Architecture Culture and History 2

[ARC 1323]

Architecture Heritage Building Analysis

SULTAN ABDUL SAMAD BUILDING

Muhammad Naim bin Ahmad Mukif 0303348

Muhammad Saufie bin Azlee 0303396

Gary Chong 0302527

Oh Keng Yee 0312501

Contents

Brief Overview 1

Contextual Condition 4

The Architect 6

Building Analysis 7

Comparative Study 19

Conclusion 25

P a g e | 1

Overview

Left : Site Context

Right : Showing the Sultan Abdul Samad Bulding on the right of the Padang

The Sultan Abdul Samad Building is located directly opposite the Padang (known presently

as Dataran Merdeka) along Jalan Raja in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. It has stood as witness to

many major historical events since it was built.

The architect of the building was the then Government Architect, A. C. Norman. This

imposing structure takes up approximately 4,208 m2 of prime real estate and is currently

housing the he offices of the Ministry of Information, Communications and Culture of

Malaysia.

Above : Postcard of the building dated 1937

P a g e | 2

Overview

The Sultan Abdul Samad building was initially commissioned for the colonial State

Government of Selangor. When the Federation of Malaysia was formed to replace the

Malayan Union, the building was then changed to house instead the Federated Malay States

(FMS) administration. It remained as the administrative centre even after the independence

of Malaya in 1957 and the formation of Malaysia in 1963.

The architecture of the building remained unchanged until 1971, when Kuala Lumpur fell

victim to a massive flood due to heavy rainfall. Part of the building was badly damaged.

Renovation works to salvage the building set out in 1978 and took a good six years to

complete. The budget was rumoured to be just north of RM 17 million. Notable changes to

the structure were seen to be made to the roof and the dome.

P a g e | 3

Overview

During the time restoration works were taking place, the Federal Government relocated its

office to a new building along Jalan Duta. It was during this time that building was renamed

to what it is known as now, the Sultan Abdul Samad Building.

Upon completion of restoration, the building was then home to The Supreme Court, Appeal

Court and Malaya High Court.

All courts were then relocated to

the Palace of Justice in

Putrajaya in the early 2000s,

with the exception of the High

Court of Malaya which moved in

2007 to a new complex in Jalan

Duta.

P a g e | 4

Contextual Condition

At first glance, the Sultan Abdul Samad Building is an arresting sight. With the front façade

spanning 137.2 metres along Jalan Raja, a building this size is hard to ignore.

The first plans of the building drawn up by Norman were based on the Classical

Renaissance architectural style but the State Engineer, C. E. Spooner urged them to go in a

different direction with their design.

The improved architectural style was based on those seen in British India and was termed

“Mahometan” although in India it was more commonly known as “Indo-Saracenic”.

P a g e | 5

Contextual Condition

Left : Muir College, Allabahad, with

Indo-Saracenic style.

Spooner was of the opinion that the

Arabic-North Indian architectural style

was more suited to a country

predominantly populated by Muslims.

His argument was backed up by the

public structures built in British India

that he witnessed while serving in

Ceylon.

Taking into account the impact this

building would have on the people,

the designs were modified.

Winds of Change

Another factor that brought on the change was the climate. By introducing arches from the Indo-Saracenic style, the cross ventilation of the building was vastly improved; A feature that benefits the structure in Malaya’s tropical climate. The ventilation flow was further aided by the 2 metre wide verandah that served as the main circulation path around the building.

A Show of Power

The initial budget for the building was estimated to be $60,000. A turn of events that led to the switch of Governers brought the figure up to $150,000. The extravagance is shown in both the scale and the sheer amount of material used. The large expense and the huge scale of the building is a statement by the British to reassert their hold over the Malayan soil. This expression of power paved the way for the Mahometan architectural style in Malaya.

P a g e | 6

The Architect Born in England in 1858, Arthur Charles Alfred Norman served as a senior government architect of Public Works Department (PWD) in Malaya from the year 1883 till 1903. On October 6th, 1894, the Sultan Abdul Samad Building began construction under the supervision of the State Engineer, Charles Edwin Spooner, with Norman as the official architect. In just three years the building was completed. It was the largest building to be built at the time spanning 400 feet in on the ground with a central clock tower standing 135 feet tall. During the construction of this iconic building, Norman was also involved with a number of other structures. His works include the St Mary’s Church (1894), the year SASB was scheduled to begin construction, the Selangor Club Building (1890), Victoria institution (1894), the Carcosa (1897) and the the Government Printing Office, known in the present day as the JKR 92 Memorial Library and Museum(1907 – 09).

While Norman was the Government Architect at the time, the Moorish architectural style that resonates in the Sultan Abdul Samad Building, and a number of others in the vicinity, was influenced by the State Engineer, Charles Edwin Spooner, who at the time had working experience in Ceylon. His influenced induced Norman to change the early designs of the Sultan Abdul Samad Building from that of the Classic Renaissance to adapt the Mahometan style. Notably, not all of Norman’s work show this adaptation. The St Mary Church, Selangor Club Building and the Government Printing Office had strong similarities to the architecture from his native land, England.

