Constructing a Singaporean Portrait by Mervin Loh

Loh Kong Liang, Mervin 248367

Constructing a Singaporean Portrait Re-thinking Architectural Heritage conservation Strategies in Singapore

MA Architecture 2018/19 Royal College of Art Critical and Historical Studies Dissertation Word Count: 9021

Declaration I declare that this dissertation is my work and has never been published and / or submitted for any form of award to any institutions before. Information derived from others has been acknowledged and cited in the text, and a list of references has been listed out in the bibliography.

iii

Table of Contents List of Illustrations

Introduction

Chapter 01: Development of Singapore in 53 years Singapore Tabula Rasa - Urban Renewal - Rapid Globalisation

6 8

Chapter 02: Architectural Heritage and Conservation in Singapore Architectural Heritage and Conservation Conservation Authority in SIngapore Policies implemented

10 12 14

Chapter 03: Zoning Architectural Heritage Conservation Zones and Shophouses Chinatown

16 18

Chapter 04: Architectural Heritage gone National Theatre Pearl Bank Apartments

20 24

Chapter 05: Strategies for re-thinking conservation The problems Looking deeper into the conservation zones Adaptive re-use through a much cheaper option

28 30 32

Conclusion: For the future

References

Cover Page Authour’s own, ‘Analysing the architectural qualities of Fort Canning Barrack’ Fig. 01 ‘Exploded axonometric diagram for the new National Gallery in Singapore’ (https://www.dezeen.com/2015/08/26/studiomilou-converts-singapore-city-hall-courthouse-national-art-gallery-cpg-consultants/) [Accessed 01 July 2019] Fig. 02 Authour’s own, ‘Analysing the rapid urbanisation in Singapore Central District’ Fig. 03 Rem Koolhaas ‘S M L XL Singapore Portrait of a Potemkin Metropolis’, The Monacelli Press (1995), p.1030 Fig. 04 ‘Singapore / HDB: Construction of Toa Payoh New Town’ (http://fac.arch.hku.hk/asian-cities-research/singaporehdb-construction-of-toa-payoh-new-town/) [Accessed 01 July 2019] Fig. 05 ‘Chinatown Guide 2014’ (https://www.ura.gov.sg/Conservation-Portal/Resources/Walking-Maps?bldgid=TKAY) [Accessed 01 July 2019] Fig. 06 ‘Clarke Quay, Will Alsop first major project in South East Asia’ (https://arcspace.com/feature/clarke-quay/) [Accessed 01 July 2019] Fig. 07 ‘Urban System Studies’ (https://smartnet.niua.org/sites/ default/files/resources/USS_UrbanRedevelopment.pdf) [Accessed 01 July 2019] Fig. 08 Authour’s own, ‘Analysing the architectural qualities of Fullerton Building’ Fig. 09 Brenda S. A. Yeoh, Shirlena Huang ‘The conservation-redevelopment dilemma in Singapore – The case of the Kampong Glam historic district’, Cities, (1996) Vol. 13, no. 6 p. 414 Fig. 10 ‘An Architectural Heritage Tour Through Photography’ (https://snapshot.canon-asia.com/article/en/an-architectural-heritage-tour-through-photography) [Accessed 01 July 2019]

Fig. 11 Brenda S. A. Yeoh, Shirlena Huang ‘The conservation-redevelopment dilemma in Singapore – The case of the Kampong Glam historic district’, Cities, (1996) Vol. 13, no. 6 p. 418 Fig. 12 ‘The Shophouse’ (https://www.ura.gov.sg/Corpor a t e / G e t - I n v o l v e d / C o n s e r v e - B u i l t - H e r i t a g e / E xplore-Our-Built-Heritage/The-Shophouse) [Accessed 01 July 2019] Fig. 13 ‘The Shophouse’ (https://www.ura.gov.sg/Corpor a t e / G e t - I n v o l v e d / C o n s e r v e - B u i l t - H e r i t a g e / E xplore-Our-Built-Heritage/The-Shophouse) [Accessed 01 July 2019] Fig. 14 ‘The Shophouse’ (https://www.ura.gov.sg/Corpor a t e / G e t - I n v o l v e d / C o n s e r v e - B u i l t - H e r i t a g e / E xplore-Our-Built-Heritage/The-Shophouse) [Accessed 01 July 2019] Fig. 15 ‘National Theatre’ (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Theatre,_Singapore) [Accessed 01 July 2019] Fig. 16 ‘SG50Game’ (http://www1.todayonline.com/infographics/sg50game/index.html) [Accessed 01 July 2019] Fig. 17 Ronald L. K. Kam ‘Singapore Identity and Architecture’ (2015) P. 48 MSc Thesis (https://www.academia. edu/18082626/Singapore_Identity_and_Architecture) [Accessed 01 July 2019] Fig. 18 ‘A mini National Theatre at Tank Road’ (http://2ndshot. blogspot.com/2013/11/a-mini-national-theatre-at-tankroad.html) [Accessed 01 July 2019] Fig. 19 ‘Pearl Bank Apartment’ (http://www.teoyusiang.com/ buildingsingapore/) [Accessed 01 July 2019] Fig. 20 ‘Chinatown’ (https://hiveminer.com/Tags/architecture,chinatown) [Accessed 01 July 2019] Fig. 21 ‘A Journey up the Pearl Bank Apartments’ (https://lionraw.com/2014/07/15/a-journey-up-pearl-bank-apartments/) [Accessed 01 July 2019]

List of Illustrations Fig. 22 Geraldine Quek C. T., Neo J. H. Kevin Josiah, Lim Y. L. Teri ‘Conservation Conversations – Pearl Bank Apartments’, Neo J. H. Kevin Josiah (2015) p. 12 Fig. 23 Geraldine Quek C. T., Neo J. H. Kevin Josiah, Lim Y. L. Teri ‘Conservation Conversations – Pearl Bank Apartments’, Neo J. H. Kevin Josiah (2015) p. 13 Fig. 24 Geraldine Quek C. T., Neo J. H. Kevin Josiah, Lim Y. L. Teri ‘Conservation Conversations – Pearl Bank Apartments’, Neo J. H. Kevin Josiah (2015) p. 17 Fig. 25 Authour’s own, ‘Proposal for 2nd Layer zoning to include Architectural Heritage of significant value’ Fig. 26 Authour’s own, ‘Adaptive re-use of Fort Canning Barrack’

Fig. 01 The new National Gallery in SIngapore (2015) Prime example of state-drive initiative for adaptive re-use of Archtiectural Heritage

Introduction The discourse of Heritage in architecture has been a strong topic for many developed cities around the world, especially so in cities that have a long and monumental history. Architectural Heritage and conservation have been discussed among architects and people that lived among these monumental relics, sometimes a series of buildings so significant that it is the pride of the city or the nation. The definition of Heritage in the dictionary is; “Noun 1 something that is inherited. 2 the characteristics, qualities, property, etc that one inherits at birth. economic a nation’s mark of history, such as stately buildings, countryside, cultural traditions, etc seen as nation’s wealth to be inherited by future generations.”[1]

ever so changing but the memories of buildings he saw when he was young still remain vividly in his mind. Not being able to see physically these spaces ever again, the author wishes for a much more stronger approach of the values of Architectural Heritage through understanding different significant buildings that plays different roles in the building of the nation, and have it physically possible for the future generations to enjoy the spatial qualities that these buildings give.

