FOR

Lessons from Seoul and Singapore Seoul from Lessons

COMMUNITIES PLANNING

PLANNING FOR COMMUNITIES: LESSONS FROM SEOUL AND SINGAPORE PLANNING FOR COMMUNITIES Lessons from Seoul and Singapore For product information, please contact Project Team CLC Publications +65 66459576 Seoul Centre for Liveable Cities The Seoul Institute 45 Maxwell Road #07-01 Project Co-lead : Dr Hyunchan Ahn, Associate Research Fellow The URA Centre Researchers : Dr Chang Yi, Research Fellow Singapore 069118 Dr Jae-Seob Yang, Senior Research Fellow [email protected] Meekyong Song, Research Assistant

Cover photo Singapore Seoul – Courtesy of Seoul Institute (top) Centre for Liveable Cities Singapore – Courtesy of HDB (below) Project Co-lead : Dr Limin Hee, Director Researchers : Remy Guo, Senior Assistant Director Phua Shi Hui, Manager Joshua Sim, Manager Ruan Ningzhen, Manager Koay Xin Yi, Intern Editor : Alvin Pang, Adjunct Editor Designer : Ng Yong Yi, Adjunct Designer Supporting Agencies : Housing and Development Board Lim E-Farn, Principal Researcher Pay Chong Hoe, Senior Community Relations Manager Qiu Huiwen, Executive Engineer Chloe Wan Bao Qi, Senior Planner Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth Jessica Ng, Assistant Director (Programmes & Partnerships) Printed on Cocoon offset, a FSC-certified recycled paper. People’s Association E-book ISBN 978-981-11-5042-5 Lee Hwee Wan, Assistant Director Paperback ISBN 978-981-11-5041-8 Urban Redevelopment Authority All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, distributed or transmitted in any form or by any means, including photocopying, recording or other electronic or mechanical methods, without the prior written permission of the publisher.

Every effort has been made to trace all sources and copyright holders of news articles, figures and information in this book before publication. If any has been inadvertently overlooked, CLC and Seoul Institute will ensure that full credit is given at the earliest opportunity. © 2017 Centre for Liveable Cities, Singapore and the Seoul Institute. All rights reserved. CONTENTS Foreword by Seoul Foreword by Singapore

1. Introduction 01

2. Research Process 07

3. Urban Planning and Public Participation 11 About the Centre for Liveable Cities • Urban Planning in Seoul Set up in 2008 by the Ministry of National Development and the Ministry of the Environment • Urban Planning in Singapore and Water Resources, the Centre for Liveable Cities (CLC) has as its mission “to distil, create and share knowledge on liveable and sustainable cities.” CLC’s work spans four main areas: 4. Local Community Organisations 35 Research, Capability Development, Advisory Services and Knowledge Platforms. Through • Seoul: From Institutionalised Structures to Community-Led Initiatives these activities, CLC hopes to provide urban leaders and practitioners with the knowledge and • Singapore: Public Housing Development and Community Building support needed to make our cities better. www.clc.gov.sg 5. From the Drawing Board to the Community: Participatory Planning Case Studies from Seoul and Singapore • Town Level Rejuvenation 54 - Seoul: Local Community Planning - Seoul: Strategic Urban Regeneration Plan - Singapore: Remaking our Heartland (ROH) • Neighbourhood-Level Planning 87 - Seoul: Dong-Level Community Planning

- Seoul: Residential Environment Management Program (REMP) About the Seoul Institute - Singapore: Neighbourhood Renewal Programme (NRP) The Seoul Development Institute was established by the Seoul Metropolitan Government and BOND! Pilot Project (SMG) in 1992 and was renamed as the Seoul Institute (SI) on 1 August 2012. The Seoul • Major Developments in Existing Communities 116 Institute’s goal is to establish a medium- to long-term vision for Seoul and propose social - Seoul: Gyeongui Line Forest Park policies on welfare, culture, education and industries, and urban management policies on - Singapore: Rail Corridor city planning, transportation, safety and the environment. SI’s primary objective is to improve municipal administration through professional research, improve the quality of life in Seoul, - Singapore: Our Tampines Hub (OTH) and reinforce and sustain the competitiveness of Seoul. https://www.si.re.kr/ • Community Participation and Ownership 144 - Seoul: Vibrant Community Center (VCC) - Seoul: Namugunuel—Citizen Ownership of Community Spaces - Singapore: Hello Neighbour—Social Linkway and Neighbourhood Incubator Project - Singapore: Community Participatory Programmes

6. Planning for Communities, with Communities, by Communities: 179 Lessons from Seoul and Singapore

7. Conclusion: It Takes a Village to Plan a City— 191 Towards Collaborative Planning Approaches

8. Bibliography and Image Credits 192 and Dong-Level Plans. Currently, cities and connects almost one million people FOREWORD including Moscow, Beijing, and Santiago, FOREWORD living in estates along its stretch. Through have expressed their interests to learn about exhibitions and public workshops, we are BY SEOUL the planning processes of the Seoul Plan BY SINGAPORE actively engaging the public on how this 2030. “Rail Corridor” can be transformed into a distinctive community green space. Seoul did not always give priority to its citizens. Under the authoritarian leadership We have also recently launched “Our from the 1960s to the 1990s, rapid Favourite Place”, a public space programme economic growth was pushed forward which supports the community in activating in a top-down manner. Such a method public spaces with innovative place- made it possible for the city to have a making ideas. One project under this better residential environment and social programme saw unwanted pianos restored infrastructure in a relatively short period and transformed into art pieces at public of time. Voices of citizens were neglected locations for everyone to use and enjoy. It is my great pleasure to see the fruition in the process, however. Such an era now Singapore has seen rapid urban changes of the collaborative research project has come to an end. Seoulites are living over the last 50 years. While urban planning These are just a few examples of the many between the Seoul Institute and the Centre in a world of WikiLeaks, where secrets no in the early years emphasised basic physical engagement projects that we have embarked for Liveable Cities (CLC), “Planning for longer exist, and live in an era of Facebook, infrastructure, the approach evolved over on. We intend to facilitate broader and Communities: Lessons from Seoul and where anyone can communicate with the years to consider the broader aspects of deeper collaborations with the community, Singapore.” I would like to express my each other anytime, anywhere. As far as urban development. and develop effective solutions to address congratulations. urban policy goes, citizen involvement increasingly complex urban planning issues. is a must, not a choice. This is true for In tandem with this shift in urban This project contains Seoul’s experiences of cities both in developed and developing development, we recognise the need “Planning for Communities: Lessons from policy making with citizen participation over countries. Singapore is no exception. Unlike for more community involvement in our Seoul and Singapore” is a timely publication the last decade. Currently, all the policies, the past when a paternalistic leader alone planning and development processes. to distil the experiences of both Seoul and projects, and various levels of the plans of devised plans for national development, Citizens play a significant role in contributing Singapore. I hope this second collaboration the Seoul Metropolitan Government (SMG) Singapore has tried to involve its citizens in fresh perspectives to the planning process, between the Centre for Liveable Cities and are drafted by the citizens, for the citizens its governance. “Planning for Communities: and also in initiating and implementing new the Seoul Institute provides inspiration to and about the citizens. Urban Master Plan Lessons from Seoul and Singapore” contains ground-up ideas. improve community involvement in urban is no exception. Seoul Plan 2030 was our experiences of citizen participatory planning and development. completed in 2014, a plan created from the planning. Even though the two cities walked Singapore and Seoul are interesting cities active participation of general citizens and a similar path, there are some differences in to study in this respect. Both cities saw Lawrence Wong experts across various disciplines. The plan how to achieve involvement from citizens. great progress in urban development before Minister for National Development sets the visions for the city and includes how Still, a collaborative research project was the 1980s as a result of government-led Singapore to respond to issues that citizens consider only possible because both cities deeply initiatives. In recent years, we now share important with concrete strategies by 2030. shared the importance of citizen participatory common aspirations to give our citizens a From its initial stages to the finalisation planning. greater role in our planning and development of Seoul Plan 2030, citizens and experts processes, and to co-create the living worked together to create Seoul Plan 2030. I wish this collaborative research project will environment with our stakeholders. In the process, the SMG made an effort to contribute to making Seoul and Singapore ensure openness and transparency. Such more sustainable, people-oriented cities. Today, Singapore is taking bigger and bolder active involvement of general citizens in Lastly, I offer my sincere gratitude to the steps with our community engagement establishing a master plan of a city with researchers for their dedication to this project. strategies for planning and development. For 10 million people is unprecedented in any example, we are converting a disused railway Park Won Soon metropolis around the world. Furthermore, line into a linear park, which runs from the Mayor, Seoul citizen participation was key to devising northern to the southern end of Singapore South Korea lower level plans such as Community Plans 1 1 INTRODUCTION

Urban planning is traditionally regarded social issues often take on greater salience as the responsibility of governments. and complexity. There is an increasing As a process to organise and manage realisation that governments do not have various aspects of the urban environment, a monopoly on good ideas and insights for urban planning requires a government to urban planning and public policies. Citizens balance competing needs for land use and and private sector stakeholders can play development in a city. important roles by contributing fresh, diverse perspectives to the planning process, or by However, urban planning is not limited to taking the lead in initiating and implementing physical spaces and infrastructure. Raising the planning proposals. quality of life for citizens requires planners to gain a deep understanding of people’s As such, cities have been extending evolving concerns, needs and aspirations. planning processes beyond the boundaries This is especially so for cities in mature of government to include the community. stages of development. Once basic physical Creating more room for community infrastructural needs have been fulfilled, participation in planning can not only

Citizen participatory planning workshop in Seoul (left). 2 3 improve outcomes, but also reinforce the Korea since the early 1990s, which led social compact between governments and to the first mayoral election in Seoul in citizens, and enhance social resilience on the 1995, fuelled demand among citizens for whole. participation in local issues. It was also during this period that the negative side- Seoul and Singapore: effects of rapid urbanisation in Seoul—such From Government-led Urban as inadequate amenities in new towns and Development to Greater Citizen poor construction standards—had become Participation increasingly apparent. This prompted citizens to be more proactive in voicing their needs After World War II, both Seoul and Singapore and concerns in urban development issues. experienced rapid government-led urban Participatory planning efforts in Seoul were transformation. Both cities had been plagued institutionalised after the successful election with a multitude of urban problems in the of Mayor Park Won Soon in 2011. 1950s and 1960s: Singapore suffered from some of the most overcrowded urban slums In Singapore, while government-led planning in the world; while Seoul, in the aftermath and implementation of urban infrastructure of the Korean War, faced the immense have been largely successful, various factors challenge of having to completely reconstruct such as a better educated and more well- the devastated city. informed citizenry, rising affluence, and rising expectations for a high quality of life, have Effective government action transformed led to an increasing desire among citizens to both cities into two of the most advanced have a say in public policies, service delivery metropolises in Asia within a few decades. and infrastructure development. For example, In Seoul, the South Korean government set the volume of feedback received by the the city’s redevelopment as a national priority Land Transport Authority of Singapore rose to facilitate economic growth. Massive by about 35% within a short span of three public construction of urban infrastructure, years: from 900,000 emails and calls in 2009 Residents participating in a community event organised by People’s Association. such as highways and subway systems, was to over 1.2 million in 2012. The government accompanied by planning policies guiding also noted the need to cultivate a more have been involved in planning processes for private sector investment in real estate active citizenry to “build social cohesion, each city vary, Seoul and Singapore – both through land readjustment and new town sense of community and national belonging Asian global cities at a comparable stage of development schemes. In Singapore, the among Singaporeans”, given an observed development – have similar histories of rapid Land Acquisition Act (1966) enabled the over-reliance on the government to address government-led urban development and government to acquire private land for people’s needs. These factors prompted the share common aspirations to become more public benefit, giving it extensive scope to government to create more opportunities inclusive and resilient amidst increasing social redevelop the city through public sector-led for citizen participation in planning and diversity. efforts. This allowed the government to development processes. effectively implement its urban plans and CLC and SI hope to distil some common public infrastructure programmes, including To understand each city’s efforts in involving lessons from the experiences of both cities a successful public housing programme that citizens in urban planning and development and thereby contribute to discussions on houses over 80% of Singaporeans today. processes, the Seoul Institute (SI) and the citizen participation in urban planning and Centre for Liveable Cities (CLC) embarked development. In recent years, changing social contexts on a collaborative research study to examine in both cities have driven the growth case studies from Seoul and Singapore. of community involvement in planning While the cultural and political contexts are processes. Democratic reforms in South different and the degrees to which citizens 4 5 Seoul Singapore

GENERAL Public Land GENERAL Public Land Land Area GDP per Capita Ownership Land Area GDP per Capita Ownership 605 sq km 34,646,000 KRW (30,835 USD) 47% 719 sq km SGD 73,730 (USD 54,257) 75% Population Population Age Profile Population Population Age Profile 9,904,312 0-19 years: 17.7% 5,607,300 0-19 years: 21.2% 20-64 years: 69.8% 20-64 years: 66.4% Population Density Population Density 65 years and over: 12.5% 65 years and over: 12.4% 16,364 per sq km 7,797 per sq km

% of Home % of Home Ownership Ownership Average HOUSING 90.8% HOUSING Household 49.6% % of Households Living in Public & Average % of Resident Households Living in Size Private Housing Household Public & Private Housing Public (Rental) Housing: 6.5% Size 2.39 Public Apartments: 80.0% Private Housing: 93.5% 3.35 Private Apartments:14.4% Landed Properties: 5.2% % of Households by Type of Housing Apartments: 58.6% % of Households by Type of Housing Row House & Multi-House: 27.6% HDB Dwellings: 80.1% Detached Housing: 12.7% Condos and Other Apartments: 13.9% Others: 1.1% Landed Properties: 5.6% Others: 0.3%

COMMUNITY COMMUNITY

Population Sizes of Funds Dedicated for Local Population Sizes of Local Planning Units Volunteer Rate for Grassroots Local Planning Units Improvement Programmes in 2017 (typical planning norms) Activities under People’s (average figures) Association Network Urban Regeneration Program Town: 260,000 (77,600 dwelling units) Gu: 396,172 1.11% 26,850 mil KRW (23.9mil USD) Neighbourhood: 20,000 – 30,000 Dong: 23,359 (6,000 – 9,000 dwelling units) Resident Environment Funds Dedicated for Local Precinct: Provision of Management Program 1000 – 2,300 Improvement Programmes in Community Spaces 15,474 mil KRW (13.7mil USD) (300 – 700 dwelling units) 2017 (average figures, expressed as no. Neighbourhood Renewal of community facilities/population) Local Community Division Provision of Programme Community Spaces Resident Centre: 1 / Dong 32,889 mil KRW (29.3mil USD) (typical planning norms, expressed as SGD 61 mil (USD 44.8 mil) Community Space: 9.8 / Gu Top 3 Priorities Among Citizens no. of community facilities/population) Community Improvement Community Centres: Projects Committee Volunteer Rate for Dong-level Safety, Job Security and Housing 1 per 50,000 persons SGD 37 mil (USD 27.2 mil) Community Planning Resident’s Committee Centres: Average No. of Volunteers: Top 3 Priorities Among Citizens 75.6 people 1 per 1,500 – 2,500 Dwelling Units Job Security, Healthcare Social Service Offices: and Housing Average Participation Rate: 1 per town 0.36% 6 7

2 RESEARCH PROCESS

For this study, a joint research team was involved in the respective programmes, formed, comprising members from the and interviewed key policymakers, non- Seoul Institute (SI) as well as Singapore’s governmental organisations (NGOs) and Centre for Liveable Cities (CLC), Housing community volunteers. These interactions and Development Board (HDB), People’s yielded valuable insights and enhanced the Association (PA), Ministry of Culture, comprehensiveness of the research findings. Community and Youth (MCCY) Office for Citizen Engagement and Urban On 7 December 2016 in Singapore, the Redevelopment Authority (URA). The research team held a roundtable discussion team visited case-study locations in with domain experts, planners and policy- Singapore in December 2016 and in makers to deepen Seoul’s and Singapore’s Seoul in February 2017. The research understanding of each other’s approaches to team members held in-depth discussions engaging communities in urban planning and with city planners and officials, local development processes. activists and community representatives

Roundtable discussions between Seoul Institute researchers and participants from agencies, academia and NGOs in Singapore (left). 8 9

Salient questions raised at the roundtable Are lengthy public engagement included: processes worth the time and effort?

What local governance structures The impact of lengthy public engagement support and facilitate community processes on project development schedules planning processes in both cities? is a key concern for Singapore agencies. Singapore participants also noted that it may Singapore participants noted that Seoul be difficult to get people on board for a more has developed a clear and structured in-depth and active engagement process, due process for community engagement in to the lengthy time frame. planning. In particular, intermediary support centres in Seoul, aimed at addressing local SI researchers explained that while community needs in an integrated manner, engagement processes in Seoul can take helped to facilitate and support community longer, the entire process—from planning participation processes. While there is room to implementation—has in fact become for Singapore to consider setting up similar much shorter. In the past, problems with organisations, SI researchers appreciated stakeholders during the implementation Singapore’s systematic community outreach phase resulted in delays, even though less framework within the government, (such as time was spent on the planning process. the PA network) which is supported by many With active public engagement built passionate volunteers. into the process of the project, potential problems can be addressed together with the How are citizens represented in the community early on, resulting in smoother local community organisations in implementation. both cities?

Most of the key roles in community planning committees in Seoul are to be taken up by residents, with public servants participating as “Community Officers.” These Community Officers help organise community activities and set up the engagement processes, while resident leaders rally the residents.

In Singapore, neighbourhood-level community organisations such as Residents’ Committees Centres (RCs) provide an avenue for residents to get involved. RCs are managed by volunteer residents and work closely with other grassroots organisations Roundtable discussion (above) and presentation by Seoul Institute researchers (below) on like the Citizens’ Consultative Committees community planning and rejuvenation experiences. and various government agencies to improve the physical environment and safety of their respective precincts. 10 11 3 URBAN PLANNING AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

Good planning can help city leaders effect bring private landowners and developers constructive change. Traditionally, urban on board, through various programmes and development in both Seoul and Singapore processes, to realise urban development has been determined by statutory land goals. use plans and led by various government agencies and departments. Nevertheless, More recently, citizens have come to play an there are fundamental differences. Over increasingly vital role in the urban planning 70% of the land in Singapore is government- process in both cities. This section outlines owned, giving public agencies greater the urban planning frameworks in both Seoul leeway in carrying out the planning and and Singapore, and examines how each city’s development of infrastructure based on distinctive urban planning and development comprehensive urban plans. In Seoul, over approach incorporates the views and half of the land supply resides in private aspirations of their respective public. hands. This requires that the government

Community participation workshop in Singapore (left). 12 13

URBAN PLANNING AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Bureau. Prepared with limited collaboration created by planners, for planners. Only urban amongst different departments, the 2020 planners, academics and city officials had plan was not widely adopted even within been involved in its development, with little Urban Planning the SMG. It failed to account for rapid scope to include citizens’ views. Lacking social change in Seoul, as issues such as low support from both the public and within in Seoul growth rates, low birth rates and an ageing government, the 2020 plan was generally population were emerging. Most critically, regarded as ineffective. the 2020 plan was regarded as having been Seoul’s urban planning framework is structured both vertically and horizontally. At the top of the hierarchy, national and regional development priorities inform the urban master plan. The urban master Evolution of Seoul Master Plans plan then guides urban management plans, and in turn, detailed district plans and individual developments downstream. This is complemented by a horizontal layer of domain-based technical plans and statutory guidelines, developed in accordance with relevant laws (e.g., for sectors such as transportation, residential environment improvement, green spaces, parks, and environmental management). 2001 Plan 2011 Plan 2020 Plan Brief History of Urban established a robust institutional framework Approved in 1990. Revision of 2001 Plan Approved in 2006. Planning in Seoul as well as guidelines to coordinate Approval Year in 1997, as previous development. This unique system of public- First statutory city master plan was insufficient to Seoul’s first modern urban plan was drafted private partnership in urban development plan. accommodate changes in 1952 to guide reconstruction in the resulted in rapid improvement in residential in urban development. aftermath of the Korean War. The master environments, as well as the creation of a Population 9.8 million by 2020—the plans became statutory in 1981, with a modern transport network, within a span of 12 million by 2001. 12 million by 2011. four decades. Target first statutory master mandatory review conducted every five years. plan to consider the The national government considered the decreasing population development of Seoul a priority, and held In February 2009, authority for final approval and demographic final approval authority on urban plans for of the master plan was transferred from changes. the city. For decades, urban planning for the national government to the Seoul Seoul has been focused on accommodating Metropolitan Government (SMG). This Planning Information and Bottom-up approach Focus on new agenda its burgeoning urban population and empowered the elected mayor of Seoul to Approach knowledge industries, by incorporating the gu post-1997 Asian Financial facilitating economic development. incorporate the city administration’s priorities and and cultural and leisure master plans developed Crisis: Information and vision in its urban plan. Delegating Objectives facilities. for 25 local districts. technologies, social authority to the city level has also allowed integration and The city government focused on investing More balanced Incorporated adjacent Seoul’s planning process to be more reunification with North in key urban infrastructure, including roads, development of the cities and counties in Korea. bridges and subways. However, due to responsive to its citizens’ needs. Gangnam and Gangbuk land-use and transport limited public finances, Seoul relied mainly areas with a multi- planning. City divided into five on private capital to finance most of the Limitations of Previous Master Plans nodal urban structure greater regions and Placed greater to distribute activities proposed planning urban development. Private developments emphasis on Despite incremental improvements over the throughout the city. directions for balanced were guided by the government at both management and regional development. national and city levels: the city government years, the planning framework before Seoul operation, as compared designated special project zones and Plan 2030 had limitations. The previous to traditional focus on Policy indicators to engaged the private sector to develop master plan, Seoul Plan 2020, had been physical infrastructure. ensure that the planning the land, while the national government established by the SMG’s Urban Planning goals for each region are met. 14 15

Seoul’s Urban Planning Framework Plan National Urban Community Metropolitan National Territorial Plan, Capital Region Planning Empowerment City-Region Domain Domain Planning Readjustment Plan, etc. Modify 5 yearsModify Goal 20 years / Plan City Master

Urban Master Plan Seoul Plan 2030 Local Community Dong-Level Planning Community Planning Plan Management Modify 5 yearsModify Goal 10 years / Urban Sectoral Plan Management Plan (Statutory) Vibrant Community Zoning Plan Park Transport Center Screenshot from Official Seoul Plan 2030 Website.

Urban Infrastructure Setting the Direction and Framework: convening such groups by application Plan Housing Regeneration The Advisory Group tended to result in different interest groups Urban Redevelopment sending representatives to champion their Community Plan Residential agendas. For the Seoul Plan 2030, Citizen Urban Ownership The Seoul Plan 2030 process began with Environment Regeneration establishing an advisory group of 33 experts Group members were randomly selected District Unit Plan Management Strategy Plan from academia as well as civic groups. These by a professional research consulting firm. Master Plan were managed by a preparation committee This was to ensure that participants had no

Plan Implementation comprising the Seoul Institute and SMG attachment to specific interests. Membership officials. With top SMG decision makers was intentionally balanced across gender, Residential Urban closely involved, the advisory group set the age, region of residence and occupation, and Gyeongui Line Environment Regeneration direction that the master plan should take included minorities, persons with disabilities Forest Park Management Project Activation Plan and determined the make-up and operation and foreign nationals. of citizen participants for the planning process. The committee also determined the The younger generation, on whom the role that the advisory group would play, and city’s long term vision would have the the social values to be incorporated in the most significant impact, was represented Seoul Plan 2030: Fresh Emphasis Taking direction from Mayor Park, the plan. The SMG’s Planning and Coordination by a 16-member Youth Group. This was on Citizen Involvement and Local SMG adopted a number of principles in Department which held greater authority established as a separate entity, so that their Planning their planning approach. These included than other departments, played a leading ideas would not be influenced by adults in establishing a transparent and collaborative role ensuring close collaboration during the the main Citizen Group. In November 2011, Mayor Park Won Soon planning process that involved both citizens planning process between different divisions was elected by popular vote. Tasked with and experts; improving coordination by beyond the Urban Planning Bureau. Public Outreach Programmes to Initiate completing the next master plan for Seoul, using the Seoul Plan as an overarching plan Development Park asked city officials to focus on three to coordinate other subsidiary plans and Involving Citizens in Planning: areas in drafting the Seoul Plan 2030, policies; developing details that addressed The Citizen Group The preparation committee also organised namely: citizen engagement; values for the everyday needs; and grounding the master a series of public outreach programmes, future, such as sharing, innovation, peaceful plan with detailed local neighbourhood and In August 2012, a 100-member Seoul Plan encouraging citizens to express their opinions co-existence, and consensus; and local city centre plans, thereby making the plan Citizen Group was set up to determine through the Seoul Plan website, citizens features and communities. more relatable and less abstract. the future vision for Seoul. In the past, surveys, and a public debate. 16 17

The Seoul Plan Debate Urban Challenges and Issues From Vision to Planning: experts, civil servants and researchers from A debate was held in 2012 to promote A Collaborative Approach the Seoul Institute. The involvement of the Seoul Plan 2030. It featured presentations by The SMG organised numerous roundtable councillors was highly significant: it signalled experts on a variety of issues related to urban discussions involving the Citizen Group and To delve further into the key issues raised, the city’s emphasis on the voice of the planning. To seek consensus and buy-in, the Youth Group, facilitated by experts appointed a Development Committee for Seoul Plan people, whom they represented. debate was open to the general public as by the SMG. Through these discussions, 2030 was established, with five thematic well as to the Citizen Group. the Citizen Group identified 11 challenges subcommittees: Welfare, education and The planning process was coordinated and confronting Seoul’s future, and these were women; Industry and jobs; History and integrated by a supervisory subcommittee, Citizen Surveys further distilled into seven key issues. The culture; Environment, energy and safety; comprising the chief master planner, five To capture the most pressing citizen Youth Group also raised seven concerns they Urban space, transport improvement. master planners from each subcommittee, concerns in greater detail, two surveys were deemed critical to the future of Seoul. city councillors, the heads of the Planning conducted in 2009 (1,500 respondents) and Each subcommittee consisted of 20 to and Coordination Department and the Urban 2012 (1,000 respondents). The results were Through this process, the Citizen Group also 30 recruited persons, including citizen Planning Bureau, and researchers from the disclosed to the Citizen Group and helped developed a vision statement for Seoul Plan participants, city councillors, planning Seoul Institute. shape the city’s plans and vision. 2030, which was subsequently endorsed by Seoul’s mayor: “A happy city of citizens built on communication and understanding.”

Chief Master Planner SMG Officials and Subcommittee Review mid and long Master Planners term plans under their Supervise the overall jurisdiction in association planning process. with the Seoul Plan 2030. Roles and Responsibilities of Seoul Plan 2030 Stakeholders Experts from Academia, City Councillors Civic Organisations and Express citizens’ the Seoul Institute opinions on planning Provide directions for matters. planning, preparation of draft plans.

Citizen Participants Present insights of key groups of the population: senior citizens, persons with disabilities, women, Citizen Group identifying the city’s visions and challenges. workers, entrepreneurs and youth. 18 19

Seoul Plan 2030 subcommittees Key Issues and Goals

Seven Planning Five Key Issues Tasks Subcommittee Welfare, Education and Women • Develop a welfare system prepared for a super-aged society. Character education and lowering • Create an environment where citizens lead a healthy life. Welfare, education and women. the cost of education. • Build a social system that helps eradicate polarisation and discrimination. • Design an education system that offers lifelong learning opportunities. Welfare for the disadvantaged such Industry and jobs. as youth, children and elders. • Promote gender equality and social care.

Jobs for youth and elders; support Industry and Jobs History and culture. • Recognition as a global economic city built on creativity and for small creative enterprises. innovation. • Promote shared growth between economic entities and mutual development in the region. Communication with citizens. Environment, energy and safety. • Promote economic vibrancy with an emphasis on people and jobs.

Urban space, transport and History and Culture Conservation of historical and improvement. • Create a city of living history. cultural resources and landscape. • Manage an urban landscape embraced by the population. • Create a diverse urban culture enjoyed by all. Response to climate change and conservation of the environment. Environment, Energy and Safety • Build an eco-friendly city of parks. • Build an energy-efficient city. Practical, viable urban • Create a safe city where everybody looks out for each other. regeneration; small-scale improvements.

Urban Space, Transport and Improvement The Seoul Plan 2030 process actively engaged 100 subcommittee members. Overlaps in • Promote urban restoration with an emphasis on the balance all SMG divisions. Each subcommittee was goals and strategies were reviewed and between home and work. connected to relevant SMG agencies, with rationalised. Citizen Group members who • Create a green transportation environment where the dependence on cars is minimal. access to the main SMG departments that had helped develop the vision were invited • Provide more residential spaces where people have stability would oversee its area. For each key issue, to one of the general meetings, to contribute coupled with a wide range of choice. the subcommittees produced detailed goals further on key issues and goals. and strategies. In September 2013 the final draft of the plan To reach consensus, all subcommittee was presented to the mayor of Seoul. draft plans were integrated through a series of general meetings involving some 20 21

Conclusion: A Citizen-Led Laying the Framework for Closer Process Facilitated by Top-Level Coordination with Local Level Plans Commitment Although the Seoul Plan 2030 reached INTERVIEW WITH The Seoul Plan 2030 was the first master and engaged citizens to an unprecedented plan to directly involve ordinary citizens degree, the city-level master plan was INHEE KIM in identifying challenges for the city and limited in incorporating public views at the Senior Research Fellow, the Seoul Institute developing its vision for the future. As such, neighbourhood level. the city did not have a clear initial idea of what citizen engagement entailed. Nevertheless, the Seoul Plan 2030 has paved What are the characteristics of citizen involvement in the way for subsequent local planning the Seoul Plan 2030? The success of the Seoul Plan 2030 process programmes. Two workshops have been was made possible by a high level of held for citizen representatives and officials Citizens were directly involved in conversations and decisions commitment to citizen involvement, from from corresponding gu-district governments regarding Seoul’s future vision through a deliberative both the mayor and the SMG. This helped to identify regional/district agendas, issues, discussion method. Deliberative discussion is a negotiation strengthen the framework for collaboration and improvements. Outcomes from the process through which stakeholders participate in in-depth in the new planning process. To allay workshops have been reflected in subsequent discussions and deliberations to examine and adjust their concerns about the unprecedented scale of community/neighbourhood level plans for opinions. This method was introduced to compensate for citizen participation in the planning process, each of the sub-areas within Seoul. These the shortcomings of indirect participation, such as surveys, city officials and expert advisers had planned have helped ensure that the needs and majority votes and selecting from given alternatives. for different scenarios, discussing factors priorities of residents at the local level are such as the scale and means of citizen addressed in the overall urban planning Citizens were empowered to make decisions on Seoul’s involvement well in advance. process. future vision and key issues. In this process, experts limited their roles to providing future forecasts, statistics, as well as outlining the From the onset, the planning process was pros and cons of different issues in order to assist citizens in making better- designed with citizen involvement as a informed decisions. In preparing the Seoul Plan 2030, all participants were priority. Experts leading the process agreed empowered to propose ideas for the future vision of Seoul and identify key that it was important at the beginning to issues, finally reaching a mutual consensus on these matters. For effective keep an open mind: to focus on creating a citizen involvement, the number of participants was limited to 100 persons. new system, and to establish a culture of engaging citizens and thinking from their Participants were asked to settle their conflicts of interest on their own. Ten perspectives, rather than to adopt what is groups comprising ten people each identified future visions and issues. Their administratively convenient. results were discussed and consensus was reached by the whole group. In cases where conflict arose because of differences on factual grounds, experts provided the necessary information and explanations to help resolve the issue.

