User:Somebodyidkfkdt/sandbox4: Difference between revisions – Wikipedia

Line 53: Line 53:

By the end of 1982, 96% of the store’s retail units and 56% of the office space had been leased out.<ref name = “Lee”/> ”The Straits Times” noted that the complex was one of several major office buildings in the country, alongside the [[Singapore Land Tower|Shell Tower]] and the [[HSBC Building, Singapore|Hongkong Bank Building]], which opened in the early 1980s to “a market that was already feeling the effects of the [[Early 1980s recession|recession]].<ref>{{cite news |last= |first= |date= 25 February 1983|title= Landed property only segment showing growth, says consultant|url= https://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/newspapers/digitised/article/straitstimes19830225-1.2.78.16|work= [[The Straits Times]]|location= Singapore|access-date= 26 December 2025}}</ref> By the end of February, the occupancy rate for the office tower had risen to 64%, while the mall’s occupancy rate had remained the same.<ref>{{cite news |last= Choo|first= Ai Leng|date= 19 April 1983|title= UOL expects 1983 pre-tax profits to soar to $56.56 m|url= https://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/newspapers/digitised/article/biztimes19830419-1.2.36|work= [[The Business Times (Singapore)|The Business Times]]|location= Singapore|access-date= 26 December 2025}}</ref> In July, both Goldhill Square and Shell Tower were named the “most ‘energy-conscious’ buildings in Singapore” by the [[Building and Construction Authority|Building Control Division]]. This was a newly-created award intended to encourage the inclusion of “energy-saving features” in developments.<ref>{{cite news |last= |first= |date= 9 July 1983|title= Shell and Gold hill buildings are the most energy conscious|url= https://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/newspapers/digitised/article/straitstimes19830709-1.2.68|work= [[The Business Times (Singapore)|The Business Times]]|location= Singapore|access-date= 26 December 2025}}</ref>

By the end of 1982, 96% of the store’s retail units and 56% of the office space had been leased out.<ref name = “Lee”/> ”The Straits Times” noted that the complex was one of several major office buildings in the country, alongside the [[Singapore Land Tower|Shell Tower]] and the [[HSBC Building, Singapore|Hongkong Bank Building]], which opened in the early 1980s to “a market that was already feeling the effects of the [[Early 1980s recession|recession]].<ref>{{cite news |last= |first= |date= 25 February 1983|title= Landed property only segment showing growth, says consultant|url= https://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/newspapers/digitised/article/straitstimes19830225-1.2.78.16|work= [[The Straits Times]]|location= Singapore|access-date= 26 December 2025}}</ref> By the end of February, the occupancy rate for the office tower had risen to 64%, while the mall’s occupancy rate had remained the same.<ref>{{cite news |last= Choo|first= Ai Leng|date= 19 April 1983|title= UOL expects 1983 pre-tax profits to soar to $56.56 m|url= https://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/newspapers/digitised/article/biztimes19830419-1.2.36|work= [[The Business Times (Singapore)|The Business Times]]|location= Singapore|access-date= 26 December 2025}}</ref> In July, both Goldhill Square and Shell Tower were named the “most ‘energy-conscious’ buildings in Singapore” by the [[Building and Construction Authority|Building Control Division]]. This was a newly-created award intended to encourage the inclusion of “energy-saving features” in developments.<ref>{{cite news |last= |first= |date= 9 July 1983|title= Shell and Gold hill buildings are the most energy conscious|url= https://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/newspapers/digitised/article/straitstimes19830709-1.2.68|work= [[The Business Times (Singapore)|The Business Times]]|location= Singapore|access-date= 26 December 2025}}</ref>