P a g e | 7

Building Analysis

1. F-Shaped Floor Plan

The Sultan Abdul Samad Building has an F shaped floor plan. This results in a very strong

façade as the ‘backbone’ of the F is the front of the building. The centre courtyard also acts

to separate the semi-private from the private zones.

P a g e | 8

2. Fenestration

Left : A diagrammatic representation of

the front façade

Most of the openings of the building

are from the arches. The type of

arches varies but the most common

ones seen are as follows : -

1. Horseshoe Arches

2. Ogee Arches

3. Four-centred Arches

L – R : Horseshoe arches line the verandah walls.

A four-centered arch used as opening for window.

P a g e | 9

2.1 Fenestration - Horseshoe Arches

Left : Horsehoe arches line the side of the building facing the courtyard

Right : Horseshoe Arch shown in the foreground

Other names : Moorish Arch, Keyhole Arch

This is the emblematic arch of Islamic architecture. It is used throughout the building in both

the verandahs and doorways.

P a g e | 10

2.2. Fenestration - Ogee Arches

Left : Front façade

Ogee arch is a gothic architecture

characteristic used in the Indo-

Saracenic style.

These pointed arches were seen as

openings along the circumference of

the building, casting interesting

shadows on the verandah floors.

2.3. Fenestration - Four-centred Arches

Left : Four-centred arches used to frame most doorways.

Right : A high four-centred arch at the porch entrance

These arches feature mostly as doorways in the building and to frame larger sheltered

areas. It is a low elliptical or pointed arch, usually drawn from four centres. This type of arch,

when employed as a window opening, lends itself to very wide spaces as seen in the photos

above.

P a g e | 11

3. Repetitive to Unique

There are two ways to look at this. One is in terms of the physical built, the other is in the

architectural style.

Looking at the physical built, a strong sense of repetition is seen. Two different types of

arches are featured repeatedly, namely the Horseshoe arches (majority of the façade) and

the Four-centred arches (front porch entrance). The uniqueness of the structure lies in the

clock tower as it is the tallest part of the building.

The arches that are repeated constantly echo the Indo-Saracenic or Moorish architectural

style whereas the clock tower is predominantly British Style.

It is worth noting that the British always found ways and means to incorporate their culture

into that of the places colonized.

P a g e | 12

4. Symmetry and Balance

Right : Front Elevation

The front façade of the building is extremely symmetrical. Two circular towers with the same

height of 17.2 metres stand on each side of the porch, separated only by a 41.2 metre high

clock tower. In the case of the front façade, the clock tower acts as the axis of symmetry for

the building.

Left : Plan view

The symmetry however only applies for the elevation. When viewed in plan, the F-shaped

nature of the building takes away the symmetry.

P a g e | 13

5. Circulation

Another key aspect of the building is the circulation. The main method of getting around the

building is by using the 2 metre wide verandah that is literally wrapped around the perimeter

of the structure. The use the circumference of the building as circulation creates a very linear

sort of movement.

L-R : First floor

Verandah.

Pattern on

ground floor

verandah.

P a g e | 14

6. Special Features - Clock Tower

L- R : The Clock Tower of Sultan Abdul Samad Building

The most ‘Brisith’ element of the entire building would undoubtedly be the clock tower. It is

the focal point of the building no matter what angle it is viewed from. The dominating sight of

the clock tower in relation to the rest of the ‘less British’ building sends the subtle message

of political dominance of the British in Malaya at the time.

P a g e | 15

7. Special Features - Copper Domes

L-R : One of the two circular towers.

A copper dome peeping out from behind the roof.

Another striking feature of the Sultan Abdul Samad Building are the three towers that

protrude from the building. The copper domes that cap them are based on the Indo-

Saracenic architectural style.

P a g e | 16

8. Special Features – Brickwork

L-R : The clock tower.

A close up of the

brickwork.

The structure is built with bricks throughout. The vibrant red of the clay bricks stand out

against the paleness of the grey lime. The resulting contrast has caused the locals to

nickname the Sultan Abdul Samad Building as the ‘Blood and Bandages’ building.

P a g e | 17

9. Special Features – Rear Elevation

Clockwise : Rear Elevation of the Sultan Abdul Samad Building. Different angle shot of the back of the

building. A close up on the clock tower from the rear view.

Perhaps the most overlooked feature of the whole building. The change in architectural style

from the front façade is sudden and can be mistakened for a building in London if not for the

louvred windows and curved gables.

P a g e | 18

10. Special Features – Natural Light

Clockwise : Evening light pours in

through on of the arches. The position

of arches creates some areas of

shade. An arch is painted with light on

the wall.

The array of arches with different forms

creates an interesting play on light.

The verandah is warmly lit and the

entire building emits a warm glow

when the evening light hits the brick

plastered walls.

P a g e | 19

Comparative Study - Westminster Palace

Location : City of Westminster, London, Britain

Built in the 11th century, the Westminster Palace was the primary residence of the Kings of

England until a fire destroyed part of the building in 1512. It was then rebuilt and became the

home of Parliament since the 13th century. In 1834, another fire broke out and ravaged most

of the structure. Construction to rebuild the palace started in 1840 and lasted for 30 years

due to funding issues and the death of both the leading architects Barry and Pugin.

