Critiquing Select Urban Planning Policies of Singapore: Amateur Perspective

October 2, 2017

ASSIGNMENT 1 PLANNING PROCESS: QUANTITATIVE AND POLICY DIMENSIONS

Monjima Sen A0166467R Master of Urban Planning AY2017-18

CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................................... 2 2. CELEBRATING OUR PAST ...................................................................................................................................... 2 2.1 CRITIQUE ........................................................................................................................................................... 2 2.2 CASE STUDIES AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................... 3 3. ALTERNATIVE FEEDER AND BUS SYSTEM........................................................................................................... 4 3.1 CRITIQUE ........................................................................................................................................................... 4 3.2 CASE STUDIES AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................... 5 4. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ......................................................................................................................................... 6 4.1 CRITIQUE ........................................................................................................................................................... 6 4.2 CASE STUDIES AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................... 6 WORKS CITED ............................................................................................................................................................. 8

1. INTRODUCTION The Land Use Plan 2030 of Singapore (Development, 2013) discusses many key aspects that make up a land use plan work. Without these elements, a physically colourful map consisting red, green, yellow, blue, brown, purple patches will not make sense in a practical world. It is often presumed that land use plans are simply maps of a city which demarcate where the residential, commercial, institutional, industrial etc. uses will develop. However, this is far from truth. Every land use plan has multiple layers to it in terms of population projections, immigration policies, development policies, building restrictions, environmental and economical sustainability, vision of the city etc. What I have listed down in a couple sentences is not enough to explain what goes on to arrive at a final land use plan of any city. And with Singapore, the problems are even more complex. Singapore is not just an island with limited natural resources, it is also a state city and is suffering from an ageing demographic profile. These features make Singapore a unique case and they bring along a trail of unusual problems for the urban planners of the city. In the Land Use 2030 report, urban planners have mentioned few main agendas that have been discussed in detail, which are listed below: 1. Land Use and allocation 2. Building good affordable homes 3. City in a garden 4. Greater mobility with enhances transport connectivity 5. Sustaining vibrant economy with good jobs 6. Ensuring room for growth and a good future living environment These six topics broadly encapsulate the essence of the land use plan of Singapore by the year 2030.

However, as per my reading and understanding, there are a few other sub topics within the land use plan which require more attention than is given in the report. In my opinion, they deserve a larger section in the report and therefore intense research, study and implementation as well. This essay is about critiquing the report and suggesting improvements which can ensure holistic development of Singapore by 2030. I will be doing so by discussing a few recommendations and giving supporting examples or case studies to justify my suggestions. Of course, the context of the cases might be very different in terms of weather, terrain, political stability, economy, cultural mix etc. However, implementation can be adjusted if the same requires to be done here in Singapore. It is the work of the urban planners to first identify what is going wrong presently, and then provide solutions for the same. I have commented on the following three topics which feature slightly or under major heads in the report: 1. Celebrating our past – under ‘Building good affordable homes’ 2. Alternate feeder system and bus system – under ‘Greater mobility with enhanced transport connectivity’ 3. Public participation – not featured under any singular head but mentioned in certain sections

2. CELEBRATING OUR PAST 2.1 CRITIQUE There is a very brief touch and go in the report when it comes to heritage. Surprisingly, heritage, one of the key elements that help a city retain its unique identity, is not seen as a very important element even though Singapore is blessed with abundant built heritage. And here I would also like to mention how only ‘built’ heritage is identified in the report with no mention of cultural or living heritage. There are many cities, all over the world, with an equal share of heritage buildings who have elaborately planned preservations, restorations, tourism and festivals around it. However, looking at the Land Use Plan 2030,

it almost seems like planners briefly mention the topic just for the sake of it and repeatedly quote how they are going to be practical about the idea of retaining heritage and might not even compromise in the long run if future development needs arise. This means heritage demolition, to generate land for the projected population, is a possibility in the years to come.

