S'pore's landscaping erases differences

S'pore's landscaping erases differences

Is more of Singapore's heritage being lost by the Urban
Redevelopment Authority's plans?

By Robert Powell

In October 1991, the revised Concept Plan provided a vision
for Singapore's physical development into the 21st century. With
the completion of the plan, the Urban Redevelopment Authority
(URA) has proceeded to prepare detailed Development Guide Plans
(DGPs) for gazetting as the new Master Plan.

Singapore is divided into 55 planning areas and for each of
these areas a DGP is prepared. The broad vision in the Concept
Plan is thus translated into detailed proposals.

Almost five years have elapsed and the exhibition of the Paya
Lebar planning report, brings the number of DGPs to 29. It is
timely to review the process and to offer comments on some
perceived deficiencies.

The principal criticism is that the speed of the process and
the planning methodology adopted threatens to lead to even
greater homogenization of the Singapore landscape. The perception
that many observers have is that there is already very little
difference between urban and rural; between one New Town and
another. The impression from those DGPs already produced is that
this seamless merging of areas will continue unabated.

In the production of the earliest DGPs there was a real
attempt to make the process of planning transparent and to
introduce a more participatory approach. This was evident when in
1990 the then Minister for National Development, Mr. S.
Dhanabalan, asked teams assembled by the Singapore Institute of
Architects to prepare alternative proposals for Kampong Bugis,
Simpang and Jurong East. The majority of the DGPs are however
prepared by the URA and these have now settled into a
recognizable pattern.

The DGP reports are arranged in six sections. These are
introduction, existing conditions planning analysis, visions and
objectives, planning strategies, and planning proposals. This
synoptic approach to planning is used in many Western countries.
It is rational and in theory should ensure that nothing is
overlooked in the plan formulation.

But is it? A great deal depends on the Planning Analysis and
the Visions and Objectives. If something is missed in the
analysis stage or if it is excluded from the vision in order to
reflect the values of the dominant ideology then the plan itself
becomes suspect. All the issues are not highlighted and
subsequently debated.

Let me illustrate this. Take for example the Rochor DGP. On
Coleman's 1839, map of Singapore, the area to the north of
Kampong Glam bounded by the Rochor River is marked as the "Tombs
of the Malay Princes". Today, if one visits the site you will
find tombstones here which are draped in yellow cloth -- the
color reserved for royalty. In the URA analysis of this area it
is marked as "Incompatible Use" and assessed as being one of the
weaknesses and constraints which reduces the areas potential for
redevelopment. The nation's history, dating back to the time of
Raffles and the connections with the native Malays who occupied
the Singapore river before the arrival of the British East India
Company, is now confined to the archives.

With this analysis, the URA is then able to propose that the
area be rezoned as high-density housing at a plot ratio of 3.5,
which, although it is subject to urban design guidelines, will
still erase any difference that this area might have. Could it
have been retained as a landscaped park? In many other countries
such a valuable historical site would probably be exploited as a
tourist attraction as well as a source of some national pride. In
the manual for Kampong Glam Conservation Area produced in July
1988, the URA designated it as a "future park".

Another example is the Bukit Panjang Plan. Again the standard
planning methodology has been adopted. The greatest asset of the
area is the Bukit Timah Nature Reserve, an area of relatively
undisturbed rain forest which was set aside as a reserve in 1883.

The analysis identifies the unique physical qualities of the
area. What is overlooked, is that it is widely recognized that
for a nature reserve to be successful and for protected species
to survive, there should be a buffer zone between it and any
residential sites. I speak with some experience having in 1980
written a draft management plan for the Morowali Nature
Reserve in Sulawesi which had a transmigration settlement on its
border.

In the planning strategy for Bukit Panjang the concept of a
buffer zone is not included and new residential development is
planned which abuts the nature reserve. In addition, Dairy Farm
Road is extended eastwards to connect with the Bukit Timah
Expressway, so that the reserve comes under increasing pressure.
It is conceivable that in a relatively short time the reserve
will become degraded and lose any significance as a site of
scientific interest. The national heritage will be all the
poorer.

A third example is taken from the Newton Plan. The planning
analysis identifies Goodwood Hill as a potential place of
interest. On Goodwood Hill there are a number of beautiful
dwellings, having been built to house colonial civil servants in
about 1920. They fall into that unique category known as black
and white houses and are a precious piece of Singapore's
heritage.

In the Newton Plan, aside from their initial identification,
nothing else is mentioned about them. Although they are not zoned
for redevelopment, they are also not designated for conservation.
The land on which they sit is government-owned. Will the uniquely
different landscape be retained or will it eventually make way
for ubiquitous condominiums?

The process appears, whether consciously intended or
otherwise, to be gradually erasing any differences. This process
of erasure started in the 1960s.

The transformation of the island into a modern city state has
involved the constant remaking of the landscape. The land has
been the most malleable material, hills are leveled, the
coastline extended. But is this further homogenization an asset
of the DGPs or otherwise? The usual response to such questions is
that Singapore has limited land and it is incumbent upon planners
to optimize its use. The erasure of difference, however, has
serious consequences which need to be considered as we pass the
midpoint in the formulation of the new Master Plan.

Dr. Robert Powell is an Associate Professor at the School of
Architecture, National University of Singapore.