A quick comparison with numbers

Westminster Palace Sultan Abdul Samad Building

Area : 83,610.00 m2 4,208.50 m2

Front Facade Length : 265.80 m 137.20 m

Clock Tower Height : 96.30 m 41.20 m

P a g e | 20

Similarities – Function & Size

Front Façade of the Sultan Abdul Samad Building

A quick comparison in size shows that although the scale of the Westminster Building is

much larger than that of the Sultan Abdul Samad Building, both buildings were imposing

structures on their respective sites.

The tallest point of the Westminster Palace trumps that of the Malayan building however,

again, in the context of their respective sites, both had some of the tallest buildings around at

the time.

The post fire Westminster Palace was home to the House of Parliament, similar in function

to the Sultan Abdul Samad Building which at one point housed the High Court of Malaya.

Both buildings were the center of administrative offices back then.

Being the center of administrative works made both buildings important structures in their

respective sites.

P a g e | 21

Similarities – Form and Style

Westminster Palace – Perpendicular Gothic

Sultan Abdul Samad Building – Mahometan

The inclusion of a clock tower is the predominant similarities between the two. The Big Ben

has long been an icon close to the hearts of the British. They seem to include it in most

architecture they introduce to their colonies.

L – R : Clock Tower of Sultan Abdul

Samad Building. The Big Ben of

Westminster Palace.

Another feature of the design that is similar is the use of

courtyards. Both structures make use of this open space

to separate the private from the semi-private.

P a g e | 22

Differences – Form & Style

While both structures make use of masonry, the type of stonework used is different. This is

due to the availability and local climate of the site.

L – R : Westminster Palace. Sultan Abdul Samad Building.

Anstone stone, widely available in Britain at the time, was used as a primary material in

building the Westminster Palace whereas for the Sultan Abdul Samad Building, clay brick

was the main form of masonry.

P a g e | 23

Differences – Form & Style

Another distinguishing feature is the openings of the building. By adopting a Indo-Saracenic

style, the Sultan Abdul Samad Building was pierced with openings held up by arches

throughout the façade of the structure. The type of arches used especially, draws a stark

different between the two styles of architecture.

There are some elements of gothic architecture in the Sultan Abdul Samad Building but the

Indian-Islamic features stand out more. The use of arches also helps with ventilation to cool

down the structure, a feature not needed by its comparison building in England due to the

climate difference.

The addition of domes also shines more light on the differences in styles. With its western

counterpart, the use of domes is replaced by the pinnacles. These sharp points top off most

tall structures.

P a g e | 24

Differences – Form & Style

L – R : Pinnacles topping the Westminster

Palaace. Use of dome instead of pinnacles.

P a g e | 25

Conclusion

The Sultan Abdul Samad building has borne witnessed to many major historical events of

our country. It stood proud for over a century, watching as we gained independence and set

the time which marked the joining between the peninsular, Singapore and the east coast. Its

walls have soaked in the joy, the tears and the frustration of our ancestors, as it will ours.

Historical landmarks aren’t just big buildings or expensive structures, they are those that

withstand the test of time and serve as an identity to a nation. This building is that, it is the

identity of our country and everything it stands for.

The first of its kind. The Sultan Abdul Samad Building was the first to be built in the

Mahometan style and brought on an architectural movement within the nation. It is important

that the colonial architecture such as this one is preserved, not only as a national heritage

building, but also as a reminder of the hardship our ancestors went through to get us to

where we are today.

P a g e | 26

References

1. J. M. Gullick. The Sultan Abdul Samad Building. Journal of the Malaysian Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society. Vol. 65, No. 1(262). Malaysian Branch of Asiatic Society (1992)

2. A. Ghafar Ahmad. Chronological Biography of Arthur Charles Alfred Norman. Journal of the Malaysian Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society. Vol. 70, No. 1(272). Malaysian Branch of Asiatic Society (1997)

3. Robert Raymer. Spirit of Malaysia. Editions Didier Millet (2011)

4. Chen Voon Fee. Encyclopedia of Malaysia V05: Architecture (Encyclopedia of Malaysia). Didier Millet, Csi (2007)

5. ACCU Nara International Correspondent. The Eighth Regular Report. (Pg 21-23) Cultural Heritage Protection Cooperation Office, Asia-Pacific Cultural Centre for UNESCO (ACCU) (2011)

6. Hazrina Mohidin, Alice Ismail, Aminatuzuhariah Abdullaah. A Study of Styles Classification and Influences on Administration Building in Malaysia (15th – 21st centrury). Seminar of International Convention: Bridging Between Old & New 2012, KALAM, UTM (Pg 12)

7. Wikipedia. “Sultan Abdul Samad Building”. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sultan_Abdul_Samad_Building

8. World Travel, The Great Mirror : “Travel to Malaysia: KL Take Two”. http://www.greatmirror.com/index.cfm?navid=1519