AC 5007 - Batch 2 - Wu Jiayi

AC5007 Dissertation

Community Participation in Heritage Conservation - A Comparison of Practices in Shanghai and Singapore

Wu Jiayi_A0231963A

Instructor Dr Nikhil Joshi

25 April 2022

Content Abstract ............................................................................................................................................................ 3 1.Introduction................................................................................................................................................ 4 1.1 Background ................................................................................................................................... 4 1.2 Literature Review ....................................................................................................................... 8 2. Research Questions............................................................................................................................... 12 3. Methodology ............................................................................................................................................ 13 4.The Conservation Development ....................................................................................................... 14 4.1 The Conservation Development in Singapore............................................................. 14 4.2 The Conservation Development in Shanghai .............................................................. 19 5.Case Studies .............................................................................................................................................. 26 5.1 Singapore-Tiong Bahru ......................................................................................................... 26 5.2 Shanghai-Tianzifang ............................................................................................................... 34 6. Discussion ................................................................................................................................................. 42 7.Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................. 46 List of figures ............................................................................................................................................... 50 Bibliography................................................................................................................................................. 50

2

Abstract With global urbanisation, heritage conservation and urban regeneration have become essential matters in developing progressively modern cities. Only recently has it been realised that steady economic growth has come to an end, that many regions are facing increasing social and economic problems and that urban development is at a critical juncture in its transformation. At the same time, local community participation in heritage conservation and urban regeneration is regarded as a sustainable alternative to the market and growth-oriented development of the past. However, community participation is an ongoing and complex endeavour that needs to be sustained over time. Meanwhile, the community is included in a more comprehensive social-ecological system, and community participation involves different and, in some cases, conflicting interests.

In addition, community participation requires better and broader economic and policy instruments to support it. At present, successful practices of community participation are still relatively rare in Asian countries. This thesis specifically examines the development of conservation policies and the corresponding context of the times in Singapore and Shanghai. It uses two typical cases, Tiong Bahru and Tianzifang, to study the impact of specific social contexts on community participation. While the governments of both regions have a positive attitude toward community participation, they also face difficulties in implementation. The paper argues that the driving factor for community participation is the direct interest of a group, usually residents. What’s more, the successful development of 3

community participation must be appropriate to the time and social context in which it is taking place. Finally, successful community participation needs to withstand the volatility of time, politics and funding. Education and reform from above are perhaps the most effective approach for community participation in Shanghai, and a closer connection is needed between Singapore's heritage conservation policies and the established community center system.

1.Introduction 1.1 Background Because of the saturation of urban development, the focus of China’s urban development has shifted from incremental development to stock activation.1 The process in which urban renewal in the city center of Chinese metropolitans is gradual, and it is pervasive that modern cities are experiencing dramatic changes.

Take Shanghai as an example. By the end of 2014, the total area of the built-up area was more than 45% of the urban area. By 2017, 96 urban renewal projects and 629 hectares of industrial land were included in the transformation plan. 2 In recent years, however, Shanghai has adopted the "reverse growth" mode, which is limiting the total amount of construction land in order to transform the mode of urban development. Shanghai drew upon the research results of some Western countries ‘Zhang, J., Wu, F. & Ma, R., 2008. Institutional Transition and Reconstruction of China's Urban Space: Establishing a Institutional Analysis Structure for Spatial Evolution. Urban Planning, 06, pp. 55-60.

2 ‘CSUS, 2018. China Urban Renewal and Development Report 2017-2018. first edition ed. Beijing: China Construction Industry Press.

1

4

and some other countries in the East and formed the concept of "urban organic renewal" with Shanghai characteristics. 3 As an island nation with a relatively short history, Singapore's heritage conservation can date back to the colonial era when it was influenced by Western hegemony. The 'Friends of Singapore', a non-governmental organization founded in 1937, helped the colonial government to draw up an inventory of historic sites, monuments, and architectural heritage in 1955. The aim of the organization was to ' stimulate interest in the cultural and historical heritage of Singapore'. After independence in 1965, tourism became one of Singapore's major industries, along with the conservation of cultural heritage becoming one of the city's main industries. The preservation of cultural heritage also became a main subject of urban planning and economic development. 4 Communities play a significant role in heritage conservation of urban development, both as tools of heritage conservation and in the ultimate enjoyment of the fruits of heritage conservation by communities.

Firstly, communities are the bearers of the heritage value. In some heritage sites, local culture is an important component of heritage values. From the perspective of sustainable conservation of the site itself, tools such as cultural mapping integrate communities into the understanding and assessment of heritage values. The process of collaboration between experts and communities, the groups that most directly

‘CSUS, 2018. China Urban Renewal and Development Report 2017-2018. first edition ed. Beijing: China Construction Industry Press.

4 Kondur, Raju. (2012). “Rediscovering Place: enhancing the built heritage of Singapore.”

3

5

and deeply understand heritage values, enhances their 'cultural resilience' against the impact of globalization and commercialization and contributes to the sustainable management and development of the site. Secondly, communities are also 'stakeholders' in the conservation management system. Communities in some heritage sites may not have the capacity to carry relevant cultural values or may no longer be native communities in the traditional sense, but they are still direct stakeholders in heritage conservation. Local communities can be stimulated to participate in the conservation and management of heritage through appropriate education, reasonable decentralization and an active community participation system. The positive return of benefits can lead to a sustainable development model.

In the field of heritage conservation, the role of the community as a central player in the management of heritage values and conservation systems is increasingly being recognized.

Communities in Singapore are critical in providing a new basis for urban "branding" and local identity in a global urbanization world. From a theoretical perspective, community participation in Singapore emphasizes heritage issues as part of the public agenda and integrates participatory conservation projects into the planning process, adding to the broader theoretical discussion on how public policy can help shape landscapes and what they mean.5 In China, there is also a consensus to include 'communities' in heritage conservation management, and the role of 'communities' in the conservation of community‘Belinda Yuen, ‘Strengthening Urban Heritage in Singapore: Building Economic Competitiveness and Civic Identity’ 1, no. 1 (2005): 8.

5

6

related heritage types is clearly explained in Article 1 of the revised Guidelines for the Conservation of Cultural Relics and Monuments in China published in 2015: "Many heritage types, such as historic cities, towns, villages and cultural landscapes, are associated with intangible cultural heritage such as traditional production, lifestyles and beliefs. The role of 'communities' in the conservation of heritage types associated with communities is clearly stated in Article 1 of the revised Guidelines for the Conservation of Cultural Heritage in China, published in 2015: "Many heritage types, such as historic cities, towns, villages and cultural landscapes, are associated with intangible cultural heritage, such as traditional production, lifestyles and beliefs, and they have a 'living' character. ...... The participation of the communities in which the monuments are located is the basis for the conservation of such monuments". While this provision emphasizes the 'right to participation' of communities, the question of appropriate community participation and institutional mechanisms remains a pressing one for policy makers and historic preservation experts alike. 6 China and Singapore have significant differences in terms of political systems, size of state, and population composition, but they share a common cultural heritage in the Asian context. Through a comparative study of the types of community participation, methods of participation, levels of participation and steps of participation in heritage conservation in the two countries, this paper hopes to

‘Lessons for China from the “community Engagement” Approach to World Heritage Conservation’, accessed 18 February 2022, https://www.sohu.com/a/www.sohu.com/a/290489478_688008.

6

7

deepen the understanding of community participation and explore the factors that influence the forms of community participation practices in heritage conservation.

1.2 Literature Review In recent years, the importance of place and community in urban development has become widely recognised globally. They are seen as essential factors in achieving social stability, equity and harmony.7 In heritage conservation, the importance of community participation has also been rising, and its advantages are gradually being recognised. The hegemonic local framework approach to conservation put forward by government-led administrations has weakened people's sense of identity and social capital, reducing the evaluation of their subjective happiness. 8 Gill Chitty suggests that community participation in heritage conservation benefits participants.