Extracting from the definition, point 3 notes that it means a significant point in the history of the nation or city and that it covers from tangibles of architecture and landscape to the intangibles of cultural traditions which will be inherited by the future generations of people living in that area. But what if the nation or the city does not have such a long and monumental history that defines its cultural, what if all it has are just snippets of architecture that reveals a part of its short history in the world. Singapore is one such nation that has very little of the past that makes up its identity, instead of through urban renewal and globalisation does she finds significant points in the developing of the nation where architecture plays a role in it. Due to the rapid growth of the developing nation to a developed nation in 30 years, Singapore has almost destroyed the very little Architectural Heritage that she has and continues to rapidly progress in globalisation through re-building of urban fabric from a clean slate (Tabula Rasa). This dissertation attempts to look at how Singapore as a young nation, through urban renewal and rapid globalisation affected the value of Architecture Heritage.[2] I will also look at how the government is attempting to restore these values through government involvement which overlook some important Architectural Heritage that is significant in the building of the nation. This important Architectural Heritage will show the discourse between the government, the local architects and the people on the fate of these buildings, and their eventual demise. The dissertation will then concludes with strategies on how we should approach Architectural Heritage and Conservation in Singapore through modernisation of thinking while still allow for urban renewal and globalisation to take place in the nation building. The strategies will be placed in an island-wide context, that will allow a greater understanding of Architectural Heritage and its importance especially in a young nation like Singapore. The writing is a collection of the author’s thoughts and view on his own nation, where the urban landscape is 1. Chambers (Ed.) ‘Chambers 21st Century Dictionary’ , 2Rev Ed edition (1999) 2. Chia, Lee, Naidu, Kwok ‘Rethinking chinatown and heritage conservation in Singapore’, Singapore Heritage Society (2000), p. 17

Chapter 01

Fig. 02 Map of Singapore Analysing the rapid urbanisation in Singapore Central District

Development of Singapore in 53 years

Applying tabula rasa to the urban fabric

Singapore I grew up in Singapore during the late 1980s, 23 years after the proclamation of independence. It was an era where Singapore rapidly developed into a first world country, through the rapid urbanisation and technological advancement of the city-state and transport. I remember vividly sitting on the MRT (Mass Rapid Transit); a major component of the railway system in Singapore that covers most of the city-state major districts, looking at the development of different areas from the windows of the train. As I passed by different stations on the MRT train, my mum would describe places, buildings and people she knew or met in that area. The memories that came out from her were like a nostalgic reminiscence of what Singapore was like before the rapid urbanisation of the cityscape. Singapore is an island 1°17′ north of the equator that was colonised by the British Empire from 1819 to 1963. After independence in 1965, the country began to embark on a long journey of finding its urban identity within South East Asia and the World. As the historical architecture fabric of the city-state is not as enormous and long-lived compared to other western countries, it was an era of the deliberate act of tabula rasa - the eradication of ethnic identities and traditions through the mass construction of housing program and restructuring area of segregation into modern urban planning. In the essay Architecture, Art and Identity in Singapore by William Lim, he explores extensively on the role of architecture that plays in expressing and shaping of the national identities from the perspective of Architects. He talks about how local architects at that time; searching for a new paradigm of South East Asian values not copying from the colonial tropical design, but a new design language that could be expressed as the modern interpretation of tropical architecture. The new waves of design from these young local architects at that time would bring about a change in perception of how tropical architecture in South East Asia could be modernised in a way not bounded by the colonial designs of Singapore’s past. Due to the new and unprecedented outlook of modernity in architecture, the city-states starts to move in the direction of clearing and re-building segments of the country at a rapid rate. Singapore can be considered a perfect example of rapid modernisation of a city; a model of ‘Tabula Rasa’ wherein the rush for development, history had been almost completely erased from the preceding built fabric.[3] The utopian conditions for Singapore in return destroyed the very few cultural references in architecture, which I could call it truly Singaporean. The conviction held by her founder; Lee Kuan Yew, that the country could not be defined by its colonial past, but should build a future coincided with modernists’ architectural ambition of a new emerging city.

3. William S.W. Lim ‘Architecture, Art and Identity in Singapore: Is there Life after Tabula Rasa?’, Asian Urban Lab (2004)

Fig. 03 Tabula Rasa Entire old distrct razed to construct new public housing in 1970s

Fig. 04 New Toa Payoh Public Housing in 1970s Replacing the erased historical fabric with new public housing

Tabula Rasa - Urban Renewal – Rapid Globalisation The city-state is less than 60 years, representing the ideological production and progression of surviving contextual remnants of a city not bound by its colonial past. She exemplified a city caught between the countervailing pressures of modernisation and urban renewal, and the need to reclaim its urban heritage as a means of promoting the collective past. The rapid urbanisation of the city means everything is remade by the government, which excluded the accident and randomness of the context Singapore represents a unique ecology of the contemporary.[4] Many historical buildings are constructed during the 1800s and the oldest building is the Old Parliament House, built in 1827. The British influences on the urban landscape and the impact of state-enforced tabula rasa, started to question the image of Singapore and her historical fabric. In 1963, 2 years before the independence of the City state, three experts from the United Nations; American Charles Abrams, Japanese Susumu Kobe and German Otto Koenigsberger – prepared a report to the government of Singapore with a manifesto-like titled, “Growth and Urban Renewal in Singapore”. Rem Koolhaas discusses the UN Mission and its contribution to urban renewal to the Singapore government through research and analysis made by the UN Mission. The report addresses three indispensable elements of urban renewal, (1) Conservation (2) Rehabilitation and (3) Rebuilding, which then articulated Singapore’s dilemma in 1964. The report states that as an objective stems from the three elements of urban renewal, Singapore will have to face and resolve whether to make commitments to the retention of some of its historical and cultural typologies or to erase them and create something different in their place.[5] The advice given by the three experts are the recommendation for identification of these values in some areas as well as their shortcomings and build and strengthen these values while planning to remove some of their shortcomings. These recommendation posted questions on the idea of Architectural Heritage Conservation versus rapid modernisation, the ethical sides of both requirements to advance the country in a globalisation world. Rem Koolhaas in his chapter of Singapore Songlines wrote that;

annual growth rate of the residents, the focus is mainly on its economic globalisation and sociological issues of globalisation and transmigration. Even with an economic outlook base on the discussion, Soh and Yuen do draw links between how globalisation in economical rate affects the changing landscape of the city-state. To fight Against globalisation, Singapore has been actively pursuing the idea of positive image on the city while selling its attractiveness to both the residents and visitors. Re-branding and re-positioning the city-centre with internationally renowned business facilities and consumption opportunities. Singapore also tries to pursue the positive image of attractiveness to both its residents and visitors. [7] Using Singapore’s long-range 2001 concept plan, it shows how the city plans to develop areas into economic zones that would not overlap with entertainment and residential zones. As Singapore’s long-range 2001 concept plan reveals a future development scenario of an economically vibrant and liveable city, attention of buildings with historical and cultural values are not included in her plan. The predicament of the historical and cultural fabric will be facing a future far from the vibrant city that she will be promoting. In the midst of a rapid transformation of the city-state, what is the role of the historical fabric of the city that is now left behind?

