S'pore's landscaping erases differences<\/p>\n
Is more of Singapore's heritage being lost by the Urban
\nRedevelopment Authority's plans?<\/p>\n
By Robert Powell<\/p>\n
In October 1991, the revised Concept Plan provided a vision
\nfor Singapore's physical development into the 21st century. With
\nthe completion of the plan, the Urban Redevelopment Authority
\n(URA) has proceeded to prepare detailed Development Guide Plans
\n(DGPs) for gazetting as the new Master Plan.<\/p>\n
Singapore is divided into 55 planning areas and for each of
\nthese areas a DGP is prepared. The broad vision in the Concept
\nPlan is thus translated into detailed proposals.<\/p>\n
Almost five years have elapsed and the exhibition of the Paya
\nLebar planning report, brings the number of DGPs to 29. It is
\ntimely to review the process and to offer comments on some
\nperceived deficiencies.<\/p>\n
The principal criticism is that the speed of the process and
\nthe planning methodology adopted threatens to lead to even
\ngreater homogenization of the Singapore landscape. The perception
\nthat many observers have is that there is already very little
\ndifference between urban and rural; between one New Town and
\nanother. The impression from those DGPs already produced is that
\nthis seamless merging of areas will continue unabated.<\/p>\n
In the production of the earliest DGPs there was a real
\nattempt to make the process of planning transparent and to
\nintroduce a more participatory approach. This was evident when in
\n1990 the then Minister for National Development, Mr. S.
\nDhanabalan, asked teams assembled by the Singapore Institute of
\nArchitects to prepare alternative proposals for Kampong Bugis,
\nSimpang and Jurong East. The majority of the DGPs are however
\nprepared by the URA and these have now settled into a
\nrecognizable pattern.<\/p>\n
The DGP reports are arranged in six sections. These are
\nintroduction, existing conditions planning analysis, visions and
\nobjectives, planning strategies, and planning proposals. This
\nsynoptic approach to planning is used in many Western countries.
\nIt is rational and in theory should ensure that nothing is
\noverlooked in the plan formulation.<\/p>\n
But is it? A great deal depends on the Planning Analysis and
\nthe Visions and Objectives. If something is missed in the
\nanalysis stage or if it is excluded from the vision in order to
\nreflect the values of the dominant ideology then the plan itself
\nbecomes suspect. All the issues are not highlighted and
\nsubsequently debated.<\/p>\n
Let me illustrate this. Take for example the Rochor DGP. On
\nColeman's 1839, map of Singapore, the area to the north of
\nKampong Glam bounded by the Rochor River is marked as the \"Tombs
\nof the Malay Princes\". Today, if one visits the site you will
\nfind tombstones here which are draped in yellow cloth -- the
\ncolor reserved for royalty. In the URA analysis of this area it
\nis marked as \"Incompatible Use\" and assessed as being one of the
\nweaknesses and constraints which reduces the areas potential for
\nredevelopment. The nation's history, dating back to the time of
\nRaffles and the connections with the native Malays who occupied
\nthe Singapore river before the arrival of the British East India
\nCompany, is now confined to the archives.<\/p>\n
With this analysis, the URA is then able to propose that the
\narea be rezoned as high-density housing at a plot ratio of 3.5,
\nwhich, although it is subject to urban design guidelines, will
\nstill erase any difference that this area might have. Could it
\nhave been retained as a landscaped park? In many other countries
\nsuch a valuable historical site would probably be exploited as a
\ntourist attraction as well as a source of some national pride. In
\nthe manual for Kampong Glam Conservation Area produced in July
\n1988, the URA designated it as a \"future park\".<\/p>\n
Another example is the Bukit Panjang Plan. Again the standard
\nplanning methodology has been adopted. The greatest asset of the
\narea is the Bukit Timah Nature Reserve, an area of relatively
\nundisturbed rain forest which was set aside as a reserve in 1883.<\/p>\n
The analysis identifies the unique physical qualities of the
\narea. What is overlooked, is that it is widely recognized that
\nfor a nature reserve to be successful and for protected species
\nto survive, there should be a buffer zone between it and any
\nresidential sites. I speak with some experience having in 1980
\nwritten a draft management plan for the Morowali Nature
\nReserve in Sulawesi which had a transmigration settlement on its
\nborder.<\/p>\n
In the planning strategy for Bukit Panjang the concept of a
\nbuffer zone is not included and new residential development is
\nplanned which abuts the nature reserve. In addition, Dairy Farm
\nRoad is extended eastwards to connect with the Bukit Timah
\nExpressway, so that the reserve comes under increasing pressure.
\nIt is conceivable that in a relatively short time the reserve
\nwill become degraded and lose any significance as a site of
\nscientific interest. The national heritage will be all the
\npoorer.<\/p>\n
A third example is taken from the Newton Plan. The planning
\nanalysis identifies Goodwood Hill as a potential place of
\ninterest. On Goodwood Hill there are a number of beautiful
\ndwellings, having been built to house colonial civil servants in
\nabout 1920. They fall into that unique category known as black
\nand white houses and are a precious piece of Singapore's
\nheritage.<\/p>\n
In the Newton Plan, aside from their initial identification,
\nnothing else is mentioned about them. Although they are not zoned
\nfor redevelopment, they are also not designated for conservation.
\nThe land on which they sit is government-owned. Will the uniquely
\ndifferent landscape be retained or will it eventually make way
\nfor ubiquitous condominiums?<\/p>\n
The process appears, whether consciously intended or
\notherwise, to be gradually erasing any differences. This process
\nof erasure started in the 1960s.<\/p>\n
The transformation of the island into a modern city state has
\ninvolved the constant remaking of the landscape. The land has
\nbeen the most malleable material, hills are leveled, the
\ncoastline extended. But is this further homogenization an asset
\nof the DGPs or otherwise? The usual response to such questions is
\nthat Singapore has limited land and it is incumbent upon planners
\nto optimize its use. The erasure of difference, however, has
\nserious consequences which need to be considered as we pass the
\nmidpoint in the formulation of the new Master Plan.<\/p>\n
Dr. Robert Powell is an Associate Professor at the School of
\nArchitecture, National University of Singapore.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/spores-landscaping-erases-differences-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}