AC 5007 - Batch 1 - Lee Peng Hui by NUS Department of Architecture

ADAPT! (DON’T DEMOLISH): Overcoming barriers to the adaptation of Singapore’s post-independence buildings as an alternative to demolition and rebuilding.

Lee Peng Hui A0228758M

Dissertation submitted to the Department of Architecture National University of Singapore

November 2021

in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Architectural Conservation

Supervisor: Dr Nikhil Joshi

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

My sincere thanks to Lynn Reynolds for her invaluable editorial assistance, and to my supervisor Dr Nikhil Joshi for his support and guidance.

ABSTRACT

When a building has outlived its original purpose and become obsolete, it is almost always possible to extend its useful life by adapting it. All too often, however, the building is demolished and a new one built in its place. In addition to maintaining a degree of continuity in the urban fabric, building adaptation is also the most environmentally sustainable option. Large, modern multistorey buildings contain a lot of embodied carbon, and their construction generates enormous quantities of greenhouse gas emissions. Such buildings are often regarded as being of negligible heritage value, or even “ugly”, which makes their demolition more likely. When they are demolished and new buildings are constructed in their place, the environmental cost is considerable. It is worth noting that the fact-based nature of environmental arguments can and should be used to bolster the more subjective arguments based on conservation issues. The barriers to adaptive reuse of such buildings in Singapore include extremely high land prices, which place pressure on developers to generate a rapid return on investment, aggravated by the regulatory framework under which the developers operate. Also of concern is the relative cost and complexity of adaptation compared to demolition and new building. Furthermore, building control and environmental regulations are geared towards new building rather than adaptive reuse, and cultural factors—including the perceptions of clients and the education of professionals—compound matters. Measures to address these barriers should include changes in legislation and building regulations. Education (in the widest sense) of professionals and the public is likely to play an important part in bringing about the cultural change required to make adaptation more attractive.

CONTENTS

List of Figures 1. Introduction 2. Research question and scope 3. Methodology 4. Case Studies 5. Discussion a. Why adapt? b. Obstacles to adaptation and how to address them 6. Conclusion Bibliography Appendix: List of Interviewees and Notes of Interviews

(Word Count: 12,368 words)

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 (a -d). Views of Shaw Tower, from Ho, Puay-peng, Nikhil Joshi, Weng Hin Ho, and Kian Leong Darren Soh. ‘Heritage Study Report. Shaw Tower, 100 Beach Road, Singapore’. Singapore: Department of Architecture, National University of Singapore, and Studio Lapis, 2021. Figure 2. Pearl Bank Apartments, from Finbarr Fallon. ‘Lost Singapore Architecture: Pearl Bank Apartments’, 27 March 2020. http://finbarrfallon.com/pearlbankapartments/. Figure 3 Section of a split-level three-bedroom unit of Pearl Bank Apartments, from Wing, Zihao. ‘The Nation’s “Other” Housing Project: Pearlbank, Pandan Valley, and Singapore’s Private High-Rise Housing Landscape’. Footprint, no. 24: The Architecture of Housing After the Neoliberal Turn (Spring - Summer 2019): 73–90. https://journals.open.tudelft.nl/footprint/article/view/2136/3920 Figure 4. Pearl Bank Apartments from the 28 th floor, from ‘Portrait Mode: A S’pore Photographer’s Poignant Diary of the Pearl Bank Apartments over 5 Years’. Accessed 30 October 2021. https://mothership.sg/2019/05/pearl-bankdarren-soh-photo-essay/. Figure 5. Proposal by Tan Cheng Siong, with a “Green Tower” replacing the old car park block, from pearlbankapartments.com. ‘Pearlbank Apartments’. Accessed 30 October 2021. http://www.pooleassociates.com/directory.htm. Figure 6 (a-b). Pearl Bank apartments in its original state, and the conservation proposal by LAUD architects, from Rezai, Hossein. ‘“Demolishing A Large

Building Is Directly Analogous To Setting Fire To A Forest”’. Design and Architecture, 28 August 2020. https://www.designandarchitecture.com/article/demolishing-a-largebuilding-is-directly-analogous-to-setting-fire-to-a-forest.html. Figure 7. Plan and elevation for the original Yapı Kredi Bank building by Paul Schmitthenner (1958), from Divisare. ‘Teget. YKKS: Yapi Kredi Culture & Arts’. Accessed 30 October 2021. https://divisare.com/projects/375453teget-ykks-yapi-kredi-culture-arts. Figure 8. Original Yapı Kredi Bank building by Paul Schmitthenner, from Divisare. ‘Teget. YKKS: Yapi Kredi Culture & Arts’. Accessed 30 October 2021. https://divisare.com/projects/375453-teget-ykks-yapi-kredi-culture-arts. Figure 9. Yapı Kredi Bank building (following further extensions) prior to the construction of the Yapı Kredi Culture Centre, from İtez, Özüm . ‘Yapı Kredi Kültür Sanat (YKKS)’. Arkitera, 2 April 2018. https://www.arkitera.com/proje/yapi-kredi-kultur-sanat-ykks/. Figure 10. Sketch of scheme for Yapı Kredi Culture Centre by Mehmet Kütükçüoğlu, from Unubol, Ece. ‘YKKS’. Teget. Accessed 30 October 2021. https://www.teget.com/works/ykks/. Figure 11 (a-b). The completed Yapı Kredi Culture Centre, from Unubol, Ece. ‘YKKS’. Teget. Accessed 30 October 2021. https://www.teget.com/works/ykks/. Figure 12 (a-c). The White Chapel Building prior to adaptation by Fletcher Pries, from Lucas. ‘Aldgate Union’, 2021. https://www.lucasuk.com/projects/Aldgate-Union (a-b), and Wilson, Rob. ‘Office Reinvention: The White Chapel Building Remodelled by Fletcher

Priest’. The Architects’ Journal (blog), 19 April 2017. http://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/buildings/office-reinvention-thewhite-chapel-building-remodelled-by-fletcher-priest (c). Figure 13 (a-g). The White Chapel Building after adaptation; (a-c, and f) exterior, (d-e) interior, ground floor, (g) elevation, from Fletcher Priest Architects. ‘BCO Award Nominations for 160 Aldersgate & The White Chapel Building’, 21 January 2019. https://www.fletcherpriest.com/news-and-events/bcoaward-nominations-for-160-aldersgate-the-white-chapel-building. Figure 14. Former French Railways House, Piccadilly, London, from Oldfield, Philip. Twitter post, 9 August 2021. https://twitter.com/sustainabletall/status/1424688403921063943. Figure 15. Haus der Statistik, Alexanderplatz, Berlin, from Berg, Nate. ‘The Accidental Planners’. Places Journal, 11 June 2019. https://doi.org/10.22269/190611. Figure 16. Jolovan Wham protesting in Singapore, from Jha, Preeti. ‘Singapore: Jolovan Wham Charged for Holding up a Smiley Face Sign’. BBC News, 27 November 2020, sec. Asia. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia55068007.

1. INTRODUCTION

The adaptation of buildings is of great importance to architectural conservation. With the passage of time, many buildings outlive the purposes for which they were originally designed. Sometimes these purposes will no longer be relevant, but even where a building continues to serve the same broad function, new requirements, new ways of living and working, and new expectations will often make its existing structure more or less obsolete. When this happens, the usual options are to adapt the existing structure, or to demolish it and build a new one. A third option of leaving it derelict and allowing it to decay also leads ultimately to adaptation or demolition.

Adapting old buildings allows them to be conserved in the most meaningful sense, and contributes to maintaining the historic character of an area, providing continuity between the past, present and future. It ensures that conservation areas do not become museums, of little relevance to contemporary life. Furthermore, when we take into account the entire life cycle of buildings, adaptation generally results in the emission of significantly less greenhouse gases compared to demolition and rebuilding. Given the scale of building construction worldwide, and the current climate crisis, this alone justifies a bias towards adaptation.

Climate change and environmental sustainability are the back door to conservation. While conservation issues and architectural aesthetics are subjective, the realities of climate change are objective scientific facts, and not open to reasonable, reasoned argument in the same way. Conservation

professionals can and should invoke arguments based on sustainability in order to strengthen the conservation-based case for adaptation.

In spite of the clear benefits of adaptation, there are many instances of buildings which could have been adapted being demolished, two of which will be presented in this dissertation. Factors which influence the decision to adapt or demolish a building include technical considerations, new building codes, financial and regulatory issues, and tax structures. These decisions are further influenced by culture, perception and taste, as well as the training, experience and prejudices of building professionals, which are less documented phenomena.

Of particular interest in the context of Singapore is the adaptation of commercial and residential buildings constructed since the country became an independent republic in 1965. There is now a widespread acceptance of the heritage significance of buildings from the colonial period, such as shophouses and pre-war bungalows, but this is not necessarily the case with more recent architecture. While a few modernist buildings are regarded as architecturally significant, many more are not regarded as worthy of conservation. As Torre and Mason put it, “It is self-evident that no society makes an effort to conserve what it does not value”.1

Apart from the environmental considerations discussed earlier, the retention of these buildings is important because all buildings are a record of the past and are in a sense historical documents in themselves. Adaptation provides an opportunity

Maria de la Torre, ed., Assessing the Values of Cultural Heritage: Research Report (Los Angeles: The Getty Conservation Institute, 2002), 3. 1

for architects to realise creative schemes which retain a palimpsest of the past while giving new life to an existing structure. Buildings which might appear architecturally mundane or banal can nevertheless be important repositories of heritage values. Their adaptation presents a challenge and an opportunity for designers, builders and clients to undertake creative and imaginative projects which are more sustainable, while at the same time developing solutions which retain or allude to the history and heritage of a place.

The reasons for building adaptation are compelling. It is important to look into why it is not undertaken more frequently, and to explore the ways in which it can be encouraged.

Literature review

Various aspects of building adaptation—including the drivers for and barriers to adaptation, building obsolescence and reuse, the decision-making criteria when choosing between reuse and demolition, as well as the cultural and heritage aspects of adaptive reuse—are discussed by Wilkinson, Remøy and Langston in their book Sustainable Building Adaptation. 2 Challenges to adaptive reuse are discussed in the context of Hong Kong by Yung and Chan3 and by Langston et al,4

Sara J. Wilkinson, Hilde Remøy, and Craig Langston, Sustainable Building Adaptation (Wiley, 2014), http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epub/10.1002/9781118477151. 3 Esther H. K. Yung and Edwin H. W. Chan, ‘Implementation Challenges to the Adaptive Reuse of Heritage Buildings: Towards the Goals of Sustainable, Low Carbon Cities’, Habitat International 36, no. 3 (1 July 2012): 352–61, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2011.11.001. 4 Craig Langston et al., ‘Strategic Assessment of Building Adaptive Reuse Opportunities in Hong Kong’, Building and Environment 43, no. 10 (1 October 2008): 1709–18, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2007.10.017. 2

and in Australia by various authors including Conejos et al.5 Carughi and Visoni provide a comprehensive overview of conservation policies for twentieth century buildings in their book Time Frames.6

The term adaptation as applied to buildings encompasses a wide range of activities and practices, so it is helpful to clarify the terminology at the outset. Douglas provides a useful definition of building adaptation, used for this dissertation, as

any work to a building over and above maintenance to change its capacity, function or performance, in other words, any intervention to adjust, reuse, or upgrade a building to suit new conditions or requirements.7

Wilkinson categorises building adaptation as within-use, or across-use. For example an office may continue to be used as such after adaptation (within-use adaptation), or it may be converted to a residence (across-use adaptation).8

Adaptive reuse, is thus a form of across-use adaptation, defined by Remøy as ”a major change of a building with alterations of both the building itself and the function it accommodates”.9

Sheila Conejos et al., ‘Governance of Heritage Buildings: Australian Regulatory Barriers to Adaptive Reuse’, Building Research & Information 44, no. 5–6 (17 August 2016): 507–19, https://doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2016.1156951. 6 Ugo Carughi and Massimo Visone, eds., Time Frames: Conservation Policies for Twentieth-Century Architectural Heritage (London: Routledge, 2018), https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315269863. 7 James Douglas, Building Adaptation, 2nd ed. (Amsterdam: Routledge, 2006), https://www.routledge.com/Building-Adaptation/Douglas/p/book/9780750666671. 8 Wilkinson, Remøy, and Langston, Sustainable Building Adaptation. 9 Hilde Remøy, ‘Building Obsolescence and Reuse’, in Sustainable Building Adaptation (John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 2014), 95–120, https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118477151.ch5. 5

Other terms which are used to describe various forms of adaptation, include renovation, repair, renewal, refurbishment, remodelling, reinstatement, retrofitting, conversion, transformation, rehabilitation, modernisation, re-lifing, restoration and recycling.10,11 In this dissertation, the term adaptation will be used except where more specific activities are being discussed.

In recent decades, the emphasis in architectural conservation practice has shifted from a focus on purely aesthetic or historical values to one in which a range of conservation values are taken into account. There is a greater emphasis on societal values, taking into account cultural landscapes and intangible heritage, and on considering the views of non-experts.12 The highly influential Burra Charter, whose provisions are widely accepted internationally, lists not just aesthetic, historical and scientific values, but also social values, including cultural and political values.13,14 This perspective is particularly relevant to this study because many modern buildings which might be adapted may not be considered to be of high architectural value, but may be of significant societal value by virtue of the way in which they have been used. This ties in with the concept of an authorised heritage discourse as described by Laurajane Smith.15

Carughi and Visone, Time Frames. Sally Stone, UnDoing Buildings: Adaptive Reuse and Cultural Memory, 1st ed. (Taylor and Francis, 2019), https://www.perlego.com/book/1567287/undoing-buildings-adaptive-reuse-and-culturalmemory-pdf. 12 Erica Avrami and Randall Mason, ‘Mapping the Issue of Values’, in Values in Heritage Management: Emerging Issues and Research Directions (Los Angeles: Getty Conservation Institute, 2019), https://www.getty.edu/publications/heritagemanagement/part-one/2/. 13 de la Torre, Assessing the Values of Cultural Heritage: Research Report. 14 Australia ICOMOS and International Council on Monuments and Sites, The Burra Charter: The Australia ICOMOS Charter for Places of Cultural Significance 2013, 2013, http://australia.icomos.org/wp-content/uploads/The-Burra-Charter-2013-Adopted31.10.2013.pdf. 15 Laurajane Smith, Uses of Heritage, 1st ed. (Taylor and Francis, 2006), https://www.perlego.com/book/1610779/uses-of-heritage-pdf. 10 11

The adaptation of buildings and urban areas allows the retention of their tangible and intangible heritage. It brings financial as well as cultural benefits, as discussed by Hilde Remøy in Chapter 8 of Sustainable Building Adaptation.16

There is general acknowledgement of the benefits of conserving buildings which are thought to be of significant aesthetic and historical value. However, even buildings which are not deemed architecturally significant can be worth conserving and adapting, because they contain layers of history and provide continuity between the past, present and future. Adaptation of such buildings, which can produce architecturally and socially radical outcomes, allows their intangible heritage to be retained, both in terms of the buildings themselves, and of the urban environment.