According to Alaric Tay and Elaine Koh, the complex opened to “great fanfare”.<ref name = “Tay”/> Caroline Ngui of ”The Straits Times” reported in January 1983 that the mall was “one of the few shopping centres where even the shop assistants are not too sure which floor they’re on”, though she noted that this was in part due to the delay in installing signage and directories, as well as the “somewhat haphazard” layout.<ref name = “Ngui”/> The following month, the ”[[Singapore Monitor]]” reported that the complex experienced low footfall during the week despite having Galeries Lafayette and a McDonald’s as tenants, and that there were concerns that the complex would develop a reputation for being a “[[white elephant]]”. This was attributed to the mall’s “confusing” layout and the then-lack of a taxi stand, which led to the complex being “too far out“ for shoppers.<ref name = “SM”/> Signs and directories were installed in March to aid shoppers in finding directions.<ref>{{cite news |last= |first= |date= 6 March 1983|title=”Excuse me, sir, can you tell me the way to the loo?”|url= https://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/newspapers/digitised/article/singmonitor19830306-1.2.13.13.1|work= [[Singapore Monitor]]|location= Singapore|access-date= 26 December 2025}}</ref>

According to Alaric Tay and Elaine Koh, the complex opened to “great fanfare”.<ref name = “Tay”/> Caroline Ngui of ”The Straits Times” reported in January 1983 that the mall was “one of the few shopping centres where even the shop assistants are not too sure which floor they’re on”, though she noted that this was in part due to the delay in installing signage and directories, as well as the “somewhat haphazard” layout.<ref name = “Ngui”/> The following month, the ”[[Singapore Monitor]]” reported that the complex experienced low footfall during the week despite having Galeries Lafayette and a McDonald’s as tenants, and that there were concerns that the complex would develop a reputation for being a “[[white elephant]]”. This was attributed to the mall’s “confusing” layout and the then-lack of a taxi stand, which led to the complex being too out for shoppers.<ref name = “SM”/> Signs and directories were installed in March to aid shoppers in finding directions.<ref>{{cite news |last= |first= |date= 6 March 1983|title=”Excuse me, sir, can you tell me the way to the loo?”|url= https://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/newspapers/digitised/article/singmonitor19830306-1.2.13.13.1|work= [[Singapore Monitor]]|location= Singapore|access-date= 26 December 2025}}</ref>

To attract taxis to its now-installed taxi stand, the mall then offered a $1 tip to cabbies who picked up passengers there. Goldhill claimed that this tip was “for the radiophone surcharge and meant as a service to shoppers.”<ref>{{cite news |last= |first= |date= 11 March 1983|title= Goldhill drops that $1 bonus|url= https://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/newspapers/digitised/article/straitstimes19830311-1.2.146|work= [[The Straits Times]]|location= Singapore|access-date= 26 December 2025}}</ref> The discount was introduced as the mall’s taxi stand was out of the way for cabbies and the traffic in the area during peak hours made it “difficult to get out onto Thomson Road.” However, this was discontinued on the request of the [[Registry of Vehicles]], who believed that the practice would set a precedent. Instead, the registry installed two more taxi stands around the mall to allow for easier acces, and suggested that the mall’s service road be reversed.<ref>{{cite news |last= |first= |date= 13 March 1983|title= Putting a stop to Goldhill’s taxi problem|url= https://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/newspapers/digitised/article/straitstimes19830313-1.2.31|work= [[The Straits Times]]|location= Singapore|access-date= 26 December 2025}}</ref> Goldhill went with this suggestion, which led to a significantly shortened taxi wait time at the mall. Additionally, the number of taxis which visited the mall daily reportedly doubled up to 300 to 400.<ref>{{cite news |last= |first= |date= 16 June 1983|title= Goldhill gets the taxis rolling in|url= https://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/newspapers/digitised/article/straitstimes19830616-1.2.38|work= [[The Straits Times]]|location= Singapore|access-date= 26 December 2025}}</ref>

