1
2
4
9
10
11
This manifesto proposes Kiasu Architecture (KA) as a blueprint for exceptional architecture today. It first discusses the architectural issues we face today. It then defines Kiasu and KA, following which the manifesto will highlight the relevance of KA today and in the future. Finally, it considers the limitations of KA.
12
13
14
15
In the history of architecture we have seen various styles appear and disappear over time. These changes in architecture movements have shaped the way in which buildings are designed and look aesthetically — however, aesthetic appearance is a subjective value, subject to changing opinions and tastes. Hence, fundamentally what makes a good building is its functional performance according to its pragmatic needs. As architects, then, we should not be fixated on designing architecture that only focuses on the designing of new forms. Instead, new technology should emphasise architectural designs that are functional, practical and timeless.1 In addition, better-quality buildings should be expected with advances in technology, yet we are plagued with buildings that have: 1.
Impractical aesthetics resulting in discomfort, evident in Frank Ghery’s Disney Concert hall (Fig. 1) where the form resulted in hotspots in the building.
2.
Poor construction due to a lack of coordination with other disciplines and a lack of preparation, which would prevent a good design from being compromised (Fig. 2)
3.
Designs based on the designer’s desires over the needs of users. (Fig. 3)
16
Figure 1: Walt Disney Concert Hall 2
Figure 2: Bad construction of escalator and stairs. 3 This is an example of bad construction caused by the poor collaboration between various disciplines .The escalator design’s low head clearance shows the poor collaboration between the engineers, architects and the construction contractor.
Figure 3: Melbourne School Design, University of Melbourne has neglected the students needs. The atrium wastes space that could potentially provide modelmaking space for students. The building closure at 7pm is not practical for a design school. In addition, the amenities, such as computers, are fewer than the temporary building provided during the construction phase of the building.
17
Architecture has lost its primary purpose of functionality. I believe that by changing the attitude of architects, we will be able to construct good buildings that are both comfortable and functional. I believe that Kiasu architecture’s (KA) pragmatic yet adaptable philosophy that strives for excellence is what the architecture discourse needs for the betterment of the built environment.
18
19
20
21
‘Kiasu’ 怕输, (pronounced kee-AH-soo) is a Hokkien (Chinese dialect)1 phrase and now part of colloquial Singaporean English, or Singlish, the literal meaning of which is ‘afraid to lose’. Being born and raised in Singapore’s competitive society that demands citizens to perform for survival, I have experienced the Kiasu attitude (Kiasu-ism) first-hand. Kiasu-ism has both positive and negative connotations; under a positive light, it can refer to additional efforts made to increase performance1, and this is accentuated by the Chinese idiom 未雨绸缪 (wei yu chou mo), which means ‘to take precaution before it’s too late’.4 Conversely, Kiasu-ism’s negative connotation suggests an anxious, grasping and selfish characteristic that is unwilling to miss any opportunity to gain a competitive advantage over others.4 Overall, Kiasu-ism can be summarised as a competitive spirit, striving to be the best to stay ahead of others.
22
23
24
25
Kiasu architecture (KA) draws from the philosophy of Kiasu-ism in that it aims for the ‘best’ design that one can achieve. It requires designers to consider multiple design options and to select the most appropriate approach to tackle the design problem. KA rejects redundant elements for the creation of a successful project. This pragmatic approach in assessing each option’s strengths and limitations enables designers to capitalise on their strengths and develop their weaknesses to strive for perfection. KA is a multi-faceted concept and it’s desire for the best design can be defined by these 5 principles: 3.1. Yes is More More is good, but not all. (The stringent selection process of design and construction processes). 3.2
Learning and adapting to succeed — Learning from others to better the design (Considering Interdisciplinary Adaptation and looking to successful design masters).
3.3
Anticipation for the future (Designs that considers the continual success of the building in the future).
3.4
Pragmatic approach.
3.5
Continual development (KA is progressive process and seeks to continually improve).
