Form Intelligence – Reimagining the Industrial Landscape for a Circular Economy by NUS Department of Architecture

FORM INTELLIGENCE REIMAGINING THE INDUSTRIAL LANDSCAPE FOR A CIRCULAR ECONOMY

Nirmal Kishnani Wong Mun Summ Swinal Samant

FORM INTELLIGENCE

Nirmal Kishnani - Wong Mun Summ - Swinal Samant

REIMAGINING THE INDUSTRIAL LANDSCAPE FOR A CIRCULAR ECONOMY

Nirmal Kishnani Wong Mun Summ Swinal Samant

ABOUT THE BOOK

form intelligence Reimagining the Industrial Landscape for a Circular Economy The work presented in this book was carried out over two years by students and professors of the Master of Science, Integrated Sustainable Design programme at the School of Design and Environment, National University of Singapore. The university, which consistently ranks as one of the world’s top tertiary institutions, is located in Singapore, an Asian city-state widely regarded as a global leader in green architecture and urbanism. In the design studios that make up the core of this one-year, post-professional course, sustainability is examined both as an outcome and a process. The curriculum is Asian-centric and anchored in systems thinking as a pathway for design. This unique pedagogical approach begins by asking which systems matter, how built and natural systems interact, and which flows and exchanges can be altered for a more resilient system of systems. The students who join the programme come from different disciplines and backgrounds to be taught by global experts in architecture, urbanism and landscape ecology.

FORM INTELLIGENCE

Publisher

Centre for Advanced Studies in Architecture Department of Architecture School of Design and Environment National University of Singapore Authors and Editors

Nirmal Kishnani Wong Mun Summ Swinal Samant

Editorial Assistants

Jhanvi Sanghvi Shefali Lal Jocelyn Lam Ann Mathew Graphic Design

Spread (Barcelona): Tomoko Sakamoto - David Lorente Proofreader

Olistis, SCCL (Barcelona) Printer

Tiger Printing (Hong Kong) Co., Ltd. Every effort has been made to produce this book using environmentally sound materials and practices. The paper was sourced from well-managed forests, a verification system tracked the raw materials from forest to end product, and it has been sized to minimise waste during production. The printing process used 100% soy-based ink free from volatile organic compounds and water-based varnish. All the raw materials were free from hazardous chemicals. With the exception of the cover, lamination has been avoided to facilitate future recycling processes. The cover has been laminated with a pre-coated grade of Thermal OPP film with no solvent or water-based additives.

ISBN: 978-981-18-2642-9 Copyright

© Centre for Advanced Studies in Architecture, Department of Architecture, School of Design and Environment, National University of Singapore, 2021 Where text or image is credited, copyright is retained by the authors. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted, in any form or by any means, digital, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without written permission from the copyright owner. Disclaimers

The information and arguments presented in this book have been assembled, derived and developed from various sources, including textbooks, academic papers, news media, reports, standards, guidelines, professional firms and the Internet. These are presented in good faith. The author and publisher have made every reasonable effort to make sure that the information presented is accurate. Every effort has been made to ensure that intellectual property rights are rightfully acknowledged. Omissions or errors, if any, are unintended. W here the publisher or author is notified of an omission or error, these will be corrected in subsequent editions. The opinions and views expressed within the content of this publication are solely those of the authors.

Photographic Credits

© Ken Webster based on Cradle to Cradle by W. McDonough and M. Braungart, 11 © W. McDonough and Partners, 12 © Seeram Ramakrishna, 14, 15 © JTC Corporation, 16-21 © Weixiang Lim, 22-23, 25-41, 6 8-69, 78-79, 88-89, 152-153 © 2015 FABRICations, All Rights Reserved, 94 (top, Circular Amsterdam: marketplace and resource bank) © Filip Dujardin, 94 (left, People’s Pavilion) © Bert Rietberg for J.P. v an E esteren, 94 (right, Triodos Bank) © Kalundborg Symbiose, 95 © WOHA, 120-125 © Biomimicry 3.8, 141 (top) © EDB, Anuj Jain, 141 (bottom), 137 © bioSEA, 138 (top) © Bernard Dupont, 149 © Alan Owyong, 149 © Greg Hume, 149 © Forest and Kim Starr, 149 © Lee Tiah khee, 149 © Nick Baker, 149 © Tan Heok Hui, 149 All other images and drawings are the property of the National University of Singapore

Printed and bound in China.

