Comments on: Punggol Waterfront Master Plan & Housing Design Program

By: SAID

SAID — Sun, 06 Nov 2011 13:18:39 +0000

whoah this weblog is excellent i really like studying your articles. Keep up the great work! You already know, a lot of persons are searching round for this info, you can help them greatly.

By: Yusy Laezha Yusof

Yusy Laezha Yusof — Thu, 13 Jan 2011 12:01:37 +0000

Punggol Waterfront Master Plan & Housing Design Program. http://bit.ly/f6yUI3

By: 채만겸 Man Kyum Chai

채만겸 Man Kyum Chai — Sun, 29 Aug 2010 09:15:54 +0000

RT @chsjung: 우리나라 공동주택은 지나친 고스펙이 아닌지..생각해 봐야한다. 공동주택은 공동주택 다와야지.. http://t.co/1w5SQm9 via @archdaily #conkor

By: kimhotai

kimhotai — Sun, 29 Aug 2010 09:04:58 +0000

절대적 이윤만을 추구하는 건설사들의 배려가 담긴 옵션들의 선물 꾸러미가아닐런지 @chsjung 우리나라 공동주택은 지나친 고스펙이 아닌지..생각해 봐야한다. 공동주택은 공동주택 다와야지 http://t.co/1w5SQm9 via #conkor

By: 정충섭(Jung Choong Sub)

정충섭(Jung Choong Sub) — Sun, 29 Aug 2010 07:04:54 +0000

우리나라 공동주택은 지나친 고스펙이 아닌지..생각해 봐야한다. 공동주택은 공동주택 다와야지.. http://t.co/1w5SQm9 via @archdaily #conkor

By: Punggol

Punggol — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 18:10:29 +0000

RT @eleganthoodlum: Punggol Waterfront Master Plan & Housing Design Program | ArchDaily http://t.co/thVHe98 via @archdaily

By: Brian Baltin

Brian Baltin — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 16:44:42 +0000

Punggol Waterfront Master Plan & Housing Design Program | ArchDaily http://t.co/thVHe98 via @archdaily

By: Nordtommemich

Nordtommemich — Thu, 20 May 2010 09:45:41 +0000

Check out the Barbican (golden lane estate) in London. huge project, big success. What I’m saying is that on this scale estetique is irrelevant and it is very difficult to say anything good or bad about this project from these images. I miss a siteplan and a site analysis.

By: anouk

anouk — Thu, 20 May 2010 02:04:17 +0000

Group8, and with density that the competition give it was difficult to do something else that rabbits house
http://www.group8.ch

By: Montenegro

Montenegro — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 19:56:03 +0000

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!

By: tommo hcmc

tommo hcmc — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 01:57:36 +0000

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.

By: DreamsForest

DreamsForest — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 15:22:19 +0000

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

By: peyman

peyman — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 09:29:00 +0000

good

By: Punggol.org

Punggol.org — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 23:21:19 +0000

RT @mikologique Punggol Waterfront Master Plan & Housing Design Program: http://url4.eu/qB4P – From the Argentinian Architects

By: mikeyc

mikeyc — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 23:09:37 +0000

pish!

By: Ali Manco

Ali Manco — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 19:42:06 +0000

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.

By: Miko

Miko — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 19:12:01 +0000

Punggol Waterfront Master Plan & Housing Design Program: http://url4.eu/qB4P

By: aar kay

aar kay — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 13:32:42 +0000

@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??? .

By: devenish

devenish — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 10:47:01 +0000

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.

By: archilocus

archilocus — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 09:52:48 +0000

@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.