|
World Cities Summit Issue, Jun 2008
Achieving Sustainable Urban Development
Cheong Koon Hean
CENTRAL PLANNING OR ORGANIC GROWTH?
A common question is "Should the Government leave things more organic and unplanned, or should it play an active role in shaping the urban landscape?"
Supporters of a more market-led approach often argue that top-down, government-led planning is overly rigid; centralised planning cannot create places with sufficient character, identity and vibrancy. They see unplanned growth and a more laissez-faire approach to urban planning as the preferred alternative.
On the other hand, unplanned growth, especially in fast growing and densely populated Asian cities, can lead to disastrous consequences. Market fluctuations can be very rapid, and private sector short-term responses may have very long-term repercussions. Once an office tower or factory is built, it is difficult, if not impossible, to "undo" the development. We cannot just walk away from mistakes made in our existing city and plan a new city. There is simply no room to do so. Furthermore, the market cannot ensure that infrastructure
keeps pace with development. We have to make sure that our city works. It
must accommodate a high population density while minimising the usual urban problems.
A responsible government that is far-sighted must have the ability and capacity to make decisions that may not necessarily pay off in the short term but will reap benefit in the longer term. For example, setting up MRT transport networks require high upfront costs that the private sector often shies away from. Sustainable development ultimately means keeping an eye on our future.
As a planning agency, URA makes strategic decisions with years ahead in mind. The Concept Plan is a strategic, long-term land use and transportation plan to guide Singapore's development for 40 to 50 years. In the 1991 Concept Plan review, it became clear that we would face the potential problem of massive traffic congestion in and around the Central Business District (CBD) during peak hours. To tackle this problem before it came to a head, a long-term strategy to decentralise commercial activities to commercial centres outside the central area was adopted.
By distributing commercial activities throughout the island and bringing jobs closer to homes, travel into the central area would be reduced, and so would both peak-hour congestion as well as vehicular emissions. Decentralisation would also offer businesses alternative and more affordable office locations. This decision could only come about through top-down planning (see box story on "Why Jurong?"). Conversely, left on its own, the market would likely continue to develop and expand the CBD-an unsustainable plan for the long term.
Another key consideration in our planning is to provide crucial facilities and amenities that will improve the quality of living, but which through normal market forces, would not be provided by the private sector. Would the private sector build parks, park connectors and community facilities instead of alternative, higher value uses? Similarly, who will ensure that there will be a buffer shielding our homes from industrial developments, or sheltered walkways and universally accessible public facilities? The role of URA as a central agency ensures that the liveability of Singapore will not be left to chance. Through comprehensive planning, residents can still trek through the Sungei Buloh Wetlands or climb Bukit Timah Hill to enjoy the sunset.
Planning also creates business opportunities and protects real estate values. Through the planners’ vision, new opportunities are created for the private sector to invest and to creatively transform dilapidated areas or virgin land into highly valuable assets. The Government supports the private sector with timely land release and infrastructure. Today, the Singapore River, Tanjong Rhu and Marina Bay (Figure 1) areas are examples of this successful public-private sector collaboration. Transparent plans and orderly development also give certainty and protect the value of homes and business investments.
REDEVELOPMENT OR CONSERVATION?
Another dilemma in planning is deciding between developing or retaining buildings and areas. Safeguarding our built and natural heritage is undeniably important. Physical reminders of our past help tie our people to the country and, at the same time, create a varied and appealing urban landscape. Similarly, protecting areas rich in flora and fauna is critical to ecologically sustainable growth. Today, we have a well-established programme to conserve Singapore’s historically and architecturally significant buildings, as well as legislation and programmes to protect our nature areas from commercial development.
However, conservation of our built heritage and nature areas comes at a price—the opportunity cost being the higher value alternative use that such land can be put to. A careful balance has to be struck.
The conservation of buildings found in the historical districts of Chinatown, Kampong Glam, Little India and Boat Quay are good case studies. These districts are all located within the Central Area, and occupy prime land that can potentially be redeveloped into Grade A offices or hotels. As our economy expands, so does the demand for prime land. Nevertheless, a deliberate decision was made to safeguard these areas because of their tremendous architectural, historical and social significance. At the same time, we took the pragmatic decision to allow conserved buildings to be adapted for modern-day and higher value uses such as offices, shops and hotels, whilst retaining the spirit of the building’s original design. Such an approach helps to ensure that old buildings do not become just hollow historical relics, but remain economically viable and relevant. Another way in which we safeguard the twin objectives of heritage and value preservation is to allow for “old and new” development combinations in selected areas. Where appropriate, we have kept parts of the old buildings fronting the street, thus preserving the streetscape and sense of scale, but allow new and higher buildings at the rear.
There are times when halting development of an area is not feasible even though there is pressure to do so. When it was announced that there were plans to redevelop Seletar and its surroundings, residents and members of the public who enjoyed the lush greenery and old colonial architecture of the area were unhappy. However, developing the area into an aerospace hub would enable Singapore to capitalise on the strong growth in the global aerospace industry and create an estimated 10,000 jobs.
In order to best balance both concerns, inputs from the different stakeholders were sought and their considerations incorporated into the plans. The new Seletar Aerospace Park will now conserve a cluster of colonial bungalows, which could be used as training facilities or to provide amenities, as well as retain areas of greenery and significant biodiversity. This way, the development would cater for economic growth while retaining Seletar’s distinctive charm.
Therefore, when it comes down to deciding whether a building should be conserved or an area safeguarded from development, we try to ensure a balanced evaluation of the social, environmental and economic factors. We are glad that our efforts have been recognised. The Urban Land Institute conferred its Global Award for Excellence on URA’s Conservation Programme in 2006. This reaffirms Singapore’s conservation approach which “… has achieved a balance between free-market economics and cultural conservation”.7
II |