The SMG did not try to control or mediate the outcome of discussions. This was consistent with the city’s public goals, in which the decision-making right given to citizens would be highly respected. City officials were only allowed to provide information and materials about the government’s policy directions and objectives. Initially, most citizens were critical of the municipal government’s policies. However, after numerous policy workshops and discussions, participants came to understand the city’s policies. They began to adopt a more positive attitude by suggesting alternatives instead of merely criticising the government. 22 23

What elements contributed to the success of Seoul Plan 2030’s statutory provisions to be easily modified without popular consent. Given citizen involvement process? the high degree of citizen involvement, such modifications are unlikely, and thus the Seoul Plan 2030 is a model example of an urban master plan that The Seoul Plan 2030 was created with active citizen involvement in mind, combines flexibility with sustainability. because there was high social demand and the mayor’s commitment was strong. The process, which took more than two years, was not an easy one. Seoul is known for its sophisticated use of data analytics in urban Thanks to the dedicated efforts of more than 400 participants—citizens, management. Can citizen involvement be substituted through the experts, and SMG officials—the plan came to fruition. use of technology to improve planning processes and outcomes?

One of the reasons citizen involvement in the Seoul Plan 2030 process was While the government encourages direct citizen participation and the use of successful was that each stakeholder benefitted from the process. Citizens advanced information and communications technology equally, promoting felt rewarded for contributing to the development of their own hometown. direct citizen participation was prioritised over the use of technology in the The SMG had confidence that the Seoul Plan 2030 would succeed as Seoul Plan 2030. a feasible master plan. Experts had an opportunity to be part of a new initiative to involve citizens in a policy-making process. Urban master plans before the Seoul Plan 2030 had been established with the help of various technologies such as surveys, statistical data analysis and The decision for the SMG to play a supporting role, not a leading one, predictive modelling techniques. However, they failed to be implemented or was a strategic move that paid off well. If the SMG had tried to lead the did not gain social consensus, leading some to regard urban master plans as initiative, it would not have achieved the same level of success. For citizen ineffective. Therefore, in the Seoul Plan 2030, the focus was on obtaining involvement, it is important to reconcile citizens’ opinions with the SMG’s public consensus and to ensure that the plans were feasible. policy directions in an objective way, and by forming a social consensus. The Seoul Institute, an independent research institute, was an appropriate One concern however remains: whether a citizen group of 100 individuals choice for the task of bridging between the SMG and the citizens. If the can represent the 10 million citizens of Seoul. The SMG needs to continually SMG had been the coordinator, citizens might have doubted the intentions garner opinions through various channels and build consensus. Starting and sincerity of the initiative. Indeed, when the SMG explained its policies to next year, the SMG will revise the Seoul Plan 2030 by utilising big data and help citizens make an informed decision, some were concerned that the city cutting-edge technology to improve its data analysis processes and enhance government was attempting to manipulate their opinions. methods of direct citizen participation.

Despite the success of the engagement process thus far, improvements can still be made. First, the Citizen Group should be expanded beyond its limit of 100-persons to better represent the entire city’s population. Second, as a result of citizen participation, the urban master plan—which is a long- term plan—has inclined toward more short-term agendas. This needs to be addressed in the future. Third, the supporting role of experts in providing consultation and information needs to be enhanced.

What benefits did involving citizens in the Seoul Plan bring?

One of the greatest benefits is that citizens are now more interested in the Urban Master Plan. Citizen opinion on the future of Seoul will be reflected in the revision of the Seoul Plan 2030. Having seen how their own proposals can be reflected in the plan and implemented in reality, citizens will strive to come up with even better ideas.

Before the Seoul Plan 2030, urban master plans were frequently scrapped and re-established when a new mayor took office. While plans need to be flexible in response to external change, it is undesirable for high-level 24 25

URBAN PLANNING AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Singapore Concept Plans

Urban Planning in Singapore

Urban planning in land-scarce Singapore is carried out by the national government. This ensures that limited land within the city state is sustainably developed, and competing development 1971 1991 needs are coordinated over the long term. A national urban First concept plan, drawn up with assistance Population Parameter: 3.66 million by 2030 policy document, the Concept Plan, brings together pertinent from the United Nations Development and 4 million by Year X. Programme. policies and programmes across various public agencies. A more Decentralisation strategy to create a Population Parameter: 3.4 million by 1992. heirarchy of commercial centres, ranging detailed Master Plan provides statutory planning guidelines. from regional, sub-regional and fringe Adopted a “Ring Plan” structure which centres. organised high density satellite towns around land in Singapore. The URA reviews the Translating Vision to Reality: a central catchment area. Technological corridors to promote Master Plan every five years. Concept Plan and Master Plan innovation.

The Concept Plan is coordinated by the To implement the Master Plan, the URA Ministry of National Development and the ensures that all developments—public and Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA), the private—are carried out in accordance with national authority for land-use planning. It prescribed parameters. These parameters establishes the long-term vision and broad are regulated by the Planning Act and are strategies for land use and transport for incorporated into government land sales the next 40 to 50 years of development. conditions which private developers have The first Concept Plan, completed in 1971, to comply with when developing sites guided development of new towns, transport obtained through government land sales. The infrastructure and other aspects of urban Master Plan also details urban design and development while safeguarding long term development control guidelines (as illustrated land use needs. The Concept Plan is reviewed in the diagram on the right). 2001 2011 every ten years to address changes in social Population Parameter: Population Parameter: and economic needs, with mid-term reviews Extensive public ownership of land in 5.5 million by 2041 – 2051. 6.5 – 6.9 million by 2030 as per the MND Land being carried out when necessary. Singapore means that the government can Use Plan released in 2013. realise planning intentions by leveraging Providing a high quality living environment. Providing good affordable homes. Broad long-term strategies from the Concept a combination of public infrastructure, Transforming Singapore into a global financial Plan are translated into more detailed plans public developments and government land hub. Integrating greenery into the living for implementation in the Master Plan. The sales to the private sector. The Master Plan environment. Creating a distinctive city of rich heritage, provides the framework for public agencies Master Plan, in turn, guides development character, diversity and identity. Enhancing transport connectivity. over the next 10 to 15 years. Introduced in to develop infrastructure within their areas 1958, the Master Plan is a statutory plan of responsibilities. Each agency develops Reaching out to the public through extensive Sustaining a vibrant economy. public consultation. that stipulates the permissible land use and their own detailed implementation plans for Ensuring room for growth and a good living development parameters on every plot of approval by URA. environment in the future. 26 27

Equivalent Plans in Singapore and Seoul

SINGAPORE SEOUL

Concept Plan Urban Comprehensive Maps out strategic Plan vision over the next (Seoul 2030 Plan) 40 to 50 years Local Community Master Plan Plan Guides development over the next 10 to 15 years Urban Management Plan

Detailed Urban Design Plans for Key Areas Public consultation held for Concept Plan 2001.

As part of engagement efforts, a public Roles and Responsibilities of Public Engagement for Planning Processes in Singapore forum was organised in December 2000 Agencies in Singapore to discuss interim proposals before the Concept Plan submission of the final report. The draft Singapore Land Land Transport Authority Housing and Concept Plan, incorporating public views, Authority (SLA) (LTA) plans, operates and Development Board Since the first Concept Plan in 1971, was then exhibited from 28 April to 11 May manages and optimises maintains land transport (HDB) plans and develops the preparation of Concept Plans in 2001, attracting over 2,000 people to view state land resources. infrastructure and systems. housing estates. Singapore has largely been carried out the exhibition. within government. The Concept Plan 2001 development exercise, however, One of the key outcomes of public included a public consultation process for engagement efforts in the 2001 draft the first time. To make better-informed Concept Plan exercise was the preservation strategic planning decisions, the Ministry of a biodiversity-rich, coastal wetland area, of National Development (MND) convened Chek Jawa, which had previously been slated two focus groups in late 2000, comprising for reclamation works in the draft Concept professionals, interest groups, industrialists, Plan. Civil society groups, in particular the businessmen, academics, grassroots Nature Society of Singapore, petitioned volunteers and students. The focus groups the authorities to retain Chek Jawa in its examined two planning dilemmas: (i) natural state, and backed their proposal with balancing scarce land resources among the scientific evidence. Following open public competing land uses of housing, parks and discussions and activities such as guided industries, and (ii) retaining identity in the walks by the Nature Society to spread public context of intensive land use. Government awareness and interest on Chek Jawa, the National Parks Board Public Utilities Board JTC Corporation agencies conducted briefings and site visits MND announced in January 2002 that the (NParks) provides and (PUB) manages our develops industrial for participants to better understand the planned reclamation works would be put off enhances greenery. water supply system. infrastructure. issues discussed. for as long as the area was not required for development. 28 29

Concept Plan 2001: Private sector consultants were engaged to new statutory requirements were introduced, Process of Consulting the Public develop alternative schemes for selected stipulating that the Draft Master Plan, with areas such as Jurong East and Kampong all proposed amendments, is to be exhibited Bugis—a significant feature of the DGP for public feedback for a minimum of two process. These private sector planning teams weeks before being gazetted. Focus Groups were required to present their proposals to Aug 2000 to Nov 2001 the public for feedback. Suitable elements Subsequent Master Plan reviews in 2003 of these proposals were then incorporated and 2008 continued the efforts to be more Public Forum into the final master plans for each area. This transparent and consultative in forward Strategic Review 8 Dec 2000 Final Concept Plan collaborative approach between the planning planning. For the 2008 Master Plan, a series authorities and the private sector represents of stakeholder dialogues were included in Dec 1999 to Aug 2000 Draft Concept Plan Exhibition Released July 2001 a paradigm shift from earlier planning the process of planning for key growth areas 28 April to 11 May 2001 processes, when professionals, the public and such as Jurong Lake District and Paya Lebar Public Dialogue other stakeholders could only comment on or Central. Detailed land-use plans were drawn 11 May 2001 oppose plans that had already been finalised up for each of Singapore’s five planning and endorsed by the government. regions, instead of the previous 55 DGPs.

The DGPs which were completed by 1998, Since the Concept Plan 2001, public for the private sector or the public to know formed the overall Master Plan 1998, which consultation has been expanded to include the intended use of a parcel of land without was gazetted on 22 January 1999. To anchor feedback through other channels such as formal application to the authorities. public engagement as an integral part of the lifestyle surveys, focus group discussions, review and preparation of key urban plans, public exhibitions, forums and Internet A more open and transparent urban platforms. These public views are considered planning framework began to be adopted in the final endorsed plans. in the 1990s. Development Guide Plans (DGPs) were introduced, translating the Master Plan broad intentions of the Concept Plan into detailed local plans that clarified the type The first Master Plan in 1958 was exhibited of developments allowable for each site. to the public for a six-week period. Planners divided Singapore island into five Objections and representations received from regions (north, north-east, west, central, east) the public were taken into consideration, and 55 planning areas, with a DGP for each following which the plans were prepared by of these areas. the planning authority. Public participation was limited to formal submissions of The preparation of these DGPs also saw objection to the plans. Singapore’s urban planning process adopting a more proactive approach to public Until the 1980s, the Master Plans lacked consultation. Selected DGPs were publicly the granularity of detail to clarify what exhibited, with feedback sessions conducted developments were permitted for each with local stakeholders. Through such parcel of land. Private sector development dialogue sessions, the public could share their applications were assessed on the basis of views directly with the Minister for National detailed plans prepared internally by the Development and key planning officials. This authorities to provide firmer guidance on made Singapore’s urban planning intentions acceptable densities, development forms and more transparent and accessible to the building heights. These detailed plans were public. 55 planning areas in Singapore. not publicly available, so it was often difficult 30 31

Public Engagement for Infrastructure Projects welcome participation and ideas from and Programmes the community and private sector.”

Besides engagement at the broader stages Dr Cheong Koon Hean, INTERVIEW WITH of urban planning, Singapore’s planning Chief Executive Officer (CEO) HDB, agencies also engage with the public and former CEO URA YAM AH MEE over specific infrastructure projects and Former CEO, Land Transport Authority, Singapore programmes. For instance, URA has sought Sound urban planning is of fundamental to solicit more feedback and ideas on the importance to Singapore. It ensures that Rail Corridor project, working with the multiple developmental needs can be On enhancing LTA’s organisational culture community to shape future plans for the sustained in the long term, within the former railway land (see Page 125). Similarly, physical confines of a land-scarce city-state. When I first joined LTA as Chief Executive (CE), I the Land Transport Authority, which oversees While city-level planning processes—which felt it was very important to first get a sense of land transport infrastructure, conducted include the Concept Plan and Master Plan— the people. After interviewing many of them, I public consultations in 2012 in preparation have gradually involved the community over concluded that LTA as an organisation was strong for their 2013 Land Transport Master Plan. the years, these processes are generally still in professional expertise and competence, but the The Housing and Development Board, which led by the government. This allows complex innovative spirit of its people seem constrained by a is in charge of public housing developments trade-offs to be assessed and strategic top-down, command-and-control structure. that house more than 80% of residents in decisions to be made, in order to achieve Singapore, incorporates public engagement optimal economic, social and environmental If we really want to make transport that benefits processes into its various upgrading outcomes for the city as a whole. people and the community, it is important to programmes to rejuvenate mature public optimise the organisation in a way that innovative housing estates and towns. Nevertheless, through the DGP process of ideas can be harnessed and the expertise and the 1990s and other engagement initiatives capabilities of staff can be tapped. Conclusion: Balancing Strategic by government agencies, opportunities for Planning with Community Needs community participation in planning and First, I expanded the number of higher development processes have been increasing management positions, allowing young and “Planning requires a very strategic and over the years. The maturing of Singapore’s capable officers to take up more responsibilities long-term view, for example, you would civil society has also yielded more informed and bring in fresh ideas. have to decide where the regional centre and constructive input from the people, with and main transportation networks are. a positive impact on urban plans. The case Second, we used the corporate management meeting (CMM) as a These things need to be determined studies featured in subsequent chapters will mechanism not just to make decisions, but also to discuss ideas. This by macro planning, and generally, by discuss Singapore’s efforts in these areas, and encouraged consultation, rather than a more rigid command-and-control the government. But as the planning examine how the engagement processes culture. becomes more layered and detailed, benefit both planning and development there is room for participation by outcomes. Third, I introduced a minimum three-level communication process. I noticed everyone. that good ideas may be lost in one-to-one conversations—which tend to be the most common form of communication in a top-down structure. So So in the design of a building or the I made it a point that discussions have to involve a minimum of three levels. surrounds of an estate, the community I see CE and DCEs (deputy chief executives) as one level, group directors as should have a bigger say, with another, and directors and deputy directors as a third. government playing a more facilitative role. So it is an inverse relationship. The On engaging the wider public government will be involved at the macro level but as we come down the tiers, we We changed our engagement approach with the public. We decided that we shouldn’t be calling ourselves a “world-class land transport system.” Instead, when we drafted the new Land Transport Master Plan, we 32 33

conceptualised a new LTA motto: to be a people-centred land transport On making constructive use of feedback system. When we engage with people, a lot of feedback comes through. We have From the onset, we were very clear that we cannot create a Master Plan to look at these differently, based on the objectives we are considering purely by ourselves. Nor should we fall back on top-down consultation, and the challenges we face. Once our aims are clearly articulated and the where we tell the public what we want to do and hear only what we challenges well defined, we can then group suggestions and feedback want to hear. We knew that if we wanted to increase the use of public into various categories: “very useful”, “perhaps useful in the future”, transport, we had to know what it takes to get people to travel on public “benefitting only a narrow group”, “not applicable”, and so on. We can transport. We had to co-create the way forward. then compare these ideas against our objectives and challenges and make use of them in our plans accordingly. One of our first challenges was the public sentiment that feedback to LTA falls into a black hole. Over two years, we sought comments and ideas At times, we need to test certain things: some ideas warrant counter from members of the public, as well as transport policy experts, community checking or pre-testing, and so these are brought up in subsequent leaders and partners. By conducting dedicated sessions on different aspects discussions or during co-creation sessions. of land transportation—such as cycling, buses, fares—we were able to cover every element of the master plan. So this is a systematic process to make sure consultation and co-creation serve a purpose. In our case, it is to have a people-centred land transport By engaging with people over many weeknights, we put a face to the system that keeps their world moving. What we do must be useful for agency. Those who wrote in with suggestions and comments were where people want to go. invariably those who had volunteered to attend the evening consultation groups. As the engagement continued, they came to understand the bigger picture, and realised that while LTA was open to feedback and co- creation, there were often competing ideas from others that were equally good, and that LTA was collating all of them. It made them realise that “Oh, things are being addressed”.

I also strengthened LTA’s Communications Department, to have it become a separate department reporting directly to the CE., instead of being a small unit.

The Land Transport Master Plan itself is the outcome of consultation and co-creation. We set up the Land Transport Community Partnership Division to make sure no black-hole situation would arise again, to continue engagement with stakeholders and the community, and to make sure we stay responsive as we roll out new transport infrastructure, bus-route changes, embark on MRT (mass rapid transit) construction, and so on.

Of course, we also engaged with key external partners such as the designers and contractors. For this group of people, we held charity events and activities, such as fund-raising golf days. Even at a golf game, new ideas may come up in discussion, and you are still co-creating. The aim is to keep engaging with people. 34 35 4 LOCAL COMMUNITY ORGANISATIONS

While planners are equipped with technical government and the citizen. However, there skills and knowledge, they often cannot are fundamental differences to the systems fully address local contexts and complex and approaches in both cities. urban issues by themselves. Local community organisations can help bridge the gap In Seoul, local community organisations between professional planners and the are closely related to local governance community, creating better and more structures. Provision of physical community informed planning outcomes. spaces and amenities, however, consists of a combination of publicly-owned spaces and This section outlines the evolution and roles public support for privately-owned and run of local community organisations in Seoul community establishments. In Singapore, the and Singapore, as well as the provision of public housing town structure serves as the community infrastructure in each city. Seoul basis for a systematic hierarchy of community and Singapore both provide public amenities, space provisions. Hence, community community space and space for leisure organisations are also closely tied into the activities. They also have established strong town structure. networks of local community organisations that provide a direct link between the city

Local Community Planning in Seoul (left). 36 37

LOCAL COMMUNITY ORGANISATIONS as day-care centres, facilities for seniors, of residents in an apartment complex and sports facilities, to allow the building regarded it as their neighbourhood. South to serve as a base for the local community. Korea’s Housing Act requires apartment Seoul: From Institutionalised These amenities take up most of the floor complexes to be installed with community area of dong offices, with only a small facilities, such as playgrounds, parks, book Structures to Community- percentage—17.1%, or 232,358 square cafes and exercise facilities, in accordance metres out of a total 1,357,989 square with their size. All LDGs in Seoul have to Led Initiatives metres for all 423 dong offices—being used comply with the ‘Ordinance on Assistance for for administrative purposes. Multi-Family Housing’, by providing financial assistance for the maintenance of community facilities that are five years or older. This South Korea is a unitary state with a system of local self-governance. In addition to these amenities, dong office buildings also house resident centres. By policy means that the public sector shares Citizens elect the heads of the central government, city governments municipal law, resident centres offer a range responsibility for maintaining the private and local district (gu) governments. Seoul, the capital of Korea, is the of facilities and programmes to nurture amenities and facilities that residents need. largest city with a population of 10 million. The city has 25 gu Local the local capacity for self-governance, revitalise local communities and enhance An ARC manages shared living space on District Governments (LDGs), each with an average population of local convenience and welfare. They behalf of the residents of an apartment 400,000. These LDGs are divided into dongs, the smallest public provide residents with spaces such as complex. Residents in each building elect administrative unit. Heads of dongs are appointed by LDGs. There are multipurpose rooms, cultural classrooms their own representatives, who then elect 423 dongs in the city (an average of 17 per LDG), each with an average for civic education, conference rooms and a representative for the entire complex. auditoriums, where community activities can ARCs organise resident festivities, volunteer population of 23,000. take place. programmes, resident hobby clubs and other community activities that promote a sense There are three types of local community organisations in Seoul—the While the head of a dong office oversees the of community and generates social capital resident governing body, resident organisations and grassroots units. operation of its respective resident centre, within the apartment complex. The first type, the Resident Self-Governing Committee (RSGC), is a all decisions must be reviewed in advance by the RSGC. The committee is a formal Many ARCs fare well in handling day-to-day statutory organisation operated at the dong level. The Apartment and representative body that plans, decides social issues such as floor noise, energy- Resident Committee (ARC) falls under the RSGC, and manages and conducts various activities for self- saving drives, and issues with engagement common living and facilities in an apartment complex. Grassroots governance and community development. of caretakers. As resident-governing RSGC members are residents appointed by bodies, however, ARCs are limited in their units refer to spontaneous local communities and their networks at the head of the dong, recommended by effectiveness. Most residents are not involved gu level. fellow residents, and/or publicly recruited. All enough: a 2011 study indicated that 62% of 423 dong in Seoul have such committees; apartment dwellers have never participated in each consists of about 25 residents who any resident organisations or their activities. The dong office administers official services Dong-Offices and Resident actively participate in the management of In addition, tenants have the right to select for social welfare, culture and daily life, Self-Governing Committees (RSGC) their respective resident centres and also lead a building representative to make decisions ranging from nurses making home visits or participate in local activities such as special regarding property rights, but cannot to the disabled, to delivering meals to the Dongs have undergone major changes under events, volunteer activities, neighbourhood themselves serve as building representatives. elderly who live alone. Resident centres, on the central government’s administrative clean-ups, and outreach during times of This restriction poses some serious limitations the other hand, handle non-governmental reforms since 1995. In 1999, a new national crisis. for local community organisations. policy introduced “dong offices” (responsible community activities. The provision of public for administrative services and official services is hence separate from community Apartment Complexes and resident affairs) and “resident centres” (to development functions. Their Resident Committees accommodate local community activities). Current laws require dong offices to In 2007, dong offices were restructured to In Seoul, 58.6% of all residential units are provide amenities and conveniences such strengthen social welfare delivery services. high-rise apartments. In one survey, 62.2% 38 39

Requirements for Provision of Community The LCSP initiative established 240 residents- On 27 July 2016, the Association of led community centres (in contrast to the Community Networks organised an Amenities in Apartment Complexes resident centres created by the government). SMG Policy Discussion on Community. It These served as important catalysts for subsequently submitted a key proposal to creating vibrant local communities in each reinforce the local district’s intermediary neighbourhood. support centre to Seoul’s Mayor Park. More recently, community networks have expanded The LDGs also set up “community networks” their scope, driving innovation in community to connect different community entities, policies at the local district level. and encourage free and open engagement between members of different communities. Conclusion: Revitalising ≥ 50 households These networks involve spontaneous Institutionalized Resident Units Playground ≥ 100 households ≥ 300 households resident groups, grassroots organisations, through Community Empowerment Neighbourhood Childcare Facility institutionalised community units such as Facilities, Senior RSGCs and ARCs, cooperatives and social While the RSGC and ARC—institutionalised Centres welfare centres, as well as architects, community units introduced by the central individuals and experts interested in the government—provided residents with basic community within each gu. authority and resources for community activities across the nation, the top-down The need for community networks was first approach limited the ways in which residents raised by grassroots activists at a conference were engaged and did not enable the ≥ 300 households in 2011. In 2012, the 25 local gu districts building of robust communities. Library ≥ 2000 households held discussions to form local networks. This Kindergarten approach served two purposes: it enabled Seoul has since shifted to a less rigid civic entities or individuals who had been and less formal community-led approach ≥ 300 households ≥ 500 households active in community activities to take part so as to encourage participation and Common Facilities Sports Facilities for in drafting and implementing SMG policies. ensure that residents benefit more from for Residents Residents It also provided a platform for competent community policies. This has meant building entities to contribute more to the local collaborative networks that extend beyond Local Communities and Since 2012, SMG and 25 LDGs have run community. local communities in order to leverage on Community Networks publicly-funded Local Community Support mutual strengths and generate greater Programmes (LCSPs), aiming to increase As of 2016, all 25 local districts have their impact by influencing SMG and LDG policies, own community networks that seek to meet which single individuals or communities As institutions created by the central citizen participation in community activities each district’s unique needs from economic cannot achieve. These community networks government without taking into account and strengthen the foundation of local well-being to social welfare. In the beginning, are now important partners for the city the needs of communities on the ground, communities. Each LCSP consists of a interested activists and organisations led the administration, providing innovative policy or the willingness of residents to participate, range of thematic sub-programmes (such way; network membership was later opened solutions tailored to each local community. RSGCs and ARCs face serious limitations. In as child care, culture, economy). Small to the general public, attracting residents and light of low resident involvement, the Seoul resident groups are formed to prepare a expert organisations. As each network grew Metropolitan Government (SMG) took steps comprehensive plan for implementation. and expanded over time, members gained to make these community organisations To lower thresholds of participation, many community project experience, and the more relevant; at the same time, it sought sub-programmes were designed so that only networks became important platforms for to support residents in forming their own three residents are needed to form a small 1 communicating and discussing community communities. group for conducting community activities. policies and agendas.

1 A recent Seoul Institute study found that some 4,987 small community groups, consisting of 128,743 residents, participated in LCSPs between 2012 to 2015. 40 41

social trust and cohesion. Community empowerment activities, however, could let citizens experience the joy of living together, take a greater interest in their local community and establish a network amongst INTERVIEW WITH neighbours, thereby benefitting everyone. This is why the SMG was so keen to encourage citizens to take part in such activities. HYO-GWAN JEON Where community empowerment activities are vibrant, citizens feel more Director, Seoul Innovation Bureau, Seoul closely-connected to the large social system in which they spend their day- to-day lives. They believe that they can make a difference. In order to help Seoul’s 10 million citizens build happier lives, collaborative governance was Explain what the Seoul Innovation Bureau does. a logical policy direction for the SMG.

When Won-Soon Park, a social designer and civic How does the city support community empowerment activities and activist, took office as the Mayor of Seoul in October citizen involvement? 2011, he established the Seoul Innovation Bureau to bring his experience with social innovation into When the SMG began to promote community empowerment, there were government administration. concerns that it was just a propaganda campaign, similar to what they had experienced under the old authoritarian regime. The Mayor had to reiterate Reporting directly to the Mayor’s office, the Seoul the key principle of the policy: that community empowerment would be Innovation Bureau is at the forefront of establishing led by citizens, with the administration playing a supporting role. “governance” and “innovation” as the key thrusts for this administration. The Bureau nurtures a system for The SMG offered more details to encourage citizens to take up the public-private cooperation in which citizens, experts initiative. It also started the Seoul Community Support Centre (SCSC)—an and the administration collaborate to implement intermediary organisation staffed by private partners with professional policies and resolve urban issues. It also supports expertise—to help nurture a system of collaborative governance between innovative policies by identifying new projects and the public and private sectors. providing assistance to implement them. What are the major achievements of the SMG’s community The Bureau is the first of its kind in Seoul’s public empowerment policy? What are the success factors? sector and organised into six divisions that oversee issues relating to: social innovation, public-private cooperation, local community, conflict resolution, Seoul’s local government leadership was convinced that social innovation youth, and human rights. arises when citizens are entrusted to lead, to take initiative and govern themselves. An important success factor was that citizens were provided Why was the SMG so keen to promote community empowerment not only with funding support but also other subtle forms of assistance policies and collaborative governance? from intermediary organisations. Eligibility requirements for programme subsidies were lowered, while funding given to participants was also When the Mayor first took office, the indicators showed that the quality reduced to one to three million Korean won. These adjustments allowed of life for citizens was low: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and the resources to be distributed among more residents, to encourage an Development (OECD) data in 2012 ranked South Korea 32nd out of 34 increase in the take up of community activities. countries in terms of quality of life. In 2010, more than half of Seoul’s population surveyed did not trust their neighbours. In the same year, the A 2015 study by the SCSC found the outcomes of these initiatives to number of people who committed suicide was one-and-a-half times higher be very positive. The SCSC conducted a survey among residents who than what it had been five years ago; the number of senior citizens living benefitted from these initiatives. 82.6% expressed happiness, 87.6% felt a alone had doubled in eight years. a sense of community, and habitability had increased to 88.4%. (In 2016, overall habitability for all citizens in Seoul was only 59.4%.) Clearly, the The SMG’s primary means of enhancing citizens’ well-being was reinforcing community empowerment policy has been effective. the welfare system. But welfare alone could not make up for weakened 42 43

What impact have community empowerment and collaborative LOCAL COMMUNITY ORGANISATIONS governance had on Seoul’s urban policies?

In order to resolve local community issues, residents, who are at the Singapore: Public heart of the matter, must engage voluntarily and participate in activities. Over the past five years, SMG support for community empowerment has Housing Development laid a foundation for citizen involvement. Residents have built close-knit relationships amongst themselves and now drive problem-solving on their and Community Building own.

Collaborative governance shows that when citizens and the community Some 80% of Singapore residents live in public housing partner the administration, they can find solutions to complex urban issues. estates built by the Housing and Development Board (HDB). Civil servants learn from the experience of working together with citizens. Citizens are also able to better understand the city’s policies, and increasingly The structure of local community units in Singapore is take the lead in resolving local issues, instead of leaving them to the city hence closely related to the development, management government. and rejuvenation of HDB towns and estates.

The SMG is now poised to work with citizens across the entire range of urban affairs. The city’s 25 gu district governments are also working hard to HDB Planning—A Rational Approach consist of neighbourhoods that encompassed create a collaborative system at the local level that will involve residents in all to Building Communities 4,000 to 6,000 dwelling units each, situated stages of decision-making, from identifying policy issues to implementation within walking distance of a neighbourhood and evaluation. Since the establishment of the HDB in 1960, centre where there would be day-to-day Singapore’s towns have been planned on the amenities such as wet markets, eateries and basis of providing affordable housing for the provision shops. HDB neighbourhoods were masses, while creating a sense of community also planned to be walkable in scale in order in an urban environment. As Dr Liu Thai Ker, to promote familiarity among neighbours, former Chief Architect and Chief Executive and facilitate community development over Officer of HDB (1979 –1989), explains: time.

