AC 5007 - Batch 5 - TAN PENG TING by NUS Department of Architecture

MAINTENANCE COST OF CONSERVED PUBLIC BUILDINGS IN SINGAPORE: PERCEPTIONS & CONSERVATION PRACTICES OF FACILITIES MANAGERS AND OWNERS

TAN PENG TING (M.Soc.Sci, B.Soc.Sci (Hons.), NUS)

A Dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF ARTS IN ARCHITECTURAL CONSERVATION DEPARTMENT OF ARCHITECTURE NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF SINGAPORE 2023

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT This research would not have been possible without the amazing support of the respondents and interviewees who shared their experiences with me, my colleagues at the Urban Redevelopment Authority Conservation Department, my MAArC classmates, my friends and all the amazing network in our conservation ecosystem. I am grateful for the guidance of my supervisor Professor Ho Puay Peng and the faculty of the Architectural Conservation programme at the Department of Architecture in NUS for their feedback and insights. This study is dedicated to my husband, a facility manager that inspires me, and my son, who is the future for whom we toil to conserve our heritage so you may know it. You have my deepest thanks.

TABLE OF CONTENT ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ................................................................................................. I TABLE OF CONTENT ................................................................................................... II ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................... III LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................................................................... V LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................... V CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................... 1 1.1.

RESEARCH AIMS ................................................................................................ 2

1.2.

SCOPE OF STUDY ............................................................................................... 4

1.3.

LITERATURE REVIEW ....................................................................................... 8

1.4.

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK ........................................................................ 10

1.5.

METHODOLOGY............................................................................................... 12

1.6.

LIMITATIONS ..................................................................................................... 15

CHAPTER 2 RESEARCH FINDINGS ...................................................................... 18 2.1.

GENERAL OUTLOOK ....................................................................................... 18

2.2.

CASE STUDY A.................................................................................................. 22

2.3.

CASE STUDY B.................................................................................................. 25

2.4.

CASE STUDY C.................................................................................................. 27

CHAPTER 3 ANALYSIS ............................................................................................. 31 3.1.

ROLE OF PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE ..................................................... 31

3.2.

MAINTENANCE COST VERSUS CONSERVATION OUTCOME ................. 33

3.3.

LACK OF CONSERVATION COMPETENCY .................................................. 35

3.4.

BUILDING A CONSERVATION ECOSYSTEM ............................................... 37

CHAPTER 4 RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................................... 39 4.1.

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 39

4.2.

EDUCATION AND OUTREACH....................................................................... 40

4.3.

CONSERVATION POLICY ................................................................................ 41

4.4.

CONCLUSION .................................................................................................... 43

BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................................................................................................... 45 APPENDICES ................................................................................................................ 48

ABSTRACT The 2013 Australia ICOMOS Burra Charter stated that maintenance is fundamental to conservation in order to upkeep and retain the physical fabric that contributes to the cultural significance of a place. Maintenance is distinguished from repair and restoration but the two are closely intertwined as the lack of maintenance and maintenance budget would result in heftier corrective repair costs later. Unfortunately, this important aspect of cost budgeting for maintenance of conserved building is often neglected (Smith, 2005). At the same time, there is a growing public discourse that the maintenance and upkeep of conserved buildings is more expensive than regular buildings, particularly for public buildings with little economic returns (Xu, 2023; Redbrick Mortgage, 2021). Yet, it is often advocated that historic buildings of significance are best put to public, institutional uses for the enjoyment of the populace. However, some of these public uses may not be economically self-sufficient and require heavy public funding. As a result, it may become more challenging for conserved buildings to be adaptively reused for such government-subsidised public uses. This study examines 3 case studies of conserved state-owned buildings in Singapore to learn the perspectives of its facility managers on the cost of maintenance and conservation in relation to their practices and building condition. Through this, it looks at the factors that hinders and motivates building maintenance and offers recommendations for building a maintenance culture and conservation ecosystem with the larger aim of achieving a more sustainable society that opts for maintenance over demolition to reduce the country’s carbon footprint. Word Count: 11,426

iii

KEY WORDS: Maintenance, Architectural Conservation, Public Buildings, Building Management, Conservation Management Practices, Singapore, Heritage Perception, Carbon Footprint, Sustainability

LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1: COST RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PLANNED AND UNPLANNED MAINTENANCE ....... 2 FIGURE 2: THE EFFECT ON BUILDING VALUE OF DELAYED MAINTENANCE .......................... 3 FIGURE 3 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MAINTENANCE COST AND REPAIR DELAY ..................... 6 FIGURE 4 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK .............................................................................. 11 FIGURE 5 WATER SEEPAGE FROM WINDOWS AT CASE STUDY B ........................................ 26 FIGURE 6 INAPPROPRIATE REPAIR ON SHANGHAI PLASTER FINISH AT CASE STUDY C ....... 29 FIGURE 7 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN REGARD FOR HERITAGE, MAINTENANCE PRACTICES AND PROXIMITY OF BUILDING AMENITY TO DECISION MAKERS ......................................... 31

FIGURE 8 ENHANCED FRAMEWORK FOR A CONSERVATION ECOSYSTEM ............................ 39

LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1 MAINTENANCE ISSUES AND FACTORS AFFECTING MAINTENANCE IN HISTORIC BUILDINGS .................................................................................................................. 9

TABLE 2 PROFILE OF SELECTED CASE STUDIES ............................................................... 12 TABLE 3 MAINTENANCE STRATEGY AND BUILDING CONDITION ...................................... 18 TABLE 4 PERCEPTION OF HERITAGE VALUE AND FACILITY MANAGER CONSERVATION COMPETENCY ........................................................................................................... 19 TABLE 5 FUNDING AND PERCEPTION OF MAINTENANCE COST ......................................... 20

This page is intentionally left blank.

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION The importance of maintenance or the act of protecting buildings by staving off decay through “daily care” (SPAB, 1877) has been expounded as early as the 1800s through writings of John Ruskin, William Morris and the 1877 manifesto of the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings (SPAB) whose principles are now viewed as yardsticks in conservation practice (Slocombe, 2017). SPAB’s views on the importance of maintenance in upkeep and retention of the significant physical fabric of heritage buildings was reiterated in the 2013 Australia ICOMOS Burra Charter, one of the key internationally recognised document for conservation standards and practices. While SPAB advocates maintenance as means of protecting the longevity and authenticity of historic building fabric, maintenance is also critical for the pragmatic reason of achieving long term cost savings. Much of the cost associated with taking care of heritage buildings is a result of poor maintenance as reactive maintenance arising from poor maintenance is not as cost effective compared to expenditure for proactive maintenance had there been a better maintenance preventive regime in place (see Figure 1) (Forster and Kayan, 2009). Dann and Cantell (2005:43) pointed out that there is often a misunderstanding that building have a fixed lifespan and that decay of building fabric is inevitable, hence expensive to maintain as they are more prone to issues. However, unless there is “intrinsic defects of design or materials, the lifespan of a historic building may be indefinite”, as long as there is timely routine maintenance. Major expenditures are often the result of neglect that could be prevented or reduced in scale had there been regular inspections.

Figure 1: Cost relationship between planned and unplanned maintenance (Forster and Kayan, 2009)

Despite the literature and guiding principles in both the fields of conservation and facilities management that advocate preventive maintenance, there is still a wide gap between best practice and the reality on ground (Dann and Cantell, 2005; Forster and Kayan, 2009; Adegoriola et. al., 2023). As a result, the continuous neglect leads to snowballing of maintenance cost that reinforces the misconception that older buildings are more costly to upkeep. This is exacerbated by the “use-and-discard” mentality where the continued neglect would reach a point where the demolition and replacement of a building would cost less than its refurbishment (Wordsworth, 2000). In this age of climate change, the conservation of buildings through good maintenance management is ever more vital in achieving a sustainable society (Sodangi et al, 2014; Adegoriola et al, 2022; 2023).

1.1.