Ethnic composition of Singapore is a country made up of mixed ethnicity and hence is a melting pot of cultures and religions. But even then, most resident population in of Singapore is made up of glass buildings influenced by Singapore (2016) western culture or similar looking HDBs which are essential for 9.10 % housing the ever-growing population. However, in all of this, where do the shophouses go? Shop houses are indeed unique 3.20 % 13.40% as they are low density developments with economic activity on the first floor and architecture which is special to Singapore and its past – Malaysia. Today, in many pockets of Singapore, for example in Kampong Java (near Farrer Park), there are several shophouses which just stand still with 74.30% no activity or life around it. These developments hold potential to multiply tourism, and therefore economy, Chinese Malays Indians Others manifold, just like the case study of Penang, Malaysia or Ahmedabad, India that I will be giving in the next section.

Source: Sing Stat Singapore has achieved a lot in terms of global positioning, trade and commerce, political stability, governance efficiency, quality of life and other key areas. However, in all of this, probably it has lost its own identity. However, it is easy to point and blame rather than appreciate the achievements. To achieve 80% of anything, another 20% must be given up for the greater good. However, if tomorrow Singapore indeed wants to have its own character, its own mark, which is noteworthy in the truest of sense, the following examples can be an inspiration to the city state.

2.2 CASE STUDIES AND RECOMMENDATIONS In this section I have mentioned two world heritage cities which were recognised so due to their unique living breathing heritage. One is Penang in Malaysia which is closer to home and the other is Ahmedabad, a city in the state of Gujarat – the western most state of India. Ahmedabad was recognised as a heritage city just this year, in 2017, after years of hard work in preservation works, repeated efforts by the local government, the help of various non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and even local architectural college students and faculties. Penang on the other hand is much more like Singapore because even in Penang there is a potpourri of ethnic groups like Malays, Indians, Pakistanis etc. and the shophouses have been utilised to their best extent to keep the city alive and enthralling. Penang has come up with heritage trails which take place four times a week and take the visitors and citizens across the old city for a walking tour around mosques, temples, Chinese temples and shop houses. The cuisines of Penang or also used to entice citizens to the hustling and bustling food markets and hawker centres.

Figure 1: Streets of Penang, Source: Primary

Figure 2: Malay street food, Source: Primary

Different shophouses function at separate times of the day to give the heritage city of Penang a multilayered vibrancy. In the daytime, there are some shops which are closed while other cafes and boutique stores and bag packers’ hostels work. On the other hand, in the night time, there are other shophouses with bars and restaurants which have live music and the tables spill over on the streets to create an atmosphere unique to Penang. There is a strong presence of interactive wall arts as well to appeal to the tourists and introduce them to ‘brand Penang’. This has worked wonders for the city in terms of identity creation. A similar example in Ahmedabad is the use of wood carved ‘pol’ houses in the walled city to generate identity, tourism and diverse economy. Since people living in the houses practice their business within their residence, the entire combination of life in a city built 600 years ago gives Ahmedabad a distinct character. Add to that the festivities local to the city, it generates intrigue and enthusiasm amongst tourists and citizens alike. New people are attracted without pushing away the locals.

Figure 3: Streets of Ahmedabad, Source: Wikipedia

Figure 4: Famous kite flying festival, Source: Local blog

Singapore has already done a little bit of this by developing the river front (Clarke Quay) to attract tourists to shophouse cafes, restaurants and bars. But as the locals have little involvement, it is slowly leading to gentrification which is bad for Singapore in the long run. Also, Singapore conducts Night Festivals annually to attract tourists and locals interested in the heritage of Singapore. But this once-ayear festival results in crowd and chaos taking away the motive of enjoying local heritage. There can be year-round heritage trails and festivals to keep the economy and heritage interaction active like in Penang and in Ahmedabad thereby allowing Singapore to celebrate its past.

