Singapore

Singapore 5.31 MLN PEOPLE. 5020 HA

8,5–284,5

13,15–50,2

8,5–284,5

800

40

600

30

400

20

200

10

1900

1950

3,8

PAR

13,15–50,2

2000

800

40

800

40

600

30

600

30

61 кП 2

Administrative City Border City Center Area Territory marked on tourist city maps Urbanized Area of the City

0

2,5

5

10

Less Iconic, More Just Onur Ekmekci

“Starting after the Second World War almost from scratch,” Jan Gehl writes, "this city has over some 60 years, accomplished an impressive rise in the level of living conditions for urban dwellers and at the same time, accommodated a steadily growing population.” Singapore presents a formidable challenge when one attempts to build a candid portrayal of the city, beginning with the fact that Singapore, along with Monaco, and Vatican City, is one of the few city-states in the world. With its own autonomous government, and consisting of only a city and no hinterland, Singapore’s urban syntax differs fundamentally from most of the other cities in the world where, more often than not, there is a reciprocity between the city, its surrounding neighbours, its positioning in the national boundaries to which it belongs, and beyond. Being a island and a city-state, such mutuality does not exist in Singapore.

This small island, with an area of roughly 700 square km and five million residents, stands out as a unique example of hyper-dense urban development, generated by particular sets of political, social, historical and spatial conditions. Superlatives are often used, especially in government campaigns, to describe the city: greenest, densest, wealthiest, smallest and safest to name a few. Many also describe Singapore’s urban transformation as a success story. The Economist Intelligence Unit, for example, ranked Singapore as the 4th most livable city in Asia, while Monocle’s Livable City Index puts the country at the 15th spot in its worldwide ranking. The country also ranks highly in lists such as quality of life, competitiveness, or having the best business environment. One may, of course, question the reliability of lists like Monocle’s or the Economist’s, which are often based on biased data sets and convoluted parameters. However, it is hard to disagree with Gehl in regards to his assertion regarding the rise in the level of living conditions in Singapore.

Prior to the initiation of highly effective public housing schemes that eventually accommodated huge numbers of people in a relatively short period of time, the living conditions of the urban poor in Singapore in the 1950s was described as: “Acute overcrowding in dilapidated slums, appalling conditions of squatter settlements; bedding on wooden bunks or in rented cubicles; high rate of urbanization; grossly inadequate housing delivery system;

SECTION 155

rapid deterioration in available space standards; crime, violence and drugs.” A quick look at Singapore’s urban environment today would reveal how far the country has come in successfully housing its citizens. On the other hand, the high living standards that Gehl indicates are the direct result of strategically planned economic and public policies (with strong topdown governance), along with a highly stable political climate present since the 1960s.

One of the most crucial factors in establishing Singapore as a financial powerhouse and one of the wealthiest cities in the world is arguably the strong emphasis given to urban environment and planning. Here, detailed master plans rule the city, ensuring that “everything that one can or cannot imagine is orchestrated, planned, and designed.” Furthermore, being a city-state, national aspirations turn out to be fundamentally intertwined with the way the urban environment is structured, which in a sense reflects the underlying belief that improving urban conditions and creating a livable city have a direct impact in attracting foreign investment and generating economic growth for the country. The better the urban environment is, the better the amount of foreign talent and money flowing into the country, or so it goes!

At the same time, one would assume that Singapore would affirm the negative attributes that are usually associated with “islandness” such as ‘being bounded,’ ‘separate,’ ‘hard edged,’ ‘remote,‘ 'detached,’ ‘small in size,’ ‘isolated,’ and 'prone to externalities.' While some of these may very well be true to a certain degree, Singapore has been relatively efficacious in turning these factors into advantages. According to Edward Glaeser, Professor of Economics at Harvard University, who has researched extensively the importance of dense urban environments, “Singapore’s success illustrates the irrelevance of acreage. The city-state grew wealthy not just despite its lack of land, but probably even because it had so little space. Precisely because Singapore had so few natural resources, Lee had to adopt sensible policies that would attract international capital.”

Whether the lack of acreage can be perceived as irrelevant to Singapore’s development is contentious. There is, however, some truth to Glaeser’s description of Singapore’s development. With no hinterland, land is in short supply, and Singapore governments have historically prioritized long-term urban planning as a quintessential tool that could help make the best out of the limited land available. As part of this approach, the Concept Plan, a strategic land-use and transportation plan for the next 50 years, along with the Master Plan, a statutory land-use plan that determines land use and density development for a period of 10-15 years, have been used to strategically determine what, when and where urban transformation and renewal projects need to delivered.

