ฉบับ International วารสารวิชาการ Veridian E-Journal Volume 7 Number 5 July – December 2014
Conservation and Development : A Singapore Perspective*
Sinith Watanamongkhol**
Abstract This paper looks at the transformation of the built heritage in Singapore in the context of the intense contest for land use by development forces. It looks at the works of the planning authority and the engagement of stakeholders in heritage conservation. It also looks at the dynamism between conservation, tourism and development. Historical buildings are physical links to the past, acting as signposts and repositories for the shared memories of the community. Built heritage give meaning and identity to a place and its people, providing the common bond necessary for social cohesion. Place identity is important in this rapidly changing world where urbanisation and globalisation has erased traces of the past and eroded the richness and diversity of our culture. The built heritage of a city is increasingly seen as providing competitive advantage in the global competition for investment and tourism. It gives cities their unique and distinctive character that attract foreign talents, investment and tourism. Heritage conservation has found its economic value. Singapore is a small city state without natural resources and a limited land space. It has long been held up as a miracle economy for its rapid advance from a trading outpost to become one of the most developed nation in Asia. Urban planning played a critical role in the successful transformation of the physical and social landscape of the island into one of Asia’s most modern and cosmopolitan city with one of the highest standard of living. Known for its methodical focus on planning and development in relentless pursuit of economic growth at the expense of its historical urban heritage, the state authority suddenly focused its attention on heritage conservation in the mid 1980s. The popular belief is that the state’s new found enthusiasm for heritage conservation comes from the realisation that heritage conservation is an effective policy tool in the pursuit of economic and tourism development. The study show that the motive for conservation of the historic districts was to enable heritage to rekindle tourist interest in Singapore. Developing the tourism industry was part of the strategy to focus on the service industry for growth at a time when the economy was facing a slowdown because of the loss of competitiveness in the manufacturing sector.
* This paper is an extract from a dissertation for the Architectural Heritage Management and Tourism (International Program) of the Graduate School at Silpakorn University ** PhD candidate. Email address: [email protected] 130
วารสารวิชาการ Veridian E-Journal Volume 7 Number 5 July – December 2014 ฉบับ International
Introduction Singapore island was a collection of humble fishing villages before it got on the world map with its founding by Stamford Raffles as a trading post of the British Empire. It became an independent nation state in 1965 and has since developed into a prosperous city state that continues to serve as the trading and transportation hub for the region. Singapore has been described as a 'cultural desert'. Its society originated from the inflow of migrants who brought with them their vernacular culture, traditions and beliefs. This gave rise to the fabric and characters of the Singapore society today – a multi ethnic, multi lingual and multi religious cultural landscape with English as the common language of business and commerce. Singapore has a past and an identity that deserves to be preserved and further developed in order to temper the trend of globalization and Western cultural and lifestyle influences. Cultural heritage is the source of the shared memories that a society uses to build its identity. This binds the people and gives society its cohesion. This is critical for the multi ethnic and cultural society in Singapore. The built heritage carries the history and shared memories of the nation and is valuable and irreplaceable heritage assets that deserve to be protected and conserved for both the present and future generations. We look at how Singapore has managed to balance the need to protect its common built heritage that gives it its identity, sense of place and cultural diversity against the needs of development and economic growth in the context of a nation with a small and limited land space.
Urban planning and development Urban planning in Singapore began in 1822 when Sir Stamford Raffles implemented a land use plan called the Raffles Town Plan. The key features of this plan were for the creation of a grid layout for the road system and the segregation of residential communities by ethnic groups. The Raffles Town Plan guided growth for a brief period but there were no updates and the city area soon became severely overcrowded. Slums sprung out in the inner city and spread into the outlying areas. Roads built for bullock carts were not suited for the motor vehicles that came in the early 1900s. The Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) is the national planning authority of Singapore. Using the concept plan to forecast the long term land use needs and the master plan to translate the development strategy into detailed development guidelines, the planners set about to execute the physical transformation of Singapore. The first Concept Plan
131
ฉบับ International วารสารวิชาการ Veridian E-Journal Volume 7 Number 5 July – December 2014
in 1971 laid the foundation for the infrastructure development of the country including the industrial estates, expressway, mass transit, airport and sea port. The business and commercial centre of the city state was re-developed by the re-settlement of the people from the overcrowded city centre slums into new housing estates and the intensive development of high rise office buildings and shopping centres. The creation of a modern business and financial district served the economic objective of developing the country into a regional business and financial hub. The plan included the reclamation of land south of the island that was to be used for the future Marina Bay business district.