9 Community

participation can contribute to shaping identity,

distinguishing a sense of place and retaining traditional craft skills, contributing to the personal development of participants, and should also be present throughout the conservation process.10

7

United Nations (nd.) 'Sustainable development

goals'. https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainabledevelopment-goals/ Mee Kam Ng, ‘Urban Renewal, Sense of Community and Social Capital: A Case Study of Two Neighbourhoods in Hong Kong’, in Urban Renewal, Community and Participation, ed. Julie Clark and Nicholas Wise, The Urban Book Series (Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2018), 1–23, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-31972311-2_1.

9 Gill Chitty, ed., Heritage, Conservation and Communities: Engagement, Participation and Capacity Building, Heritage, Culture and Identity (London ; New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, 2017).

10 Gill Chitty, ed., ‘An Insight into Historic England’s Approach to Community-Led Conservation’, in Heritage, Conservation and Communities, 0 ed. (Routledge, 2016), 112–23, https://doi.org/10.4324/978131558666317.

8

8

Furthermore, community participation in heritage conservation has its imperative in the broader context of sustainability in the 21st century. As society's needs and expectations of cultural heritage continue to rise, people should be a central part of heritage and heritage management to ensure sustainable heritage conservation.11 Conservators have a vital role in promoting and strengthening understanding between different cultural groups or groups with different cultural backgrounds, and communication and participation can help overcome social prejudices. 12 However, despite the widely recognised importance of community participation, there are still major controversies and problems in practice. Firstly, although conservation experts value community participation, in practice, professionals still view residents' understanding and wish through the lens of empowerment.13 Furthermore, community participation is not sufficiently practised, and it does not do so in a way that allows all stakeholders to be equally involved in the decisionmaking process.14 As communities are in a wider social-ecological system, a more nuanced understanding of human nature is needed to achieve better conservation.15 Community participation needs to be a more straightforward process so that

Gill Chitty, ed., ‘People-Centred Approaches: Engaging Communities and Developing Capacities for Managing Heritage’, in Heritage, Conservation and Communities, 0 ed. (Routledge, 2016), 54–69, https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315586663-13.

12 Renata F Peters, ‘Heritage Conservation and Social Engagement’, UCL Press, 2020.12.

13 Xiaolin Zang and Bouke van Gorp, ‘Assessing the Potential of Resident Participation in Local Heritage Conservation, the Case of Qingdao, China’, in Urban Renewal, Community and Participation, ed. Julie Clark and Nicholas Wise, The Urban Book Series (Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2018), 141–59, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-72311-2_8.

14 Hélia Marçal and Rita Macedo, ‘From the Periphery to the Centre: Community Engagement and Justice in Conservation Decision Making’, 2017, 7.

15 Fikret Berkes, ‘Rethinking Community-Based Conservation’, Conservation Biology 18, no. 3 (June 2004): 621–30, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2004.00077.x.

11

9

residents can easily participate and have a voice. Funding and other support are required to facilitate community participation in heritage conservation.16

In China, community participation in heritage conservation is becoming a consensus under the 'people-centred' development philosophy, but more economical and policy instruments are still needed to facilitate its development.17 Although Chinese cultural heritage has a top-down administrative character, the mainstream elite cultural heritage cannot be the whole story of cultural heritage conservation.18 LI Fan critiques the lack of community participation in China’s heritage conservation, where the government has introduced donor agencies but does not share power and where the state has limited community participation. 19 At the same time, the adverse effects of irrational, disorganised and overstepped community participation in heritage conservation should be reflected upon.20 As a developed city in China, Shanghai has led the development of community participation in Chinese, yet conflicts and disputes between different stakeholders still exist.21 China's approach

Pablo Sendra, ‘Community-Led Social Housing Regeneration: From Government-Led Programmes to Community Initiatives’, in Urban Renewal, Community and Participation, ed. Julie Clark and Nicholas Wise, The Urban Book Series (Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2018), 71–87, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3319-72311-2_4.

17 徐桐, ‘世界遗产保护中“社区参与”思潮给中国的启示’, 住区, no. 03 (2016): 26–30.

18 霍晓卫, ‘从社区角度认识文化遗产的保护’, 住区, no. 03 (2016): 22–25.

19 Li Fan, ‘International Influence and Local Response: Understanding Community Involvement in Urban Heritage Conservation in China’, International Journal of Heritage Studies 20, no. 6 (18 August 2014): 651–62, https://doi.org/10.1080/13527258.2013.834837.

20 钟晓华 and 寇怀云, ‘社区参与对历史街区保护的影响——以都江堰市西街历史文化街区灾后重建为例’, 城市规划 39, no. 07 (2015): 87–94.

21 Xiaohua Zhong and Ho Hon Leung, ‘Exploring Participatory Microregeneration as Sustainable Renewal of Built Heritage Community: Two Case Studies in Shanghai’, Sustainability 11, no. 6 (2019), http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su11061617.

16

10

to community participation differs from international trends, and a balance should be sought between top-down and bottom-up approaches.22

In Singapore, heritage conservation is an integral part of urban planning, and the government considers architectural conservation alongside pragmatism and the market.23 Changes in economic development have led the government to begin the Singaporean government's emphasis on citizen-city partnerships, moving away from the past's top-down governance model to citizen participation in urban planning.24 The government's approach to promoting community participation has been positive but at the same time problematic, with those in positions of authority often trying to define what constitutes legacy.25 Also, community participation is controversial because of conflicting interests. It is undeniable that cities that lack identity and a sense of community are unsustainable, and empowering communities to maintain their own tangible and intangible heritage is the only way to ensure long-term sustainability.26

Ji Li et al., ‘Imagine the Old Town of Lijiang: Contextualising Community Participation for Urban Heritage Management in China’, Habitat International 108 (1 February 2021): 102321, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2021.102321.

23 K. Melic and Singapore Centre for Liveable Cities, Past, Present, and Future: Conserving the Nation’s Built Heritage (Centre for Liveable Cities Singapore, 2019), https://books.google.com.sg/books?id=1q8gygEACAAJ. 24 Cho Im Sik and Blaž Križnik, ‘Introduction’, in Community-Based Urban Development, by Im Sik Cho and Blaž Križnik, Advances in 21st Century Human Settlements (Singapore: Springer Singapore, 2017), 1–7, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-1987-6_1.

22

25 Yuen, B (2005) 'Strengthening urban heritage in Singapore: building economic competitiveness and civic

identity,' in Global Urban Development, 1:1, pp. 1-8.

26 Joshi, N, and Widodo, J (eds.) (2019) Managing change: urban heritage and community development in

historic Asian cities. Singapore: Department of Architecture, NUS. 11

2. Research Questions This paper aims to answer the following questions: a) How has community participation in heritage conservation developed in Shanghai and Singapore? b) What are the forms of community participation in heritage conservation? c) How does social conditions impact community participation in heritage conservation?

This study's definition of 'community participation ' is divided into two parts. Firstly, it is agreed that community occurs when people come together and form groups for their own interests and the interests of the wider group. People' believe' in a community means that they have loyalty to the group, and share in its values, goals and beliefs. 27 The 'community' in this study refers only to those groups directly concerned with heritage, including Group N (non-power): Owners and tenants and Group P (power): Relevant government officials (political), experts (academic), and the public. political), experts (academic) and businessmen (capital). The media is only one of the tools to give voice to both and does not have a position of its own. In addition, the term 'community participation in this study refers to participation in the whole heritage conservation process, including research and planning in the early stages, conservation implementation in the middle settings and heritage management in the later stages.

27

Sakkarin Sapu, Community Participation in Heritage Conservation, The Getty Conservation Institute 12

Using actual projects in Shanghai and Singapore, this paper explores how the social environment influences community participation in heritage conservation, including policy, economics and culture, and offers ideas on how community participation can reasonably and actively mobilise available resources.