Part of these plans have been to come up with smart strategies to expand the island’s territory. A direct manifestation of this is Singapore’s desire to expand its landmass, primarily though the reclamation of land. The reasons for land reclamation were firstly to build more public housing estates and to offer recreational facilities for a growing population, providing more space for increasing commercial and industrial activities, along with infrastructure needs such as expressways, the port and the Mass Rapid Transit system. By using the landfill method, Singapore reclaims land from the coast and swamps, and by merging small islands that lie off its coast. Today, reclaimed land from the sea accounts for about a fifth of the country's landmass. However, there is little or no more room left to expand towards the sea, especially since many of its neighbouring countries, including Malaysia and Indonesia, expressed discomfort over Singapore’s reclamation activities. Nevertheless, in order to meet the population projection of 6.9 million in the next two decades, the government has plans for releasing land for housing and industry by closing golf courses and military training grounds, and paving over some of the island’s nature reserves; this is projected to free up about 5,200 hectares of land.

One major example of such reclamation efforts is the development of The Central Area or Central Business District, which includes core financial and commercial districts of the island. The Marina Bay area, built up on land reclaimed from the sea since the 1970s, is located at the southern tip of the island, with a 360 hectare area being developed as a new growth district adjacent to the existing city center. Numerous construction projects have been completed in this area, including Gardens by the Bay and Marina Bay Sands, but many more are still under development. This vision for the Marina Bay is, according to the development’s website, intended “to seamlessly extend Singapore's downtown district and further support the city-state's continuing growth as a major business and financial hub in Asia.” Moreover, there is a strong emphasis in the vision statement that the new development would have the components of live, work, and play. Aside from the development of Marina Bay, there are several other projects that will have major impacts on the central areas of Singapore.

In his National Day Rally speech in August 2013, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong announced that two large land parcels, Tanjong Pagar container ports and Paya Lebar Air Base, would be redeveloped for homes and offices after 2030. The plans for the port area in Tanjong Pagar (all the container ports will be moved to Tuas just before 2030 when their leases expire) have already excited developers - a 1000 hectare empty plot with a prime waterfront location and proximity to Marina Bay could potentially create a new southern waterfront city with homes, public spaces and office towers. One way of looking at the highly publicized developments of Marina Bay is that the Singapore government is not only trying to enhance its global image and touristic appeal with these grand projects, but is also generating land that would allow space for the long-term expansion of the city center.

On the other hand, the problem with a signature project like Marina Bay is clear: it is more about the image it perpetuates - a national image-construction project - than what it ultimately produces for the whole of the city.

With laser beams shooting endlessly towards the sky nightly from the rooftop of the Marina Bay Sands, designed by Moshie Safdie and supposedly the world's most expensive standalone casino property at S$8 billion, including

FIG 1. Marina Bay and the CBD.

FIG 2. Singapore Port will move out by 2030 to be replaced by new developments

FIG 3. Tiong Bahru, one of the most popular central district built in the 1907s

FIG 4. Public housing estates are essential part of Singapore’s urban fabric.

FIG 5. Punggol, located in the northeastern part of the island, is one of the newest HDB neighborhoods.

cost of the prime land, it is hard not to be overwhelmed by the sheer spectacle of the development. The vision statement gives the feeling that, when completed, one will see a ‘fantasy land,’ iconic and certainly spectacular, but hardly constructed in any inclusive manner. In the light of these developments, the relationship between the center and periphery takes a fascinating turn. The growing interest over the development of the central areas for its national image and capital gains, as seen by the Marina Bay development, demonstrates the growing separation between areas in the periphery and the center.

Since the 1990s, concepts of decentralization, a hierarchy of regional, sub-regional, and fringe commercial centers, have been introduced to Singapore’s urban planning strategies to alleviate congestion and over-development in the central area. This shift also meant that many of the new HDB public housing estates are now located in what one might call peripheries or suburbs of the island. The result of the need to build bigger flats to accommodate growing population, a trend that began in the 1970s, locating housing estates outside of the city was seen as the only logical solution for the next generation of new towns.

Punggol New Eco-Town followed this model being located outside the city, and showcases the latest HDB planning practices. It is a highdensity residential suburb in the northeast of Singapore, with a current population of 50,000 people, expected to rise to 100,000 when completed. The estate, with a density of 30,000 people per square km, consists of sixteen-story high-rise apartments, with more or less the same architectural typology. Buildings sit on pilotis, which create void-decks used for community activities, such as funerals, or weddings, from time to time. In some of the buildings, however, the ground floor is partially allocated for community centers, kindergartens, and even living units. Multi-storey car parks are located in the middle of each block, with roof gardens on top, in most cases hidden from the main streets. In between the buildings, one finds well-designed green recreational areas for residents, including playgrounds, different pavilions and sport fields. Schools are located throughout the estate. Commercial development is minimal and limited to several shops and food courts located around transit stops, and a number of small shopping centers. The relative success of a new town like Punggol is especially remarkable when the notion of “public housing” all around the world has such a strong stigma attached to it. The quality of living in recently built new towns like Punggol is arguably high, thanks not only to efficiently designed residential towers and apartment units, but spaces in between these buildings, the public amenities offered, and the rapid implementation of public transport systems that connect these towns to the city center.