The concept of buildings as a palimpsest of history was first raised in 1976 by Machado17 and is discussed further by Plevoets and Van Cleempoel in Adaptive Reuse of the Built Heritage.18 The way in which adaptation alters perceptions of the past and reflects the values of contemporary society is explored further by Sally Stone in chapter 3 of UnDoing Buildings.19 The radical adaptation of a modernist building is discussed by the architect Mehmet Kütükçüoğlu in relation to his adaptation of the Yapı Kredi Culture Centre in Istanbul. One aspect of this project is

Wilkinson, Remøy, and Langston, Sustainable Building Adaptation. Rodolfo Machado, ‘Old Buildings as Palimpsest: Toward a Theory of Remodeling’, Progressive Architecture, November 1976, 46–49, https://usmodernist.org/PA/PA-1976-11.pdf. 18 Bie Plevoets and Koenraad Van Cleempoel, Adaptive Reuse of the Built Heritage: Concepts and Cases of an Emerging Discipline, 1st ed. (Reprint: Taylor and Francis, 2019), https://www.perlego.com/book/1572827/adaptive-reuse-of-the-built-heritage-concepts-andcases-of-an-emerging-discipline-pdf. 19 Stone, Undoing Buildings. 16 17

that the building had no heritage protection, which enabled the architects to adopt a radical approach.20

Wilkinson asserts that not all buildings will have cultural and social capital justifying their retention.21 However, it is important to acknowledge that heritage and memories reside not just in architectural monuments but also in more mundane places.22

The conservation of modern architecture presents particular problems. It continues to divide public opinion, and is often not considered worth saving. This is discussed in the Australian context by Philip Goad 23 and by Susan MacDonald. 24 In the Singapore context, this issue is explored in the position paper Too Young to Die with reference to three modernist buildings, People’s Park (currently at risk of demolition), the Golden Mile Complex (recently gazetted for conservation), and Pearl Bank Apartments (since demolished).25 A bibliography published by the

Mehmet Kütükçüoğlu - ‘Recent Projects’, ArchiDesign Talks BAU (Istanbul: Bahçeşehir University (BAU), 2020), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHR6XtjOLCM. 21 Wilkinson, Remøy, and Langston, Sustainable Building Adaptation. 22 David Atkinson, ‘The Heritage of Mundane Places’, in The Routledge Research Companion to Heritage and Identity (Routledge, 2008), https://www-taylorfranciscom.libproxy1.nus.edu.sg/chapters/edit/10.4324/9781315613031-21/heritage-mundane-placesdavid-atkinson?context=ubx&refId=445c875f-52b9-42fa-813d-91bbdb4706fa. 23 Philip Goad, ‘Unloved, over-Loved or Just Mis-Understood? Modern Architecture: The Problem Child of Heritage’, Historic Environment 25, no. 1 (2013): 19. 24 Susan MacDonald, ‘Materiality, Monumentality and Modernism: Continuing Challenges in Conserving Twentieth-Century Places’ (Keynote presentation, (Un)Loved Modern, Sydney, Australia, 2009), http://www.aicomos.com/wpcontent/uploads/2009_UnlovedModern_Macdonald_Susan_Materiality_Paper.pdf. 25 Ai Lin Chua, Weng Hin Ho, and Fauzy Ismail, ‘Too Young to Die: Giving New Lease of Life to Singapore’s Modernist Icons’ (Singapore: Singapore Heritage Society, August 2018), https://www.singaporeheritage.org/?p=4039. 20

Getty Conservation Institute provides a useful reference on the conservation of twentieth century buildings.26

Key to understanding the impact of buildings on the environment are the concepts of embodied and operational carbon. Carbon emissions are produced in the day-to day use of a building, from processes such as lighting, heating or air conditioning, and the use of equipment and appliances. These are termed operational carbon emissions. Carbon emissions are also generated in other processes in all stages of the life cycle of a building: in its construction, maintenance, refurbishment, and finally in its demolition and in the disposal of the products thereof. These are the embodied carbon emissions.27

Environmental issues around embodied and operational carbon, and the ways in which this can be calculated when choosing between demolition and adaptation, are discussed in greater detail by Pomponi and Moncaster,28 and by Baker and Moncaster.29 The issue of adaptive reuse and sustainability in commercial buildings is discussed by Bullen.30

Susan Macdonald and Gail Ostergren, eds., Conserving Twentieth-Century Built Heritage: A Bibliography, 2nd ed. (Los Angeles, CA: Getty Conservation Institute., 2013), http://hdl.handle.net/10020/gci_pubs/twentieth_centruy_built_heritage. 27 Hannah Baker and Alice Moncaster, ‘Embodied Carbon and the Decision to Demolish or Adapt’, in ZEMCH 2018 International Conference (ZEMCH 2018 International Conference, Melbourne, Australia, 2018), https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323991043_EMBODIED_CARBON_AND_THE_DECISION _TO_DEMOLISH_OR_ADAPT. 28 Francesco Pomponi and Alice Moncaster, ‘Embodied Carbon Mitigation and Reduction in the Built Environment – What Does the Evidence Say?’, Journal of Environmental Management 181 (1 October 2016): 687–700, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.08.036. 29 Baker and Moncaster, ‘Embodied Carbon and the Decision to Demolish or Adapt’. 30 Peter A. Bullen, ‘Adaptive Reuse and Sustainability of Commercial Buildings’, Facilities 25, no. 1/2 (1 January 2007): 20–31, https://doi.org/10.1108/02632770710716911. 26

The inclusion of embodied carbon alongside operational carbon in life cycle assessments of buildings tends to favour adaptive reuse over demolition. A recent study suggests that in some countries this might be hampered by political lobbying from the construction industry whose financial interests favour demolition.31 Further evidence for political lobbying by the construction industry in the United Kingdom is revealed in a recent report by the anti-corruption organisation Transparency International UK, which found that 20% of donations to the governing Conservative Party come from “companies and individuals with a substantial interest in the housing market.”32,33 There is, however, no evidence whatsoever that anything of the sort occurs in Singapore.

A compelling environmental case has been made for adaptation rather than demolition of buildings. However, the studies all have been carried out in temperate climates. There is no comparable research on building adaptation in hot tropical climates, where the emphasis is on keeping cool throughout the year, rather than keeping warm in winter.

Regulatory, legislative and financial considerations can have a strong bearing on the choice between adaptation or demolition. The challenges of adapting an old building to comply with new building codes can encourage demolition, as

A M Moncaster and T Malmqvist, ‘Reducing Embodied Impacts of Buildings – Insights from a Social Power Analysis of the UK and Sweden’, IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science 588 (21 November 2020): 032047, https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/588/3/032047. 32 ‘New Research Reveals Extent of Conservative Party’s Financial Reliance on Property Sector’, Transparency International UK, 12 July 2021, https://www.transparency.org.uk/house-of-cardsUK-housing-policy-influence-Conservative-party-donations-lobbying-press-release. 33 ‘House of Cards. Exploring Influence and Access in UK Housing Policy’ (London: Transparency International UK, July 2021), https://www.transparency.org.uk/sites/default/files/pdf/publications/House%20of%20Cards%2 0-%20Transparency%20International%20UK%20%28web%29.pdf. 31

discussed by Bullen and Love.34 Regulatory barriers to adaptive reuse in Australia are reviewed by Conejos et al, whose article also includes a systematic list of barriers to adaptation which are of more general application.35

Governments can incentivise the conservation of heritage properties in various ways, such as though the use of grants, tax credits and property tax reduction. Similar measures can be used to incentivise adaptation. Some of these are described by Schuster.36 In Singapore, the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) imposes a development charge on property owners if the value of the property increases as a result of zoning, as provided for under Part V of the Planning Act.37 This charge can be waived if owners volunteer heritage properties for conservation.38 In Britain, the RetroFirst campaign has as one of its demands the establishment of government policy which requires that all publicly funded projects look at adaptive reuse as a first option.39 Similarly, Transfer of Development Rights (TDR), used in several jurisdictions to allow additional development at an alternative site in order to conserve a heritage building, could also be used to facilitate adaptive reuse. The use of TDR in different countries is

Peter A. Bullen and Peter E. D. Love, ‘The Rhetoric of Adaptive Reuse or Reality of Demolition: Views from the Field’, Cities 27, no. 4 (1 August 2010): 215–24, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2009.12.005. 35 Conejos et al., ‘Governance of Heritage Buildings’. 36 J. Mark Schuster, Preserving the Built Heritage: Tools for Implementation, ed. John de Monchaux and Charles A Riley II, 1st edition (Hanover, NH: Salzburg, 1997). 37 ‘Planning Act’ (1998), https://sso.agc.gov.sg/Act/PA1998. 38 ‘Planning (Development Charge — Exemption) Rules - Singapore Statutes Online’, Singapore Statutes Online §, accessed 20 April 2021, https://sso.agc.gov.sg/SL/PA1998R6?DocDate=20190830. 39 Will Hurst, ‘Introducing RetroFirst: A New AJ Campaign Championing Reuse in the Built Environment’, Architects’ Journal, 12 September 2019, https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/news/introducing-retrofirst-a-new-aj-campaignchampioning-reuse-in-the-built-environment. 34

discussed by Renard,40 and its use in Hong Kong by Hou et al.41 However TDR does not apply in Singapore, because the owner of a property does not possess the inherent development rights under law, as explained by Kong.42

Compliance with contemporary building and fire codes can be problematic when older buildings are adapted. This issue is discussed in the context of modernist buildings by Grignolo in Time Frames.43.

In Singapore, the environmental sustainability of buildings is regulated by the Building and Construction Authority (BCA) and comes under the Building Control Act. Regulatory requirements for new buildings, and for existing buildings undergoing major adaptation, are covered by the Building Control (Environmental Sustainability) Regulations 2008.44 The BCA also administers the Green Mark scheme for evaluating and certifying the sustainability of buildings. The latest version, Green Mark 2021, includes among its standards and outcomes the reduction of embodied carbon across the life cycle of a building.45 The extent to which the new standards will encourage clients and building professionals to

Vincent Renard, ‘Property Rights and the “Transfer of Development Rights”: Questions of Efficiency and Equity’, Town Planning Review 78, no. 1 (1 January 2007): 41–61, http://www.liverpooluniversitypress.co.uk/journals/article/49527. 41 Jun Hou et al., ‘Implementation Analysis of Transfer of Development Rights for Conserving Privately Owned Built Heritage in Hong Kong: A Transactions Costs Perspective’, Growth and Change 51, no. 1 (2020): 530–50, https://doi.org/10.1111/grow.12350. 42 Lily Kong, Conserving the Past, Creating the Future: Urban Heritage in Singapore (Urban Redevelopment Authority, 2011), 211–12. 43 Roberta Grignolo, ‘Laws and Regulations’, in Time Frames (London: Routledge, 2017), https://ereader.perlego.com/1/book/1496184/34. 44 ‘Building Control (Environmental Sustainability) Regulations 2008’ (2008), https://sso.agc.gov.sg/SL/BCA1989-S199-2008?DocDate=20140818&ValidDate=20140901. 45 ‘Green Mark 2021’, Building and Construction Authority, accessed 11 September 2021, https://www1.bca.gov.sg/buildsg/sustainability/green-mark-certification-scheme/green-mark2021. 40

consider adaptation as the first option remains to be seen, but they should at least provide a nudge in the right direction.

Many modernist buildings in Singapore have been sold and subsequently demolished. The sale of such property is often in part a consequence of the collective sales policy which operates in Singapore.46 This phenomenon is discussed by Christudason,47 and further analysed from a conservation perspective by Foo et al.48

Cultural and educational factors may also contribute to adaptive re-use being overlooked. Adaptive reuse is generally not emphasised in undergraduate architectural education, and it may be that even as students, many architects believe on some level that adaptation is the less “creative” option, as discussed by Hewitt.49 For example, there appears at present to be no module on adaptive reuse at the National University of Singapore.

Conservation in Singapore is regulated by the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA), and until the 1990s, their approach was “top-down”, with no public consultation. Recently, there appears to have been a shift towards a more consultative approach, as discussed by Cheung and Lee. Changes aimed at

Chua, Ho, and Fauzy Ismail, ‘Too Young to Die: Giving New Lease of Life to Singapore’s Modernist Icons’. 47 Alice Christudason, ‘Controversial Strata Legislation: Catalyst for Housing Regeneration in Singapore’, Journal of Legal Affairs and Dispute Resolution in Engineering and Construction 2 (1 February 2010), https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1943-4162(2010)2:1(63). 48 Mingyee Foo et al., ‘Conserving Our Modern Built Heritage amidst Collective Sale Fever: Addressing Gaps in the Collective Sales Process’, Policy Analysis Exercise (Singapore: Singapore Heritage Society, 2019), https://www.singaporeheritage.org/?p=4168. 49 Mark Alan Hewitt, ‘Teaching the Subtle and Difficult Art of Adaptive Reuse’, Common Edge, 21 January 2021, https://commonedge.org/teaching-the-subtle-and-difficult-art-of-adaptive-reuse/. 46

incorporating a degree of public consultation into the decision-making process include the establishment of a Conservation Advisory Panel in 2002, which became the Heritage and Identity Partnership in 2018, with an expanded role. There has also been a shift from an emphasis on individual buildings to a focus on conservation areas.50 Nevertheless, the conservation authorities have extensive powers, with no obligation or formal mechanism for public consultation.51 Until very recently, the focus of conservation in Singapore has been mainly on preWorld War 2 buildings. However, a few modern buildings have been conserved, and the Singapore Conference Hall and Jurong Town Hall have been gazetted as National Monuments52,53. Furthermore, there is now a growing understanding that, as with older pre-war districts, there are also modernist areas and groups of buildings which constitute coherent urban areas which are also worthy of conservation. An example is the recent conservation of a cluster of apartment blocks at Dakota Crescent.54

Fredo Cheung and Ho Yin Lee, ‘“Adapt and Survive”: A Survivalist’s Pragmatism and Adaptability Approach to the Adaptive Re-Use Paradigm in Singapore’, in Asian Revitalization: Adaptive Reuse in Hong Kong, Shanghai, and Singapore, ed. Katie Cummer and Lynne D. DiStefano (Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 2021), 97–103. 51 Planning Act. 52 ‘Former Singapore Conference Hall and Trade Union House (Now Singapore Conference Hall)’, Roots, accessed 11 September 2021, https://www.roots.gov.sg/places/placeslanding/Places/national-monuments/former-singapore-conference-hall-and-trade-union-housenow-singapore-conference-hall. 53 ‘Jurong Town Hall’, accessed 11 September 2021, https://www.roots.gov.sg/places/placeslanding/Places/national-monuments/jurong-town-hall. 54 Serene Tng, ed., 30 Years of Conservation in Singapore Since 1989: 30 Personal Reflections and Stories (Urban Redevelopment Authority, 2020), 96–99. 50

2. RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND SCOPE

This paper aims to answer the following questions:

1. With reference to post-independence architecture in Singapore, what are the factors which influence the decision to adapt or demolish a building? 2. How can building adaptation, particularly of such structures, be encouraged, facilitated, and incentivised?

The primary focus of the study is the potential for adaptation of post-1965 buildings in Singapore, particularly large multistorey commercial and residential structures, which present a particular challenge for adaptive reuse. They are often regarded as obsolete, not matching up to current expectations and norms, and may not comply with current building codes. They are likely to be less efficient than newer buildings in terms of energy use and air conditioning. At the same time, they are often regarded as unattractive according to current architectural fashions.55

This dissertation explores the factors which influence the decision to adapt or demolish a building, including financial and regulatory issues, tax structures and incentives, cultural preconceptions, perceptions and tastes which may result in a

It is worth remembering that tastes change constantly, and that Ruskin, an early pioneer of architectural conservation, was fiercely critical of Palladio, writing of San Giorgio Maggiore in Venice that “It is impossible to conceive a design more gross, more barbarous, more childish in conception, more servile in plagiarism, more insipid in result, more contemptible under every point of rational regard” (John Ruskin, The Stones of Venice, vol. 3 (Perlego, 2009), sec. IV, Venetian Index, https://www.perlego.com/book/1728849/the-stones-of-venice-volume-3-of-3-pdf.) 55

preference one way or another, and the training, experience and prejudices of building professionals.

3. METHODOLOGY

In addition to reviewing the literature, several stakeholders were interviewed. Two recently demolished buildings—one commercial (Shaw Tower) and one residential (Pearl Bank Apartments)—were studied to illustrate the challenges in conserving large commercial and residential modernist multistorey buildings in Singapore. In addition, three examples of successful building adaptation were examined: The Yapı Kredi Culture Centre in Istanbul, The White Chapel building in London, and the Haus der Statistik in Berlin.

A qualitative approach was adopted for the interviews. Stakeholders from different professional groups were interviewed using a semi-structured format. This allowed specific questions to be answered while giving participants the opportunity to raise issues not covered by the questions. The interviewees included architects, engineers, lawyers, property developers and academics. Some interviewees fell into more than one category. The academics were practising professionals with concurrent academic posts, for instance. Interviewees were selected on an opportunistic basis, from recommendations given by course tutors, individuals encountered in the course of the MAArC programme, personal acquaintances, and online searches using Google and LinkedIn.

Interviews were carried out face-to-face, or with online platforms such as Zoom and Microsoft Teams. Notes were taken during and after interviews, but the interviews were not recorded lest this inhibit the conversation. At the end of each interview, the notes were written up as a Word document, which was sent to the

interviewee for review. Interviewees were invited to make corrections and additions as they saw fit.

Typical interview questions included the following, modified for the person being interviewed depending on their area of expertise:

1. What factors influence the decision to adapt or demolish a building? Under what circumstances would you choose one or the other? 2. To what extent is adaptation more sustainable compared to demolition? 3. Is adaptation more or less economical than demolition and rebuilding? 4. What attributes make a building suitable or unsuitable for adaptive reuse? 5. Is there generally a preference for adaptation or demolition, and why? 6. What issues should be included in the decision process used to assess the suitability of a building for adaptation? 7. What measures will facilitate, encourage or incentivise adaptation? (e.g. changes to rules regarding development charges? TDR? Environmental Impact Assessment to include embodied carbon?) 8. What examples of buildings in Singapore illustrate the opportunities for, and barriers to adaptive reuse? 9. What is the most important barrier?

In keeping with the iterative nature of the qualitative methodology, the findings of previous interviews informed the discussion during subsequent interviews. Thus, as more information was gathered during the interview process, there was a slight

change in the nature of the questioning, and questions which related to issues raised during interviews with other individuals, as described by Schutt.56

Russell K. Schutt, ‘Qualitative Data Analysis’, in Investigating the Social World: The Process and Practice of Research, 7th ed (Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage Publications, 2012), 320–57. 56

4. CASE STUDIES

1. Shaw Tower

The information for this case study has been obtained from a Heritage Report prepared for the Shaw Foundation by Ho, Joshi, Ho and Soh.57

Shaw Tower was a 34-storey brutalist commercial building, opened in 1976. It was located on the Golden Mile, an area along Beach Road that had been designated for development in 1966. Earlier developments along the Golden Mile were the Hotel Merlin (now the Plaza Park Royal Hotel), the Woh Hup Complex (now known as the Golden Mile Complex), and Golden Mile Tower. Shaw Tower was the next major project after these buildings.