Our primary objective was to create The prevailing British town planning theories good, liveable environments with a of the 1960s to 1970s, when HDB towns sense of community for our multicultural were being constructed rapidly, stipulated society, with facilities to fulfil daily the neighbourhood as the smallest basic needs, such as schools and shops that planning unit. Dr Liu, however, felt that are linked by bus services, as well as job neighbourhoods were still too large a scale opportunities. And we had to keep our for people to meaningfully relate to each costs as low as possible to allow the other. Further research conducted by HDB maximum number of people to afford sociologists suggested that grouping 700 to such housing. 1,000 dwelling units would offer residents a better sense of community. HDB planners Under Dr Liu, the HDB planned systematically divided neighbourhoods into community- for community needs, employing rigorous scaled precincts, anchored by activity nodes research to refine physical designs in support such as basketball courts and playgrounds. of community development. Each town was Such precinct-based planning facilitates planned for a population of about 200,000 casual daily interactions among residents to 250,000, to ensure that amenities serving and nurtures a sense of belonging to the residents would be sustainable. Towns would community. 44 45

At the individual building level, HDB also Residents’ Committees (RCs), Neighbourhood One of the examples of CCCs and RCs identify needs within the community by took pains to introduce design features Committees (NCs), Community Sports working together to improve the physical interacting with residents and then propose that promote neighbourly interaction. After Clubs, Community Emergency and environment in HDB public housing estates, improvement projects, which in turns receives consulting sociologists, HDB learnt that Engagement Committees, Malay and Indian is the Community Improvement Projects funding support from the CIPC. residents tended to relate meaningfully to Activity Executive Committees, Senior Committee (CIPC), administrated by the only about seven or eight neighbours along Citizens’ Executive Committees, Women Ministry of National Development. The More recently, PA worked with other the corridor of a typical residential apartment Executive Committees and Youth Executive CIPC carries out improvement projects in government agencies and service providers slab block. So HDB created the segmented Committees. These committees are run HDB estates, including covered walkways, and introduced the concept of town hub/ corridor concept: they broke up long by volunteers who organise community footpaths and cycling tracks. CCCs and RCs Community Hub, which provided a critical corridors into segments of seven to eight events to foster greater social bonding units each, with each segment served by a and neighbourliness amongst residents. In common stairway to promote neighbourly addition, they also help to gather feedback Three-Tier Community Facility Cluster in HDB Towns interaction. Another designed element and share Government policies with residents was the void deck: empty public spaces on so that people can get the help they need. the ground floor of each apartment block, PRECINCT 1 PRECINCT 2 PRECINCT 1 PRECINCT 2 through which residents pass on their In the early days, CCs were common spaces RESIDENTS’ RESIDENTS’ RESIDENTS’ RESIDENTS’ way home, meet each other and interact. for people from different backgrounds COMMITTEE COMMITTEE COMMITTEE COMMITTEE Void decks have also served as spaces to meet and interact through sports and for important social and religious events, educational activities. While the mission such as weddings and funerals. They have remains unchanged, CCs have now become since become a distinctive feature of the vibrant community spaces located near Singaporean way of life. transport nodes with high human traffic areas within the community. Many are today well NEIGHBOURHOOD 1 NEIGHBOURHOOD 2 In all, these planning and design norms equipped with modern facilities such as air- COMMUNITY COMMUNITY provided the basis for development of HDB conditioned community halls, sheltered multi- CLUB CLUB towns, most of which were constructed purpose courts, dance and music studios, in the 1970s and 1980s. In response to culinary studios and theatrettes. With the changing lifestyles and preferences, HDB wide array of facilities and programmes, the TOWN HUB experimented with fresh planning approaches CCs are able to offer different programmes for newer towns such as Punggol, while which cater to the different needs and Integration of remaining true to the objective of community interests of diverse residents. Community Facilities building in public estates. With modernisation and the move from Community Facilities and kampongs to high-rise buildings, the Organisations Residents’ Committees Centres (RCs) in NEIGHBOURHOOD 3 NEIGHBOURHOOD 4 public housing estates and Neighbourhood COMMUNITY COMMUNITY The People’s Association (PA), is a statutory Committees (NCs) in private housing estates CLUB CLUB board established on 1 July 1960 to promote were introduced to retain some “gotong racial harmony and social cohesion. It has royong” spirit and to serve as direct touch a network of more than 1,800 grassroots points for residents. The RCs and NCs are organisations (GROs) with some 40,000 run by residents, for residents, to promote volunteers, and over 100 Community Clubs neighbourliness and community bonding in (CCs). their respective estates. These committees also work closely with government agencies PRECINCT 1 PRECINCT 2 PRECINCT 1 PRECINCT 2 The network of GROs in the PA includes and other community organisations to RESIDENTS’ RESIDENTS’ RESIDENTS’ RESIDENTS’ COMMITTEE COMMITTEE COMMITTEE COMMITTEE the Citizens’ Consultative Committees improve the living environment and public (CCCs), CC Management Committee, safety in their estates. 46 47

Functions of Town Councils least two-thirds of the appointed members suggestions particularly for local community have to be residents of the housing estate issues, and taking action to help implement within the town. these suggestions. Two key communication channels were highlighted for active However, as town councillors and committee citizens—the resident committees and town members are part-time volunteers, the councils. actual running of the town is undertaken by professional estate managers or a Since then, new opportunities for citizen management team who are provided involvement in local planning and by managing agents appointed by Town development have arisen, as the government Councils, or hired directly to administer the judiciously pruned back its involvement. Primarily service and Implementation of local Control, management, councils’ affairs and carry out its duties. For example, the Neighbourhood Renewal conservancy charges improvement projects maintenance and Programme, introduced in 2007 to improve collected from residential funded by the government, improvement of the Conclusion: Creating Greater Room the environment in mature public housing households and such as Neighbourhood common areas of HDB for Citizen Participation neighbourhoods, incorporates a local Town commercial lessees/ Renewal Programme. residential and commercial Council-led public consultation process tenants. properties. Singapore’s extensive system of public overseen by the HDB. Meanwhile, new types housing development has resulted in a of community developments such as “Our An annual operating grant comprehensive network of community Tampines Hub” are designed to integrate a from the government spaces, forming the backbone of local wider range of community activities within (about 15% of the Council’s community organisations. However, one location. Such developments enable total annual income). centralised planning and development the government to work hand-in-hand with system, and public policy making in general residents to meet new community needs created a situation where citizens tend to and aspirations. National-level engagement 2 mass of community facilities and services In 1989, Town Councils were introduced act as mere observers rather than actively initiatives like Our Singapore Conversation , 3 to serve an entire town. Such facilities may to give residents a greater say in the participate in community initiatives. and the SGfuture dialogues further include sports, recreational, educational management of HDB towns and estates, deepened the conversation between the and other community assets. Our Tampines and to develop for themselves, the type of In the late 1990s, a new vision of government and citizens, and encouraged Hub is the first such town hub that was environment they prefer to live in. The towns’ Singaporeans as “active citizens” was greater citizen participation in community implemented (see Page 136). RCs/NCs, CCs, boundaries are defined according to the put forward by then Prime Minister Goh issues and national level policies. Town/Community Hubs form a three-tier electoral boundaries, and the town councils Chok Tong. The vision was part of the community facility cluster. are led by their respective elected Members recommendations proposed by the Singapore In all, recent initiatives represent a shift in of Parliament. 21 committee, which aimed to strengthen community engagement approaches from Town Councils the “heartware” of Singapore in the 21st top-down educational campaigns in the early Generally, each town council shall consist of century, to build a “greater social cohesion, days of independence, to programmes that In the early days of Singapore’s housing elected members who are elected Members sense of community, and national belonging encourage greater citizen participation at estates, town development and management of Parliament (MP) and appointed members among Singaporeans.” Active citizens both community, as well as national levels. were undertaken directly by the HDB. This or Councillors. The Town Council Chairman were envisioned as a “people” sector to allowed the HDB, as developer, to continually appoints Councillors to key positions in the complement the public and private sectors, improve on its planning standards and Town Council; they are expected to direct by offering constructive feedback or building designs, based on feedback from the Council’s policies. The Chairman must 2 Our Singapore Conversation is a year-long national level conversation consisting of 660 dialogue sessions held from residents. However, this also gave rise to the appoint not fewer than six councillors but 2012 to 2013, involving more than 47,000 Singaporeans. The sessions covered various themes on Singapore’s future impression that HDB estates were becoming not fewer than six but no more than 30 direction, such as providing opportunities for all Singaporeans, and trust and collaboration between the government, the too monotonous, and that Singaporeans had councillors or up to 10 town councillors per community and civic society. become passive observers in the development MP, whichever is greater. To capture a slice of of their own towns. the diverse views of the local community, at 3 The SGfuture engagement sessions were organised between November 2015 to July 2016, as Singapore reached the milestone of 50 years of nationhood. The sessions provided a platform for Singaporeans to co-create ideas for Singapore’s future, and involved more than 8,300 Singaporeans over a total of 121 engagement sessions. 48 49 5 FROM THE DRAWING BOARD TO THE COMMUNITY: PARTICIPATORY PLANNING CASE STUDIES FROM SEOUL AND SINGAPORE To better appreciate and understand citizen involvement for various levels of planning and development processes in Seoul and Singapore, a series of case studies have been documented and categorised based on the scale of planning efforts:

Town-Level Rejuvenation Major Developments in Existing Communities Seoul - Local Community Planning Seoul - Urban Regeneration - Gyeongui Line Forest Park Programme Singapore Singapore - Rail Corridor - Remaking Our Heartlands - Our Tampines Hub (OTH) (ROH)

Neighbourhood-Level Community Participation Planning and Ownership

Seoul Seoul - Dong-Level Planning - Vibrant Community Center - Resident Environment (VCC) Management - Community-Owned Programme (REMP) Community Centre

Singapore Singapore - Neighbourhood Renewal - Social Linkway Programme (NRP) - Community Participatory Programmes 50 51

Seoul Case Study Locations

Vibrant Community Center in Banghak 3-Dong

Urban Regeneration in Changdong and Sanggye

Urban Regeneration at Changshin and Soongin

Gyeongui Line REMP at Forest Park Seowon Village

Citizen Ownership at Namuguneul 52 53

Singapore Case Study Locations

Rail Corridor

Social Linkway and Neighbourhood NRP at Bukit Incubator at Panjang Tampines Central Our Favourite Place: Our Project Bus Stop Tampines Friendly Faces, Hub Lively Places: Welcome to Our Friendly Faces, Lively Places: Backyard Blooming in Harmony

‘Our Favourite Place: Project Oasis in Little East Coast India ROH

Our Favourite Place: Play it Forward 54 55

CASE STUDIES Seoul Local Community Planning Town-Level Background of the Seoul First, they serve as intermediate plans Community Plans between the Seoul Plan 2030 and the Urban Rejuvenation Management Plans. Urban planning systems Following the completion of the Seoul Plan in Korea generally consist of two tiers: the 2030 master plan, planners grew more Master Plan and the Urban Management interested in expanding public engagement Plans. While this system suits small to in urban planning. However, while the medium-sized cities, it is inadequate for Seoul Plan 2030 articulates the vision and Seoul, a megalopolis of 10 million people and broad strategies for the city’s future, it does 25 gu districts. In October 2014, planning not provide detailed guidelines for Urban laws were revised at the national level to Management Plans (such as District Unit enable community plans to be developed Plans), which address specific planning issues according to the city’s needs. The community at the local level and provide a basis for plans provide details and guidelines for implementation. To bridge this gap, in 2014 developing the Urban Management Plans, as the Seoul Metropolitan Government (SMG) well as other lower level plans by different introduced the Seoul Community Plans—a local offices and municipal departments. set of sub-regional plans for different areas in Seoul. Second, they take into account the unique needs and character of local neighbourhoods Objectives of the Seoul and their residents. In the past, urban Community Plans planners in Seoul had focused more on Large cities like Seoul and Singapore often comprise satellite large-scale development projects than local towns and urban districts that support main urban centres. The Seoul Community Plans have the concerns. By integrating different local These towns and districts, like gu districts in Seoul and public following objectives: requirements, the community plans bring housing towns in Singapore, generally aim to provide residents with amenities they need in their everyday lives. Broad planning Needs of the Local Community Plan strategies established at city level are implemented through more Street Promotion and Open House Resident Briefing Seoul Plan Citizen detailed town-level plans. Survey Group Workshop

Seoul and Singapore are both cities in a mature stage of development. Consequently, towns and districts constructed decades ago need to be rejuvenated to ensure that they continue Newsletters Online Opinions Surveys to cater to everyday needs of residents. Community engagement is often a necessary part of such rejuvenation processes, to Ahn-Am Tong Council ensure that proposed solutions align with pertinent local needs. These case studies illustrate how Seoul and Singapore involve Group Workshop Community Mapping Focus Group Workshop residents in rejuvenation efforts, despite the challenge of reaching out meaningfully to the substantial populations—typically over 100,000 people each—within these towns and districts. 56 57 greater coherence to future developments in planning is generally determined by planning The Role of the Community Plan each neighbourhood, and serve as a platform experts and city officials. While this approach on which Seoul and its 25 gu districts can has contributed to integrated and consistent coordinate their plans and budgets. urban management, it cannot meet the Individual Sectoral Plans varying needs of different districts within the Third, the community planning process city. URBAN - Development Plans by Region balances conventional top-down planning MASTER PLAN - Development Plan for Central Area with a bottom-up approach to engage the - Comprehensive Development Plan for public and gain consensus. In Korea, urban Create detailed plans Integration Sub-Centres based on overall and - Urban & Residential Environment urban master plan adjustments Improvement Master Plan Development of Seoul’s Local Community Plan - Comprehensive Development Plan for Semi-industrial Areas COMMUNITY PLAN - Master Plan for City Metro PREVIOUS MODIFIED - Master Plan for Road Improvement Provide directions - Master Plan for Landscaping for urban - Master Plan for Green Parks URBAN MASTER PLAN URBAN MASTER PLAN management plans Reviews

- Gu Development Plan URBAN - Common Agenda for the Dongbuk4-Gu Individual COMMUNITY PLAN MANAGEMENT PLAN Development Council (Northeastern Urban Management Plans Region) - Community Master Plan at Gu Level SUB-REGION Urban Planning Seoul Community Planning engages residents in identifying the main Facility Local Area Local Area Structure issues for each region. Such issues may include: balancing regional development, District There are two tiers to the Seoul Community developing facilities and infrastructure for the Comprehensive & Individual Unit Plan Plans: Regional Community plans and Local region, enhancing regional competitiveness Urban Management Plan Community plans. and self-sufficiency, or other issues that Zoning need to be jointly addressed by gu districts. Plan Regional communities cover three to seven Addressing these issues requires coordination District gu Districts. Seoul is divided into five regional across various neighbourhoods within the Unit Plan Urban communities: City Centre, Northeast, region. Improvement Zoning Planning Northwest, Southwest, and Southeast. Each Local communities each comprise three to Project Plan Facility consists of higher-order nodes, such as a city or regional centre, and a residential four administrative dongs (neighbourhoods; hinterland. Regional Community Plans detail smaller than gu districts) with an approximate the planning objectives and strategies for population of 100,000. These smaller areas Unit Unit Improvement each region as developed in the Seoul Plan provide basic amenities for daily living, and Development Development Project 2030. The community planning process consist of localised nodes—often organised Project Project 58 59 around train stations—and residential areas. patterns.4 Local Community Plans provide In Seoul, there are 116 local communities, comprehensive guidance for local-level determined by their administrative zones, improvements, with inputs from residents geography, zoning, population and travel through a citizen participation process.

Regional and Local Communities in Seoul

Example of comprehensive plan for a local neighbourhood.

Each community plan consists of sub-level are conducted to identify local issues, local plans organised according to theme and resources, and the actions that need to be space. The sub-level thematic plans propose taken for the future of their communities Outline of Regional and Local future directions for specific themes: e.g., are a critical part of the community planning Neighbourhood Plans industry, jobs, history, culture, residential/ process. transport/living services, environment, safety, or public services. These thematic plans The SMG initiated a pilot on Local Sub-Regional Community Plan Local Community Plan may be reviewed on a regular basis to suit Community Planning in August 2014 the needs of each community. Spatial plans and began recruiting for citizen groups Balance regional development. Improve living environment. translate the thematic plans into spatial to participate in the community planning proposals and requirements, providing process. Some 2,800 posters were put Increase competitiveness and self- Address urban planning issues. guidelines for the Urban Management Plans. up on buses and subway trains. Outdoor sufficiency (city centre, industry). advertisements, video clips on subway trains, Find agendas involving conservation, Citizen Engagement in Developing social networks and other media were used Build regional infrastructure and facilities. management and development. Community Plans to encourage citizens to apply for the groups.

Address common issues and programmes Develop a comprehensive development and Local-resident involvement is vital to the jointly among gus. management schemes at the local level. development of Local Community Plans, since residents are the ones most familiar with the specific problems, strengths, 4 Local community plans are developed for the 105 local communities in the four regions except for the City weaknesses and improvements needed in Centre region. For the City Centre region, 11 local community plans are developed based on the Historical City Center each community. Workshops with residents Management Plan. 60 61

Citizen Group Participants in Recruitment of Participants for Citizen Group Workshops Jangwi Seokgwan Community Citizen Groups From 20 September to 6 December, 2014, From September 2014, a total of 913 a total of 42 citizen group workshops were participants for the Citizen Groups were held in the 22 local community pilot planning General Residents recruited from 22 communities in 87 dongs. areas. Two workshops were conducted for (Internet applications, each local community. Facilitators, engaged recommendation While the citizen groups were initially meant by the gu district governments, focused on Residents Related to Members of from community to comprise equal numbers of ordinary encouraging citizens to voice their opinions Urban Planning Self-Governance service centre) citizens and members of local committees, and take an active part in discussions. Some (students majoring in Board individual citizen applications were low: on gu districts organised their own programmes, urban planning, office (recommended by average, only five participants from each local such as site tours and lectures, to help workers, etc.) community service centre) community had applied on their own. About residents better understand the plans. 90% of participants were community leaders or activists recommended by local residential committees.

Citizen Group Workshop Program

10 Members 10 Members 10 Members 10 Members

Jangwi 1-Dong Jangwi 2-Dong Jangwi 3-Dong Seokgwan-Dong (24,380) (21,452) (17,534) (36,699)

Jangwi-Seokgwan Community (total population: 100,065)

Workshop 1 Workshop 2 A website (http://planning.seoul.go.kr) was also held after the manual was published Offers sessions such Engages participants set up in August 2014 to offer information in September 2014, to help gu district as “Imaging Our in deeper discussions on community plans and their progress, officials better understand the citizen group as well as a schedule of citizen group workshop process. SMG officials urged Neighbourhood in 2030.” on local issues and workshops in different gu districts, and to district governments to build consensus with improvements to be made invite citizen feedback and views. citizens on local issues, and to step up efforts Helps people understand by further examining their to recruit for the citizen groups, taking into the community plan, paint neighbourhoods in terms Developing a Plan for Citizen Involvement account age, occupation and other factors to a picture or map of the of available amenities and ensure diversity of the groups. In turn, district neighbourhood, identify facilities. With help from experts, the SMG developed governments asked SMG officials to clarify neighbourhood resources, a manual with detailed instructions for the scope and assignment of roles in the and form consensus. citizen group workshops. A workshop was community planning process. 62 63

Manual for the Citizen Group Workshop

Identify Resources and Explore Issues and Vision Identify Improvements

Description The first Citizen Group The second Citizen Group Workshop was an opportunity Workshop was an opportunity for residents to get together to discuss local issues, causes and begin their first official and resolutions. activity as a group.

Citizen Group Workshop for development of the local neighbourhood plan in in Wangsimni- Haengdang Neighbourhood, Seongdong-gu. Objectives Understand urban planning Identify current issues in the Issues most frequently raised by citizen Operating Manual for Citizen Group policy directions of Seoul. local neighbourhood and their group participants included concerns about Workshops causes. Understand the role of transportation and infrastructure, such as community planning and the Explore resolutions to the lack of parking space, the narrowness of Based on the pilot programme, the SMG Citizen Group. the issues in the local roadways, and the scarcity of public facilities reviewed and finalised an operating manual neighbourhood. such as libraries, gyms, sports facilities and for local community planning, and presented Find local resources and senior centres. Other issues raised included it to gu district governments, which would explore their potential. Identify the facilities and changes in zoning, leisure facilities, and the take up the responsibility of conducting services most desired by the Identify a vision for the local hosting of local festivals. Most of the resident participatory Local Community Planning residents and reasons why. community. feedback is taken into consideration when efforts in the future. The manual covered developing the final plan. the entire engagement process, from the recruitment of citizen participants, to the Outcomes of the pilot Citizen Group Citizen Group workshops, and reporting. Activities “Map Our Neighbourhood.” “Explore Our Neighbourhood.” Workshops These manuals were distributed to gu district Identify the resources in our “Improve Our Neighbourhood officials in charge of the Community Planning neighbourhood. Better.” Post Pilot Review programme, and workshop facilitators.

“Our Neighbourhood in 2030.” Survey on the facilities and Following the workshops in the 22 pilot Conclusion: Closing the Loop services most desired. areas, the SMG and gu district governments met to evaluate outcomes and discuss plans By December 2016, local community for other local communities in 2015. Gu planning workshops had been completed for Outcomes Neighbourhood mapping. List of local issues. district government officials were concerned all 116 local communities throughout Seoul. that because interest in the community The views and aspirations of each community Utilisation plan for local Causes and improvement plans remained low, it was a challenge to were captured in a systematic and resources. plans for local issues. encourage people to participate and stay comprehensive manner, and offered clear Map of local resources Map of local issues. involved. In some cases, the progress of directions and specific guidelines to inform (landscapes, citizen spaces, the community plans had not been shared the statutory urban management plans that Desired facilities and services etc.). with the gu district governments, making would then be drafted for these smaller areas and reasons why. it difficult for them to address resident of the city. This deliberate process helped to Vision for the neighbourhood. Feedback from resident requests. Some gu officials also suggested ensure that the citizen engagement process List of participants per dong. participation. that the city provide support for citizen achieves its aims of having a positive impact group budgets and training for workshop on the government’s urban plans. facilitators. 64 65

Seoul Structure of the Urban Regeneration Plan Strategic Urban Regeneration Plan National Guidelines for Urban Regeneration Shift in Focus for Urban Plan is guided in turn by the national Regeneration in Seoul guidelines for Urban Regeneration, which National (Plans and Approach) informs the selection of urban revitalisation Approach National strategies developed for comprehensive, systematic, efficient urban regeneration. Following decades of rapid population and areas. Developed by the Ministry for Land, economic growth, Seoul’s population has Infrastructure, and Transport, these national guidelines are published every 10 years and plateaued since the mid-1990s. The city has Strategic Urban Regeneration Plan hence shifted its focus from spurring rapid reviewed every five years. (Plans and Guidelines) economic growth through intensive urban Strategic Strategic initiatives (e.g., fundamental direction of development to urban regeneration The Strategic Urban Regeneration Plan Initiative urban regeneration, designation of target areas, —addressing areas of urban decline given its designates suitable areas for revitalisation, for guidelines for Revitalisation Plans). environment of slow growth environment. which detailed Revitalisation Plans are then developed. Each Revitalisation Plan takes A Statutory Master Plan for Urban into account the opinions of all stakeholders Revitalisation Plan for Urban Regeneration Regeneration in Seoul to identify urban regeneration projects and (Implementation) Action Plan proposes a detailed budget for each project Comprehensive action plan for urban regeneration In March 2015, Seoul announced the which is then financed by the national and that engages local residents of the target area. “Strategic Urban Regeneration Plan 2025” city governments, as well as the private —an urban regeneration master plan which sector. outlines a framework, vision, processes and resources for urban regeneration in Seoul’s Strategic Urban Regeneration Plan, Urban Regeneration Seoul. The Strategic Urban Regeneration the first of its kind in Korea, was developed Execution Integration of individual projects launched under different laws to support complex programmes.

Vision of the Strategic Urban Regeneration Plan with three principles in mind. First, being a “Warm” emphasises the city’s focus on the LIVE ENJOY CREATE statutory plan, it has legal requirements and socially disadvantaged, while “competitive” Together Together Together objectives, but does not narrowly restrict highlights the city as a source of economic the areas targeted for regeneration. Instead, opportunities. Three core values were Increase Space for Strengthen it allows for a broader interpretation of established to complement this vision: Competitive People Institutional Support urban regeneration. Second, it proposes a + + + phased 10-year roadmap to allow for past 1) “Create together” a sustainable Narrow Regional Better Quality Enhance Citizen urban regeneration policies to continue environment for urban regeneration, in within the legal and institutional framework. Gap of Life Capacity collaboration with local residents, the private Finally, it specifies only basic principles and and public sector; a framework for implementation, allowing People-Centred flexibility in implementing more detailed 2) “Live together” by enhancing the Revitalisation Plans based on local feedback. competitiveness of key areas to drive the city + forward; Strong Identity Vision and Core Values of the Strategic Urban Regeneration Plan 3) “Enjoy together” by enhancing the quality of life, especially in areas of decline. The vision for urban regeneration in Seoul is A Warm and Competitive Seoul to create a “warm and competitive Seoul”. 66 67

Basic Directions to Enhance In particular, Seoul wants local residents and a four-step process—preparation, planning, stakeholders to be able to resolve their own implementation and self-sustainability— the Competitiveness of Seoul issues, instead of relying on the government. would be put into action to develop citizen With this aim in mind, the government competence for the regeneration plans. may take the lead in the short term while supporting local stakeholders as they develop During preparation phase, the selection of their capabilities in the long term. appropriate areas for regeneration through public discussion and consensus, is the key Roadmap for a Sustainable Urban focus. This is particularly important for the Regeneration Process Led by regeneration of non-residential central areas. Citizens The SMG conducts public discussions for Create jobs across Revitalise local Revitalise relatively areas accorded special status in the Seoul broader areas by industries and isolated areas. The Strategic Urban Regeneration Plan Plan 2030 or in Local Community Plans. promoting creative and commerce. maps out three stages of implementation: Traditional markets, regional centres, or other MICE industries. Inception (2015–2017), Maturity (2017– areas suggested by local district governments 2020), and Stability (2020–2025). During which have not been mentioned in the Seoul Basic Directions to Enhance the Maturity phase, areas for revitalisation Plan 2030 or Local Community Plans, may the Quality of Life in Seoul would be publicly discussed, following which also be selected.

Roadmap for Urban Regeneration

Identify Target Areas

Inception • Identify 13 model regeneration areas from 27 regeneration target areas. 2015 – 2016 • Initiatives to enhance competency within the Encourage people to Utilise historical and Create people-friendly administration, residents and the implementing entity. regenerate and revitalise natural resources as local spaces that are inclusive the local community. attractions. for the socially vulnerable. Pilot implementation in Target Areas

• Implement urban regeneration initiatives in target Forms of Collaboration between the Administration, areas. Residents and Private Sector to Carry out Urban Regeneration Maturity • Review outcomes from model regeneration areas 2017 – 2020 and identify areas of improvement.

• Conduct a full evaluation of urban regeneration projects by sector.

Revive the City and Build a Sustainable Platform for Regeneration Projects led by the Projects led by the Public guidelines for urban Stability • Conduct a full evaluation of urban regeneration administration, with private sector, with regeneration projects to ensure projects by sector. resident consensus and support from the alignment of objectives; private 2021 – 2025 cooperation. administration. investment for funding support. • Prepare to develop strategic plans for 2035. 68 69

Four-step Process for Citizen Competence Ensuring Financial Viability for Urban Regeneration Projects

Preparation • Promote urban regeneration programmes (“Community Presentation at Your Doorstep”, etc.). Publicise and share the necessity for • Carry out projects to enhance competency of regeneration citizens. Funding from National Government, City Government and Private Sector • Identify target areas for urban regeneration. Planning • Prepare the draft plans and budget for Select the revitalisation urban regeneration. target areas and Incorporate develop plan feedback and finalise draft regeneration • Adjust/modify regeneration plan. plans Implementation • Identify phases for urban regeneration plans. Establish a foundation to carry out urban • Prepare target areas for self-sustainability in regeneration programs urban regeneration.

Initiate projects to Promote involvement Build infrastructure boost local economy of local communities and anchor facilities to Self-sustainability • Expand role of the private sector. enhance capacity for Sustainable • Create models for sustainable urban future development operation and regeneration. activists, etc.) can continue with urban help to monitor projects in each area. management regeneration projects on their own to achieve Such organisations include the Urban the revitalisation goals. The public sector Regeneration Support Center, which To ensure that the public appreciates the projects, financing schemes to ensure continues to monitor and assess outcomes, facilitates communication between residents need for urban regeneration, sustained viability, the implementation process and so as to provide help as necessary. For the and the administration, and the Urban engagement through consultation, pilot structure of regeneration projects, as well regeneration of economic areas, capital Regeneration Committee, an advisory council demonstrations and public education are as a performance management framework. raised through financing from private comprising experts and representatives from carried out. This is especially crucial in Further details may also be incorporated companies will be invested, while the non-governmental organisations (NGOs). residential areas. For this purpose, education based on public feedback. regeneration of residential neighbourhoods programmes (such as an Urban Regeneration leverages existing social economic assets Seoul’s urban regeneration process Academy) and projects suggested by The implementation stage sees views such as community enterprises, social places great emphasis on communication residents are undertaken in neighbourhoods collected from businesses and residents being enterprises or cooperatives to further ensure between the public and the implementing that have been proposed for urban incorporated into the plans. The initial focus sustainability. organisations. This is mainly facilitated by regeneration. is on programmes and activities to encourage the Urban Regeneration Support Centers, the participation of relevant parties. This is A Collaborative Planning and which offers a range of channels for the During the planning stage, detailed then gradually followed by key infrastructure Implementation Process public to provide feedback. Other than Revitalisation Plans for designated areas and hardware projects. individual suggestions, public input is also are developed based on guidance from the The SMG and LDG work together to oversee sourced from surveys and bulletin polls. The Strategic Urban Regeneration Plan. The The self-sustainability stage is reached planning efforts. Urban regeneration input is reviewed against the objectives of Revitalisation Plan reflects local characteristics when non-governmental stakeholders (i.e. organisations also provide support to the Strategic Urban Regeneration Plan by and includes details on urban regeneration residents, small businesses, companies, local resident or programme councils and planning experts. To ensure transparency, 70 71

Collaborative Approach to Urban Regeneration centre and 11-local centre” model. Under Vision: Changdong / Sanggye Neo the Seoul Plan 2030, this was restructured Economic Hub into a “three-main-centre, seven-regional- centre and 12-local-centre” model, allowing The vision is to revitalise the Changdong multiple functional centres to co-exist. and Sanggye region as “the new economic Urban Resident Program centre for jobs and culture for the 3.2 million Regeneration Council Council people of the Northeast.” This will involve Support Center Taken together, Changdong in Dobong- gu and Sanggye-dong in Nowon-gu span developing an industrial foundation to create approximately 970,000 square metres. The jobs; constructing cultural, art and leisure area is central to the four gu administrative facilities; and providing local and regional districts in the Northeastern Capital district. infrastructure to bolster employment. Subway Lines 1, 4 and 7, the Gyeongwon Line and Dongbu Eastern Arterial Road serve Urban regeneration of the area will comprise the area, making it a bustling transport hub. three phases: Urban This area has been identified as one of seven Dedicated Supporting Regeneration new regional centres. Phase 1: Ramp-up to form an interim Organisation Institutions Committee 1 business zone (2015-2018) While the area has been primed to be the new Northeastern regional centre, it is One of the major developments in the occupied mostly by apartment complexes and regeneration project is Platform Changdong any input that is incorporated into the plan moderates these roundtable sessions, does not currently have a dynamic economy. 61—a large lifestyle and community space. is announced online, or through the Support while local district governments help keep However, given the area’s potential to drive The Platform was designed to improve Center newsletter. the development of the plans focused on growth in the Northeast and its surrounding the reputation of the area and stimulate addressing local needs. cities, it has been selected an economic regeneration, before construction of the KTX In addition to collecting and incorporating regeneration area. transport hub commences as part of Phase 3. public feedback, SMG also provides Examples of Urban Regeneration Completed in April 2016, the Platform was professional support to help residents and Areas in Seoul local stakeholders in their decision making. Experts from different fields are assigned Two examples illustrate different types of to provide consultation and gather input at urban regeneration in Seoul: Changdong- resident meetings when issues related to Sanggye, an area which was identified as regeneration are discussed. Upon request, an area ripe for economic regeneration; the Urban Regeneration Support Center may and Changsin-Soongin, which was a also provide data, information, training, or declining residential community in need of Key Project financial assistance for ground-up projects by revitalisation. Area residents. Changdong-Sanggye: To create a more direct platform for residents Creating a New Economic Hub to discuss or resolve local issues with the in Northeastern Seoul Nearby Linkage Area authorities, the Urban Regeneration Support Center organises roundtable sessions Background involving the national government, the SMG, the LDG, the Support Center, professional Since national basic urban planning planners, residents and the private sector. was established in 1990, planners have Location of new economic hub at Changdong/Sanggye. The SMG’s Urban Regeneration Headquarters implemented a “one main centre, five sub- 72 73

and a comprehensive freight distribution project entities and relevant personnel, as centre. well as individual programme councils.