To attract taxis to its now-installed taxi stand, the mall then offered a $1 tip to cabbies who picked up passengers there. Goldhill claimed that this tip was “for the radiophone surcharge and meant as a service to shoppers.”<ref>{{cite news |last= |first= |date= 11 March 1983|title= Goldhill drops that $1 bonus|url= https://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/newspapers/digitised/article/straitstimes19830311-1.2.146|work= [[The Straits Times]]|location= Singapore|access-date= 26 December 2025}}</ref> The discount was introduced as the mall’s taxi stand was out of the way for cabbies and the traffic in the area during peak hours made it “difficult to get out onto Thomson Road.” However, this was discontinued on the request of the [[Registry of Vehicles]], who believed that the practice would set a precedent. Instead, the registry installed two more taxi stands around the mall to allow for easier acces, and suggested that the mall’s service road be reversed.<ref>{{cite news |last= |first= |date= 13 March 1983|title= Putting a stop to Goldhill’s taxi problem|url= https://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/newspapers/digitised/article/straitstimes19830313-1.2.31|work= [[The Straits Times]]|location= Singapore|access-date= 26 December 2025}}</ref> Goldhill went with this suggestion, which led to a significantly shortened taxi wait time at the mall. Additionally, the number of taxis which visited the mall daily reportedly doubled up to 300 to 400.<ref>{{cite news |last= |first= |date= 16 June 1983|title= Goldhill gets the taxis rolling in|url= https://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/newspapers/digitised/article/straitstimes19830616-1.2.38|work= [[The Straits Times]]|location= Singapore|access-date= 26 December 2025}}</ref>

United Square is an office and shopping complex along Thomson Road in Novena, Singapore, comprising a __-storey triangular glass office tower resting upon a four-storey retail podium. First announced in 1977 as Plaza III, it was developed by Goldhill Properties, a company of the Goei family, in response to the success of the next-door Goldhill Plaza. The completed complex, renamed Goldhill Square, opened in late 1982 with all of its units leased out instead of sold. The French department store chain Galeries Lafayette, the first French department store chain to open an outlet in the country, was its anchor tenant, with other early tenants including the first local outlets of Old Uncle Gaylord’s Ice Cream and Dunkin’ Donuts.

While the complex was well-patronised on its opening, its footfall declined very shortly after. The department store, which had aimed to cater towards the local middle-class and tourists, struggled to compete with other department stores and closed down in 1986 despite the efforts of the Goei family to keep it afloat. The development then become the subject of a major legal dispute between Goldhill and the United Overseas Bank (UOB) group, who had financed the project, which ended in 1987 with a $216 million settlement and the sale of the complex to UOB.

Planning and construction

Goldhill Properties announced in October 1977 that they were to develop another office and shopping complex, then referred to as Plaza III, along Thomson Road, following up on the early success of its previous complex in the area, Goldhill Plaza. The older project’s success had demonstrated the demand for office space outside of the Central Business District, which the company hoped to “capitalise” on. The complex was to comprise an office tower resting on a retail podium. By then, this initial plan had already been approved by the authorities, though it was expected that there would be further “major” alterations made to the project. The Business Times called it “one of Singapore’s most ambitious property development [sic] to date”.^[1] The project was financed by the UOB group.^[2]

The complex was to be situated on a one hectare site^[1] near the junction of Thomson Road and Newton Road^[3] next to Goldhill Plaza and the Goldhill Shopping Centre, which Goldhill had built in 1969.^[1][4] However, Goldhill decided that it would lease out the complex’s units instead of selling them like it had done with its previous developments.^[5] The “centrepiece of the Goei family’s business empire”, it was intended to “draw some of the crowds away from Orchard Road.”^[2]

Houkehua Consulting Engineers served as the project’s structural engineers while Graham Anderson & Associates served as the mechanical and electrical engineers.^[6] On the initial announcement, Goldhill claimed that they hoped to have construction begin by early 1980, though they noted that a delay was “expected” as they wished to continue making major alterations to the design of the complex. It was then estimated that the total cost of the project, including both the cost of land and construction, was $67 million.^[1] In October 1979, property firm United Overseas Land took a 25% stake in Goldhill as they felt that the project, by now renamed Goldhill Square, was “well located outside the limits of the Central Business District. The estimated cost of the project had by then risen to $100 million.^[7]