The land on which Shaw Tower was built was purchased with a 99-year lease commencing on 2 June 1970. The building was designed by Charles Ho of Iversen Van Sitteren and Partners, and was constructed between 1971 and 1975. It was briefly the tallest building in Singapore (34 storeys, 137.87 metres) until the completion of the OCBC Centre (52 storeys, 197.7 m) in 1976. The precast and prefinished concrete panels used in its construction were an innovation for that time in Singapore. These were specifically designed and finished for the building, and were delivered by Hume Industries in 1975 (Figure 1).

Puay-peng Ho et al., ‘Heritage Study Report. Shaw Tower, 100 Beach Road, Singapore’ (Singapore: Despartment of Architecture, National University of Singapore, and Studio Lapis, 2021). 57

Shaw Tower was officially opened 1976, with a rentable floor area of 314 048 sq ft. One of the earliest mixed-use complexes in Singapore, it boasted two cinemas, two coffee houses, 242 shops spread over the ground and first floors (first and second floors in today’s terminology), 23 storeys of office space, and a multistorey car park for around 800 cars.

In 1988, a two-year refurbishment was undertaken, carried out in phases to minimise disruption to the existing occupants. The two existing cinemas were reconfigured into four cinemas, making it the first cineplex in Singapore. The retail spaces were refurbished to create an upmarket shopping complex, the Shaw Leisure Gallery.

A second refurbishment took place in 2003. The mosaic tiles on the façade of the building had been regarded as a practical and low-maintenance treatment as they would not require regular repainting. However, within a decade of construction, they had begun to “fall apart” and fall off. This was attributed to “poor workmanship” and to “seepage of water through the porous pointing mortar” which compromised the adhesives used to attach the tiles to the concrete. To address this, the entire external surface of the building was spray painted with textured paint, which covered the mosaic tiles. In addition, warped windows and damaged window glass panels were replaced. The windows were covered with solar film to reduce solar gain. Structural cracks in the concrete were repaired, and electrical systems and interior fittings upgraded. A few years later, in 2008, one of the cinemas was converted to an auditorium.

In 2018, it was announced that Shaw Tower would be demolished, and a new 35storey retail and office building constructed in its place by 2024. The tenants were given notice to vacate by 20 June 2020. Shaw tower had 260 000 sq ft of office space and 100 000 sq ft of retail space; the new development was to have 400 000 sq ft of office space and 30 000 sq ft of retail space.

Some years prior to the announcement to demolish, a schematic proposal for the adaptation of Shaw Tower had been submitted to the owner by a team which included the architect Alfred Yeung of Brock Carmichael associates.58 However, this proposal was not accepted. The two main reasons given to explain why the building was not retained were its deteriorating fabric, and the floor-to-ceiling heights which were below the standard of a Grade A office.59 In the proposal for adaptation, it had been estimated that the structural problems which were due in part to water seepage into the concrete could be rectified, and this would have cost only slightly more compared to the cost of demolition and rebuilding. However, the client was not persuaded, because the end result would have been a compromise solution, with a lower rental value compared to a Grade A office building.60 According to the developer, not only was rectification of the structural defects too costly and time consuming, but a refurbished building would not meet the

Alfred Yeung, personal communication. There is no official definition of a Grade A office in Singapore, but a Grade A office building is the most prestigious category, situated in a prime location with an impressive lobby, modern up-todate design and facilities, a range of amenities, and prestigious clients, generally multinational corporations. A typical description can be found in this commercial website: https://officefinder.com.sg/resources/grade-a-office-definition-in-singapore-and-how-to-identifyone/. 60 Alfred Yeung, personal communication. 58 59

expectations of today’s clients, not just in terms of ceiling heights, but also because of the internal columns.61

Shaw Tower was demolished in 2021.

Austin Chandrasekaran, personal communication.

(1a)

(1b)

(1c)

(1d)

Figure 1 (a -d). Views of Shaw Tower.

2. Pearl Bank Apartments

Pearl Bank Apartments was a 38-storey apartment block designed by Tan Cheng Siong. When completed in 1976, a year and a half ahead of schedule, it was the tallest residential building in Singapore.62 Its horseshoe shape was economical in terms of materials, the curved form resulting in a small wall-to floor ratio. The west-facing convexity allowed ventilation while minimising glare from the afternoon sun. It was a new typology in Singapore: high density, high rise urban housing for middle- and upper-income families.63 Interlocking split-level two-, three- and four-bedroom apartments housed 2000 people in 288 units, a density similar to that found in the then insanitary and overcrowded shophouses of nearby Kreta Ayer (Chinatown).64 In 2015 it was still the densest single-block housing building on the island (Figures 2-4).65

In order to speed up construction, slip-form construction was used. Rather than building one floor at a time by pouring concrete into wooden formwork and waiting over a week for it to set before proceeding to the next level, the concrete was poured into a mould that was raised inch by inch as the bottom layer was partially set. It was the first time that this relatively new technique had been employed in a residential building in Singapore.66

Geraldine C. T. Quek, Kevin Josiah J.H. Neo, and Teri Y.L. Lim, Conservation Conversations – Pearl Bank Apartments (2015) (Singapore: Singapore University of Technology and Design, 2015), https://asd.sutd.edu.sg/architectural-intelligence/publications/conservation-conversations-pearlbank-apartments-2015. 63 Quek, Neo, and Lim. 64 Chua, Ho, and Fauzy Ismail, ‘Too Young to Die: Giving New Lease of Life to Singapore’s Modernist Icons’. 65 Quek, Neo, and Lim, Conservation Conversations – Pearl Bank Apartments (2015). 66 Justin Zhuang, ‘Saving Pearl Bank Apartments’, BiblioAsia 12, no. 3 (December 2016): 12–16, https://biblioasia.nlb.gov.sg/past-issues/pdf/vol-12/v12-issue3_PearlBank.pdf. 62

In 2007, 2008, and 2011 there were attempts at the collective sale of the apartment block, which failed.67

In 2012, the residents, along with the original architect, formulated a scheme to conserve the building, with additional construction on the site which would result in more housing units (Figure 5). Money raised from the sale of these extra units would contribute to the upgrading of the existing building, which by that time had deteriorated. There were ongoing problems with water leaks, and residents complained that the lifts broke down frequently. Some apartments which had been sublet were also overcrowded, with illegal numbers of tenants.

An attempt in 2015 by the residents to have the building gazetted for conservation failed because the authorities required the unanimous agreement of all the owners. This was not because of an arbitrary threshold for voluntary conservation set by the URA, but a consequence of the new arrangements that had been proposed. In reply to a commentary in the press, Mei Chou, Group Director for Conservation and Urban Design at the URA wrote:

This new block would have added new subsidiary proprietors to the development and changed the aggregate share value of all the lots. This would have resulted in a significant dilution of the rights of existing owners. Under the Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act, the aggregate share value of all the lots in an MCST cannot be altered after an MCST is constituted. Instead, Rachel Phua, ‘Pearl Bank Apartments Makes 4th Attempt at En-Bloc Sale’, CNA, 8 July 2017, https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/pearl-bank-apartments-makes-4th-attemptat-en-bloc-sale-9015632. 67

the MCST has to terminate the strata scheme and allow for the reconstitution of a new MCST with an equitable share allocation for all subsidiary proprietors. It is this termination of a strata scheme that requires a resolution by consensus that is, 100 per cent consent from the subsidiary proprietors.68

The building was eventually sold to CapitaLand for development in 2018. A further attempt submitted by LAUD Architects, Archurban and Web Structures to incorporate the building at least partly into a new development (Figure 6) was also rejected by the developer.69 Among the objections to the scheme was that the floor heights of the existing apartments (which could not be increased) were too low by contemporary standards for apartments of that class.70

Pearl Bank apartments was demolished in late 2019 – early 2020.

Mei Chou, ‘100 per Cent Owners’ Consent Not Needed for Building Conservation’, The Straits Times, 16 March 2018, https://www.straitstimes.com/forum/letters-in-print/100-per-centowners-consent-not-needed-for-building-conservation. 69 Hossein Rezai, ‘“Demolishing A Large Building Is Directly Analogous To Setting Fire To A Forest”’, Design and Architecture, 28 August 2020, https://www.designandarchitecture.com/article/demolishing-a-large-building-is-directlyanalogous-to-setting-fire-to-a-forest.html. 70 Hossein Rezai, private communication. 68

Figure 2. Pearl Bank Apartments.

Figure 3. Section of a split-level three-bedroom unit of Pearl Bank Apartments.

Figure 4. Pearl Bank Apartments from the 28 th floor.

Figure 5. Proposal by Tan Cheng Siong, with a “Green Tower” replacing the old car park block.

(6a)

(6b) Figure 6 (a-b). Pearl Bank apartments in its original state, and the conservation proposal by LAUD architects.

5. DISCUSSION

1. Why adapt?

There is now wide acceptance in Singapore of the heritage value of older buildings, but more recent architecture from the period after independence (1965) may be less valued for various reasons. There are two reasons for conserving these buildings: heritage, and environmental sustainability. By adapting buildings, we can extend their life. Not only does this help in maintaining their heritage values, but it also avoids the environmental harm from demolition and rebuilding.

Heritage

In the past, buildings were conserved because they were considered to be architecturally or historically significant. In recent years, the approach has broadened to take into account other values which buildings and urban areas might possess. These values, as explained by Avrami et al (2019) “refer to the different qualities, characteristics, meanings, perceptions, or associations ascribed to the things we wish to conserve — buildings, objects, sites, landscapes, settlements” (as distinct from another common use of the term to denote “ethics, philosophies, or normative codes of behaviour”). Contemporary conservation practice now considers a broad range of values. In addition to the artistic, historical or aesthetic qualities of a building (the “essential values”), there are the

cultural, religious economic and environmental values (the “societal values”).71 This is reflected in various charters which inform its practice.72

Over time, the fabric of a building will deteriorate. Its usage may change, and it may no longer be adequate or appropriate for its current or future use. Under these circumstances, many owners choose to demolish the old building and erect a new one, but in so doing, yet another layer of history is erased.

Some of Singapore’s modern buildings will be judged by architects, critics and historians to be of great architectural or historic value. Many more will be less significant. Nevertheless, they are all part of the urban landscape. Buildings are a document of their times, and if all the buildings in an urban area are torn down and replaced every few years, then any sense of continuity is lost as the city repeatedly reinvents and recreates itself from a tabula rasa. Apart from the obliteration of any visual or plastic sense of continuity, this can also disrupt existing communities and patterns of use, all of which must be started from scratch in the knowledge that what is created anew cannot be expected to last for long.

A further reason for retaining and adapting existing buildings is that urban environments which are more varied and less monotonous are likely to be good for the mental health and happiness of their inhabitants. The retention of older buildings alongside newer ones adds to the richness and complexity of the urban

Avrami and Mason, ‘Mapping the Issue of Values’. Currently, the most influential of these include the Burra Charter (2103) https://australia.icomos.org/publications/burra-charter-practice-notes/, and the United Nations (UNESCO) Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape Approach (2011) https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000215084_eng#page=52. 71 72

texture in a way which cannot be replicated in an area composed entirely of brand new buildings. Furthermore, new commercial buildings often present a blank and uninviting face to the street. Studies have found that people are likely to walk more, and to linger or stop in streets which have varied facades, more openings and a high density of functions compared to those with blank walls. Evidence from neuroscience research suggests that these factors can make people happier and more social. 73

Adaptation of an existing building may be more challenging for designers and engineers. However, it gives the architect the opportunity to create something new which retains elements of the past, providing continuity between the past, present and future, and giving deeper meaning to the building and urban area.

A good example of the creative adaptation of a post war modern building is the remodelling of a bank building in Istanbul by the architectural firm Teğet to create the Yapı Kredi Culture Centre. The architect Mehmet Kütükçüoğlu described Istanbul as a city where things are being built from scratch over and over again, [and where] the new administration is not tolerant to what is old, unless it’s a hundred years old or more, so you almost lose your childhood every time the city changes skin every twenty, thirty years.74

Charles Montgomery, Happy City: Transforming Our Lives Through Urban Design (Penguin, 2013), chap. 7: Convivialities. 74 George Kafka, ‘Opening Statement: Yapı Kredi Culture Centre in Istanbul, Turkey by Teget’, Architectural Review, 14 December 2017, https://www.architecturalreview.com/buildings/opening-statement-yapi-kredi-culture-centre-in-istanbul-turkey-by-teget. 73

His description could very well apply to Singapore, where it is often observed that an area is unrecognisable when visited after an absence of only a couple of years. The Yapı Kredi building was originally designed by Paul Schmitthenner in 1958 (Figures 7-8). Prior to its latest adaptation it had been enlarged and renovated, and was a rather bland and faceless block (Figure 9). It is located on Istiklal Caddesi, Istanbul’s great pedestrianised thoroughfare, where the street makes a bend next to the Galatasaray Meydan (square), by the historical and prestigious Galatasaray Lycée.

Kütükçüoğlu chose to adapt the existing building, rather than to demolish it and replace it with something new. The interior of the building was remodelled and made visible to the through a curtain wall on the Galatasaray façade (Figures 1011). His radical remodelling retains much of the old building and streetscape, preserving a sense of its historical, architectural, and urban continuity.

An important aspect of the Yapı Kredi project is that the architect was able to carry out his scheme because the building did not have heritage protection.75 Heritage professionals are rightly concerned with the rigorous conservation of exemplary works of architecture, but the Yapı Kredi illustrates how adaptation of an unremarkable building can retain elements of the past, while creating something new which surpasses what was there before.

Mehmet Kütükçüoğlu - ‘Recent Projects’.

Figure 7. Plan and elevation for the original Yapı Kredi Bank building by Paul Schmitthenner (1958).

Figure 8. Original Yapı Kredi Bank building by Paul Schmitthenner.

Figure 9. Yapı Kredi Bank building (following further extensions) prior to the construction of the Yapı Kredi Culture Centre.

Figure 10. Sketch of scheme for Yapı Kredi Culture Centre by Mehmet Kütükçüoğlu.

(11a)

(11b) Figure 11 (a-b). The completed Yapı Kredi Culture Centre.

A less radical but very successful adaptation of a mundane modern building is the White Chapel in London. Formerly known as the Sedgwick Centre, it was built in in 1982-4 by Wimpey Construction UK Ltd as an office block. Within it was an atrium, and in the basement there was a shopping centre (Figure 12). It was occupied by the Royal Bank of Scotland from 2005, when the basement shopping centre was closed. Later it was bought by Derwent London, and the bank moved out in 2015. The adaptation was undertaken by Fletcher Priest architects, who moved the entrance from the side to the centre of the building, with the intention of creating a welcoming public entrance in what was previously a “fortress-like façade.”76 Workspaces were let to creative, media and tech organisations, as well as to the Government Digital Services. A space was created in the atrium where tenants and the public could work and relax.77 (Figure 13). All this was achieved for less than it would have cost to demolish and build anew. The lower levels had also been intended to house a branch of the Swedish photography museum Fotografiska, which would have contributed further to the public amenities afforded by the building, but after several years of uncertainty due to Brexit, followed by the Covid-19 pandemic, this project was abandoned in 2020.78

‘The White Chapel Building (Former Sedgwick Centre)’, Survey of London, accessed 25 June 2021, https://surveyoflondon.org/map/feature/8/detail/#history. 77 Rob Wilson, ‘Office Reinvention: The White Chapel Building Remodelled by Fletcher Priest’, The Architects’ Journal (blog), 19 April 2017, http://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/buildings/officereinvention-the-white-chapel-building-remodelled-by-fletcher-priest. 78 ‘The White Chapel Building (Former Sedgwick Centre)’. 76

(12a)

(12b)

(12c) Figure 12 (a-c). The White Chapel Building prior to adaptation by Fletcher Priest.

(13a)

(13b)

(13c)

(13d)

(13e)

(13f)

(13g) Figure 13 (a-g). The White Chapel Building after adaptation; (a-c, and f) exterior, (d-e) interior, ground floor, (g) elevation.

The Yapı Kredi Culture Centre and the White Chapel illustrate how adaptation can retain elements from the past, while improving on them. Both buildings began life as architecturally unexceptional banks, which contributed little to the locality. They were transformed into places which now draw in a range of people, bringing new activities to the area, and in a sense creating new communities. Neither building had heritage protection, which gave the architects more freedom to design, producing radical changes in Istanbul, and subtler interventions in London. In both cases, bland and uninviting frontages have been transformed. In the Yapı Kredi Culture Centre, we see on the Istiklal Caddesi side the retention of the essentials of the old façade, with an inviting bookshop, while on the side facing the open space of the Meydan, a dramatic glass curtain wall reveals the remodelling within. In the White Chapel, pedestrians looking in see a social space with cafes, a bicycle facility, and attractive displays. The same functions could have been provided in new purpose-built structures, but these would have taken a few years to establish themselves in the public imagination. Even when well designed, pristine and shiny facades lack the patina and evidence of age, the rough corners that come with time, which somehow seem to engender a richer urban experience. In addition, demolition and rebuilding generates more greenhouse gas emissions, and the results are usually more disruptive to the visual and historical continuity of the urban experience.