RESEARCH AIMS Much has been written about the challenges of heritage buildings that deter

owners and facility managers from the best practices in maintenance management, both internationally (Dann and Cantell, 2005) as well as regionally (Sodangi, et al., 2014; Cheong, 2015; Lenggogeni, 2021). However, not much has been written on the 2

maintenance management of heritage buildings in Singapore. Yet, the high cost of maintaining state-owned conserved bungalows stirred negative public sentiments as its heritage value was not deemed to be worth its low economic value and high maintenance cost due to its “poor condition” (Xu, 2023). This raises the question if the buildings had good routine maintenance, would it then not been in “poor condition” and as a result, the maintenance cost be deemed to match the heritage and economic value of the building? Conventionally, the value of a building is determined by the demand for services it offers and without demand, it has no value. Hence, delaying maintenance affect the building’s ability to provide services and in turn reduces the value of the building as shown in Figure 2. Likewise, the more values one obtains from the building, the more money they would spend on maintenance.

Figure 2: The effect on building value of delayed maintenance (Wordsworth, 2000)

This same relationship too could be seen in the case of the conserved bungalows in Singapore. As the building condition worsens, the maintenance cost grows and in turn the perceived value decreases. However, this diminishing in value appears not just in its economic value but also in its heritage value. Naturally it can also be understood that the greater the perceived heritage (and economic) value of these buildings, the more money the owner would have spent on maintaining these buildings. 3

This study aims to understand the perspectives and experience of owners and facility managers of conserved heritage buildings in Singapore towards the maintenance of these buildings. In particular, the study aims to understand the relationship between the perceived value of the building and the effort put into maintenance of the building, and any other factors that might have hindered the effective maintenance of the heritage buildings. In turn, the study hopes to distil factors that may hinder or motivates building owners and managers to maintain their existing buildings for the greater aim of achieving a more sustainable society that opts for maintenance over demolition to reduce the country’s carbon footprint.

1.2.

SCOPE OF STUDY Due to the relationship between value and maintenance cost, it has been

highlighted that public sector building managers find it even more difficult to make a case for adequate maintenance budget due to the hidden potential income and capital values (Miles and Syagga, 1987). Maintenance management of public sector buildings are complex with major pressures on funding for maintenance and competition for resources. While poor maintenance affects value and service delivery, good maintenance is seldom recognised for contributing to improved quality and value (Chanter and Swallow, 2007). As the economic returns of private sector buildings may very much motivate maintenance, this study will focus only on public sector buildings, particularly where there is little income derived from the buildings and less likely to influence the maintenance management of the buildings, and distil the non-profit factors that influence maintenance in Singapore. Public buildings in this case would refer to state-owned buildings but they may not necessarily be publicly accessible as they could be used as offices for government agencies for example.

The study will focus on legally gazetted state-owned buildings that are protected by law from demolition or redevelopment. This aims to understand building managers’ attitude when the prevalent option in the construction industry to demolish and redevelop the entire building is not available once building services and values are affected and maintenance cost increases. Extrapolating from that, what are the factors that may influence building managers to choose maintenance and conservation over redevelopment of unprotected buildings. As such, the case studies chosen in this study involve managers that manages unprotected building in the same site as protected ones, to understand if there are any differentiation in attitude and experiences managing conventional unprotected, undesignated buildings. Definitions of conservation and maintenance According to the 2013 Australia ICOMOS Burra Charter, conservation includes “all the processes of looking after a place so as to retain its cultural significance” while preservation refers to “maintaining the fabric of a place in its existing state and retarding deterioration”. In Singapore, the 1998 Planning Act defines “conservation” as the “preservation, enhancement or restoration of the character or appearance of, and the interior and exterior of any building in, a conservation area”. At the same time, there is also a 2009 Preservation of Monuments Act that similarly has legal means to designate buildings for preservation. For the purpose of this study, “conserved buildings” will refer broadly to any heritage buildings that have been legally designated for the preservation of its physical fabric so as to conserve its cultural significance. In the same thread, conservation practices in this study refer to all the processes involved in looking after a place, including maintenance which Burra Charter defined as the “continuous protective care of the fabric and setting of a place” that is to be differentiated from repair as repair involves restoration or reconstruction (ICOMOS 5

Australia, 2013). In the accounting of maintenance cost, one should indeed differentiate repair and maintenance. However, this study posits that the full spectrum of conservation practices including the repair and restoration of a building will have an impact of downstream maintenance and subsequent maintenance cost. Maintenance Cost Forster and Kayan (2009) opined that high cost of repair and building maintenance is a universal problem faced by heritage buildings. The lack of maintenance also leads to even higher cost of repairs (see Figure 3). There are 3 types of building maintenance, namely “preventive maintenance” which is a strategy to prevent the building deterioration from occurring, “predictive maintenance” which is a cyclical, repair-oriented strategy, and “reactive maintenance” which are unplanned, urgent repairs and replacements due to failure of preventive maintenance and unforeseen problems (Plebankiewicz et. al., 2022). In this study, maintenance cost will refer only to the expenditure for planned preventive maintenance such as regular inspections and façade cleaning as these are important to detect defects early before it becomes urgent and costly (see Figure 3). It is also optimal in terms of expenditure compared to predictive cyclical replacements and reactive maintenance which are both high in costs (Plebankiewicz et. al., 2022).

Figure 3 Relationship between maintenance cost and repair delay

Singapore’s context 6

The role of each country’s government and its conservation policy, incentives and regulatory guidelines play a big role in influencing the maintenance management outcome of its heritage buildings (Forster and Kayan, 2009). In Singapore, the Conservation Authority, Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA), which was designated in 1989, publishes guidelines for conserved buildings guided by a “3R principle” which advocates “maximum Retention, sensitive Restoration and careful Repair”. Within this set of guidelines, there is no mention of “maintenance” (URA, 2023). The document clearly sets out to guide and manage change to conserved buildings and emphasizes principally on restoration. This is opposite from the conservation principles advocated by Burra Charter and SPAB which sees restoration as a threat to historic fabric and places maintenance as the key tool in the conservation of historic fabric. In 2017, URA released a set of Conservation Technical Handbooks with ICOMOS Singapore to “promote better quality restoration” (URA, 2017). However, within the series, a section of the first volume is dedicated to planning maintenance and how to care for the building (URA, 2017a). Nevertheless, it was positioned as “best practice” and is not required by the authority. In the same year, the National Heritage Board’s Preservation of Sites and Monuments division which oversees the national monuments in Singapore, published a technical guidelines for national monuments. In it, a section on “maintaining a national monument” stated that under the Preservation of Monuments Act Section 13 on “Duty to maintain National Monument, an owner or occupier has a legal obligation to undertake proper maintenance of all the historic features of the monument” (NHB, 2022). However, it is no more than 2 paragraphs that describes maintenance as “nothing more than what a

house owner will do to maintain a property”. It encourages owners and occupiers to adopt good housekeeping practices and periodic maintenance plans but does not elaborate what these are. The relative lack of emphasis on maintenance in the Singapore regulatory guidelines is likely to trickle down to the conservation practices on ground. As such, this study will focus on examining the relationship between the attitude of different actors, the maintenance and conservation practices and outcome and the prevailing conservation framework and industry in Singapore.

1.3.

LITERATURE REVIEW In general, there are limited literature on the maintenance management of heritage

buildings compared to literature on building maintenance in general or literature on the conservation and significance of heritage buildings (Kashkool and Ali, 2021; Adegoriola et. al., 2023). While there has been academic exercises done in Singapore that assesses the maintenance performance, cost and efficiency of public buildings (Tan, 1996; Lee, 2007; Chan, 2008; Teo, 2013), none have been on heritage buildings. On the other hand, studies that touched on maintenance of heritage buildings are mostly focused on technical aspects, such as the specific material defects encountered in heritage buildings and the techniques to assess or repair them (Xie, 2010; Toh, 2010; Tay. 2012; Lee, 2014). However, none addressed the maintenance management situation of heritage buildings in Singapore and the challenges to putting in place a sound maintenance management plan. Internationally, studies have been done to comprehensively review the factors that influences maintenance of historic buildings in various countries from United Kingdom, Australia to Iraq and Malaysia. A summary of the key issues relating to maintenance of historic buildings highlighted in the literature are presented in Table 1 below. 8

Table 1 Maintenance issues and factors affecting maintenance in historic buildings

