Comments »

It is good– better than jurgen meyer: simpler...[+]
A pretentious, egotistical blowhard, and in the field of architecture? How utterly...[+]
I fully understand that it is not just about the building. I fully understand the idea,...[+]
I like the stair and the external view I can’t imagine the spaces...[+]
The building is beautiful. But it’s not about the building only… its about...[+]
Stourley Kracklite on 4 Houses / On Office:
I like purism as well as the next guy, so I am very interested in how the...[+]
I like the overall design of it, but in combination with the abandoned dessert location...[+]
I like the yurt argument… yes, it is clearly a client-wooing...[+]
Don’t ask… you’ll just get some lengthy BS answer.[+]
Yes, this is clearly a yourt inspiration :rollseyes:[+]
I like this building … but the pretentious,kitchy heart? …why?[+]
I like the project… a lot. Reading the description, however, makes me want to...[+]

Browse by category »

Our partners »

Browse by date »

Friends »

Proudly hosted at »