3 Phase 3: Building of the Transfer Finally, the Urban Regeneration Cooperation Center (after 2022) and Support Center for the four gu districts in the Northeast was launched in June After the completion of Phase 2, construction 2015, and has two roles. While its mandate of the transfer centre will begin, extending is to support the urban regeneration of the Uijeongbu-Suseo KTX line and part of the Changdong/Sanggye, it also collaborates Uijeongbu-Geumjeong GTX line. with the four gu districts in the Northeast to help build ties for public-private governance Participating Organisations and their Roles between the city, local governments and area residents. There are many stakeholder organisations involved in the regeneration of Changdong/ Changshin-Soongin: Revitalising a Sanggye. First, the Urban Regeneration Declining Residential Community Headquarters oversees the development of Community spaces within Changdong Platform 61. policies and planning, while the Northeast Background Project Group at the SMG Local Development Headquarters is in charge of urban Since the 1970s, the local economy of the regeneration in Changdong/Sanggye. Changshin and Soongin area has been driven primarily by the sewing industry. However, Second, the general administrative it is an industry which has steadily declined organisation under the Seoul Metropolitan since the early 2000s. A plan had been Government leads a taskforce for formulated to revamp the town as part of the Changdong/Sanggye regeneration, which Urban Improvement Promotion programme, comprises four LDGs—Seongbuk-gu, but a sluggish property market and conflicts Gangbuk-gu, Dobong-gu, and Nowon- between residents stalled the project in 2013. gu—and the Research Group for the four gu districts in the Northeast. The joint taskforce, Home to 29,360 residents, the area a first for Seoul, was formed in 2012. From currently serves as the hinterland for the time to time, it consults with the Seoul fashion town in Dongdaemun. With living Housing & Communities Corporation (a key conditions deteriorating over the years, SMG affiliate organisation which develops, the area is in need of comprehensive Concert performances at Changdong Platform 61. sells and leases housing) to garner support regeneration to revitalise the local community for resident capacity building. and establish a more sustainable system constructed using 61 large containers on a multi-complex and cultural facilities, building of urban management. The areas of deck above the parking lot of the Changdong a business start-up complex and improving Third, the Integrated Implementation Council Changshin-1-dong, Changshin-2-dong, transfer centre. The vibrant community space streets and facilities within the area. for the urban regeneration of Changdong/ Changshin-3-dong, and the Soongin-1- has three themed areas: music, lifestyle and Sanggye coordinates, refines, revises and dong area in Jongno-gu, Seoul, have been community. The facility is on track to receive 2 Phase 2: Car depot development and monitors the area’s regeneration plans. selected to undergo general neighbourhood 100,000 visitors a year, drawn to the site other core projects (2019–2021) The council facilitates communication and regeneration. The selected dong have a by cultural events, performances, and other feedback between the national government, combined area of 830,130 square metres. activities. Phase 2 involves a number of core the SMG Urban Regeneration Committee, development projects including the Seoul the Seoul Metropolitan Council, advisory Other projects undertaken in Phase 1 include: Arena multi-complex and cultural facilities, committees, experts, resident councils, selecting project entities for the Seoul Arena a railway depot, drivers’ licensing test centre 74 75

Changsin-Soongin Urban Regeneration Plan Urban Regeneration of public facilities have been built. To stimulate Changshin and Soongin the local economy, money has been set aside to provide for public working spaces, The urban regeneration of the Changshin employment assistance, a sewing museum, and Soongin area comprises 25 unit and improvements to the local quarry and its projects, including several in collaboration surroundings. with local government, central government agencies and the private sector. The In March 2017, the Nam June Paik Memorial regeneration strategy for the area aims opened in a hanok5 in Changshin, where to improve the residential environment, the visionary video artist was born. Around revitalise the local economy, and make the the area, youth facilities have been set up most of historical and cultural resources to to take advantage of this and other cultural promote regeneration and enhance resident resources. To improve resident capabilities, capabilities. KRW 5 million has been set aside to fund projects based on ideas from residents, and To improve the local residential environment, KRW 250 million has been allocated to build Collaboration Projects with Local District safer alleyways, community spaces and a community learning space. Government (8 projects at KRW 56.37 billion) Catalyst Projects Green community project. (12 projects at KRW 20 billion) Seoul housing renovation project. *Total number of projects in Changsin- Urban Regeneration Projects in Changsin-Soongin Soongin Project plan is 25 Energy independent neighbourhood project.

Improvement of residential Sewing Nam Jun Paik Changsin 3-dong environment e.g. safer Museum Memorial Hall Public Facility alleyways, community spaces.

Revitalisation of local economy e.g. public co-working spaces, sewing museum, improvements to the quarry and its surroundings.

Utilisation of historical/cultural resources e.g. neighbourhood trail, Nam June Paik memorial space.

Strengthen resident capacity e.g. projects based on residents’ ideas, ideas competition for residents, community learning space.

Collaboration Projects with Central Private Sector Projects Government (4 projects at KRW 24.24 billion) (1 project at KRW 120 million) Parking lots and cultural facilities for youth. “Hope in Home Repair” project. Undergrounding of power lines. 5 A hanok is a traditional Korean house. 76 77

Roles of Parties Involved in the Result: Successful Urban Singapore Regeneration Project Regeneration through Effective Remaking our Heartland (ROH) Engagement and Communication Resident councils are actively involved in the Introduction Besides the upgrading and redevelopment regeneration project. About 300 residents SMG’s urban regeneration policy is an effort of individual housing precincts carried participate in four resident councils in each to shift from its past strategy of large- Eight out of ten Singaporeans live in out on specific sites, HDB has drawn up dong. Their main role is to collect residents’ scale development to a new approach of public housing built by the Housing & a comprehensive blueprint to renew and views and discuss them with the SMG and its regenerating urban areas in decline. While Development Board (HDB). Public housing remake the HDB heartland. This programme, experts to help shape the regeneration plan. sound planning remains important, the estates have become a way of life and a called Remaking Our Heartland (ROH), will Following the completion of the regeneration key to successful urban regeneration in part of Singapore’s collective experience. transform Singapore’s public housing estates project, these resident organisations would Seoul is good communication between the Over the decades, HDB has developed 23 over the next 20 to 30 years. be responsible for local maintenance and government and the public. Entities such towns that may be categorised as mature management. as the Urban Regeneration Support Center towns for those developed before the 1980s, Unveiled in Aug 2007, the ROH programme have been set up to encourage and facilitate middle-aged towns largely developed in the aims to transform young, middle-aged Participants were first recruited to become these vital dialogues, in order to bring 1980s, and young towns are those that were and mature HDB towns and estates into members of general resident councils in the various stakeholders on board in the developed in the 1990s and after. distinctive and endearing homes for September 2014. In January 2015, each regeneration process and create consensus Singaporeans while meeting the ever- dong district held a general resident council on the way forward. The process of engaging It is important that the built environment changing needs of a diverse community. meeting to elect representatives. Since then, and communicating with residents and of public housing estates continues to Particular attention is being paid to increasing the council member have met regularly and businesses on urban regeneration proposals be enhanced over the years, so that their the vibrancy of town centres. been actively engaged in urban regeneration will continue to be a priority in Seoul, and residents can enjoy facilities comparable activities. SMG aims to evaluate the outcomes of this to those in newer estates. Continual and Towns selected to undergo ROH were approach in the future. concerted efforts to rejuvenate HDB towns, in identified based on their potential for Another significant stakeholder is the response to the evolving needs of residents, rejuvenation. This included opportunities to Changshin/Soongin Urban Regeneration will ensure that public housing remain homes rejuvenate the existing town centre, provide Support Center, which oversees a number that Singaporeans can be proud of. more facilities for recreation and leisure, of tasks: conducting local surveys, collecting inject new housing developments and opinions from residents, supporting urban regeneration projects, implementing resident education projects, building and Map Showing the ROH Areas supporting governance, running promotional Woodlands ROH Yishun ROH activities, while keeping relevant records Hougang ROH and documents. The centre has developed a Jurong Lake ROH Punggol ROH collaborative approach that allows it to stay close to local residents, resident councils, city and gu district administrative organisations, as well as planning experts.

Pasir Ris ROH East Coast ROH

Dawson ROH Toa Payoh ROH 78 79 improve existing transportation, pedestrian to activity nodes and promoting heartland and cycling networks. As the needs of heritage. residents evolve, HDB will review the renewal potential of other towns which have not The latest ROH renewal plans, featuring undergone ROH. Woodlands, Toa Payoh and Pasir Ris towns, were unveiled in April 2017. The plans To date, three series of ROH programmes focused on strengthening the character, have been launched: in 2007, 2011 and community, and connectivity of each town. 2017. Working with other government agencies The first series, Punggol, Yishun and Dawson such as National Parks Board (NParks), Public estates featured the renewal of a young, Utilities Board (PUB), Urban Redevelopment middle-aged and mature estate respectively, Authority (URA), Land Transport Authority under the three objectives; Realising the (LTA), National Heritage Board (NHB), Sport Vision for New Estates, Rejuvenating Singapore (SportSG), National Environment Communities in Middle-Aged Estates and Agency (NEA), People’s Association (PA) and Regenerating Old Estates. other relevant agencies, HDB draws up plans under the ROH programme to improve the For the second series, Hougang, Jurong physical environment of its HDB estates. Lake and East Coast were selected. The plans focused on four common Other than consulting the relevant themes; rejuvenating homes, town and government agencies, HDB also actively neighbourhood centres, enhancing outdoor engages the public to seek their views and done through activities like exhibitions, pop- The rejuvenation proposals for the East recreation choices, improving connectivity suggestions on the proposed plans. This is up engagement sessions, and workshops. Coast ROH fall largely within Bedok Town. There was scope to rejuvenate the town ROH Workflow Case Study: centre with a new mixed-use development Gateway to the East Coast integrated with a bus interchange, as well as to make the neighbourhood centres more Funding / The East Coast area was selected for ROH in vibrant. Planning and Research Refinement of Proposals 2011. Well-established with many amenities, it is popular for recreational activities, and Capitalising on the area’s strengths and features key leisure destinations such as opportunities, the proposed vision is for East Bedok Reservoir Park and East Coast Park. Coast to become “a well-connected gateway Consultation Public with Other Engagement: Public Engagement: Exhibition 4 Dimensions of Proposed Vision for East Coast ROH Focus Group Discussions Relevant Government for latest ROH 3 programme Agencies and Stakeholders Refinement and Implementation of Proposal

Formulation of PLAY SHAPE LEARN LINK Proposals and relax your physical about past and up for better Public Engagement outdoors environment present accessibility 80 81

Key Proposals for East Coast ROH to the East Coast, with enriched identity, the eventual rejuvenation of the area would active communities and easy access to benefit as many residents as possible. The recreational destinations.” To achieve this, feedback gathered would also help to inform nine proposals for East Coast ROH have been the planning of other HDB towns/estates. Outdoor Play Corridor: A dedicated cycling and pedestrian set out, framed along four dimensions. path to connect Bedok Town Centre with East Coast Park HDB’s engagement with the public did not and Bedok Reservoir Park, with various new recreational Public Engagement and Consultation stop there. Progressive public updates were facilities and rest points along the way. provided at various stages of progress, and In drawing up the rejuvenation plans, HDB public feedback continued to be gathered Active Water Edge: New facilities at Bedok Reservoir Park actively engaged residents and stakeholders through exhibitions and events. In 2012, and enhancements to enliven the water edge along Sungei to seek their views and suggestions. When more exhibitions were held to give the the plans for East Coast were unveiled public an update on the rejuvenation plans Bedok. in 2011, an exhibition was held to invite for Bedok Town Centre, as well as to mark feedback from residents to help shape and the ground-breaking ceremony for the remake the town into a home that they new Bedok Interchange Hawker Centre. Town Centre Reborn: Transform Bedok Town Centre into a envision. Exhibition visitors were surveyed Subsequently in 2015, HDB celebrated the vibrant gateway hub. (both online and through written forms), completion of the Bedok Interchange Hawker to gather public sentiments on the new Centre, taking the opportunity to keep the proposals and directions, to help planners public updated on the other East Coast ROH understand which aspects of the plans were proposals beyond the Town Centre. well received and those which required fine- Distinct Identity: Strengthening the sense of arrival from tuning. Such engagement efforts have helped to vehicular gateways, with better streetscape coordination, to sustain the public’s involvement and interest, enhance the character of the East Coast area. Building on this feedback, HDB and its as well as to ensure that plans drawn up partnering government agencies refined the earlier were still relevant to residents and proposals for East Coast ROH, to ensure that stakeholders. At each of these exhibitions, Quality Living Environment: New housing developments, improvements to existing housing developments, and further rejuvenation of Neighbourhood Centres.

Down Memory Lane: A heritage corner and trail (i.e. Bedok Heritage Trail), with boards and signage at various points of historical interest.

Cycling Network: A comprehensive cycling network within Bedok Town to allow connectivity to MRT stations, workplace clusters, parks, schools and Neighbourhood Centres.

Improved DTL3: A new MRT line i.e. New Downtown Line 3 (DTL3), with three new MRT stations in the Bedok Reservoir and Kaki Bukit areas. Residents and stakeholders were actively engaged to seek their views and suggestions. 82 83

Movie screening at revamped Bedok Town Square.

Mini exhibition that HDB held for proposed works to the Neighbourhood Centres in Bedok. visitors were surveyed to gather feedback on showcase the proposed upgrading works and the progress of the ROH programme in the to gather feedback from residents & visitors. town. PWC members, along with the design consultants and HDB representatives, were A Project Working Committee (PWC)— present to explain the upgrading proposals to comprising representatives from grassroots the public. organisations, shops, the Town Council and HDB—was formed to work with design Place Activation Initiatives Residents sharing their views on the activities they hoped to see at the new plaza. consultants on detailed upgrading plans for Bedok Town Centre and each of the Town plazas are important in enhancing about the distinctive identities and heritage The pop-up public engagement sessions Neighbourhood Centres. community bonding and place identity. To of the various communities in East Coast. attracted some 1,000 resident participants, inject more vibrancy into the town centre, with many sharing that they hoped to see Residents’ feedback given through PWC Bedok Town Square was officially opened To ensure that activities held at Bedok Town outdoor movie screenings, mass exercise members was taken into consideration in May 2016 as a new community space. Square meet the needs of Bedok residents, activities and performances held at the when detailed plans and designs were The plaza was designed to nurture a sense a local town plaza Activation Team (AT) was plaza. The AT has taken these views into drawn up. For example, in the proposals of place identity and belonging among formed with agencies like PA, National Arts consideration, and will work to ensure that for one of Bedok’s Neighbourhood Centres, residents, and to promote active and Council (NAC), grassroots and the Bedok programmes, activities and communications HDB’s consultant proposed to have benches cohesive communities. As of 1 May 2017, Town Centre’s Merchants’ Association. HDB are aligned with the community’s aspirations. integrated with bicycle racks. However, 34 events have been held in Bedok Town worked closely with the AT and grassroots during one of the engagement sessions, Square, reaching out to approximately members to plan and implement place The engagement process has given residents PWC members asked that the bicycle racks 31,000 residents. activation initiatives, such as movie screening, a sense of ownership and involvement be relocated, as they were concerned that dance activities and bazaars. regarding the future of the town plaza as a when cyclists park the bicycles, the seats may A key feature of the ROH rejuvenation plans, community space. This will help instil a sense jerk and cause discomfort to the people on the Bedok Town Square is well-integrated Through pop-up public engagement sessions of town identity and community belonging the benches. The consultants then arranged with surrounding developments such as the and stakeholders’ engagement workshops, among residents. for bicycle racks to be installed separately. Bedok Mall and the integrated transport the community’s views were sought on the hub, the hawker centre and the upgraded town square’s unique theme and character, A mini exhibition on the proposed design pedestrian mall. A Heritage Corner is located as well as experiences and opportunities it for the enhancement works was held to by the town square, for residents to learn could offer to residents. 84 85

Engagement for the First and Third Series of the ROH Programme

Even before East Coast ROH, extensive public engagement had been carried out for the first series of ROH programme. For example, following the exhibition for the first Punggol ROH exhibition in 2007, further public events and competitions were held to update the public on its progress and to sustain interest.

In May 2008, HDB organised the “Shaping My Punggol” Exhibition to showcase ROH Focus group discussion with students. updates for Punggol. It featured the Punggol Story, the Punggol Waterway Concept and Group8asia and Aedas was adopted for the key milestones since the plan’s unveiling. first waterfront housing parcels: Waterway During this event, two exercises involving Terraces I & II. These were launched in 2010 private consultants and the general public and 2011 respectively and completed in were launched: 2015. The design of these first waterfront housing parcels sets a benchmark for other a) Punggol Waterway Landscape Master housing developments along the waterway. Plan Design Competition (for professionals) Engagement for the Third Series of ROH This competition sought ideas from design Programme professionals to realise the vision of “Green Living by the Waters” along the Punggol For the third series of the ROH programmes Waterway with new sustainable development in Pasir Ris, Toa Payoh and Woodlands, concepts and features. HDB adopted a ground-up approach by consulting the residents the early stages b) “Call for Ideas” Exercise of the planning. Residents from the three ROH towns were invited to participate This engagement exercise sought ideas from in focus group discussions. A total of the community to help shape development 11 focus group discussion sessions were Early engagement allows opportunities for co-creation of ROH proposals with residents and conducted, involving some 400 residents along the Punggol Waterway, build public stakeholders. support and encourage a greater sense of and community stakeholders from the three ownership of the ROH plans for Punggol. towns. Residents­—some as young as 17 years of age; others up to 81 years of age— Such focus group discussions helped HDB rejuvenation plans implemented are relevant refine the plans for each town, ensuring that to the residents, and take into account As part of the engagement, school participated in the sessions, putting forward the improvements would benefit residents of their views and suggestions. As part of the workshops were conducted, to share the their own ideas on what they would like to all ages. The finalised plans took into account ROH programme, more public engagement ROH plans and gather fresh ideas from see in their town. the local context, distinctive character and sessions will be held, to keep residents students. specific requirements of each town. abreast of ongoing progress and future plans. In December 2008, HDB held a “Punggol Public engagement continues to play a Waterfront Housing Design Competition” key role in HDB’s efforts to rejuvenate to garner fresh ideas for waterfront Singapore’s housing estates. It is vital that the housing. The winning design created by 86 87

CASE STUDIES Town-Level Rejuvenation Neighbourhood-Level Planning Seoul’s Local Community Planning

• Seoul Community Plans incorporate unique needs and characters of Neighbourhood planning is one of the most impactful local neighbourhoods. platforms with which to involve communities in shaping their • The Community Plans serve as coordination platforms for different built environments. The scale of a neighbourhood—larger than layers of urban plans, as well as various government departments at individual households or apartment blocks, but smaller than a the city and local district levels. city—allows for more intimate exploration of local issues with • Citizen Groups are recruited to participate in the local community residents, while providing scope for members of a community planning process, balancing the government-led plans with a bottom- to meaningfully relate with each other over common interests up approach. and concerns.

Seoul’s Strategic Urban Regeneration Plan Both Singapore and Seoul have introduced dedicated

• Urban Regeneration Plan addresses areas of urban decline, in the programmes for neighbourhood-level planning. In Singapore, context of slow growth environment in Seoul. residents have been given an increasingly active role in

• The Plan emphasises sustained public communication and influencing how mature public housing towns and estates— engagement, and the need for urban regeneration through originally planned and implemented by the government— consultation, pilot demonstrations and public education. could be improved, based on local needs. Programmes like

• Urban Regeneration Support Centers are set up by SMG to offer the Neighbourhood Renewal Programme (NRP) and Building a range of channels for the public to provide feedback on urban Our Neighbourhood’s Dream! (BOND!) have been introduced regeneration plans. to encourage residents to actively participate in realising their aspirations for their neighbourhoods. Singapore’s Remaking Our Heartland (ROH) Seoul’s approach focuses not only on physical outcomes of • ROH aims to rejuvenate young, middle-aged and mature HDB housing neighbourhood-level improvements, but also the nurturing estates through continual and concerted efforts, in response to the evolving needs of residents. of social bonds as part of the neighbourhood-planning process. For example, the cornerstone of Seoul’s dong-level • Inter-agency coordination is key to the preparation and implementation Community Planning process and its Residential Environment of integrated plans that build on each town’s distinctive character. Management Programme (REMP) is the creation of a core • HDB has increased the emphasis on public engagement over the three group of residents who will be actively involved in, or even ROH programmes announced so far. Focus group discussions were conducted in the early stages of planning for latest series of towns, to lead, local planning processes. Through community-building help HDB refine the plans according to community needs. efforts, these residents will eventually sustain neighbourhood rejuvenation efforts beyond the official programme’s lifespan. 88 89

Seoul Roles of Participants for Dong-level Dong-Level Community Planning Community Planning

Background the level of interest of each respective dong office. Each selected dong would receive Dong Local District Government Seoul Metropolitan The Seoul Metropolitan Government (SMG) KRW 8.5 million (USD 7,500) to implement Residents: (LDG) Government (SMG) had established a variety of platforms—such plans generated from the process. Planning Establish and implement Provide direct support for Plan and supervise the as the Urban Regeneration Plan (URP) and and execution was to take 18 months. plans community planning for each programme the Resident Self-governing Committee In 2015, 14 dongs from four LDGs were dong Provide budget and experts (RSGC)—for residents to gather to address selected to try out this process. Dong: Promote participants network local concerns. However, these arrangements Collaborate with Community had some drawbacks: the scope of the How Dong-Level Community Planning Planning Group (CPG) programme was often too broad for Works, and Who Participates meaningful community engagement, and the plans drawn up were too technical for the Under the programme, the SMG provides public to understand. The extent of resident funding and the necessary professional Government participation and their decision-making expertise to the LDGs and monitors all + Intermediary Support powers were also limited. projects. Administrative steering groups Group from both the SMG and LDG work with a Experts / Practioner Community Planning Group (CPG) from each To overcome these issues, Dong-Level Residents (CPG) Community Planning was introduced in dong. The CPG is a voluntary organisation of 100 or so residents, who draft and 2015 to provide a platform for residents + to freely discuss their local agenda and implement the dong-level community plans + develop solutions specific to each dong. To by themselves. The SMG also engages support such activities, each dong office, non-government activists as “Community the front-line administrative agency in Officers”, assigned to each dong to support the neighbourhood, had to build a close, the community planning process closely, to cooperative relationship with its residents. coordinate between the CPG and dong office LDG Steering Steering SMG Dong The goal of Dong-level Community Planning and resolve conflicts within the CPG. + CPG steering + support support + steering Office is more than just to fix existing issues—it is to group group group group enhance the local community’s capabilities.

Executing Dong-Level Community Community Community Officer Manager Planning Recruitment / training / placement of public / private supporter Professional The SMG initiated the Dong-Level Facilitator Appoint former NGO activists as Community Planning process as a pilot Community Officers project. A city-wide selection committee, comprising LDG public officials and planning experts from the private sector, was tasked with selecting dongs suitable for the community planning process. Selection was based on community-planning needs and 90 91

Dong-level Community Planning Process

4 months • SMG establishes the community planning process (select Preparatory dong, hire experts, and allocate budget).

5 months • SMG and LDG establish Community Planning Group (CPG) through meetings with residents, and create sub-groups in Organisation CPG based on local issues. • Planning experts provide basic training for CPG members. Members of the Community Planning Group engaged in discussion session facilitated by Community Officer in Yangpeong-dong.

Creating a Dong-Level Community Establishing Dong-Level Community Planning 6 months Planning Group • CPG conducts survey of local communities, identifies Instead of a traditional, professional planner- agenda, draws up plans. In July 2015, Community Officers dispatched led process, in which a vision is followed Planning and to 14 dongs met with resident leaders to by the development of action plans, the • CPG conducts town hall meetings involving at least 1% Decision-Making explain the Dong-Level Community Planning 6-month dong-level planning process of residents to share ideas and carry out prioritisation of process, determine a local agenda and set generated a vision based on action plans local agenda. up a CPG. Promotional posters and banners which had already been developed according were put up on every street corner. Leaflets to local needs. The CPG’s first activity was a 6 months and application forms were distributed to site study to investigate the status of local households. While many applicants who communities, local issues and resources. • CPG discusses Action Plan in greater detail. joined the Group were referred by their Based on the results, each subdivision under • CPG secures funds for implementation in addition to initial neighbours (44%), a substantial number the CPG established a planning agenda and Implementation grant of KRW 8.5 million from SMG. of applicants (23%) did so in response to drew up relevant action plans. Once these • Residents undertake required actions directly or through the promotional campaign. This reflects the agendas and action plans had been detailed, partnership with LDG. residents’ strong desire for community-level the entire CPG gathered to determine the participation. vision of the community-planning process.

On average, each CPG consists of 75.6 The CPGs from the 14 participating dongs 1 month persons, lower than the 100 persons came up with 158 agenda items and indicated in the SMG guidelines. 235 action plans. The action plans were Monitoring • SMG conducts review of all activities carried out over the 18 months or so. Nevertheless, this was deemed to be categorised under eight subject headings sufficient for community-planning purposes. which include: living/safety (27.7%), urban The CPGs were also more inclusive, infrastructure/beautification (18.7%) and with more women and young residents communications/media (14.9%), among volunteering, compared to previous others. Agenda items affecting the daily lives community initiatives which tended to attract of residents accounted for 61.3% of the more males and senior citizens. plans. 92 93

Categorisation of Action Plans by Subject Town Hall Meetings In the town hall meetings of mid-2016, residents in 11 dongs voted to endorse their Since the outcomes of Dong-Level respective planning agendas. Some 7,730 19% Community Planning could affect an entire residents, accounting on average for 2.7% Infrastructure / Beautification community, there needed to be broad of the total population in each dong, cast Wall painting, planting and the consensus that could also reflect the views their votes. While this participation rate is 15% creation of flower beds, organisation of those who did not directly participate in not high, it is unusual to see this degree of Communications / Media of streets and riversides. the process. The CPGs published brochures consensus among Seoul citizens on matters Integration between Improvement of public so residents could view the plans in advance, other than political elections. generations/family members, transportation, refurbishment of 28% and distributed them through town hall addressing conflict, exchanges public facilities. Living / Safety meetings. between neighbours, multi- Parking, litter, odours, cultural issues, communication smoking. venues prevention. The town hall meetings were organised in a Playgrounds, festive manner for residents to enjoy, instead Village newspapers, radio pedestrian safety broadcasting. of being narrowly focused on the process. (school zones), During these town hall meetings, a video clip security, disaster of the planning process was presented, and prevention. members of the subdivisions also explained to residents what had been planned.

6% 3% Health / Welfare Nature / Ecosystem Health of the elderly, Environmental sports. protection, ecological approach to learning. Welfare, volunteering, identification of isolated neighbours. 8% Sharing / Economy 10% Sharing items, 11% Culture / History recycling, flea markets. Education / Care Culture, art, festivals, Local economy, Education, youth, history. creation of profits. childcare, children.

Outdoor town hall meeting held in Banghak 3-Dong. 94 95

Impact of Dong-Level Community Planning

Level of Social Support Amongst Neighbours

How many neighbours do you How many neighbours could you turn to for talk to on a regular basis? support in times of trouble? (indication of social recognition) (indication of social support)

44.3% 35.5% 33.3% Residents attending town hall dialogue in Nowon-gu Sanggae-1-dong. No. of people who No. of people who No. of people who Implementing the Plan demonstrating that by having residents answered ‘at least 11’ answered ‘no one’ answered ‘at least 6’ initiate these plans themselves, the Notably, the activities of the CPGs’ community had improved its capacity to solve various subdivisions were sustained by problems. Approach to Addressing Issues in Daily Life new participants in the action phase of implementation, which took place from June Outcomes of Dong-Level to November in 2016. With SMG support Community Planning largely discontinued at this stage, there was a slight dip in CPG subdivision activities in Between September and October 2016, a each dong. Nevertheless, the continuity was survey of 665 residents from 14 community sustained and the vitality of the activities planning groups was conducted. Of the did not wane. Interestingly, Siheung 5-Dong respondents, 63.2% were generally satisfied saw a sharp increase in the number of CPG with the planning process, and 57.3% meetings held during the action phase. indicated interest to participate again. 43.9% 22.8% 9%

Securing resources was key to implementing The survey results showed that the Address the issue Doing nothing about Complain to the Community Planning outcomes. The CPGs Community Planning process had helped with neighbours the issue government from various dongs secured budgets for 167 improve the level of social support among action plans (69.3%) through a variety of neighbours, and had enhanced the means, including funding from the SMG and willingness and confidence of the community LDGs. to solve local problems without turning to the government. In addition, the relationship Some of the projects implemented include between dong offices and local residents had a sidewalk expansion, child-safe routes improved significantly: responses indicating to school, and a no-smoking campaign. that “the two parties trust each other” Overall, 80.9% of the action plans increased from 40% in earlier surveys to were implemented: a significant result, 65.4%. 96 97

Social Support (persons) Seoul Residential Environment Management Program (REMP) 50.0 Background The Residential Environment Management 40.0 Program (REMP) is a neighbourhood From the early 1980s to the 2000s, the improvement initiative introduced by SMG to 30.0 rejuvenation of older, substandard residential preserve, renew, or restore existing residential areas in Seoul generally involved full-scale areas according to the community’s needs. 20.0 demolition of existing neighbourhoods, The initiative promotes social cohesion followed by the development of large-scale within the community through its restorative 10.0 apartment complexes to increase urban processes. housing capacity and promote economic 0.0 growth. Urban redevelopment was based The REMP has replaced the approach of No one 1 person 2-3 persons 4-5 persons More than 6 persons on a market-driven model: property full-scale demolition and reconstruction as owners, construction corporations and the a means of urban redevelopment, while Before After real estate industry actively funded and reinforcing other urban regeneration shaped residential developments, with the programmes that support participation government playing a facilitative role. This from local communities. Since its launch in redevelopment approach had a negative 2012, when legislation was passed allowing To gauge the level of private-public Conclusion impact on existing community ties and small SMG to secure a budget for the initiative, cooperation more accurately, a ladder businesses. the REMP has set the direction for how of participation6 survey was conducted, The dong-level community planning process local communities can carry out urban according to the six stages of the offered residents the opportunity and In recent years, Seoul residents have become regeneration in a sustainable manner. community planning process—Mobilisation, means to address their own local issues by increasingly involved in neighbourhood Informing, Consultation, Placation, themselves. The driving force behind its regeneration plans initiated by the Projects implemented under the REMP Partnership, Delegated Power. Residents success was the effort of common citizens in government. Residents have come together include: improving road conditions, building were asked which best described their each community. to form communities on their own, even community facilities such as playgrounds and degree of participation. After the Dong- in areas where they had not engaged community centres, reconstructing physical Level Community Planning, participants The SMG is preparing to connect the in collective action before. The Seoul infrastructure such as roads, water and who described their participation as community planning process with relevant Metropolitan Government (SMG) has been sewage systems, setting up public parking “mobilisation” (residents attending town hall policies such as Participatory Budget Systems supporting this ground-up interest by lots, parks and closed-circuit television meetings but not involved in actual decision and Urban Regeneration in 2017. The focus dispatching “urban regeneration activists” (CCTV) installations. By the end of October making) decreased by 37.9%; responses for remains on building up residents’ capabilities to designated programme areas. These 2015, SMG had completed REMPs in 13 “partnership” (residents having the ability to cater to their local needs. ‘activists’ are from NGOs engaged by SMG to areas of which, 10 have newly-built public to affect decisions made by the dong office) promote various support programmes, such facilities managed by local residents. went up by 37.0%. This shows a significant as low-interest loans, consulting services, impact of the community planning process in subsidised housing redevelopment and encouraging participation. assistance schemes for house repair.

6 In 2012, Seoul was the first large local government in Korea to adopt a Citizen Participation Budgetary System. Of the approximately USD 20 billion in the annual city budget, citizens are now able to decide how USD 50 million should be utilised. In 2013, USD 42 million was spent on 120 projects proposed by citizens. 98 99

REMP: Process and Features After the proposed infrastructure projects Initiatives implemented under REMP have been completed, the REMP continues The REMP places existing residents at the to support the community through centre of its three-step planning process: organisations such as resident councils. Set Infrastructure: Public Housing: up as part of the REMP process, resident Roads, parks and Combined with 1. Identifying areas in need of regeneration; councils involve resident representatives parking lots. Community centres. in organising activities for community 2. Developing a neighbourhood improvement participation during the planning process. plan with residents;

3. Executing the project. Loans to Improve Housing: Low-interest loans Public Amenities: for renovations and REMP Process Community centres, new construction by public childcare centres, land/house-owners. Process Action book cafés and gyms.

