Save 23 Amber Road


Status
Not open for further replies.
Just something which you guys may want to consider.

This plot of land have been bought over by a private developer to develope it into a high rise residental property for the purpose of profit. Consideing the cost of the land, development cost, arct. work, etc, there's no way the owners will give it up just for the sake of conservation.
Even if they somehow manage to change the design to fit the org building, which will cost a big bomb, this will still be a new building, and it will be a private resident building, meaning no one except the residents and their guest will get to see/enjoy the conservation. So is it still worth conserving?

Unless someone really rich buys it over, keep it the way it is and open it to the public, all this talk of inviting public feed back is just PR talk by the deloveper.
 

melvin said:
Developer is going to spend alot on DC n coming out with something so ............. abit waste money i rather spend more money aquiring plot next door to have a bigger land do a nice nice boutique development no need to go high rise, will blend in better with surrounding.
Click to expand...

might not be that simple. depends on the situation of the ownership of the next plot also. highrise condos are fast money generators, developers are seldom concerned about blending the surrounding, money comes first, and with that the more units the better.
 

yqt said:
Just something which you guys may want to consider.

This plot of land have been bought over by a private developer to develope it into a high rise residental property for the purpose of profit. Consideing the cost of the land, development cost, arct. work, etc, there's no way the owners will give it up just for the sake of conservation.
Even if they somehow manage to change the design to fit the org building, which will cost a big bomb, this will still be a new building, and it will be a private resident building, meaning no one except the residents and their guest will get to see/enjoy the conservation. So is it still worth conserving?

Unless someone really rich buys it over, keep it the way it is and open it to the public, all this talk of inviting public feed back is just PR talk by the deloveper.
Click to expand...

that's why i said need to convince the authorities to re-purchase the land from the developer ... ... ... ...
 

eikin said:
might not be that simple. depends on the situation of the ownership of the next plot also. highrise condos are fast money generators, developers are seldom concerned about blending the surrounding, money comes first, and with that the more units the better.
Click to expand...

It's all about money. Even conservation, priority is given to redevelopment. :thumbsd:
 

eikin said:
that's why i said need to convince the authorities to re-purchase the land from the developer ... ... ... ...
Click to expand...

I don't think this will happen, at least not with this present leadership. Remember the old National Library? They were the ones who knock it down ;p
 

redstone said:
It's all about money. Even conservation, priority is given to redevelopment. :thumbsd:
Click to expand...

Yes, and the offical statement about things like this is, sg is too small, we have to weigh the diff between conservation against practical needs, etc......
 

eikin said:
might not be that simple. depends on the situation of the ownership of the next plot also. highrise condos are fast money generators, developers are seldom concerned about blending the surrounding, money comes first, and with that the more units the better.
Click to expand...

True! from developer's point if view of cos higher the better, the more unit better n fetches good $$$$$$.

When comes to design they were try to somehow blend to surrounding if not they will not be coming out with preserving the so call conserving the 'look' of the fascade.
 

Here's some info on the background of the house

http://www.irenelow.com/

Its the sole private residence built in Singapore by the same architect who designed Raffles Hotel, Victoria Concert House, Stamford House and the Goodwood Park Hotel.
 

redstone said:
It's all about money. Even conservation, priority is given to redevelopment. :thumbsd:
Click to expand...

that's a fact you cannot change.

i've read up abit on Singapore Heritage Society, they've made a couple of comments but i'm not sure what concrete steps they have taken to advance the cause.

not that it cannot be done, if a public letter can be sent to URA to convince both the authorities and the public of the value of conserving the building, there might still be chance.

the questions to ask are

1. what historical significance does the building have with respect to Singapore's history?
2. what architectural significance does the building have in the local context?

i don't have much information on hand so i can't say much. physically i believe the crescent design is already quite rare amongst historical residential bungalows.

the current conservation plan in Katong http://www.ura.gov.sg/conservation/plans/TanjongKatong.pdf is quite a distance from the building also. but it's not new for single plots to be gazetted for conservation http://www.ura.gov.sg/conservation/plans/Tanjong Katong Road(A).pdf

i'm not sure ... but this building could have been ''overlooked'' ... :dunno:
 

The building snice is not under conservation they can no need preserved the fascade but if under conservation nothing to say, bo bian they might just procced as plan then......... otherwise remove remove remove the fascade!
 

