Don’t stifle creativity in building design

Source : Straits Times - 22 Sep 2008

I REFER to the report, ‘Developers appeal to Govt over bay-windows ruling’ (Sept 13), and Mr Richard Sui’s letter last Wednesday, ‘Please uphold URA guideline’.

I agree with his concerns over environmentally unfriendly bay windows but disagree that the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) should include them (and planter boxes) in gross floor area (GFA) calculations. In fact, by doing so, I thought URA had undone its excellent work of introducing attractive features to the local housing scene by giving clever incentives to developers.

I fear other similarly promoted features like balconies, sky bridges and roof-scape designs may suffer the same fate if the issue is not seen in perspective.

First, bay windows are not intrinsically environmentally unfriendly. They become so through lack of design. The first Singapore project to win the renowned Aga Khan Architectural Award, Moulmein Rise condominium, did so partly due to Woha Design’s creative interpretation of ‘bay windows and planter boxes’.

If developers are penalised for extraneous features, architects will lose the opportunity to experiment beyond the money-making GFA of a building, because the only justification local developers understand is profits.

Second, with the new legislation on energy conservation in buildings enforced this year by the Building and Construction Authority (BCA), there is now an avenue to keep environment-unfriendly designs in check. BCA should put bay-window designs under its microscope. Meanwhile, URA need not duplicate its function but should intensify its good work in promoting a vibrant built environment via its intelligent planning policies.

Lastly, this whole issue was triggered by buyers’ complaints of unscrupulous selling of non-GFA features by developers. Shouldn’t this be tackled through sales-and-purchase regulations instead?

My proposal: Disallow developers from including non-GFA features as part of floor area in sales-and-purchase agreements. Then, leave it to:

~ Developers to factor in their non-GFA capital investment into the selling price;
~ Architects to convince developers that their non-GFA features add value and selling price to the project;
~ Buyers to buy or not at whatever price; and
~ Market forces (society) to influence the outlook of residential architecture.

In this way, developers will not be penalised by the development charge for indulging in architectural articulation, while the onus is back on architects to sell their extraneous features to developers directly and buyers indirectly, as it should be.

Osman Sidek