In contrast to the Yapı Kredi Culture Centre and the White Chapel, the former French Railways house on Piccadilly in London an elegant modernist building designed by Shaw and Lloyd (1962), which once included fittings by Ernö Goldfinger and Charlotte Perriand, is to be demolished. It was turned down for

heritage listing in 2013 because over the years the Goldfinger and Perriand interiors had been removed, and the street-level arcade filled in. Make architects, who applied for permission to demolish, said that it was “not noted as a building of merit”, that the interior spaces were “narrow” and “difficult to use”, that the cladding did not meet current thermal standards, and that the mechanical and electrical plant were outdated. The existing 7-storey building will be replaced by an 8-story building designed by Make.79 This cannot possibly be justified on environmental and sustainability grounds. As for the aesthetics, this is admittedly a subjective matter, and readers can judge for themselves from the illustration below (Figure 14).

Figure 14. Former French Railways House, Piccadilly, London

Tom Lowe, ‘Make to Replace Piccadilly Landmark after Two Westminster Planning Wins’, Building Design, 9 August 2021, https://www.bdonline.co.uk/news/make-to-replace-piccadillylandmark-after-two-westminster-planning-wins/5113172.article. 79

Community action can in some cases result in the conservation of threatened buildings. A good example of this is the Haus der Statistik in Berlin’s Alexanderplatz. Constructed in the 1960s, it was the national statistics office of the German Democratic Republic, and consisted of a complex which included three mid-rises of up to twelve stories, as well as a few smaller buildings. After German reunification, it was finally closed in 2008 and remained abandoned. The buildings were meant to be demolished and replaced by private apartments and offices, but this scheme was delayed due to lack of agreement from the authorities. These events occurred at a time when the sale of publicly owned buildings to the private sector had resulted in rising rents and a shortage of affordable housing in Berlin. An artists’ collective than staged a protest, draping a large banner over the front of one of the buildings with the legend “Here Arises for Berlin: Room for Art, Culture, and Social Space” (Figure 15). 80

Figure 15. Haus der Statistik, Alexanderplatz, Berlin. Nate Berg, ‘The Accidental Planners’, Places Journal, 11 June 2019, https://doi.org/10.22269/190611. 80

This attracted enough media attention so that the activists were able to meet with the mayor of the Mitte district, where the complex was located. Following this, discussions with government officials and banks resulted in a deal in which the buildings were converted to housing, artists’ studios, educational and cultural uses, as well as a new town hall for the district government. This was mediated through the formation of a collective which included architects, urban planners, educators, members of housing cooperatives, and advocates for the homeless and refugees. A situation had been created in which it would have been difficult for politicians to reject the proposals. The property was transferred to the city of Berlin in 2017 and a scheme has been selected, involving the retention of the mid-rise buildings, the demolition of other buildings, and the construction of a new 16-storey tower. Construction is due to commence in 2022, but the results of elections held before that time could still abort the project.81

The feasibility and effectiveness of ground-up initiatives of this sort is however partly dependent on social and political circumstances. For instance, there was community support for the Haus der Statistik project because of the severe shortage of affordable housing resulting from the privatisation of formerly public housing stock, a situation widely perceived as everybody’s problem. In this case, decisive action could easily be framed as the responsible and ethical thing to do.

In other contexts, any form of protest may be less acceptable and even present legal problems. In Singapore, for example, the activist Jolovan Wham was charged

Berg.

with illegal assembly after a protest in which he simply stood on his own holding up a piece of cardboard with a smiley face on it (Figure 16).82

Figure 16. Jolovan Wham protesting in Singapore.

II.

Environmental sustainability

Building construction is a major source of greenhouse gas emissions around the world. In 2018, the building and construction sector was responsible for 39% of global energy and process-related CO2 emissions.83 When an existing building is demolished, the greenhouse gases that were produced in its construction are “wasted” when a new building is constructed in its place.

With current techniques and building codes, modern buildings are in general more energy efficient than older ones, and therefore have a lower operational carbon

‘Singapore: Jolovan Wham Charged for Holding up a Smiley Face Sign’, BBC News, 27 November 2020, sec. Asia, https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-55068007. 83 Thibaut Abergel et al., 2019 Global Status Report for Buildings and Construction. Towards a Zero Emissions, Efficient and Resilient Buildings and Construction Sector (International Energy Agency, 2019), https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/3da9daf9-ef75-4a37-b3daa09224e299dc/2019_Global_Status_Report_for_Buildings_and_Construction.pdf. 82

footprint. This is sometimes used as an argument for demolishing an old, inefficient building and replacing it with a new one. However, if we take into account the embodied carbon in a building, then the total emissions over its lifespan tilt in favour of adaptation. In a review by Baker and Moncaster, the majority of papers found that over a lifetime of about 50-60 years, refurbishment had a lower environmental impact than demolition and rebuilding.84

However, this issue is not absolutely straightforward. There is disagreement about whether or not historic emissions (associated with the construction of the existing structure) should be considered. The extent and nature of the refurbishment will have an impact on the operational emissions.85 One study concluded that while “advanced refurbishment” resulted in fewer emissions compared to a new build, less extensive refurbishment resulted in more emissions, and doing nothing resulted in even more emissions.86 It should be noted also that a few studies have concluded that demolition and rebuilding can be more effective than refurbishment for carbon mitigation,87,88 but these are a small minority of the published literature on this subject.89

Baker and Moncaster, ‘Embodied Carbon and the Decision to Demolish or Adapt’. Baker and Moncaster. 86 Verena Weiler, Hannes Harter, and Ursula Eicker, ‘Life Cycle Assessment of Buildings and City Quarters Comparing Demolition and Reconstruction with Refurbishment’, Energy and Buildings 134 (1 January 2017): 319–28, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2016.11.004. 87 Maarten Dubois and Karen Allacker, ‘Energy Savings from Housing: Ineffective Renovation Subsidies vs Efficient Demolition and Reconstruction Incentives’, Energy Policy 86 (1 November 2015): 697–704, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2015.07.029. 88 Brenda Boardman, ‘Examining the Carbon Agenda via the 40% House Scenario’, Building Research & Information 35, no. 4 (1 August 2007): 363–78, https://doi.org/10.1080/09613210701238276. 89 Pomponi and Moncaster, ‘Embodied Carbon Mitigation and Reduction in the Built Environment – What Does the Evidence Say?’ 84 85

Another significant limitation of the literature on carbon emissions in buildings is that all the studies have been carried out in temperate climates where the focus is on heating. There are no equivalent studies in tropical climates where the concern is with keeping buildings cool. Furthermore, environmental standards for Singapore’s Green Mark certification assume that large buildings will be air conditioned, and do not take into account natural ventilation.90 Many older buildings which were designed for at least a degree of natural ventilation might score relatively poorly compared to modern fully-airconditioned ones.

Complex engineering issues involved in the computation of operational and embodied carbon are beyond the scope of this discussion. However, it is important to appreciate that while many conservation enthusiasts might assume that building adaptation is always more environmentally sustainable, the engineering perspective is more nuanced. Nevertheless, when confronted with a choice between demolition and adaptation, the question must always be asked: “which option has the lowest environmental impact over the life of the building?”

Interviewees approached as part of this study varied in their concern or knowledge about environmental issues, although all accepted that they were important, and all were aware of the concept of embodied carbon. The engineer Hossein Rezai, who has written and spoken extensively on the topic was, as expected, the most concerned with this factor, and felt that because of the urgency of climate change, no building which can be adapted should be demolished. All

Austin Chandrasekaran, personal communication

interviewees felt that insufficient consideration was given to embodied carbon in sustainability guidelines and regulations. Since the interviews were held, however, the new Green Mark 2021 standards have been published, which do place great emphasis on embodied carbon.91

No matter how strongly architects and engineers might feel about environmental sustainability, the reality of practice is that they work for clients, for most of whom financial considerations will be paramount. If demolition and new building is truly cheaper and quicker than adaptation (which may not necessarily be the case, as will be discussed later), then additional regulatory or fiscal measures may be needed to incentivise adaptation.

2. Obstacles to adaptation and how to overcome them

Financial

1. Issues related to land prices.

There was a consensus amongst the interviewees that the extremely high land prices in Singapore were a major factor encouraging the demolition of buildings, especially where changes to the URA masterplan resulted in an increase in the plot ratio on a site. From a developer’s point of view, the factors which influence the cost of development are: ‘Green Mark 2021’, Building and Construction Authority, 11 September 2021, https://www1.bca.gov.sg/buildsg/sustainability/green-mark-certification-scheme/green-mark2021. 91

1. Land Price 2. Lease extension premium 3. Development charge or differential premium, both of which will be replaced by the Land Betterment Charge following the passage of the Land Betterment Charge Bill 2021.

After 1988, developers buying land under the Government Land Sales Programme could no longer pay for the land in instalments. Instead, they were required to pay the full purchase price within 90 days of being awarded the tender. This policy was enacted to ensure that only developers with the financial means to see a project through would bid for a site.92

In Singapore, land price typically accounts for 60-70% of the cost of a commercial building project (compared to 30-40% in Europe and North America).93 There is, as a result, great pressure on developers and clients to generate a rapid return on their investment by having the building ready to rent as quickly as possible, especially since land sales must generally be paid for within 90 days.94

High land prices incentivise purchasers to get the maximum return on investment by maximising the gross floor area of their buildings. This often requires additional construction, especially where re-zoning has resulted in an increased plot ratio. Construction professionals believe that demolition and rebuilding is cheaper and

Alison Lee, The Government Land Sales Programme: Turning Plans into Reality, Urban Systems Studies (Singapore: Centre for Liveable Cities, 2021), 121, https://www.clc.gov.sg/docs/defaultsource/urban-systems-studies/uss-government-land-sales.pdf. 93 Austin Chandrasekaran, personal communication. 94 Lee, The Government Land Sales Programme: Turning Plans into Reality, 121. 92

simpler than adaptation, especially with modern building techniques and prefabrication, which makes this their preferred option in most cases.95

However, although high land price was given as a disincentive for adaptation, this might not be the irrefutable argument it seems. If the price of land constitutes a greater proportion of the total cost of a project in Singapore compared to most other cities, it follows that the cost of construction accounts for a smaller proportion of the overall cost. This should make adaptation more acceptable, because even if it were more costly than demolition in some cases, the increased cost would be less significant in terms of the overall project cost. Furthermore, as will be discussed in a later section, adaptation can sometimes be cheaper and faster than demolition and rebuilding.

There are several areas where the government could intervene to facilitate and incentivise building adaptation rather than demolition:

Extended timeframe for repayment of purchased property

Because of the increased time required for adaptation, allowing deferred or phased payment when a building is being adapted rather than demolished would help to incentivise adaptation. The URA has in the past modified this “90-day rule”: for the Marina Bay Financial Centre development, a flexible payment scheme was applied to reduce the risk to the developer.96 Other areas where incentives might be Austin Chandrasekaran, private communication. Chan Pong Choy and Shi Hui Phua, ‘Master Developer Projects in Singapore: Lessons from Suntec City and Marina Bay Financial Centre’ (Centre for Liveable Cities, February 2018), 5. 95 96

possible are waivers or discounts on the lease extension premium, the development charge and the differential premium.97 (Following the passage of the Land Betterment Charge Bill in May 2021, the development charge and differential premium will in due course be subsumed into a single charge and payment system, but the principle remains unchanged).98

ii.

Extended timeframe to develop adapted property.

In addition to the time pressure to pay for the property, developers are also under time pressure to develop it. Under the terms of the Stamp Duties (Non-Licensed Housing Developers) (Remission of ABSD) Rules (2015),99 a developer of a building with more than 5 units must start development within 2 years of acquiring the property, and sell all the units within 5 years, in order to qualify for remission of additional stamp duty (temporarily extended by up to 18 months due to the Covid-19 pandemic).100 Given the additional complexity of building adaptation compared to demolition and rebuilding, it would be a helpful incentive to extend this timeframe, for instance by 1.5 times, as suggested by Chua et al.101

Austin Chandrasekaran, personal communication. ‘Land Betterment Charge Bill Passed in Parliament: New Charge to Replace Development Charge, Temporary Development Levy and Differential Premium’, Allen & Gledhill, accessed 6 July 2021, https://www.allenandgledhill.com/sg/publication/articles/18341/land-betterment-charge-billpassed-in-parliament-new-charge-to-replace-development-charge-temporary-development-levyand-differential-premium. 99 ‘Stamp Duties (Non-Licensed Housing Developers) (Remission of ABSD) Rules 2015’, Singapore Statutes Online §, accessed 11 July 2021, https://sso.agc.gov.sg/SL/SDA1929-S7642015?DocDate=20151216&ProvIds=pr3-. 100 ‘Sites for Development of Five or More Units of Housing Accommodation’, Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore, 28 June 2021, https://www.iras.gov.sg/irashome/Other-Taxes/StampDuty-for-Property/Claiming-Refunds-Remissions-Reliefs/Remissions/Sites-for-Development-ofFive-or-More-Units-of-Housing-Accommodation/. 101 Chua, Ho, and Fauzy Ismail, ‘Too Young to Die: Giving New Lease of Life to Singapore’s Modernist Icons’. 97 98

iii.

Development rights

In some jurisdictions such as Hong Kong, the conservation of existing buildings can be facilitated by the transfer of development rights (TDR), where the owner is given additional development rights elsewhere in compensation for not undertaking development on a heritage site102,103. This concept is not applicable to Singapore, where there is no inherent right to develop property.104 Nevertheless, similar provisions may be possible, given the extensive powers of the URA. When the Singapore Government took over the former Malayan Railway line and station, the Malaysian Government was given the right to develop land elsewhere jointly with the Singapore Government.105

iv.

Lease extensions

As a general principle, Singapore Government policy is to allow leases to expire without renewal so that the land can be reallocated to meet current needs and policies. However, extensions on State leases are considered on a case-by-case basis where this is in line with planning, social or economic objectives, for instance as an incentive for mitigation of property decay, preservation of community, or conservation.106 Lease extension is thus another tool which the state can use to incentivise the adaptation of buildings.

Renard, ‘Property Rights and the “Transfer of Development Rights”’. Hou et al., ‘Implementation Analysis of Transfer of Development Rights for Conserving Privately Owned Built Heritage in Hong Kong’. 104 Kong, Conserving the Past, Creating the Future, 211–12. 105 Jack Tsen-Ta Lee, personal communication. 106 ‘Waiver of Building Premium’, Ministry of Law, Singapore, 1 September 2008, https://www.mlaw.gov.sg/news/press-releases/waiver-of-building-premium. 102 103

Debt financing for older properties.

The Central Provident Fund (CPF), which Singaporeans use to pay for their properties, has stricter rules for financing debt on properties with less than 60 years to run on their leases. These rules were originally intended to help ensure that leases would not expire before the owners were 80 years old, so that elderly residents would not find themselves having to look for new homes. However, the rules also had an influence on the banks, who were reluctant to provide loans for major repairs or upgrading works, or for lease extension on older properties.107 This has contributed to their poorer condition.

Recently, as from 10 May 2019, CPF rules were relaxed to facilitate the purchase of older properties.108 Analysts at the time predicted that this might make older properties more attractive,109 but it is not clear whether this has been the case, or whether the new policy has resulted in better maintenance of such properties.

2. Collective sales policy

The collective sales policy in Singapore is a major factor which is considered to have contributed to the loss of many modern buildings. This was highlighted by

Chua, Ho, and Fauzy Ismail, ‘Too Young to Die: Giving New Lease of Life to Singapore’s Modernist Icons’. 108 ‘More Flexibility to Buy a Home for Life’, Ministry of Manpower Singapore, accessed 7 July 2021, https://www.mom.gov.sg/newsroom/press-releases/2019/0509-more-flexibility-to-buy-a-homefor-life. 109 See Kit Tang, ‘New CPF, HDB Loan Rules Give Buyers Flexibility, May Make Older Properties More Attractive: Analysts’, News, CNA, 10 May 2019, https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/new-cpf-hdb-loan-rules-may-make-olderproperties-more-attractive-11519468. 107

two of the interviewees.110 The policy arose out of the need to maximise the use of scarce land in a small, densely populated city state. In order to encourage private sector-led redevelopment, the government adopted a two-pronged approach consisting of 1. suitable planning and development regulations and rezoning, which permitted increased development on many sites, and 2. measures to facilitate the release of property in the private sector. The latter resulted in the collective sales policy.