•

• •

• • • •

• •

•

Problems with maintenance Factors affecting maintenance Maintenance Policy Legislation does not promote • Responsibilities of listed building preventive maintenance; government owners not clear; no mechanism to enforcement only after serious ensure owners are briefed on deterioration, results in loophole that importance of maintenance. allows demolition due to severe • No clear maintenance guidelines; or building decay. poorly integrated in policy. Lack of clear procedures for • Lack of leadership and promotion of implementing preventive maintenance the importance of maintenance and strategy maintenance best practices Competency in Maintenance Design & Practice Inappropriate repair strategies and • Lack of competency in owners, poor design of new interventions professionals and contractors Lack of documentation and • Lack of training, practical assistance conservation management and given and clear accessible information maintenance plans (CMMP) • Lack of skilled multidisciplinary team Poor management and maintenance • Belief that repair and replacement is planning right for conservation; repair and maintenance seen interchangeably Poor detections of building issues Lack of inspections of works done • Lack of engagement between heritage bodies and owners Building’s significance and vulnerability not the focus of decision • Effort needed to carry out preventive making maintenance Low priority of maintenance leading • Lack of data on material longevity for to neglect maintenance profiling Uncertainty in determining maintenance cycle Maintenance Cost & Funding Insufficient budget for proactive • Owners do not see benefits of maintenance; financial and economic maintenance resulting in perceived short-termism; deferment of cyclical low demand and supply of maintenance maintenance services Maintenance driven by desire to • Lack of emphasis in insurance and reduce cost and inconvenience instead building mortgage assessment of conservation principles • Subsidies and grants aimed at repair rather than maintenance High cost of repairs, especially due to absence of maintenance. • Cost of demolition lower than restoration and maintenance • Rarity of traditional materials

Adapted from Dann and Cantell (2005), Forster and Kayan (2009), Kashkool and Al Ali (2021), Cheong (2015)

Although Adegoriola et al. (2023) found in a survey of 154 professionals in Hong Kong and Nigeria that most agreed that the historical relevance, cultural significance and age and nature of heritage building were the most important influencing factors of heritage building maintenance management in their countries, the reality is that decisions on maintenance are not often focused on the building’s cultural significance (Forster and Kayan (2009). Instead, Table 1 shows that the three areas that came across as key factors influencing maintenance in literature is the conservation policy and legislation in the respective countries, the competency of owners, professionals and contractors in maintenance practice and design, and finally the maintenance cost and availability of funds for maintenance.

1.4.

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK The literature has shown that the cultural significance of a building may not

necessary be the focus of decision making for building maintenance (Forster and Kayan, 2009). Instead, conservation policy, competency and attitudes of various actors in the conservation process, as well as maintenance cost and funding will also impact the maintenance strategy, which in turn will impact the condition and perceived value of the building in a cyclical relationship (see Figure 4). While these factors and relationships may have been observed in other countries, the factors and relationship between maintenance and the competency and attitudes of different actors in building conservation and the perceived value of the building had not been previously investigated and documented in Singapore. This conceptual framework will be used to guide this study to understand if the same factors and relationships is likewise happening in Singapore. With that, we can then identify the gaps to act on. 10

Figure 4 Conceptual Framework

1.5.

METHODOLOGY This study primarily uses the case study methodology which is a detailed study

where researchers collect detailed information using a variety of data collection methods to explore in-depth the activity and process of one or more individuals within a time and activity (Priya, 2021). For this study, 3 state-owned buildings that are gazetted to be conserved or preserved in Singapore were selected as case studies (see Table 2). Table 2 Profile of Selected Case Studies

Site Year of Completion Height Architectural Style

Case Study A 1910s 3-storey Neoclassical

Case Study B 1920s 2-storey Art Deco

Construction

Brickwork building with timber structure and clay tiled pitch roof Yes 1,200 sqm

Brickwork building with timber structure and clay tiled pitch roof No 1,100 sqm

New Extension Floor Area (not incl. extension) Last Major Works Current Use Agency Ownership model

Case Study C 1930s 2-storey Neoclassical with Art Deco ornament Reinforced concrete building with flat roof Yes 3,800 sqm

2022 2018 2007 Publicly accessible Publicly accessible Non-publicly climate controlled climate controlled accessible office institutional use institutional use use A B C Owner occupied, not original owner

Choice of Case Studies The case studies were selected based on several criteria. First, the building must be owned by the State and owner-occupied, i.e. the management and daily use of the building is not tenanted out. Secondly, the building is within a site with other new buildings such that the facility manager has a basis of comparison between the maintenance cost and challenges between the conserved building and the non-conserved building. 12

Thirdly, the building must have undergone some restoration works after being legally gazetted for protection. Rowe (1996) writes that if restoration works was properly funded, designed and constructed, historic structures can operate like new buildings with no major capital improvement required for another 50-100 years apart from reroofing or repainting works at a shorter frequency. Hence the cost of maintenance should be the same as conventional buildings if “true restoration” was carried out as Rowe described. Interviews In order to investigate the complicated relationship between various variables, different data collection methods were employed. Firstly, in-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted with minimally one member of the facilities management team who is employed as a staff of the government agency that owns the building. Additional interviews may be conducted with other representatives of the owner agency that were involved in the prior restoration, refurbishment or adaptation for new uses of the protected building. Typically, the facilities management team would not be involved in the development works. In order to provide a safe space for the respondents to share their perspectives and insights freely and frankly, the interviews will be kept anonymous and the case studies will not be identifiable. Respondents are asked a wide range of questions (see Appendix A) in the following categories: (a) Maintenance questions about the facilities management structure and maintenance contract procurement process, to questions about their maintenance strategy, planned routine and practices when defects are encountered. Respondents were also asked if they practise the sample preventive maintenance activities as suggested in the Conservation Technical 13

Handbook published by URA (2017a: 207) in partnership with ICOMOS Singapore. (b) Competency questions about the background of the facility manager, their contractors and any conservation specialists that may be involved. (c) Perception questions about the respondents and their organisations’ perspective on 3 key areas of interest, mainly 1) the perception of the building’s heritage value to the organisation, 2) the cost of maintaining the conserved building compared to the non-conserved buildings in their site, and 3) the perceived challenges of maintaining a conserved building. (d) Site questions about the actual building defects and issues that have been encountered or currently present at the conserved building. Apart from interviewing owner agencies of the case study sites, interviews were also conducted with 2 other building managers who had managed other state-owned conserved buildings in Singapore either as managing agent or as part of the owner agency. These interviews served as a form of ground truthing and context building, as well as to understand the different perspectives within the industry. Interviews were also conducted with a conservation specialist who had worked on restoration and maintenance management plans for state-owned conserved buildings. Site Observations As part of ground truthing, respondents are also requested to extend access to the case study buildings and site observations on building defects and conservation practices were noted. Defects highlighted by respondents were observed and possible causes were investigated. Observations were also made around the site on the other conserved and

non-conserved buildings to gleam insights on the design, conservation and maintenance strategy of the professionals, facility managers and owner organisations.

1.6.

LIMITATIONS The study is not intended to be a comprehensive survey of the entire conservation

industry nor a conclusive statement on the state of the industry. It is intended to be a peep behind the curtains and offer areas where future research and policy changes could be considered. As such, it has great limitations. With a study on maintenance cost, it would be ideal if there were actual figures for comparison to understand if maintenance cost is indeed more expensive for conserved buildings in actual dollar and cents. However, as the case studies are state-owned buildings, it was not possible to obtain such data from the government agencies. Even if such data was available, often the contractual sums for maintenance contracts are not singled out one building, nor can it be extrapolated based on area or even the number of defects or regulatory requirements it has. There is also no basis of comparison for different owners who uses different contractual management systems. For example, an owner who uses an integrated facilities management model would not have the break down of contract sums for building works compared to the owner who manages the different maintenance contracts in a piecemeal manner. As a result, the study fell back on gathering the perception of facilities manager on the maintenance cost as a substitute to obtaining actual numbers. This means that the findings is subject to the bias of the respondents and the degree of frankness in their answers. As means to triangulate the information, respondents are asked on the frequency and persistence of corrective repairs and observe on sites to corroborate with the respondents answers.