Published by

Sponsored by

Department of Architecture School of Design and Environment National University of Singapore 4 Architecture Drive Singapore 117566 Tel. +65 6516 8736 www.sde.nus.edu.sg/arch/ facebook.com/nus.aki instagram.com/aki.nus/

JTC Corporation The JTC Summit 8 Jurong Town Hall Road Singapore 609434 Tel. 1800 568 7000 www.jtc.gov.sg

FORM INTELLIGENCE Nirmal Kishnani Wong Mun Summ Swinal Samant

REIMAGINING THE INDUSTRIAL LANDSCAPE FOR A CIRCULAR ECONOMY

INDEX

THE CIRCULARITY IMPERATIVE

THE CANVAS

AN INTRODUCTION TO CIRCULAR ECONOMY Ken Webster and Laura F. Henao

SINGAPORE’S ZERO-WASTE POLICY Seeram Ramakrishna

INDUSTRIAL ESTATES IN SINGAPORE: A BRIEF HISTORY JTC / Urban Design & Architecture Division

AN INDUSTRIAL CONDITION

24 42

THE SUNGEI KADUT INDUSTRIAL ESTATE SUNGEI KADUT REIMAGINED

52 60 70 80

THE SUNGEI KADUT MASTERPLAN ZONE 1 : A FACTORY IN A FOREST ZONE 2: AN INDUSTRIAL INCUBATOR ZONE 3: THE EMERGENT VILLAGE

A SYSTEMS APPROACH

FORM AND SPATIAL STRUCTURE Nirmal Kishnani and Tanya Talwar

106

PUBLIC SPACE, MOBILITY AND LOGISTICS Swinal Samant

120

THREE-DIMENSIONAL PLANNING Wong Mun Summ with Lin Bolt and Jhanvi Sanghvi

136

BLUE AND GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE Anuj Jain, Celine Tan and Herbert Dreiseitl epilogue

154 156

MESSAGE FROM THE SPONSOR DESIGN AS RESEARCH: THE MSC ISD STUDIO

157 158 160

MSC ISD Team Bibliography Acknowledgements

THE CIRCULARITY IMPERATIVE We use resources and services faster than nature can regenerate them. In 2021, the ecological footprint of humans equalled some 1.7 Earths. The fact that we take too much, too quickly, is clearly a problem. Another problem is the fact that we fail to adequately manage or value the waste we generate. In 2020, the world generated over two billion tonnes of solid waste annually, a figure that, by 2050, will reach 3.4 billion tonnes.1 In low-income countries, 90% of all waste is openly dumped or burned. 2 The landfills in these areas then facilitate the transmission of diseases, mainly affecting poorer communities. Waste also impacts natural systems. In 2016, 242 million tonnes of plastic waste–equivalent to about 24 trillion plastic bottles–was dumped, a significant portion of which inevitably ended up in the world’s oceans. In the same year, the equivalent of 1.6 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide greenhouse gas emissions were generated from waste treatment and disposal, accounting for about five percent of global emissions. By 2050, this figure is likely to increase to 2.6 billion tonnes. The problem of excessive waste can be attributed to the linear economy. Raw materials are collected, transformed into products that are used, and eventually discarded. Often, this is not so much a question of needs as it is of wants, wherein the underlying goal is to boost economic growth by producing and selling as many products as possible.3 There is ample evidence that the construction sector is a major generator of waste. This is due to the excessive and inefficient use of resources over the lifetime of a building, the day-to-day behaviours of its occupants, and how its systems are designed and operated. Often it comes down to the question of how long buildings are kept in use. In Singapore, where demolition waste is substantially recycled, there is little interest in stretching the life of buildings, resulting in a tear-down-and-rebuild mindset amongst building owners and developers. The alternative to a linear economy is the circular economy. Advocates for circularity argue that we must:

All three have implications for the design of buildings and cities. This book examines how these principles affect decisions during the planning stages. A key finding is that circularity compels a rethinking of the connectivity of people and resource flows, leading to the creation of new networks and pathways. This imperative to connect affects the order in which elements are arranged or assembled, how they are clustered or juxtaposed or stacked, how edges facilitate or impede flow and what new permutations of programmes are needed. The overarching goal is to arrange the parts so that the whole, with new built-in connectivities, operates with a leaner metabolism. The circular city is, therefore, an immensely complex, multivariate and multiscalar undertaking. It requires an in-depth understanding of systems – which systems matter, how they are sized, how they talk to each other. It calls for blue-sky thinking, which is far more intuitive but no less important. The proposals in this book ought to be seen as a delineation of systems, which is universal to any project anywhere, and a subjective position on ‘what-could-be’, which is specific to the context of Singapore. The integration of techno-economic hardware with a software of values, aspirations, and behaviours is key. To unpack these ideas and their implications on urban form, the book is organised into three parts. The first outlines the larger canvas: the global call for circularity in the built environment, a policy initiative in the city-state of Singapore, and an overview of the city's industrial estates. The second explores circularity in the context of an actual site in Singapore: the Sungei Kadut industrial estate. The outcomes of this design exercise are shown as a series of visual collages. The third consists of expert views on circularity, relying in part on the Sungei Kadut study. The drivers and assumptions that led to the masterplan are also discussed, and it becomes clear how visible form is really a set of networks and pathways that enable sometimes invisible biotic and abiotic flows.

1 — Eliminate waste and pollution from processes. 2 — Keep products and materials in use for as long as possible 3 — Regenerate natural systems.4 6

THE CANVAS

AN INTRODUCTION TO CIRCULAR ECONOMY

AN INTRODUCTION TO CIRCULAR ECONOMY KEN WEBSTER AND LAURA F. HENAO

Ken Webster is the Director of IS4CE (International Society for Circular Economy), the former Head of Innovation at the Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2010-2018) (UK) and a Visiting Fellow at Cranfield University. He is the author of Circular Economy, A Wealth of Flows (2017). Laura F. Henao is the Learning Engagement Manager for the Ellen MacArthur Foundation. Note: Ken and Laura are writing in a personal capacity.

This short introduction doesn’t start with buildings or even cities; it starts with the idea that a circular economy in its most profound form is a ‘lens’. It’s a way of seeing the world rather than a toolbox of business models and technologies, despite it being incredibly practical in that latter role. And, if it is about such an overview, then it's comforting to know much circular-economy thinking derives from the work of architects and designers. In this article, William McDonough and Walter Stahel will provide our touchstones, and Singapore will serve as an illuminative case study. The notion of a circular economy at one level is really very simple; it’s intuitive. When it comes to resources, we're riding a linear takemake-dispose economic system. It’s been great; a generous portion of a very populous humanity has never lived so well or so long as they have in the post-World War II era. ‘Cheap’ energy and materials, slick technologies built on a growing knowledge base, available credit, and growing trade internationalisation set against growing demand. What could possibly go wrong? Unfortunately, a few things. For example, if the economy is based on extracting natural and social capital, but the accumulated financial capital cannot stimulate a perfect substitute for what has been degraded. Or if the degradation has moved the overall system into a transitional phase (climate destabilisation being a prime example here). The generalised myth is that, of course, human ingenuity can fix any problem encountered The canvas

while economic growth continues. Therefore, when it comes to decoupling resource use from growth, if we can close the loop on products, components and materials while taking consumers and customers with us as we shift to renewable energies and efficiency, what we have is a circular economy rather than a linear one! Intuitive, reassuringly mainstream, and as Walter Stahel says, “an economic opportunity driven by innovation”. Here is how the Ellen MacArthur Foundation describes it:

costs, existing material handling and categorisation systems, the design of buildings or districts that can and do reflect the conditions in which a take-make-dispose approach thrives. Still, the idea of “buildings like trees and cities like forests” (McDonough) gives us a glimpse of what we could achieve if an eco-effective, materials-as-nutrients approach could indeed become a reality. We need to think ‘organism within ecology’ rather than ‘sell and forget’. A circular economy as ecology internalises the costs as benefits. An illustration of a comprehensive approach at a city level can be found in Singapore (see diagram). Another worm in the apple is the use of the term ‘regenerative by design’. It looks harmless, but since a linear economy is based on transforming natural and social capital into financial and economic capital (by degenerating and extracting), where on earth does a capital rebuilding exercise fit in? It certainly needs to fit in a circular economy as a stock maintenance approach. The original quotation is “restorative and regenerative by design” and comes from Braungart and McDonough, the cradle to cradle design pioneers.

