Yu Chungha (Howard): I want to ask a question to Finnbar. My main question is that in the case of Hong Kong it is similar to Singapore that it is very dense. To solve the problem Hong Kong build the builds really high, but for your case, you decided to explore the underworld. So why do think Hong Kong decided to build high and which options are much better from your perspective? Exploring the underworld or building it high? And what is the factor that makes the exploration of underground more interesting?
Finbarr Fallon: So it is interesting that you point out the density. I call Singapore dense, but if I visit Hong Kong, the density here is another level. Singapore has quite a fair bit of open space, then the question is why would you not densify further then go underground. I think it is a question of livability, to what extent can we densify and build high. There are certain economic factors governing how Singapore landscape is very different from Hong Kong as Singapore’s 80% is government housing. So we have a very planned city and I envisioned this as a vanity project where I do not rationalize it fully using statistic. I am speculating that it is seen through the eye of a government as a kind of spectacle where I am not going to rationalize it financially but it is a mega project.
So in that way, this is bringing back the wonder of underground space of the 1850s where people were amazed by the underground spaces, and I think less often amazed by underground spaces these days due to the commercially driven and it is purely a box. But how can we as architects innovate the underground space in new ways and how can we design more livable underground such that we can spend a longer period of time underground. Nowadays, if you speak to most people they wouldn’t want to live underground, but I argue that we can create a livable underground such that people may want to live there for longer period of time.