How is the current generation of architects different from the above pioneers? Have they inherited ideas from the past and how have they altered them? Importantly, how have the conditions affecting architectural practice evolved? 
 

To answer these broad questions, I will use 5 notions to loosely move across the eras.
 

1. The Origin of Programmatic Thinking

As buildings get more complex and clients become more knowledgable, the agency for decision-making is drifting further from the architect. More and more, architects are becoming executors of detailed instructions that they have no part in shaping.
 

In the first three decades after independence, nation building was a live experiment and architects had much to offer in the fields of urban planning, urban design and programmatic thinking. They were well versed from learning the history of western modernisation, but were also strong independent thinkers who could design solutions to our specific conditions.
 

As the country has progressed, good solutions and learning points are continually being assimilated into the operating manuals of state agencies. These agencies gather specialised knowledge over projects, engage specialists and go on overseas learning trips. A state-owned building such as a hospital, a library or an airport today is so much more than a structure. It is a symbol of efficiency, innovation and reliability on a political and national level. The client produces a well-researched brief of a few hundred pages in order to obtain assurance of the building's performance. 
 

Projects such as Kampung Admiralty by WOHA and Our Tampines Hub by DPA fall under this category of "national projects".  While architects still have a role in orchestrating how programs come together, the ability to influence fundamental components is much less than their predecessors. The architect has relinquished thought leadership in the programmatic aspect.
 

2. Detail

In the nineties, as the nation became more developed and affluent, architectural firms matured. It was around this time when the work of Carlo Scarpa was rediscovered, Norman Foster became prominent with his "high-tech" detail, and American architects such as Tod Williams & Billie Tsien were crafting highly poetic assemblies in their projects. Influenced by the tone of the day, Singaporean practices at the turn of the century embraced the detail and found the perfect platform in a number of private residences and luxury condominiums. 
 

In this period, the sophisticated detail became the distinguishing mark of whether a practice was "design-oriented" or if it was merely commercial. Practices such as SCDA, WOHA, W Architects, Kerry Hill and Bedmar+Shi surged forth as a new generation of boutique design firms.
 

In 1997, the completion of the 5-storey office building "Genesis" by Kerry Hill Architects heralded the screen as a game-changer for architectural production in the tropics. Fine timber strips, were fixed close together such that a sheer surface was presented on the outside, but sufficiently spaced for light to filter into the interior. Between the timber screen and the inner glass wall,  Hill designed an accessible interstitial space of perforated steel catwalks. 
 

With this facade, Hill demonstrated the aesthetic potential of the double skin, pulled apart to create an in-between space. The screen worked just as well as an environmental filter, cutting out direct sunlight.. The timber facade screen or variations of that soon became widely employed in projects, to the point where it became a trite formula.
 

In 1999, Mok Wei Wei of WLA completed the condominium Paterson Edge. The widely acclaimed project was distinguished by a crisp long facade of full glass curtain wall with horizontal metal fins as brise soleil.
 

These two projects were significant in two ways. The first was that they brought the neo-modernist, refined, but ultimately unadventurous architectural language of simple boxes and clean planes back into popular practice, in some ways abruptly ending the search of an appropriate language in the preceding 2 decades. The second was that boutique design studios entered the world of commercial, marketable projects by developers, leading to the growth of this generation of architects.
 

3. Tropicality to Ecology

The incorporation of plants in architecture is now common in Singapore. This often comes with airy multi-volume spaces nested within high rise buildings, called sky gardens. The work of WOHA (Oasia Downtown, Kampong Admiralty, Park Royal Pickering) are well-executed and highly innovative works in this genre. The visions of Kampong Bugis DGP, and also the early work of Malaysian architect Ken Yeang, appear to have been realised and exceeded. 
 

While there is clear visual continuity between the two generations of designs, the underlying motivation is quite different. In the nineties, the call for a specific architectural language responding to the tropics must be seen as a search for identity, both a stage of nation building and also a reaction against the widespread adoption of international style modernism. In comparison, the present reincarnation of tropical architecture is framed as a response to climate change. The problem is a global one and the solutions proposed here are also relevant globally.
 

Undoubtedly, the discourse of architectural identity has shifted to one of architectural performance. Tropicality is now subsumed under Ecology. For this generation of architects, shedding the discourse on identity reflects a certain self-confidence and taking up the ecological angle allows them to engage a wider audience beyond.
 

The ecological perspective contextualises the development of a specific tropical architectural language, which can be said to distinguish recent Singapore architecture. There are, however, more superficial ways of this practice. Hardly sympathetic to sustainability, "greenery" - plants, creepers, trees, etc - is also used indiscriminately as a finishing surface, for texture, colour, and general interest. Thus we are now numb to the proliferation of green walls and roof gardens, much like the timber screen two decades ago.
 

4. Local / Foreign

For much of its history, architectural practice in Singapore has been undertaken by both locals and foreigners. The status of local professionals vis-a-vis their foreign counterparts has however changed over the years. Before independence, local draftsmen in Singapore, working without certified degrees, played second fiddle to their British counterparts. After independence, with the setting up of the architecture department in the national university, local architects gradually established themselves.
 

However, as Singapore is an economy with open borders, the state has never expressly installed barriers to the influx of foreign architects and studios. From office towers by I.M. Pei and Kenzo Tange in the seventies to recent buildings in SUTD (UN Studio) and NTU (Heatherwick), the range of typologies for which clients will consider a foreign "starchitect" has actually widened. While foreign consultants were only considered for skyscrapers in the past, they are now being considered by any clients aspiring for a landmark building be it a school, hospital or condominium.
 

At the same time, local architectural firms such as SCDA, WOHA & ARC Studio, amongst others, have risen to a level where they are designing projects and winning awards internationally. One can only say that the unfiltered exposure to the best that the world has to offer has challenged local architects to up their game as well. One has to wonder, however, if this common international yardstick has suppressed the growth and recognition of a unique aesthetic from Singapore.

 

5. Scale and Specialisation

Globalisation has broadened the available markets for architectural firms and thus enabled their scaling up. 
 

To continue to broaden markets, large firms have also begun to include engineering services, promising an all-in-one, integrated consultancy service. This fits in with the increasing complexity of projects requiring closer collaboration.
 

A recent development in the business model of architectural practice has been the multi-service behemoth firm. Ong & Ong began this practice of offering all services in the late nineties. The merger of Surbana and Jurong Consultants, formerly the in-house consultants of state-owned industrial properties, in its new, state-linked agglomeration as Surbana-Jurong (SJ) brings this model to a different scale altogether. Using the national track record of urban development as its calling card, SJ is undertaking entire townships in India from urban planning down to architecture. Meanwhile, already large architectural firms are being assimiliated into global development conglomerates such as AECOM.
 

The increasingly corporatized model of practice has also led to specialisation. Singaporean architects twenty years ago were generalists. If anything, housing (condominiums) was something that every office could do fairly well. Other than housing, schools, parks and hospitals were undertaken by architects within the associated state agencies. 
 

At the beginning of this century, the system was liberalised to allow these state-funded institutions to be realised by the private sector. This was accompanied by more infrastructural development to support the population growth. Schools were expanded, more hospitals were built, while shopping malls were introduced outside the city centre.
 

With the broadening of the market, we are now starting to see offices deliberately build up expertise in a particular typology. This has become a business strategy to assure a steady supply of projects. Examples are CIAP (healthcare), LAUD (churches), RT+Q (luxury houses), and DPA (shopping malls).