3. ALTERNATIVE FEEDER AND BUS SYSTEM 3.1 CRITIQUE Singapore has proved to be a revolutionary city when it comes to public transportation systems. With one of the most efficient transportation plans in place, whereby private vehicle ownership is controlled and restricted, whereas MRT and bus systems play the role of transport backbones, Singapore is admired the world over for its mobility decisions. Then why is this section in my essay? It is because of two reasons – one an improvement and other an alternative. Singapore has good transport systems in place but the buses are not as frequent as MRTs making travelling a little tedious and time consuming. Another problem is that apart from walking and cycling, which are the best feeder systems in place, personal mobility devices are allowed. I do not support this because then cycling and walking do not remain as attractive and these feeder systems have also caused accidents in the past due to reckless driving on the sidewalks.

Even though they are environmentally sustainable, they use battery and do not promote cycling and pedestrian choices which are far better for the health of the citizens.

In terms of an alternative, as I mentioned earlier, bus frequency is an issue. This problem might pertain due to the buses running in mixed traffic lanes of roads. Since Singapore famously uses common services tunnel in some parts of the city, the bus rapid transit (BRT) system can be proposed without disturbing

below ground infrastructure. In the next section of recommendation, I talk about Copenhagen, a cycling city and what it did to revolutionise cycling as an important means of transport, and I talk about Bogota, the capital city of Colombia, famous for its TransMilenio BRT system.

3.2 CASE STUDIES AND RECOMMENDATIONS Copenhagen could revolutionize cycle usage by building extensive designated cycle ways, providing supporting infrastructure like ample cycle parking spaces and declaring car free days of the week to encourage cycling as a way of life. Stringent laws have also been enforced to ensure cyclists safety in the city and prioritizing a cycle rider over a car driver. Their constant agenda is to make transport as diverse in terms of modal share as possible and encourage people to choose cycling over all other means of travelling.

All trips starting or terminating in the city of Copenhagen

Commuting trips by Copenhagen residents only 13%

33%

27%

Shopping trips in the city of Copenhagen 33%

35%

12%

20%

50%

24%

13%

40% Cycle

Car

Rail

Cycle

Car

Rail

Walking

Cycle

Car

Rail

Walking

Source: Wikipedia

Talking about the BRT system, Bogota has one of the world’s largest network (113 km) of designated bus lane with no other transport mode allowed in the same traffic. This improves frequency manifold.

The buses run on diesel and the stations are designed and placed in a manner which is accessible by all without any barriers whatsoever. The capacity of each bus ranges from 160 to 270 passengers which is enough to handle peak hour traffic.

Figure 5: Peak hour traffic in Copenhagen, Source: Wikipedia

Figure 6: BRT system in Bogota, Source: Wikipedia

No doubt Singapore will see cycling townships soon as dedicated cycle lanes are in the pipeline and communities are willing to adapt this way of life by cooperating and encouraging cycling practice, but even then, Singapore must enforce certain laws which might turn the practice of cycling just for leisure or

fun into cycling as a way of normal life where it is a natural feeder system for last mile connectivity to bus service or even a mode of transport on its own. In terms of BRT system as an alternative to normal bus routes, it is debatable and can be implemented at the discretion of city planners in terms of viability in Singapore. If Singapore does go with the plan, then the single row of trees on many dividers across the city can double as it will run through both sides of the BRT lines, thereby greening the city even further and providing noise barriers at the same time. However, implementation can be difficult as it is a brown field project involving scraping and widening roads to incorporate designated bus lanes. But once the infrastructure comes into play, bus services can improve and frequencies can multiply, thereby saving travel time while keeping public transportation pocket friendly.

4. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 4.1 CRITIQUE Amongst all the three topics discussed in this essay, public participation is where Singapore Land Use Plan 2030 fares the least. On comparing this report to Hong Kong’s Land Use Plan 2030 (Government, 2007), one realises that Singapore can fare better in terms of incorporating the inputs of user group throughout the development of the master plan at multiple levels. What Singapore did, instead, was involve key user groups and stakeholders only at the beginning for data collection purposes. In the initial stages, inputs are important, but public opinion should hold more value than just for primary data collection. Singapore involved only experts at the later stages and could manage the completion of the land use plan in the shortest span of time thereby saving resources. Singapore is lucky because a small city state with limited population means single tier government with greater control unlike countries like India where decision making takes ages due to three tier governments (Central. State and City).