Secondly, despite the agreement that the identity of respondents and the case studies would be kept anonymous and non-identifiable, respondents were generally guarded and it often took quite a bit of effort to get the respondents comfortable to divulge ground realities as it may be construed as their incompetency or failure to do their job. The threat on their job security and performance was a big barrier to obtaining genuine insights. Thirdly, due to the same reason as above, it was challenging to gain access to more case studies of different ownership and facilities management model, or to gain access to other case studies of similar architectural style or building materials for more effective comparisons. Request to multiple other public agencies led to a dead end. The limitation of the case studies selected is that they only provide a glimpse of the situation. These case studies are only what is available at the surface and accessible to this study and by no means provide any effective comparisons or a comprehensive analysis of the situation. Fourthly, due to the need for anonymity and to ensure that the case studies are not identifiable, certain details about the case studies that would give greater insights into the situation could not be written here as it would give away the identity of the site due to its rarity. Photographs and detailed drawings of the site also could not be shared freely for the same reason. Photographs in this paper has been cropped to ensure that the context is as unidentifiable as possible. Finally, my positionality as both a student at NUS embarking on this academic exercise as well as a regulator with the conservation authority at URA is a double-edged sword. On one hand, my identity and networks had opened doors and provided access to these building managers, at the same time, my affiliation with the regulator may also have made the respondents weary about sharing potentially negative information that would

attract unwanted attention to poor maintenance or conservation practices. One is also mindful that my positionality and bias may also unintentionally influence and limit my analysis and critique of the situation. Where possible, care has been taken to manage any unintended bias in the following sections. Check and balances through interviews with other industry insiders who were former facility managers or conservation specialists that had worked on the projects previously also help to corroborate the statements made by respondents. The following chapter will describe the findings of the interviews and site observations, followed by an analysis of the key issues and challenges. Chapter 3 will also analyse if the conceptual framework accurately describes these case studies and where are the gaps in the framework that could be improved for Singapore. The final chapter then details the recommendations to address these gaps.

CHAPTER 2 RESEARCH FINDINGS 2.1.

GENERAL OUTLOOK Based on the in-depth interviews with the facilities managers representing the

owner agencies and site observations of the 3 case studies, Table 3 shows a summary of the general maintenance strategy and the corresponding building condition. Table 3 Maintenance Strategy and Building Condition

Site Facilities Management Model

Implements effective preventive maintenance Does regular façade and roof cleaning Does regular gutter clearance Does regular building inspections for defects Repairs during maintenance are documented Condition of conserved building

Case Study A Owner manages one Integrated Facilities Management (IFM) contract. IFM vendor manages individual term contractors and provides facilities managers on site. Contract also includes other sites owned by the agency.

Case Study B Owner manages multiple separate term contracts for different works. Different contracts include other different sites owned by the agency.

Case Study C Owner manages one Integrated Facilities Management (IFM) contract. IFM vendor manages individual term contractors and provides facilities managers on site. Contract also includes other sites owned by the agency.

Yes

No, mainly reactive maintenance

Yes

No, only reactive maintenance No, only reactive maintenance or biennial periodic visual inspection

Yes Yes

Only for major repairs

Site is still within defects liability period. Generally, in good condition with minor wear and tear.

Severe water seepage, timber rot and biogrowth at windows.

Generally, in good condition but some inappropriate repair material used for special finishes e.g. Shanghai Plaster

Table 4 shows the owners’ perception of value and the level of competency and attitudes of the professionals involved in the conservation and maintenance of the building, and their perception of conservation policy. Table 4 Perception of Heritage Value and Facility Manager Conservation Competency

Site Owner organisation’s perception of site’s heritage value Owner organisation finds site’s heritage relevant to agency’s work Owner celebrates heritage of site Owner employs conservation specialists at restoration stage Owner / Facility Manager possess documentation of conservation works done, material used and maintenance needed Owner ensured appropriate repairs and design at restoration stage Facility Manager’s selfassessment of their competency in conservation practices and repairs Facility Manager’s knowledge of conservation policy Facility Manager’s attitude towards conservation policy

Case Study A

Case Study B

Case Study C

High value

Low Value

High relevance

No relevance

Yes

No, sees heritage interpretation as regulatory compliance only

Yes

High

Low, but have attended courses

Low

High

Low

Positive, feels there is sufficient support from regulators

Negative, feels there is little information and support

Negative, feels conservation is a constraint

In addition to understanding the maintenance strategy, the owner and facility manager’s competency and attitude towards heritage, the study also set out to understand the owner’s perception of maintenance cost for the conserved buildings versus the nonconserved buildings that is under the facility manager’s purview. Table 5 provides a summary of the respondents’ perception on maintenance cost and funding for their conserved buildings. Table 5 Funding and Perception of Maintenance Cost

Site Has support for additional funds for the upkeep of conserved buildings Schedule of rates include historic material Finds it more costly to source for historic material for repairs Finds it more costly to maintain conserved building compared to non-conserved

Perception on factors that contributes to higher maintenance cost, if any.

Case Study A

Case Study B

Case Study C

Yes

No Generally, the same as nonconserved if problems are arrested early.

If corrective repair required, craftsmen and historic material may cost more

Yes

Finds historic buildings more prone to building issues and higher cost spent on frequent rectification, periodic visual inspections, historic materials and professionals for repairs

No Generally, finds the new building more prone to defects than the conserved building.

If corrective repair required, historic material is difficult to source and may cost more

In 2021, the Building Construction Authority (BCA) started a grant to encourage buildings to adopt an integrated facilities management approach (BCA, 2021) and two of the case studies had also converted to an integrated facilities management (IFM) model. 20

For these sites under the IFM model, it would appear that there is a more structured inspection and reporting model built into the IFM contract. As a result, the facilities manager of the 2 sites with IFM model feels more confident about the regularity of inspections and that defects and issues would be raised early by the IFM vendors stationed on site. Also, because the IFM vendor is directly managing the cleaners and other contractors, corrective actions are carried out more promptly. However, these IFM vendors are not typically familiar with conserved buildings, conservation maintenance and repairs. Instead, the inclusion of conservation items in the IFM contract depends solely on the owner and facility manager that drafts the scope of the contract. For the 3 case study sites, the owners are cognisant of the heritage and protected status of the buildings and cited past institutional knowledge of the type of historic material needed and have included these materials up front in the schedule of rates for their vendors to refer to. If there are unlisted historic materials, the 3 case studies shared that the owners would source for their own competitive quotes. Nonetheless, they reflect that in general, they find difficulty in sourcing for suppliers of historic materials and skilled craftsmen as the industry is extremely limited in Singapore. Unfortunately, this may not be a consistent experience throughout public agencies who own protected buildings. Interviews with other facility managers have highlighted that not every agency have included specialised material compatible for historic buildings. This could be due to the lack of knowledge that such materials needed to be used. This is especially so for buildings that may not have been sensitively restored using appropriate repair methods previously. Another possible reason raised by interviewees was that where there is a push for centralised procurement standardisation within public agencies or across agencies, such

centralisation may not include specialised historic material as it may only focus on the more comment modern material for contemporary buildings. The ability to source for reasonably priced material and craftsmen is also dependent on whether the contracting model allows owners to source for suppliers or rely on facility management vendors to do it. The resourcefulness of owners and facility managers in finding a reasonably sized pool of suppliers of historic material and craftsmen would ultimately affect the amount paid. Another deviation from the experience of the 3 case studies raised by the conservation specialists interviewed was also the ownership model of the protected building. The 3 case studies are all owner occupied and the facilities managers see the need for good maintenance as part of sustaining the building’s value as an amenity serving the agency. However, where the building is not owner occupied, the facilities management may be outsourced to tenants or agents that may not be aware of the conservation needs. The owner agency would also not have any oversight on the works done to the building until the lease period is over, by which time, any loss of historic fabric would be irreversible. Where the buildings are vacant for long periods and not capable of providing any returns on investment, maintenance is kept minimal as owners may not see any immediate returns on the money spent on maintenance. The following sections will now go into the detailed context and experience of the 3 case studies.

2.2.