Select target area Resident Workshop Safety Features: Improvements to CCTV, lights, Develop draft the Environment: security alarms plans Operational Removal of boundary and reduction Committee walls of developments, Developing of blind spots to “Green parking” Plan with improve safety. Designate a zone (shared parking Residents and finalise Soliciting between residents), plans Resident green rooftops and Agreement street signage. Establish action plans Forming Cooperatives

Training and Implement Educational Activities: programme Training programmes Building on value of citizen Social and Revitalise participation and Community local citizen engagement Enterprises communities methods conducted by the Urban Form Resident Regeneration Communities: Academy. Resident councils, workshops with residents. 100 101

Target Areas and Implementation Neighbourhoods submit their interest in the REMP for SMG’s approval. The Several types of areas are eligible for the SMG prioritises areas where a large-scale REMP: redevelopment plan (such as new high-rise apartment complexes) has been cancelled, or 1. Areas with a concentration of detached villages with historically significant features or multi-household residential buildings, (such as an ancient city wall). where non-residential land use is generally prohibited; As of August 2015, the REMP has been approved in 58 areas within Seoul, with 12 2. Areas where an improvement plan has projects completed. been drafted or scheduled under other programmes without legally binding authority, or areas where an improvement plan is being promoted or drafted;

3. Areas where 50% or more of the land owners agree with the improvement plan. Workshop conducted for REMP in Seonyugol, Seongbuk-Gu.

Locations of Neighbourhoods under REMP Case Study: REMP in Seowon Village yards gave the village a unique character, these yards were fenced off by dilapidated Public-sector programmes Located at the eastern end of Seoul, Seowon walls that were up to two metre is height, completed: Village is an old, small residential area known turning the adjoining streets into dark 13 areas for being an “idyllic village in the city”. alleyways. The construction of the adjacent Spanning an area of 32,882 square metres, Amsa Bridge, which began in April 2006, had also degraded the living environment. Public-sector programmes the village has 64 buildings and a population under construction: of 345 (156 households). The infrastructure In 2009, the SMG launched a prorgamme 7 areas in the village was developed as part of a called “Making Liveable Communities”—a settlement improvement program in 1979. Most of its residents have lived in the village public contest inviting residents to submit Projects under since then, and have formed a closely-knit proposals to revive their neighbourhoods. planning stage: community. The proposal from Seowon Village was 26 areas eventually selected by SMG. While the After several decades, public infrastructure “Making Liveable Communities” initiative in the village needed improvement. There has evolved into the present REMP, support was enough road capacity, but not enough for the revitalisation of Seowon continued parking space. This led to drivers parking through the programme’s transition. Completed (public-sector) on the street, obstructing both vehicular and pedestrian traffic. While the two-storey Construction/detailed design pitched roof houses with private garden underway Improvement plan under development Candidate area 102 103

A Resident-Led Process The Seowon residents actively participated in the entire process: from the more abstract Seowon Village had earlier formed its own envisioning exercise to detailed aspects such Han River community organisation to address local as designs for public spaces and private Amsa Bridge & Amsa IC issues, such as nuisances arising from the houses. The workshops employed different (under construction) nearby construction of Amsa Bridge. When methods (e.g., community mapping, the REMP process was initiated, the Seowon envisioning games with visual aids and community organisation, respected for its model-making) to help residents better local knowledge and leadership, continued to understand the issues. Sensitive issues were play a leading role. presented to the residents for consensus and Amsa ARISU Water the outcomes incorporated into the plan. Seowon Village Treatment Center SMG planners and local district gu government set up preliminary meetings with “It takes a Village”: A Collaborative the community organisation to encourage Approach to Solution Making resident participation in the REMP and to gain a better understanding of local The REMP process facilitated a collaborative concerns. These preliminary meetings were approach involving both residents and Amsadong followed by a presentation to all residents, to public officials, to create unique solutions Prehistoric Dwelling Site officially announce the programme and seek for neighbourhood improvement that were consensus to proceed. tailored to local needs. Possible solutions were assessed from both the professional and

Amsa Historic & Residents elected members of the original community perspectives. Rigorous debates Ecological Park Seowon community organisation to the were held among residents to establish Resident Council, which would guide resident community consensus. The following are involvement and work with the local district examples of how issues in Seowon Village government and city planners. The council were addressed as part of the REMP process. Seowon Community Center and Playground was a rich source of local information for planners: they advised on the historical Public Parking Symbolic context and circumstances of the community, Street Gallery and gathered the opinions of local residents Early on in the project, Seowon Village Main throughout the planning process. residents explicitly demanded the provision Entrance of a public parking lot. One suggestion was With the Resident Council in place, to use a section of the northern road that workshops were held with residents to would be left vacant after Amsa Bridge establish a plan. Developed and implemented was completed. Another suggestion was to by the SMG officials, these workshops also develop an underground parking space in the Green Zone involved the local district government and new green buffer zone. relevant experts. The process consisted of: Seowon MalGil The SMG reviewed these ideas from both New Access 1 FLOOR Storey Street Imporvement 1. Conducting a community survey; technical and administrative perspectives. Road 2 FLOOR Storeys Area 3 FLOOR Storeys Public officials prepared easy-to-understand 2. Developing the community’s future vision; sketches and diagrams to discuss the issue with residents. Ultimately, neither option was 3. Holding workshops on design guidelines included in the REMP. The first option was for parks, community centres, parking issues deemed to be impractical as the road space and residential properties. was too confined and locating the parking 104 105

Breaking Down Boundary Walls to Create Voluntary Height Restrictions Shared Parking Lots New Children’s Playground According to planning regulations, buildings Most residents in Seowon Village parked in Seowon Village could be built up to three New Seowon Community their cars on the street, as their homes could storeys (11 metres) high. During a design (and Senior) Center not accommodate private parking spaces. workshop, one of the residents suggested However, street parking obstructed access for that buildings should be restricted to no both vehicles and pedestrians and made the more than two storeys. As most of the streets unsightly. houses in Seowon Village are two storeys, increasing the height to three storeys could It was clear from the beginning that the compromise the existing living environment residents wanted property boundary walls by increasing the population and traffic New Symbolic along the street to be demolished to volume, and limiting the amount of sunlight Mauel Gallery Street create proper parking spaces. SMG officials in houses and yards. However, other residents New Community Park proposed to transform the side-yards into argued strongly that height restrictions were (Public Space) parking spaces with a single car access point a violation of private property rights. for two houses. A town hall meeting was held for residents Improved Green Zones Most residents agreed to the proposal but to vote on the issue. A surprising 85.7% of New Landmark and wanted greater flexibility in the guidelines, voting households agreed to impose a two- Roundabout at the Entry to take into account individual circumstances storey, eight-metre building height restriction. while ensuring consistency in the overall This demonstrated that the community, after Improved Street Conditions design. City officials took heed of these sufficient discussion between residents and CCTV Installations at Seowonmal-Gil concerns and incorporated such flexibility experts, had reached a consensus on their into the design guidelines. vision for the village.

New Access Road Low and Open Fence Other Facilities Letterbox, doorplate, Height less garbage bin, etc. than 1m Hedge Plants Neighbourhood Building Height less REMP enhancement plans for Seowon Village. than 1.5m Low and Open Gate lot there could adversely affect village traffic. a roundabout on the north access road was Height less than 1.2m The second idea was too costly and complex. incorporated into the plan and eventually Width less than 3.0m Fence and Gate Front Lawn The matter was deferred for consideration in built to facilitate better traffic flow. Although Height, design, etc. the longer term. the residents’ suggestions were not taken New Green (Shared) up and parking issues remain unresolved Parking Space While discussing parking issues, traffic for the time being, it was an opportunity Car Access below 0.5m New Parking Space Prohibited below 0.5m problems on the section of the northern for the community to understand how Design, choice of road was brought to the attention of the abstract planning considerations feed into materials, etc. group. After discussions with a traffic expert, implementation. Proposed guidelines for residential developments. 106 107

Construction of Public Facility (Neighbourhood hall) INTERVIEW WITH YONGIM KIM Resident, Seowon Village Street Improvement (Green zone)

Individual Household Improvements (Yards, walls)

Improvements in Seowon Village after implementation of REMP.

Conclusion: The Impact of the REMP in establishment of a Resident Community Seowon Village Committee—a formal operating organization with articles of association and a leader Seowon Village witnessed a transformation elected by the residents themselves. The of its roads and streets into safer, more open committee runs the community centre, holds public spaces. Most of the high boundary monthly neighbourhood meetings, discusses walls were replaced with low see-through local issues and helps resolve disputes. Tell us about yourself. walls to reduce blind spots. With cars now being parked within the yards, the streets The second change is the catalytic effect of I moved into Seowon Village in 2002. Before having children, I worked for became friendlier to pedestrians. The lower public improvement efforts: residents have over 10 years as part of the advisory staff to a company chairman. Now walls brought greenery in the front yards into increasingly and voluntarily improved their I work as an art director and English teacher. I started to participate in view which enhanced the overall appearance private houses and yards: since the REMP, the community work as the secretary for the Seowon Residents Community of the village. Social interaction between landscaping of 47 yards have been upgraded, Committee (Seowon RCC), which was founded in 2011. Ever since residents increased, as did security, thanks with 15 repaired and renovated. residents settled in this area, there has been a local leader (known as a to CCTV installations. A community centre “dong-jang”) who takes charge of resolving town issues. I became the was constructed, to be used for festivals, The third change is the residents’ pledge to resident leader in 2012. Nowadays, I work with the chair of Seowon RCC neighbourhood meetings, exhibitions and manage their residential environment on to manage and oversee issues arising in Seowon Village. other important community events. Residents their own. Issues that citywide regulation now run and manage a small library in could not easily handle—such as parking, Why did Seowon embark on the REMP? association with the children’s playground. waste management, road maintenance— Through active community leadership have been set forth in a resident treaty to Seowon Village is located near military zones and green belts, so and participation in the neighbourhood ensure compliance. This pledge requires development has been very restricted. When it was time to improve its improvement process, the village was able mutual trust between residents; whether it is decades-old infrastructure, including waterworks, sewer system, parks not only to set a clear vision for itself, but maintained will be a test of the strength of and roads, Gangdong gu district suggested applying for the Residential also to cater to resident needs. social capital in Seowon Village. This will be Environmental Management Program (REMP). an interesting aspect of the REMP that the The REMP has brought about three distinct SMG will want to observe. changes in the community. The first is the 108 109

At first, residents objected strongly because they did not trust the How can the REMP be improved? government. We formed a “Seowon Development Council”, to have our own town representatives communicate with the government. After an It would be more helpful to the community if there was a channel to in-depth discussion with officials, the Resident Council members made site communicate regularly with the government and with experts, even visits to assess the pros and cons of the programme. When the members after the end of the project. It’s also important to find a steady source decided that the REMP would benefit the community, they took an active of funding to cover the expenses needed in managing the community part in persuading the neighbours to participate. Council members not and the environment. In our case, we receive fees from those who make only persuaded fellow residents during monthly meetings, but also visited advertisements or television shows in our neighbourhood to use as each household to listen to their concerns and explain the benefits of the community funding. programme. Eventually, all the residents agreed to participate in the REMP. Moreover, I am concerned how to keep engaging residents in community What was most impressive or effective about the citizen involvement activities, because such activities require time, money and effort. So the process? long-term challenge would be to create an environment that encourages the young residents to participate on their own. One of the most impressive things that worked for Seowon Village was that throughout the whole process, residents, experts and the local district Why do you think citizen involvement is important in improving the gu government made decisions together. We, the residents, met among residential environment? ourselves frequently to understand our various demands and to settle conflicting interests. This regular interaction was very effective in building a Citizen involvement is crucial because residents are the ones who know best consensus. what the community needs. Without well-developed citizen participation, you cannot expect to see good outcomes. The Resident Council had 34 official meetings among residents, ten workshops with the public officials and experts, and met with residents At first, we tended to think of personal gain, instead of the benefits to regularly through town meetings held twice a month to share updates on the whole community. But as we tried to persuade people, we learned the progress. Community leaders played a significant part in facilitating to talk to one another and began to analyse whether what we wanted successful citizen involvement. The council chair invested much effort and was for ourselves or for the community. This process helped mature our time to meet with public officials in-charge of the project, to make sure communication. Logic and reason are not enough to determine what residents’ decisions were implemented. The head of the town women’s happens in a community. Some part of community work is governed by committee and the resident leader took pains to persuade residents to emotion. So without trust and an understanding of feelings, it is extremely reach a consensus. Later, our town established “Seowon Community difficult to reach a consensus. This is why community work needs time Committee”—an official non-profit organisation incorporating Seowon above all else. One reason why the Seowon REMP was such a success was Development Council & the Women’s Committee—to ensure effective that the citizen involvement was sustained over a long term. operation of community works. I think citizen involvement has helped our residents become more What factors led to the REMP’s success in Seowon Village? affectionate towards our community and has increased mutual trust among residents. Such experiences motivate us to maintain the current environment I think trust, a sense of community and good communication between and keep the momentum going. residents were the keys to our success. Of them all, trust was the most important. Trust between the residents grew even stronger, as we took more pains to listen to each other’s opinions and problems and tried to resolve these issues collectively as a community. Such experiences have served as the foundation for our community to actively and collectively participate in maintaining our town’s environment, even after the REMP project’s completion. 110 111

Singapore Flowchart of NRP Process Neighbourhood Renewal Programme (NRP) and BOND! Pilot Project 75% Announcement by Adviser Combined Introduction resources to be pooled in order to provide total of at least 75% Form Working Committee facilities that might otherwise be too costly support to build. Besides developing new homes and for NRP to estates and towns, an important role of proceed Design Development Management the Housing & Development Board (HDB) Programme Features Review with of Singapore is to refresh and revitalise Min. 50% HDB homes and neighbourhoods. One initiative A key objective of the NRP is to upgrade the participation Public Consultation Residents’ through which this is carried out is the quality of older HDB estates, bringing them required to Feedback Neighbourhood Renewal Programme (NRP), closer to the standards of the latest HDB proceed to consensus which focuses on precinct-level improvement developments. This rejuvenates the estate Design Refinement Management works. First introduced in August 2007 while keeping the established communities gathering Review with as part of HDB’s Remaking Our Heartland intact. Blocks built before January 1996, HDB initiative8, the NRP is a significant component which have not benefited from earlier Support Consensus Gathering of HDB’s efforts to renew Singapore’s older upgrading programmes,10 are eligible for the from residents towns. programme. The NRP budget of $4,700 per flat is fully funded by the government. Tender The NRP was initiated following recommendations from the Forum on As a ground-up programme, NRP is Award HDB Heartware in 2007,9 which called implemented by the Town Councils (TCs), for greater flexibility in the provision of and overseen by HDB. The TCs determine amenities, the optimisation of facilities across the type and extent of improvements to Start of Construction adjacent precincts and more consultation be carried out, after consulting residents. with residents. During forum discussions, HDB then reviews the design proposals to participants had raised the need for greater ensure that they are practical and functional. Completion local consultation on the design of the Some common NRP improvements proposed precinct and its facilities. A key feature of include: covered linkways, drop-off porches, NRP is the active engagement of residents playgrounds, fitness stations, jogging tracks, The NRP Process Consultative Committee (CCC), Resident in shaping their living environment. Such hardcourts and seating areas or study corners Committee members, a design consultant engagement encourages greater interaction at void decks. Once an NRP project is announced, a appointed by the TC, HDB officers and and participation among residents, offering Working Committee (WC) is formed to residents. The WC’s roles are: to gather them more avenues to suggest improvements The NRP may also include the repainting oversee the project to completion. The resident feedback on their preferences for for their neighbourhood. of blocks, or repair works for spalling WC, which is chaired by the Adviser to the improvements, explain the benefits of the concrete, crack lines, apron drains and Grassroots Organisation11 or an appointed NRP, and garner support for the design As each NRP project comprises two or more apron floors. These are integrated with representative, comprises TC representatives, proposals. contiguous precincts, facilities in adjacent the TC’s routine maintenance programme, grassroots leaders from the Citizens’ precincts can complement rather than enabling the blocks and precincts to be more duplicate one another. This approach allows comprehensively enhanced. 10 Prior to the introduction of the NRP, there were upgrading programmes such as the Main Upgrading Programme (MUP), Interim Upgrading Programme (IUP) and IUP Plus to rejuvenate the older HDB estates. 8 Please refer to Chapter 4.2 on more information about ROH. 11 The Adviser to Grassroots Organisations (GROs) is part of the set-up of the Peoples’ Association and 9 The “Forum on HDB Heartware” was launched in Nov 2006 to engage residents for fresh views and his role is to provide guidance to the GROs to help the PA achieve its mission of building and bridging ideas on ways to build strong and cohesive HDB communities. communities to achieve one people, one Singapore (note: extracted from PA website on GROs). 112 113

Flowchart of BOND! Engagement Model together with NRP Process

NRP Process

Announcement by Adviser

Form Working Committee Stage 1: Sensing - Surveys Design Development - Interviews - Site walks - Pop-up booth engagements Public Consultation

Design Refinement HDB organised a World Café-styled focus group discussion with NRP working committee, grassroots leaders and various agencies. Consensus Gathering In 2012, HDB explored the Building First, the HDB carried out a sensing survey Our Neighbourhood’s Dreams! (BOND!) to determine the residents’ areas of interest. Tender project together with the NRP in Bukit Understanding this would would inform Panjang. BOND! seeks to deepen existing HDB and the TCs on the community engagements involving residents in deciding spaces and facilities needed to support the Award Stage 2: Community Discussion the type of community activities and organisation of the community activities. infrastructural upgrades they would like to The sensing survey was conducted through - Workshop with working Start of Construction have. Under BOND!, residents are engaged void deck booths, survey forms mailed to all committee and partners to co-create infrastructural solutions and households and online surveys. The survey - Residents’ workshops, programmes that they believe would bring results revealed that residents were most Completion focus group discussions them closer to one another. BOND! also interested in the following themes, in order helps identify and nurture community of priority: Clean and Green Environment, “champions”, who will go on to sustain the Healthy Living, Caring for the Needy and The TC then undertakes a consultation Once the design proposal is finalised, it is selected programmes or lead new ones in the Elderly, Bonding over Food and Hobby process with residents in two phases: Public presented to residents at the Consensus longer term. Groups, and Preserving Precinct’s Identity Consultation and Consensus Gathering. Gathering phase for support. If at least 75% and Memories. The survey also highlighted support from residents is obtained, the TC Case Study—Neighbourhood the three most preferred items for the NRP: The Public Consultation phase is an active will proceed to call a tender to carry out the Renewal Programme at Bukit covered linkways, lift surveillance systems and engagement exercise to gather resident NRP improvement works. Panjang drop-off porches for this project. views on the preliminary design proposals. It may be carried out through town hall As of 31 March 2017, 128 projects involving Blocks 401 to 435 in Bukit Panjang estate, After the survey, HDB organised a World meetings, block parties and mini-exhibitions, 186,000 flats across Singapore have been comprising a total of 2,709 flats, were Café-styled focus group discussion with the dialogue sessions, straw polls or other means. announced for the NRP. Of these announced selected for the NRP in 2012. Together with NRP working committee, grassroots leaders Feedback gathered in the course of public projects, 71,000 flats across 47 completed the NRP, HDB’s Building Our Neighbourhood’s and various agencies. This was to determine consultation is considered by the WC and, if projects have benefited. Dreams (BOND!)12 initiative was also piloted the facilities required, as well as the potential feasible and if budget allows, incorporated in in the estate. community programmes based on the the final design proposals. 114 115 residents’ interest areas. Representatives from Of those residents who had participated in government agencies, namely, the Health the Residents Workshop and open house, Neighbourhood-Level Planning Promotion Board (HPB), People’s Association 97% said they were more excited about the (PA), the National Environment Agency (NEA) upcoming facilities due to their participation; and National Parks Board (NParks) attended 62% felt that they had benefitted from the the discussion. chance to have a say in their neighbourhood; 18% said they got to understand the Dong-Level Planning Following the World Café, HDB conducted a concerns and ideas of other fellow • Dong-level community planning was introduced in 2015 to develop Residents’ Workshop with residents who had neighbours; another 18% remarked that they solutions specific to each dong through building the local community’s indicated their interest to participate earlier. got to know neighbours from the workshop. capabilities. They elaborated on their interest areas, and the improvements they wished to make for Conclusion • The dong-level planning process generates a vision based on action plans their living environment. These in-depth developed by resident participants according to local needs, instead discussions helped to prioritise the activities Surveys carried out for past completed of a traditional professional-planner-led process in which the vision is and facilities that residents desired as part of projects found that 94.6% of residents followed by Action Plans. the NRP. surveyed were satisfied with the NRP • The dong-level planning process helped improve the level of social and expressed high satisfaction with the support amongst neighbours, as well as trust between residents and the Besides the workshop discussion which was public engagement exercises conducted. local government. attended by 100 residents, HDB also put up In addition, residents were satisfied overall notice boards at the void decks thereafter with the improvement works done, and with for the wider community to offer their execution and housekeeping during the suggestions for the NRP. This helped the construction of improvements. A majority of Residential Environment Management Programme (REMP) team to reach out to another 500 residents the residents felt that improvement works • REMP is a neighbourhood improvement initiative introduced by SMG to and the ideas collected via the notice boards carried out under the NRP had helped to preserve, renew or restore existing residential areas according to the supplemented the ideas generated in the create more opportunities for neighbourly community’s needs. discussion. interactions. • Resident councils set up as part of REMP process involve resident At the workshop, the residents also With an emphasis on active participation, representatives in organising activities for community participation. deliberated over the design considerations the NRP helped to realise resident aspirations • After completion of proposed infrastructure projects, the REMP continues and locations of the top 8 preferred NRP for their physical living environment while to support the community through resident councils. improvement works. Feasible suggestions BOND! has instilled a stronger sense were included in the work scope for of ownership and helped strengthen the NRP. The initial NRP design proposal communities ties. Its success illustrates the was then exhibited to residents to invite large impact that public engagement can Neighbourhood Renewal Programme (NRP) further comments and feedback. More have on residents’ satisfaction with the • NRP focuses on precinct-level improvement works to provide greater than 70% of the residents indicated their environment they live in. This underlines the flexibility and optimisation in provision of amenities across adjacent support for the proposals during the Public importance of continuing to actively engage precincts. Consultation. Following refinements based residents in planning their neighbourhoods on comments and feedback during the Public and finding opportunities to work with Town • NRP encourages active engagement of residents in shaping their living Consultation, the final design was presented Councils, non-profits and grassroots to better environment through a process of public consultation and consensus to the residents in a public exhibition at the involve the residents. gathering with residents. Consensus Gathering. In total, more than • NRP creates opportunities for decision making at the local level, through 80% support for the NRP was garnered. implementation by local Town Councils, and setting up of working committees consisting of local advisers and grassroots. 116 117

CASE STUDIES Seoul Major Developments Gyeongui Line Forest Park in Existing Background Overview of the Park The Gyeongui Line Forest Park area has Gyeongui Line Forest Park is 6.3 kilometres Communities been an important transport axis leading to long, and covers an area of 102,008 square and from Seoul, since the Joseon Dynasty. metres. It consists of seven park sites and A major artery for industrial and economic four station building sites, with one site growth until the 1950s, the name Gyeongui- reserved for future development. The park Seon (“seon” meaning “line”) was given is highly accessible: approximately 100,000 to the railway line connecting Seoul and residents live within a ten-minute walk to the Shinuiju (in today’s North Korea) in 1906. park, while up to one million residents live With the decline of freight transport in the within a five-kilometre radius of it. Hongik 1980s, and the growth of commuter traffic University Station, the busiest station near due to new large-scale town developments the park, serves up to 150,000 passengers in the north-western part of Seoul, the every day. railroad’s role has had to be reviewed. The park was developed in two phases. In 1999, the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure The first phase, covering a 0.76-kilometre and Transport and the Korea Rail Network long stretch, was completed in February Authority (KRNA)13 announced plans to 2012; while the second phase, covering the modernise Gyeongui-Seon, to relieve traffic remaining 3.13 kilometres of the park, was Major developments in cities can have a significant impact between Seoul and the northwestern completed in May 2016. Because each phase metropolitan area. The popular decision to was carried out under a different Mayor, on existing communities in the vicinity. In such cases, convert the Gyeongui Line into a double- they demonstrated different approaches to robust public engagement processes help planners track underground route sparked discussions implementation—the first phase being more and developers to better understand and account for on how the space above ground should focused on delivering project outcomes, be utilised. A series of national debates the second focusing more on community community needs. Collaborating with stakeholders early in concluded with the consensus to turn the engagement. the planning process can lead to greater shared ownership space into a public park. In 2009, the Seoul of project outcomes, more successful implementation and Metropolitan Government (SMG) announced better results for all. its park development plan as a basis for further engagement with stakeholders including the landowner KRNA, local district In Seoul, the Gyeongui Line Forest Park benefitted from governments and local communities. a commitment to public engagement in the design and Following an agreement in 2010, the management phases of a major urban rejuvenation Gyeongui Line Forest Park was developed initiative. In Singapore, the Rail Corridor project has involved by the SMG in two phases and completed in 2016 at a cost of KRW 45.7 billion (about one of the most extensive public engagement exercises in USD 40 million). the city-state. Our Tampines Hub, another example from Singapore, demonstrates how community input and an integrated, multi-agency approach can drive innovative development in a residential town centre. 13 KRNA is the national railway operator in South Korea, and the landowner of railway land. 118 119

Yeonnam-Dong Gaja GREEN MATRIX

Changjun-Dong ECOLOGY + RAILWAY Shinsu- Daeheung- Yeomni Saechang Hongik U Dong Dong Dong Pass PARTICIPATION + RESIDENCE

Sogang L WonHyo-Ro

INDIE CULTURE + UNIVERSITY Phase 1 (2012) Daeheung Phase 2-1 (2014) Hyochang

Phase 2-2 (2015)

Phases of the Gyeongui Line Forest Park project.

HISTORY + CBD Phase 1: Government-Led Implementation 3. Reflect the historical and cultural value of the Gyeongui Line by creating landmarks Objectives and Concepts along the park. This would also add rhythm WATER FRONT and points of interest to the narrow, linear From December 2008 to February 2011, the park. Characteristic of each section along Gyeongui Line Forest Park. SMG worked out a master plan for Gyeongui Line Forest Park, with four main objectives: 4. Create opportunities for residents to be Outcome of Phase 1: Insufficient Inadequate site investigation and limited actively involved in the planning, building and Investigation and Engagement of Residents engagement had consequences which 1. Develop the park to serve as a major maintenance of the park, including citizen-led emerged only after the SMG, under newly greenway connecting the city centre with management of the park. An initial 27 months of planning provided elected Seoul Mayor Park Won-Soon, other green areas to the west of the city, the basic direction and detailed designs for conducted a review of the Park’s Phase 1 namely Yongsan Park, Han River Park and The initial design of Gyeongui Line Forest the Gyeongui Line Forest Park. However, site design, completed in February 2012. The the World Cup Park. The Gyeongui Park Park divided the park into four sections studies and resident engagement activities review indicated that context and residents’ would also connect universities, sports fields based on local characteristics, ranging from were not comprehensively carried out. The input had not been taken fully into account: and other surrounding amenities through a historical to ecological areas. construction of the underground line meant for instance, the provision of both walking network of pedestrian and bicycle paths. that thorough site investigations could not be trails and bicycle paths had left little space conducted and design details could not be within the park to use for other activities. 2. Integrate the park with adjacent finalised until negotiations between the SMG communities, which used to be cut off from and the KRNA were completed in December Phase 2: Stronger Citizen Engagement and the railroad. Unique community spaces for 2010. Design Improvements each section of the park were planned and a wide range of programmes were proposed to The SMG-led planners did not establish For Phase 2, the SMG dedicated more rejuvenate existing neighbourhoods. a comprehensive system to engage and attention to citizen engagement. Several involve residents in the planning process. platforms were set up to collect views from Resident engagement consisted only of a experts, park users and local residents, questionnaire and a basic survey, as well as including public meetings, the Public one public hearing where design details were Gyeongui Forum, and a user satisfaction explained. survey on Phase 1. 120 121

Recommendations Identified from Park Development Strategy: Phase 2 Engagement Enhancing Integration with Surrounding Areas

Planning and Design

Resident hearings, open design.

Gyeongui Public Forum User Satisfaction Survey

Historical and symbolic identity of All age groups favoured walking trails, Gyeongui Line. green space and rest areas. Park Construction Park development in line with Users found the width of the walking Park infrastructure, changes in surroundings. trails adequate. empty lots.

Water Path Pedestrian Path 1 2

Management

Completion through First Public Meeting Second Public Meeting citizen involvement, local festivals and Park should mainly comprise SMG should resolve noise issues cultural events Community Space walking trails and green space. in nearby residential areas.

Bicycle and walking trails should Bicycle parks should be be separated as overlap can connected and access to them The third insight was to enhance the and platforms as park facilities, served to pose safety issues. enhanced. ecological and historical value of the park. evoke memories of the old railway. The improved designs integrated greenery and waterways with surrounding forest With more thorough site investigations and parks, and introduced streams, wetlands more robust public engagement, Phase 2 of and ponds created with groundwater from the Park was better able to reflect the needs This engagement exercise helped the SMG incrementally, based on community needs the subway as well as natural water sources. of resident users and express the distinctive identify three key areas for improvement. The and requirements. These natural elements provided residents identity of the former railway site. first was to allow more flexibility in the park with places of relaxation. design by setting aside more open spaces The second improvement was to integrate Citizen-Led Park Construction and for citizens to use for local festivals, cultural the park with adjacent development projects. The designs also incorporated the Gyeongui Management events, community activities and so on. Bike For example, the design for new station Line’s unique historical character. With paths and new facilities were minimised; buildings called for extra space adjoining the most of the tracks moved underground, it Besides planning and design, citizens were only basic infrastructure (pedestrian park. Wider access points were introduced to was impossible to preserve the full railroad. also involved in several activities for the park’s entrances, walking trails, safety facilities, or enhance connectivity to surrounding areas. Nevertheless, innovative design approaches, construction and management. A public trees bordering trails) was provided. Other Alleyways previously cut off by the railroad such as refurbishing some railroad segments park-naming contest was held in May 2012, facilities for the park would be implemented were connected through the new park. 122 123

Gyeongui Line Railroad Empty Railroad Site Gyeongui Line Forest Park citizen-centric projects. A rapid increase Always-Market quickly grew into a popular in park usage has created issues such as alternative to other public spaces in Seoul. littering, noise, and damage to facilities. To address these issues, the Council sought However, the Always-Market management citizen views to identify solutions. This led to were surprised in October 2014 when they a number of initiatives, including: received a letter from the Mapo District Office terminating their contract, even • “How to Use the Park”—a campaign though they had been commissioned to promoting social norms for park use; operate until January 2015. They were told the marketplace had to close, because a • “A Park for Trees and People”— development project was slated to begin on educational eco-tours to manage and the site in 2016. Always-Market managers reverse the damage sustained in some argued that an alternative site ought to be park areas; and found, since the market space had come to be valued by citizens. Both Mapo-Gu and the • “Campaign for Interactive KRNA—representing government ownership Communication and Culture for the of the land—declined. Park”—an initiative involving local residents and businesses in civic activities Always-Market responded by refusing to such as recycling, traffic safety exercises close down, resulting in a deadlock. It began at crossings and a conflict-resolution an anti-development campaign, calling Transformation of Gyeongui Line Railroad into Gyeongui Line Forest Park. service. publicly for support based on the social value of Always-Market. In February 2016, from which the name “Gyeongui Line Forest Private-Public Collaboration in Park Need for More Effective Citizen the non-profit organisation Public Space for Park” was eventually adopted. A community Management Involvement and Communication: Citizens (PSC) was set up, backed by some preview of the park was held on Arbor Day Always-Market 40 civic groups and 1,000 citizens supporting in April 2012, which saw part of the park Following the Park’s completion, the SMG the Always-Market cause. PSC organised site turned into a community flower garden, established the Gyeongui Line Forest Park Despite generally positive outcomes, discussions, education sessions, a film festival helping to improve the environment in the Council as an official park management body, Gyeongui Line Forest Park gave rise to some and other cultural activities to oppose the neighbourhood during construction. Arts and with representatives from both private and conflicts between the authorities and citizens new development. In the spring of 2016, cultural groups set up street markets after the public sector. It consists of a civic council over planned developments. In January however, Always-Market had to close and park was opened, bringing local vendors and overseeing the park’s general management, 2013, when park design improvement efforts has remained closed since. In November residents together. and four local councils managing different were still underway, civic activists, artists 2016, the PSC issued a “Declaration of the sections of the park. Co-headed by the and residents came together to discuss 26th Gu District”, claiming to be victims of This renewed civic energy motivated local manager of the park office and a resident, how ground level space could be used for gentrification. communities to set up a new non-profit the civic council’s nine members include the benefit of citizens in the interim before organisation to assist in managing the Park. representatives from the local councils, city development commenced. The group, later Conclusion Launched on the same day as the park’s councillors, civil servants and experts. The known as the “Civic Gyeongui Forum”, official opening, “Friends of Gyeongui four local councils, which collect resident proposed and was commissioned to run a Gyeongui Line Forest Park is an example Line Forest Park” comprises local residents, feedback and facilitate collaboration with citizen-led marketplace for social enterprises. of successful urban rejuvenation. In 2015, businesses, artists, civic groups and experts. park management, are made up of some Gyeongui Line Forest Park was ranked During the park’s opening ceremony in May 40 members: local residents, shop owners, Always-Market, the group’s venture on second by citizens on the list of Top 10 News 2016, the group offered activities focusing community activists and representatives from the temporary site, was a mix of social in Seoul; it also won a Ministerial Award in on citizen engagement and interaction, in local schools. enterprises, a weekend flea market and the Parks section at the 2016 Korea Land lieu of the usual formalities. This proved to a farmers’ market. It soon expanded to & Landscape Design Competition. While be a huge success, with some 12,000 citizens The main focus of the Gyeongui Line Forest include a book cafe, novelty foods, cultural citizen involvement was not approached participating. Park Council is to select and implement events, performances, and workshops. in an organised, systematic manner at the 124 125

Singapore Rail Corridor

Background Threading through a diverse range of landscapes, including residential, commercial, The Rail Corridor is a 24-kilometre long industrial and recreational areas, the Rail continuous strip of railway land spanning the Corridor holds great potential in connecting north and south of Singapore. This strip used communities, enhancing local features to connect Singapore and Malaysia. On 1 July and inspiring discovery. Some one million 2011, the rail terminus shifted from Tanjong residents live near the Rail Corridor. Always-Market operating on temporary site that is planned for developments. Pagar in the south to Woodlands in the Thousands more work in the eight industrial north, and the railway system between the estates and major business park along its two stations ceased operations. The former route. There are also 58 schools, more than railway lands, previously owned by Malaysia, eight major parks and open spaces, and were reverted to the Singapore Government. several sites with heritage significance in the Rail Corridor’s vicinity.