The Raffles Town Plan of 1822 with the grid layout road system
The 1971 Concept Plan that laid the foundation for the physical transformation of Singapore
132
วารสารวิชาการ Veridian E-Journal Volume 7 Number 5 July – December 2014 ฉบับ International
The Singapore River had been the lifeline of trade on the island throughout its history as boats and lighters carried goods from ships in the harbour up the river to the warehouses that lined the river. This was now obsolete with the containerization of shipping and the river needed a new role. The plan was to clean up the river and give it a new role in the modernisation of the city state. The old shophouses and warehouses were preserved and restored to be converted into bars, pubs and restaurants to serve the locals and tourist industry. A promenade was created to join up Boat Quay and Clarke Quay and river cruises were introduced.
Singapore River - A promenade joining Boat Quay, Clarke Quay and Robertson Quay with river cruise and alfresco dining to give a new life and role the river
The URA master plan for the Marina Bay area was to direct the flow of the river into the bay with a barrage built to create a fresh water reservoir for the city centre and to control sea water and prevent flooding. A waterfront promenade linked the attractions in the Marina Bay area which include the Gardens by the Bay, a 101 hectares park to transform Singapore from a 'Garden City' to being a 'City in a Garden'. A feature in the Marina development was the creation of a network of common services tunnel carrying water pipes, electrical and telecommunication cables, and other utilities service underground. Singapore is the second Asian country after Japan to implement such a system. The Marina Bay area together with the new business district in Marina South is the showcase of urban development in Singapore.
133
ฉบับ International วารสารวิชาการ Veridian E-Journal Volume 7 Number 5 July – December 2014
The Marina Bay area is constructed from reclaimed land to form an inland reservoir. The Marina Barrage is a dam separating the water flow from the Singapore River from the sea
The Common Services Tunnel is an underground network that carries utility services such as power, telecommunication, water, district cooling pipe and a pneumatic refuse system
134
วารสารวิชาการ Veridian E-Journal Volume 7 Number 5 July – December 2014 ฉบับ International
Garden by the Bay in Marina South
Marina Bay - the new downtown business district
135
ฉบับ International วารสารวิชาการ Veridian E-Journal Volume 7 Number 5 July – December 2014
The living environment in the 1950s and 60s
136
วารสารวิชาการ Veridian E-Journal Volume 7 Number 5 July – December 2014 ฉบับ International
The living environment then ………………
137
ฉบับ International วารสารวิชาการ Veridian E-Journal Volume 7 Number 5 July – December 2014
The living environment now ……………………
The Marina Promenade - a modern metropolis
138
วารสารวิชาการ Veridian E-Journal Volume 7 Number 5 July – December 2014 ฉบับ International
In just a short two decades after independence, the built landscape in Singapore saw a total transformation with new public housing estates developed throughout the island together with industrial and transport infrastructure developments. The physical landscape of Singapore today is the result of urban planning from the first Concept Plan of 1971 to subsequent concept plans and the many master plans in between to guide development.
Conservation URA is the national land use planning authority as well as the conservation authority in Singapore. Its role as a conservation authority is best summarized by the below statement,
“Conservation of our built heritage is an integral part of urban planning and development in Singapore. The restoration of our historic areas adds variety to our streetscapes and modulates the scale of our urban fabric, creating the visual contrast and excitement within the city while protecting the important reminders and representations of our past. In addition, it adds to the distinctive character and identity of our city, giving it a sense of history and memory of the place. Buildings are selected for conservation based on their historical and architectural significance, rarity in terms of building types, styles, and their contribution to the overall environment.” (URA, 2012)
Its aggressive renewal of the built landscape in the central area of the island in the early years caused many historical buildings of heritage value to be lost forever. Some have argued that in the initial years of nationhood the priority was on survival. The young nation, without any natural resources and very limited land supply, had to focus all its efforts on economic development in order to attract foreign investments necessary for the creation of jobs. Protection and conservation of heritage buildings and structures is very often in conflict with development because it means the existing lands that are occupied are not available for development to support other use. This intense competition for land use also includes the natural environment where the protection of the biodiversity within the habitats adds to the competition. This becomes more challenging in the context of the limited land available in Singapore.
139
ฉบับ International วารสารวิชาการ Veridian E-Journal Volume 7 Number 5 July – December 2014
The Preservation of Monuments Board (PMB) was responsible “to identify monuments that are worthy of preservation based on the criteria that they are of historic, cultural, traditional, archaeological, architectural, artistic or symbolic significance and national importance”. (NHB, 2013). To date, 64 buildings and structures have been gazetted as national monuments, the majority of which are civic buildings, places of worship and old schools. Most of these monuments remain in their original use, including the civic buildings, temples, churches and mosques that remain as places of worship. Some of them such as the old school buildings in the inner city area have been adapted for re-use as museums and the schools have been relocated to newer and modern purpose built school buildings able to support the needs of the growing student population. The school building of Raffles Institution (RI), the oldest and most prestigious school in Singapore, founded in 1823 by Stamford Raffles himself, had ironically been sacrificed for the development of the Raffles City Complex that now stands on its site. The principal and most of the student population welcomed the decision though there were feelings of attachment and nostalgia towards the loss of the old school building. It was practicality that prevailed over nostalgia and sentiments.