A developer who buys a property where the plot ratio has been increased due to re-zoning can demolish the existing building and construct a new and larger one, which will be worth much more than the old one. This means that he will be willing to pay a much higher price, and owners who sell their property can realise a substantial profit. Previously, for a property to be sold, the consent of all owners was required. If a minority of owners disagreed, then the sale could not go through. To facilitate the sale of such properties, the law was amended so that the consent of only 80% of owners was required for buildings over 10 years old, and 90% for buildings less than 10 years old.111

Apart from the very important issue of the rights of minority owners who might not wish to sell, this policy has had significant and possibly unintended consequences for architectural and urban conservation, and for the environment:

110 111

Ho Weng Hin and Hosein Rezai. Christudason, ‘Controversial Strata Legislation’.

Demolition of buildings which had many more years of life.

Buildings sold for development are inevitably demolished and replaced by new ones, even though the old buildings are structurally sound. This generates significant greenhouse gas emissions, much more than if the buildings had been adapted, even with additional construction on the site.

ii.

Encouraging poor maintenance leading to accelerated deterioration of buildings

In strata title developments, it can be challenging to get owners to agree on contributions to the sinking fund which is used to pay for the maintenance of common areas, which may be poorly maintained as a result. As the time approaches when the property can be sold to a developer, there may be even less incentive to maintain these areas, especially as there is no statutory requirement to do so.112,113 In the words of one of the interviewees, “accelerated ageing pushes property to the en-bloc market.”114

iii.

Loss of architectural and urban heritage

Christudason. Foo et al., ‘Conserving Our Modern Built Heritage amidst Collective Sale Fever’. 114 Ho Weng Hin, personal communication. 112 113

Many architecturally significant buildings which were sold under the collective sales policy have now been demolished. In time, they may well have been sold with the unanimous agreement of all the owners, but the collective sales policy has facilitated this process.

The strata title system also fails to protect the interests of minority owners and tenants who have no effective say in the collective sales process. This can threaten the intangible aspects of urban heritage. Examples of such tenants are the businesses operating in the “Little Thailand” of the Golden Mile Complex.115

iv.

Encouraging the commodification of buildings and poor construction standards

An environment in which new buildings are torn down after a few decades does not encourage the industry to “build to last.” Such buildings are likely to deteriorate rapidly even during the short period when they are occupied by their new owners

This system is weighted in favour of collective sales. In order to sell a building, the consent of 80% of owners is needed, but to conserve it, 100% of the owners must agree. In the case of Pearl Bank, it was not possible to get the approval of all the owners or even to contact all of them, which was the reason the conservation

115

Foo et al., ‘Conserving Our Modern Built Heritage amidst Collective Sale Fever’.

scheme could not be approved. A discussed earlier, once a building has been sold for redevelopment, it will inevitably be demolished.

The Singapore Heritage Society has suggested that there could be “selective dispensation” from this requirement for unanimous concurrence in the case of buildings of outstanding heritage value, to allow for their voluntary conservation.116 However, there is in any case a strong environmental argument for building adaptation, irrespective of the heritage value of the building. Furthermore, as discussed previously, even buildings which are not of outstanding architectural significance contribute to the character of an area. They embody significant intangible heritage, and are part of the historic urban landscape. Given these considerations, the extent of agreement required to redistribute strata title ownership should match that required for approval of collective sale in call cases, not just selectively for buildings of outstanding heritage value.

II.

Regulatory

1. Conservation issues

Some modernist buildings may be of such outstanding architectural significance that they justify being gazetted for conservation. In principle, under the terms of the Planning Act (Para 9), the government has the power to designate a conservation area, which may comprise an area, a group of buildings, or even a

Chua, Ho, and Fauzy Ismail, ‘Too Young to Die: Giving New Lease of Life to Singapore’s Modernist Icons’, 49. 116

single building.117 In practice, this does not occur very often with private buildings, presumably because such designation interferes with the operation of market forces.

Under the terms of the URA’s “Conservation initiated by private owners scheme”, owners can voluntarily offer to conserve their buildings in exchange for incentives such as an increase in the Gross Floor Area permitted on the site, or a waiver of the development charge.118 However, as discussed, there is a particular problem with strata title multi-occupancy buildings, where the rules of the system are weighted in favour of demolition.

2. Obstacles to Community Action

Ground-up initiatives for conservation like the one which took place in Berlin with the Haus der Statistik can be constrained by the political culture of different countries. In the case of Singapore, such initiatives risk falling foul of the law, and activists risk prosecution under the Public Order Act.119,120

Planning Act. Chua, Ho, and Fauzy Ismail, ‘Too Young to Die: Giving New Lease of Life to Singapore’s Modernist Icons’. 119 ‘Public Order Act’ (2012), https://sso.agc.gov.sg/Act/POA2009. 120 ‘Man To Be Charged With Offences Under Public Order Act’, Singapore Police Force, accessed 24 August 2021, http://www.police.gov.sg/MediaRoom/News/20201121_man_to_be_charged_with_offences_under_public_order_act. 117 118

3. Building Codes

Compliance with building codes can be a major challenge in building adaptation, particularly where heritage conservation is important, because many old buildings are not compliant with contemporary regulations, especially those pertaining to fire safety and accessibility. Several interviewees regarded the current building codes in Singapore as overly restrictive, and a significant barrier to building adaptation.

Building and fire safety codes in Singapore are stringent, and over time they have become stricter, more exacting, and more complex.121 The concern for safety is understandable, and indeed justified. As commercial and residential buildings become larger, taller, and occupied by more people, the potential consequences of fire and other accidents are multiplied. Nevertheless, while it can be challenging, architects, engineers and regulators can work together to find solutions which enable the adaptive reuse of old buildings in ways which do not compromise safety. This problem is not confined to Singapore.

In some cases, heritage features can be accommodated within the existing fire regulations. Examples include the retention of the main wooden staircase in the Asian Civilisations Museum in Singapore, or the permission given for a thatched roof in the Globe Theatre in London.122

121 122

Kevin Sim, personal communication. Jack Tsen-Ta Lee, personal communication.

While the same principles of regulatory compliance apply to historic buildings of all ages, some aspects of twentieth century modernist buildings can be problematic, as discussed by Grignolo. They are often larger and more spatially complex, accommodating a variety of different uses. For example, Shaw Tower housed offices, several cinemas, a shopping centre, and food and beverage outlets, as well as a car park.

Furthermore, regulatory authorities are less likely to tolerate noncompliant features in recent buildings compared to older ones. Indeed, the perceived similarities between twentieth century buildings and contemporary ones, along with the fact that they may not be regarded as properly “old” or “historical”, may lead authorities to expect that they should be brought up to the standards of new buildings.123

There are various ways in which these issues can be addressed. A useful concept is that of “equivalent solutions”, where alternative solutions can be adopted for architecturally significant buildings which ensure the same level of safety or performance as the current building codes, while having a lesser impact on architecturally significant features. In Bern, Switzerland, conservation groups worked with the safety authorities to produce a document called Fire Protection in Historic Buildings. At Le Corbusier’s convent at La Tourette (1953-1960) in Eveux, France, the installation of a highly sensitive fire detection system meant that fire doors did not have to be fitted along the corridors.

123

Grignolo, ‘Laws and Regulations’.

A further option is the use of fire dynamics simulation (FDS), a process which allows the behaviour of fire to be simulated in a building, from which alternative customised safety solutions can be proposed. This method was used in the restoration of Le Corbusier’s Armée du Salut building in Paris, enabling the restorers to dispense with the complex fire safety measures which had originally been required 124.

4. Environmental standards

The damaging effects of demolition need to be recognised and included in calculations when assessing the environmental impact of buildings. Singapore has stringent environmental building codes, and the new Green Mark 2021 standard includes a requirement to evaluate embodied carbon. The Singapore Green Building Council also recognise the importance of embodied carbon and have recently launched the “Singapore Built Environment Embodied Carbon Pledge” to which organisations have been invited to sign up.125 However, nowhere in their Pledge Infopack do they mention building adaptation or demolition, which is an unfortunate omission.126

In the case of some heritage buildings, an argument might be made for the relaxation of energy efficiency standards if the buildings are particularly significant and of relatively low occupancy, but this is harder to justify with large multistorey

Grignolo. ‘Embodied Carbon Pledge’, Singapore Green Building Council, accessed 10 August 2021, https://www.sgbc.sg/about-us/singapore-built-environment-embodied-carbon-pledge. 126 ‘Singapore Built Environment Embodied Carbon Pledge Infopack’, n.d., https://www.sgbc.sg/images/SGBC_EC_Pledge.pdf. 124 125

structures. Many older buildings, however, were designed for natural ventilation, while, on the other hand, many contemporary ones are designed to be fully air conditioned. As one interviewee pointed out, the current Green Mark standards are geared towards efficient air conditioning rather than natural ventilation.127 Although engineering calculations and standards are beyond the scope of the current discussion, it would be helpful to review them as part of a future exercise to see if there is scope for flexibility with regard to adapted buildings.

III.

Architectural and societal

1. Complexity of Adaptation

The interviewees for this dissertation considered adaptation to be more complex, slower, and more costly compared to demolition and rebuilding, especially with modern construction techniques and prefabrication. This was especially true if the plot ratio on the site had been increased, and where additional construction was needed to realise its full economic potential. Adaptation was therefore perceived as generally less attractive to clients, especially in financial terms, unless perhaps the adapted building could attract a higher return on investment because of the added value of its heritage or design features.

However, a study carried out in the United Kingdom found that adaptation could take up to 50 percent less time to complete compared to demolition and

127

Austin Chandrasekaran, personal communication.

rebuilding. Among the reasons for this were that adaptation projects were less affected by bad weather because the external envelope and roof covering were already in place. In fact, the author concluded that costs for adaptation were usually lower.128 This study was carried out in 2009, and perhaps advances in construction techniques since then might have altered the equation, but even the recent adaptation of the White Chapel cost less, and took less time to complete, than demolition and newbuild would have.129 Nevertheless, adaptation is often not considered by cost-conscious clients, developers, or architects to be a serious option.

Another factor to consider is the general truth that tasks which are performed regularly and frequently are carried out more efficiently than unfamiliar ones. When there is a change in practice, there is a learning curve and, initially, operations run more slowly and inefficiently, and with more anxiety, until a new routine is established. It is quite likely that many, if not most, architects and engineers prefer newbuilds because it is what they are used to doing. Building contractors accustomed to demolition and newbuild might be reluctant to undertake adaptation work, especially if it meant that they would have to adopt new routines, acquire new skills, and train their workforce. The higher cost of building adaptation projects may well be the result of the relative inefficiency of design and execution by people working outside their comfort zone. With

Paul Watson, ‘The Key Issues When Choosing Adaptation of an Existing Building over New Build’, Journal of Building Appraisal 4, no. 3 (1 January 2009): 215–23, https://doi.org/10.1057/jba.2008.39. 129 ‘White Chapel Building | Innovative Architects | Fletcher Priest’, Fletcher Priest Architects, accessed 25 June 2021, https://www.fletcherpriest.com/projects/the-white-chapel-building. 128

increased practice and repetition, all procedures become more efficient, and often less costly as a result.130

Furthermore, it is entirely possible that the belief that adaptation is more costly and more complex than demolition and new building might be a gut- rather than evidence-based evaluation. In an environment where most modern buildings are demolished rather than adapted, it is likely that professionals do not have sufficient expertise in adaptation to make their gut instinct reliable and robust. Making decisions on “gut instinct” is notoriously problematic, as has been shown by Nobel Laureate Daniel Kahneman.131 The cost and complexity of adaptation may not be as great as “gut instinct” might suggest.

2. Attitudes

The attitudes of the state, of developers and clients, architects and the public are a major factor in determining whether a building is adapted or demolished. Until the 1980s, Singapore’s pre-war buildings were regarded by many as insignificant. Shophouses in Chinatown were considered slums and many people were pleased to see them demolished to make way for newer, more modern, and more hygienic structures. There is now widespread acceptance of the heritage value of older

This accords with my personal experience working in a hospital where, even in a science-based working environment, many colleagues were very reluctant to adopt proven and up-to-date techniques which were different from the old ones to which they were accustomed. The new practices were initially regarded as cumbersome and complicated, but, with practice, became part of the normal routine and were carried out without any fuss. 131 Daniel Kahneman, Thinking, Fast and Slow, 1st edition (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2013). 130

buildings, but modernist buildings are not necessarily seen in the same light. Many of these have been demolished, victims of the urban development and property speculation which has already been discussed.

As evidenced by the public outcry over the demolition of the old National Library building and Pearl Bank apartments, the tide appears to be turning. Most recently, the Golden Mile Complex has been gazetted for conservation.132 However while it is laudable that outstanding modernist buildings are being conserved, many other buildings of that period are not of the same significance. Nevertheless, they are part of the existing urban fabric, and another layer of the city’s history, and therefore not to be disposed of lightly.

Modern architecture continues to divide public opinion, not just in Singapore but also around the world. Brutalism, for example, has a cult following in some circles, which has led to the publication of celebratory coffee-table books and reverent social media pages,133 all the while being detested by many other people. The problematic nature of modernism is compounded when these buildings become dilapidated, because so many people fail to realise their potential for refurbishment and adaptation. It is possible that this may have been a factor in the lack of public interest when Shaw Tower was demolished.

Keng Gene Ng, ‘Golden Mile Complex Gazetted as Conserved Building; Future Developers to Get Building Incentives’, The Straits Times, 22 October 2021, https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/golden-mile-complex-gazetted-as-conserved-building-futuredevelopers-to-get-building. 133 For example Chaubin, Fré dé ric. CCCP: Cosmic Communist Constructions Photographed. Kö ln: Taschen, 2011; McLeod, Virginia, and Clare Churly, eds. Atlas of Brutalist Architecture. London ; New York: Phaidon Press, 2018; Rose, Steve. ‘Instagram’s in Love with Bare-Faced Brutalism – and so Am I | Steve Rose’. The Guardian, 25 September 2018. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/sep/25/instagram-love-brutalist-starkarchitecture. 132

On the other hand, one interviewee who had worked in Hong Kong, Singapore and Britain thought that although conservation was less developed in places like Singapore and Hong Kong compared to Europe, modernist architecture seemed to have been more favourably received in Asia compared to the United Kingdom, where there was often a greater preference for “traditional” architecture.134 Another architect thought that many people in Asia had an “inferiority complex towards the West” which led to the fetishisation of “shiny glass towers” as a sign of development and progress.135

All interviewees believed that the overriding concern of clients and developers was financial profit. Nevertheless, developers were thought to be very willing in principle to consider building adaptation if profitability was not compromised136. One interviewee explained that for owners, the function of a building was strongly related to the attractiveness of adaptation. While owners of office developments might prefer to demolish and build new Grade A facilities, the situation with hotels, residential properties, and retail properties was somewhat different. Hotel buildings had a single owner, and the provision of a “unique experience” made adaptive reuse attractive to them. Older properties were often attractive to the residential market, a good example being Tiong Bahru, where apartments with 60 years left on their leases commanded high prices. In retail, where property values were higher than for any other type of property, and income tended to come from retail activity rather than property sales, there was less incentive to demolish.137

Alfred Yeung, personal communication. David Liauw, personal communication. 136 Austin Chandrasekaran and David Liauw, personal communication. 137 Austin Chandrasekaran, personal communication. 134 135

While architects today might be more concerned with environmental issues and more inclined to building adaptation than those of earlier generations,138 they still have to work with clients, who are the ultimate decision-makers.139 Nevertheless, as experts and professionals, architects and engineers have a responsibility and duty to educate their clients, and to be advocates for environmentally sustainable practices.

An issue mentioned by several interviewees relates to the expectations of owners and tenants of high-end residential and commercial properties: the desire for high ceilings. In the case of commercial properties this is a functional requirement. For high-end Grade A offices, the floor to ceiling heights must be sufficient for services to be run between the ceiling and the floor above. However, in residential properties, the desire for high ceilings is a function of increasing expectations from clients, for whom the lower ceilings of the past (e.g. 2.7 metres) do not match up to contemporary expectations (3 metres or more).140

These attitudes towards adapted buildings should not be regarded as immutable. Attitudes have changed considerably over the past few decades in Singapore, as evidenced by the popularity and rising value of pre-war shophouses. Advocacy and examples of good design are critical in influencing opinions in this regard.

There was a consensus amongst interviewees that the role of the state was of the utmost importance in incentivising or facilitating the adaptation of buildings. They Alfred Yeung, personal communication. David Liauw, personal communication. 140 David Liauw, Hossein Rezai, personal communication. 138 139

all believed that government policy was the key factor in changing practice. There was reasonable optimism that policy could be influenced by industry lobbying, and by public opinion. The more consultative and approach adopted recently in relation to the construction of the East West MRT line was contrasted favourably with demolition of the National Library and the development of Bukit Brown several years previously, where there had been no public consultation before decisions were taken.141 This aspect was also noted by Cheung and Lee.142

Prioritising adaptation over demolition is one area where the government could take the lead and where the public sector could set an example. The RetroFirst campaign in the UK is lobbying for the UK government to introduce a policy in which retrofit solutions are considered first.143,144. The Singapore government, which has ambitious targets for reducing carbon emissions, recently announced that the public sector would do so 5 years ahead of the rest of the nation. These policies apply to 1600 public sector buildings and facilities.145 The Singapore government should also, simultaneously, consider adopting a “RetroFirst” approach to public sector buildings when these need upgrading.

