* DESIGN OF
THE YEAR 2023

The project arose out of a need for a new complex to cater for the rising number of court cases in Singapore. Why was it proposed to site the new building upon an existing open-air car park beside the former State Courts building, despite its many constraints?

Colin Wu (CW): The State Courts, formerly known as the Subordinate Courts of Singapore, originally resided in what is known as the “Octagon” building. Site sourcing for a new State Courts building started in the late 1990s. Based on the projected caseload for the following years, the gross floor area (GFA) and facilities required were determined. From there, CPG conceptualised the idea of building the first high-rise courthouse in Singapore.

Through this innovative concept, which moves away from the traditional low-rise courthouse typology, not only would the new State Courts building have ample space for future expansion, but the Octagon could be occupied by the Family Justice Courts, which also required an expansion of its facilities. This way, the two buildings could form a judiciary hub and operate as an integrated entity, saving time and resources.

From there, we worked with the State Courts and conducted various test fit designs for the new State Courts Towers during the feasibility studies to develop its planning parameters and assess the suitability of the Havelock Square site for the new building. Much of these information and simulations were then used to formulate the design brief for the open design competition.

In 2011, the approval was obtained from the Master Planning Committee to develop the site into a single judiciary hub. This was followed by the launch of an open design competition for the new State Courts complex.

A large number of spaces had to fit into the small footprint. Another key consideration was the traditional courthouse requirement to keep the judicial officers, persons-in-custody, and public separate within the building. How did the team overcome these constraints to create a distinctive design?

CW: First of all, it was necessary to convince the client and stakeholders that it is possible to develop a high-rise courthouse on the tight site. Various design studies were conducted at the feasibility stage to determine if the site was suitable.

Effective function and operations depend on the careful planning of the movement and circulation of the judicial officers, persons-in-custody, and public, with each group having clearly defined and segregated circulation routes. CPG applied our knowledge in court planning and design to conduct various test fits that eventually translated into the development of the brief and massing of the project. These formed the basis of the eventual design.

Christopher Lee (CL): It’s precisely because of the constraints and the functional requirements of the courthouse that we were really pushed to innovate in our entry for the competition. Our response was to rethink the traditional courthouse typology in the form of a high-rise building. We conceived it not as a singular building, but as two towers that each have a very clear function. An office tower is given to the judicial officers, while the courthouses sit on a separate tower that is the public interface. In between the two towers is the circulation core connected by link bridges that allow judicial officers to move between their offices and the courtrooms. I think what’s unique is how the two towers were designed to appear as though they slide ever so gently past each other, never fully aligned. Each tower is read separately, and the arrangement creates a very slender tower profile.

Conventional high-rise buildings have repeatable floor plates and equal floor-to-floor heights that are wrapped with glazed curtain walls. However, the State Courts Towers lack such traditional facades and were instead conceived as a series of platforms of different heights. What shaped this unusual design and how might it perform differently, too?

CL: What drove the design was not just the reconceptualisation of the traditional courtroom as a high-rise typology, but also how the building relates to its context. In Chinatown, where the building is sited, there are two typical architectures. One is the ubiquitous high-rise. In juxtaposition and within close proximity is the shophouse. What we wanted to do was to bring these two types of typical architecture together. Learning from them was important because such typical architectures have been used by people over time and are accepted socially and culturally. This is why the towers were designed as a series of platforms with variable heights. On them we have placed the courtrooms, or “courtroom boxes”, that have the same granularity as the shophouses. The colour of the shophouse roof is also present on the facade.

In doing so, we were able to create a new courthouse that relates to its context and feels somewhat familiar to people. Such a response also allowed us to create a completely open facade where we can bring in lush landscaping to the public spaces. This presents a pleasant environment for both the staff and the public.

CW: In the former State Courts building, the courtrooms were expressed externally in geometrical forms and arranged in an octagonal layout. With the towers, we have taken a similar approach by externally expressing the courtrooms. The conventional glazed facade is “peeled away” to reveal the courtrooms within and the sky terraces in between. The courtrooms are placed in a dedicated tower, which is “open” to metaphorically represent the notion of a judicial system that is transparent and impartial.

The spaces in the towers were designed to improve the experience of using the courts. What are some examples?

CL: The most critical aspect is that most courthouses have a very internalised environment because of the need to separate the circulation of the three main user groups. This creates a maze-like environment that can be quite confusing to navigate. We really wanted to overturn that experience and make the new building very clear in terms of its layout, and very intuitive to navigate. As you move through it, you are always in contact with the exterior environment – be it light, breeze, or the landscape. This experience was designed to be very coherent from the moment you approach the towers and all the way till you take your seat in the courtroom.

CW: In terms of circulation and movement, the journey from outdoor to indoor was choreographed through design. For instance, visitors are greeted by two lift lobbies which bring them up within the tower. The lift doors open to spacious lobby spaces. This layout repeats itself on every level, allowing intuitive wayfinding, especially for those on their first visit. For the judiciary officers, the two-tower arrangement allows their offices to be centrally located at the Office Tower while maintaining easy access to the courtrooms at various floors via the link bridges.

In addition, we empathised with the users of the building who are going through the judiciary processes, which may often be tense and emotional. We wanted to provide spaces that can offer respite from the often demanding and stressful experience of legal proceedings. The open sky terrace areas provide a place to calm down and find peace whenever the need arises…

The towers have been recognised with awards both in Singapore and overseas. What aspect of this project are you most proud of?

CL: The way in which we have reinvented the courthouse typology into a high-rise building that really belongs to the Singapore DNA. When it comes to high-rise, high-density architecture, Singapore has the capacity and the environment that nurtures and promotes innovation more than almost any other city around the world. There is also a commitment to create and foster high-rise buildings that are environmentally responsive. This is why we were able to rethink the State Courts as towers that integrate landscaping so well. We were able to create something unique because of the land pressures that Singapore faces, and how it chooses to boldly confront this issue instead of being limited by it. We are incredibly grateful to have been able to participate in this process.

CW: The breakthrough in high-rise courthouse typology in Singapore began with this State Courts Towers, and the challenges we faced while adapting from a typical low-rise to a new super high-rise courthouse typology, is indeed an achievement. The State Courts Towers is a massive building, considering that it is built on a location with various existing conditions and a fully developed environment. We have successfully integrated the building into the urban fabric… Our atypical approach towards high-rise design has rejuvenated the Singapore skyline and set a design precedent for future public buildings. This is something that we are proud of.