|
World Cities Summit Issue, Jun 2008
The Twin Pillars of
Estate Rejuvenation
Tay Kim Poh
To renew public housing estates in Singapore, upgrading and redevelopment are key strategies in revitalising and remaking the older estates.
Soon after Singapore attained self-government in 1959, one of its key challenges was to ease a severe housing shortage. The Housing and Development Board (HDB), which was set up a year later to handle this task, opted to provide small and utilitarian flats, which it was able to build quickly and at low cost to house a fast-growing population. Once the housing shortage eased, the Board’s challenge was to keep up with the changing needs and aspirations of the people, who were beginning to seek bigger and better flats, and more comprehensive facilities. This is a critical challenge since living in HDB flats is a way of life for most Singaporeans. Today, some 900,000 HDB flats across the island house 8 out of every 10 Singaporeans, where 95% of all HDB dwellers own the flats they live in (see box story on The Home Ownership Programme).
For many Singaporeans, the HDB flat is the single biggest asset they own. Hence, HDB has to continuously rejuvenate and renew its public housing estates to ensure that they remain vibrant and meet the changing lifestyles and growing affluence of Singaporeans. Where functionality was the focus in the building of housing estates in the early days, design and quality have become equally important considerations in HDB’s planning efforts today.
KEEPING UP WITH AFFLUENT CITIZENS AND CHANGING LIFESTYLES
Public housing in Singapore has been well managed and maintained. Daily cleaning and conservancy works carried out by local town councils, together with regular maintenance and repairs to the buildings, have ensured good standards of upkeep. Nonetheless, more had to be done for the older public housing estates built between the 1960s and the early 1980s. In terms of design, fittings and facilities, they were lagging behind the newer estates. For example, residents living in residential blocks built before the 1990s did not enjoy the convenience of having lifts serving every floor, while residents living in flats completed during the peak construction years from 1981 to 1986 faced maintenance issues such as spalling concrete and water seepage.
Apart from the physical ageing of the flats, there was also the greying of the population in these older estates. As younger residents formed their own nuclear families and moved out, attracted to the latest designs and modern facilities of newer towns, they left behind not only their older folks but also a vacuum in the social and economic life of the estates. Without the economic pull and dynamism of a younger population, the vibrancy and sustainability of older towns were affected. It became urgent to improve the living environment and inject new life, as well as to find a suitable mechanism to effect the needed changes.
CHOOSING AN OPTIMAL SOLUTION
An optimal solution is one that is able to meet and balance key needs. There are two practical options for rejuvenating older estates. The first is upgrading. Upgrading involves improving the physical conditions of the precinct, the building blocks and the interior of the flats to a standard comparable to those found in newer estates. It enhances the living environment for HDB residents and helps to sustain the value of their flats, without uprooting them from their familiar environment and community.
Upgrading has inherent advantages as the affected residents are not required to move out and it is less disruptive to the social and economic life of the community. The relatively minimal displacement involved makes upgrading a less costly and more affordable measure. The results of upgrading are also more immediate and highly visible, which significantly improves the quality of life and well-being of the residents.
However, upgrading cannot fully address the needs of some older public housing estates. For example, due to their inherent design, some old housing blocks cannot be retrofitted with lifts which stop on every floor. Residents, including the elderly and the handicapped, would still need to climb some flights of stairs to reach their flats. Upgrading also does not help to improve the population make-up in the estate.
The second option is redevelopment. This involves redeveloping an existing housing precinct by relocating its residents and demolishing the existing flats. Some of the older precincts were built in the earlier years at lower density. Preserving them in their existing layout would perpetuate the sub-optimal use of land. Redevelopment allows the use of land to be intensified—a clear strategic benefit, given Singapore’s land scarcity. Moreover, the land freed up through the clearance of aged blocks enables more flats to be built so that the existing residents can upgrade to new and better homes, and younger families and more activities can be brought in to revitalise the estate.
However, redevelopment may not be financially viable for all old housing precincts. In some cases, there are no suitable replacement sites nearby to resettle affected residents. Redevelopment is also an exercise requiring sensitive handling as it involves major displacement and uprooting. Care has to be taken in planning and implementation to ensure that residents are properly re-housed and existing community ties are not severed along with the demolition of the flats.
Both upgrading and redevelopment have their benefits and shortcomings. Depending on the circumstances, one could yield greater benefits to the city-state and the community than the other. HDB has therefore relied on both approaches to regenerate its older public housing estates.
II |