CASE STUDY A Case study A recently underwent major restoration works in 2022, after its

management requested for a survey on the health of the protected buildings in its asset. This top-down mandate gave them the funding and impetus to commission a professional 22

engineer to work with a conservation specialist to produce conservation reports on the condition of the building and recommendation on appropriate conservation repairs to prolong the longevity of the building. With the report, the conservation specialist then worked with architects and mechanical & electrical (M&E) engineers to design interventions such as calculate the exact air conditioning load, calibrated temperature and relative humidity, and install vapour barriers to ensure no condensation on the windows to prevent bio growth and rot of the timber windows. The design and use of the spaces also had to be closely coordinated with the building management as the relative humidity of the climate-controlled premises had to be strictly maintained. For example, the building has naturally ventilated verandahs on the upper storeys but these had to be made inaccessible on most occasions to prevent visitors from frequently letting warm air into the air-conditioned indoor spaces. However, openings to these verandahs were still maintained for access during special events so that the character defining element of the building still retain its value. All upper storey windows have “vapour barriers” to prevent moisture from seeping into the timber windows and walls. All the windows had a secondary layer of fixed glass or partition walls installed behind the windows which prevents inspection or maintenance. However, the respondents claimed that inspections were still performed regularly and maintenance can be done via scissor lift from the exterior of the building. As the major restoration works was only done less than a year prior, physical defects to the windows could not be observed on site. Although this was the 3rd major works to the building, the respondents opined that the earlier 2 rounds of works are not “true restoration”. “Proper repairs” to treat building issues like treat rising damp issues, salt attacks, use appropriate or compatible material

for repairs were unlikely to have been carried out. The works were focused on adapting the building to new use, renovations to refresh the building’s interior design or even repairs to catch up with the building’s maintenance debt. Design considerations for both building and M&E systems also did not take into consideration its impact on the historic building material, focusing only on the needs of the contemporary uses. Hence, in this round of works, the organisation felt the need to commission a proper survey and report by a conservation specialist. Even then, respondents reserved their judgement on the effectiveness of the latest conservation works done and how long it would last as they were not involved on site during the application of the treatments. In terms of monitoring, it has also been too soon after the works are done to provide sufficient data. Nevertheless, it is clear that inspections during and after works are just as important to ensure that any repairs and treatment are carried out effectively. Despite Case Study A being a rare example of a public building that had funding support, sensitive design, appropriate conservation repairs and owners who held the heritage value in high regard, the facility managers still found multiple pain points in their maintenance process. Firstly, the respondents found that the lack of a registry of skilled conservation contractors by the authority resulted in the inability to specify such requirements as a criteria for tender evaluation, quality control or even limit the eligibility of contractors to bid in the construction tenders for conserved buildings. Secondly, respondents find that there was a lack of an ecosystem in the built environment industry that recognised and supported conserved buildings. For example, there is a regulatory requirement for all existing buildings above 5,000 sqm with new 24

building cooling system to comply with the minimum environmental sustainability standard (Green Mark standard) (BCA, 2023). However, historic buildings are unfairly benchmarked against contemporary buildings in the assessment framework. The assessment criteria for Green Mark are focused on energy efficiency for contemporary buildings and does not take into other aspects of sustainability such as the carbon footprint of a building from loss of embodied carbon. Similar to the UK where restoration is taxed while demolition is not (Forster and Kayan, 2009), the building industry is incentivising owners to discard historic fabric to invest in new systems as opposed to rewarding owners for finding ways to improve the efficiency and sustainability of historic buildings while retaining embodied carbon.

2.3.

CASE STUDY B Similar to Case Study A, the owners of Case Study B professed to place high value

on the heritage significance of the building. In fact, they had even obtained additional financial support for the conservation of the building. The funds obtained were allocated to having more regular inspections by professional engineers, such as having biennial inspections instead of one every 5 years. However, there was a lack of more regular inspection on site. The facility managers relied on the users of the buildings to report when defects were encountered. By the time users reported building defects, these would be when the defects were obvious and apparent to the layman users of the buildings. As shown in Figure 3, by the time the defects were obvious enough to be reported, the cost of repairs would be exponentially higher than when trained professionals spot problems like potential gaps in the windows for leaks.

At the time of the site visit to Case Study B, it was observed that the building had severe leaks from the external of the building into the interior, causing rot to the timber windows and other damage to the brick walls (see Figure 5). There were also fixed glass enclosures to the previously naturally ventilated verandahs and behind the timber louvre windows. Not all were easily accessible and permanent condensation and bio-growth could be observed on the glass. Added to that, the facility managers did not practice regular façade cleaning. Even if the recurrence of condensation and bio-growth was not prevented with better design interventions, at least they could have been regularly cleaned before more severe deterioration take place,

Figure 5 Water seepage from windows at Case Study B

There were no conservation specialists engaged to advise the facility managers on appropriate conservation repairs and design at development, restoration or maintenance phase. The facility managers had some basic training in historic materials but did not seem to know nor considered the need to hire conservation specialists to comprehensively investigate the building issues and recommend the appropriate conservation repairs. As a

result, they took it as a matter of fact that managing old buildings meant having constant battles with recurring building defects as a necessary evil to occupying a heritage building. From this experience, the respondents found that the cost of maintaining the heritage buildings were definitely higher than the non-conserved buildings as 1) they needed to spend on more frequent professional inspections than required of nonconserved buildings, 2) the conserved buildings were older buildings that were perceived to be regularly prone to issues and 3) they were unable to discard the historic fabric and change it to contemporary material that is easier to source, more readily available, cheaper and potentially more “hardy” and easier to maintain. For example, the facility managers saw the historic timber windows as prone to rot while aluminium windows at the same location was seen as being easier and cheaper to maintain. Lastly, the respondents felt that the historic building was not suitable for the new climate-controlled use that it was adapted to. They felt the authority had allowed the new uses without consideration that the historic building and its historic material was perhaps not suitable for the new conditions. However, they admited that there were no “true restoration” conservation repairs or special considerations in the design and adaptive reuse of the building to its current use. The architects had no special conservation competency and the works were merely a renovation and interior redesign. Hence, there was no M&E and architectural design consideration to ensure the longevity of the building as seen in Case Study A.

2.4.

CASE STUDY C The last Case Study C is on the other end of the spectrum from the previous two

examples. The unwilling owners did not place high value in the heritage of the building. Instead, the heritage was somewhat seen as a liability, and a responsibility thrusted upon 27

them and a requirement from the authority that they needed to comply with. They hosted heritage interpretation on site as compliance to the authorities’ requirements, and former users of the site as a form of public service and corporate social responsibility as a public agency. Despite this, the conserved building was found during the site visit to be in relatively good condition, compared to the obvious building issues seen in Case Study B. This is despite the last major works to have been carried out 16 years prior. To this, the respondent stated as a matter of fact that maintenance of the building is a responsibility of the facility manager to ensure the continued use of the building from an economic perspective and has nothing to do with the heritage value of the building. As such, their maintenance routine is just as rigorous as Case Study A. The key difference between Case Study A and C is the lack of conservation competency. When asked, the facility manager is not familiar with the building’s Shanghai Plaster finish and how it should be repaired, and hence unable to determine if repairs were done appropriately. The contractors who had done repairs also did not have specialised knowledge. Thus, while the building retained its good condition through rigorous preventive maintenance to arrest issues before they required repairs, once corrective repairs are required, problems will start to show in the historic fabric (see Figure 6). The facility manager while having good knowledge of best practices in facilities management of conventional buildings, had little knowledge of conservation policy as well. As a result, he felt constrained by the protected status of the building as he felt unable to introduce changes to the buildings such as improving the M&E systems as he was unsure if he was allowed to make additional openings in the protected façade to

introduce more M&E systems. As such, changes had to be made within the pre-existing condition so as not to attract any submissions to be made to the authority as they feel this would delay the time taken to their projects.

Figure 6 Inappropriate repair on Shanghai Plaster finish at Case Study C

They were also unfamiliar with the guidelines for the buildings and relied on the development team to consult the authority and by which time the project timeline would be further prolonged. On the other hand, the development team shared that they were equally not involved during construction phase when works are handed over to the external consultants. As a result, nobody running the building during operations and maintenance phase knew what works were done and how it was done and there was no inspection, involvement or detailed documentation in the handover process. In general, the restoration process was challenging for the owners as they had to source for historic materials that were difficult to find, and more costly to obtain. However, in terms of actual maintenance thereafter, they found that the historic building was not more costly to maintain as it posed no more, or even less building issues that required corrective repairs than the new buildings on site. The respondents opined that this could also be because the building is used as an office building and is not open to public use, 29

and hence users felt more ownership of the building and it is generally kept in better condition. However, if the building was open to public use, there was higher risk of vandalism and damage from the public and if elements of historic material were damaged, the cost of maintenance would be much higher than a conventional public building. As such, the respondents showed a preference against having to use historic buildings for publicly accessible uses.

CHAPTER 3 ANALYSIS 3.1.

ROLE OF PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE The case studies have shown that maintenance cost is very much tied to the good

practice of preventive maintenance as shown in the literature. This is in fact regardless of the organisation’s regard for heritage value. Figure 7 shows the relationship between the owner’s regard for heritage value, the type of maintenance practices, and the proximity of the building amenity to decision makers.