“Is this pondering of preservation lip service or do the experts know that they will seal the island’s fate with the transformations they are about to set in motion?” Emily Soh and Belinda Yuen discussed the development of a globalised economy and its socio-spatial environment in Singapore which is regarded as ‘multinational articulations’ (J. Freidmann 1986; 1995) world city hierarchy.[6] Although the discussion focuses on how the world views Singapore in terms of its population and average 4. Rem Koolhaas ‘S M L XL Singapore Portrait of a Potemkin Metropolis’, The Monacelli Press (1995), p.1031-37 5. Rem Koolhaas, p. 1025 6. Emily Y.X. Soh, Belinda Yuen ‘Singapore’s changing spaces’, National University of Singapore (2010) p. 3 7. Emily Y.X. Soh, Belinda Yuen, (2010) p. 6

Chapter 02 Fig. 05 Graphic map of Chinatown Historic District Singapore government and URA promoting tourism in conserved zones

Fig. 06 New Clarke Quay shelters designed by Will Alsop (2006) In reponse to perserve the atomsphere of the streets instead of the rebuilt ‘Fake’ shophouses

Architectural Heritage and Conservation

What does it mean to conserve heritage?

Architectural Heritage and Conservation Architectural Heritage Conservation is a process whereby the historical and culturally significance, materiality, design integrity of any built heritage are prolonged through carefully planned interventions. Together with the architectural conservation are a set of governing policies by the government, to access issues related to identification, regulation, historical values and advocacy associated with the entirety of the cultural and built environment. [8] Some legislative requirements refer to ‘preservation’ but both conservation and preservation are considered equal to be interpreted as ‘preserve from harm’ –harm to its significance, not simply its fabric. The process of maintaining and managing change to a heritage asset in a way that sustains, and where appropriate enhances its significance. In order to successfully carry out such process, it is the Government’s overarching aim that the historic environment and its heritage assets should be conserved for the quality of life they bring to this and future generations. Heritage can be defined as not a ‘thing’ or a ‘site’, it can also not be any tangible objects of buildings and materiality. Heritage as taken from Laurajane Smith; “…is what goes on at these sites, and while this does not mean that a sense of physical place is not important for these activities or plays some role in them, the physical place or ‘site’ is not the full story of what heritage may be.”[9]

policy has given a problematic effect on the idea of demolishing and rebuild when greater recognition of conservation is given to the nation after years of demolishing and building new architecture in the name of rapid globalisation.[11] When the government realises that rapid demolishing has created a big dent in the values of Architectural Heritage in Singapore, it is too late to reverse the effect as such a rapid re-building of these tangible memories start to emerge in heritage sites demarcated by the government. As such in order to ensure Singapore’s heritage to continue in existence as it faces the conservation-redevelopment dilemma, the Architectural Heritage and Conservation of buildings are included in the redevelopment framework of areas in Singapore. Architectural Heritage becomes significant now within the framework of development in Singapore due to its particular built environment of ‘Visual Landmarks’, that records the past as an abstract notion of location which links to the present state of the environment.[12] As the government moves towards Urban Conservation; an extension of the ideology of Architectural Heritage, it can be seen as an attempt to re-create the intangible moments into tangible objects of the location’s historical continuity and cultural identity while ensuring a constantly changing society without disregarding the past of the people in the area.

The explanation given by Smith is that Heritage is more about the intangibles qualities that were given within the area, which is a cultural process that reminiscences the site itself as production or engagement with the people and space. Conservation of such heritage means that one could argue the physical object need not be present, but instead the people and the atmosphere that creates the heritage is more important in the conservation of particular identity of the site. As Will Alsop once mentioned in his talk in Shanghai; on the design of the public space in Clarke Quay, Singapore, “Since there are no buildings to conserve; everything in Clarke Quay is recently built in the image of the old shophouses that was once there, the design instead conserves the streets to preserve the heritage of the area rather than the physical models of these shophouses.”[10] This shows that in Singapore, the state’s urban renewal 8. Jane Jacobs ‘The Death and Life of Great American Cities’, Vintage Books ed. (1992) p. 405-407 9. Laurajane Smith ‘Uses of Heritage’, Routeledge, (2006) p. 44 10. Will Alsop (Public discussion in Shanghai June 1, 2007) 11. Lily Kong, Brenda S. A. Yeoh ‘Urban Conservation in Singapore: A Survey of State Policies and Popular Attitudes’, Urban Studies, (1994) 31(2) p. 248 12. Brenda S. A. Yeoh, Shirlena Huang ‘The conservation-redevelopment dilemma in Singapore – The case of the Kampong Glam historic district’, Cities, (1996) Vol. 13, no. 6 p. 412

Fig. 07 The Urban Design Plan conceptualised in 1971 for 1980s onwards The pragmatic planning of URA on the rapid development of Singapore

Fig. 08 The Fullerton Building, one of Singapore’s most prominent national monument The building was officially gazetted on December 7, 2015, as Singapore’s 71st national monument, by the country’s National Heritage Board (NHB)

Conservation Authority in Singapore In January 1971, the Preservation of Monuments Board (PMB) was created through the Act of Parliament in order to spearhead the gazetting and preservation of Architectural Heritage that is significant to be National Monuments. The PMB is an authority that is governed with four objectives; “to preserve monuments of historic, traditional, archaeological, architectural or artistic interest; to protect and augment the amenities of those monuments; to stimulate public interest in and support in the preservation of those monuments; and to take appropriate measures to preserve all records document and data relating to those monuments.”[13] As the earliest form of state-driven initiatives to protect the Architectural Heritage of Singapore, it becomes the foundation of conservation which is the integral process of building a national identity through these Architectural Heritage. In April 1974, the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) was created as an independent statutory board under the Ministry of National Development (MND) to take over the responsibility of the Urban Renewal Department (URD). URD was established under the Housing Development Board (HDB) in order to resolve physical, social and economic regeneration of the city. As mass social housing during the period was of the highest concern by the government, the URD is unable to properly integrate it’s planning into the social housing development scheme which was happening all around Singapore. URA’s primary task was to redevelop the central area and resettle residents affected by the development. In 1980, the URA prepared a comprehensive long-term plan for the central area, which includes the development of Marina City on reclaimed land. The Urban Design Plan was developed during the same time, and served to guide ‘an orderly transformation of the city skyline and the creation of an environment interwoven with the historical, architectural and cultural heritage of the older parts of the city’.[14] The Urban Design Plan was a 5-year concept plan from 1980 to present, in demarcating and development of the city-state in line with the economic growth of the government policies. The Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) of Singapore goes by the conservation principles that they have carefully crafted to suit the demographic development of the city-state. With Singapore context in mind, they have listed on their website ‘Our historic buildings and districts give us a visual and physical link to Singapore’s past in