Substructure work on the complex began in October 1979 with the construction of the basement and was set to take 40 weeks. The contractors for this were Japanese construction firm Sato Kogyo.^[6] In May 1980, it was announced that the Shimizu Corporation, one of the ‘Big Five’ construction companies in Japan,^[8] had won the $80 million contract to build the complex.^[9] This was the firm’s first skyscraper outside of Japan.^[8] Work on the basement, which cost around $12 million, was then expected to conclude in August. It was then estimated that the cost to built the complex overall would be greater than $100 million and that the complex as a whole would be ready by 1982.^[9] Construction on the complex utilised a curtain wall, which was manufactured by Saint-Gobain.^[10] According to Hiroshi Shimizu, this was the first time the method had been used in Singapore.^[8] The structural-glazed curtain wall was visibly attached to the exterior with frames made of aluminium.^[11]

After the Chinese New Year period, Shimizu began organising daily morning five-minute-long “Japanese-style exercises” for the around 500 workers on site set to music provided by the Nippon Broadcasting System, followed by a talk on workplace safety. The workers were provided with incentives for participating, as well as for wearing safety helmets. Shimizu claimed that the introduction of the exercises led to the shortening of the number of days it took to build a floor from 13 to nine, as well as increasing the percentage of workers who wore safety helmets from 20% to 80%. A time check system was introduced in conjunction with a competition which rewarded workers who worked on the project for at least two minutes without taking more than two days off. This was to aid in employee retention.^[12] The Business Times reported in October 1981 that the podium was set to be complete by the end of the year and the office tower was to be completed in May of the following year. The cost of construction was then estimated to be around $150 million.^[5] It ultimately cost $180 million.^[13]

Architecture

Designed by local firm ONG&ONG Architects,^[6] the complex was initially to be 20-storeys-tall in total and was to comprise a 17-storey glass office tower resting on a three-storey retail podium with a basement level. The podium and office block were to have a total built up area of 18,500 sq m and 15,000 sq m respectively.^[1] By October 1979, the plan for the complex had been revised such that it was to feature a 28-storey triangular office tower over a three-storey retail podium with a basement,^[7] accompanied by a seven-deck carpark in a separate, adjacent block^[6] with a capacity for 651 vehicles.^[5] It was to have 14,694 sq m of shop space and 24,430 sq m of office space.^[7] By May 1980, the plans had again been altered such that the office tower was to be 32-storeys-tall and the carpark was to be eight-storeys-tall.^[9]

The plans had been re-revised again by October 1981, such that the tower was 28-storeys-tall and the podium four-storeys. The carpark was again seven-storeys-tall. The podium was then to have each floor dedicated to a different theme, with one to home furnishings, one to fashion boutiques, one to sports equipment and “leisure goods” and one to a supermarket, in addition to restaurants and fast food outlets.^[5] The basement, ground, upper ground and first floors were to be known as the Garden Terrace, Tai Pan Terrace, Leisure Terrace and Homemaker’s Terrace, respectively.^[14] Two “main” fountains, designed by Italian architect Marlo Miraglia and a landscape artist from Belt Collins, where to be installed at the complex at a cost of $3.5 million.^[5] One of the fountains was to be cylindrical in shape, designed to “ensure that shoppers and businessmen alike get the feel” of the “natural environment” generated, decorated with trees, shrubs and hanging plants, and housed within a large atrium.^[15]