The old General Post Office was restored and converted into Fullerton Hotel
140
วารสารวิชาการ Veridian E-Journal Volume 7 Number 5 July – December 2014 ฉบับ International
Many other historic school buildings were, however, conserved and adapted to become museums such as the St Joseph’s Institution that is now the Art Museum and the old Tao Nan school building which now houses the Peranakan Museum. The former school building of the Convent of the Holy Infant Jesus (CHIJ) has been turned into a dining and entertainment centre called CHIJMES. Critics of the conservation policy feel the planners are probably making decision on what to protect and conserve on the basis of the economic value of the heritage. Old school buildings are a particular problem as they are often not suitable to function as school buildings in the modern age. There can only be that many of these buildings turned into museums in the city.
CHIJMES - convent school into dining and entertainment centre
In heritage conservation, the benefits it brings to society cannot be simply measured in market value. Yet, conservation finds itself in the same intense market competition for the scarce land resource among the various uses. Land is an economic resource and it is the market that determines allocation, and this is deemed the most effective mechanism by which scarce resources are allocated optimally.
141
ฉบับ International วารสารวิชาการ Veridian E-Journal Volume 7 Number 5 July – December 2014
The issue becomes even more challenging when we look at the protection of historic residential buildings. Here the decision is left entirely in the hand of the private owner to decide and volunteer his property for conservation. Naturally, unless the owner is one who appreciates the heritage value of his house and is able to resist the temptation to cash in on the market value of the asset, the outcome is usually in the favour of development. Limited land supply means greater development intensity is necessary to meet demand. This gives owners the opportunity to re-develop or sell their land to developers to maximize the built intensity with high rise development. Conservation of historic residential buildings cannot be the decision of private property owners because a heritage building worthy of protection is for the collective benefit of the community. The architectural, historic and aesthetic values of the heritage provide the whole community with a source of identity and contribute to the sense of place. The economic cost of conserving a privately owned property should not be solely borne by the private owner. Some European countries have public trust funds set up to purchase and conserve historic buildings for the collective benefit of the community and nation. It is an idea to be considered in Singapore where the pressure and personal sacrifice imposed on private residential property owners are such that many buildings are lost when they should have been protected. Conservation of a heritage in a community should involve as wide a public participation as is possible. Community interest in the value and importance of the shared heritage should be encouraged. A good example of such stakeholder participation can be seen in the efforts to save Butterfly House in a conflict between conservation and development. This is a bungalow house on 23 Amber Road, Katong that people say has butterfly wings and is the last of its kind. The crescent shaped structure of the house led architects to describe it as having wings. This 95 year old house was designed by the architect, Regent Alfred John Bidwell, who also designed such other landmarks as the Raffles Hotel, Goodwood Park Hotel and the Victoria Memorial Hall. In 2005, URA proposed to its Conservation Advisory Panel (CAP) for the conservation of the house. The panel voted to conserve Butterfly House but there was no room for the redevelopment of the land while at the same time preserving the building. In other similar situation of conservation and redevelopment, the heritage building would be restored and used as a club house within the new development. It was not possible in this case as, unlike other bungalows with spacious surrounding gardens, this house occupied the whole plot of land leaving no opportunity for both conservation and redevelopment.
142
วารสารวิชาการ Veridian E-Journal Volume 7 Number 5 July – December 2014 ฉบับ International
A year later, a developer offered to purchase the property for development and URA had no choice but to reverse the conservation idea in order not to impose a high economic cost on the owner. This decision on Butterfly House led to a public outcry from those who love the building with more than 30 letters to the government and newspaper articles protesting against the demolition. A public petition group including Katong residents was formed to lobby the authority for the protection of the house. In a decision of compromise and accommodation, it was decided to conserve the main portion of the building in order to accommodate the development of an apartment block. Conservation is about the preservation of the entire structure but this decision reflects the conflict between conservation and development, a truce to satisfy both sides. The URA worked hard with the developer to conserve as much of the structure as possible in the tight site. The planner allowed a reduced setback requirement and the National Parks also reduced their greenery buffer allowance. The porch of the house sat right at the edge of the road and the Land Transport Authority had to grant a waiver on their setback requirement. The Butterfly House event symbolizes the participation of the community in the protection of their place identity as well as the contest between conservation and development.