our changing urban landscape’.[15] As part of the Conservation Principles developed by the URA, they have written a series of guidelines laying out rules and regulation surrounding historical buildings that have already been gazetted for conservation. The objectives, principles and standards were derived from local experience and where appropriate, drawn from international sources (Venice Charter 1964, Burra Charter 1988, etc).[16] However, conservation is much more than just preserving a façade or the external shell of a building. The principles gave the ideology of preserving the design integrity of the architecture, not only just for the design aesthetics of it, but also for the historical value that the building delivered to the environment and the country. Although the URA’s conservation policies seemed comprehensive in adhering to good conservation principles; in reality, the results have not been satisfying. It focused too much on the physical and economic aspects of gentrifying most of the remaining heritage builds in the central area, and not giving enough attention to preserving the existing communities or historical and cultural fabric of the area. The National Heritage Board (NHB) was created in August 1993, as a statutory board under the Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth. Their mission as taken from their website; “…is to preserve and celebrate the shared heritage of our diverse communities, for the purpose of education, nation-building and cultural understanding. We are responsible for telling the Singapore story, sharing the Singaporean experience and imparting our Singapore spirit.”[17] Their main aim is to manages the national museum and heritage institution as well as setting a series of policies relating to heritage sites, National Monuments and the national collection. Their formation is a response to the increasing need in the preservation of heritage sites through Conservation of areas demarcated by the URA and the government. As Singapore still undergoes rapid change in modernisation, the need for such statutory board to oversee certain aspects of Heritage Conservation is required to ensure that the conservation policies are not left aside. Even with the establishment of NHB, their main disposition are the safeguarding of cultural artefacts that are necessary to establish a historical connection between present Singapore and her past. NHB has neither power nor any significant say in terms of Architectural Heritage, where tangible buildings are a concern as such did not contribute significantly in the preservation of Historical Buildings in Singapore.

13. Section 5, Preservation of Monuments Act (1985) 14. Lily Kong, Brenda S. A. Yeoh, (1994) p. 249 15. Lily Kong, Brenda S. A. Yeoh, (1994) p. 249 16. URA & PMB (1993), p. 12 17. National Heritage Board (https://www.nhb.gov.sg/who-we-are/about-us) [Accessed 01 July 2019]

Fig. 09 Conservation areas and historic districts in the Central Area The begining of conservation zones

Fig. 10 A 1950 Modern shophouse at the corner of a street in Tanjong Pagar taken by Darren Wong One of the typical shophouse design that was safeguard by URA’s conservation policies

Policies implemented During the period of 1970s-1980s; a period of tabula rasa in Singapore has eradicated a large number of old shop-houses and town-houses in the island’s central area. The communities have been displaced from the historical settlement areas to other locations that were planned as residential zones.[18] Lee Kuan Yew explained that as part of a plan to rebuild Singapore and re-house everyone, and to demolish the shacks where Malays were concentrated, it was decided to scatter and mix the ethnic groups by setting up ethnic quotas in public housing estates. The ‘demolish and rebuild’ policy at that time was attributed to: -

Over-crowding, prostitution, gambling and organised crime.

Environment issues such as public utilities, sanitation and structure dilapidation of buildings.

Commercial development by transforming unproductive areas to generate might higher values and returns.

The demolition and redevelopment were so extensive that the government realised the irreversible loss of tangible historical and cultural identity that conservation plans were implemented to save the remaining urban heritage in the 1990s.[19] URA have set out an umbrella term of 3R principle; Maximum Retention, Sensitive Restoration and Careful Repair, for developers and architects to follow in terms of conservation. Although it was driven mainly by tourism industry and speculative property redevelopment scheme, many of the old shop houses were given a second lease of life through the policy of ‘adaptive re-use’ approach.[20] The notion of ‘adaptive re-use’ has played an integral part in Singapore conservation through owners, architects and developers intervention in design and architecture. Empty buildings were turned into new shops, restaurants, cafes, hotels or offices. Major changes in the interior spaces adapted new functions and programs while complying with a series of stringent regulations which includes that retain of façade features and styles. When the 1989 conservation plan was announced by URA, conservation status was given to historical districts such as Chinatown, Little India, Kampong Glam, Singapore River as well as secondary settlements of residential areas like Emerald Hill, Cairnhill, Geylang, etc.[21] The naming of these areas were in fact policies that were given by the government to promote Singapore as part

of the Singapore Tourism Board’s ‘rebranding’ strategy. These centralised districts turned into the ‘theme parks’ of the city-state. Political leaders during the 1980s period highlighted the dangers of Singaporean losing their Asian roots and the consequence this held for the society – an agenda that was used to drive political means in Singapore. This took the form of pronouncements and debates in both official and public discourse on a number of themes, urging the preservation of ‘Asian’ and ‘Traditional’ values while maintaining the ‘Local’ cultural identity and heritage.[22] Goh Chok Tong (1988, p 15), then First Deputy Prime Minister, declared in 1988 that; “We are part of a long Asian civilisation and we should be proud of it. We should not be assimilated by the West and become a pseudo-Western society. We should be a nation that is uniquely multiracial and Asian, with each community proud of its traditional culture and heritage.” The political means of pushing for the preservation of architectural heritage has led to much discourse of both tangible and intangible forms. What is Built Environment of particular significance and what is Visual Landmarks of cultural heritage? Urban conservation in Singapore can be seen now primarily as an attempt on the part of the state, driven by her political agenda of the people’s identity to answer the memories of the people. While the state has implemented policies on conservation, it is substantial agreement that there has been insufficient public input in any decision-making process. Instances when buildings of historical and architectural value have been demolished to make way for more ‘Pragmatic’ usage of the land, the policies that accompany it will prevent any setbacks that the public will give. Many of the demolishing of these Architectural Heritage is masked behind different policies that were implemented by the government before the actual proceeding of the work. For example, Eu Court, a curved corner building with ‘Landmark Qualities’ located in the Civic and Cultural District, was torn down in early 1993 to make way for the widening of Hill Street.[23]

18. Brenda S. A. Yeoh, Shirlena Huang, (1996) p. 415 19. Lily Kong, Brenda S. A. Yeoh, (1994) p. 250 20. URA Conservation Principles (https://www.ura.gov.sg/Corporate/Guidelines/Conservation/Conservation-Principles) [Accessed 01 July 2019] 21. Brenda S. A. Yeoh, Shirlena Huang, (1996) p. 416 22. Brenda S. A. Yeoh, Shirlena Huang, (1996) p. 412 23. Newsletter of the Singapore Heritage Society ‘Roots’, (May 1993) p. 3

Chapter 03 Fig. 11 Kampong Glam conservation zone A example of URA’s conservation zone demarcation from 1990 onwards

Fig. 12 The NUS ‘Baba House’ No. 157 Neil Road, is an example of an architectural beauty that has been carefully restored by the URA

Zoning Architectural Heritage

Turning conservation zoning to tourism promotion

Conservation Zones and Shophouses In the 1980s the government implemented policies through the rehabilitation of state-owned shophouses along Murray Street and Tudor Court, in order to change the public views on the values of Architectural Heritage of these pre-war buildings. As time goes by, the perception of the public changes to increasingly be of interest in the conservation of such Architectural Heritage. The unveiling of the Conservation Master Plan for the citystate historic areas in 1986 saw the increasing interest in the preservation of such buildings either through restoration or purely preservation if in good condition.[24] The pilot restoration project by URA at no. 9 Neil road was completed and subsequently, through the approval of the government and the people, the first set of Conservation zone in Tanjong Pagar was carried out through restoration of these buildings. By the mid-1980s, there was growing displeasure of house saving occasional buildings was tern a token concession in comparison to the importance of the city-state historical identity. The ideology of ‘historic districts’ or ‘ethnic areas’ contains a series of Architectural Heritage that reflects the ‘richness of the cityscape’ which should be conserved in view of a much bigger scale of Architectural Heritage through the preservation of culturally significant buildings and streetscapes. Extracted from URA’s conservation within the central area;

rows and rows of pre-war buildings called Shophouses. They are a prevalent and vernacular building typology of Singapore’s Architectural Heritage. These buildings are normally just 2-3 storeys high, which was built in a row with common party walls. They are generally narrow, small terraced houses with a sheltered ‘five-foot way’ at the front linking all the front entrances in a row together. Constructed during the 1840s to 1960s, these shophouses are the vernacular typologies of pre-war South East Asia and makes up the urban fabric of the old city centre in Singapore. Although it was demarcated as a zone or area-wide boundary (blanket coverage), the efforts mainly aimed at pre-war buildings which are generally the shophouses. These in URA’s viewpoint are the main conservation efforts in terms of safeguarding the national heritage, even though there is other significant Architectural Heritage within these zones that are later on demolished to make way for much more modern buildings.