Here is my take on the cradle to cradle diagram. Their insights are more profound than many people realise. I added the role of money and debt to the diagram because I believe the question of a circular economy cannot remain solely in the rather purist hands of those who primarily want to talk materials and energy – industrial ecologists, for example – when it’s plain that if money is active, as in the role that credit plays in bringing forward production, then it has a systems-wide influence. Cheap energy and cheap credit drive economic growth, and economic growth bolsters confidence that the loans will be repaid with interest – it’s a positive feedback loop. Worse, cheap credit drives an emphasis on rising asset values, especially urban land, which jostles shoulders uncomfortably with how space is used and the purpose of buildings. It can work against the need to build localised circular economy infrastructures that are cheaper and more accessible to citizens and small businesses. No one is sure how money might work in a full-on circular economy apart from speculating that – using the living systems lens – it will obviously

“A circular economy is a systemic approach to economic development designed to benefit businesses, society, and the environment. In contrast to the ‘take-make-waste’ linear model, a circular economy is regenerative by design and aims to gradually decouple growth from the consumption of finite resources.” The worms in this apple are not too hard to find. For a start, it’s a systemic approach. It’s not a question of sprinkling a handful of digitally inspired business models, getting nodding approval at the state level and job done. Even this would be to assume the successful marketing of a slew of innovations: on-demand/sharing economy/subscription services/pre-loved furniture/‘20-in-one’ appliances/HVAC as a service, etc., will do the rest. It simply won’t. Systemic approaches usually mean adjusting the ‘rules of the game’, i.e., the relationships between the actors in the economy. The linear economy is thoroughly embedded: the price incentives, subsidies, the externalisation of 10

Linear to Circular + Money as Credit. Source: Ken Webster based on Cradle to Cradle by W. McDonough and M. Braungart. 11

Ken Webster - Laura F. Henao

AN INTRODUCTION TO CIRCULAR ECONOMY

ESSAY

have to be about creating and circulating value rather than extracting it. The circular economy does have a very clear repositioning when it comes to materials, however. Materials must be seen as ‘nutrients’, as food for the system. There are two main pathways. Everything for which order can be rebuilt through the biosphere is distinguished from materials created by human artifice, for which order has to be recreated through human enterprise. These human-created materials must remain in a ‘technosphere’ since, within the biosphere, they are most often contaminants. In both pathways, entropy increases, but in the biosphere, these materials are called ‘products of consumption’. They are not just used but progressively used up as decay sets in and molecular chains are broken down. From tree to board to sawdust and soils: a cascading downward flow towards disorder. By contrast, durable materials in the technosphere become products of service. They are not typically used up during their use. They are, well, durable! What they offer is a service over time and the emphasis Design for Disassembly

is on extended product life or design for disassembly and recovery – keeping the item at its highest value. Immediately, one can appreciate that cheap single-use plastics are a disaster because they are durables designed to be products of consumption – and it doesn’t work. It's the wrong material for the job. The genius of the cradle to cradle approach was – and still is – in working through the thinking to give a powerful ‘first principles’ approach. The circular economy as a lens through which to see the world: systems orientated, logical, flexible in application, and designed for systemic fit. Two further key insights unfold from the logic at this point. The first is that, for naïve commentators, a linear economy is often seen as a mechanical pipework system and, therefore, they believe we can create a circular economy by hammering the pipe into a closed loop. The classic recycling assumption – take the waste and renew it. It’s one heck of a job. But in nature, very few animals eat their own excrement and certainly not as a means of sustenance. The excrement is food for a million other lifeforms, from fungi to bacteria,

As an architect and designer, McDonough has exemplified a design for disassembly and recovery approach in Park 20|20, Amsterdam, the ‘first full-service Cradle to Cradle office park in the world.’ It also used three touchstones for creative and operational purposes: ‘waste equals food’, ‘use solar income’ and ‘celebrate diversity’ to create a number of practical and symbiotic circular solutions, including an Elevator as a Service initiative for the multi-tenant NOW building.5

Design ambitions for the NOW Building Park 20|20, Amsterdam. Source: W. Mcdonough and Partners (2014).