3. Methodology In this research, a qualitative method will be used, and a case in Shanghai and a case in Singapore will be taken as research objects.The case of Shanghai is Tianzifang and the case of Singapore is Tiong Bahru. Both of the cases were built in the 1930s and have mixed functions of residential and commercial. a) Literature research The literature review clarifies the development of heritage conservation policies and existing frameworks in Singapore and Shanghai, placing community participation in a larger picture. In addition, the importance and value of Tianzifang and Tiong Bahru and the conservation process are understood through academic and expert perspectives.

b) Interviews (recordings) Through interviews and oral recordings, the heritage conservation process in Tianzifang and Zhongbalu is understood from the community's perspective and the 13

specific ways and means by which the community has been involved in heritage conservation and analysing of the effectiveness of different forms of participation.

c) Comparative analysis Compare the similarities and differences in community participation in heritage conservation frameworks in these two regions and analyse how different social contextual factors influence the effectiveness.

4.The Conservation Development 4.1 The Conservation Development in Singapore

Figure 1 Singapore’s conservation timeline28

overview As a country founded just over 50 years ago, heritage conservation in Singapore is closely linked to modern urban development and economic growth. Between 1980s and 1990s, the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) became the lead agency for heritage conservation under urban planning, influenced by a top-down

28

Melic and Centre for Liveable Cities, Past, Present, and Future: Conserving the Nation’s Built Heritage.

14

conservation strategy. Even though over 7,000 historic buildings have been conserved, the current state of heritage conservation in Singapore is also questionable. Given the land and social conditions, the trade-off between conservation and development is a significant issue facing heritage conservation in Singapore. In addition, the importance of invisible heritage, such as community and culture, to sustainable urban development has been highlighted. Thus, community participation and market cooperation are two significant themes in heritage conservation in Singapore.29

Origins The modern urban planning of Singapore began after the establishment of the British colony in 1819, and the Raffles Town Plan mainly shapes the current urban form of Singapore: the shores of the Singapore River serve as the centre of commercial and government activities, with ethnic settlements scattered around the central area.30 The city's heritage was earlier recognised based on its commercial and governmental activities. After the formal establishment of Singapore in 1965, the main driver of urban regeneration activity was the need to modernise the urban environment to provide a safe, clean and affordable living environment. While the United Nations' panel of experts set out guiding principles of 'conservation', 'rehabilitation' and 'redevelopment', policymakers were more concerned with

Melic and Centre for Liveable Cities.

Charles Burton Buckley, An Anecdotal History of Old Times in Singapore(with protraits and illustrations),1902, Fraser & Neave. Ltd

29 30

15

redevelopment's social and economic needs. At the same time, there were many voices outside the government advocating conservation rather than redevelopment, represented by the Singapore Planning and Urban Research Group (SPUR), where tourism was the main driver for the preservation of historic districts. This was followed by the establishment of the Preservation of Monuments Board (PMB) in 1971, which demonstrated the growing awareness of conservation and the willingness of the government to work with the public.31

Formative Period In 1986, the URA debuted its first master plan of conservation, the Central District Structure Plan, which became a milestone in the history of heritage conservation development in Singapore. However, as of 1987, about 75% of the assets in the master plan belonged to the private owners, which meant that the collaboration with the owners was necessary for successful conservation. To promote owners' willingness to renovate historic buildings, the government removed rent controls and tried their best to show the private owner the value of the estate. As a result of the increased economic importance of conservation, more private owners became willing to participate in heritage conservation. In the late 1980s, the URA had shifted from being the direct implementer of redevelopment projects to being a planner and facilitator of urban renewal, with its role being:32 1. To undertake the restoration of government-owned properties.

31 32

Melic and Centre for Liveable Cities, Past, Present, and Future: Conserving the Nation’s Built Heritage.

Melic and Centre for Liveable Cities.

16

2. To coordinate the relationship between the government and the public.

3. To guide the private sector.

Turning Point With the rise of historic building conservation, the historic fabric of cities and traditional ways of life are coming into focus. From the government's perspective, mixing the old with the new was a sustainable way of development that could bring revitalisation to a wider area. In 1991, the URA launched the "Conservation Scheme Initiated by Private Owners" to stimulate private sector participation in heritage conservation with an increase in the economic value of the land. In the mid-1990s, historic buildings' commercial and historical importance became more prominent, and conservation began to receive popularity among the general public. In 1994, the URA introduced the Good Effort Award, followed by the Architectural Heritage Award, hoping that this would stimulate more involvement by private owners while promoting higher quality and conservation standards.

Establishment of Infrastructure Due to land constraints and high development needs in Singapore, the first thing that should be considered before conserving historical values is establishing infrastructure in historic areas, such as road mitigation, greenery, back alleys, design and placement of substations, and fire safety requirements. The government's role in conservation is more clearly positioned to guide and

17

incentivise the private sector and lead the development of infrastructure in historic districts.

Invisible heritage and extensive public participation Many historic buildings and districts had been conserved by the early 20th century, and public expectations of heritage conservation had changed. Claims for identity, collective national memory and other invisible heritage values gradually became mainstream. The government began to work with a broader range of experts and stakeholders. The first was with various community groups, including One Kampong Gelam in Glam，the Little India Shopkeepers and Heritage Association (LISHA) in Little India. The second was a joint review of conservation guidelines with the Singapore Institute of Architects (SIA). The public consultation was also facilitated by establishing the Conservation Advisory Group, which included interest groups, academics, businesses, students and grassroots people. To some extent, NGOs have gained a more extraordinary voice and influence in heritage conservation matters.

In practice, however, calls from the general public for the conservation of invisible values have still not been able to resist the government's need for urban and economic development, as exemplified by the debate over the Bukit Brown Cemetery.

Summary

18

Land constraints and the high demand for development in Singapore have necessitated a mixed old and new conservation mindset in the conservation sector, and the private ownership of a large number of historic buildings has forced the government to take the initiative to promote private partnerships and investment in heritage conservation. On the surface, community participation seems to be given greater importance in heritage conservation in Singapore, but is it really 'peoplecentred'? The government has only allowed the community to participate in discussions. However, the community does not have substantial power, and the final decision is still in the hands of the government, which puts economic efficiency first.

4.2 The Conservation Development in Shanghai Phase 1

Time

Policies

1991

Management Measures for the Conservation of Excellent

Modern Buildings in Shanghai

1994

Notice on strengthening heritage protection in the process

of construction and land transfer rights in districts and

counties

1995

Shanghai Urban Planning Regulations, Technical Provisions

for the Protection of the Second Batch of Outstanding

Historical Buildings in Shanghai

19

1997

Interim Regulations on the Management of Quality

Inspection of Excellent Modern Houses in Shanghai

1998

Technical regulations for the conservation of the third batch

of outstanding historical buildings in Shanghai

1999

Opinions on the implementation of the city's pilot scheme

for the conservation and renovation of historic buildings

and neighbourhoods

Phase2

2001

Shanghai Cultural Relics Management Measures

2002

Shanghai Regulations on the Protection of Ancient and

Valuable Trees and the Subsequent Resources of Ancient

Trees

2003

Regulations on the Protection of Historic and Cultural

Landscape Areas and Outstanding Historic Buildings in

Shanghai, Opinions on Strengthening the Management of

Building Construction Planning in Historic and Cultural

Landscape Areas, Notice on the Guiding Standards for

Compensation and Resettlement of Publicly Owned

Outstanding Historic Buildings in the City for Contacting

Leasing Relationships

2004

Notice on Further Strengthening the Protection of the City's

Historic and Cultural Landscape Areas and Outstanding

Historic Buildings, Notice on the Establishment of the

20

Shanghai Historic and Cultural Landscape Areas and

Outstanding Historic Buildings Protection Committee,

Notice on Strengthening the Protection and Management of

Outstanding Historic Buildings and Authorized Business

Properties, Technical Regulations for the Restoration of

Outstanding Historic Buildings

2005

Technical regulations for the conservation of the fourth

batch of outstanding historical buildings in Shanghai

2006

Opinions on Strictly Controlling the Planning and

Management

of

Newly

Constructed

and

Expanded

Basements within the Core Protection Area of the City's

Historic and Cultural Landscape Areas, and Opinions on

Strengthening the Planning and Management of Changes in

the Nature of Use of Buildings

2007

Opinions on the planning and management of the city's

roads (streets and lanes) for landscape protection

Phase3

2011

Shanghai Urban and Rural Planning Regulations

2012

Shanghai Municipal Intangible Cultural Heritage Protection

Special Fund Management Measures

2014

Shanghai Cultural Relics Protection Regulations

2015

Shanghai Urban Renewal Implementation Measures,

Shanghai Urban Renewal Implementation Rules, Shanghai

21

Outstanding Historic Buildings Protection and Restoration

Regulations

2016

Regulations on the Protection of Intangible Cultural

Heritage in Shanghai, Opinions on the Implementation of

Promoting the Protection and Renewal and Utilization of

Famous Historical and Cultural Towns and Villages in the

City, Opinions on Deepening Organic Urban Renewal and

Promoting the Protection of Historical Landscape

Figure 2 Regulations enacted at three different stages after the State Council declared Shanghai a National Historical and Cultural City in 1986. Compiled by Cao Lin, translated by Wu Jia Yi.