“For our city to be truly great, we cannot rely only on modern architecture, which is restrained by the economics of efficient construction, the use of new technology, and the pervasive international architectural style of the 20th Century. It is inevitable that our new developments suffer the fate of looking like the new buildings in other cities of the world. The only way that gives our city a distinct personality is our historic past through the selective conservation of old districts and buildings.”[25] In 1989 URA demarcated 10 conservation zones in historical districts of Chinatown, Little India, Kampong Glam, Singapore River, Telok Ayer, Kreta Ayer, Tanjong Pagar, Buki Pasoh, Cairnhill and Emerald Hill which were the earliest effort by a government authority to conserve Architectural Heritage of significant in Singapore. Even though the conservation efforts look like it was forge based on the understanding of the importance of these Architecture Heritage, the primarily aim was to showcase Singapore as a multicultural city – which was shown through the renaming of historical districts like Chinatown (a Chinese heartland), Little India (a Indian heartland) and Kampong Glam (a Malay heartland). The area comprises mainly of vernacular shophouses which were in relative to the human scale, something that is not often found in modern architecture.[26] Within these zones are 24. URA (https://www.ura.gov.sg/Corporate/Get-Involved/Conserve-Built-Heritage/Explore-Our-Built-Heritage/brief-history) [Accessed 01 July 2019] 25. URA ‘Conservation within the Central Area with the Plan for Chinatown’ (1985) p. 1 26. Brenda S. A. Yeoh, Shirlena Huang, (1996) p. 415

Fig. 13 Series of Shophouses examples found in Chinatown URA uses the list to set a series of rules for shophouses perservation

Fig. 14 Key Elements of Shophouses URA uses a distinct section to illustrate the shophouse typology for restoration works

Chinatown When I was 8 my mum brought me to a traditional medicine hall in Chinatown. I was down with a cold and she said drinking some herbal tea from the shop would cure my cold. I remember the dusty looking ceiling as the ceiling fan turns round and round like a slow-moving clock second hand. The furniture inside was extremely old looking but were decorated with carvings of dragons and phoenix-like in those traditional Chinese houses you see on television. An old man fetches a cup of herbal tea through these big golden boiler urns, that were a prevalent instrument you see in all Traditional Chinese medicine hall. I drank it with discomfort as it was really bitter but after that, the old man gave me a sweet and said well done in Hokkien dialect which I barely knew off at that time. Fast forward 20 years, I went back in search for the same shop but was replaced by a Southern China eatery. I never did remember what the shop name neither did my mum, but we both remember the time we had at the hall. In September 1998, the Singapore Tourism Board (STB) announced a Singapore Dollars $97.5 million plan to revitalise Chinatown by enhancing the ideology of the Chinatown experience. After which there is a significant development of the public debate in regards to the fate of the thriving businesses and Architectural Heritage in Chinatown. The Singapore Heritage Society (SHS) follows the development of these discourses as well as study thoroughly the proposal laid out by STB which further stimulates the discourses, prompting STB to hold a public forum in February 1999. As the communication between the government authority and the people increases its value through this public forum, the people realise that tourism and conservation fall under the same categories – which is to promote the Heritage of the nation through conservation of Architectural Heritage and Culture.[27] The Architectural Heritage of Chinatown falls not only in the significant architectural contributions it has in terms of the series of vernacular shophouses in the district, but also the traditional cultures it contains through the buildings of places of worship, places of gathering and marketplace. The communal spaces that continue up to the present days show the undying spirit of the intangibles qualities as well within the spatial providence of the Architectural Heritage. In SHS Rethinking Chinatown, they talk about how the boundaries and divisions of STB drew plans only on areas that comprise the remaining old shophouses. They did not include areas which are commercially active and where the old businesses and residents still live. These places in the words of SHS “also provide a significant density of residences and activities that should be the key to any revitalization effort.”[28] Although STB demarcated a set of areas like Chinatown, the actual boundary of Chinatown spread much more

27. Chia, Lee, Naidu, Kwok (2000) p. 13 28. Chia, Lee, Naidu, Kwok (2000) p. 18 29. Chia, Lee, Naidu, Kwok (2000) p. 39

beyond those demarcations. It includes areas like Boat Quay, Clarke Quay, Riverside point and other such areas. Many significant Architectural Sites are cut off even though they are important to early Chinese immigrant society at that time. STB’s attempts to create a theme-park kind of archetype can be seen as disrespectful towards the Architectural Heritage of the area, even if the purpose was to conserve the values of the heritage site.[29] The current plans to revitalise Chinatown is an underlying trend of the development of Singapore, through the rapid globalisation that boosted tourism development in Singapore. Because of economic gains in such a movement, the government sees it as a chance to ensure conservation takes place while ensuring a boost in tourism through these conservation efforts. It is through such a blanket coverage of conservation zones that the authorities are unable to understand the significance of each Architecture Heritage plays in the area, in terms of culturally and spatially.

Chapter 04 Fig. 15 National Theatre A Nation’s monument for the development of the society

Fig. 16 An illustration of the prominent facade of the National Theatre

Architectural Heritage gone...

Government against the locals

National Theatre The National Theatre was a monumental landmark built on the slope of Fort Canning Park in 1963. It was the first modernist architecture that was built to celebrate Singapore’s self-government and the largest national theatre in Singapore,[30] and the opening of the theatre coincided with the South-east Asian Cultural Festival that was held also on the same year. It is also one of the first public building in Singapore that was financially contributed by the members of the public through various fundraising activities, hence its also known as “People’s Theatre”. During the planning stage, the government decided that the construction of the National Theatre should be concurrent effort involving the local population. A series of fundraising activities was launched during the National Loyalty Week as well as sales from concert tickets and souvenir cards commemorating the Loyalty Week help in contributing to the funds for the construction of the National Theatre. One of the most prominent activities that help in the construction of the National Theatre was the “a-dollar-a-brick” campaign, which encourages the public to donate a dollar for a brick to be laid in the National Theatre.[31] This endeavour has lead to many of the citizen donating a huge amount of collective funds in response to the patriotic spirit of the people, which shows how much the citizen would want a national monument to be constructed for the people by the people.[32] The celebrated design of the National Theatre was a response to the post-independence of Singapore where the search for the National Identity is highly priorities by the local architects who returned to Singapore after studying abroad. It was also during the period where many local architects started to make their presence stronger in Singapore through innovative designs of both public and commercial buildings on a new architectural and urban landscape, a city-state of rapid urbanisation and deliberate act of tabula rasa. The design of the National Theatre was won through an architectural competition by a local architect named Alfred Wong with his office AWP Pte Ltd, and they delivered one of the most monumental buildings in the modernist architecture movement of Singapore at that time. The brief calls for a semi open-air environment in response to the cost efficiency of the building as well as the climate of the location, the design incorporated early ideology of tropical architecture like cross ventilation, sun shading devices and light wells that are prevalent in Singapore tropical architecture movement presently. The design itself features an open-air auditorium