Figure 7 Relationship between regard for heritage, maintenance practices and proximity of building amenity to decision makers

The high regard for heritage value can help to provide greater maintenance funding for the conservation works but unfortunately, as shown in the Case Study B,

without the right focus on preventive maintenance, regard for value and funding support would also not get you a good conservation outcome. Instead, the proximity of the building’s amenity to decision makers can also equally help to motivate good preventive maintenance practices. As Chanter and Swallow (2007:20) pointed out, within the public sector, “social and political forces” will have bearing on building maintenance. Hence, proximity refers to the decision makers being able to directly feel the impact of the building loss of amenity arising from building defects by being direct users of the site. The saying "out of sight and out of mind” is unfortunately a reality. In Case Study C, the decision makers were the users of the conserved buildings and hence, the facility managers are more likely to ensure a higher level of maintenance. Proximity could also be the close alignment of the performance of the building in relation to the organisation’s reputation or mandate. For Case Study A, even though decision makers may not be the direct users of the building, the reputation of the organisation was very much tied to the heritage value of the historic building and is therefore more likely to give the organisation a nudge to ensuring the good maintenance of the building. On the other hand, Case Study B’s organisation mandate is not directly linked to the heritage and performance of the building but more to the use within the building. Hence emphasis on ensuring the competency of staff and maintenance contractors were not directly on building conservation but in other areas. Nonetheless, there is anxiety felt by the facility managers to ensure the building is in good condition and to improve their performance in ensuring the public image of the heritage building is upheld. Unfortunately, high regard for heritage and funding support may not necessarily get you

a good conservation outcome without the necessary heritage and conservation awareness and competency. Without competency, the facility managers fall back on temporary measures such as frequent repainting of the buildings to cover up defects. However, as the heritage regard and funding support is already present, with the right push, Case Study B can easily move up the scale to the top right quadrant of the matrix, similar to Case Study A. The agencies that practice good preventive maintenance does not typically find maintenance cost to be higher or different than non-conserved buildings. As a respondent from Case Study A shared, if issues are caught early and addressed early, the maintenance cost or cost of repair is not any different from a conventional building.

3.2.

MAINTENANCE COST VERSUS CONSERVATION OUTCOME Having said that, good preventive maintenance may keep maintenance cost as low

as conventional buildings (or lower than having to deal with constant, severe corrective repairs), it is not enough to ensure a good conservation outcome. Ideally, “true restoration works” that were properly funded, designed, constructed, monitored and documented were also carried out upstream. There should also be sufficient competency in carrying out appropriate conservation repairs. Based on the interviews conducted, one posits that most occupied conserved buildings in Singapore are either in the same quadrant as Case Study B or C. Regardless of the maintenance practices, the conservation outcomes are less than ideal as examples like Case Study A are few and far in between. Where they practice good preventive maintenance like Case Study C, it is likely that some corrective repairs might have been done over time and as sensitively as they 33

can manage to still maintain the aesthetics of the building, but often there would be compromises to the historic fabric and conservation outcomes due to lack of regard for heritage or lack of competency. Unfortunately, the need to engage conservation specialists and raise the competency level across levels may be perceived as higher maintenance cost in the short term as compared to status quo where they do not find much price differentiation between conserved and conventional buildings. Competency will comes at a price but this can be a one-time cost through the commissioning of a conservation management plan like in Case Study A. For those who do not practice sufficient preventive maintenance like Case Study B, they struggle with constant repairs or worse, live with building defects which continues to deteriorate. Either way, this also result in a poor conservation outcome. On top of that, the cost of maintenance becomes exponential. Therefore, when they want to elevate the quality of their conservation outcome and start practicing preventive maintenance, the immediate barrier to change will be quite high. In fact, Case Study A has shown that it was similarly in the same quadrant of the matrix as Case Study B up till the organisation decided to invest the additional funding to obtain the services of conservation specialists. This will be discussed further in the next section. More critically is the bottom left quadrant which had been highlighted by conservation specialist interviewees that had dealt with such buildings prior. Examples of such buildings had also been covered in recent press such as the two good class bungalows mentioned by Xu (2023) that reportedly had to spend large sums for restoration before it has habitable. Had there been more preventive and corrective maintenance while the state buildings were vacant, the eventual high cost could have been avoided.

It is undeniable that higher cost will be involved to achieve a good conservation outcome, whether during restoration phase, or simply ensuring appropriate repair using compatible historic material during corrective maintenance. However, these should not count towards regular maintenance cost and should be accounted for separately. On top of that, good preventive maintenance is still valuable in keeping the restoration and corrective maintenance cost low as compared to no preventive maintenance done at all. A total neglect of the historic buildings through lack of maintenance and an accumulation of deep maintenance debt will cost astronomical sums to rectify and sometime result in a total loss of historic fabric. It also gives conservation a bad name as seen in the article by Xu (2023) as people come to associate conservation with the high cost of remedying the long-term neglect.

3.3.

LACK OF CONSERVATION COMPETENCY What is underpinning the matrix in Figure 7 is the degree of conservation

competency at all levels – from the facility managers and funding bodies to the contractors and workers. Case Study A has shown that it is possible to transition from a state of high heritage regard but poor conservation outcome to one of good conservation outcome with the right competency. As discussed, this may cost more but with funders having greater conservation competency and awareness, the transition can happen. As discussed earlier, a series of technical handbooks were published by both the authorities, URA and NHB, in 2017 that advocated the importance of maintenance and the role of conservation specialists. Interviewees had also shared that NHB had conducted regular sharing sessions with owners on best practices. This move towards raising the

standards of the industry may have helped to give owners the impetus and justification for more funds to achieve a better conservation outcome. However, for owners who do not already have high regard for heritage nor find their building’s heritage to be a key part of their organisation’s mandate, the drive for better conservation outcome may have to be a regulatory one. When respondents in Case Study C were asked what motivated them to improve their building to meet other sustainability initiatives such as the Green Mark scheme versus improving the conservation outcome of their building, they admitted that it was simply because the Green Mark scheme is mandatory. However, for conservation, they see the option of giving up the use of the building. What is left unspoken is the lack of legislation that requires good conservation maintenance interventions or appropriate maintenance of the building. The prevailing conservation guidelines are still largely redevelopment driven and focused on the types of changes that could be allowed to the historic fabric of the protected buildings. The guidelines do not seem to presume nor impose high level of competency in understanding historic materials and only encourage but not require compatible historic materials to be used, like the right type of plaster or paint to be used for plastered brick buildings. It simply draws a hard line at protecting the immediate loss of historic fabric. This in turn gave some of the respondents the impression that the policy is very rigid and others a feeling of helplessness as to what can or cannot be done, and how it should be done. Apart from the 2017 technical handbooks, there is little information available freely and easily for owners and facility managers to understand what form of investigation and intervention or repairs needs to, could be or should be done for their buildings.

3.4.

BUILDING A CONSERVATION ECOSYSTEM Chui (2022) found in her survey of professionals managing conserved assets,

under 25% of their work scope involved heritage buildings and structures as there are other responsibilities to meet their organisation’s mandate. Similarly, this study finds that conservation is not a key consideration in the other aspect of a building ecosystem such as other building legislations, technical requirements or the procurement and tender process for building works. A respondent from Case Study A poignantly said that there is no point in identifying new buildings for conservation if there is no ecosystem to take care of it. An ecosystem to the respondent would include recognising the needs of conserved historic buildings beyond the conservation authorities, integrated into other legislation like Green Mark, builder registry, having a schedule of rates for historic materials and conservation specialists. Almost all respondents expressed difficulty in sourcing for materials and skilled craftsmen, contractors or workers who are familiar with historic material. Each facility manager relies on past experiences and institutional knowledge to compile their own resources. The lack of knowledge sharing, and network was something that every respondent felt lacking in their work and appealed for more to be done in this regard. Having an ecosystem that recognises the importance of building conservation would also mean a relook at the way accounting for maintenance and capital costs for conserved buildings is done. The earlier respondent from Case Study A also lamented that while there may be greater capital cost involved in using historic material, the typical cost benefit analysis does not take into account the social and carbon benefits that is gained. They added that in conventional buildings, there is no financial or carbon cost accounted

for the waste generated and so the cost of tearing down and rebuilding is always cheaper than having to repair. One posits that if there was carbon tax imposed for the waste generated by the demolition or discard of materials from buildings, there may be a more balanced assessment of cost. This may also push funding bodies to account for repairs and maintenance as the cost to the environment and heritage would be actualised in dollars and cents. Another interviewee opined that there is a lack of maintenance culture in the building industry in Singapore driven by this similar attitude that it is eventually cheaper to replace than to repair. As a result, there is no real need to maintain and prolong the longevity of the building or its parts. The cultivation of a maintenance culture would then not only benefit the conserved buildings but the sustainability of the building industry as a whole.

