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.