with a cantilever supporting roof, the wall for the roof contains five vertical diamond shaped bays that form the distinctive façade of the National Theatre. The theatre itself includes a stage with a revolving platform of 15.2m diameter, which at that time was a significant piece of technological advancement for a country like Singapore, in the performing art scene. The crescent-shaped fountain that was designed by the Public Works Department (PWD), which was part of the effort to beautify Singapore with fountains at that time. Combining with the five diamond façade of the National Theatre, it was seen by many of the public as a representation of the National Flag’s crescent moon and five stars.[33] Through the public efforts and the design of the National Theatre, one can see how much effort did the public put in order to realise a national identity through the construction of a national monument representing the progression of the nation. The design of it also marks the milestone of innovative and contextual sensitivity of Architectural Heritage in public buildings in Singapore, a strong echo of the modernism movement taught in established architectural academies like Australia, Britain and United States. Many of the designs during that time also shows bears resemblance to great master architects of the modernist era like Alvar Aalto, Le Corbusier and others while adapting to the location climate and social conditions through reappropriation and production of ideas within Singapore context.[34] The National Theatre reached to its end of the era on 16 January 1984; a short 21 years after its construction, due to it being structurally unsafe. A survey conducted by the Building Control Division of PWD found that several main structures within the National Theatre were thought to be unsafe. The main issue came about when there are more structural defects discovered in its cantilever roof. [35] That combining with other parts of the building structure made up the main issue and decision of closing up the National Theatre for good. Although on the surface, the structurally unsafe issue of the National Theatre was to blame, it was not beyond unrepair. During that period that was another problem that was due to the redevelopment of the vicinity around the National Theatre. The proposed construction of the Central Expressway underground tunnel will pass in close proximity to the National Theatre, rendering the building to be even more unsafe due to the construction. The authorities of that time came to the conclusion that the construction of the elevated expressway would also cause noise and pollution, that

30. Vernon Cornelius ‘National Theatre’, National Library Board, Singapore [Accessed 01 July 2019] 31. ‘Dollar-a-brick campaign for construction of the National Theatre in Singapore’ The Straits Times (20 February 1961) p. 16 Retrieved from NewspaperSG [Accessed 01 July 2019] 32. NLB ‘National Theatre’ (http://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/infopedia/articles/SIP_800_2005-01-18.html) [Accessed 01 July 2019] 33. ‘A third fountain to beautify Singapore’ The Straits Times (18 October 1965) p. 11 Retrieved from NewspaperSG [Accessed 01 July 2019] 34. Ronald L. K. Kam ‘Singapore Identity and Architecture’ (2015) P. 27 MSc Thesis (https://www.academia.edu/18082626/Singapore_Identity_and_Architecture) [Accessed 01 July 2019] 35. ‘Curtains to fall o National Theatre soon’ The Straits Times (28 January 1984) p. 1 Retrieved from NewspaperSG [Accessed 01 July 2019]

Fig. 17 National Theatre The innovative layout plan by Alfred Wong

Fig. 18 Scaled replica of the facade for National Theatre in 2013 taken by SecondShot Replication of what has pass gave some form of tangiblities to the memories of those who have seen it before

will make the open-air National Theatre for stage performances.[36] That in time contributed to the demise of the building through redevelopment efforts of the government over the preservation of a national monument. The eventual demolition of the National Theatre sparked outcries from the public due to its significant value in Architecture Heritage and people’s memories. Fast forward to the present year of Singapore, much older generation still holds memories of the National Theatre. To commemorate the 50th anniversary of the National Theatre in 2013, a scaled replica of its façade was replicated by Lai Chee Kien; local architect for the Singapore Biennale entitled National Theatre@50, which was put up along Tank Road across from its original site. That brings about the first question of Architectural Heritage in this chapter, if the tangible object is as such importance to the cultural fabric of Singapore in the midst of the rapid urbanisation of the country; why is there no efforts in conservation of such important Architectural Heritage that plays a significant roles in the peoples effort of national identity and architectural movement of Singapore during the milestone of redevelopment of the nation.

36. ‘Curtains for a dame: The National Theatre will be all gone within weeks’ The Straits Times (21 July 1986) p. 9 Retrieved from NewspaperSG [Accessed 01 July 2019]

Fig. 20 Internal courtyard of the apartment The innovative design of pushing services inwards to the interior courtyard

Fig. 19 Pearl Bank Apartment An illustration to show its brutalist design

Fig. 21 Corridor The asian values of neighbour interaction is seen in this long connected corridor which encourages accidental conversation

Pearl Bank Apartments The Pearl Bank Apartments was built in 1976, design by local Architect, Tan Cheng Siong in 1976 as part of the experimental project done by Archnamics Architects/ Archurban Architects Planners – is one of the pioneers of a high rise, high-density living, which also followed the style of Brutalism highly popular in the 1970s. Innovating the ideology of having the maximum amount of density within a piece of land, the design was driven in order to ensure its high density for residential development would make a successful bid for the land sales set out by the Urban Renewal guidelines in Singapore during the late 1970s.[37] The iconic building was The structural concept utilised 10 radiating shear walls as party walls, which at that time as highly experimental and innovative in South East Asia context. The apartment was built to house 1,500 habitants, with a total height of 131 meters tall. Its unique typology is through the design of the apartment envelop a west facing interior courtyard on the lower level which not only minimizes the solar heat gain from the afternoon sun, ti also captures the beautiful cityscape view at the top of Pearl’s hill. The architect pushed the services and utilities towards the interior courtyard in doing so, maximise the amount of light, ventilation and views of the living areas towards the exterior part of the building. Incorporating split level configuration echos the approach used by Le Corbusier in his Unité d’Habitation residential complex, which was contextually reappropriated in this case of the Pearl Bank Apartments by Tan Cheng Siong.[38] The architect also talks about how this experimental housing was a platform to promote the idea of family living in the form of a high-density building near the central area district.[39] Usage of The building also influenced urban development in Singapore and other cities in Southeast Asia due to its unique architecture planning, and ideology that formulated the architecture narratives of it. In 2018, February 13, One of the most significant landmarks for the tallest residential building at that time in 1976; Pearl Bank Apartments, will be a victim to the demolition crew.[40] Despite contributing to the history of architecture in Singapore, as one of the postmodernism design with solutions of questionable futures of social housing; the government did not step in after an en-bloc sale went through to a developer and that the developer decided to bring down the building. URA states that conservation can be voluntary, and which owners of private buildings can offer their building for conservation subject