Flea market, food and beverage stalls as well as performances at Always-Market. beginning, resident feedback continued to private-public collaboration, particularly be duly collected, distilled and integrated concerning future developments, even as further down the line in the design process. other issues begin to emerge. Gentrification The SMG’s commitment to community is increasingly prevalent in all sections of engagement was demonstrated by its Gyeongui Line Forest Park. As visitor-numbers willingness to spend one and a half years increase, residential buildings are being longer than planned to engage citizens in a converted to commercial facilities, resulting in more comprehensive manner for the second a hike in property prices. More visitors could phase. Input from both civic organisations also mean more nuisance, inconveniencing and individual citizens have improved the local residents. These issues cannot be park’s design. The Park Council, a private- resolved through intervention or regulation public collaboration, has been effective in by the public sector alone. The government maintaining and managing the park. will have to continually engage and work with residents to achieve a better balance However, there is still room for improvement between development and local community in community engagement. The Always- needs. Market case suggests a need for new approaches to citizen involvement and

24-kilometre stretch of the Rail Corridor. 126 127

Singapore’s planning agency, saw an and heritage as hallmarks of the Rail excellent opportunity to work with different Corridor’s unique identity. stakeholders to plan for a unique community space. • Strengthen community bonding through meaningful participation in a project of Public Engagement Process significance to all Singaporeans.

In terms of outreach, scale and approach, The public engagement strategy for the Rail the Rail Corridor project is one of the URA’s Corridor comprised three phases: most extensive public engagement exercises to date. To create a shared vision for the First Phase: Soft Engagement Rail Corridor, URA sought ideas from diverse (July to December 2011) segments of society, including interest groups, nature and heritage enthusiasts, During the first six months after the former sports associations and event organizers as railway land was returned to Singapore, URA Stretch of the Rail Corridor alongside the Pang Sua Canal. well as a wide spectrum of local residents, embarked on a soft engagement exercise. including the elderly, families and the physically challenged. From 1 to 17 July 2011, before track removal works began, the entire Rail Corridor was The engagement effort spanned five years, accessible to the public. This proved to be a ranging from a national overview of how popular move. A report in the Straits Times Singaporeans envisioned the Rail Corridor to published on 3 July 2011 described the detailed consultations with local communities experience as “a scene Singapore has never living near the Corridor as to how they witnessed; scores of people strolling along could develop a sense of ownership and the railway tracks that run from Woodlands actively contribute to future activities along to Tanjong Pagar.” the Corridor. Breaking new ground, URA engaged the public at a very early stage, On 1 July 2011, a Rail Corridor website even without a draft plan in hand. URA was set up to communicate directly with was determined to start with a clean slate the public and to disseminate information so that they could truly co-create plans for quickly. The URA also hoped to gather ideas, the Corridor in close partnership with the offer the public a means to share memories community. of the railway, and educate the public on topics relevant to the Corridor. Despite Engagement with students through visioning workshops. URA set three key objectives for the Rail initial concerns by the URA team, civic Corridor’s public engagement process: groups expressed support for the website, Public Participation in the Rail to prevent the Rail Corridor from being which received more than 1,000 hits on Corridor Planning parcelled out for development and hence • Foster a shared vision and ownership of its launch day. An online forum was later disappearing into the urban landscape. the project through active community added to let members of the public post Impetus for Engagement Citizens also campaigned online via initiatives involvement and public participation in and discuss suggestions or new ideas for the such as the “We Support the Green Corridor the planning process. Rail Corridor. Some 500 suggestions were The announcement of the railway’s closure in Singapore” Facebook page and dedicated received over the six months via this platform created significant public interest. In October blog posts, to garner support. • Raise public awareness and get and the “Rail Corridor” was adopted as the 2010, the Nature Society of Singapore, a community buy-in for fresh, bold ideas project working name. non-government organisation, submitted a Noting the widespread public interest to optimise land use while transforming proposal to the government, lobbying for a in the Rail Corridor’s future, the Urban the Rail Corridor into an inclusive The Rail Corridor Consultation Group (RCCG) continuous “green corridor” be preserved Redevelopment Authority (URA), community space, with greenery was also convened in July 2011. NGOs 128 129

(Non-Government Organisations) such as the their proposals in an open public forum held a closer collaboration between public sector popular attracting more than 6,000 runners. Nature Society of Singapore and Singapore in conjunction with the exhibition. agencies, interest groups, and individual Subsequent editions of the Green Corridor Heritage Society, academics, and activists members to support and promote the Rail run attracted even more participants. Many such as the founder of the “We Support the The general consensus from all the feedback Corridor as an inclusive community space. other community events were also held along Green Corridor” Facebook page as well as received was that the Rail Corridor ought to the Rail Corridor, including the Heritage Friends of the Green Corridor who would remain a “green corridor” for recreational To test the Rail Corridor’s potential as a Week events organized by the National later rename themselves as Friends of the activities, although opinions differed on community space, event organisers were Heritage Board at the Tanjong Pagar Railway Rail Corridor, were brought together to the exact form the Rail Corridor should engaged and they were encouraged to Station and the Rail Corridor Resilience Trail contribute ideas and advise on how best to take. Some suggested retaining it largely use the Rail Corridor as an event venue. In commissioned by the Ministry for Culture, reach out to the public. They played a key untouched as a nature trail while others April 2012, a fashion show, the Female and Community and Youth and the National advisory role at different stages throughout would like to see it become a continuous Nüyou Valentino Catwalk, was held as the Heritage Board as a trail walk for secondary the engagement process. 24-kilometre “bicycle commuter highway” or first major event at the now disused Tanjong school students. a venue for community events. There are also Pagar Railway Station. An 11-kilometre It was clear from the feedback that URA those who bemoaned the lack of amenities cross-country race called the Green Corridor Through a series of envisioning workshops, had been receiving since July 2011 that and had proposed that sensitively-designed Run was held for the first time on 27 Jan the URA reached out to more than 2,000 many people wanted to contribute their developments be allowed along the Corridor 2013, which turned out to be extremely secondary and polytechnic students to find ideas for the Rail Corridor in a more to meet the need of users. tangible way. Thus, to further encourage Planning and Design Goals Distilled participation from the public, a “Re- Second Phase: Active Engagement from Public Suggestions Imagining the Rail Corridor” exhibition and (2012 to 2014) a workshop by Friends of the Rail Corridor were held in October 2011. The URA also The URA broadened its engagement efforts Enhance launched the “Journey of Possibilities” from 2012 to 2014, reaching out to a more ideas competition on 30 November 2011. diverse range of stakeholders, including Leisure Biodiversity and The RCCG members constituted the jury private sector event organisers, students and Corridor Create Ecological Corridor members of this Competition. More than street artists. Retain Green Community 200 submissions from local and overseas Corridor Ownership and Liveable and participants were received by March 2012, of On 2 March 2012, the Rail Corridor Identity which 80 innovative entries were exhibited. Consultation Group was expanded and re- Stewardship Sustainable Competition winners were invited to share named the Rail Corridor Partnership, to forge Green Endearing Inclusive Innovative Connected Differentiated Heritage Seamless Accessible Liveable and Sustainable Fun Unique Sensitive Developments

Retaining a Innovative and Sense of Place Inclusive, Safe Sustainable Design and Memory and Inviting Solutions for Re-establish Integration with Seamless Development Connectivity

Organised site visit to the Rail Corridor. 130 131 out how the Rail Corridor could be relevant might not have visited or been aware of Engagement Profile: to the youth, and how it could foster a sense the Rail Corridor even if they lived close by. Target Groups and Their Areas of Interest of place and memory in urbanized Singapore. URA simplified the winning Concept Master Student proposals were exhibited to the Plan, and exhibited it at community centres public from 16 April to 15 May 2013. closer to residents who lived along the Rail Corridor. URA also conducted community In December 2013, URA collaborated with workshops to gather these residents’ views the National Arts Council and the local on the proposals. Seniors, young children as street artists to designate Rail Corridor space well as minority groups such as the physically under the Commonwealth Avenue viaduct challenged were invited to these workshops, for street art. The space took on a life of its and became “planners” for a day as they own as local street artists choreographed drew up master plans for stretches of the Rail and activated the space with seed funding Corridor where they lived, to illustrate how Hobby Groups: Outdoor Groups: Persons with Disabilities: from the Arts Council. Several local and the Corridor could be inclusive and relevant Gardening, dancing, etc. Brisk walkers, cyclists, etc. Visually impaired, international urban arts events were held to their needs. physically challenged. at the Rail Corridor Art Space, including Meeting of Styles 2014, Noise 2015 “Off This public engagement effort—of reaching the Rails Again” and Noise 2016 “Rail out to the local communities along the Rail Collidoscope”. Corridor to gather feedback on planning Public proposals—was unprecedented in both These engagements, which represented the extent and intensity. Questions posed to the Engagement hopes, aspirations, views and suggestions communities during workshop included: of the public, were distilled into a set of “What types of trails and landscapes would planning and design goals to guide the you like to see along the rail corridor?”, Families with Teenagers: Families with Young Children: development of a Concept Master Plan for “What types of facilities and activities would Family activities. Family activities. the Rail Corridor. you like to see at the node near your home?” and “How would you like to personally get Third Phase: Feedback on Concept Master involved and participate to realise some of Plan (2015 to 2016) the suggested ideas?”

On 18 March 2015, the URA launched the More than 600 members of the public shared “Rail Corridor—An Inspired and Extraordinary their views and suggested improvements Community Space” Request for Proposal regarding the winning designs. The eventual (RFP), inviting both local and international winning RFP consultants took the public design professionals to submit proposals to feedback on board, to refine the Concept Youth and Teachers: Multi-generation Families: Seniors (65+): develop a Concept Master Plan and Concept Master Plan for the Rail Corridor in 2016. Polytechnic and Family activities. Active ageing, Proposals to develop the Rail Corridor. The university students, etc. empty nesters, etc. RFP winners were announced in November Looking Ahead 2015 and their proposals exhibited to the Test Track accessible and inclusive to a wider segment public. Following the public engagement and of the population, particularly for the co-creation process, the URA began It became clear through the community elderly, families with young children and the Meanwhile, URA made special provisions implementing small-scale projects to test workshops held in 2016, that Singaporeans physically challenged. The URA has since to reach out to different target groups for some of the concepts that had emerged, to wanted the Rail Corridor to retain its constructed a 400-metre long test track on feedback on the winning ideas—particularly guide the future implementation of the Rail signature rustic green character, while the Rail Corridor at Choa Chu Kang to test the majority of the Singapore residents who Corridor. providing some amenities to make it more four different surface materials for their 132 133

INTERVIEW WITH TAN SEE NIN Senior Director, Physical Planning Urban Redevelopment Authority, Singapore

Ensuring Broad and Fair Public Engagement for the Rail Corridor 400-metre long test track at Choa Chu Kang. Co-creation means reaching out to develop a “look and feel” and durability. Since the phase of the Rail Corridor to be developed, shared vision, and being inclusive so that as wide completion of the test track in early June and to demonstrate to the public that their a segment of the population as possible can 2017, public has actively given feedback on feedback has been incorporated into the eventually benefit from our (the government’s) their preferred surface material or how they final plan. This four-kilometre section is plans—they are not just for those who are already can be improved for the future Rail Corridor located approximately midway along the familiar with the Rail Corridor, those who often trail. 24-kilometre corridor, from the former Bukit have strong opinions about what can and cannot Timah Railway Station to Hillview Road. The be done, or those who have already given voice to Co-Creation Project—Access Parks exhibition showcased the features and the their views in the public realm. We need to hear characteristics of the four-kilometre stretch more from others who are potential beneficiaries One of the design outcomes from the that will be implemented over the next few of the Rail Corridor but who may not even have public engagement and refinement of the years. visited the Corridor or voiced their opinions and Concept Master Plan was the idea of an suggestions for one reason or another. Access Park between the community and Conclusion the Rail Corridor. These parks would provide Over several weekends in January and February, ”programmable” community spaces close The Singapore Rail Corridor is a good 2016, we conducted a series of community walks and workshops with to identified entry points to the Corridor. example of a major public space project a wide range of people, from the young to the elderly, families with kids Local communities would be invited to where the planning vision and clear design and so on. On a number of occasions, we even brought in people on contribute ideas and work with agencies objectives committed by the government wheelchairs to explore a short stretch of the corridor. to co-design and co-develop the park provided the public with certainty that the according to their needs. This, and other strategy is to retain, if not enhance, the After the walks along the Rail Corridor, we wanted the participants to community-based initiatives, would provide greenery and heritage values for public share their experiences, and what they perceived and valued as important a platform for community building that will enjoyment. This in turn facilitated soliciting characteristics of the site that ought to be retained. When we talk about strengthen social bonds and resilience in the of ground-up views in a meaningful and co-creation, what’s very important is, first of all, to understand what do communities adjacent to the Rail Corridor. constructive manner. The scale and depth of people care about in a place, and also whether there is broad consensus consultations also allowed the government about what is important to everyone. Implementation of a Four-Kilometre to actively engage and collaborate with civil For instance, when we spoke to the Nature Society (of Singapore), they Signature Stretch society and communities, and co-create an inclusive Corridor that will connect existing never did raise any concerns about safety, because they are used to being close to nature. But when we brought the elderly there, they saw all this An exhibition was held in October 2017 communities throughout its 24-kilometre tall grass around the Rail Corridor and were worried that something or to share preliminary design for the four- length in a manner that its previous role as a someone might jump out at them from behind the vegetation. People kilometre signature stretch, which is the first rail line could not achieve. 134 135

in wheelchairs had great difficulty negotiating the uneven earth trail and members from the Rail Corridor Partnership. When it came to the final enjoying the place. In addition, while some people described the greenery decision, it was very clear that everyone wanted the tiger idea to be number as lovely and unique, others felt that the ubiquitous landscape could be one! monotonous and even a bit boring. Why did the Tiger’s Garden proposal win despite being completely During the workshops, we discussed issues relating to security and impractical? There was no way we would release tigers into the Rail accessibility, as well as how to strike a balance so that the Rail Corridor Corridor. Practicality was not an evaluation criterion. To the jury, it was more could be more accessible and welcoming to all while retaining its unique important how people felt about the place and the potential it offered as rustic character and charm. After a while, we got a clearer sense of what an extraordinary public space. When one imagined tigers roaming about people valued, and what they are prepared to compromise. Their comments the Rail Corridor as exemplified in the submitted graphic, it sort of took one invariably pointed to how we could sensitively improve the Rail Corridor, back in time as a child in one’s own dream world, traipsing through a forest so that it could become a more inclusive space for all. They also reaffirmed with a great sense of adventure, and immersed in romantic idealism of a the importance of protecting the intrinsic qualities and attractiveness of the wonderful place of surprise and discovery. place, and where it might be necessary to give nature a helping hand to flourish. What we took away from this competition and subsequent engagement exercises were the values that people embraced: in this case, people wanted On Co-creation and Reimagining the Rail Corridor to retain a sense of mystique along the Rail Corridor; that there should always be elements of surprise, discovery and adventure; that it should not become a sanitised park or public space. These were to become the defining attributes of the Rail Corridor, and were eventually subsequently distilled in the form of the Planning and Design Goals in the RFP (Request for Proposal—An Inspired and Extraordinary Community Space) for the Rail Corridor.

In my view, co-creation of a public space can start by keeping an open mind to find out how people feel about the place, what makes sense to them, how it can meet their needs, and what role they can play to make the place a very special one for themselves and the community at large. There must be an emotional connection between the place and the community. Ultimately, the measure of success of a space, such as the Rail Corridor, depends on whether people, over time, will continue to see it as an endearing place to visit and enjoy; whether they will come with their family Artist’s impression for Tiger’s Garden by Oculus, an Australian landscape and friends and even bring overseas visitors to experience it as a unique part architecture firm. of Singapore. The understanding of people’s values about a place stood out with the Rail Corridor Ideas Competition—The Journey of Possibilities—held between late 2011 and 2012.

One of the winning proposals was to convert the Rail Corridor into a Tiger Enclosure! The “Tiger’s Garden” was submitted under Extraordinary Ideas for a Public Space—one of the competition’s five categories. The judging panel included renowned architect Khoo Peng Beng as Chairman and 136 137

Singapore Demographics of Tampines Town Our Tampines Hub (OTH)

220 000 24% residents across are aged The opening of Our Tampines Hub, Singapore’s first integrated community and lifestyle hub. between 60 000 50 and 64 households OTH offers more than 30 community, sports, Introduction years old cultural, civic and lifestyle facilities. Through Singapore has developed a comprehensive system of community organisations and integrated programming, OTH complements amenities integrated with the planning of the People’s Association’s (PA) existing 25% public housing towns. These ranged from community facilities in Tampines Town. OTH Malays in Residents’ Committees Centres at the also functions as a one-stop service hub for residential precinct level, to the Community Centres at government and other municipal services. population the neighbourhood level. However, with an Significant increasingly sophisticated population, there A Multi-Stakeholder Collaborative number is a growing need for larger community Design Process of families with developments to provide greater variety of young children services and amenities for the residents. The development of OTH was guided by three principles: resident-centricity; Our Tampines Hub (OTH) is Singapore’s first optimisation of resources and infrastructure; integrated community and lifestyle hub. It and encouraging community ownership is a town-level community node catering to through resident engagement. Significant focus group studies and house visits, to To further engender a sense of ownership, the evolving lifestyle needs of over 220,000 emphasis was placed on resident better understand what they wanted to members of the community were consulted residents living in Tampines and in the engagement during the design of OTH. see more of in their community, in terms and invited to vote for, the design of the OTH surrounding neighbourhoods in eastern of facilities and activities. Block parties, logo. Singapore. With a site area of 5.7 hectares From 2013 to 2014, the PA reached out to roadshows, circulated newsletters and social and floor area of 120,000 square metres, 15,000 Tampines residents through surveys, media were also used to create awareness and anticipation of the development of OTH. 138 139

The third “E” was empathy. It was really through such engagements that we learnt to be more conscious of the daily needs of the community. This was particularly challenging, because Tampines is a huge community. INTERVIEW WITH However, this engagements helped the community to empathise with the planners’ dilemma and to understand that “given this tight site, we can’t SEAH CHEE HUANG have everything.” Director, DP Architects Pte Ltd This is key towards a larger process of empowerment, which was Lead Architect for Our Tampines Hub, Singapore the fourth “E”. This was about the long term sustenance of such developments. It was about instilling ownership and encouraging more in- depth and continual community participation so that the community could What is the Community Engagement take on the ongoing role as stewards of such spaces. The volunteers, who Strategy for Our Tampines Hub were enlisted from the community itself, helped co-create these spaces. (OTH)? Last but not least, there’s evaluation. This is really about an ongoing Our Tampines Hub was designed with, process of taking stock. With projects of this nature that revolve around by and for the residents and community the everyday lives of a community, there will never be a perfect solution of Tampines. We used a “five-E” design or design. Rather, there will be parts which will evolve almost daily. So, process: engagement, enriching, you need to continually review decisions made with stakeholders and the empowerment, empathise and community, and then decide together how you can refine and improve. evaluation. How did you translate feedback into ideas for design? For the first “E”—engagement—we created opportunities for a two-way Even before we started, the planners for Tampines already had five key exchange to communicate regarding threads of engagement: Creative Tampines, Green Tampines, Active the development and its consequences Tampines, Learning Tampines and Caring Tampines. These cover many for the residents, including possible of the different facets of services and programmes already offered to temporary inconveniences. We met residents. Hence, there was already a structure we could use to engage with residents to explain the values that residents with, to address any queries or concerns the community might OTH could bring in terms of facilities, have, to develop ideas further. programmes, and in turn, the richness it could bring to their way of life. We The Re-imagining Tampines programme and its discussion on walkability also established a variety of channels to laid a foundation for realising ideas: for example, while planned street reach out to as many of the residents of works meant that the OTH would be surrounded on three sides by Tampines as possible. Our outreach was vehicular roads, the broader engagement, even beyond OTH itself, gave done at different levels and scales: from us the chance to review these plans with stakeholders. We managed to roadshows, newsletters, social media reframe the traffic assessment studies entirely and got approval from LTA channels and websites, to block parties and even floor parties, particularly (Land Transport Authority) to not cut a road through the OTH site, but in areas more directly affected by the construction. instead to maintain a very friendly, accessible site that would link the hub directly to the central Tampines park. In this situation, the biggest winner The second “E”—enriching—was about the quality of information and was the community itself. knowledge exchanged. A recurrent piece of feedback we received from different groups of residents was that they did not want to see yet another What does community ownership mean to you? What does co- shopping mall. As a result, we modified some of our zoning to create more creation mean to you? inclusive and accessible programmes on the first storey. A larger portion of space was also set aside as community spaces with less commercialised Community ownership is about empowering the local residents to activities. be accountable and responsible for decisions made. That means the 140 141

community takes charge of what they have. To some extent, this idea Resident Engagement in Numbers of ownership has to come together with co-creation, which means you collaborate with others to create something. You come together to give of your best, whatever your role is, to the whole process.

Co-creation requires alignment. It involves a larger team, all reaching out towards an aligned vision. It is through this process that you instil ownership. Because when you feel that you are part of the authorship—in this case, not just of the building but also of spaces and places—naturally, you will feel responsible for the things that you have created. With that comes a sense of responsibility: to say, okay, let’s make sure that this is well taken care of, well run, well maintained, and that collectively, we can create programmes or systems to sustain these things that we created together. 8 870 Impact of Engagement vibrancy to the area. OTH also adheres to Focus / Interest Group Discussions Volunteers the highest standards of Universal Design in Feedback and suggestions from residents incorporating access-friendly features site- informed the design process, helping to wide, child-friendly playgrounds and railing shape the development around community design, and so on. needs and interests. For example, feedback revealed that residents did not want a 15 000 standard competitive running track around Residents Engaged the sports field, but preferred a rubberised track and distance markings to facilitate 12 recreational jogging. This led to the Months Spent on 3 000 5 Block Parties development of a town square which could Engagement Residents double up as a sports field. An elevated Participated 10 Floor Parties running track was later creatively integrated in Ground into the public walkway on Level Five of the Breaking Road Shows development. 11

Public engagement also revealed that residents valued mobility-friendliness. OTH requirements that had been garnered during convenience of residents. The Centre also was thus designed with a highly porous Public service at Our Tampines Hub functions the course of engagement during the features an e-lobby that operates around the ground floor, facilitating various forms of as one-stop service hub for government and planning stage. clock. mobility, with more bicycle parking provisions municipal services. than originally planned for. This also Moreover, this collaboration and coordination OTH also coordinates stakeholder reinforced the distinctive identity of Tampines Stakeholder Coordination between multiple stakeholders has extended programmes into an integrated framework as Singapore’s first cycling town. beyond the development stages. A key to meet the diverse needs of the community. Twelve stakeholder agencies were involved outcome of this inter-agency collaboration Programming is customised for different A sheltered pedestrian street (Festive in the planning of OTH. Led by PA, the for OTH has been the setting up of the target demographics from families, youth Walk) also runs eastwards and westwards Hub had adopted a coordinated approach Public Service Centre—a centre which and young professionals to the elderly and through the heart of the hub, connecting across various government agencies in its integrates the local service branches of seven various ethnic groups. residents from Tampines Central to and planning and development, to ensure the government agencies under one roof for the from the Central Park, further bringing effective implementation of diverse resident 142 143

The OTH Integrated Programming of all programmes and events at the Hub. Major Developments in Framework includes: They also help with the management Existing Communities and maintenance of the Eco-Community • Synergising with programmes available Garden, assist with operations at the at other community clubs; Information Counter, administer customer Gyeongui Line surveys and provide assistance for various • Hosting national and iconic sporting programmes and events. There are plans to • Gyeongui Line Forest Park is a 6.3-kilometre long linear park and arts events; train volunteers to be Hub guides for the redeveloped from a disused railway line. Community Gallery and Visitor Centre, when • The Park was developed over two phases, with the second phase these are ready, in late 2017. • Integrating with stakeholders’ respective focusing more on community engagement and collection of feedback event calendars; to address design issues in phase one. Conclusion: A Collaborative, • Integrating with and piloting “Smart Multi-Stakeholder Effort for a • Management of the Park was designed as a private-public Nation” initiatives at the OTH; Community Hub collaboration, with Gyeongui Line Forest Park Council set up, comprising of representatives from local councils, city councillors, civil • Shaping the behaviour and culture of The OTH was officially opened in August servants and experts. visitors; and 2017. The successful completion of the first integrated community hub was not through • Seeking residents’ feedback and the efforts of any single entity or individual, Rail Corridor perspectives. but through the result of multi-stakeholder collaborations involving residents, various • The Rail Corridor is a 24-kilometre long former railway line that used to Volunteer Management public agencies and non-governmental connect Singapore to Malaysia. organisations working together to address • Diverse engagement activities organised by the URA, ranging the diverse needs of Tampines residents. This A volunteer movement is important for from dialogues with NGOs, public exhibitions, community events, enabled community spaces in public housing sustaining on-going resident engagement. community workshops, and ideas competition. Involving volunteers promotes the exchange towns to remain relevant to people amidst of information and ideas among residents, rapidly evolving lifestyles. OTH will continue • Public engagement began as a “clean slate”, with the URA not having which in turn further improves OTH to engage with residents and visitors through a draft plan in hand, and based on key objectives of fostering shared programming, facilities and services. As a variety of channels and platforms, to vision and ownership, raising public awareness and getting community of April 2017, OTH had recruited 1,900 ensure that facilities and programmes remain buy-in, and strengthening community bonding. volunteers. aligned with what people find useful or wish to see at the Hub. OTH has also been working with the Our Tampines Hub Tampines Kindness Movement—the local offshoot of the Singapore Kindness • Our Tampines Hub is Singapore’s first integrated community and Movement, a non-governmental lifestyle hub provides more than 30 community, sports, cultural, civic organisation that promotes graciousness and lifestyle facilities within a site area of 5.7 hectares. in society—to support volunteerism. This • Inter-agency collaboration between the 12 stakeholder public agencies is being done by promoting ground-up ensured successful implementation. initiatives by Tampines residents, and by facilitating volunteer contribution • Extensive resident outreach was conducted through activities of across different facets of its operations. various scales—including roadshows, newsletters, social media Volunteers have been actively involved in channels and websites, block parties—during the design and the planning, organisation and participation implementation process. 144 145

CASE STUDIES Seoul Vibrant Community Center (VCC) Community Background Building spaces in dong offices had to be Participation and significantly reconfigured to accommodate A community space is a place where the new VCCs. These office buildings now Ownership residents meet and interact with one another, house a range of functions run by different and take part in community activities. entities: the Resident Center by the RSGC; Recognising the importance of such spaces, the dong-office administrative areas by the Seoul Metropolitan Government (SMG) public servants; and the VCCs. For the VCC had supported some 240 private community initiative to succeed, cooperation between spaces as part of a Village Community the different stakeholders is key. policy, and created 20 public community spaces through the Residential Environment The Participatory Design Process Management Program (see Page 97) by 2015. However, most of the privately-run In 2015, SMG selected four dongs to pilot community spaces have had to close because the VCCs, based on the needs and capacities of soaring rents, and many publicly-run ones of their residents, the commitment of have been neglected due to lack of resident their respective dong-office leaders and Active community participation in neighbourhood improvements, participation. their dong-office building conditions. A core planning group—the Public-Private and a sense of ownership of community spaces among residents, Vibrant Community Center (VCC) is an SMG Participatory Group (PPPG)—was formed for are outcomes that planners often strive to achieve. However, project to create autonomous, resident-run each VCC. Comprising resident volunteers, these outcomes require appropriate interventions. There may community spaces in dong-office buildings. RSGC members and public servants, each also be many barriers to progress: engagement platforms may A dong office is a local administrative PPPG’s main role is to determine how best to institution set up in each of Seoul’s 423 design and manage their respective VCCs. be inaccessible or unattractive; financial constraints or a lack dongs (neighbourhoods). Each dong The PPPG is also tasked with implementing a of administrative knowledge or a lack of suitable space may all office hosts a Resident Center, managed building management scheme. A community hinder the implementation of community-initiated ideas. by a Resident Self-Governing Committee officer—the most senior public official (RSGC). While RSGCs are legally recognised for dong-level community affairs in South Korea—manages the project. This section includes examples in Seoul and Singapore where organisations, most lack the operational competence and commitment to run the respective governments had launched initiatives to facilitate Resident Centers, which are managed instead Appointed experts on participatory design, more participation and cultivate a deeper sense of ownership by public servants. including social architects and shared space within communities. In Seoul, the lack of physical space for managers, support each PPPG’s deliberations. They prepare communicative events, provide community activities is a fundamental issue as most of the land in The spaces under the Resident Center were used only for art classes or leisure activities professional advice and resolve conflicts the city is privately owned. As such, the SMG (Seoul Metropolitan instead of more meaningful community within the PPPG. Government) has been focusing on making spaces available for initiatives. The VCC initiative aims to address communities through financially feasible and sustainable means. this by using dong offices as more accessible Having established the basic structure for the and active community spaces rather than just VCC initiative, the SMG and Local District In Singapore, where public housing town plans provide well for administrative facilities, in order to encourage Governments (LDGs) provide only indirect community spaces, the focus has been on creating accessible resident autonomy and create capacity to support. engagement platforms to encourage residents to participate, as sustain operations. well as setting up programmes that offer the support needed for communities to revitalise their neighbourhoods. 146 147

Process of Setting up VCC

2.5 months • Select suitable dongs in which to set up VCCs Preparatory based on onsite evaluations, public hearings and opinion gathering sessions.

3 months • Hold regular workshops to discuss spatial Planning design and a management scheme.

Design workshops for Vibrant Community Centers.

