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.