to the URA studying the structure to see if there is a merit for the building to be conserved. Although URA had said previously that there are important aspects that deserve the preservation of the Pearl Bank Apartment; as the building creates a set of guidelines and standard for later high-density condominium developments with provisions of communal services and common areas, the owners did not share a similar outlook on such conservation thoughts. Extracted from The Straits Times; “Unit owner Edward Phang said some owners were not keen on the conservation plan as they would have had to live with the noise and dust from the construction of the new building and the decrepit state of the old one. Mrs Phang noted: “I like the exterior design of the building and I admire the architect’s talent. But the discussion about fighting for heritage is from observers, and we owners have to bear the financial and ill-health costs that come with any construction, which is unsustainable.”[41] This shows that the economic results of the affected residents in the apartment are the driven cause for sales of an Architectural Heritage rather than the conservation of it. The setbacks from the maintenance of the apartment, to the cost of any construction for the repair works in the building, have racked up much issue to the residents for them. With such a collective sales of properties becomes the only option for the residents to elevate the cost of the building, as well as a chance to secure prices above their individual market prices. The en-bloc sales show control of majority wills in regards to failing buildings and that the will of economical power overcome the minority will of Architectural Heritage and Conservation. As these en-bloc sales continue to ravage the nation, occupying the Architecture Heritage of prominent architecture that forms the collective identity of the nation, its consequence will be much more destructive than the redevelopment of the cityscape.[42] The social impacts of en-bloc sales will further pry the public opinion into the people who worries about the economic gains for their own versus the people who wants to conserve the intangible qualities of the Architecture Heritage, as well as the preservation of national monuments the, define the qualities of architecture during the era of rapid urbanisation in Singapore. That brings about the second question in this chapter – while the government presently practice conservation of Architecture Heritage on buildings and elements from various cultures and influences from past to present that

37. Geraldine Quek C. T., Neo J. H. Kevin Josiah, Lim Y. L. Teri ‘Conservation Conversations – Pearl Bank Apartments’, Neo J. H. Kevin Josiah (2015) p. 10 38. AD Classics ‘Pearl Bank Apartments / Tan Cheng Siong, Archurban’ (https://www.archdaily.com/157679/ad-classics-pearl-bank-apartmentstan-cheng-siong) [Accessed 01 July 2019] 39. Geraldine Quek C. T., Neo J. H. Kevin Josiah, Lim Y. L. Teri (2015) p. 17 40. ‘Pearl Bank architect leads calls for iconic tower to stay’, The Straits Times (13 Feburary 2018) (https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/pearlbank-architect-leads-calls-for-iconic-tower-to-stay) [Accessed 01 July 2019] 41. ‘Pearl Bank Apartments likely to be demolished despite calls to conserve building’, The Straits Times (17 Feburary 2018) (https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/housing/pearl-bank-apartments-likely-to-be-demolished) [Accessed 01 July 2019] 42. Emily Y.X. Soh, Belinda Yuen, (2010) p. 6

Fig. 22 Interlocking Homes Another innovative design to maximise the space usage within the building by interlocking 2 different apartments together

Fig. 23 The floor plan of Pearl Bank Apartment A huge step in architectural language at that time for high density urban living

Fig. 24 The interior look during the sales Taken from the promotion brochure

becomes an indispensable role to the nation’s cultural heritage. Not enforcing the roles of conservation and leaving it up to the developers and residents of these Architecture Heritage greatly underpin its support towards preservation of such significant architecture. The affected people opinion are often sided with economical gains and often disagree with the public opinion of preservation of these buildings as a split of the social and trust relationship of two opposing opinions. Will there be a change where the public opinion coincides with the affected people, and common consensus could be reached through various conservation efforts.

Chapter 05

Strategies for re-thinking conservation

Saving Singapore’s Architectural Heritage

Throughout the writings, I have listed a series of issue pertaining to the ideology of conservation of Architecture Heritage in Singapore. -

How will the predicament of the historical and cultural fabric be facing when the city is in the midst of a rapid transformation, and what is left behind now?

- How does the state implemented policies on conservation helps in facilitating public input and discussion on the fate of significant Architectural Heritage in Singapore, or are just these policies a white elephant given by the government. -

Does an area-wide boundary demarcation allows for better views and safeguarding important buildings of Architectural Heritage in Singapore? Or are these zones are just a blanket coverage which does not take into account many other significant buildings in that area – which did not fit the requirement of being part of the blanket coverage protection.

- Do economical gains both on the government and the developers play a much bigger say in determining the fate of significant Architecture Heritage in Singapore? When does the role in corporates the argument of the people who are in course for the preservation of some national icons? -

Are economical disadvantages push residents that occupy these Architecture Heritage to priorities livelihood over preservation of national history? Can the government and the public step in to educate and provide assistance when facing the destruction of the cultural fabric in Singapore, within all the redevelopment and rapid urbanisation in the city-state.

These are the question that will drive the strategies that I am going to formulate, a counter-reaction to the inadequate provisions of preservation of our Architectural Heritage through conservation in Singapore.

People’s Park Center

State Court

Majestic Theatre

Park center

Second Layer Zoning

Conservation Zone

Fig. 25 Proposal for 2nd Layer zoning to include Architectural Heritage of significant value

Looking deeper into the conservation zones Keeping in mind the discussion we have earlier on in the writing, we will now examine the various proposal that will be a re-thinking of Architectural Heritage Conservation in Singapore. The first step is to re-examine all the buildings within the conservation zones, excluding the series of pre-war buildings and shophouses that have been gazetted by the URA to be conserved indefinitely. We will have to zoom into various different eras of buildings that were constructed at different times throughout the history of Singapore after the war. Pinpointing these buildings within the conservation zones, we then look at a wider spectrum of such buildings around the conservation zones. As architecture styles normally exist within an area which was under development, there are chances where the same typology of buildings in that era or that movement will be around the conservation zone. Pinpointing these building, we can start to draft a much wider conservation zone that we might call the second layer – encompasses these typologies of architecture that sits in the different timeline but in all a milestone in the architectural achievement of the nation’s history. From there we then look at how many of these buildings share the similar architectural qualities and significance in the area, noting down similarities in ideology, approach, design, façade, spatial qualities and narrative intention as a table of comparison. Establishing these notions, we then look at how we could sort it according to the impacts it has on the intangibles towards the public. At this point, the intangibility that I am describing are mostly to do with important cultural environment, festivals, social impacts, communal atmosphere and memories of those who are involved in the intangibles. These will mark the importance and significance of these buildings, which then we will bring in onto the table as Architectural Heritage proposals for conservation. The discussion with the conservation authorities namely URA and NHB will first show markings of the existing conservation zones and then a proposed additional second layer zoning. The second layer zoning is just a mapping that includes pin-pointed Architectural Heritage within the conservation zoning laws, but will not drive the existing land area prices up as they do no notably falls inside the original conservation zone. After which a mapping that pinpoints Architectural Heritage which also shows comparison charts, images and drawings of how these buildings are significant to the architectural qualities and intangible memories in Singapore.

Fig. 26 Adaptive re-use of Fort Canning Barrack Proposal for appropriate inclusion of facilities and activities which simultaneously enhance the architectural qualities of the building as well as encourage ‘heartland’ levels of local engagement.