Overview Architectural heritage conservation has a long history in China. As early as the 1920s, the government began to preserve a scattering of individual historic buildings. At the same time, the large-scale fabric of the city's landmark districts was destroyed during the war. As a coastal city, Shanghai has long been influenced by Western culture, and these influences have spilt over into the development of an understanding of architectural heritage and conservation concepts. Still, at the same time, Shanghai has become a prime example of understanding the evolution of heritage conservation in China and Asia. 1982 saw the introduction of the 'opendoor policy, which facilitated the rise of infrastructure development and rapid economic growth. In this context, the Shanghai government launched the 365 Plan

22

in the 1990s, and the city underwent massive demolition and redevelopment. In the early 21st century, the Shanghai government realised the importance of heritage conservation. It gradually shifted from independent preservation of historic buildings to a more comprehensive approach, including historic districts and industrial heritage.33 Conservation efforts in Shanghai began in 1986 when the city was declared a national historical and cultural city. In terms of policy, heritage conservation in Shanghai can be seperated into three phases: the start-up period, the exploration period and the improvement period.

Phase I The starting period was from 1986 to 1999.

In 1986, Shanghai was listed as a famous historical and cultural city. Subsequently, the Shanghai government gradually introduced regulations related to the protection of historical buildings, for example, the Administrative Measures for the Protection of Excellent Modern Buildings in Shanghai (1991), the Shanghai Urban Planning Regulations (1995) and the Interim Regulations for the Management of Quality Inspection of Excellent Modern Houses in Shanghai (1997). In addition, the government also successively introduced protection lists for heritage protection units and outstanding historical buildings in Shanghai. During this phase, the municipal government formed a series of point protection objects in the central city Katie Cummer, Asian Revitalization: Adaptive Reuse in Hong Kong, Shanghai, and Singapore (Hong Kong University Press, 2021).

33

23

of Shanghai on the one hand. It began to develop preliminary technical protocols for conservation and renovation on the other. However, due to the demands of economic growth, the Shanghai government implemented the 365 Plan in 19982000, and many old buildings in the central city were demolished. In addition, Shanghai's heritage conservation has seen the first signs of a shift towards creativity and commerce as the main functions. For example, in 1997, the Taiwanese architect Deng Kun-yan transformed a historic warehouse by the Suzhou River into a personal studio; in 1999, the Shanghai-born painter Chen Yi-Fei moved his studio into Tianzifang, thus starting the trend of artists moving into the area, which in turn promoted the conservation of Tianzifang.34

Phase II The exploration period was from 2000-to 2012.

After the last round of spot inventories of Shanghai's urban historic buildings, the government realised that preserving the city's landmark landscape required the protection of individual landmark buildings and patches of historic districts. At this stage, 'historic and cultural districts' emerged as a fundamental concept. The Shanghai Municipal Government has classified the buildings in the Historic Landscape Districts into six categories, including heritage buildings, outstanding historic buildings, preserved buildings and general historic buildings. In 2004, the mayor of Shanghai stated that 'building new is development, conserving the old is

34

Cummer.

24

also development'. "In 2008, the spontaneous conservation of Tianzifang pushed Shanghai to relax restrictions on the conversion of residential functions to nonresidential. However, in 2010, in preparation for Expo, Shanghai embarked on an urban space and neighbourhood improvement programme, and a large number of old buildings suffered demolition and redevelopment.35

Phase III The improvement period is from 2013 to the present.

A noteworthy change is that in 2017, in the Shanghai government's regulations on urban renewal, the treatment of historic buildings changed from 'demolition to retention' to 'retention to a demolition', reflecting a fundamental change in the government's attitude towards the conservation of historic buildings. Historic preservation is also an essential part of the Shanghai government's strategic goal of "becoming a global city of excellence", based on preservation, creating high-quality urban spaces and shaping urban vitality.

Summary Since the reform and opening up, Shanghai's urban development has evolved from a model of incremental development, with economic development and urban construction as the main objectives, to a model of stock regeneration, with smallscale regeneration and organic evolution as the main objectives. The conservation

35

Cummer.

25

of Shanghai's historic buildings has gradually evolved from a point to a comprehensive and systematic system. However, throughout the development process, the government has held absolute power of speech. A top-down approach to conservation has been dominant, with the voices of urban residents and community participation drowned out in the tide of national and urban modernisation and development.

5.Case Studies

Figure 3 The plan of Tiong Bahru, Singapore, 1997(Cartography by Lee Li Kheng)

5.1 Singapore-Tiong Bahru

26

Introduction Tiong Bahru contains two areas: three to five-storey flats, mainly in the Transitional and Art Deco styles, built by the Singapore Improvement Trust (SIT) between the 1930s and 1950s. The second area is the high-rise HDB flats. Tiong Bahru has not undergone much change in the last few decades in terms of physical form. The SIT flats still look as they did when they were newly built.36 After the Japanese invasion, modern European concepts influenced the subsequent construction and planning, and Tiong Bahru became standing evidence of the different periods of housing development in Singapore. By 2003, the area was officially granted protected status, and new businesses began to arrive. Some of the older residents moved out, and some of the younger ones came. Today, Tiong Bahru attracts many tourists and young people with its unique commercial and historical atmosphere. 37 For five years after the completion of the infrastructure works, SIT failed to sell the land to private property developers. After 1936, SIT planned to develop Tiong Bahru into a residential area to contain the residents from Chinatown slum to relieve the congestion in Ngau Chia Shui. However, the rents in Tiong Bahru, averaging US$18 to US$25 per month for a flat, were simply unaffordable for the general public. Many residents of Chinatown paid only US$3 to US$6 per month in rent. Therefore, many wealthy and professional classes flocked to this area. Most of them were civil

Lily Kong, Brenda Yeoh, and Peggy Teo, ‘Singapore and the Experience of Place in Old Age’, Geographical Review 86, no. 4 (October 1996): 529, https://doi.org/10.2307/215931.

37 Kien To, Alexandria Zhuo Wen Chong, and Keng Hua Chong, ‘Identity of a Conserved Housing Estate: The Case of Tiong Bahru, Singapore’, Traditional Dwellings and Settlements Review 26, no. 1 (2014): 17–17.

36

27

servants or businessmen, which laid the foundation for the community participation that would later take place in the area.38

The Starting Point of Community Participation Shortly after World War II, the idea of a community centre to organise community activities emerged among the community groups in Tiong Bahru. In 1948, a prominent member of the Tiong Bahru community named Liu Yaofu formally presented the proposal at a residents' meeting and set up a temporary working committee. He was also the Secretary of the Singapore Chinese Importers' and Exporters' Association. A month later, the committee prepared a blueprint for a "mixed community system of local self-government" and sought the approval of the tens of thousands of residents within the Tiong Bahru community. The plan for the establishment of the Tiong Bahru Community Centre included the establishment and operation of associated recreational spaces such as a community library, canteen, open-air cinema, football field, etc. However, this plan was not implemented until 1951, when it was reintroduced by a municipal commissioner.