CHAPTER 4 RECOMMENDATIONS 4.1.

INTRODUCTION The findings in Chapter 3 have shown that relationships of different actors and

variables in the maintenance of conserved public buildings in Singapore is generally similar to the observations in literature, shown in the conceptual framework shown in Figure 4. However, there are varying experiences across different case studies and interviewees as shown in Figure 7, pointing to gaps in the two key areas of education and outreach and conservation policy. Figure 8 shows how these two areas would help to plug the gap and build a better conservation ecosystem in Singapore. The following sections will detail the recommendations for education and outreach, and conservation policy based on the study’s findings and suggestions from the respondents.

Figure 8 Enhanced framework for a conservation ecosystem

4.2.

EDUCATION AND OUTREACH Skills and competency underpin the entire ecosystem. With the right competency

from the design and detailing stage, down to the construction and sourcing of material, the maintenance strategy and maintenance cost of the conserved building could be improved (Miles and Syagga, 1987). Likewise, greater understanding of the conserved building’s significance and awareness of the appropriate repair and even the direct financial and environmental benefits of maintenance over the conventional “use and discard” approach could strengthen the conservation ecosystem. Education and outreach would also need to be stratified at multiple levels. Chui (2022) recommended two levels of competency framework – a foundational one for every practitioner, including facility managers of conserved buildings and an advanced one for conservation authority and specialists. In addition to these, this study also finds that education and outreach is needed for the segment of the ecosystem that has no direct contact with conserved buildings but have large influence on its future. One such example is the funding bodies. The lack of funding is major constraint on effective building maintenance especially in public buildings (Miles and Syagga, 1987). Whether these are internal decision makers within the owner agencies, or the central state funding bodies, outreach to these funders on the significance of the buildings and the long term benefits for prioritising maintenance works need to be articulated. More dedicated outreach and advisory to owners on how to maintain their buildings can reap long term benefits as seen in Denmark and The Netherlands where maintenance is seen as the most effective approach to conservation (Forster and Kayan, 2009). Like The Netherlands, the duty of care of conserved buildings in Singapore is also seen as the responsibility of owners. As such, it is only natural that more effort should be

taken to educate and equip the owners with the skills and competency to take care of their buildings. Another group would be the technical agencies and building regulators that may be implementing policies that impact the construction industry and all buildings in Singapore as a whole regardless of its protection status. Based on the experience of respondents, outreach and advocacy to these entities would help to create awareness of the constraint or specialised needs of conserved buildings such that calibrated policies could be considered to support conserved buildings. For example, a specialised Green Mark criteria for conserved buildings or a registry of skilled conservation contractors to facilitate tenders. Even the build environment training and overall workforce policies could better recognise the need for this specialised area of work for the larger sustainability for the building industry.

4.3.

CONSERVATION POLICY After 34 years of Singapore’s conservation programme, its prevailing

conservation guidelines is still limited in scope, steeped in its institutional and national legacy in urban renewal. The guidelines focus only on the allowable physical changes and (re)development to the protected building so as to retain what the authority assess as the “essential architectural features” (Chui, 2022; URA, 2023a). While URA’s “3R” principles include mention of “repair”, as discussed in Chapter 1, maintenance is to be distinguished from repair. There is no message of care nor requirement or mention of maintenance within the conservation guidelines nor its legislation. It was only in a professional circular issued jointly by BCA and URA in March 2023 that there was message to owners and building professionals to regularly maintain

their conserved buildings (URA, 2023a). The circular clearly puts the duty of care for the building as the owner’s responsibility. As Forster and Kayan (2009:218) opined, “only when owners have a duty of care imposed upon them, do they undertake maintenance”. It is heartening to see this progress in Singapore’s conservation policy. However, this duty of care needs to be enforced or the owners (both public and private) may divest the protected conserved buildings to have less responsibilities to deal with. The reality is that there is an immediate cost to conservation and there will be public buildings that cannot be divested to private sectors like heritage schools. If the wider policy on funding government building continues not to account for carbon and social cost, there will be continued push back on the use of public funds for the “higher cost” of conservation compared to the conventional demolish and redevelop approach. Instead of denouncing conservation like Xu (2023) and absolving public agencies from the responsibility of protecting the country’s heritage in the name of prudent use of public funds, one opines that the public discourse should be on how conserved public buildings can be better maintained so as to incur less public spending on repairs subsequently. As the economy and society matures, as should its built environment industry and conservation ecosystem. As the country builds up a conservation ecosystem, it is timely to also review its policies and guidelines to go beyond preventing collateral damage and managing physical alterations to protect the loss of historic fabric, instead to position good maintenance and treatment as the “most effective approach to conservation” (Forster and Kayan, 2009: 214). This include reviewing its conservation principles and moving the professionals to design with heritage in mind rather than designing solely with the economic objective of eradicating obsolescence. The guidelines should also include more

maintenance protocols and appropriate treatment and repair of historic material either as information or requirements. One way of nudging the industry and the larger society towards deeper understanding of the significance and condition of the buildings could be through first encouraging then requiring conservation management plans (CMP) for more effective design, treatment and longer-term sustainability of the buildings. Nudging the industry towards adopting CMP, proper investigation and treatment would also start fostering the conservation industry and building a stronger ecosystem. URA had taken a first step by requiring “heritage consultants” for “strategic sale sites” in 2017 (URA, 2017) and it’s timely to review a wider adoption. In addition to strengthening legislation and regulation, the policy needs to consider softer measures to provide better infrastructure for the industry. Apart from accreditation and training that Chui (2022) suggested, respondents had suggested authorities to establish a network of owners and professionals to foster stronger community support, awareness, and information exchange. This also includes better information services provided by the conservation authorities on the specialists, contractors, materials and even schedule of rates for historic materials that owners can reference.

4.4.

CONCLUSION Conservation comes at a cost. However, good preventive maintenance and

“true restoration” practices can help to lower maintenance and repair cost, making it no more onerous to care for than conventional buildings. The appeal of a well-maintained building is often sufficient to motivate owners regardless of their regard for the building’s heritage value. Unfortunately, good preventive maintenance is not enough to guarantee a 43