However, Hong Kong, Singapore’s counterpart, incorporated public participation in a better manner, even though the resources invested were much more in terms of time and money.

As per Sherry Arnstein (Arnstein, 1969), the ladder of public participation starts with manipulation at the lowest rung, followed by therapy, informing, consultation, placation, partnership, delegated power and ends with citizen control at the very top. Singapore has managed to come somewhere close to consultation which is considered as a degree of tokenism by Sherry. However, Hong Kong has fared better by reaching up to partnership level which is mentioned as a degree of citizen power in the paper. The key critiques why Singapore could not match up to Hong Kong are: 1. Only professionals were involved in the planning process 2. The country resorted to top down approach rather than bottom up and more of a closed-door planning process took place 3. Public participation was only seen as a way of information gathering in the beginning rather than continuous consultation all throughout the planning process In the next section, Hong Kong’s best practices are mentioned to point out where Singapore can take inspiration from and probably do better than earlier by applying some of the learnings. Also, a few suggestions are given from my end to point out how Singapore can incorporate public participation in the planning process based on my experience as an intern at an Indian NGO.

4.2 CASE STUDIES AND RECOMMENDATIONS Hong Kong urban planners made sure that the government acted as a bridge between the expert advisory team and the public opinion at large. There were two fundamental levels of public participation involved in the master plan. Inputs of experts were taken to ensure technical accuracy and in depth professional knowledge. Without these guiding principles, planning can fail in the long run. On the other end, common citizens were also involved to give on ground information and represent the concern of the

user group. Hong Kong’s road to success in terms of public participation in the development of land use plan 2030 can be summarised in few points: 1. Wide ranging public consultation at every level of planning process for continuous iteration and knowledge of consensus 2. Multiple forms of public consultation by conducting open forum discussions, competitions and training workshops to engage the youth, involving key stakeholders and undertaking focused group discussions for in depth feedback 3. Stimulating ‘what if’ scenarios to encourage critical thinking process 4. Coining objectives of the vision of Hong Kong 2030 by incorporating public feedback, thereby reaching ‘partnership’ level of public participation 5. Representing the importance of public feedback through continuous reference throughout the land use report 6. Conducting three stages of detailed public consultation pointed out in the appendix of the report highlighting the valuable comments received from the public’s end Therefore, looking at how Hong Kong did it right, a few points are mentioned below as to how Singapore can improve upon its public participation in the future. Also, the city should not solely rely on the government to conduct extensive public participation activities. In many parts of the world, governments take the help of academicians and NGO workers to connect to the public. Several NGOs, for instance in India and Africa, have grassroot level connect. This means that they know the local people more closely and do not threaten the voice of the commons like governments do. NGOs and freelance professionals bridge the gap between the public and the government. In third world countries it is the norm since several governments are corrupt and do not connect to the public at large. However, in Singapore, the government can take help not because of trust issues but because of manpower, time and budget issue.

Collaborating with them ensures that salaries vary, which lessens monetary burden. NGOs work on contractual basis and can help the government bodies to conduct many public participation activities in a quick, efficient and resource saving manner. Therefore, the Singapore government can think of partnerships in making future land use plans. Following are the three recommendations Singapore land use plan can incorporate: 1. Accepting public inputs through active participation across multiple levels of city planning instead of just in the initial stages. Public participation goes beyond initial information collection.

2. Ensuring public participation from user group and not just expert representatives. Professional input is necessary but so is ground level representation 3. Going up in the Arnstein’s ladder of Public Participation. Just like Hong Kong managed to raise interest in the city planning process by attracting all age groups, Singapore should attempt a similar method.

The procedure is more resource consuming but can prove to be beneficial in the long run.

WORKS CITED Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A Ladder of Citizen Participation. Journal of the American Planning, 35(4), 216 — 224.

Development, M. o. (2013). A High Qulaity Living Environment for All Singaporeans. Singapore.

Government, H. K. (2007). Hong Kong 2030: Planning Vision and Strategy. Hong Kong: Development Bureau and the Planning Department.