2 months Dobong-Gu, the northernmost gu in Seoul, dong-office building space. The group then is well known for its rich grassroots activities, discussed the goals of the VCC, as well as its • Construction. with Banghak3-Dong being its most vibrant spatial design. Implementation • Form Resident Manager Group (RMG) to neighbourhood. The dong’s population oversee the daily operations of VCC. of 31,000, 95% of whom live in high-rise Redesigning existing spaces is often a zero- apartments, hold occasional flea markets, sum game, in which one stakeholder gains at garden parties and local festivals. the expense of another. The design experts facilitated a participatory design process by Although the Banghak3-Dong office offering good examples of similar projects, 1 to 2 months is in an accessible location within the developing design toolkits and providing plan Pilot Operation • Hold opening ceremony, and RMG starts to neighbourhood, its Resident Center had not drawings that were easy to understand. manage the VCC thereafter. been well used. Its main space—a lecture room—was unsuitable for most activities These design workshops helped the PPPG other than for cultural classes. An outside reach a consensus on a spatial configuration terrace has been closed due to safety for the VCC. The office space was concerns. The training room and kitchen, reorganised to create a comfortable working Most (82%) of the PPPGs’ participants The VCCs have become truly vibrant, although in high demand, were located in environment on the first floor, while the are residents, with an average of six to 25 resident-driven community spaces, hosting the basement, making access difficult. The second floor, where the Resident Center was resident volunteers helping to manage the community programmes ranging from flea space was often fully booked for official located, was redesigned as a multi-purpose VCC in each dong. Since the launch of the markets and cooking classes to cooperative meetings, leaving residents with little space to cater to community needs, with a VCCs, the time spent by residents on helping child care and jazz concerts, all run by opportunity to use it for their own social lounge, a childcare room and a kitchen with to manage community spaces has increased residents. activities. an open terrace, as well as a reconfigurable by 150%, compared to the existing Resident lecture room. These flexible, shared-space Centers. The SMG-appointed design experts held solutions helped increase community space several workshops to help Banghak3-Dong’s in the dong office by almost three-fold from 20-member PPPG create and manage a VCC. 84.2 square metres to 248.7 square metres. PPPG members were first introduced to the 148 149

or responsibilities of various entities and These efforts led to an enormous increase set operating schedules. As part of the in the number of residents visiting: an collaboration between RMG and RSGC, average of more than 2,000 people visited seven managers were appointed as RSGC or used the Centre each month, compared members, with one being made chief to just 916 in February before the VCC was manager to head the branch. This gave the launched. RMG access to the RSGC’s decision-making regarding the resident centre. Participation satisfaction has also been high. Respondents to an SMG survey felt that At the residents’ request, the RMG ran the VCC had contributed to revitalising and community programmes on arts, culture, and broadening their communities, and that humanities, and even operated a community resident-led management was working well. radio station, with residents recording These encouraging outcomes have given the podcasts every Wednesday. They also held resident-led RMG a sense of accomplishment frequent small concerts, exhibitions, and and ownership. potluck parties. VCC Participant Satisfaction Survey Results

Workshop for space design of Vibrant Community Center. Banghak3-Dong Average of 4 Dongs

It was not easy to figure out how to initiate The PPPG held workshops to work out Does VCC create vibrancy 4.26 3.96 resident-led management of the VCCs. details such as the opening hours, the role in the community? There were two main issues. Firstly, it was of managers and operating regulations. not clear as to who had the right to use the They also identified three sources of Did new residents space, authorise programmes and determine financing: profit-making businesses, support 4.43 4.02 participate? the budget. A Resident Manager Group from RSGC’s fund and space rental fees. (RMG) had been set up to carry out the daily Unfortunately, it was not clear at the time Is VCC being operated operations of the VCC, but the VCC’s space that the third source of financing was 4.43 4.07 was overlapping with the existing Resident prohibited by laws disallowing publicly- well? Center managed by the RSGC, which did not owned spaces from being rented out for want to give up its legal right to the space. profit. Is collaboration with 4.30 3.96 Secondly, the residents needed to secure RSGC appropriate? financial resources in order to manage the After reaching agreements on the use of VCC sustainably and independently. And space in 2016, the RMG showed remarkable Does the VCC 3.61 3.56 so, negotiations over these issues held up results. Comprising 25 managers (who manager want to keep the implementation of the VCC for some are also resident volunteers) and 14 responsibility? time. After reviewing feasible alternatives volunteers, each RMG staff member would and relevant ordinances, it was decided that work 12 hours a month, so that the VCC Without SMG support, the RSGC and RMG would form an official could remain open from 10:00 a.m. to 3.61 3.32 partnership, that would share the right to use 9:00 p.m. on weekdays. An operational should VCC continue? and operate the VCC. manual was drafted to spell out the roles (Scored out of 5) Source: Seoul Institute 150 151

Conclusion

The VCC programme holds some important lessons for making a community space vibrant. Firstly, substantive planning and strong commitment can help bring out a deeper sense of ownership from residents. Despite long and difficult negotiations, the PPPG showed great determination in creating a resident-led community space. Secondly, involving residents in preparation of an appropriate spatial design and management plan is essential. Residents can contribute by highlighting issues not previously anticipated and help find feasible solutions that they can agree upon and act on. They can also uncover unexpected yet critical problems, and help find feasible solutions acceptable to the community. Thirdly, financial sustainability is crucial; inadequate operational funds will fundamentally limit the development of a community space. Finally, although the VCC relies on resident volunteers for site management, this may not be sustainable in the long term. The SMG recognises this problem as a future policy challenge for community spaces, and has developed a community asset strategy. This will be discussed in the case study on citizen-owned community spaces.

Community activities held at the improved shared space (top) and outdoor terrace (bottom) of Banghak 3-Dong. 152 153

time, the Vibrant Community Center provides residents with opportunities to create and manage their own community space.

INTERVIEW WITH How did you encourage participants to settle conflicting interests and reach consensus? MIN-JU JEON Director, That’s a tough question. There is no correct answer. What’s important is that we listen carefully to what the conflict is about. Many conflicts are Seoul Community Support Center (SCSC) caused by a difference in attitude and culture arising during the course of communication, not by a difference in aim or goal. This is why it is important to offer training and classes to residents on what separates Tell us about the Center. “difference” from “discrimination”, and what cultural diversity and democratic discussions are about. The best thing is for residents to get to The Seoul Community Support Center know each other over time, understand each other, concede, compromise (SCSC) was founded in August 2012 as an and cooperate to settle their differences and reach a consensus among intermediary organisation to implement themselves. the community empowerment policies of the Seoul Metropolitan Government But this is really challenging, which is why communication experts are (SMG). We work with the SMG to provide brought in as mediators. Facilitators are brought in to help community support on-site. Our aim is to create planning; a shared-space manager is brought in to help the Vibrant communities where residents develop and Community Center ensure that decision-making processes are understood shape their own plans according to their by all, and undertaken in a reasonable manner. needs. To do this, we study and develop community empowerment policies, train What was the most challenging aspect of the Vibrant Community community activists, develop and test Center programme? programmes that support communities in Seoul and provide consultancy to The Vibrant Community Center programme allows residents, experts and intermediary organisations for gu district the government to work together to transform part of the dong office level governments. into community space, which is then run by resident volunteers. First, residents have to find out how much community space is needed and if What is the background behind dong- there is demand for it. The public officials then secure a space and provide level community planning and Vibrant a budget. Experts offer their insights to residents as they design the space Community Center projects? and discuss how the centre should be run, while skilfully facilitating the views of both residents and public officials. The programme has been The main policy goal of the SMG is to successful because all three groups were committed to their roles without help more residents experience what any major issues. “community” is all about. By doing so, residents learn to settle issues they face on their own; they also enjoy the rewarding experience of renewing It may sound simple, but the process is extremely challenging. Experts, trust in their neighbours. in particular, need to be incredibly patient and sympathetic, because logic alone is not enough to help residents and public officials reach a But residents alone cannot change their local community for the better. consensus. I’m very grateful to the the shared space managers and social That’s why we started promoting community activities through public architects for their hard work. and private partnerships at the dong level in 2015. The dong office is the forefront administrative body in direct contact with citizens. Through this platform, we promoted dong-level community planning and the Vibrant Community Center. Dong-level community planning allows residents in a dong area to discuss and resolve common local issues together. At the same 154 155

What do you think are the most important elements when creating a Seoul resident-led community space? Namuguneul: Citizen Ownership of Community Spaces Community space is more effective when residents are directly involved in the process of creating it. It’s important for residents to know from the start Background Nevertheless, some profit-generating that no one else will manage the spaces for them, so that they design a community activities have been able to space that they can operate among themselves and set their own rules of Seoul supports community spaces in two sustain these centres economically in this operation for. main ways: one is by providing public-owned high-cost environment, while continuing to community facilities; the other is by assisting empower the community and generating Residents should also take the lead in finding a sustained source of funding residents in developing their own spaces. intangible social value. However, the and the personnel needed to run their community space. They need to learn The latter is more consistent with the current economic value that these communities that ownership does not stop at generating ideas; they must be able to put policy goal of empowering communities; create still ends up with property owners their ideas into action. The commitment, courage and wisdom to invest residents have a stronger sense of ownership instead of the community. time and effort to run a community space are the most important elements and are much more willing to be involved needed for ownership. when they create their own community To address this issue, Seoul has adopted spaces, rather than when it is provided by an experimental citizen ownership policy, someone else. which allows for shared ownership and management of community spaces. This Between 2012 to 2015, Seoul supported the safeguards public access to these facilities, development of 240 citizen-led community and the proceeds that these “community spaces. However, high rental costs in Seoul assets” generate are returned to the local make it extremely difficult to maintain non- community. profit community spaces, particularly since buildings cost several billion KRW or more.

Citizen Ownership of Community Spaces

Managed Jointly with Citizens

Public Citizen Private Ownership Ownership Ownership

Managed Directly by Citizens 156 157

In 2016, the SMG founded the Seoul Proposals submitted online were shortlisted etiquette and customs from the elderly. These To better organise community activities in the Governance Bureau (SGB) to promote by citizens and then submitted for review, childcare initiatives have led to the setting neighbourhood, Namuguneul established a private-public collaboration in city during which the project teams presented up of a centre for mothers and a children’s cooperative in 2013 to manage the facility. administration and identify innovative their proposals to 100 citizen investors. bookstore. In 2016, a childcare centre was Any resident who agrees with the aims of the solutions to urban problems. Each proposal for citizen ownership was opened near Namuguneul. cooperative can join; members jointly invest evaluated against a range of criteria, such in and run the cooperative with a strong The SGB is based on the principle that public as sustainability, feasibility and public good. Residents also come together to resolve sense of responsibility and ownership. In space is necessary to sustain civic society and Projects that received the most support economic issues and boost local business. 2016, there were 192 members—mostly local local communities. As such public spaces would be selected. Through this process, Local flea markets are a regular occurrence, residents—including four space managers, should not be publicly or privately owned, Namuguneul­—a shared house, community and community trucks have been provided 28 volunteers involved in operations, and but rather, be an asset shared by citizens. garden and local culture and arts space—was for store owners to share. The community 13 executives. Key decisions within the selected as Seoul’s first citizen ownership has also developed a community currency cooperative are made through voting, with To develop an appropriate citizen ownership asset. (called Local Exchange Trading System: LETS) voting rights accorded to all members. policy for Seoul, the SGB set up an for use by local residents and shops. Offered intermediary non-government organisation— Case study: Namuguneul— as vouchers, this local currency system the Citizen Common Ground Network A Community Space Created was used by some 60 local shops by the (CCGN)—to engage citizens from the ground by Residents end of 2016, and by all stalls in the nearby up. traditional market by February 2017. Namuguneul (meaning “Shadow of Tree”) SGB’s plan was to set up a public trust is a community space located in Yeomni- Activities and Programmes that would manage funds contributed by dong, Mapo-gu—one of the most active Offered at Namugunuel individuals, businesses and institutions, to districts in Seoul in terms of local community be used for the public interest. Legislation campaigns and activities. Opened in July for the system was introduced in March 2011 by local resident activists as a base for 2015. The trust would then set up a Citizen their community empowerment initiatives, Ownership Foundation (COF) to attract Namuguneul consists of a public café and a and manage other sources of financing, meeting space used for community classes, including public and private assets, as an concerts and club activities. It offers a investment platform for citizen ownership. convenient location for residents to meet The Foundation would be responsible for and interact in daily life, resulting in a vibrant education, training and consultation as well neighbourhood network over time. as for the fair distribution of profits. The COF would be jointly funded and owned by the Community activities at Namuguneul are Arts and Culture Childcare Boost Community Economy SMG and citizen investors, who would hold organised by volunteer managers, based on A diverse selection of arts Neighbourhood-initiated majority shares and be directly involved in residents’ needs and interests. The space and cultural clubs. community childcare Local flea markets. fundraising and investment decisions. houses several arts and cultural clubs, and for mothers to help one Residents’ performance Development of hosts evening music concerts and community another. Aiming to establish a public trust and the theatre shows performed by residents, for at evening music community currency COF by 2017, the SMG launched a pilot residents. These have grown into a small concerts and community Mothers monitor (called Local Exchange platform named Fair Start: Campaign for annual community festival held each autumn. theaters, with fellow community playgrounds. Trading System: LETS) residents as audience. for use by residents and Citizen Ownership. It sought to educate, Mothers’ centre and a shops in the community. train and recruit interested project teams and Mothers in the neighbourhood started Small community festival children’s bookstore. citizen investors. Fair Start also selected the community childcare support groups to every autumn. first community asset to be subsidised by the help each other and share useful advice. Childcare centre public trust and owned by citizens. They monitor community playgrounds and within the vicinity of hold events where children learn traditional Namuguneu. 158 159

viable, as overall rents in the area had Namuguneul’s Expenditures and Revenues also increased. The members tried to raise additional funds through organising a fund- raising party, but collected only KRW 20 million, far short of the deposit needed to renew the contract.

The timely introduction of the Fair Start campaign gave the community space a Revenue Dividends/ Seoul’s first citizen ownership asset— chance to secure its future. As part of KRW 68.4 million Expenditure: Namuguneul which functions as a shared its proposal for Campaign funding, the per year KRW 45.99 million house, community garden and local culture Namuguneul team found a suitable building per year and arts space. in the vicinity and prepared a plan to turn the three-storey building into a shared community complex with a performance hall, community cafe, shared office, joint- management childcare centre, and shared housing. It also created new programmes, based on the existing activities, to ensure Citizen profitability and sustainability. Ownership Cost KRW 1.8 billion The estimated cost of the proposed Community activities held in Namuguneul. relocation was KRW 1.8 billion, including KRW 1.5 billion for the purchase of the Financial Challenges of Operating building. Of this, 20% was to be paid by a Community Space Namuguneul, 35% through a loan from the Policy Challenges for Citizen for properties of value to the community, Social Investment Fund, and the rest (45%) Ownership and financial assistance for communities in Despite Namuguneul’s success in activating by the public trust and the COF under the London. the community, rising rentals threatened the Campaign framework. Namuguneul also While such efforts to create citizen-owned viability of the facility. Each year, the property promised that once it has been converted assets in Seoul are ongoing, challenges Lastly, there must be social consensus on owner raised the rent (KRW 2.42 million per into a community asset, it would invest 10% remain. The first is developing a financially citizen ownership. Seoul’s real estate market month in 2012) by the full 9% allowable of its annual profit of KRW 22.4 million as its sustainable model for community facilities. is highly privatised. Much of the land is under Seoul’s law. This was high, relative to contribution towards citizen ownership. Support for citizen ownership is effective only privately owned, and property rights are inflation of about 2% in the same period. when a community space is able to fulfil its heavily protected, while public awareness Hence, the majority of profits generated by Given its track record and detailed proposal, financial obligations. and experience of citizen ownership are low. the community space ended up with the the Namuguneul proposal garnered the property owner. The turning point came in highest score in the Fair Star review and The second challenge is to amend the Citizen ownership is not about curtailing 2016, when the owner demanded that the was selected as the pilot citizen-ownership relevant laws and regulations to adapt to the rights of property owners, but about premises either be vacated (as the five-year project. current circumstance. For community spaces creating a system in which those who lease period guaranteed by law had ended), to become viable assets, the law must contribute to community empowerment can or for the monthly rent to be increased As of mid-2017, the Namuguneul project is guarantee a minimum lease period and rents share in the value and profits generated by to KRW 3.5 million per month (with a still underway. The Namuguneul cooperative at affordable levels. The SMG plans to lobby their community. In this way, local identity corresponding increase in the deposit from has been saving its profits and improving its for the relevant ordinances to be revised and diversity are not only protected from KRW 30 million to 100 million). citizen ownership plan, while the CCGN has by the National Assembly. Experts are also gentrification and real estate market forces, been working on establishing a public trust advocating the introduction of measures but can be enhanced to contribute towards The members considered several options. to raise funds. Namuguneul is set to become similar to the UK’s system of lease periods, a more socially and economically sustainable Moving to an adjacent location was not a citizen-owned community asset in 2019. which is complemented with rent controls city. 160 161

Singapore Hello Neighbour: Social Linkway and Neighbourhood Incubator Project

Background decks. At the same time, they also meet convivially in ‘third places’ such as coffee Neighbourhoods are where homes are, shops and supermarkets. and where communities are built. They are both physical and social spaces in which The study also showed that residents who neighbourly relations—fundamental to frequently use the amenities in their precincts strengthening social cohesion and social registered a stronger sense of belonging capital—are nurtured. How neighbourhoods and community. This strengthens the case are designed can affect the frequency and for suitable design interventions to promote nature of our daily interactions with each greater usage of estate amenities and other, and therefore has a significant impact enhance neighbourly interactions. on community building. Design Typologies to Enhance Community Residents play an active role in shaping their community spaces through engagement sessions. In 2012, Singapore’s Housing & Development Bonding the incubator with Resident Committee (RC) interviews and design workshops. These shed Board (HDB) initiated a collaborative centres. light on how the existing spaces were used, study with the National University of The research distilled nine design strategies what social functions could be incorporated Singapore (NUS) to review and distil and six typologies. Two design typologies Prototyping of Social Linkway and and how they could be better designed to good neighbourhood designs which have were later tested and studied. One of these Neighbourhood Incubator Concepts encourage greater use and social interaction. facilitated community bonding in the past. is the social linkway concept, in which Working with the NUS Centre for Sustainable supporting facilities and functions are To assess feasibility and effectiveness, The engagement process saw more than Asian Cities and Sociology Department, integrated with linkways to increase the HDB prototyped the social linkway and 1,000 Tampines residents and stakeholders Faculty of Arts and Social Science at NUS, chances of interaction. This strategy is based the Neighbourhood Incubator concepts in coming together to design their very HDB also sought to uncover new design on the insight that neighbours tend to meet Tampines Central, in partnership with NUS, own Social Linkway and Neighbourhood strategies to make our housing estates more and interact incidentally in unplanned places the People’s Assocation (PA), the Town Incubator, via pop-up booths, focus community-friendly and neighbourly. such as lift lobbies and linkways, especially during peak hours when there is a heavy flow Council and other relevant agencies. group discussions, design workshops, and Key Research Findings of residents through these thoroughfares. interactive boards. At the moment, such places are primarily Participatory Planning to Engage the Community—“Hello Neighbour! @ Survey results indicated that community From 2012 to 2014, an extensive survey of designed to be transitional, but they can Tampines Central” participation in neighbourhood improvement some 2,200 residents in various precincts be designed to promote more active social works would help to improve the living across mature, middle-aged and newer engagement. Coined the “Hello Neighbour! @ Tampines environment, and that residents looked towns was conducted, along with several Central Project”, this test implementation forward to opportunities to contribute focus group discussions, to understand usage The research also highlighted the importance was conducted from July 2014 to end 2015. improvement ideas for their estate. and interaction patterns, resident needs, and of providing a one-stop community hub that factors contributing to a sense of community. can accommodate community activities as well as incubate ground-up initiatives, where To realise these design typologies, HDB Through these engagements, residents were and NUS also tested a participatory able to play an active role in shaping their The research study revealed that HDB residents can contribute to the community planning approach. Residents and relevant community spaces. precincts do offer multiple opportunities and influence decision-making. This led to stakeholders were engaged through several for neighbours to meet. Residents tend to the Neighbourhood Incubator concept. Since rounds of focus group discussions, in-depth Implementing the Social Linkway and encounter their neighbours incidentally, in this approach requires strong community places such as lift lobbies, linkways and void involvement, it was important to co-locate 162 163

Precinct Spaces for Casual Daily Interactions between Neighbours

linkways

void decks

Residents try their hand at handicraft at the “Art Link.”

lift lobby

retail shops

coffee shops

Voluntary gardeners cultivating plants for the Green Link.

Neighbourhood Incubator co-build the Green Link and Art Link. At the Green Link, voluntary gardeners came The Social Linkway at Tampines Central together to adopt and grow plants on a Blocks 830 to 863 consists of four ‘links’: trellis, while residents contributed to wall Green Link, Play Link, Learning Link and Art murals, art banners and sculptures made of Link. It integrates a commonly-used linkway recycled bicycles at the Art Link. with adjacent supporting community facilities and functions. Residents were invited to Note: Number of people indicates likelihood of neighbours meeting at each location. 164 165

Outcomes of the Social Linkway and the Neighbourhood Incubator

200

More than 1 in 3 users interacted with their neighbours at these new spaces.

The new spaces registered an average of close to BLK 200 unique 839 visitors per day. The converted void deck at Blk 839 attracted some 55 residents each day.

Before and after: Learning Link at void deck of Tampines Central Block 839.

The Neighbourhood Incubator at Tampines an average of 13 minutes per day in the new Residents spent Central Block 857 is designed as a multi- spaces—long enough for a chit-chat over a an average of functional space. Equipped with movable drink. stools, it can be easily converted for residents 13 minutes Residents stayed for about to participate in community workshops, or In particular, the converted void deck of Block per day at the new at the café, get-togethers such as potluck sessions and 839, with its community café and library, spaces. 20 minutes flea markets. was a rousing success. It attracted some 55 mingling and chatting with their residents each day, each staying an average neighbours. After the social linkway and neighbourhood of 20 minutes at the cafe to mingle with incubator in Tampines were completed their neighbours. The converted space also in enclosed spaces. Now more visible, building consensus on decision affecting their at the end of 2015, HDB conducted site saw more ground-up initiatives organised the activities have also attracted greater common spaces and in the process, foster surveys and interviews to assess their use and by residents, such as pot luck sessions and participation from residents nearby, sparking a stronger sense of ownership. HDB is now community interaction levels over a two- cooking classes. conversations among passers-by. looking into how the positive outcomes of month period. Through a variety of analytical these initiatives might be extended to other tools, including video data, they found that The neighbourhood incubator at Tampines Conclusion neighbourhoods and programmes. At the the new spaces enjoyed an average of almost Central has since become a conducive same time, HDB is also continuing to explore 200 unique visitors per day. More than one in space for residents to meet and bond over In the process of co-creating their own new design strategies to facilitate community three of these resident visitors interacted with community activities such as baking and neighbourhood spaces, the Tampines Central bonding and shared ownership in HDB their neighbours, during which they spent balloon sculpting, which used to be held community has come together as one, to neighbourhoods. 166 167

Tell us more about the creation of the Learning Link

I wanted to make the RC space more visible and useful. We were fortunate INTERVIEW WITH that the space identified by HDB for this project is well-located. Many people walk past here daily. When HDB found that the RC centre was scheduled MADAM CHONG SOOK FONG for renovation, they worked with the PA to schedule the renovation and Chairperson of Tampines Palmwalk Residents’ the work on the Learning Link project in tandem. The project gave me Committee an opportunity to make this space and our RC activities more visible to residents.

Did you find the engagement process tedious?

The whole process took about nine months. If it were any shorter, it would have been difficult to achieve its desired outcomes. When the HDB team first came in, as this was never done before, we did not know what the project was about, and what they were trying to do with our place. As time went by, we gradually got the picture. If it were too rushed, it would have been messy and may not have worked well.

What were some challenges you encountered when engaging residents? How did you tackle them?

One challenge we encountered was the location of the RC office. It was not visible to residents; if you walk past here, you cannot see it. Now, with this coffee corner, the mini library and activity space, the outreach to residents is much better. The coffee corner is a highly visible, physical space that entices people to come in and interact. There is also a playgroup “Apple Tree” and children’s playground nearby, where parents bring their children. The renovation also improved our signage, which has also helped with the visibility of this space. What motivated you to volunteer with the RC? We encourage people from all walks of life to participate in our This is my fourth year acting as the Chairperson of Tampines Palmwalk RC. programmes. While we had attracted the elderly, the young and I started my volunteering experience in 2004 when my neighbour, who homemakers to participate, we are also stepping up outreach to get was a RC volunteer then, invited me to join to see how I might help the working adults to be more involved in our activities. community. It was challenging for us to learn about the details of space planning and As we grow old, we have more time to ourselves, but sometimes we have construction. For example, the placement of “exit” signs, the location of fewer friends. I felt the need to create more activities for the community piping, wiring systems, and power sockets meant that the RC had to work and to make more friends in my late years. When you look around the closely with SCDF (Singapore Civil Defence Force), the Town Council and neighbourhood, you find many elderly residents sitting at the corner, other authorities. We relied on the professionals and experts in the project sometimes all by themselves. It’s so lonely. I try to think of something to working group to guide us on these details. gather them together, so that we can look out for one another. I started to volunteer and got to know the residents here well. About four years ago I became the chairperson of the RC. 168 169

What do you think contributed to the success of the project? Singapore Community Participatory Programmes One success factor is collaboration. We worked with NGOs such as Kampong Senang, who helped organise events such as free haircuts for the seniors under the block and supported many community initiatives proposed Background aims to make these spaces more useful, at this space. and to get the public more involved in their Shared public spaces such as HDB void community. On the other hand, the RC also has a close working relationship with decks and bus stops hold great potential as public agencies. Our project meetings involve a large group of people community spaces where different groups Involving the Community to Enliven working together, with officers from PA, HDB, the Town Council and others. of citizens can interact. Despite this, they are Public Spaces: Our Favourite Place This close-knit relationship means that decisions are agreed upon and often underused. Two recent programmes— communicated clearly to different parties at the local level. If we have any “Our Favourite Place” by URA (Urban Our Favourite Place has its origins in a pilot issue to raise, we can reach out to the Town Council, which would then Redevelopment Authority) and “Friendly programme in 2013, when URA worked with channel the case to the respective HDB liaison officer. In return, the public Faces, Lively Places” by HDB—support public and private organisations on a variety officers also seek the grassroots adviser’s opinion on strategic matters. initiatives to enliven these public spaces. of pop-up installations. The well-received Our Favourite Place enlivens shared public programme has since been formalised, and I am also very lucky to have dedicated volunteer residents at the RC. In my spaces around Singapore, while projects now welcomes proposals by Community RC there are 12 blocks comprising more than 1000 households. Each block implemented under HDB’s Friendly Faces, Partners (Applicants) to transform public has a volunteer who disseminates messages and event information to all Lively Places take place within HDB estates spaces into active community spaces which residents by word of mouth when they meet in the lifts or through house and as a means to ensure strong community facilitate community interaction and create visits. Besides block representatives, we also have other volunteers who involvement, a community match component shared memories. Any public space can be takes care of the coffee corner and the community garden. These volunteers was introduced. While projects implemented activated—from vacant disused plots of land become familiar faces to our residents. This makes engagement and under these programmes vary in scale, each to public areas within commercial buildings. sustaining vibrancy at this space much easier.

Public piano movement “Play it Forward” along Singapore River. 170 171

URA supports these projects by providing: While the project first started out as a one- one-stop assistance with agency consultation day event at URA’s PARK(ing) Day, it has and advice; up to S$5,000 for short term now become a successful project in its own projects (six months or less) or S$10,000 for right, with a number of editions throughout long term projects (more than six months) the year. Play It Forward SG pianos have and matchmaking with potential partners been used for mini-concerts such the weekly (space owners or sponsors) to realise projects. Pianover Meetups organised by ThePiano.SG. Successful projects have created new public It has also provided amateur musicians who spaces and rejuvenated old ones, through do not own pianos with the chance to play innovative design and programmes. in public.

Play It Forward SG Project Bus Stop

Play It Forward SG works with artists to The innovative concept is meant to transform transform unwanted pianos into art pieces the bus stop, beyond its primary function which are placed in public locations for of providing a place to wait for buses, into anyone and everyone to enjoy. After each a rich experience for commuters. It is a edition of the initiative, the pianos are good example of a project initiated by “played forward” to charitable institutions Singaporeans who wish to make a difference such as Chaoyang School (a school for to the way our public spaces are used. Art installations along Clive Street featured in the Project Oasis @ Little India by Little India Shopkeepers & Heritage Association (LISHA) and supported by Singapore Tourism Board (STB). special-needs children).

Installations at Little India Fostering Vibrant Heartlands and Neighbourly Bonds: HDB Friendly Inspired by Little India’s rich culture and Faces, Lively Places history, these installations at Hindoo Road and Clive Street in the Little India precinct are The HDB Friendly Faces, Lively Places Fund is based on designs by Ms Marthalia Budiman, an expansion of the HDB’s Good Neighbours a participant in URA’s “My Ideas for Public Project. HDB is offering $500,000 to help Spaces: Forgotten Spaces” competition held residents carry out ground-up place-making in 2015. The installations have rejuvenated efforts that can foster a stronger community. previously unused vacant land. These projects can take place at HDB spaces such as the town plazas, void decks, precinct Inspired by trees in the precinct, the eye- pavilions and roof-top gardens. catching installation at Hindoo Road takes the shape of a tree with umbrellas forming The fund is open to all Singapore Citizens its canopy. Providing shade to visitors, the and permanent residents, all year round. installation blends functionality with design. There are three broad categories under the The installation at Clive Street is inspired by programme: the history and culture of the location, which used to be active in cattle trading in the 19th a) the Action Fund supports shorter term century. The cattle-inspired art and bright activities to bond neighbours, e.g., floor colours bring out the precinct’s identity, parties; allowing visitors to better understand Little Project bus stop in Jurong East designed by DP Architects where commuters can enjoy free Wi-Fi, charge their mobile phones, download e-books and sit on a swing. India’s rich heritage. 172 173

Steps Involved in Starting a Project under Friendly Faces Lively Places Programme

• Sign ups can be done individually or as a team. Submission of • Brainstorm creative ways to activate spaces to Draft Proposal bring neighbours together.

• Discuss project feasibility and eligibility. Meeting HDB’s • Determine resources needed and total Community project budget. Relations Officer

• HDB evaluates proposal.