1951 saw the opening of the Tiong Bahru Community Centre, with most of the funds being loaned to the centre by its chairman, businessman Teo Seng Bi.

Development of Community Participation

‘Tiong Bahru Heritage Trail’, accessed 25 April 2022, https://www.roots.gov.sg/places/placeslanding/trails/tiong-bahru-heritage-trail.

38

28

The establishment of the Tiong Bahru Community Centre concerned three forces, including residents, government officials and people in business. At the same time, the multiple identity attributes of the residents of the Tiong Bahru Community are a point that should not be overlooked.

Firstly, the residents' desire for a better community life prompted the idea of establishing a community centre. Before the war, the Tiong Bahru community was predominantly populated by native Chinese. In the late 1940s, many Aboriginal people moved to Canada East and other areas. More Cantonese, Hokkien and Hakka people came to Tiong Bahru, and the community gradually became predominantly Chinese. The establishment of the Tiong Bahru Community Centre included three purposes. Firstly, it is aimed to foster friendship among members of the community, regardless of race or creed. Secondly, it also wished to promote the physical, intellectual, social and moral development of its members. Finally, it meant to teach its members to pursue a certain occupation or interest".39 The second was the involvement and promotion of government officials. In 1951, Duncan Robertson, the Progressive Party's Municipal Commissioner for South Ward, convene a public meeting. In 1955, Tiong Bahru became one of Singapore's first general election constituencies. In 1956, the Community Centre was closed down after the Registrar of Societies deemed it an illegal establishment of a recruiting ground for political parties and a meeting place for gamblers. In 1960, the Tiong Bahru Community Centre management was transferred from the Ministry of Social

39

‘Tiong Bahru Heritage Trail’.

29

Welfare to the People's Association (PA), as was the case with other communities at the time. 40 MP and former Tiong Bahru resident Tay Kee Koon returned to the community in 1972 and promoted the construction of a landscaped garden on Seng Poh Road for residents to use for morning exercise and gatherings.41 Finally, the establishment of the community centre was, of course dependent on capital, and much of the funding for the building, which was inaugurated in 1951, was loaned to the centre by the president, businessman Teo Seng Bee.

Figure 4 Guests and residents at the opening of the TIONG BAHRU Community Centre at EU Chin Street, 7 August 1951, Source: Singapore Press Holdings (SPH)

Dwayne, ‘Our Heritage - Tiong Bahru Community Centre’, HONESTiWORKS Realtor, 19 May 2021, https://www.honestiworks.com/post/our-heritage-tiong-bahru-community-centre.

41 ‘Tiong Bahru Heritage Trail’.

40

30

Challenges to Community Participation

Figure 5 Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew attends the official opening of the new Tiong Bahru Community Centre at EU Chin Street, 19/02/1994, Source: Ministry of Information and the Arts (MITA)

Figure 6 Duncan ROBERTSON, Southern District Municipal Commissioner, opens TIONG BAHRU Community Centre at EUCHIN STREET.

The residents of the Tiong Bahru community are inherently influential and vocal as government officials, people in business and artists, among others. Conflict in the community participation process in Tiong Bahru was not evident; the main problem came from economic pressure. The initial construction of the community centre was 31

financed by a loan from Teo Seng Bee, a Tiong Bahru resident and community centre chairman and businessman. The new Tiong Bahru People's Auditorium was recorded as costing US$800,000, of which only US$200,000 was allocated by the government, and the remaining US$600,000 was raised through the collective efforts of the people of the Tiong Bahru constituency.42

Figure 7 Mr TEO SENG BEE (left), Chairman of Tong Bahru Community Centre, overseeing the preparations for the opening of the EU Chin Street Community Centre, 7 May 1951, Source: Singapore Press Holdings (SPH)

Current Status of Community Participation The development of a community centre in Tiong Bahru has shown that teamwork between MPs and civic-minded activists can improve conditions in a community.

The current Tiong Bahru Community Centre is managed by the People's Association, a Singapore government agency. It can offer residents a rich and diverse range of

‘Team Spirit Between Members of Parliament and Civic-Minded Activists Improved Conditons in Tiong Bahru’, in The Papers of Lee Kuan Yew: Speeches, Interviews and Dialogues, vol. 8, 1978-1980 (Singapore: Gale Asia, 2012), 370, http://link.gale.com/apps/doc/CX2106501112/GVRL?sid=summon&xid=b7f85b37.

42

32

classes, activities and venues. Its mission is to build and connect communities to realise One People One Singapore, hoping to " build a great home and a caring community that shares our values, pursues our passions, realises our hopes and cherishes our memories".43 However, the apparent problem is that the community centres are not as much involved in the spiritual and cultural life of the residents as they are in the physical aspects of upgrading the buildings and facilities in the community. There is a growing demand for infrastructures such as ramps, street lighting, and accessibility facilities with an ageing population.44 On the other hand, we can also community centres' participation in promoting physical space conservation. Businesses in Tiong Bahru have reported that the Housing Development Board (HDB) has reduced the number of cooking permits issued to strike a balance between commercial development and residents' quality of life. Through the establishment of socio-cultural life, the historical value of the Tiong Bahru community has become an indispensable resource for the site's commercial development, and there is an intense desire from businesses to preserve the building.45

Key figures in Community Participation

‘OnePA | About Us’, accessed 24 April 2022, https://www.onepa.gov.sg/about-us.

Kong, Yeoh, and Teo, ‘Singapore and the Experience of Place in Old Age’.

45 Tan, T. H. (2011, Jul 30). Tiong bahru redux. The Business Times Retrieved from 43 44

http://libproxy1.nus.edu.sg/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/newspapers/tiong-bahruredux/docview/880037471/se-2?accountid=13876 33

Ch'ng Jit Koon, born in 1934, a resident of Tiong Bahru, was elected as a Member of Parliament for Tiong Bahru from 1968 to 1991 and as Minister of Community Development from 1984 to 1991.

Liu Yaofu, a resident of Tiong Bahru, was the General Secretary of the Singapore Chinese Importers' and Exporters' Association, who spearheaded the formal idea of establishing a community centre and later chaired the Interim Working Committee.

Teo Seng Bee, a Tiong Bahru resident and businessman, was Chairman of the Tiong Bahru Community Centre and provided funding when the old Community Centre was established.46

5.2 Shanghai-Tianzifang

Figure 8 The plan of Tianzifang 46

‘Tiong Bahru Heritage Trail’.

34

Overview Tianzifang（田子坊） is located in Lane 210, Taikang Road, Shanghai, and was originally known as Zhichengfang （ 志 成 坊 ） , built in the 1930s. Nowadays, Tianzifang is widely publicised as a successful model of public participation-driven conservation project and urban renewal.

In the 1930s, the lane brought together 36 small workshop-style factories that coexisted with the residents. In 1988, Chen Yifei（陈逸飞） opened a studio here. In 1999, the painter Huang Yongyu（黄永玉） came to the area, taking the name of Tianzifang（田子方）, the earliest painter in China according to the Shi Ji (Historical Records) . In May 2000, with the support of the government, Tianzifang underwent a complete renovation, attracting 18 countries and regions and 102 Chinese and foreign creative enterprises, forming an industry with a focus on interior design, visual arts and arts and crafts. Since 2004, the Shikumen residents have been renovating their own houses and renting them out and have organised themselves into the "Tianzifang Shikumen Owners' Management Committee". This was accompanied by the transformation of the adjacent industrial area.In April 2008, the Tianzifang Management Committee of Shanghai Luwan District was formally established, and Tianzifang was transferred from "private" to "public" management, and has since come under government management.47

47

朱亮, ‘上海田子坊’, 装饰, no. 02 (2009): 68–75, https://doi.org/10.16272/j.cnki.cn11-1392/j.2009.02.044.