Jack Tsen-Ta Lee, personal communication. Cheung and Lee, ‘“Adapt and Survive”: A Survivalist’s Pragmatism and Adaptability Approach to the Adaptive Re-Use Paradigm in Singapore’, 97–98. 143 Hurst, ‘Introducing RetroFirst: A New AJ Campaign Championing Reuse in the Built Environment’. 144 Will Hurst, ‘Submission from The Architects’ Journal’s RetroFirst Campaign for Reuse of Existing Buildings’ (UK Parliament, 10 July 2020), https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/8723/pdf/. 145 Shabana Begum, ‘Public Sector Sets Earlier Targets to Bring down Carbon Emissions’, Straits Times, 13 July 2021, https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/environment/public-sector-setsearlier-targets-to-bring-down-carbon-emissions. 141 142

The most important factor which will help to turn the tide and promote the adaptation rather than demolition of existing buildings is increased awareness and better education. This applies not just to architects, engineers, urban planners and builders, but also to property developers, clients, building owners, the general public, as well as to those in positions of power within the state: politicians, government ministers, and civil servants. Many professionals now realise that, where feasible, building adaptation is the best option in most cases. This is evidenced by the numbers who have signed up to initiatives like Construction Declares and RetroFirst.146 It is the responsibility of these professionals to spread the message.

See https://www.constructiondeclares.com/ and https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/news/introducing-retrofirst-a-new-aj-campaignchampioning-reuse-in-the-built-environment. 146

6. CONCLUSION

Singapore’s modernist buildings are an important part of the nation’s heritage. Designed by the architects of a new republic, former colonial subjects, among whom were the first graduates of the local architecture school, they combine an awareness of the design philosophies of their time with adaptations to local conditions, and are an important historical record. Some received international recognition. Within a few decades however, in an apparent reversion to the mindset of colonial subjects, commissions for important buildings would be given to famous international “starchitects”, “the way Dubai will order a Hadid or Gehry or Koolhaas – ready-made-off-the-shelf,” as the late Charles Jencks described it,147 with local firms playing a subordinate and supporting part in the process.

As Singapore develops, its modernist heritage is in danger of being obliterated. Many buildings, of which Pearl Bank and Shaw Tower are only the most recent, have been lost. At the last minute, the Golden Mile Complex has been gazetted for conservation, while the fate of People’s Park Complex remains uncertain. Of course, the majority of buildings in any historical period will not be of outstanding architectural significance, but collectively, they constitute an ensemble which gives an urban area its character and sense of history. This might not be recognised by many people for whom that history is too close to the present. Many of these buildings are poorly maintained, which lessens their appeal to the general public.

Charles Jencks, ‘Notopia: The Singapore Paradox and the Style of Generic Individualism’, Architectural Review, 4 June 2016, https://www.architectural-review.com/archive/notopiaarchive/notopia-the-singapore-paradox-and-the-style-of-generic-individualism. 147

The overriding consideration is of course the environmental emergency facing our planet. With the understanding of the major role the building construction plays in greenhouse gas emissions, and the importance of embodied carbon, there is a growing understanding that adaptation of existing buildings must be considered as a first option, rather than demolition and re-building.

Environmental sustainability is a back door to architectural conservation. Adapting rather than demolishing our old buildings is not just the sustainable option. It is also the key to retaining our architectural heritage, the continuity of the urban fabric, and the collective memory of the city. It improves the quality of life of city dwellers. Currently, there are significant obstacles to this approach. Some, like the high price of land coupled with increased urban density, may be difficult to resolve. Others, like financial incentives and changes to laws like the Strata Title Act, could be addressed by the government. But the greatest obstacle is the attitude of the public, and this can be influenced by education and public awareness exercises.

Developers, architects, engineers and builders must always consider adaptation as the first option, and demolish only as a last resort. This approach is gaining traction, but for many it will be a change from the usual way of doing things, and will require a change in outlook. Established patterns of behaviour, and deeply entrenched modes of behaviour can change. Two examples of such change are the way in which people now routinely fasten seat belts in cars, and the way smoking in public places is no longer acceptable.

Changing attitudes to building adaptation requires education and advocacy. Architects and conservationists have an important role to play. In partnership with enlightened developers, they can undertake projects which demonstrate the value of this approach. Governments can enact legislation and introduce policies to facilitate and incentivise adaptation, but even regimes with a strong mandate need public support for policies which depart from long-established ways of doing things. Furthermore, governments rely on advice from experts. The responsibility lies with building professionals and conservationists to lead the way.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books and Book Chapters

Atkinson, David. ‘The Heritage of Mundane Places’. In The Routledge Research Companion to Heritage and Identity. Routledge, 2008. https://wwwtaylorfranciscom.libproxy1.nus.edu.sg/chapters/edit/10.4324/978131561303121/heritage-mundane-places-davidatkinson?context=ubx&refId=445c875f-52b9-42fa-813d-91bbdb4706fa. Avrami, Erica, and Randall Mason. ‘Mapping the Issue of Values’. In Values in Heritage Management: Emerging Issues and Research Directions. Los Angeles: Getty Conservation Institute, 2019. https://www.getty.edu/publications/heritagemanagement/part-one/2/. Carughi, Ugo, and Massimo Visone, eds. Time Frames: Conservation Policies for Twentieth-Century Architectural Heritage. London: Routledge, 2018. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315269863. Cheung, Fredo, and Ho Yin Lee. ‘“Adapt and Survive”: A Survivalist’s Pragmatism and Adaptability Approach to the Adaptive Re-Use Paradigm in Singapore’. In Asian Revitalization: Adaptive Reuse in Hong Kong, Shanghai, and Singapore, edited by Katie Cummer and Lynne D. DiStefano, 85–103. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 2021. Douglas, James. Building Adaptation. 2nd ed. Amsterdam: Routledge, 2006. https://www.routledge.com/BuildingAdaptation/Douglas/p/book/9780750666671.

Kahneman, Daniel. Thinking, Fast and Slow. 1st edition. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2013. Kong, Lily. Conserving the Past, Creating the Future: Urban Heritage in Singapore. Urban Redevelopment Authority, 2011. Macdonald, Susan, and Gail Ostergren, eds. Conserving Twentieth-Century Built Heritage: A Bibliography. 2nd ed. Los Angeles, CA: Getty Conservation Institute., 2013. http://hdl.handle.net/10020/gci_pubs/twentieth_centruy_built_heritage. Montgomery, Charles. Happy City: Transforming Our Lives Through Urban Design. Penguin, 2013. Plevoets, Bie, and Koenraad Van Cleempoel. Adaptive Reuse of the Built Heritage: Concepts and Cases of an Emerging Discipline. 1st ed. Reprint: Taylor and Francis, 2019. https://www.perlego.com/book/1572827/adaptive-reuseof-the-built-heritage-concepts-and-cases-of-an-emerging-discipline-pdf. Ruskin, John. The Stones of Venice. Vol. 3. 3 vols. Perlego, 2009. https://www.perlego.com/book/1728849/the-stones-of-venice-volume-3of-3-pdf. Schuster, J. Mark. Preserving the Built Heritage: Tools for Implementation. Edited by John de Monchaux and Charles A Riley II. 1st edition. Hanover, NH: Salzburg, 1997. Schutt, Russell K. ‘Qualitative Data Analysis’. In Investigating the Social World: The Process and Practice of Research, 7th ed., 320–57. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage Publications, 2012. Smith, Laurajane. Uses of Heritage. 1st ed. Taylor and Francis, 2006. https://www.perlego.com/book/1610779/uses-of-heritage-pdf.

Stone, Sally. UnDoing Buildings: Adaptive Reuse and Cultural Memory. 1st ed. Taylor and Francis, 2019. https://www.perlego.com/book/1567287/undoingbuildings-adaptive-reuse-and-cultural-memory-pdf. Tng, Serene, ed. 30 Years of Conservation in Singapore Since 1989: 30 Personal Reflections and Stories. Urban Redevelopment Authority, 2020. Wilkinson, Sara J., Hilde Remøy, and Craig Langston. Sustainable Building Adaptation. Wiley, 2014. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epub/10.1002/9781118477151.

Journal Articles and Conference Proceedings

Baker, Hannah, and Alice Moncaster. ‘Embodied Carbon and the Decision to Demolish or Adapt’. In ZEMCH 2018 International Conference. Melbourne, Australia, 2018. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323991043_EMBODIED_CARB ON_AND_THE_DECISION_TO_DEMOLISH_OR_ADAPT. Berg, Nate. ‘The Accidental Planners’. Places Journal, 11 June 2019. https://doi.org/10.22269/190611. Boardman, Brenda. ‘Examining the Carbon Agenda via the 40% House Scenario’. Building Research & Information 35, no. 4 (1 August 2007): 363–78. https://doi.org/10.1080/09613210701238276. Bullen, Peter A. ‘Adaptive Reuse and Sustainability of Commercial Buildings’. Facilities 25, no. 1/2 (1 January 2007): 20–31. https://doi.org/10.1108/02632770710716911.

Bullen, Peter A., and Peter E. D. Love. ‘The Rhetoric of Adaptive Reuse or Reality of Demolition: Views from the Field’. Cities 27, no. 4 (1 August 2010): 215–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2009.12.005. Conejos, Sheila, Craig Langston, Edwin H. W. Chan, and Michael Y. L. Chew. ‘Governance of Heritage Buildings: Australian Regulatory Barriers to Adaptive Reuse’. Building Research & Information 44, no. 5–6 (17 August 2016): 507–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2016.1156951. Christudason, Alice. ‘Controversial Strata Legislation: Catalyst for Housing Regeneration in Singapore’. Journal of Legal Affairs and Dispute Resolution in Engineering and Construction 2 (1 February 2010). https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1943-4162(2010)2:1(63). Dubois, Maarten, and Karen Allacker. ‘Energy Savings from Housing: Ineffective Renovation Subsidies vs Efficient Demolition and Reconstruction Incentives’. Energy Policy 86 (1 November 2015): 697–704. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2015.07.029. Goad, Philip. ‘Unloved, over-Loved or Just Mis-Understood? Modern Architecture: The Problem Child of Heritage’. Historic Environment 25, no. 1 (2013): 19. Hou, Jun, Dazhi Gu, Sina Shahab, and Edwin Hon-wan Chan. ‘Implementation Analysis of Transfer of Development Rights for Conserving Privately Owned Built Heritage in Hong Kong: A Transactions Costs Perspective’. Growth and Change 51, no. 1 (2020): 530–50. https://doi.org/10.1111/grow.12350. Jencks, Charles. ‘Notopia: The Singapore Paradox and the Style of Generic Individualism’. Architectural Review, 4 June 2016. https://www.architectural-review.com/archive/notopia-archive/notopiathe-singapore-paradox-and-the-style-of-generic-individualism.

Langston, Craig, Francis K. W. Wong, Eddie C. M. Hui, and Li-Yin Shen. ‘Strategic Assessment of Building Adaptive Reuse Opportunities in Hong Kong’. Building and Environment 43, no. 10 (1 October 2008): 1709–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2007.10.017. MacDonald, Susan. ‘Materiality, Monumentality and Modernism: Continuing Challenges in Conserving Twentieth-Century Places’. Keynote presentation presented at the (Un)Loved Modern, Sydney, Australia, 2009. http://www.aicomos.com/wpcontent/uploads/2009_UnlovedModern_Macdonald_Susan_Materiality_Pap er.pdf. Machado, Rodolfo. ‘Old Buildings as Palimpsest: Toward a Theory of Remodeling’. Progressive Architecture, November 1976, 46–49. https://usmodernist.org/PA/PA-1976-11.pdf. Moncaster, A M, and T Malmqvist. ‘Reducing Embodied Impacts of Buildings – Insights from a Social Power Analysis of the UK and Sweden’. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science 588 (21 November 2020): 032047. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/588/3/032047. Pomponi, Francesco, and Alice Moncaster. ‘Embodied Carbon Mitigation and Reduction in the Built Environment – What Does the Evidence Say?’ Journal of Environmental Management 181 (1 October 2016): 687–700. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.08.036. Renard, Vincent. ‘Property Rights and the “Transfer of Development Rights”: Questions of Efficiency and Equity’. Town Planning Review 78, no. 1 (1 January 2007): 41–61. http://www.liverpooluniversitypress.co.uk/journals/article/49527.

Watson, Paul. ‘The Key Issues When Choosing Adaptation of an Existing Building over New Build’. Journal of Building Appraisal 4, no. 3 (1 January 2009): 215–23. https://doi.org/10.1057/jba.2008.39. Weiler, Verena, Hannes Harter, and Ursula Eicker. ‘Life Cycle Assessment of Buildings and City Quarters Comparing Demolition and Reconstruction with Refurbishment’. Energy and Buildings 134 (1 January 2017): 319–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2016.11.004. Yung, Esther H. K., and Edwin H. W. Chan. ‘Implementation Challenges to the Adaptive Reuse of Heritage Buildings: Towards the Goals of Sustainable, Low Carbon Cities’. Habitat International 36, no. 3 (1 July 2012): 352–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2011.11.001.

Reports and Charters

Abergel, Thibaut, John Dulac, Ian Hamilton, Maxine Jordan, and Aparna Pradeep. 2019 Global Status Report for Buildings and Construction. Towards a Zero Emissions, Efficient and Resilient Buildings and Construction Sector. International Energy Agency, 2019. https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/3da9daf9-ef75-4a37-b3daa09224e299dc/2019_Global_Status_Report_for_Buildings_and_Construction .pdf. Australia ICOMOS and International Council on Monuments and Sites. The Burra Charter: The Australia ICOMOS Charter for Places of Cultural Significance

2013, 2013. http://australia.icomos.org/wp-content/uploads/The-BurraCharter-2013-Adopted-31.10.2013.pdf. Choy, Chan Pong, and Shi Hui Phua. ‘Master Developer Projects in Singapore: Lessons from Suntec City and Marina Bay Financial Centre’. Centre for Liveable Cities, February 2018. https://www.clc.gov.sg/docs/defaultsource/commentaries/bc_2018_02_master_developer_projects_in_singapor e.pdf. Chua, Ai Lin, Weng Hin Ho, and Fauzy Ismail. ‘Too Young to Die: Giving New Lease of Life to Singapore’s Modernist Icons’. Singapore: Singapore Heritage Society, August 2018. https://www.singaporeheritage.org/?p=4039. Foo, Mingyee, Monnaphat Jondeepaisal, Regina Marie Lee, and Qiaoqiao Xu. ‘Conserving Our Modern Built Heritage amidst Collective Sale Fever: Addressing Gaps in the Collective Sales Process’. Policy Analysis Exercise. Singapore: Singapore Heritage Society, 2019. https://www.singaporeheritage.org/?p=4168. Ho, Puay-peng, Nikhil Joshi, Weng Hin Ho, and Kian Leong Darren Soh. ‘Heritage Study Report. Shaw Tower, 100 Beach Road, Singapore’. Singapore: Despartment of Architecture, National University of Singapore, and Studio Lapis, 2021. ‘House of Cards. Exploring Influence and Access in UK Housing Policy’. London: Transparency International UK, July 2021. https://www.transparency.org.uk/sites/default/files/pdf/publications/Ho use%20of%20Cards%20%20Transparency%20International%20UK%20%28web%29.pdf.

Lee, Alison. The Government Land Sales Programme: Turning Plans into Reality. Urban Systems Studies. Singapore: Centre for Liveable Cities, 2021. https://www.clc.gov.sg/docs/default-source/urban-systems-studies/ussgovernment-land-sales.pdf. Quek, Geraldine C. T., Kevin Josiah J.H. Neo, and Teri Y.L. Lim. Conservation Conversations – Pearl Bank Apartments (2015). Singapore: Singapore University of Technology and Design, 2015. https://asd.sutd.edu.sg/architecturalintelligence/publications/conservation-conversations-pearl-bankapartments-2015. Torre, Maria de la, ed. Assessing the Values of Cultural Heritage: Research Report. Los Angeles: The Getty Conservation Institute, 2002.

Statutes

Building Control (Environmental Sustainability) Regulations 2008 (2008). https://sso.agc.gov.sg/SL/BCA1989-S1992008?DocDate=20140818&ValidDate=20140901. Planning Act (1998). https://sso.agc.gov.sg/Act/PA1998. Planning (Development Charge — Exemption) Rules - Singapore Statutes Online, Singapore Statutes Online §. Accessed 20 April 2021. https://sso.agc.gov.sg/SL/PA1998-R6?DocDate=20190830. Public Order Act (2012). https://sso.agc.gov.sg/Act/POA2009. Stamp Duties (Non-Licensed Housing Developers) (Remission of ABSD) Rules 2015, Singapore Statutes Online §. Accessed 11 July 2021.

https://sso.agc.gov.sg/SL/SDA1929-S7642015?DocDate=20151216&ProvIds=pr3-.

