Thursday, 9 April 2009


the post started out as a mere presentation of our work... but i chose to end it with a particualr note that stirred up so much hype...and if im not being sensitive i can almost say some of u sound so hostile like ur gonna eat me alive...

but it was never meant to be that way.. so if ur hurt im sorry u feel that way cos it was never part of the agenda.. what i was simply trying to do is to create awareness of what could potentially be a problem...

but if u think u are not part of the problem.. then good on u

i will explain and illustrate what is taylorism one day but not now.. it will take some time to

... okay la lemme resolve the comments one by one..

Wai Sie: Atm my question to the scheme is locality and thoughtfullness. To reflect vantage points aint as simple as 4 flat panels. Having such a low structure, i believe itll cut off more views than reflect it

locality and thoughtfulness? i wonder where thoughtfulness came from... are u saying that i have not considered site context? that it is a plonker? it can be placed anywhere and still blend in? =) that's precisely what i am proposing..

bare in mind.. this is australia... culturally there isnt much to shout about... unlike msia where we have our cultural roots... here... really honestly and sadly... they have nothing much... the only reason why Fed Square is the way it is is a proof of that...

so thats culture... now site wise, it is, like in the words of Ian, an urban sculpture... it's purposed to create unlikely urban vistas... and hence the whole idea of vantage points.. visually it connects itself to the alternative urban perspective...

therefore it is universal... place it anywhere and it will work... yes we sacrificed the whole traditional idea of site context... but then again like i mentioned earlier in the scheme.. what it is responding to "site context"-ly is the serene and queit quality that we wanted to celebrate here.. tahst the site responce.

ian: You said that u guys r exploring "what the form will do". Other than create a sexy image (with sketchup) else?

no la... like i said.. .we are playing with tectonics of form and materiallity.. the very disillusionment the form creates and the whole idea of displacement and invisibility is achieved or attempted to achieved by form and materiality..

ian: Er....what happens then to ppl who want to get off the ferry here?

well i failed to mention... the wharfs are already servicing as terminals.. the lecturer that did this breif didnt do his homework... technically speaking this site doesnt need terminals at all cos they already have them.. one on the part and one further down... so in reality, the site is already well serviced... thats why we decided to conceived a singular terminal... and a terminal that does not need to be stuck tehre forever cos it does not need to be there in the first place... but rather hwat it will do is something like the eye of malaysia... where u dun need a ferris wheel but u wanna put it there cos it fraws ppl... once ur done with it u move it else where, like in msia's case - malacca, to draw more ppl there... same idea and concept here...

which bring us to this lady's opinion

Wai Sie: in terms of a mobile ferry terminal?! How would one keep track of the location?!

do you need to know the location of the eye of malaysia? u dun rite? because its such a big thing u know already... and yes... its "mobile" for a reason.. and therefore there is no fixed location... why no fixed location? already answered above...

just a tot: and mun chun...did u told us to avoid design via skp cuz u made the same mistake? to be frank thoh, i like ur idea and concept, but i tot it cud have been more totful, cuz now its just a box..with windows...and it looks like that is designed with just that....skp... so i see where ur coming from.. thx for the heads up, althoh we'v already kn skp is not 4 design ever since...cheers..

ur skeptism on "just a box" is what proofs my point on taylorism (which i will explain in a later date).. something that is "just a box" need not nessecerily be lack of thought.. trust me we put a lot of thought into it.. we did alot of research and for example, in terms of manuveruerability (ian u asked about this) it is perfectly responsive to the manuveurs of the boats.. it is shaped to allow easy docking... if only i can show u how they dock then u'd understand... but certain ideas needed to be carried thru.. and we wanted to keep the box.. for purposes i have already mentioned..

and no, we did not start with sketch up.. the renders are in sketch up thats i said before this porject was an attempt, on our part, to break away from that.. we wanted to challenge ourselves how far we can go without skp..

1 comment:

ian ng said...

u've justified ur decisions well enough in most instances, tho not irrefutable. What's priceless for me about this scheme is the debate it invites on the subject of impermanence and transience and how we might create architecture for it and to represent it. In those terms u have succeeded quite admirably. But the price could have been less disagreeable.

As for ur poor brief-setter, I wouldn't be so quick to agree that he was so duh to be unaware of the existing facilities. I'm more inclined to think one of 2 things: 1, that he was looking for an enhancement of the existing facilities; and 2, that he was anticipating precisely the sort of outcomes ur scheme has produced.