The ‘periphery’ in Singapore does not convey such a dramatically negative association, as in the case of Istanbul. However, feelings of isolation can undeniably be felt by some of the residents living in the suburbs. Most of the new towns developed in the peripheries are supposed to be self-sufficient, and well-connected to other parts of the city, as mentioned earlier, and for the most part, they are. However, one of the main factors that made public housing phenomenally successful in Singapore is that many of the earlier housing estates are centrally located and well integrated into the city fabric, as in the cases of Queenstown, Toa Payoh, or the housing estates around Tiong Bahru. In other words, up until this day, people with different levels of

SECTION 159

income were able to live in or relatively close to the city center, thanks to public housing. Of course, it takes time for the new housing estates to be fully integrated into the surrounding areas, which may very well likely to be the case for developments like Punggol, considering how fast the urban transformation processes are in Singapore.

The ultimate challenge Singapore faces in the long run is whether affordable public housing will still find a place as part of the new urban redevelopments in the central parts of Singapore. It is crucial to set the right balance so that the periphery does not become ghettoized, while the central areas gain a gentrified, exclusive status, devoid of affordable housing serving larger portion of the public. There are signs and attempts to include public housing in the central areas. The affordable public housing project called “The Pinnacle@Duxton” demonstrates “how public housing could be built at very high density to optimise the use of prime land” in the central areas.

The most important aspect of the development is, without doubt, its highly expensive, central location. Bridging the periphery and the center through projects like the Pinnacle is imperative to maintain the socio-spatial harmony that has been arguably achieved over the last decades.

At the same time, there is a different dimension to the discussions about the periphery of Singapore beyond the national boundaries of the island. Singapore and Malaysia have had a tense relationship since the former gained its independence in 1965. There has been intense ‘neighbourly’ competition, not only over highly valuable resources like water, but in attracting foreign investment as well. Despite the tumultuous relationship, there is a joint urban development in the Johor region, located in the southern part of Malaysia, just north of Singapore. Since Singapore is running out of land to expand, there is also a joint effort to develop this area into Singapore’s new hinterland to house multinational companies, industries, and housing. According to the Wall Street Journal, “If the Johor region in southern Malaysia thrives, the thinking goes, it also will help Singapore by ensuring big companies to stay in the region instead of moving lower-cost countries.” Developments like this raise the obvious question whether the periphery of Singapore needs to be considered beyond the national borders of the island, and then re-evaluated within a larger region. As long as Singapore needs more space and a hinterland, there will always be a question where Singapore starts and where it ends.

Less Iconic, More Just In a global context, there are certainly lessons that other cities can learn from Singapore. Many cities and their peripheries suffer from the lack of strategic and long-term planning, which in tuen, result in catastrophic social, economic and environmental problems. In these cities, decisions in

160

regards to urban planning are made in a mostly populist and random manner, targeting short-term goals, far from being justifiably based on logical or scientific reasoning. Singapore, on the other hand, has prioritized its urban planning and redevelopment as one of the fundamental pillars of its development. Well-functioning state-run organizations like HDB or URA have been given insurmountable levels of power and control over the island’s urban environment since the formation of the country. Successful public housing, vast amounts of well-maintained green spaces and advanced public transportation are the direct result of carefully planned long-term policies that have been produced with a great level of detail. However, managing a machine-like city, highly efficient, and with high levels of economic competitiveness may not be sufficient in the long run.

While Singapore has a lot to export when it comes to implementation or planning strategies of great urban projects, the city-state arguably needs to work on generating the conditions for a much more ‘just city,’ a city that is structured around democracy, equity, and diversity.

One can argue that these three parameters are not part of the urban planning lexicon in Singapore, and perhaps this is the right time to make sure that they are. Singaporeans have already started expressing their unhappiness about inequality, low wages, the high cost of living, and overcrowding as a result of highly liberal immigration policies of the country. On top of these grumbles, the way domestic and foreign workers are treated, with almost no rights, along with the growing resentment and a degree of xenophobia directed towards them in public, show signs that social stresses cannot be ignored any longer. In his last national day speech, Prime Minister Lee acknowledged the uneasiness felt by the lower-income groups, stating that “technology and globalization are widening our income gaps and in addition to that, we have domestic social stresses building.”

Having already achieved the status of a global city and high levels of economic competitiveness, Singapore arguably needs to pay more attention to strategies that would cultivate stronger urban and social justice, and put more efforts on diminishing increasingly prevalent inequality, rather than having its future determined only by the economic growth and performance. In spatial terms, it is important to remember that most of the population who experience the challenges of growing inequality lives in HDB estates in the peripheries of the city.

One could argue that while the developments over Marina Bay or the future port city areas would likely polish the international image of Singapore; it is highly unlikely that they will in any way help to satisfy the needs or problems of the overall public in general. Moreover, it wouldn’t be far-fetched to say that these projects would most likely create more alarming disparities between the central areas and periphery. Developing new affordable housing projects, not only in the peripheries, but also in central areas could prevent central areas from becoming exclusive enclaves that would cater only to a population with the highest levels of income. What Singapore needs at this point is less iconic developments and more emphasis on integrating successful public housing, initiatives and traditions the country has displayed in the last decades, to the rest of the island.