Other Sources

Allen & Gledhill. ‘Land Betterment Charge Bill Passed in Parliament: New Charge to Replace Development Charge, Temporary Development Levy and Differential Premium’. Accessed 6 July 2021. https://www.allenandgledhill.com/sg/publication/articles/18341/landbetterment-charge-bill-passed-in-parliament-new-charge-to-replacedevelopment-charge-temporary-development-levy-and-differentialpremium. Begum, Shabana. ‘Public Sector Sets Earlier Targets to Bring down Carbon Emissions’. Straits Times. 13 July 2021. https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/environment/public-sector-setsearlier-targets-to-bring-down-carbon-emissions. Building and Construction Authority. ‘Green Mark 2021’. Accessed 11 September 2021. https://www1.bca.gov.sg/buildsg/sustainability/green-markcertification-scheme/green-mark-2021. Chou, Mei. ‘100 per Cent Owners’ Consent Not Needed for Building Conservation’. The Straits Times, 16 March 2018. https://www.straitstimes.com/forum/letters-in-print/100-per-centowners-consent-not-needed-for-building-conservation.

Fletcher Priest Architects. ‘White Chapel Building | Innovative Architects | Fletcher Priest’. Accessed 25 June 2021. https://www.fletcherpriest.com/projects/the-white-chapel-building. Hewitt, Mark Alan. ‘Teaching the Subtle and Difficult Art of Adaptive Reuse’. Common Edge, 21 January 2021. https://commonedge.org/teaching-thesubtle-and-difficult-art-of-adaptive-reuse/. Hurst, Will. ‘Introducing RetroFirst: A New AJ Campaign Championing Reuse in the Built Environment’. Architects’ Journal, 12 September 2019. https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/news/introducing-retrofirst-a-newaj-campaign-championing-reuse-in-the-built-environment. Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore. ‘Sites for Development of Five or More Units of Housing Accommodation’, 28 June 2021. https://www.iras.gov.sg/irashome/Other-Taxes/Stamp-Duty-forProperty/Claiming-Refunds-Remissions-Reliefs/Remissions/Sites-forDevelopment-of-Five-or-More-Units-of-Housing-Accommodation/. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. ‘Climate Change Widespread, Rapid, and Intensifying – IPCC’, 9 August 2021. https://www.ipcc.ch/2021/08/09/ar6-wg1-20210809-pr/. Jha, Preeti. ‘Singapore: Jolovan Wham Charged for Holding up a Smiley Face Sign’. BBC News, 27 November 2020, sec. Asia. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-55068007. ‘Jurong Town Hall’. Accessed 11 September 2021. https://www.roots.gov.sg/places/places-landing/Places/nationalmonuments/jurong-town-hall.

Kafka, George. ‘Opening Statement: Yapı Kredi Culture Centre in Istanbul, Turkey by Teget’. Architectural Review, 14 December 2017. https://www.architectural-review.com/buildings/opening-statement-yapikredi-culture-centre-in-istanbul-turkey-by-teget. Kütükçüoğlu, Mehmet. Mehmet Kütükçüoğlu - ‘Recent Projects’. ArchiDesign Talks BAU. Istanbul: Bahçeşehir University (BAU), 2020. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHR6XtjOLCM. Lowe, Tom. ‘Make to Replace Piccadilly Landmark after Two Westminster Planning Wins’. Building Design, 9 August 2021. https://www.bdonline.co.uk/news/make-to-replace-piccadilly-landmarkafter-two-westminster-planning-wins/5113172.article. Luo, Stephanie. ‘Pearl Bank Apartments in Outram Sold En Bloc to CapitaLand for S$728m’. Text. The Straits Times, 13 February 2018. https://www.straitstimes.com/business/companies-markets/capitalandacquires-pearl-bank-apartments-for-s728m-q4-profit-falls-38. Ministry of Law, Singapore. ‘Waiver of Building Premium’, 1 September 2008. https://www.mlaw.gov.sg/news/press-releases/waiver-of-buildingpremium. Ministry of Manpower Singapore. ‘More Flexibility to Buy a Home for Life’. Accessed 7 July 2021. https://www.mom.gov.sg/newsroom/pressreleases/2019/0509-more-flexibility-to-buy-a-home-for-life. Nelson, Andrew Campbell. ‘Demolition of the Pearl Bank Apartment Nears Completion’. Site Visits, 27 January 2020. https://veryrealandrew.com/sitevisits/2020/1/27/demolition-of-the-pearl-bank-apartment-nearscompletion.

Nelson, Andrew Campbell. ‘Demolition of the Pearl Bank Apartments’. Site Visits, 11 October 2019. https://veryrealandrew.com/site-visits/2019/10/11. Ng, Keng Gene. ‘Golden Mile Complex Gazetted as Conserved Building; Future Developers to Get Building Incentives’, The Straits Times, 22 October 2021, https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/golden-mile-complex-gazettedas-conserved-building-future-developers-to-get-building. Phua, Rachel. ‘Pearl Bank Apartments Makes 4th Attempt at En-Bloc Sale’. CNA. 8 July 2017. https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/pearlbank-apartments-makes-4th-attempt-at-en-bloc-sale-9015632. Rezai, Hossein. ‘“Demolishing A Large Building Is Directly Analogous To Setting Fire To A Forest”’. Design and Architecture, 28 August 2020. https://www.designandarchitecture.com/article/demolishing-a-largebuilding-is-directly-analogous-to-setting-fire-to-a-forest.html. Roots. ‘Former Singapore Conference Hall and Trade Union House (Now Singapore Conference Hall)’. Accessed 11 September 2021. https://www.roots.gov.sg/places/places-landing/Places/nationalmonuments/former-singapore-conference-hall-and-trade-union-housenow-singapore-conference-hall. Singapore Green Building Council. ‘Embodied Carbon Pledge’. Accessed 10 August 2021. https://www.sgbc.sg/about-us/singapore-built-environmentembodied-carbon-pledge. Singapore Green Building Council. ‘Singapore Built Environment Embodied Carbon Pledge Infopack’, n.d. https://www.sgbc.sg/images/SGBC_EC_Pledge.pdf. Singapore Police Force. ‘Man To Be Charged With Offences Under Public Order Act’. Accessed 24 August 2021. http://www.police.gov.sg/Media-

Room/News/20201121_man_to_be_charged_with_offences_under_public_o rder_act. Survey of London. ‘The White Chapel Building (Former Sedgwick Centre)’. Accessed 25 June 2021. https://surveyoflondon.org/map/feature/8/detail/#history. Tang, See Kit. ‘New CPF, HDB Loan Rules Give Buyers Flexibility, May Make Older Properties More Attractive: Analysts’. News. CNA, 10 May 2019. https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/new-cpf-hdb-loanrules-may-make-older-properties-more-attractive-11519468. Transparency International UK. ‘New Research Reveals Extent of Conservative Party’s Financial Reliance on Property Sector’, 12 July 2021. https://www.transparency.org.uk/house-of-cards-UK-housing-policyinfluence-Conservative-party-donations-lobbying-press-release. UK Parliament. ‘Submission from The Architects’ Journal’s RetroFirst Campaign for Reuse of Existing Buildings’. UK Parliament, 10 July 2020. https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/8723/pdf/. Wilson, Rob. ‘Office Reinvention: The White Chapel Building Remodelled by Fletcher Priest’. The Architects’ Journal (blog), 19 April 2017. http://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/buildings/office-reinvention-thewhite-chapel-building-remodelled-by-fletcher-priest. Zhuang, Justin. ‘Saving Pearl Bank Apartments’. BiblioAsia 12, no. 3 (December 2016): 12–16. https://biblioasia.nlb.gov.sg/past-issues/pdf/vol-12/v12issue3_PearlBank.pdf.

APPENDIX: LIST OF INTERVIEWEES AND NOTES OF INTERVIEWS

Name

Profile

Date of Interview

Tay Kheng Soon

Retired architect

10 June 2021

(TKS)

Academic and thinker

Austin

Property Developer

16 June 2021

Hossein Rezai

Structural Engineer

16 June 2021

(HR)

Adjunct professor

Alfred Yeung

Architect and property developer

(AY)

Academic (Hong Kong and

Chandrasekaran (AC) 3

17 June 2021

London) 5

Jack Tsen-Ta Lee

Lawyer

(JTTL)

President of Singapore Heritage

22 June 2021

Society 6

David Liauw

Practising architect and MAArC

(DL)

student

Ho Weng Hin

Architect specialising in

(HWH)

Conservation

Kevin Sim (KS)

Practising architect

23 June 2021

25 June 2021

28 June 2021 (informal conversation only)

AC5007 Tay Kheng Soon 10/10/2021 Memories and intangible heritage are different for different people. Which ones are relevant or significant? Visual identity is important when adapting a building. There are limits to the extent to which a building can be modified before the new layers obliterate the old and it no longer retains any link to the past (beyond its geographical coordinates). China as an interesting case because they are concerned with identity (hence a very active archeology sector, and lots of historical dramas on TV ), and have development pressures, with some areas or people adopting a hybrid approach with new developments interspersed amongst old ones. In decisions to adapt or demolish and rebuild, the most important factor is political will. This is missing from the literature on conservation. In Singapore the political will has these aims: Economic success Creating conditions for investors Benefits to voter sentiment Investor sentiment Global sentiment: Tourism and Demonstrating sustainability Politicians do not appreciate architectural issues and they do not have someone like Albert Speer to guide their policies in this regard. The political will determines the financial and regulatory environment. Architectural education does increasingly emphasise adaptive reuse. There is increasing interest. There were imaginative student projects for Golden Mile Complex. Developers will generally make decisions based on the bottom line and financial issues. Cost benefit analysis within the regulatory environment. Often cheaper to demolish and rebuild; this also depends on the economic situation (whether there is a boom or slump). Sometimes there may be the sentiment of ownership eg the Cathay building which was strongly associated with the owner’s family. Conservation policies are based on political narratives. Golden Mile Complex fits into the narrative as it represents the success of the PAP ideology, a new and assertive construction. Nothing to do with the look of the place. (In the case of Chinatown, the driver for conservation was tourism) Some examples: Asia Insurance Building was converted to luxury serviced apartments which were very profitable.

The same could have been done with the old Cathay Building and the apartments could have been sold for $20 million (instead of the current unsatisfactory scheme). The URA was too lax in allowing too little to be retained. Luck Plaza: Undistinguished architecturally. There is a lot of discussion aboy Orchard Road as a social space in a time when shopping malls are less relevant due to online shopping. Idea proposed about Orchard Road as a university street with Lucky Plaza Podium as a school, with apartments in the tower. Or even Orchard Road with moving structures above and behind the existing buildings which could be retained. The development charge is the regulatory instrument which can influence decisions about demolition or adaptation (need to look this up further) Email reply to questions on 11/06/2021 1. What factors influence the decision to adapt or demolish a building? Under what circumstances would you choose one or the other? (As I understand it your view is that it's the political will of the government, but I was also wondering about your views as an architect) from a developers’ point of view it is purely a cost benefit analysis within the regulatory framework. Architects are generally beholden to the client’s intentions. I recused myself from a job once because her instruction conflicted with my conservation ethics. 2. To what extent is adaptation more sustainable compared to demolition? (I believe you think it is generally more sustainable) doing less with less is always preferable in terms of resource conservation. 3. Is adaptation more or less economical than demolition and rebuilding? (You said that it is usually cheaper to demolish but I guess there are times when it might not be? Also depends on plot ratios I guess) yes there are such situations. 4. What attributes make a building suitable or unsuitable for adaptive reuse?a lot depends on the match or mismatch between the existing and the intended. 5. Is there generally a preference for adaptation or demolition, and why? (Apart from political will and owner sentiment, do you think there are other factors?)it depends on the ego and ethical position of the architect and or the developer. 6. What issues should be included in the decision process used to assess the suitability of a building for adaptation?the first is the regulatory requirement. Second is the appropriateness of the situation and the cost benefits. 7. What measures will facilitate, encourage or incentivise adaptation? (e.g. Changes to rules regarding development charge? TDR? Environmental Impact Assessments to include embodied carbon? Factors that will tilt the equation in the cost benefit analysis. Benefits might include ethical, reputational and aesthetic factors.

8. What examples of buildings in Singapore illustrate the opportunities for or barriers to adaptive reuse? This depends on the relevance in relation to the political narrative as it shifts in addressing reputational and ethical concerns of its constituents that include international opinion regarding Singapore as reliable partner. Barriers to adaptive reuse will include loss of revenue and developmental goals and disruptive effects on smooth administration..

100

AUSTIN CHANDRASEKARAN 16/06/2021 1405-1445 Policies on adaptive reuse have been state led, e.g. Tanjong Pagar station and the National Library There has been a shift from state to private sector involvement. For instance, the private sector now undertakes adaptive reuse projects for gazetted buildings and place-making, and even projects for government buildings. The state needs to modify policies like those on taxation and development charges to influence what developers do. Current policies on sustainability in buildings are designed for greenfield and brownfield sites, and not geared towards adaptive re-use. (In this context brownfield sites are ones where previous buildings have been or are to be demolished). In Singapore, the land price accounts for about 60% - 70% of the total project cost (other costs being construction, hiring people, financing, marketing, etc). It’s probably the other way round in Australia, Europe, USA. Payment for land is up front which results in pressure to develop rapidly in order to generate return on investment. (ROI). Speed is of the essence. 2 aspects of ROI are: Marginal cost: how much return on investment Internal rate of return (IRR): how quickly you get it back Currently adaptive reuse is more costly than adaptation, especially so because new and rapid construction methods (e.g. prefabrication) are very fast and efficient. For example, it would be much faster to demolish Golden Mile and to construct a new building in its place. Developers are keen on adaptive reuse. Factors influencing developers: 1. 2. 3. 4.

Land Price Lease extension premium Development charge (for enhancing the value of freehold land) Differential premium (for enhancing the value of leasehold land)

Currently, land sales must be paid within 90 days. Deferring full payment over time would help developers wanting to carry out adaptation of existing buildings because of the additional time required for adaptation compared to newbuild. Waivers or discounts on items 2 – 4 would help incentivise adaptative reuse.

101

Sustainability standards have been developed with a focus on new buildings. For example, given the current pandemic and the emphasis on health and well being, old buildings often have more natural ventilation but this does not tick any boxes in the Green Mark standards (e.g. this would apply to Golden Mile where the residential section above the mall relies on natural ventilation). Sustainability standards are more geared towards the provision of modern or new infrastructure, such as air conditioning, water treatment, the use of recycled concrete, etc. Case of Shaw Tower: Not suitable for adaptation because: 1. Structural defects affecting the integrity of the building were considered too costly and time consuming to rectify 2. The building did not meet the expectations of contemporary office tenants in terms of floor/ceiling heights and because of internal columns. It would have been possible to lease an adapted building but the leasing velocity would have been slower, and therefore a delay in the return on investment. There would be an increased leasing risk Preferences regarding adapted or new buildings. This varies according to type of use Residential: owners are keen on old buildings e.g. Tiong Bahru apartments with 60 years left to run on leases go for very high prices. Policies need to incentivise builders but they also need to be fair to owners who may want to realise the return on their investment. Hotels: lots of adaptive reuse. The situation is simpler because the properties have single owners, and they are keen to provide a unique experience. Commercial offices: more challenging because these are workplaces, occupied for 5-10 years, by for example banks and tech companies whose priority is a modern workspace built to contemporary standards for such places. Unless it’s a single building bought by one company (eg Dyson and the St James Power Station) whose owner might be more interested in having a unique building. Retail is the type with the highest valuation(most expensive in terms of price per square metre). Owners generally stay put and get income from the retail business rather than from property transactions. For this reason, retail buildings often undergo phased redevelopment e.g. one floor at a time. No resistance from developers regarding building adaptation in principle. All the major developers would gladly do it if there were no financial penalties.

102

Hossein Rezai 16/06/2021 1530 – 1425 Apart from environmental sustainability, and issues like beauty and “iconic”, we should also consider other aspects of old buildings such as social and historic equity. Historic significance is not just in terms of great events but also everyday history, like “this is the coffee shop my father used to drink at”, which is lost once a building is demolished. In the life cycle of a building as it deteriorates, it becomes more difficult to adapt it or extend its lifespan the closer it gets to the end of its life. The emphasis should be on waste, not just minimisation but eradication of waste: “go circular”. There are various techniques for repair, but multiple factors need to be considered: cost, waste, environmental, and social factors. The assessment must be multifactorial and holistic. The main impediment to adaptation is the distorted value system, which even influences assessment tools. This is weighted in favour of fossil fuel use. Things would be different if a “fair price” had to be paid for the environmental damage. Embodied carbon assessments are not carried out in Singapore. Even when required in environmental assessments for building construction in other countries, the weighting given to embodied carbon is too low. The onus is on conservationists to justify retaining a building. Why? It should be the other way round. Pearl Bank apartments: Adaptation was not feasible because the developer thought the floor to ceiling heights of apartments were too low (c 2.7 metres compared to 3+ metres which buyers expect these days) Expectations have been inflated over time for no good reason. Likewise, the live load assessments for offices in which 250 kg per square metre is more than adequate but people design up to 500 for “future proofing”. Example of the hotel in Corb’s Marseille Unité where the ceiling felt a bit low but was OK the next day. Shaw Tower was the first building in Singapore to use precast concrete on that scale and was a landmark. Demolition should be penalised (rather than incentivising preservation) just like you do not get rewarded for not cutting a red light. The fastest growing consultancy field in Singapore is in helping people find government incentives Demolition contractors pay you to demolish if they can keep the materials, which have value.