Evaluation of • Community Relations Officer attached to the Welcome to Our Backyard! (WOBY!) initiatives at blocks 96 and 97 at Aljunied Crescent. Projects team addresses queries. place at the void deck of Block 816 Tampines residents of all ages could interact and have Avenue 4. The activities, facilitated by fun with one another. enthusiastic students from Chongzheng • Embark on projects. Primary School, helped highlight the Conclusion importance of recycling and neighbourliness. • Enter efforts and contributions into log book. Execution of These community participatory programmes Project Magic of Kindness demonstrate efforts to empower the community in envisioning and creating Magic of Kindness was a successful Project projects that revitalise underutilised public • Submit logbook, original receipts and invoices Fund project held at a precinct pavilion spaces. Feedback from participants to date Submission of for claims within two months of milestone near Ghim Moh Market. Families from has been positive with most getting to Claims completion. different backgrounds were treated to a know new neighbours and inspired to do night of magic acts conveying the message more for their communities. Through this of kindness. This project is a good example programme, it is heartening that many of residents contributing their skills to better Singaporeans are stepping up to help realise b) the Project Fund supports projects of a These projects have benefited some 9,400 their communities. the transformations they want for their larger scale which may involve recurrent residents, and generated almost 9,000 communities. activities such as monthly workshops; and volunteering hours from the community. Welcome to Our Backyard (WOBY!) Co- They have attracted matching support from Creation Workshop: The Upcycled Play Yard With support from these government c) the Building Fund supports projects which the community worth over S$220,000. programmes, members of the community involve physical enhancements to create HDB Welcome to Our Backyard (WOBY!) Co- interested in bringing vibrancy to the spaces spaces conducive for community bonding. Blooming in Harmony Creation Workshop: The Upcycled Play Yard they hold dear are no longer held back by was a Building Fund project. It involved 196 the financial costs of such activities. The Since its launch in May 2016, HDB has An Action Fund project called Blooming participants who helped to revitalise a grass success of these initiatives should encourage received 52 applications. Of these, 27 in Harmony has reached out to 70 patch between Blocks 96 and 97 at Aljunied more people to step up and start innovative projects have been completed or approved; residents with craft activities such as Crescent. Residents co-created swings and projects to create lively spaces for social close to S$93,000 in funds has been flower arrangement, DIY composting and gardens, transforming the previously empty interaction and to foster togetherness. disbursed or committed to project teams. bookmark-making. These activities took space into an attractive Play Yard where 174 175

INTERVIEW WITH in decision-making processes and are less likely to voice their concerns at town hall dialogues. On our part, we want to make participation a lot more MIZAH RAHMAN fun and interesting, for example, making engagement a community event. Director and Co-founder, Participate in Design Our rule-of-thumb is always to make sure that a 12-year-old child would be able to understand the information that is presented. The main issues we had to tackle were: How do we de-mystify very complex issues so that Participate in Design (P!D) is a non-governmental organisation in the lay person can be involved in the conversation? How do we make it Singapore that facilitates public participation and engagement and unintimidating for people to participate? To address these considerations, promotes participatory design in education and practice. Mizah we set up a range of platforms: from informal, guerrilla-style pop-up events Rahman, co-founder of P!D, spoke to the research team about to capture input from people who might not have time, to more formal platforms such as workshops and walk-in conversations, where people applying a participatory approach, akin to HDB’s earlier BOND pilot who want to have more in-depth discussions can do so. project, for Tampines Neighbourhood Renewal Programmes (NRPs). Where are some challenges you’ve faced in the process of What motivated you to engagement? advocate participatory design in Singapore? One of the biggest challenges we face is: how do we get people to shift their mindsets from simply “complaining” to “providing solutions” to We started exploring the topic of issues? If residents have a good experience of the engagement process, participatory design six years ago, for they would be good advocates for us when our final year thesis in the School of sharing their experiences with others. Another Architecture at National University challenge has to do with how open our of Singapore (NUS). As aspiring community partners (i.e., Town Councils, architects, we often wondered: Who Residents’ Committees, grassroots, volunteer are we supposed to be designing for? wefare organisations) are when it comes to a Architecture school taught us design participatory approach in design and planning. concepts and the use of materials, but While some may be more open, others may not not so much about the users of the be so receptive. That makes it a bit more tricky spaces we design. We were interested for us when we try out different methods of in how we could get people involved. engagement with residents. This prompted us to look for a different approach in architecture and Lastly, we also have to manage expectations, Pop up strategies to publicise engagement design, one that challenges the more platforms and seek feedback from residents. not only from residents but also our community top-down approach in Singapore. partners. The truth is that we cannot engage 100% of the resident population. At the Why should people take an active role to participate in planning beginning of a participatory project, it is critical for us to establish the issues? How do you encourage participation? rules and expectations of what we can or cannot do. We always set a target number and range of demographics we want to engage so that People see a relevance because whatever happens in their neighbourhoods we capture enough information. One of the litmus tests is when we affect their daily lives. That is the key motivation we can tap on: people’s keep getting similar feedback—that is when we know we have covered desire to participate in issues they care about—whether it is gardening, sufficient ground. cycling, or converting carparks into green spaces. What has been the most interesting aspect of the NRPs? To spur participation, we provide accessible platforms to encourage conversations about the neighbourhood. We are keen to engage One of the most exciting things about working on the NRP is that it is “extreme”users such as seniors and kids, who are typically not involved not just a visioning exercise—it is a neighbourhood planning project that 176 177

will definitely be implemented for residents. Community Participation Hence, there is a lot of motivation for people and Ownership to be part of the conversation and decision- making, because it will ultimately affect their lives. It also gave us greater confidence when engaging residents. Vibrant Community Center (VCC) • VCCs are autonomous resident-run community spaces at dong offices. Beyond the hardware aspect, the NRP process also focuses on the software aspect, which • A Public-Private-Participation Group (PPPG) comprising of resident volunteers, includes creating greater awareness. One Resident Self Governing Committee members, and public servants, is set up of the main briefs from the Town Council for each VCC to determine the design and management of the VCC. was for residents to know more about NRP • Experts facilitated the participatory design process to achieve consensus and how the upgrading project can benefit Pop-up stories at the neighbourhood market to between stakeholders with different interests through flexible, shared-space reach out to local residents. them. For us, this involves an extensive and solutions. inclusive process, with elements of publicity, education and branding that we explore creatively, beyond just design. As funding is made available, there is more room to create awareness and get Namuguneul: Citizen Ownership of Community Spaces more residents involved. This also includes changing people’s perception of the Town Council as a mere provider of municipal services such as waste • Seoul launched a pilot programme to facilitate citizen ownership of collection, by highlighting its role in improving the built environment. community assets, and address the challenges of maintaining non-profit community spaces in the high-rental cost environment in Seoul. Were there any limitations as a result of the NRP being a government • Financial assistance for the community was provided through a public trust programme? and a Citizen Ownership Foundation.

There were hits and misses. Some grassroots groups were more open and • Namugunuel is the first citizen ownership project in Seoul, and would be supportive, while others did not see the value of our involvement. We also using the funds to convert a three-storey building into a shared community wanted to test out participatory budgeting during the NRP process, for complex. example, telling residents the cost of a playground so that they can decide whether to re-prioritise the funds to build something else. We felt this could be empowering for residents. However, the Town Council was not ready for Social Linkway and Neighbourhood Incubator this, as they did not typically reveal the budget to residents. • Social Linkway and Neighbourhood Incubator are part of a collaborative study Broadly speaking, however, we had free rein to try out different ways of between HDB and the NUS to distil good neighbourhood designs that facilitate engaging residents—the Town Council and grassroots had never embarked community bonding. on such a project before, and had no sense of what could or could not be • Participatory planning approach was used to involve residents in the done. They were more familiar with finding value using an approach based enhancement and activation of everyday spaces. on designing with people, as opposed to one based on designing for people.

We hope that more partners will be as open-minded and supportive, willing Singapore Community Participatory Programmes to take risks and see the value of embarking on a participatory approach to designing spaces. It may take longer and might be a bit more expensive, but • Our Favourite Place by the URA and Friendly Faces, Lively Places by the will lead to much more meaningful outcomes. HDB support community-led initiatives that transform public spaces into active community spaces.

• Support from respective agencies come in the form of seed funding, advisory assistance, and “matchmaking” with potential partners to realise the projects. 178 179 6 PLANNING FOR COMMUNITIES, WITH COMMUNITIES, BY COMMUNITIES: LESSONS FROM SEOUL AND SINGAPORE

Seoul and Singapore are different cities. Their key questions: How can governance and respective approaches to urban planning and planning frameworks facilitate community community involvement have been shaped involvement?, and how can community by different social, cultural and political involvement processes generate better contexts. Nevertheless, common lessons can outcomes? The former captures useful be distilled from the experiences of both principles in governance and planning cities. systems that contribute positively to community involvement; the latter examines To frame these learning points, the key ingredients for successful community Centre for Liveable Cities (CLC) and Seoul involvement initiatives in planning and Institute (SI) research teams asked two development.

Community feedback workshop held in Tampines (left). 180 181

How Can Governance and Planning prompted policy shifts to create more room development projects, such as the Remaking the planning intentions in Seoul Plan 2030, Framework Facilitate Community for community involvement in both Seoul Our Heartlands programme and mega including citizen input, would be followed Involvement? and Singapore. The experiences of both public developments like Our Tampines Hub. through across different implementation cities show that effective governance and Effective coordination for local developments plans. The planning and development processes community involvement are not necessarily demonstrates, in a tangible manner, the that had enabled rapid urban transformation mutually exclusive. In fact, good governance government’s commitment and ability Enhance Transparency and Access to in Seoul and Singapore since the 1960s and planning can play an important role to address community needs and inputs Planning Information were generally top-down in nature. A in creating more meaningful community consolidated through engagement. changing social context in recent years has involvement outcomes. Enhancing the transparency of planning Similarly, the success of the Seoul Plan 2030 processes, and ensuring citizen access to over previous Master Plans is not merely due planning information, improves the quality to an expanded community engagement of citizen participation. Transparency in process. The Seoul Metropolitan Government planning helps provide assurance that basic (SMG) sought to improve coordination for public interests have been safeguarded. On the planning process by appointing the one hand, transparency demonstrates that Planning and Coordination Department and adjustments due to private developments are the Urban Planning Department as co-leads taken into account; on the other, it helps set of the master planning process. Since the the scope and expectations for community Planning and Coordination Department has involvement initiatives. This engenders trust greater authority overseeing most of the between the government and citizens, and lower-level departments, this garnered a facilitates more informed and constructive higher level of support for the Seoul Plan inputs from the community. 2030 from the SMG’s other divisions and subsidiary organisations. The Seoul Plan This principle applies to all layers of the 2030 was also designated as an overarching planning process: from macro city-level plan for coordinating other subsidiary plans planning to detailed local plans. In Singapore, and policies. These measures ensured that making future development plans more Stakeholder engagement for the Rail Corridor project.

Align Internal Stakeholders can participate in urban planning processes. Such coordination is especially crucial at the Urban infrastructure and services in large macro-planning level, where trade-offs are cities like Seoul and Singapore are organised more substantial and complex. under the purview of various governmental departments and agencies, each with their Singapore’s Master Planning process, for own specific missions and targets. Inevitably, example, is coordinated through the Master there will be differences in priorities and Planning Committee chaired by the Chief goals between agencies. Left unresolved, Planner of the Urban Redevelopment such inter-department and agency differences Authority (URA) with representation from could make it difficult to address community various agencies, to resolve competing needs that cut across functional domains. land use needs. This provides a basis for These conflicts could even compromise the assessing and incorporating community goals of the government as a whole. inputs collected through various avenues, including focus group discussions and Draft Creating a system that can resolve internal Master Plan exhibitions, into the final Master Citizen group meeting for Seoul Plan 2030. differences and align various stakeholders Plan. Inter-agency coordination is also key to within government, is vital before citizens the success of more localised planning and 182 183 transparent has been a key aspect of the that ground feedback collected does not get Master Plan system since the Development lost in day-to-day operations. Singapore’s Guide Plans were introduced in the 1990s. Land Transport Authority (LTA), for example, They allowed the public to voice possible strengthened its communications department concerns on future developments in their and created a community partnership neighbourhoods, based on publicly-available division to ensure that public inputs are duly information at the Draft Master Plan stage. considered and do not end up in a “black Successful citizen engagement processes hole”. This made LTA more responsive to in Seoul were also enabled by making public sentiments in its transport planning information available to citizen participants, work. to facilitate more informed decision-making. In Seowon Village, for example, residents Create a System of Intermediate-level Plans as were able to reach a consensus on the height Part of the Urban Planning Framework limit of buildings for their neighbourhood, after information was provided on relevant The relevance of urban planning to citizens planning laws and the implications of height increases as one moves down the layers of limits. planning—from strategic metropolitan-level Master Plans to neighbourhood improvement Create a Structured Framework to Translate plans. The relationship between the different Resident Environment Management Programme in Seowon Village led by local Resident Council. Feedback into Action layers of planning, however, may not always be well-established or well-articulated. This In Seoul, the city government saw that even work with on local improvement projects. Urban planning is a complex process for large could lead to coordination issues during the unprecedented scale of community In Seoul, the Resident Environment cities. The planning framework needs to be implementation, a limited understanding of engagement process for the Seoul 2030 Plan Management Programme in Seowon Village structured so as to ensure that feedback macro-planning intentions among citizens, was not enough to encompass the concerns was successfully led by the local Resident and ideas collected through engagement or even misalignment between strategic of all residents. To provide due attention Council, which played an important role in efforts are translated into action and not lost planning directions and citizens’ needs at the to local issues within each of the 116 reaching consensus within the community for in the planning process. In pursuing more local level. In addition, city-level master plans local community planning areas, the Local key neighbourhood decisions such as shared collaborative planning processes, the different may not provide enough detailed scope to Community Plans served as intermediate parking areas and fenceless front yards. roles of the many stakeholders involved account for the needs of local communities in plans to coordinate between the overall The Gyeongui Line Forest Park community needs to be clearly established. the overall urban planning framework. Master Plan and the Urban Management council, formed from existing community Plans used for detailed implementation. and resident organisations, will ensure the The Seoul 2030 Master Plan’s was conceived The experience of both cities shows that This has helped to align macro-level plans, maintenance and continued vibrancy of the as a citizen-led process. However, the incorporating more detailed district-level implementation plans and citizens’ needs. public space in the long term. In Singapore, planning process was not an organic, local plans within the overall urban planning the Neighbourhood Renewal Programme bottom-up process. The extensive citizen framework creates better opportunities for Work with Existing Resident Organisations projects are led by the local Town Councils, participation framework had been designed community involvement. It also improves with the active involvement of grassroots by an Advisory Group of 33 members. This the overall planning system, by distilling Well-established resident organisations leaders within Residents’ Committees. ensured clarity in the roles of the various macro-planning strategies into more often form the heart of the community. stakeholders, including government officials, concrete planning proposals. In Singapore, They anchor extensive networks within However, existing resident organisations may professionals, and citizen groups. This the Development Guide Plans of the 1990s, the community, and possess a wealth not always have the necessary resources or framework has helped guide the planning which divided the city into 55 planning areas, of knowledge on local neighbourhoods. expertise to carry out community planning. process towards desirable outcomes, despite offered a way to articulate local issues and Existing resident organisations are therefore They may also face difficulties in attracting the uncertainty of involving ordinary citizens. opportunities systematically, while providing important partners for community planning. fresh participants. In such cases, other meaningful platforms with which to engage solutions could be explored to attract At the organisation level, structural the community and private sector. Both cities have established networks of fresh community volunteers to work with improvements are also important to ensure resident organisations which planners can existing organisations. For example, in 184 185

Seoul’s Vibrant Community Center (VCC), local needs on the ground and broader the Public-Private Participatory Group planning considerations which are more (PPPG) provided a platform for interested technical in nature. Experts involved in volunteers to participate and work with community discussions can also provide more existing community leaders in the Resident objective and professional perspectives that Self-Governing Committee (RSGC) in balance diverse needs within the community, creating a resident-led community space, helping residents look beyond their own without requiring volunteers to join a formal interests and achieve mutual consensus. The organisation such as the RSGC. In the case of VCC programme in Seoul, for example, has dong-level community planning, community social architects working with the community officers played key roles in encouraging new to propose shared-space solutions that residents to participate. On average, 83% of address the needs and concerns of different the participants were new residents; while parties. These solutions provide the basis for 34% of them were in their 30s and 40s, discussion and consensus among community a demographic which typically has a low stakeholders. participation rate in community activities. To better facilitate their involvement, experts How Can Community Involvement and policy makers also need to be equipped Processes Generate Better with the skills to communicate effectively Outcomes? with the community. This is especially important in planning and development Dong-level Community Planning in Mangu-dong. Success in community engagement initiatives domains, for which details can often be too is not a given. To enable communities to technical and abstract for lay citizens. play their part actively and constructively level require government intervention. Given Address Conflicts Between Residents through in planning and development processes, Recognising this need, Singapore’s Office the right skills and social connections, there is an Inclusive and Deliberative Approach careful thought needs to be put into the for Citizen Engagement (OCE) from the often scope for communities to develop their engagement processes in order to generate Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth own solutions within the neighbourhood, for Community spaces are not just places positive, concrete outcomes. The CLC and (MCCY) introduced the Citizen Engagement less complex day-to-day issues. where residents bond; they can also be SI research teams have identified some key Seed Fund in February 2017 to catalyse where conflicts occur. Similarly, community areas which should be considered when innovative projects by public agencies’ that Seoul’s approach to community development planning processes should provide platforms preparing for communities to participate in involve deeper modes of engagement, as emphasises the importance of giving citizens for residents both to discuss their mutual planning and development processes. well as capacity building for communities decision-making powers and resources. interests as well as to resolve differences, and public officers. The Fund has since By this, community capability will follow before arriving at the planning proposal. Involve Experts in Community Engagement supported 11 projects; one of these involved naturally, as residents learn to solve their This can be achieved by ensuring adequate the training of SportSG officers in ground- own problems. For example, in dong- representation of diverse interests within the While communities possess in-depth local sensing, facilitation and community-building level Community Planning, the delegating community during engagement activities, knowledge that should be leveraged for in techniques, so that they can co-create of authority for certain community-level and by putting in place a carefully-designed local planning and development, residents programmes and activities with the decisions to residents has led them to build deliberative process. Parties involved should often do not have the technical skills to community, starting with two sports centres, up their community-planning capabilities. examine issues through a critical approach translate their knowledge into feasible Heartbeat@Bedok and Delta Sports Complex. Although assistance from planning experts that defines problems, identifies priorities solutions. Members of the community was vital, it was essentially a resident-led and allocates limited resources (such as land may also not be able to fully understand Empower the People, Capability will Follow community planning process empowered or funding) through mutual consensus. This or foresee the implications of planning to make decisions. Survey results for the will facilitate more informed decision-making proposals. Empowering communities calls for members dong-level Community Planning programme among multiple stakeholders. of the community to be equipped with have shown promising results, with a 43.9% increase in problems solved through Involving experts in community engagement planning capabilities and other necessary community initiatives. processes can help bridge the gap between skills. In addition, not all issues at the local 186 187

hard to de-mystify the planning processes, and conceived with long-term community which can be overly technical and abstract building in mind. The process does not for laypersons to understand. P!D does so end with the implementation of projects by developing engagement methods and developed by resident volunteers; instead it content pitched to be simple enough for focuses on creating a system that supports a 12-year-old child to understand—this community initiatives by establishing a helps to engage users who are not typically core Community Planning Group. Pre- and involved in decision-making processes. post-programme survey responses from the community have reflected the positive Focus on Building Communities, social impact of the programme: 33.4% of Rather than Project Outcomes respondents saw an increase in mutual trust among neighbours, while 25.2% indicated Planning and development are not just about that they felt a stronger sense of community. physical infrastructural outcomes. With the successful involvement of communities, Namuguneul, the community asset project planning processes can serve as powerful in Seoul, is a good example. Four years platforms to connect residents, building after the community took ownership of the stronger social bonds and mutual trust. place, it was nearly shut down because of Physical improvement efforts are potential gentrification of the surrounding area and catalysts that can generate broader, deeper rising rents. However, the community group and longer term social benefits, and help didn’t give up. They raised funds on their Engaging diverse stakeholders for the Rail Corridor project. make communities more resilient. own, and applied for a citizen-ownership contest for new premises to move in to. The In Singapore, the HDB’s Building Our effort was successful largely because the Seoul’s community planning programmes Make Participation in Planning Processes Neighbourhood’s Dreams (BOND!) initiative, residents’ community spirit and planning demonstrate the benefits of this approach. Accessible to Everyone introduced as part of the Neighbourhood capabilities had grown since the start of the Instead of curating community discussions to Renewal Programme (NRP), uses deeper project. prevent potential conflicts, Seoul’s processes Making it easier for people to take part in engagement activities to identify the kind typically encourage participants to examine planning processes can help attract wider of community activities and infrastructure the issues and consider the trade-offs in participation. More importantly, reaching upgrades residents would like to see. a transparent manner. By designing the out to the wider community for participation The process achieved not just physical participation process to uncover and resolve increases the diversity of participants. This lets improvements, but also social outcomes: community conflicts through a deliberative planners incorporate perspectives that may 18% of resident participants said they got to approach, community planners can guide otherwise be missing in the planning process understand the concerns and ideas of other residents towards mutually-agreeable and ensures inclusivity in planning outcomes. fellow neighbours; another 18% remarked outcomes that are also often remarkably For this to happen, engagement platforms, that they got to know neighbours from the innovative in nature. For example, the methods and content should be made as workshop. multiple stakeholders for VCC openly accessible as possible. discussed potential conflicts in setting up Seoul’s community planning programmes, a new community space within an existing The Rail Corridor in Singapore benefitted often driven by social objectives, go a step dong-office building, before agreeing on a from the diverse range of engagement further in using participatory planning as shared space concept that accommodated platforms set up by the URA. Singapore- a tool to strengthen communities. Dong- the needs of all users. based non-governmental organisation Level Community Planning, for example, (NGO), Participate in Design (P!D), worked has been developed as a key programme of the Second Seoul Community Policy, 188 189

Planning for Communities, with Communities, by Communities: Lessons from Seoul and Singapore

How Can Governance How can Community and Planning Framework Involvement Processes Facilitate Community Create a System of Generate Better Intermediate-level Plans Involvement? as Part of the Urban Outcomes? Planning Framework

Empower the People, Capability will Follow

Create a Make Structured Participation Framework in Planning to Translate Processes Feedback into Accessible to Action Everyone

Enhance Transparency and Access to Planning Information Address Conflicts between Residents through an Inclusive and Deliberative Approach Work with Existing Resident Organisations

Focus on Building Communities, Rather than Project Outcomes

Align Internal Involve Experts Stakeholders in Community Engagement 190 191 7 CONCLUSION: IT TAKES A VILLAGE TO PLAN A CITY—TOWARDS COLLABORATIVE PLANNING APPROACHES

Citizen participation in planning may be expertise, inevitably include efforts to motivated by a variety of factors: political encourage citizen involvement in planning. objectives, ground-up demand due to The public sector should prepare for more perceived gaps in planning provisions, participatory and consultative processes to broader social change, or a genuine facilitate more concrete outcomes arising desire by authorities to improve planning from ground-up inputs. outcomes by involving the community being served. Effective participation can foster Ultimately, participatory planning should greater trust, both among citizens and be considered within the broader context with the government. In certain cases— of planning in increasingly complex urban as demonstrated by Seoul’s Dong-Level environments. Urban planning needs Community Planning process—it may even to incorporate diverse perspectives and reduce the public sector intervention, by encourage the cross-fertilisation of ideas to empowering communities to solve their own meet complex urban challenges that may problems. not be resolvable by government action alone. To achieve this, urban planning Seoul’s and Singapore’s experiences and development should adopt an open, show that government-led initiatives and collaborative approach and bring on board community-driven approaches are not various stakeholders—including community, necessarily mutually exclusive. Good planning businesses, civic groups and government—to processes, featuring effective governance, forge a common and more resilient future for structured frameworks and professional our cities.

Various stakeholders involved in the Rail Corridor Project (left). 192 193

Bibliography Shin, H. G. et al. (2001). Study on the Demand and Satisfaction for Community Awareness and Facilities from Apartment Residents. Journal of Korean Home Management Association, 29(1), 90. Books, Journals, Conference Proceedings

Soh, E. Y., and Yuen, B. (2006). Government-Aided Participation in Planning Singapore. 최명식 외3 (2016). “젠트리피케이션 대응을 위한 지역 토지자산 공유방안 연구”, 국토연구원 Cities 23 (1)L 30-43. doi:10.1016/j.cities.2005.07.011. Choi, M. S. et al. (2016). Research on shared ownership of local land property to manage gentrification, KRIHS. Tan, S.B. (2013). Long-Term Land Use Planning in Singapore, Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy. Ahn, H. C. (2017). Analysis and Implications of Community Support Program. The Seoul Institute, Seoul, Korea 2025 Seoul Master Plan for the Improvement of Urban and Residential Environments. (n.d.). pp. 108-109. An, H. C. and Park, S. H. (2012). Analysis of the Characteristics of Resident Self-governing Committees from the Perspective of Community Building. Journal of the Architectural Institute Yang, J.S. & Kim, I. H. (2012). Policy Directions for Improving the Role of Local Governments of Korea, 28(2), pp. 149-158. in the Community Planning of Seoul. The Seoul Institute.

Arnstein, S. R. (1969, July). A Ladder of Citizen Participation. Journal of the American Planning Government Publications, Singapore Parliamentary Reports Association, 35(4), pp. 216-224.

서울협치추진단, 민관협력을 통한 시민자산화 추진방안 및 제안. Centre for Liveable Cities. (2014). Land Acquisition and Resettlement: Securing Resources for Development. Singapore: Centre for Liveable Cities Seoul Governance Bureau. (2016, August). Proposal for creating citizen ownership with collaborative governance.

Centre for Liveable Cities. (2014). Liveable and Sustainable Cities: A Framework, p. 87 Singapore: Centre for Liveable Cities 서울시, “서울시 젠트리피케이션 종합대책. Seoul Metropolitan Government. (2015, December). The comprehensive countermeasures of gentrification. Centre for Liveable Cities. (2013). USS Housing: Turning squatters into stakeholders. p.35-36. Singapore Urban Systems Studies Booklet Series. Singapore: Cengage Learning Asia SDI Policy Report. (2011). Revitalization of Apartment Communities, p. 6. Heo, Y. S. and An, H. C. (2015). Study on Resident-involved Spatial Improvement & Voluntary Management of Public Facilities. Seoul Metropolitan Government. (2010). Seowon Village: Type 1 District Unit Plan of Seoul Human Town. Kim, K. H. (2012). Apartment is also a community, “Making Our Community”, Namu Doshi. Seoul Metropolitan Government. (2011). Making Livable Communities – A City Planning Guide Based on Resident Engagement. Kim, T. H. (October 2015). Direction and Strategies of the Strategic Urban Regeneration Plan for Seoul, Seoul Economic Bulletin, 127, The Seoul Institute Singapore 21 Committee. (1999). Singapore 21: Together, we make the difference. Singapore. Ministry of National Development. (1988). Town Councils: Participating in progress: Questions and answers. Singapore 21 Committee c/o Prime Minister’s Office (Public Service Division). (1999). Singapore 21: Make it Our Best Home. Singapore. Oh, S. H. & Im, Y. G. (2011). Study on Improvement of the Spatial Structure of Detached Housing Sites in a New City. Architecture & Urban Research Institute. Seoul Metropolitan Government. (2013). The Development and Implementation of Seoul’s Local Community Plan, pp. 31-33. Seoul Metropolitan Government. (2015). Seoul’s Strategic Urban Regeneration Plan 2025. 194 195

Urban Redevelopment Authority. (2001). The Concept Plan 2001. Websites

Urban Redevelopment Authority Documentation Project. (2011, November 21). Evolution of Department of Statistics Singapore. Latest Data. Retrieved from The Master Plan – From 1957 To 1998. http://www.singstat.gov.sg/statistics/latest-data

Urban Redevelopment Authority Documentation Project. (2015, July 29). The Public Housing & Development Board. HDB Friendly Faces Lively Places Fund. Retrieved from Engagement Process for Master Plan 2014. http://www.hdb.gov.sg/cs/infoweb/community/getting-involved/hdb-friendly-faces-lively- places-fund Urban Redevelopment Authority. Skyline Magazine. (2015). An inspired community space. Retrieved from https://www.ura.gov.sg/uol/publications/corporate/skyline/2015/skyline1-2015. Ministry of National Development. Site Visit to Rail Corridor: Building communities through public spaces. Retrieved from https://app.mnd.gov.sg/cleangreensmarthome/ Interviews, Speeches, Lectures and Oral Histories rail-corridor-building-communities-through-public-spaces.htm

An, Hyeon-chan. (2016, December 7). Roundtable Presentation on Planning for Citizen National Library Board. Chek Jawa. Retrieved from Participation. Community Planning and Rejuvenation: CLC-SI collaboration project http://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/infopedia/articles/SIP_256_2005-01-03.html roundtable. Centre for Liveable Cities, Ministry of National Development, Singapore. Our Favourite Place. Retrieved from http://www.ourfaveplace.sg Cheong, Koon Hean, Choe, Alan., Koh-Lim, Wen Gin., Ng, Philip. & Kong, Lily. (2014, January 21). CLC Lecture Series – “Urban Transformation of Singapore”, (transcript). The Green Corridor. Retrieved from http://www.thegreencorridor.org/ Accession number CLC/015/2014/008. Centre for Liveable Cities, Ministry of National Development, Singapore. Seoul Solution. Urban Planning System of Seoul. Retrieved from https://www.seoulsolution.kr Kim, Tae-hyeon. (2016, February 6). Roundtable Presentation on Understanding Seoul’s Urban Regeneration. Seoul-Singapore Joint Research Workshop. The Seoul Institute. Singapore Magazine. Singapore Storeys. Retrieved from http://singaporemagazine.sif.org.sg/singapore-storeys Newspapers, Magazines Statistics Korea. (2015). 2015 Population and Housing Survey, Seoul, Korea. 나무그늘 협동조합, “나무그늘 자산화작전”, 시민 자산 만들기 대회, 2016.12.15. Namuguneul Cooperative. (2015, December 15). Plan to convert Namuguneul into a Urban Redevelopment Authority. Rail Corridor. Retrieved from community asset. Campaign for Citizen Ownership. https://www.ura.gov.sg/ms/railCorridor

한겨레, “조물주 위 건물주, 그 위엔 지역공동체”, 박기용기자, 2016.6.25. Urban Redevelopment Authority. Concept Plan. Retrieved from Park, G. Y. (2016, June 25). Landlord above the Landlord, and Local Community at the Top. https://www.ura.gov.sg/uol/concept-plan.aspx?p1=View-Concept-Plan Hankyoreh. Retrieved from http://www.hani.co.kr/arti/society/society_general/749655.html Urban Redevelopment Authority. Master Plan. Retrieved from 비즈넷타임스, “공유지의 비극은 없다...신시민자산화 추진”, 김수찬 기자, 2016.12.12. https://www.ura.gov.sg/uol/master-plan.aspx?p1=View-Master-Plan Kim, S. C. (2016, December 12). No more Tragedy of the Commons... New wave of citizen ownership movements. Biznet Times. Retrieved from http://www.biznettimes.co.kr/news/ articleView.html?idxno=13213

Teo. (1999, May 10). Creating a new tripartite alliance for S21 vision. The Business Times, p. 2. Retrieved from NewspaperSG. 196 197

Image Credits

0: The Seoul Institute 3: The People’s Association, Singapore 6, 9: Centre for Liveable Cities, Singapore 10: Participate in Design 15: Official Seoul Plan 2030 Website 16: The Seoul Institute 21: The Seoul Institute 25, 27, 29: Urban Redevelopment Authority of Singapore 31: Yam Ah Mee 34, 40: The Seoul Institute 48: Urban Redevelopment Authority of Singapore 50–53: Centre for Liveable Cities, Singapore 55, 58–59: The Seoul Institute 63, 69: The Seoul Institute 71–72, 74–75: The Seoul Institute 77–85: Housing and Development Board of Singapore 91, 93–94: The Seoul Institute 100–102: The Seoul Institute 104–107: The Seoul Institute 113: Housing and Development Board of Singapore 118–119: The Seoul Institute 121–122, 124: The Seoul Institute 125–126: Urban Redevelopment Authority of Singapore 128, 132: Urban Redevelopment Authority of Singapore 133: Tan See Nin 134: Urban Redevelopment Authority of Singapore 136: The People’s Association, Singapore 138: Seah Chee Huang 140: The People’s Association, Singapore 147–148: The Seoul Institute 150, 152, 158: The Seoul Institute 161–162, 164: Housing and Development Board of Singapore 166: Centre for Liveable Cities, Singapore 169–171, 173: Urban Redevelopment Authority of Singapore 174: Mizah Rahman 175–176, 178: Participate in Design 180: Urban Redevelopment Authority of Singapore 181, 183, 185: The Seoul Institute 190: Urban Redevelopment Authority of Singapore 198 PLANNING FOR COMMUNITIES Lessons from Seoul and Singapore

Seoul and Singapore have successfully redeveloped within a few decades since the 1960s under government-led initiatives. However in recent years, both cities are seeing a shift towards greater community involvement in their planning and development processes.

Planning for Communities: Lessons from Seoul and Singapore is the second joint research publication between the Centre for Liveable Cities and the Seoul Institute. The publication features case studies from Seoul and Singapore on citizen participation initiatives for planning and development processes from each city, and distills common lessons on how collaborative approaches with the community can generate better planning outcomes for everyone.