26
27
28
29
To achieve the ‘best’ design, KA’s first principle expects designers to consider as many available design options as possible and scrutinise each individual option, rejecting failed or irrelevant options and employing only the successful and relevant design or construction selections.5 This stringent selection process of KA’s first principle emerges from Scalbert’s, Dawkins’ and Ingels’ theories. Firstly, Scalbert’s bricolage argument suggests a freedom to utilize the various tools available in a designer’s inventory.5 Secondly, Richard Dawkins’ concept of the selfish gene proposes that through natural selection only the strongest and the best survive6. Thirdly, Ingels’ Yes is More approach does not limit his practices to a single method, allowing BIG (Bjarke Ingels Group) to employ a plethora of designing methods. These can be seen in:
1.
A poetic approach to designing the Shanghai Expo exhibition (Fig. 4)
2.
Literal metaphors in the design of the People’s Building in China (Fig. 5)
3.
Functional tactics to design VM houses (Fig. 6)
4.
The traditional sketch method of design (Fig. 7, 8)7
5.
Computation tools for designing. (Fig. 9)7
30
31
32
KA builds on Scalbert’s bricolage idea but considers the competitive spirit evident in Kiasu-ism and seeks only the best and most appropriate design or construction options available. The rejection of less effective tools is justified considering Dawkins’ studies on natural selection. Building on Ingel’s design concept that has no bias in the consideration of design ideas, KA considers each option with greater scrutiny. In the Singaporean context, the Kiasu behaviour would manifest itself in decisions where only successful options are taken into account. Its choice to consider ideas that are not only practical but are sure to be feasible and efficient is what sets it apart.
33
The first principle expects designers to expand their design toolbox, followed by scrutinising individual tools, rejecting options that have failed or that are irrelevant, before employing successful and relevant design or construction options towards realising a building.5 This practical principle increases the chances of a successful building, which reflects the ‘afraid to lose’ aspect of Kiasu-ism. The exclusion of failed and irrelevant options reflects Kiasu-ism and KA’s desire for efficiency in tackling problems.5 In addition, KA’s blunt rejection of irrelevance would ensure the synchronisation of the selected design elements for a holistic design outcome.
34
35
36
37
In the 21st century, buildings have become complex entities that require interdisciplinary collaboration, and so by learning from successful design masters and considering interdisciplinary adaptation, KA would be able to meet the needs of the multiple disciplines within these complex structures. When expanding our design or construction toolboxes, we will optimise the best elements of each tool and draw on the individual potential of each; hence ‘more is good’.5 Despite the rejection of construction and design options, designers still accumulate knowledge on such options, becoming experts in the architecture domain.12 Wright, for instance, is an advocate of how the collection of knowledge aids in learning in one’s discipline.12 Within the discipline, designers can look to architects like Mies’ and Ando’s to achieve minimalistic and clean designs, Hertzog de Meuron when considering environmentally responsive parametric designs, ShoP architects for their expertise in digital fabrication processes13, Peter Zumthor for his experiential and mood-focused architecture design,14 and Thomas Heatherwick for his hands-on approach to designing though the making of models and prototypes.15
38
With increasing complexity in the construction of the urban environment, architecture has become intertwined with multiple other disciplines. KA, therefore, mandates interdisciplinary integration to achieve the best design. Considering disciplines such as construction and digital technology would widen designers’ design possibilities, providing a competitive edge over their peers.16, 17, 18 Similarly, the construction of a building requires multiple techniques to be utilised. Marina Bay Sands’ (MBS) (Fig. 10) slabs utilise in-situ concrete instead of the typical prefabrication. Despite it being an older method of construction, this decision assisted in reducing congestion at the site.19 In addition, the short time frame of 3 years taken to construct this example of big architecture16 showcases a desire for excellence, echoing KA philosophy.19 This is also applicable in the domain of digital technology. Technology has caused a shift from labour-intensive to immaterial labour processes, making it an inevitable component of the architecture discourse today20. In order to keep ahead, KA must incorporate the latest digital design processes to design architecture. If it technology and software such as Open Source Architecture (OSArc) or Building Integrated Modelling (BIM) are able to produce and alter digital models to create the ‘perfect’ design, KA would definitely consider them as design methods.18 Safdie and his design team utilised digital software to alter the design of Singapore’s Science Art Museum. He praised digital technology’s efficiency and usefulness in facilitating the design process19 (Fig. 11-14).
39
Figure 10: Marina Bay Sands21
Figure 11-14: Marina Bay Sands, Science art museum design iterations that are adjusted with ease due to advances in digital architecture.19.