35

The Starting Point of Community Participation Tianzifang's beginnings started with the conversion of unused factory buildings in the area for cultural industries in 1998, the year in which the painter Chen Yifei moved in to open a studio and was instrumental in Tianzifang's subsequent struggle for preservation. 48 2004 saw the beginning of the development of Tianzifang's Shikumen Gate when Tianzifang resident Zhou Xinliang took the lead in converting his private home for rent. 49 The national and global economy at the time was characterised by two things. The first was that urban regeneration was both a national strategy and a district-level competition, with Shanghai's street-level becoming an active economic player; the second was that the Asian financial crisis had led to a property slump, and the district government was naturally happy to see that the streets wanted to do something about the cultural industry in the old buildings. The conservation of Tianzifang took place quietly in the context of such times. 50

Development of Community Participation The preservation of Tianzifang's heritage consists of three phases. The first phase was from 2000 to 2004, when the factory area at Lane 210 was transformed into a creative industrial park, and at the same time, artists' studios such as Chen Yifei and Er Dongqiang moved in. 2001 saw the signing of the Creative Industries Alliance and

于海, ‘旧城更新叙事的权力维度和理念维度——以上海“田子坊”为例’, 南京社会科学, no. 04 (2011): 23–29, https://doi.org/10.15937/j.cnki.issn1001-8263.2011.04.019.

49 朱, ‘上海田子坊’.

50 于, ‘旧城更新叙事的权力维度和理念维度——以上海“田子坊”为例’.

48

36

the appointment of Wu Meisen as chief planner. From 2004 onwards, the residents of Tianzifang Shikumen began to join the regeneration in large numbers and spontaneously set up the Tianzifang Owners' Management Committee. In 2005, the influx of cultural and creative people and businesses began. In 2008, after the "conversion of residents to non-residents" policy was implemented and the public infrastructure was completed, companies began to explode and spread to the surrounding areas.51 It is important to note that the construction and development of Tianzifang could not have happened without the influence of the Shanghai World Expo 2010. The preparations for the Expo required the construction of a good cityscape. In this context, the first phase of construction focused on welcoming the Expo and improving the structure of a creative industry cluster that combines traditional and modern lane factories. In the second phase, the restoration and conservation of the original buildings were put on the agenda. In the third phase, the task is to improve the living conditions of the residents, and the overall improvement of Tianzifang, led by the government, is scheduled for completion in 2015.52 The development of community participation in the conservation of Tianzifang's heritage can be told through three threads. The first is the spontaneous conversion for rent by the residents of Shikumen, driven by economic gain. The second is the choice of conservation rather than demolition and redevelopment by nongovernment capital parties caused by the concept of urban renewal based on 51 52

李挚, ‘田子坊:自下而上的可持续性旧城更新模式’, 福建建筑, no. 07 (2013): 86-88+82. 朱, ‘上海田子坊’.

37

cultural values. The last and most important is the struggle between the government officials at the grassroots level and the legitimate planning of the leadership and upper echelons.

For resident groups, financial gain was the primary factor that allowed them to choose to rent out their private homes. After converting the surrounding factories into creative parks, the area overgrew, and rents in Tianzifang were much higher than those in the surrounding areas. In Zhou Xinliang's private residence, for example, he rented out the ground floor of his house after renovation for a monthly rent of RMB 3,500. In contrast, he rented an additional compartment upstairs for only RMB 1,000, thus netting Zhou a monthly income of RMB 2,500, almost eight times his pension. In addition, the mentality of protecting one's property was one of the driving forces behind renting out private homes in Tianzifang. The Shanghai government had sold the land to Taiwan's Sun and Moon Real Estate, and the development was about to start. Zhou Xinliang believed that the only way to keep the houses they depended on from being demolished was to get more neighbours to become landlords like himself.53 For the planners or operators of the project, Tianzifang's cultural resources to achieve high returns with low investment is perhaps the main reason for them to choose conservation over development. Unlike property developers who have the financial strength, operators often cannot afford to invest substantial economic costs upfront in their projects. Therefore, conservation and renovation, which

53

于, ‘旧城更新叙事的权力维度和理念维度——以上海“田子坊”为例’.

38

require less capital investment, are more favoured by project planners. As the Tianzifang Creative Industries Park chief planner, Wu Meisen naturally chooses conservation over demolition and reconstruction from the perspective of business and investment models.

Being closer to the lives of urban residents, grassroots government officials have a deeper and more thorough understanding of the impact of large-scale urban regeneration activities on the general public. Guided by the idea of "serving the people", grassroots government officials are more inclined to promote conservation rather than demolition and redevelopment. Meanwhile, despite being at the grassroots level, government officials still have a certain amount of energy. By linking up with artists, professional scholars and other cultural elites, grassroots government officials can form a voice against the official forces and pressure them through public opinion.

Relationship between Bifferent Communities Wu Meisen, as the planner, believes that the commercial sector in the residential area of Tianzifang should not be limited to the cultural and creative industries. The planning of the Shikumen area of Tianzifang accompanied the construction of the Shanghai World Expo 2010. Wu positioned the area to serve foreigners coming to see Shanghai's history, so it was necessary to set up restaurants and other businesses to make it easier for visitors to stay.54 The quiet nature of the cultural

54

朱, ‘上海田子坊’.

39

and creative industries did not conflict with the life in the lane, but the noise of the restaurants seriously affected the daily life of the residents. At the same time, the illegality of the conversion of residential buildings into non-residential ones makes conservation disputes even more acute. For the grassroots government officials who sought to preserve it, it was necessary to balance the contradictions and demands between the planners, residents, experts, and scholars while achieving their ends of creating enormous public pressure against the higher-ups.

The Result of Community Participation In 2009, the Shanghai municipal government issued a document entitled "Procedures for the Temporary Conversion of Housing in the Tianzifang Area to Mixed-Use Housing", which put the dispute over the illegal conversion of Tianzifang residents into unlawful housing. It turned into a collective community venture, backed by a development team with official grassroots background, from illegitimate to legal. Tianzifang finally became a successful model of heritage conservation under the leadership of the Shanghai municipal government, with multiple innovations, and the community management organisation formed by the residents themselves was incorporated into the government's management system.55

Current Status of Community Participation

55

于, ‘旧城更新叙事的权力维度和理念维度——以上海“田子坊”为例’.

40

Although the conservation of Tianzifang was justified at the government level, the subsequent development of the neighbourhood has been criticised for being 'weak' due to chronic overload and over-commercialisation. Conflicts within the heritage area persist, mainly in two ways. Firstly, the conflict between the old and the new, i.e. between visitors, operators and the indigenous people. Secondly, the contradiction between the new way of life and the senior living environment.

Furthermore, after the government officially took over the conservation of Tianzifang, the community's participation gradually diminished to the extent that it almost lost its voice.

Key figures in Community Participation： Z was the director of the street office in 1996 and later became the secretary of the street's Party Working Committee. After 2002, Tianzifang was in danger of being demolished and relocated, but Z fought hard for the government to cancel the plan in order to preserve Tianzifang. The original project was eventually cancelled in 2008.

Wu Meisen(吴梅森) 56.After working in the cultural department of the government, Wu left the government and became a businessman, and was introduced to Z by a friend who collaborated with him to renovate Tianzifang. Ltd. (Formerly known as Tianzifang Owners' Committee) and was the legal representative and chief planner.

56

于.

41

X( 周 心 良 ) 57 , a native of Tianzifang, he returned to Shanghai in 1994 after responding to the national call to support the border in the 1960s. In 2005, he became the head of the Tianzifang Property Management Committee and became a voluntary intermediary for residents and businessmen. After the establishment of the official management committee in 2008, X worked for W's Tianzifang Investment and Consulting Company, continuing to act as a real estate agent and coordinator of conflicts in the Tianzifang neighborhood.

6. Discussion In community participation of heritage conservation, Tianzifang and Tiong Bahru have their distinguish characteristics. On the one hand, they have certain similarities in the drivers of community participation and the formation and development of community organisations. On the other hand, there are also differences in the barriers to community participation, the focus of community participation, and the community groups' identity attributes.