The canvas

Zero-Waste Singapore Faced with limited space and a seven-fold increase in the amount of waste generated in the territory over the last 40 years, the Zero-Waste Masterplan released in 2019 will have far-reaching impacts on city functioning and design. Landfill waste is to be cut by 30%. The already successful closing of the water loop (NEWater) and the recycling of waste and metals from construction is to be joined by priorities around food, e-waste and packaging. If ‘waste is food’, then designing

for industrial symbiosis, as in the Jurong chemical park and more generally, must involve processing and cascading materials into new uses as new resources, drawing on insights from living systems. Waste becomes less about hygiene challenges and more about infrastructure-dependent resource opportunities. Subsidiarity is also key: anything that can be managed locally and efficiently should be – just as cells in the animal body deal with immediate exchanges

of energy and m aterials. Turning food waste into compost is one example. Infrastructures can also include spaces for repair ‘cafes’ in some street-food centres, donation stations to encourage reuse, and potentially, spaces for temporary storage. A circular economy is stock management orientated, and slowing the flow through the system calls for ‘buffer’ zones to allow access over an extended period of time. Efficiency is replaced by effectiveness in optimising the whole system.6

“A circular economy is regenerative by design and aims to gradually decouple growth from the consumption of finite resources.”

and services can be derived but also designed to be nourishing to the stock. Throughput is not a measure of wealth, nor is financial return on investment, but the increasing stock of ‘solutions’ that society can deploy for the individuals and communities within its boundaries and hinterlands over the long term, is.

and there is a clearly evolved system to benefit from it. Waste is indeed food, but usually for the system, not the originator. And if the product is in the technosphere, then the first approach is extended product life (maintain the embedded energy and materials in good order and only deconstruct it into molecules as a secondary option). Walter Stahel talks about the Era of ‘R’ (refurbish, repair, reuse etc.) followed by the Era of ‘D’ (delamination, depolymerisation etc.). He then complements this with ideas of total product liability – in other words, the end-of-life responsibility lies with the originator or manufacturer. Is the idea of a chain of responsibility from ‘cradle to cradle’ coming to a city near you? Let’s hope so, one day. The second insight is the role of capitals. So much of life is regenerated in the soils. Today's cities are home to civilisations and cultures, all an important source of social capital. The circular economy expressly focuses on stock maintenance and increase, from which flows of goods

Conclusion The circular economy could be part of a profound reorientation of economic thinking. Or it could be this year’s slogan. At its best, it takes a systems-based perspective founded on feedback-rich systems rather than mechanical systems. It is about effective systems, not just efficient ones – it seeks to optimise the whole, not just a part. It emphasises design-for-system-fit more than waste management or the ‘hygienic’ cleaning up of waste. It demands enabling conditions that reflect the full cost of materials and energy to stimulate different business models and trajectories and the creation of value chains that provide a chain of responsibility for resources. We will see more material data management for what are indeed valuable resources. And economic growth? If growth is no longer a measure of throughput but of increased well-being, then there will be economic growth, but not as we know it. Those days are gone, and much better days await us.

Ken Webster - Laura F. Henao

SINGAPORE’S ZERO-WASTE POLICY

SINGAPORE’S ZERO-WASTE POLICY SEERAM RAMAKRISHNA

Others (stones, ceramics, etc.) Scrap tyres

Waste Generation and Recycling Singapore (2020).9

Glass Non-ferrous metal Used slag Textile/Leather

Total Recycled Total Disposed

Ash & Sludge

Dr Seeram Ramakrishna, FREng, Everest Chair, is a Professor of Materials Engineering and Circular Economy Taskforce Chair at the National University of Singapore. He is also Chairman of PRCOE, Plastics Recycling Association of Singapore (PRAS) and an advisor to the Singapore National Environment Agency and the Ministry of Sustainability and Environment on Extended Producers Responsibility Scheme.