By the complex’s opening, there was a sunken plaza with “fountains spouting from every corner”,^[10] with landscaping by Richard Tan Leng Poh, a local “pioneer in the landscape business”.^[16] Other features of the complex included water curtains, glass lifts and spiral staircases.^[17] Glass panes supplied by local glass manufacturer Wah Heng Glass were used in its construction.^[18] It featured tiles produced by local tile manufacturing firm Breton Singapore.^[19] Anita Evans of The Straits Times described the complex’s exterior as as “several million dollars worth of sticks and stone and classy marble cladding”, calling it a “beautiful piece of architecture”. She felt that it was possible that the mall could become “Thomson Road’s uncongested answer to Lucky Plaza.”^[20] The Business Times reported in 1987 that the “strikingly modern” building then “[towered] over what [was] still a largely suburban neighbourhood.”^[2]

The complex was designed such that, when viewed from above, it would resemble the letter “W”. Together with Goldhill Plaza, which was designed to resemble the letter “G.” from above, it was shaped to form half of the initials of Goldhill founder William Goei.^[2] Additionally, the shape and location of the building was reportedly influenced by feng shui,^[21] which the Goei family was known to have “faith” in.^[2] The main entrance to the office tower featured a sculpted wall designed by the firm A Pierotti and sculpted by mason Alfred Pellicini. It was made with marble from the Italian firm Mario Miraglia & Associates and the sculptor Marcello Morandini.^[10] In addition to 10 “high-speed” lifts,^[22] the tower featured a special “VIP lift” which could only be operated with a key given to the chief executives of each major tenant.^[13] The basement concourse^[17] was to house a “gourmet’s paradise” called Garden Terrace,^[13] with sections for both fast food outlets and “swankier” restaurants. This area was also to feature a fountain.^[17]

The podium was initially to have an $8 million outlet of the French luxury department store chain Le Printemps as an anchor tenant. This would have made Printemps the first French department store in Singapore, and the company would have served as a consultant to Goldhill on fixures and design, while Goldhill was to receive access to the store’s fashion goods suppliers. By November 1981, work on the outlet had already begun and a general and deputy general manager had already been selected, though “nothing [had] been confirmed” still. The deal, a licensing arrangement, was to be finalised in early 1982.^[23] However, the company announced in January 1982 that Printemps had decided to withdraw from the complex for “various undisclosed reasons”. In the same month, Goldhill announced that another upmarket French department store chain, Galeries Lafayette, was set to open an outlet within the podium.^[24]

Goldhill ownership

Opening and early tenants

The office tower opened on 19 November,^[10] though the shopping complex was only officially opened on 10 December. The delay in the latter’s opening was caused by the stores still having undergoing renovation works by October and Goldhill wished for the all of the stores to open at once.^[13] The complex was then 25.6% owned by United Overseas Limited.^[25] On the mall’s opening, a “Smurf Carnival” was held to promote the Smurfs toy line, then among the “newcomers” to the local Christmas toy market.^[26] The opening ceremony involved lion dancing and firecrackers.^[21]

The Galaries Lafeyette outlet opened on 3 December,^[3] catering to middle-income Singaporeans,^[27] in particular those “who lead contemporary lifestyles but seek good values for their money.”^[28] The store aimed to capture this demographic by selling “quality” products at the “cheapest possible price.”^[20] Additionally, it was estimated that tourists would form 25% to 30% of the store’s clientele.^[29] Occupying over 6,500 sq m of shop space across three floors, it was the chain’s first outside of France.^[30] The basement housed the luggage, children’s, household and video departments. Part of the ground floor had products catering to men, as well as the “International Shop”, while the first floor had products catering to women.^[31] It utilised a computer system, installed at a cost of $1.2 million, to monitor stock and order goods.^[32]

The interior of the Galeries Lafayette store was designed by American department store designer Norwood Oliver in his first project beyond North America.^[30] Oliver claimed that the building’s architects were completely inexperienced in designing department stores, and that the original plan for the department store had the shop windows on the ground floor “faced onto a narrow lane that almost nobody uses.”^[20] He then reworked the layout with the concept of a “yellow brick road“, with departments branching off of one central route such that there would be “no sudden dead ends”.^[33] Products were arranged according to colour as opposed to brand name.^[20] The store was promoted through the placement of “gigantic gold lettering across the face of the building.” Evans believed that the complex’s success “must surely hinge on the success of Galeries Lafayette.”^[3]