103

There are some limitations in the free market system. The government has a role to play. Singapore’s ambitions in terms of sustainability are set too low and targets can always be achieved. They can be influenced by lobbying, and pressure does work. Most architects and engineers are still in “demolish” mode. The sector that is interested in environmental awards is very small, maybe about 5%. Most people are behind the times. There is some discussion in education, more than before, but not enough. Adaptation to constraints requires more creativity than designing something new.

104

Alfred Yeung 17/06/2021 1730 - 1845 Trained as an architect. Architectural practice followed by a mid-career change to client representation, with 15-20 years in property development, working with developers and with the Mass transit Railway in Hong Kong, followed by a return to architectural practice. Founded the Asian Branch of Brock Carmichael, as well as teaching at the Chinese University of Hong Kong. Experience has provided not just architectural but also commercial and economic perspective. Conservation has a multifaceted aspect with three components: 1. Architectural/historical/sentimental 2. Environmental 3. Economic/Social These are like the three sides of an equilateral triangle. All aspects are important, and must be taken into account. Architectural parameters include the historical context as well as cultural and sentimental values. Buildings with so called “unattractive architecture” e.g. brutalist or modernist buildings are often liked by the community. There is a contrast between culture in Asia and in the West in terms of the reaction to modern architecture, which was welcomed in Asia (with little baggage of architectural history), as compared to the UK. This might be related to the culture of ‘an Englishman’s home is his castle”, with its antipathy to the more communal life in apartment blocks. There is a greater appreciation in the West of heritage, and greater support for retention and conservation compared to Hong Kong Economic issues. When a building becomes obsolete, and its original use is no longer valid, it is not viable to impose the original use on the building. From an economic point of view, how can the building be altered as way of sustaining its usage? Both in the UK and in Hong Kong, a problem is how to convince local authorities, from a building control point of view, that modern standards can be dealt with in a more innovative and creative way. The priority of building control authorities is that “health and safety must be upheld”. Conservation has a shorter history in Asia than in Europe and is less well developed. Reasons to demolish rather than conserve: In Hong Kong there are strong economic pressures to demolish. Land prices are very high (where clients strive for maximising development potential of their sites and buildings are to be viewed as commodities for investment) and it is hard to swing the tide. There are economic disincentives to preservation especially when plot ratios can be increased. One solution is transfer of plot ratios (Transfer of Development Rights or TDR.

105

Even if a building is saved from demolition there is a stringent building control process which can result in the loss or replacement of fine architectural details or aspects of a building. The case of Shaw Tower Alfred Yeung together with Ho Puay-peng advocated the conservation of Shaw Tower 5-6 years ago. They considered it ideal for adaptive reuse and submitted a schematic proposal. However, the client considered it unfit for modern office use and rejected the proposal. The problems were the floor to ceiling height which was too low compared to modern norms, and the deteriorating fabric of the building which had resulted partly from water leakage. They failed to sell the conservation plan to the board, who decided to demolish the building. They were persuaded to keep part of the prefab envelope, to be reinstalled in the new building, and accepted a design brief for a heritage hub. A new commercial architecture firm was appointed for the new building. Alfred Yeung is now the client representative for the Shaw Foundation. Lendlease were hired to provide project management and professional services, and also because of their branding for building management, which would be attractive to tenants. In fact the cost of retaining and rescuing the structure of Shaw Towers was calculated as being almost equal to that of a new build, but the client was not convinced about this approach because the end product would be a compromise solution as opposed to a new grade A office building with higher rental return. Heritage is intangible with no clear financial value in this instance. Property values are assessed by firms like Colliers, JLL and Knight Frank, who say that their approach is objective and scientific. So, for instance, a Grade A office building might be worth $15 Singapore dollars per square foot in rental whereas an adapted Shaw Tower might go for $12 psf. This is based on surveys of market values. Might not a well-refurbished office building be as operationally efficient as a Grade A one for a bank or tech company? Yes, but rental prices are determined by how the property is valued and market perception. Is it possible that, in future, creatively adapted buildings might be more attractive and valuable than new run-of-the-mill Grade A ones? Yes, but that would require a bold client to commission a successful project to set a precedent. The pandemic may have changed things. Banks and many tech companies have found that working from home is efficient and productive, and after the pandemic, banks in the UK plan to reduce their office footprint by a third. This will reduce the rental they pay on office space. Many of the existing office buildings may be converted to mixed use (leisure facilities etc) where corporate offices might be retained for company’s cultural identity, and this gives some hope for heritage retention.

106

Constraints on adaptive reuse: Building controls act in parallel with land prices as constraints. Building controls might be modified if there is demand for adaptive reuse. Education can result in change. A more important driver is economic. Architects and engineers are sensitive to green issues. Clients less so. The perception is that the Singapore government have incentivised it more than the HK government who pay lip service. Environmental, Social and corporate Governance policies (ESG), Green Finance Funds, etc might result in more sustainable corporate policies including which favour of adaptation over demolition. There are green scoring standards like the UK BREEAM and the Australian Green Star. The UK government has a target for all new homes to be “carbon neutral” [ref: https://www.energylivenews.com/2021/01/20/all-new-build-homes-in-the-uk-tobe-zero-carbon-ready-by-2025/ https://www.building.co.uk/news/governmentconfirms-plan-to-make-new-homes-meet-net-zero-by-2025/5109966.article ] but this does not include embodied energy calculations Measures to facilitate adaptation: Statutory/governmental: there should be a distinction between new builds and heritage Strategic: planning policies like transfer of plot ratios/TDR Economic/commercial: ESG may make corporations think twice before demolishing. If the market drives choices towards adaptation, developers will reassess their choices. Younger architects are more socially and environmentally conscious than those of our generation. Architects are perceived by clients as arty, and are not perceived as guardians of the commercial cake. Their views carry very little weight. They need to more economically aware

107

Jack Tsen-Ta Lee Discussion 22 June 2021, 1650 – 1740 Adaptive reuse of buildings: 1. Regulatory environment could be more streamlined 2. Problem of overcoming mindsets: just because a building dates to the 1970s, it doesn’t mean it’s not worth preserving. Regulatory issues: are regulations for the environment and for safety in line with the preservation of heritage? There is scope in some cases for appeals to the regulatory authority for waivers, or to put in place other features to compensate for shortcomings in compliance with building control standards. For instance: 1. In Singapore, staircases must be fireproof, which wooden staircases are not. The wooden staircase at the Asian Civilisations Museum was retained, presumably because other fire safety features were installed, such as perhaps more sprinklers or adequate well-marked escape routes. 2. The Globe Theatre in London has a thatched roof despite a ban on thatched roofs in London dating back to the time of the Great Fire. Presumably other mitigating features were installed. Environmental issues Environmental concerns sometimes need to be balanced against the retention of historical features which may not be as environmentally friendly. The intersection between the environment and heritage is relatively new, as are considerations of embodied carbon in the heritage sector. The UN, EU and other bodies have issued statements about environment and heritage. 2 aspects of heritage and climate change to consider: 1. Heritage conservation to mitigate climate change 2. Protection of heritage from the effects of climate change Incentives: The case of the Golden Mile Complex, where the government/URA has rolled out measures to encourage conservation projects: 1. A discount on the development charge for listed buildings 2. Allowing an increase in the gross floor area on the same plot (e.g. planning permission to replace an existing multistorey car park adjacent to the listed building with a tall tower) 3. Release of adjoining government land to the developer to make the existing irregular plot of land more attractive. This sets a precedent for the sort of measures which could potentially be adopted for future developments (on a case-by-case basis) Such regulatory measures are at the discretion of the URA and not written in law. Their alteration does not require debate in parliament or amendments to existing

108

legislation. The URA have considerable discretion to implement changes as they see fit. Transfer of development rights: Something similar to TDR took place when the Singapore government took over the former Malayan Railway line. The Malaysian government was given rights to develop other sites jointly with the Singapore government in exchange. However, there is no inherent right to develop land in Singapore; all development must be approved (permission has to be sought). The URA has a lot of discretion, so changes to regulations are implemented via policy. The government would not want to reduce its discretion, High level consultative discussions take place via for a like the Heritage in Partnership Panel. The URA has an executive board that makes decisions. How effective are pressure groups, social media etc in effecting change? The government has become more responsive in recent years. There was very little public engagement or consultation when Bukit Brown was redeveloped, or when the old National Library was demolished. A few years down the line, when the Cross-Island MRT line was built, there was engagement with the Nature Society and other interested parties, a more transparent process, two environmental impact assessments (one to assess the impact if soil testing and one for the tunnel and railway line). The reports were made available online, the recommended mitigation measures were implemented, and the Nature society invited to observe their implementation. The heritage society position paper on Modernist Icons “Too Young to Die” (2018) https://www.singaporeheritage.org/?p=4039 En-bloc process After 10 years, the property can be sold if 80% of subsidiary proprietors agree. At Pearl Bank 90% of owners were prepared to keep the building f they could benefit from additional new development on the site, from which money could be ploughed back to refurbish the original building. This proposal was made by the owners of the property However, for this to happen the existing strata would have had to be terminated, and a new strata scheme set up to accommodate the new units created by the new development. (In a strata title scheme the number of units is fixed and cannot be increased). This process would have needed the agreement of all the owners (100%, compared to the 80% needed to sell the building). There were difficulties such as the fact that some owners could not be located ,so the agreement of 100% of the owner could not be obtained, and the building could not be saved.

109

There have been occasional calls to change the strata title system in Parliament but these have been rejected. It is argued that the strata title system allows for the regular renewal of buildings

110

David Liauw 23 June 2021 1600-1645 Adaptive reuse in Singapore and in Asian cities is difficult because of urban development and the pressure to demolish. One of the biggest culprits is en-bloc sales, which is rare in other countries. Buildings like condos there is pressure to “go en-bloc”. The URA master plan is revised every 5 years and the concept plan every 10 years. With each revision there is often an increase in the permitted plot ratio of a site. Plot ratios have increased over time from (typically) 1.4, to sometimes as high as 8. (By comparison the plot ratio in Good Class Bungalow areas is around 0.3). Take for example a relatively small bungalow on a large plot of land in Holland Road. If the building of a condominium was permitted on that site, the owner would make an enormous profit if the house and land were sold to a developer. One factor is the mentality in Asia, where there is still an “inferiority complex” which makes people equate gleaming high-rise towers, as associated with the “West” with progress. Example of Wisma Atria (retail). Humans get easily tired of going to places, especially the façade. Retail advisors recommend refreshing the façade every 5 years. Same thing happened with the Paragon. The structure is always kept. Office buildings: Issues include plot ratios and the masterplan as discussed. Another factor is the increase in floor to floor heights which have been increasing, There is pressure to upgrade to Grade A office space for which 4.2 – 4.5 metres is a bare minimum. In other grades of office space such as can be found in the suburbs, ceiling heights may be barely 3 metres. This is a functional issue to do with services within the floors/ceilings. In high value residential properties, ceiling heights have also been increasing, but this is because of client preference, not function. Fire codes. The new 2018 fire code “killed a lot of conservation efforts”. Example of issues: more staircases needed for fire escapes. Building codes also have provisions for accessibility which can cause problems for historic buildings. In some historic buildings, maintenance is a problem due to lack of skilled staff employed by maintenance contractors. The URA is not in a position to give tax incentives They assess buildings on a case by case basis, and can give planning incentives, such as increasing the Gross Floor Area, or discounts on the development charge.

111

The new Land Betterment Charge Bill has taken some of this out of the hands of the URA. Financial returns are greater from demolition. Through changes in the regulations governing development charges it might be possible to include provision for embodied carbon? (that might have been something I raised but I’m documenting it here) Fresh architecture graduates are idealistic, but the financial bottom line is what counts for clients. Most important barriers to adaptive reuse are the fire code, plot ratios, the lack of incentives to conserve, and the pressure to develop.

112

Ho Weng Hin 25 June 2021 1500 – 1615 [Good reference: Donovan Rypkema in the mASEANA project book] The most important factor in conservation and building adaptation is how people value old buildings Buildings have been adapted for millennia. One example is the houses that were built in the Roman amphitheatre at Verona. In the past building was constrained by the cost of materials and the building process. As buildings became easier to construct, they became commodified, and were built with no consideration for permanence. [ref for self: Barnabas Calder, Buildings and energy: architectural history in the climate emergency. J Arch 2021 https://doi.org/10.1080/13602365.2021.1891950 and Architecture: From Prehistory to Climate Emergency (recent book)] After World War II there was a housing shortage, and the construction of mass housing also changed the mindset of people about houses. In the modern era there were many experimental techniques. Many modern buildings don’t age well. Interesting example in Singapore: the SIT flats in Kampong Silat which were built rapidly, and on a shoestring, using hollow concrete blocks in a limited range of sizes. The concrete inside and outside was not plastered, and paint was applied directly to the concrete. For some walls, the concrete blocks were stacked up and used like shuttering, with concrete poured into the gaps between two parallel stacks of concrete, with the blocks left in place after the concrete had set. Given all these short cuts the buildings have not worn well although considering the way they were built they are still in surprisingly good condition. Technical factors are important as a “threshold” for developers to adapt a building, and may in some situations be the main barrier to adaptation. Many technical issues can be overcome but this might be costly and much depends on the priorities of the society. For instance, people are often aware of environmental issues, but these may not be sufficient for them to act. Ref: “Conserve a Building, Save the Planet” Chang, Ho & Lin, Straits Times 12/11/2020 https://www.straitstimes.com/opinion/conserve-a-building-savethe-planet There has been no serious research on climate change and buildings in Singapore or the tropics. All the research has been in temperate countries.

113

The issue of perceived value of buildings: e.g. shophouses, which were previously not regarded as being of value. Real estate market. Buildings are often not cared for due to under-provision of legislation. Buildings and Common Property (Maintenance and Management) Act Land Titles (Strata) Act Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act Strata title buildings often suffer from poor maintenance of common areas. Such maintenance paid for out of the sinking fund to which the owners are often reluctant to contribute (or it can be difficult to get them to agree to contribute sufficiently). This is directly responsible for lack of maintenance which is the cause of the deterioration of the building. Concrete buildings deteriorate more rapidly in the wet tropics compared to cooler climates due to water ingress, growth of vegetation, etc. There is no incentive for programmed maintenance even though this is a matter of public safety. Shouldn’t there be mandatory inspections by the building authorities? [note to self: “A MCST for a strata development is constituted when the strata title plan for the development is lodged with the Chief Surveyor and a strata title application made to the Registrar of Titles, Singapore Land Authority (SLA)”] As the structure deteriorates (accelerated by poor maintenance) the price of the building depreciates, which puts pressure on owners to sell rapidly. “Accelerated ageing pushes property to the en-bloc market” There are perhaps over 200 strata malls so many commercial buildings are affected. In condos, on a 99-year lease, a decline in the fabric can occur after less than 50 years, perhaps as soon as 30 years. (There have been changes in the strata arrangements compared to older condos: to look up) DOCOMOMO have made presentations to the Ministry of National Development (MND) about strata maintenance. Refurbishment takes a longer time compared to demolition and new building. The perceived value of a refurbished building is low, so there is a risk for developers. This is what happened with Pearl Bank. Pearl Bank was not perceived as having the same value as Tiong Bahru, in part because of stories about poor maintenance, leaking pipes etc.

114

Tiong Bahru flats have been maintained by the HDB and are in good condition (unlike for instance, the strata title Golden Mile). Changes in the law can take time because multiple parties are involved: the MND and its various agencies, and the Ministry of Law. The strata system was intended to facilitate urban renewal but has been hijacked by profiteers. At a symposium held at the substation, “Going, going, gone”, the lawyer Addrian Tan who takes cases from people who don’t want to move described how there are syndicates who buy up flats when the time to sell is approaching, and they get into the MCST and try to influence the remaining owners. If flats are flipped every 10 years, why build to last? The system encourages poor quality in construction. (Tanglin Halt HDB was sold under different arrangements: SERS) There is greater public awareness about the loss of green spaces, eg Kranji Forest, Dover Forest, which will put greater pressure on brownfield sites. The pressure will be felt first in the flatted factories (rather than industrial parks which are surrounded by greenery), then on housing land. The way forward is public education. Shophouses are now highly regarded as a result of a joint campaign by the URA and SHS. Gretchen Liu’s “Pastel Portraits” was highly influential in shaping public opinion. The support of Rajaratnam and Dhanabalan also played an important role, as did the advocacy of people like William Lim. SHS and DOCOMOMO have been reaching out. Golden Mile is a sandbox or test case. Desmond Lim seems enthusiastic. Public nostalgia and the uncertainties of the post-LKY period might also result in support for conserving modernist buildings. The people now in their 20s and 30s are important because these buildings were built before they were born and are old to them.

115

116