Wood Horticultural Food Construction & Demolition Plastics Ferrous metal

As per estimates by the World Economic Forum, less than nine percent of the human-run world economy is circular. In other words, human-made products, from syringes to skyscrapers, are discarded as solid waste that, over time, accumulates. Additionally, more than 20% of global emissions are due to the production of materials; the global human-made mass now exceeds all living biomass on Earth. In other words, materials are central to sustainability efforts, i.e. to mitigate the existential threats to humanity posed by environmental degradation and biodiversity loss. Against this canvas, Singapore’s commitments to a transition towards a carbon-neutral economy and become a zero-waste nation are immensely important for both current and future generations.7 With the Zero-Waste Masterplan, Singapore has set a national recycling rate target of 70% in 2030 with an increase in the domestic

Collection

Consumers

Total Waste Generated 21,083 t/d

recycling rate from 22% in 2018 to 30% in 2030, and an increase in the non-domestic recycling rate from 74% in 2018 to 81% in 2030.8 An overview of Singapore’s current solid waste management system is illustrated in the diagram below. The total waste generated is 21,000 tonnes per day. About 59% of the total waste is recycled, and the remaining 38% is incinerated. Incineration ash and 3% non-incinerable waste are sent to the Semakau Landfill. Energy recovered at the waste-to-energy (WTE) plant is utilised, and metals are recovered and recycled. In other words, the overall recycling rate now is about 60%. Let us examine the breakdown of Singapore’s 60% recycling rate by different waste categories (see the diagram on the next page). Although construction and demolition waste and ferrous metals account for the most significant

Non-Incinerable Waste 625 t/d

Landfill

Singapore Waste Streams (2018).

3% Incinerable Waste 8,044 t/d

Commercial & Residential Retail Factories & Industries

Recyclable Waste 12,414 t/d

59%

38%

Ash 1,463 t/d

Metals Recovered 269 t/d

Total Recycled Waste 12,683 t/d

60% Recycling

Producers

The canvas

Waste-to-Energy

Electricity 2,437 MWh/d

Paper/Cardboard

amounts of waste generated, their recycling rates are above 99%. The recycling rates of paper/cardboard, food, and plastics are 38%, 19% and 4%, respectively. They make up the highest amount of waste disposed. Reduce, Reuse, and Recycle (3R) measures are at the heart of Singapore’s efforts to enhance circularity. Reducing waste at the source minimises the demand for the virgin resources needed to produce new products, saving natural resources. Reusing, repairing, refurbishing, remanufacturing and repurposing keep materials and products in use, thus improving the circularity of plastics. Recycling diverts waster from incineration and landfill. Of the several acts that were passed to help Singapore reach its targets, the Resource Sustainability Act (RSA), enacted in October 2019, gives legislative teeth to goals. It consists of regulatory measures that target three top priority solid waste streams: e-waste, food waste and packaging waste, including plastics. Under the Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) framework, producers of regulated electrical and electronic products will be made responsible for the collection and proper treatment of their e-waste. These producers are companies that manufacture or import regulated products for the local market. All e-waste collected under the e-waste management system will have to be channelled to licensed e-waste recyclers for proper treatment. 15

The Singapore National Environment Agency (NEA) awarded the licence to operate a Producer Responsibility Scheme (PRS) to ALBA Group plc & Co. ALBA will collect e-waste across Singapore for proper treatment and recycling, and be responsible for the e-waste collection targets set by the NEA. Producers of consumer products will be required to join the PRS to finance the collection and recycling of their e-waste. From 2024 onwards, generators of large amounts of food waste are required to segregate their food waste and manage it via on-site closed-loop waste treatment systems, or send their food waste to an off-site facility for treatment. As of 2021, it is mandatory for developers of new commercial and industrial developments to allocate and set aside space for on-site food waste treatment systems in their design plans. These requirements will reduce the quantity of incinerated food waste, and instead convert it to products such as animal feed, compost/fertiliser, non-potable water or biogas for energy generation. As a precursor to the planned EPR framework for packaging waste and plastics, Singapore initiated a Mandatory Packaging Reporting Framework in January 2021. Under this framework, producers of packaged products, such as brand owners, manufacturers and importers, as well as retailers such as supermarkets, will be required to submit packaging data and 3R (Reduce, Reuse, Recycle) plans to the NEA. Companies Seeram Ramakrishna

will have to provide information on the packaging placed on the Singapore market, broken down according to type (e.g. plastic, paper, metal, and glass), form (e.g. carrier bags, bottles) and corresponding weights. Furthermore, companies are required to submit details of key initiatives, key performance indicators and targets. They will be required to report on the progress of these plans in subsequent years. The plans that companies may consider include (I) packaging reduction; (II) packaging collection for reuse or recycling; (III) consumer or industry outreach related to packaging 3Rs; (IV) use of recycled content in packaging material; and (V) improvements in recyclability of packaging.