good conservation outcome without conservation competency and appreciation for the building’s heritage. This relationship is also complex and a conservation ecosystem needs to be nurtured and sustained in order to achieve a good conservation outcome. For a start, competency and awareness at all levels and stakeholders in the built environment industry can be inculcated through greater training, education, outreach and advocacy to accreditation and having national registry of conservation professionals and contractors. Conservation policy needs to put maintenance and a deeper understanding of the building’s value and condition through CMP on the agenda. Added to that, the creation of a support network of owners and professional can help to reduce the “black box” of conservation and empower all levels involved on how to better care for conserved buildings. In the longer term, this duty of care and culture of maintenance can extend to non-conserved buildings to improve the sustainability of the built environment. This study has offered a glimpse of the current perspectives and conservation practices of a small segment of the over 7,200 conserved buildings in Singapore. Even amongst the conserved public buildings, there remains a large group of state-owned buildings that are not owner occupied that have yet to be studied. These buildings also operate on a different funding model which involves a focus on capital returns, divesting the duty of care to tenants and the private sector. On top of that, most of the conserved buildings in Singapore are privately owned. At different scales, individual shophouse owners and large developers managing conserved properties integrated within their developments may have different experiences on maintenance and cost. Going forward, future research should be carried out to understand how a greater duty of care can be entrusted on these owners and what further support could be given to them.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Adegoriola, M.I. et. al. (2022) “Conceptualizing the identification of critical success factors for heritage building maintenance management (HBMM)” IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 1101, 062017 Adegoriola, M.I. et. al. (2023) “Development of a significant index model for assessing heritage building maintenance management challenges” Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, https://doi.org/10.1108/ECAM-05-2022-0457 Adegoriola, M.I. et. al. (2023) “Understanding the influencing factors of heritage building maintenance management: findings from developed and developing regions” Building Research & Information, 51(5), pp. 605-624 BCA (2021) “Accelerating the Transformation of the FM Industry” Published on 22 July 2021, (Available at: https://www1.bca.gov.sg/about-us/news-andpublications/media-releases/2021/07/22/accelerating-the-transformation-of-the-fmindustry, last accessed on 20 November 2023) BCA (2023) “Regulatory Requirements for Existing Buildings” Updated on 13 October 2023, (Available at: https://www1.bca.gov.sg/buildsg/sustainability/regulatoryrequirements-for-existing-buildings, last accessed on 20 November 2023) Chan, S.L. (2008) “Proposed Strategies to Minimise Maintenance Costs and Problems for Five-Star Hotels in Singapore” Bachelor’s Dissertation, Department of Building, National University of Singapore Chanter, B. and Swallow, P. (2007) “Building Maintenance Management” 2nd Edition, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Cheong, P. H. (2015) “Issues and Challenges Faced by School Authorities in Maintenance of Institutional Heritage Buildings in Kuala Lumpur”, The Malaysian Surveyor, 50(2), pp. 7-16 Chui, Y. C. (2022) “In Pursuit of a Singaporean Heritage Quality Framework: The Adaptation of UNESCO Competence Framework for Cultural Management to Drive Sustainable Heritage Conservation and Capacity-Building In Singapore” Unpublished Academic Exercise, Department of Architecture, National University of Singapore Centre for Liveable Cities (2019) “Past, Present and Future: Conserving the Nation’s Built Heritage”, Singapore: Centre for Liveable Cities Dann, N. and Cantell, T. (2005) “Maintenance: From Philosophy to Practice” Journal of Architectural Conservation, 11(1), pp, 42-54 Forster, A.M. and Kayan, B. (2009) “Maintenance for historic buildings: a current perspective” Structural Survey, 27(3), pp. 210 - 229 ICOMOS Australia (2013) “Burra Charter: The Australia ICOMOS Charter for Places of Cultural Significance” https://australia.icomos.org/publications/burra-charterpractice-notes/

Kashkool, A.M.H. and Al Ali, S.S. (2021) "Maintenance management of heritage buildings in Iraq", Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 28(9), pp. 2448-2465 Lee, P.Y.G. (2010) “Maintenance Efficiency: Public Versus Private – A Maintenance Cost Comparison of Public and Private Residential Buildings” Bachelor’s Dissertation, Department of Building, National University of Singapore Lee, K.M. (2013) “Water Seepage in Historical Buildings: A Case Study of NUS Baba House” Bachelor’s Dissertation, Department of Building, National University of Singapore Lenggogeni, L. et. al. (2021) “Maintenance Management of Cultural Heritage School Buildings in Jakarta: An Overview of Indonesian Government Regulation” IOP Conference Series: Material Science and Engineering, 1098, 022047 Miles, D. and Syagga, P. (1987) “Building Maintenance: A Management Manual” London: Intermediate Technology Publications Ltd NHB (2022) “Technical Guidelines for National Monuments: A Brief Guide for Owners and Occupiers of National Monuments”, 2nd edition (Available at https://www.nhb.gov.sg/-/media/nhb/images/nhb2017/what-we-do/preservation-of-sitesand-monuments/psm-tech-guide-general-guide.pdf, last accessed on 10 November 2023) Priya, A. (2021) “Case Study Methodology of Qualitative Research: Key Attributes and Navigating the Conundrums in Its Application”, Sociological Bulletin, 70(1), pp. 94 110 Rowe, W. H. (1996) “Historic Buildings” in Cost Planning & Estimating for Facilities Maintenance, Kingston, MA: R.S. Means Company, Inc. Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings (1877) “Manifesto for the Protection of Ancient Buildings” https://www.spab.org.uk/about-us/spab-manifesto Sodangi, M. et. al. (2014) “Best Practice Criteria for Sustainable Maintenance Management of Heritage Buildings in Malaysia” Procedia Engineering, 77, pp. 11-19 Slocombe, M. (2017) “SPAB Approach” Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings (SPAB), https://www.spab.org.uk/campaigning/spab-approach Tan, A. H. C (1996) “Performance Measurement: Comprehensive Building Maintenance of Government Schools” Bachelor’s Dissertation, School of Building and Estate Management, National University of Singapore Tay, M. (2012) “The Study of Historic Plaster and External Render” Bachelor’s Dissertation, Department of Building, National University of Singapore Toh, L.L. (2010) “Preserving of Historical Monuments in Singapore – Maintaining and Repairing Historic Timber Elements” Bachelor’s Dissertation, Department of Building, National University of Singapore

Teo, Z. (2013) “Maintenance of Public Buildings in Singapore” Bachelor’s Dissertation, Department of Building, National University of Singapore Xu, T. (2023) “Anachronistic affluence: Time to reconsider Singapore’s Black-andWhite bungalows” in The Online Citizen, published on 30 June 2023 (Available at https://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2023/06/30/anachronistic-affluence-time-toreconsider-singapores-black-and-white-bungalows/, last accessed on 5 November 2023) URA (2017) “Revised Conservation Guidelines, Technical Handbooks and Strategic Sale Sites” (Available at https://www.ura.gov.sg/Corporate/Guidelines/Circulars/dc1708, last accessed on 10 November 2023) URA (2017a) “Volume 1: Introduction” in Conservation Technical Handbook: A guide for best practices, Singapore: URA URA (2023) “Conservation Principles” (Available at https://www.ura.gov.sg/Corporate/Guidelines/Conservation/ConservationGuidelines/Part-1-Overview/CONSERVATION-PRINCIPLES, last accessed on 10 November 2023) URA (2023a) “A&A Works to or Near Conserved Buildings and Maintenance of Conserved Buildings” Published on 1 March 2023 (Available at https://www.ura.gov.sg/Corporate/Guidelines/Circulars/dc23-04, last accessed on 22 November 2023) Wordsworth, P. (2000) “Lee’s Building Maintenance Management” Fourth Edition, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Xie, H. (2010) “Control of Timber Decay in Historic Buildings: Maintenance and Testing Process” Bachelor’s Dissertation, Department of Building, National University of Singapore

APPENDICES Appendix I – Semi-structured Interview questions and prompts Maintenance Practices 1. Can you describe your maintenance model? a. What is the contracting or management model? b. Is the contract shared or is it just for this site? c. What is the procurement process? d. Is there a standardised schedule of rates? Who decides this rate? Does it include any historic materials specific for your conserved building? e. What happens when there are special materials you require but not in the schedule of rates? Does it make the historic material more expensive? f. Who sources for the special material or craftsmen? Is it you or your agent? g. What is the specifications for the contract and are there any differences between the specifications for the conserved building versus other buildings under your agency? 2. Can you describe your maintenance routine? a. What is the inspection routine? Who does it? How often? b. What is the cleaning routine? c. Is there façade cleaning? d. Is there gutter cleaning? e. Is there roof cleaning? 3. What is your maintenance strategy? Is it preventive, reactive or predictive? a. What is the cycle for planned maintenance? How often do you do repainting? Changes in M&E or other works? Perception of maintenance cost 4. How do you think the cost of maintenance of the conserved building compares with the maintenance cost of the non-conserved buildings under your care? 5. What are some of the building problems that you face? How often are there repairs compared with the non-conserved buildings? What are the common repair spendings? Perception of building’s heritage value 6. Do you think the heritage of the building is important to the owner? Or is the amenity of the building more important? Perception of conservation 7. What challenges do you face for taking care of the conserved building? a. Do you face problem with funding or justifying the expenses? b. Sourcing for contractors or material? 8. What do you think will help the owners or you or your contractors better take care of the conserved building?

9. What do you think can help owners and other agencies comply with conservation more easily or willingly like other technical agencies requirements? Conservation practices and competency 10. When there are corrective repairs required, who decides on the repair method? 11. Do you have any (conservation) specialist consultants or report by these specialists who advise you on the type of repair or material to use? a. Any report on how to maintain the building to last longer? b. Would it help to have one? 12. Do you have any records of the conservation works that were done at restoration? 13. Do you know what kind of restoration, repair or treatments were carried out during restoration? 14. Do you know the conservation guidelines for your building? 15. Have you attended any training or have any background in conservation previously?

Appendix II - Sample Maintenance Log Book

Extracted from URA (2017a) “Volume 1: Introduction” in Conservation Technical Handbook: A guide for best practices, page 107