40
In addition to interdisciplinary thinking to facilitate the creation of the best designs, KA seeks to capitalise on developments from other disciplines to realise the architect’s design.16,22 Considering the complex construction of MBS, it is clear that there was an inherent need for interdisciplinary groups to cooperate in order to complete the building.19 The project utilise engineering and construction of developments to deal with the construction of a curvilinear form. 23 It also employs design tools from the computation discipline for the installation of ‘The Drift’ (Fig. 15, 16), an 8-storey sculpture, which required engineering and digital fabrication expertise to accomplish the design vision. It was only by taking advantage of computation and engineering technology developments that MBS’s design was able to be actualized.19,24 KA seeks to advance developments in any discipline that would facilitate the creation of the best architecture, allowing it to remain relevant in the discourse.
41
Figure 15 & 16: The Drift by British sculptor Anthony Gormley19
42
43
44
45
KA also incorporates a forward-thinking approach, which reflects the anxious quality of Kiasu-ism in design. According to KA, buildings should be functional, durable and should prognosticate any programs that might relate to the site. Buildings should also be prepared for any possible changes, which may affect them. Regarding his architecture, Safdie commented that it (MBS) must look timeless and relevant in the future while accommodating future functional needs of the site. This is evident in the layout of the building, with plans for concert space in the open public space adjacent to the site.19 The application of movement joints in the construction of MBS’s sky park acts as insurance for possible typhoons (Fig. 17,18), despite Singapore’s natural-disasterfree geological history; this showcases a desire for excellent quality in buildings and anticipation of how buildings would respond to possible future events.19,22
46
47
On a global scale, the construction of buildings is a sizeable environmental issue. In response to this, the Building Construction Authority (BCA) in Singapore seeks to lead South-East Asia in the construction of sustainable green buildings to reduce the impact on the earth. 25, 26, 27 Sustainable designs such as the National Library in Singapore (Fig. 19) utilise design features such as light shelves (Fig. 20) and stack ventilation (Fig. 21, 22) to reduce carbon emissions, and embodied energy in order to preserve the environment for the future. 25,26 In addition, Singapore gained its/a reputation as a garden city28 (Fig. 23, 24) from strategic urban planning initiatives in the 1960s by Singapore’s Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA), aimed at the beautification of the country through the planting of trees and bushes in public spaces. 29,30 This forward-looking policy has shaped Singapore and has played a part in making it a first-world nation, again showcasing KA’s pragmatic approach in designing both architecture and the urban landscape.
48
Figure 19: Singapore National Library31
Figure 20: Light shelves31
49
Additionally, Singapore’s desire to shape its urban landscape into that of a world-class city is evident in the selective choice of only the best designs, demonstrated by an increasing number of ‘starchitect’ projects commissioned in Singapore. This is evident in projects such as OMA’s Interlace apartments (Fig. 25), Toyo Ito’s Vivo City shopping centre (Fig. 26), Thomas Heatherwick’s Nanyang Technological University learning hub (Fig. 27) and the Royal Park hotel/office by WOHA (Fig. 28). The desire to populate Singapore with iconic buildings acts as both a nationalistic tool that reveals KA and Kiasu culture and as an encouragement for future designers in the city to raise the standard of local building designs.