Local pharmacy chain Guardian opened its fifth outlet in the mall.^[34] Modelled after those of the British pharmacy Boots, the 111.5 sq m outlet was to feature a range of products “similar” to that of the Mount Elizabeth Hospital pharmacy. There was also a supermarket.^[35] Other early tenants of the mall included the first Singaporean outlet of American ice cream chain Old Uncle Gaylord’s,^[36] a Times Bookstore outlet,^[37] an outlet and showroom for the Metro Group subsidiary M & B Trading,^[38] and an outlet of House of Kitchenware. The Garden Terrace housed the outlets of fast food chains McDonald’s and Pizza Hut,^[13] Greek food chain Kebab House,^[17] as well as several restaurants,^[13] including the Hong Kong-styled restaurant Lucky Garden,^[39] and the Sweet ‘n Nice sweet shop.^[14] There was also Tseng’s Fleamarket, described as “Singapore’s answer to London’s Portobello Road“,^[40] and a Fitzpatrick’s supermarket,^[41] which in turn housed the first Singaporean outlet of Japanese bakery chain Vie de France.^[42] The supermarket featured a section labelled The Wine Cellar which attempted to “create the ambience of a shop within a shop”, evoking the image of a wine cellar.^[43] The fashion boutique Montparnasse, decorated with “luxurious black carpet, marble floor and walls,” was situated on the ground floor.^[14] American coffee and doughnut chain Dunkin’ Donuts opened its first outlet in the country within the complex in April 1983,^[44][45] while a branch of the DBS Bank and the 920 sq m Dynami fitness centre opened the following year.^[46][47]

The South Pacific headquarters of control valve and regulator manufacturer Fisher Controls International moved into the office tower by August 1983.^[48] Other tenants in this period included the Singapore offices of Mobil Polymer International^[49], the SAS Institute,^[50], the Monsanto Company and Wang Laboratories,^[22] as well as around half a dozen embassies,^[22] including the High Commission of Bangladesh in Singapore^[51] and the Embassy of the Republic of Korea in Singapore.^[52] It was reported in August 1984 that the building “probably [housed] the biggest collection of oil and oil services companies in Singapore.”^[22]

Initial performance

By the end of 1982, 96% of the store’s retail units and 56% of the office space had been leased out.^[25] The Straits Times noted that the complex was one of several major office buildings in the country, alongside the Shell Tower and the Hongkong Bank Building, which opened in the early 1980s to “a market that was already feeling the effects of the recession.^[53] By the end of February, the occupancy rate for the office tower had risen to 64%, while the mall’s occupancy rate had remained the same.^[54] In July, both Goldhill Square and Shell Tower were named the “most ‘energy-conscious’ buildings in Singapore” by the Building Control Division. This was a newly-created award intended to encourage the inclusion of “energy-saving features” in developments.^[55]

According to Alaric Tay and Elaine Koh, the complex opened to “great fanfare”.^[2] Caroline Ngui of The Straits Times reported in January 1983 that the mall was “one of the few shopping centres where even the shop assistants are not too sure which floor they’re on”, though she noted that this was in part due to the delay in installing signage and directories, as well as the “somewhat haphazard” layout.^[14] The following month, the Singapore Monitor reported that the complex experienced low footfall during the week despite having Galeries Lafayette and a McDonald’s as tenants, and that there were concerns that the complex would develop a reputation for being a “white elephant“. This was attributed to the mall’s “confusing” layout and the then-lack of a taxi stand, which led to the complex being too out of the way for shoppers.^[21] Signs and directories were installed in March to aid shoppers in finding directions.^[56]