toffeespin said:
Here's some info on the background of the house

http://www.irenelow.com/

Its the sole private residence built in Singapore by the same architect who designed Raffles Hotel, Victoria Concert House, Stamford House and the Goodwood Park Hotel.
Click to expand...

thanks for the link! some good information :thumbsup:
 

eikin said:
that's a fact you cannot change.

i've read up abit on Singapore Heritage Society, they've made a couple of comments but i'm not sure what concrete steps they have taken to advance the cause.

not that it cannot be done, if a public letter can be sent to URA to convince both the authorities and the public of the value of conserving the building, there might still be chance.

the questions to ask are

1. what historical significance does the building have with respect to Singapore's history?
2. what architectural significance does the building have in the local context?

i don't have much information on hand so i can't say much. physically i believe the crescent design is already quite rare amongst historical residential bungalows.

the current conservation plan in Katong http://www.ura.gov.sg/conservation/plans/TanjongKatong.pdf is quite a distance from the building also. but it's not new for single plots to be gazetted for conservation http://www.ura.gov.sg/conservation/plans/Tanjong Katong Road(A).pdf

i'm not sure ... but this building could have been ''overlooked'' ... :dunno:
Click to expand...

Cathay is the worst building conservation I've seen, National Monument somemore.
This shouldn't be repeated...
 

redstone said:
Preserve entire buildings where possible.
Priority always given to conservation
Preserve not only physical, but the character and essence of the building
RESPECT the old building

:)
Click to expand...

not really, conservation has no meaning when it doesn't mean anything to people, spread the message, tell your friends about it.
 

redstone said:
Preserve entire buildings where possible.
Priority always given to conservation
Preserve not only physical, but the character and essence of the building
RESPECT the old building

:)
Click to expand...

If need to do some A & A.
 

Either conserve everything & the whole thing.

Or take some good photos keep for memories, then demolish the whole thing & redevelop the land for better use.

I agree that Cathay is not a good conservation - half & half. Most people dont even know why that front half was conserved.

What should have been conserved was the National Library. Instead now we have a tomb like tunnel that saves motorists what, 2 mins? This was a National Monument - should have been kept.

My personal opinions.
 

eikin said:
the questions to ask are

1. what historical significance does the building have with respect to Singapore's history?
2. what architectural significance does the building have in the local context?

i don't have much information on hand so i can't say much. physically i believe the crescent design is already quite rare amongst historical residential bungalows.
Click to expand...

There is a whole load of information on the Butterfly House and its historical and architectural context on the Save 23 Amber Road website, www.irenelow.com

Eikin, you are more than correct in saying that the crescent design is rare. In fact, the Butterfly House is the only existing building in Singapore of that design. Given the pedigree of this house, designed by the architect of the Raffles Hotel, Goodwood Park Hotel and the Chesed-El Synagogue, there is every reason to preserve the building as a whole, and every reason not to let it become some fanciful addition to an ugly, monolithic highrise.

Redstone, melvin, nottipiglet, eikin, ortega, joshsiao, AQVA, yqt, toffeespin, foxwagon and anyone else reading this - we are all fellow photographers and we all have an innate sense of beauty and a wish to see it preserved, whether in print, as a digital image - or in real life. Instinctively, we cannot sit by and let important things happen without doing something.

This is therefore a plea to ask you and your friends to write in to the Ministry of National Development with your feedback, by the deadline of 7th July 2007. Details on how to do this are on the Save 23 Amber Road website, www.irenelow.com

There is every chance that if enough people speak up, the authorities will listen.
 

redstone said:
23 Amber Road is a 90+ year old villa about to be demolished, but developer said at least the front portion would be retained:

http://www.straitstimes.com/STI/STIMEDIA/image/20070618/ST_IMAGES_TOWER.jpg



Do give feedback about this. :)
Click to expand...
I'm no artist, and my sense of art is well..... eccentric to say the least.

But upon seeing the photo of that 'preserved villa' I have juz 4 words:

"Horrible at its best"

Want to keep, keep all. Dun do a half-screwed chicken there all in the namesake of 'preserving architecture'. Its like doing something for the sake of doing something - no point. Might as well demolish the whole damn thing.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom
Back