50
51
Figure 27: Thomas Heatherwick’s Nanyang Technological University learning hub34
Figure 28: Royal Park hotel/ office by WOHA 35
52
53
54
55
Given the preparedness and forward-looking attitude of Kiasu-ism, KA would naturally consider a pragmatic approach to architecture, focusing on balancing the needs of people with the architect’s design vision in order to ensure the success of a building. Pragmatism is ingrained in Singaporean culture, and this is evident in government regulations, where laws are clearly designed to benefit the local community and the behaviour of individuals and of society. 22 This approach challenges some of Singapore’s iconic architecture, which may have compromised some of its functionality because of its desire to be iconic, losing the primary focus of meeting the functional needs of users.18 KA pursues a perfect balance between the various stakeholders. Architecture today tends to neglect most of the users, as design decisions generally favour stakeholders, such as developers, who hold the majority of the decision making power; this then gives rise to dissatisfaction from users.17,18,36
56
Thomas Heatherwick’s NTU learning hub (Fig. 29, 30) has been subject to much scrutiny from netizens, which tends to be overly harsh; however, these comments hold certain truths to them. They have argued that the shape of the rooms is not functional and the atrium takes up a lot of the space. A complaint by an anonymous student of the school substantiates the argument of Frontczak’s study, which suggests how the loss of lettable floor area influences user satisfaction37; when functionality is compromised, great dissatisfaction ensues. 36, 37
57
Similarly, the design of the award-winning Melbourne School of Design (MSD) (Fig 31, 32), which includes a large atrium, has proven to be efficient in its design, but has neglected creating enough space for design students to work, defeating the primary purpose of a new design school. 38 To prevent these issues from occurring, KA assesses the practicality of architecture design decisions in order to ensure that the fundamental requirements of the design are met. KA also tries to ensure that all design decisionmaking is fair to all stakeholders, focusing on those with the highest level of interaction with the building instead of those who may have the greatest influence in making decisions. KA must consider how to achieve a desire for iconic architecture without compromising the fundamental purpose of architecture. 23 58
59
60
61
Finally, KA seeks to continually improve and adapt both its design and construction processes, responding to criticism and learning from failures, in order to remain relevant in a fast-paced society. This reflective and humble approach is evident in MBS’s footing design, as it shows learning from the 2004 Nicole highway disaster (Fig. 33) that led to the death of 4 workers.19 The highway’s collapse was a result of the designers’ poor understanding of marine clay (Fig. 34) and their lack of foresight to fortify the footings to ensure that the structural integrity of the highway would be maintained, even in the event of possible ground works.
62
63
Learning from the failure of others, MBS’s design team utilised concrete blocks to create peanut and donut-shaped diaphragms (Fig. 35) to enable excavation and also provide a firm footing for the building, situated on a site made up of unstable marine clay.19 KA utilises this reflective approach so that designers can strive for the best ways to create and build architecture. Additionally, Rem Koolhaas spoke about OMA’s practice and suggested that their practices place emphasis on critiques of projects rather than on themselves, the creator.
64
65
66
67
KA’s primary goal is to create buildings that are exceptional in all aspects, with a greater emphasis on functionality. Its practicality is supported by the fact that buildings are costly commodities, which are expected to last a significant period of time, which demands KA’s stringent selection process. Despite having access to a wide range of construction and designing tools in the 21st century, we still see poorly constructed buildings5, 20 (Fig. 1-3). KA’s hardworking ethos and positive competitive spirit are reflected in Singapore’s meritocratic society, which demands effective results. Singapore’s economic and environmental success is a testimony to the strengths of Kiasu-ism. 29 Therefore, the stringent process of KA is relevant to the discourse of architecture.
68
69
70
71
The pragmatic rejection of less successful ideas, as mentioned in KA’s first principle, could hamper innovation, stifling breakthroughs in the architecture domain. KA’s ‘afraid-to-lose’ mindset demands practicality and efficiency, and so the rejection of these elements is expected, as their chances of achieving success would be lower than models that have already garnered a reputation for reliability. The elimination of less successful options would reduce design innovation possibilities that stem from the rejected elements. However, Wright’s article on creativity mentions that it is necessary for an individual to have a comprehensive understanding of the domain before he is able to produce something of relevance and importance.12 Hence, with the exploration of various design or construction techniques, architects would become experts in the discipline and this would allow for some innovation. KA’s desire for the best emphasises success. One would expect that creativity is important in achieving an exemplary building, but in truth, creativity is not crucial to success. KA’s emphasis on successful construction over aesthetics is demonstrated by this view that aesthetics is subjective and practicality is prime. The perceived pre-requisite of creativity, therefore, is secondary in the design of architecture.
72
73
74
75
KA can be distilled down to a desire to create the best architecture, considering the resources that are at our disposal and selecting those that are tested to ensure a greater level of efficiency. KA is flexible in design and construction and its adaptive nature employs the best methods available. KA takes a pragmatic approach in designing, ensuring that designs are functional and meet the needs of stakeholders from various disciplines. This pragmatism also ensures that designers maintain a forward-looking attitude in the realisation of a building. This process supports how designers become experts not only in their domain but also, from the mentioned above disciplines. However, new technologies are not fully optimised by designers. Furthermore, KA has a diligent work ethic that competes to be the best and prepares for any scenario in order to achieve the absolute best. Its approach aims to eliminate the construction of inadequately designed buildings, which are prevalent, making it relevant today.
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84