Adaptive re-use through a much cheaper option The third step would be the possibilities of adaptive reuse of these Architectural Heritage. Adaptive re-use has been one of the many options as a proposition to preserve buidlings; but because its old to new chic style and approach from a much more economical sense, adaptive re-use have been a strain to the people who occupy these places as rental prices and such push many out of business. We could look at adaptive re-use, not through the present outlook of the government’s way, but an approach from the people of the nation. We could think about how we can incorporate the daily lives of a typical Singaporean like visiting the hawker centre or the supermarket or a local cinema all within a building. These places could be like any other government subsidised buildings where low rent brings in hawkers to set up their business here or small business which needed a low rent centralised area to promote their products. Adaptive re-use could be applied to increase housing density in the conservation district. They could be an alternative housing for big families or families that require fewer rooms then a normal housing estate in Singapore. They could also serve as renting houses for the less fortunate, or public housing for people who require a place to stay but unable to wait a long period for the new housing estates to be built. Such adaptive re-use could be a saving grace for the housing crisis that is happening in Singapore right now, due to the increasing amount of immigrant and high-density population within the nation. Another then adaptive re-use on businesses and housing, it can be applied on production workshops and offices. As rapid urbanisation hits Singapore higher then before, much-needed buildings are required for production and offices catering to foreign investments. Instead of occupying lands and building new buildings, Architectural Heritage buildings could lend its architecture in support for additional spaces of production and offices. Discussion can be open with the government authorities on letting out these Architecture Heritage to a group of developers, that will preserve and restore these buildings as part of the government policy program. With that, they will be able to let out units or areas to productions and offices base on their functions, which will also increase the acknowledgement of new functions to this Archtiecture Heritage. Adaptive re-use at ths scale will ensure Architecture Heritage will be preserved for the future generation, the architecture qualities will be a tangible object for the future generation to experience.

Conclusion: For the future From looking at the urban renewal in Singapore to understanding the nation needs for preservation her Architectural Heritage, the policies that were implemented and how it was carried out and the failures that arise from it resonates the importance of conservation in Singapore. The determination of preserving these national identity through the conservation of Architectural Heritage must begin with the understanding of all these failures and rework together with the government, local professionals and the people in order to build a better future where architecture plays different roles in the building of the nation, and have it physically possible for the future generations to enjoy the spatial qualities that these buildings give. Conflicts arise because of gazetted monuments and conservation areas often slice up the organic form and texture of cultural hearths in an arbitrary fashion. The most important question is how do we resolve these conflicts through understanding and studying the roles of different people in response to conservation. How do the roles of the people help in develop the inherent values of Architectural Heritage in comparison to other buildings facing the same end of demolition? These are the questions we will have to constantly put on the table during the discussion between all parties, and how only through careful understanding of the context, architecture and the intangible qualities which will determine the role of the Architectural Heritage plays in Singapore – That would be the strongest card to be play and allow all parties to fall into agreement if the building is worth conserving or not. Through the strategies that I have laid out above, these series of directions will help dictate a series of flexible rules and observation that could be made in accessing these Architecture Heritage. Perhaps the consideration will be how once could compile this information and present it to the authorities through public forum debates and proposal. That would be in getting the government authorities to understand the intangible qualities that we the people are trying to pursue while ensuring our future generation will not lose themselves in the rapid development of the city without Architectural Heritage. I hope this writing will spark the change of how Architecture Heritage is being accessed and conserve in Singapore not only for my generation but the future generations to know the historical fabric of the city-state.

References Published Works Brenda S. A. Yeoh, Shirlena Huang ‘The conservation-redevelopment dilemma in Singapore – The case of the Kampong Glam historic district’, Cities, (1996) Vol. 13, no. 6 p. 412, p. 415, p. 416 Chambers (Ed.) ‘Chambers 21st Century Dictionary’ , 2Rev Ed edition (1999) Chia, Lee, Naidu, Kwok ‘Rethinking chinatown and heritage conservation in Singapore’, Singapore Heritage Society (2000), p. 17 Emily Y.X. Soh, Belinda Yuen ‘Singapore’s changing spaces’, National University of Singapore (2010) p. 3, p. 6 Geraldine Quek C. T., Neo J. H. Kevin Josiah, Lim Y. L. Teri ‘Conservation Conversations – Pearl Bank Apartments’, Neo J. H. Kevin Josiah (2015) p. 10, p. 17 Newsletter of the Singapore Heritage Society ‘Roots’, (May 1993) p. 3 Rem Koolhaas ‘S M L XL Singapore Portrait of a Potemkin Metropolis’, The Monacelli Press (1995), p. 1025, p.1031-37 Jane Jacobs ‘The Death and Life of Great American Cities’, Vintage Books ed. (1992) p. 405-407

‘A third fountain to beautify Singapore’ The Straits Times (18 October 1965) p. 11 Retrieved from NewspaperSG [Accessed 01 July 2019] ‘Curtains to fall o National Theatre soon’ The Straits Times (28 January 1984) p. 1 Retrieved from NewspaperSG [Accessed 01 July 2019] ‘Curtains for a dame: The National Theatre will be all gone within weeks’ The Straits Times (21 July 1986) p. 9 Retrieved from NewspaperSG [Accessed 01 July 2019] National Heritage Board (https://www.nhb.gov.sg/whowe-are/about-us) [Accessed 01 July 2019] NLB ‘National Theatre’ (http://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/infopedia/articles/SIP_800_2005-01-18.html) [Accessed 01 July 2019] ‘Pearl Bank architect leads calls for iconic tower to stay’, The Straits Times (13 Feburary 2018) (https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/pearl-bank-architect-leads-callsfor-iconic-tower-to-stay) [Accessed 01 July 2019] ‘Pearl Bank Apartments likely to be demolished despite calls to conserve building’, The Straits Times (17 Feburary 2018) (https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/ housing/pearl-bank-apartments-likely-to-be-demolished) [Accessed 01 July 2019]

Laurajane Smith ‘Uses of Heritage’, Routeledge, (2006) p. 44

Ronald L. K. Kam ‘Singapore Identity and Architecture’ (2015) P. 27 MSc Thesis (https://www.academia. edu/18082626/Singapore_Identity_and_Architecture) [Accessed 01 July 2019]

Lily Kong, Brenda S. A. Yeoh ‘Urban Conservation in Singapore: A Survey of State Policies and Popular Attitudes’, Urban Studies, (1994) 31(2) p. 248, p. 249, p. 250

URA Conservation Principles (https://www.ura.gov.sg/ Corporate/Guidelines/Conservation/Conservation-Principles) [Accessed 01 July 2019]

Section 5, Preservation of Monuments Act (1985)

URA (https://www.ura.gov.sg/Corporate/Get-Involved/ Conserve-Built-Heritage/Explore-Our-Built-Heritage/ brief-history) [Accessed 01 July 2019]

URA & PMB (1993), p. 12 URA ‘Conservation within the Central Area with the Plan for Chinatown’ (1985) p. 1, p. 13, p. 18, p. 39 William S.W. Lim ‘Architecture, Art and Identity in Singapore: Is there Life after Tabula Rasa?’, Asian Urban Lab (2004)

Vernon Cornelius ‘National Theatre’, National Library Board, Singapore [Accessed 01 July 2019] ‘Dollar-a-brick campaign for construction of the National Theatre in Singapore’ The Straits Times (20 February 1961) p. 16 Retrieved from NewspaperSG [Accessed 01 July 2019]

Website

Others

AD Classics ‘Pearl Bank Apartments / Tan Cheng Siong, Archurban’ (https://www.archdaily.com/157679/ad-classics-pearl-bank-apartments-tan-cheng-siong) [Accessed 01 July 2019]

Will Alsop (Public discussion in Shanghai June 1, 2007)