Firstly, in terms of the community participation opportunities of both, the drivers for different stakeholders to enter community participation are related to their own tangible interests, with the historical value of heritage itself being placed at the bottom of the influence list. While the renting out of the Shikumen in Tianzifang stems from the considerable difference between the area and the surrounding

57

朱, ‘上海田子坊’.

42

property prices, making it profitable for residents, the aspiration for the establishment of the community centre in Tiong Bahru is based first and foremost on the residents' quest for a higher quality of community life and the building of spiritual civilisation. In a social survey of Tiong Bahru, some respondents said that the value of Tiong Bahru came from its conservation by the government, that the value of the conservation to the community was that it made land prices go up and that if the defence did not serve the community, then it should be discarded.58 These views may indicate the actual perception of the value of heritage by local people, for whom history does not seem to have much meaning, and heritage is only valuable as an integral part of their daily lives. What is the core tangible benefits that are more palpable to specific residents? For example, an increase in property prices, greater accessibility to amenities, an improved living environment, etc.

Furthermore, the community organisations in both Tianzifang and Tiong Bahru have gone from illegal to legal, from private to being included in the government management system. This leads to whether political legitimacy is a victory for community participation. "Named by Huang Yongyu, Tianzifang was still referred to as "Taikang Road" in official documents until 2008, showing the government's denial of the name "Tianzifang". The government's denial of the name "Tianzifang" is evident. China's governing bodies are institutionalised, with state naming representing prestige, capital and power. Huang Yongyu's naming of Tianzifang represents the rights of cultural capital and is backed by society's approval at

58

To, Chong, and Chong, ‘Identity of a Conserved Housing Estate’.

43

large.59 Although the establishment of the Tiong Bahru Community Centre began with the residents, the entire development process could not be separated from the political and capital forces. In the Chinese and Singaporean contexts, political legitimacy represents more favourable resources and policies. Gaining recognition as an organisation is a trade-off for a degree of freedom of decision making in exchange for institutional patronage. Yet, on the other hand, there is no 'true freedom' within the political framework of the state, and subsuming the political framework is perhaps the most logical endpoint for all grassroots movements.

However, community participation in Tianzifang and Tiong Bahru is also different, firstly regarding the obstacles in both developments. Tianzifang's bottom-up conservation cannot be described as challenging, and its impediments come mainly from the questioning of the heritage conservation and urban renewal model within the government. Under the central government's guidelines for building a harmonious society, grassroots officials are more acutely aware of large-scale demolition and construction's social conflicts and unsustainability. In contrast, the district government's plans for demolition and redevelopment are based on the political goal of promoting modern urban development and economical construction. This disagreement was caused by the differences in the working environment and the lack of communication between the upper and lower levels of government. The Tiong Bahru Community Centre, on the other hand, fitted in with

59

于, ‘旧城更新叙事的权力维度和理念维度——以上海“田子坊”为例’.

44

the context and political needs of the time, so its establishment was to some extent in line with the national trend. After World War II, the British introduced the concept of 'community centres' to colonial countries, including Singapore, to promote community development and curb anti-colonial sentiment. The earliest community centre established by the colonial government was opened in 1953, while the Tiong Bahru Community Centre is the earliest informal community centre dating back to 1948.60

In addition, the different focus on community participation in the two cases has led to another status of community participation. The type and class of the residents' groups make the most fundamental needs for community participation in both cases inconsistent. The participation of residents in Tianzifang was initially driven by economic interests, while the participation of other communities in later years was also related to the economy and the market. As a result, the community in Tianzifang is more concerned with the availability of physical space and the legitimacy of policies than the promotion of invisible community values. In contrast, community participation in Tiong Bahru is driven more by spiritual pursuits and particular political aims. The community centre focuses primarily on the organisation of community cultural activities and the construction of a sense of identity. The result is that the current state of conservation in Tianzifang is not promising, with a growing conflict between the old and the new and a deteriorating state of inaction Remember Singapore, ‘60 Years of Community Centres’, Remember Singapore (blog), 24 March 2013, https://remembersingapore.org/2013/03/24/history-of-community-centres/.

60

45

by the government. However, the good spirit of Tiong Bahru has contributed to the community's recognition of the value of the heritage, which has led to a greater sense of conservation and harmonious co-existence among the different communities.

Finally, the community groups' energy can also influence the form and development of community participation. The bottom-up model of heritage conservation is driven by the market and the residents, and the composition of stakeholders is more complex and requires coordination among many parties. The residents of Tianzifang do not have a strong voice at the bottom of society, and the leading players in gathering social energy against the development plans of the upper echelons are grassroots government officials. He cleverly used the influence of cultural and academic elites outside Tianzifang, such as artists and conservation experts. In the Chinese context, the energy of cultural figures cannot be underestimated, and they are more likely to be recognised by the community than the government. In Tiong Bahru's community participation, the multiple identity attributes of the residents mean that different communities overlap, and it becomes easier to balance and reconcile other demands for the same person in the midst of multiple interest groups.

7.Conclusion 46

Through the previous study and analysis of community participation in Tianzifang and Tiong Bahru and considering the different social contexts and stages of development in Shanghai and Singapore, I hope to draw out practical and operational lessons for promoting community participation in heritage conservation.

Firstly, community participation is driven by the interests of a particular community.

Conservationists' appreciation of the historical value of heritage can undoubtedly be one of the driving forces. Still, since conservationists are often not direct stakeholders, they have limited power to make community participation happen.

Residents, however, have the most direct relationship with heritage, and their aspirations are more directly reflected in the promotion of heritage conservation.

Secondly, community participation in heritage conservation needs to be understood in the context of a larger picture. In both Tianzifang and Tiong Bahru, community participation is inseparable from the political and market context in which they are located. The Chinese central government's focus on the 'good life of the people' provided national support for the legitimacy of the lower classes in Tianzifang's community participation to confront and win against the legitimacy of the upper classes. The colonial government's hope for communal harmony also catalyzed the establishment of the Tiong Bahru Community Centre. Political and market forces cannot be ignored. To promote community participation, one must understand the context of the times and the social environment and learn to go with the flow.

47

In addition, community participation is an ongoing process, and financial gain is not a long-term driver. Dialectically, the community participation in Tianzifang and Tiong Bahru cannot be called a complete success or failure. A thriving community participation needs to stand the test of time and withstand volatile politics and unstable funding sources. Successful community participation includes three key elements: culture, empathy, and community empowerment. Culture can be materialised in the daily lives and interactions of community residents; compassion means seeing and feeling heritage from the perspective of community residents, and finally, empowering the stories provided by the community.61

Finally, heritage conservation projects are not an end in themselves; good community participation is about bringing heritage to life through the use and maintenance of buildings in the process of participation. The critical value of heritage is the 'ongoing value of living', the empowerment of a living community. In the case of Shanghai, the success of Tianzifang may only be an isolated example, and the education of policymakers may be the most effective way to promote the development of community participation in heritage conservation. In the case of Singapore, political aspirations have given importance to community building, providing a good ground for community participation as a critical focus of heritage

Joshi, N, and Widodo, J (eds.) (2019) Managing change: urban heritage and community development in historic Asian cities. Singapore: Department of Architecture, NUS.

61

48

conservation, and how to connect heritage conservation and community participation more effectively is a crucial issue to be considered next.

49

List of figures FIGURE 1 SINGAPORE’S CONSERVATION TIMELINE

14

FIGURE 2 REGULATIONS ENACTED AT THREE DIFFERENT STAGES AFTER THE STATE COUNCIL DECLARED SHANGHAI A NATIONAL HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL CITY IN 1986. COMPILED BY CAO LIN, TRANSLATED BY WU JIA YI FIGURE 3THE PLAN OF TIONG BAHRU, SINGAPORE, 1997(CARTOGRAPHY BY LEE LI KHENG)

22 26

FIGURE 4 GUESTS AND RESIDENTS AT THE OPENING OF THE TIONG BAHRU COMMUNITY CENTRE AT EU CHIN STREET, 7 AUGUST 1951, SOURCE: SINGAPORE PRESS HOLDINGS (SPH)

30

FIGURE 5 SENIOR MINISTER LEE KUAN YEW ATTENDS THE OFFICIAL OPENING OF THE NEW TIONG BAHRU COMMUNITY CENTRE AT EU CHIN STREET, 19/02/1994, SOURCE: MINISTRY OF INFORMATION AND THE ARTS (MITA)

31

FIGURE 6 DUNCAN ROBERTSON, SOUTHERN DISTRICT MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER, OPENS TIONG BAHRU COMMUNITY CENTRE AT EUCHIN STREET.