Butterfly House - the house that people say has wings
143
ฉบับ International วารสารวิชาการ Veridian E-Journal Volume 7 Number 5 July – December 2014
Conservation and development – a hybrid solution
Conservation and Tourism The conservation of the Chinatown, Little India and Kampong Glam historic districts has often been subject to criticisms by conservationists who are of the opinion that the essence and spirit of these districts are missing and the conservation appear to be motivated by the desire to portray the multi ethnic composition of Singapore for the purpose of tourism. These historic districts originated from the Raffles Town Plan that segregated the civilian settlement by ethnicity. The significance of the built heritage within these districts represents architectural style of its time but they are not unique to the districts and can also be found in other conservation areas. In the two decades after independence, Singapore had given little attention to heritage conservation other than some civic buildings and places of worship that were declared as national monuments. In the mid 1980s, there was a sudden turn around as whole historic districts were declared as conservation areas. During this period, the economy was losing its competitive edge as high wage cost was driving manufacturing investment to surrounding countries. Singapore had its first recession in 1985 after twenty years of strong growth. In 1983, there was a decline in tourist arrivals after many years of growth. A Tourism 144
วารสารวิชาการ Veridian E-Journal Volume 7 Number 5 July – December 2014 ฉบับ International
Task Force was set up to recommend measures to revive the tourism industry. Its finding was that Singapore had lost its Oriental appeal as its development into a modern city had led to the lost of its heritage and street life. A Tourism Product Development Plan was put in place with a S$1 billion budget to be used for restoration of the historic districts, the civic district, the Singapore River and the restoration of Raffles Hotel. The restoration and conservation of the historic districts of Chinatown, Little India and Kampong Glam was meant to turn them into tourist attractions. The Chinatown district was historically a vibrant area with bustling street life from the activities of both its residents and people who come from all over to engage in the trade and commerce in the area. The place lost much of its vibrancy when most residents were re- settled into the new public housing estate. However, it was the decision by the government in 1983 to remove the street hawkers and markets into an indoor complex that really took the street life out of the place. Conservation of a historic district is about preserving a place as a heritage with all its human activities from the street life. A collection of protected buildings alone does not sustain the notion of the place as a heritage. In the mid 1990s, the Tourism Board tried to revitalize the place and inject street life by organizing activities which was heavily criticized by the public for being sterile and artificial with no resemblance to the Chinatown of old. The problem with the Chinatown conservation was that the urban planners had preserved the built heritage but had lost the spirit of the place. The tourism board then tried to revitalize the lost spirit with activities that could be best described as staged authenticity for the purpose of serving the tourism industry. Similar restoration projects in the Kampong Glam conservation area to dress up the place as heritage for tourists was met with criticisms for its lack of authenticity and misrepresentation of history. There was no major intervention in Little India by the tourism authority and the place was able to evolve and maintain its significance as a focal point for the Indian community. The lesson to be learnt here is that, while historical buildings can be preserved for posterity, the way of life, traditions and traditional trades will change and evolve with the changes in society. We can preserved the tangible but the intangible cannot be frozen in time. The past cannot and should not be re-created just to bring back the spirit of the place to entertain and interest the tourist. The heavy intervention by the tourism authority in Chinatown and Kampong Glam had alienated the local community from their heritage. The result was that many could not relate to the new image of the place. The link between the heritage place and the community was lost because the restoration efforts in the conservation areas were focused on making them attractive to the tourist at the expense of the community. 145
ฉบับ International วารสารวิชาการ Veridian E-Journal Volume 7 Number 5 July – December 2014
Ann Siang Hill, Chinatown - conservation shophouse adapted into a hotel
Chinatown conservation area against the skyline of the business district
146
วารสารวิชาการ Veridian E-Journal Volume 7 Number 5 July – December 2014 ฉบับ International
Conservation terrace houses in the historic residential district of Cairnhill
Conservation houses in the historic residential district of Emerald Hill
147
ฉบับ International วารสารวิชาการ Veridian E-Journal Volume 7 Number 5 July – December 2014
Conclusion Contest for land use between heritage conservation and development in the small island state of Singapore is intense. This paper has shown that the decision on preserving heritage buildings is evaluated based on economic cost and benefits. The urban planners in Singapore had to balance the need to develop the city to support its growth and economy while at the same time preserve the inherent values of the built heritage to provide the community with an identity, a sense of place and a link to its collective shared memories. Tourism is an important driver of economic development and shares a close relationship with heritage conservation. The danger in this relationship is for heritage to be commodified as products for the benefit of tourism. The primary beneficiary of heritage should be the community for whom the built heritage serves as a link to the past. It is a past which they have experienced and which resides in their collective memories. The tourist does not have such a relationship with the heritage and their enjoyment of it requires much stimulation and enactment to bring out the past and history. Heritage that is preserved for the purpose of entertaining the tourist is often manipulated and transformed without any respect for authenticity and history. The end result is that the community is alienated from its heritage which has become a tourist product.
Bibliography Chew, V 2009, Urban planning framework in Singapore, Singapore Infopedia, NLB Singapore, Available at:
148