To attract taxis to its now-installed taxi stand, the mall then offered a $1 tip to cabbies who picked up passengers there. Goldhill claimed that this tip was “for the radiophone surcharge and meant as a service to shoppers.”^[57] The discount was introduced as the mall’s taxi stand was out of the way for cabbies and the traffic in the area during peak hours made it “difficult to get out onto Thomson Road.” However, this was discontinued on the request of the Registry of Vehicles, who believed that the practice would set a precedent. Instead, the registry installed two more taxi stands around the mall to allow for easier acces, and suggested that the mall’s service road be reversed.^[58] Goldhill went with this suggestion, which led to a significantly shortened taxi wait time at the mall. Additionally, the number of taxis which visited the mall daily reportedly doubled up to 300 to 400.^[59]

In its first month of operations over the Christmas season, the Galeries Lafayette reportedly “overshot its sales targets three times over.”^[60] However, the store became embroiled in a dispute with two goods suppliers in March over selling products at lower prices, which the suppliers believed Galeries Lafeyette did not have the right to do.^[61] Six suppliers then withdrew their products from the store, with some of the store’s competitors supporting this motion, believing that the “abolition of retail price maintenance would lead to unfair competition.” However, the Consumers’ Association of Singapore and the Singapore Retail Merchants’ Association released a joint statement shortly after declaring that the department store would have the right to decide on the price. The Singapore Monitor reported that, as a result, prices at the store’s competitors would “have to come down” shortly after to remain competitive.^[62]

Alvin Tay and Elaine Koh wrote that, shortly after the complex’s opening, the “Singaporean shoppers’ nose for novelty soon turned elsewhere”, and that Galeries Lafayette “didn’t live up to its French image”.^[2] The latter issue was caused by a “teething problem” in its first six months, in which it did not receive enough products from its flagship in France and in turn stocked products from the United Kingdom, United States and Singapore, which had led to the products sold at the store lacking a “consistent French look”.^[29] Sales at the department store had “not been up to expectations” by November and several of its management staff had resigned,^[63] including the managing director whose health had declined.^[64] The store’s poor performance was attributed to “stiff competition” from other department stores^[65] and an increasingly-popular Orchard Road, as well as a decline in the number of tourists visiting the country.^[29] The Goei family was then attempting to “keep Galeries afloat”,^[63] with Rosaline Goei taking over as manager.^[2] Additionally, Montparnasse had been replaced by a toy store and the total staff in the complex had been reduced from 450 to 200 to “cut costs”.^[63]

By the end of 1983, the Goei family was “seriously” considering closing down Galeries Lafeyette. Due to the store being “heavily overstocked”, a clearance sale was organised. With the sale being deemed a success, the Goei family instead decided to relaunch the store, with plans for a second outlet along Orchard Road. The Goei family intended improve the quality of the products whilst keeping the prices “moderate”, and to import more French products to give the store “a better fashion image”. A new merchandising manager was brought in from France and was to remain at the store for half a year, working on the store’s fashion departments.^[64] It was announced in June that the Galaries Lafeyette in France would be more involved with the Goldhill outlet, and that there were plans to reconfigure the store’s layout such that the primary entrance faced Newton Road, which saw greater foot traffic, as opposed to toward the direction of Thomson Road.^[29]

Amy Cheok of The Business Times reported in April 1984 that United Overseas Land had lost $14.1 million on the project, though Goldhill maintained that almost all of the retail units were or were to be occupied, as were around 80% of the office space.^[65] In August, Goldhill announced that they would be putting up 14 of the tower’s 28 floors up for sale for around $100 million in order to “reduce its financial commitment” to the development. Around three of the floors were to be parcelled off into smaller units.^[22] The decision had been made as rental income was projected to fall by around 10% on the expiration of existing leases. The tower’s occupation rate then stood at around 95%. The tower and podium were then valued at around $200 million and $100 million, respectively, though Goldhill then had “no plans to sell any of the space in the shopping podium.”^[66]

It was also announced in 1984 that the upcoming Novena MRT station would be built across the road from Goldhill Square. The mall’s value was then expected to be “enhanced” following its completion as the station would provide a “steady stream of customers”.^[67]

References