31

FIGURE 7 MR TEO SENG BEE (LEFT), CHAIRMAN OF TONG BAHRU COMMUNITY CENTRE, OVERSEEING THE PREPARATIONS FOR THE OPENING OF THE EU CHIN STREET COMMUNITY CENTRE, 7 MAY 1951, SOURCE: SINGAPORE PRESS HOLDINGS (SPH) FIGURE 8 THE PLAN OF TIANZIFANG

32 34

Bibliography ‘Zhang, J., Wu, F. & Ma, R., 2008. Institutional Transition and Reconstruction of China's Urban Space: Establishing a Institutional Analysis Structure for Spatial Evolution. Urban Planning, 06, pp. 55-60.

‘CSUS, 2018. China Urban Renewal and Development Report 2017-2018. first edition ed. Beijing: China Construction Industry Press.

1Kondur, Raju. (2012). “Rediscovering Place: enhancing the built heritage of Singapore.”

‘Belinda Yuen, ‘Strengthening Urban Heritage in Singapore: Building Economic Competitiveness and Civic Identity’ 1, no. 1 (2005): 8.

‘Lessons for China from the “community Engagement” Approach to World Heritage Conservation’, accessed 18 February 2022, https://www.sohu.com/a/www.sohu.com/a/290489478_688008.

United Nations (nd.) 'Sustainable development goals'. https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainabledevelopment-goals/ Mee Kam Ng, ‘Urban Renewal, Sense of Community and Social Capital: A Case Study of Two Neighbourhoods in Hong Kong’, in Urban Renewal, Community and Participation, ed. Julie Clark and Nicholas Wise, The Urban Book Series (Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2018), 1–23, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-72311-2_1.

Gill Chitty, ed., Heritage, Conservation and Communities: Engagement, Participation and Capacity Building, Heritage, Culture and Identity (London ; New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, 2017).

50

Gill Chitty, ed., ‘An Insight into Historic England’s Approach to Community-Led Conservation’, in Heritage, Conservation and Communities, 0 ed. (Routledge, 2016), 112–23, https://doi.org/10.4324/978131558666317.

Gill Chitty, ed., ‘People-Centred Approaches: Engaging Communities and Developing Capacities for Managing Heritage’, in Heritage, Conservation and Communities, 0 ed. (Routledge, 2016), 54–69, https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315586663-13.

Renata F Peters, ‘Heritage Conservation and Social Engagement’, UCL Press, 2020.12.

Xiaolin Zang and Bouke van Gorp, ‘Assessing the Potential of Resident Participation in Local Heritage Conservation, the Case of Qingdao, China’, in Urban Renewal, Community and Participation, ed. Julie Clark and Nicholas Wise, The Urban Book Series (Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2018), 141–59, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-72311-2_8.

Hélia Marçal and Rita Macedo, ‘From the Periphery to the Centre: Community Engagement and Justice in Conservation Decision Making’, 2017, 7.

Fikret Berkes, ‘Rethinking Community-Based Conservation’, Conservation Biology 18, no. 3 (June 2004): 621– 30, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2004.00077.x.

Pablo Sendra, ‘Community-Led Social Housing Regeneration: From Government-Led Programmes to Community Initiatives’, in Urban Renewal, Community and Participation, ed. Julie Clark and Nicholas Wise, The Urban Book Series (Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2018), 71–87, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3319-72311-2_4. 徐桐, ‘世界遗产保护中“社区参与”思潮给中国的启示’, 住区, no. 03 (2016): 26–30. 霍晓卫, ‘从社区角度认识文化遗产的保护’, 住区, no. 03 (2016): 22–25.

Li Fan, ‘International Influence and Local Response: Understanding Community Involvement in Urban Heritage Conservation in China’, International Journal of Heritage Studies 20, no. 6 (18 August 2014): 651–62, https://doi.org/10.1080/13527258.2013.834837. 钟晓华 and 寇怀云, ‘社区参与对历史街区保护的影响——以都江堰市西街历史文化街区灾后重建为例’, 城市 规划 39, no. 07 (2015): 87–94.

Xiaohua Zhong and Ho Hon Leung, ‘Exploring Participatory Microregeneration as Sustainable Renewal of Built Heritage Community: Two Case Studies in Shanghai’, Sustainability 11, no. 6 (2019), http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su11061617.

Ji Li et al., ‘Imagine the Old Town of Lijiang: Contextualising Community Participation for Urban Heritage Management in China’, Habitat International 108 (1 February 2021): 102321, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2021.102321.

K. Melic and Singapore Centre for Liveable Cities, Past, Present, and Future: Conserving the Nation’s Built Heritage (Centre for Liveable Cities Singapore, 2019), https://books.google.com.sg/books?id=1q8gygEACAAJ. Cho Im Sik and Blaž Križnik, ‘Introduction’, in Community-Based Urban Development, by Im Sik Cho and Blaž Križnik, Advances in 21st Century Human Settlements (Singapore: Springer Singapore, 2017), 1–7, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-1987-6_1.

Yuen, B (2005) 'Strengthening urban heritage in Singapore: building economic competitiveness and civic identity,' in Global Urban Development, 1:1, pp. 1-8.

Joshi, N, and Widodo, J (eds.) (2019) Managing change: urban heritage and community development in historic Asian cities. Singapore: Department of Architecture, NUS.

51

Sakkarin Sapu, Community Participation in Heritage Conservation, The Getty Conservation Institute Melic and Centre for Liveable Cities, Past, Present, and Future: Conserving the Nation’s Built Heritage.

Charles Burton Buckley, An Anecdotal History of Old Times in Singapore(with protraits and illustrations),1902, Fraser & Neave. Ltd Katie Cummer, Asian Revitalization: Adaptive Reuse in Hong Kong, Shanghai, and Singapore (Hong Kong University Press, 2021).

Lily Kong, Brenda Yeoh, and Peggy Teo, ‘Singapore and the Experience of Place in Old Age’, Geographical Review 86, no. 4 (October 1996): 529, https://doi.org/10.2307/215931.

Kien To, Alexandria Zhuo Wen Chong, and Keng Hua Chong, ‘Identity of a Conserved Housing Estate: The Case of Tiong Bahru, Singapore’, Traditional Dwellings and Settlements Review 26, no. 1 (2014): 17–17.

‘Tiong Bahru Heritage Trail’, accessed 25 April 2022, https://www.roots.gov.sg/places/placeslanding/trails/tiong-bahru-heritage-trail.

Tan, T. H. (2011, Jul 30). Tiong bahru redux. The Business Times Retrieved from http://libproxy1.nus.edu.sg/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/newspapers/tiong-bahruredux/docview/880037471/se-2?accountid=13876 朱亮, ‘上海田子坊’, 装饰, no. 02 (2009): 68–75, https://doi.org/10.16272/j.cnki.cn11-1392/j.2009.02.044. 于海, ‘旧城更新叙事的权力维度和理念维度——以上海“田子坊”为例’, 南京社会科学, no. 04 (2011): 23–29, https://doi.org/10.15937/j.cnki.issn1001-8263.2011.04.019. 李挚, ‘田子坊:自下而上的可持续性旧城更新模式’, 福建建筑, no. 07 (2013): 86-88+82.

Remember Singapore, ‘60 Years of Community Centres’, Remember Singapore (blog), 24 March 2013, https://remembersingapore.org/2013/03/24/history-of-community-centres/.

52