“Singapore’s commitments to a transition towards a carbon-neutral economy and become a zero-waste nation are immensely important for both current and future generations. With the Zero Waste Masterplan, Singapore has set a national recycling rate target of 70% in 2030.” It is noteworthy that in Singapore food waste, textiles, packaging, and e-waste are often commingled with plastic waste. Of these, plastics have the lowest recycling rate. The policy question here is how to enhance the circularity of plastics. Apart from encouraging reduce and reuse, mechanical and chemical recycling can be complementary methods for closing the plastics loop. Innovative chemical recycling methods are helping to recover and upcycle plastics. For effective recycling, identification, sorting and segregation of plastic waste are therefore necessary. Water marking or digital marking or molecular labeling of plastics is deemed a good solution. Fourth industrial revolution (4IR) technologies further strengthen the waste management practices. These include digital platforms for trading and tracking, robotics, automation, block chain, artificial intelligence, big data analytics, sensors, 5G, internet of things, modeling & simulation for waste analysis, digital twins, additive manufacturing, and nanotechnology. 4IR saves solid waste management costs while facilitating new business models and further innovations at The canvas

various stage of waste cycle. This enables optimization of waste flows and logistics, standardization and reliability, efficiency of operations, and planning and on-demand response. They are helpful to promote industrial symbiosis akin to symbiosis of diverse systems that exists in the nature.10 These measures can be augmented with eco-friendly product design (eliminating waste and pollution), design for easy disassembly, reuse and recycling, life cycle engineering in production processes, enhancing the resource-efficiency of products, switching to renewable and localsources, refusing to accept or support products that harm the environment and human health, lifecycle impact assessment, lifecycle management, rethinking business models, products as services, andregenerating nature to enhance circularity and lower the carbon footprint of plastics. In order to achieve optimal plastic circularity with a low carbon footprint, in-depth research and innovations in terms of reimagining atoms and molecules, as well as harnessing nanoscience, single-atom science, and quantum science, are to be envisaged. For example, ALBA used 4IR technologies to create a data management system to track and report the amount of e-waste collected for recycling since the 1st of July 2021 to the NEA. E-waste collection starts with a track and trace process enabled by location (GPS), time, and a unique identifier (RFID or Barcode) assigned to the specific event. At the end of each quarter, the operational performance data, including all the consignments sent for recycling with the date, time, category, and weight, are published. This gives every stakeholder ample time to review operational performance before invoice creation and address any clarification ahead of time. Furthermore, ALBA is piloting easy to use Apps for outreach and educational programmes that encourage and incentivise the public to drive up E-waste collection and recycling rates. Similar developments are to be expected as Singapore rolls out EPR schemes for food waste and packaging and plastic waste streams by 2025. Singapore’s zero-waste journey undoubtedly contributes to the resiliency of nature and sustainability and perhaps will serve as an exemplar of circularity for other communities, cities, and countries to emulate. 16

INDUSTRIAL ESTATES IN SINGAPORE: A BRIEF HISTORY JTC / URBAN DESIGN & ARCHITECTURE DIVISION

The author has received inputs from other JTC divisions, including Industry Clusters, the New Estates Division, the Technical Services Division and the Communications Division.

Singapore’s economy was heavily dependent on entrepôt trade prior to the nation gaining self-governance in 1959. The country was mired in chaos with riots and political clashes. Against this backdrop, and compounded by the island’s lack of natural resources, Singapore’s first Finance Minister, Dr Goh Keng Swee, pursued an ambitious industrialisation programme as the main driving force for Singapore’s economic growth and transformation into a modern citystate. Dr Goh had the full support of Singapore’s Founding Prime Minister, Mr Lee Kuan Yew, and his Cabinet. The colonial period saw minimal industrial development as the British shied away from encouraging industrial progress for fear of generating competition for their home industries. But after the new Singapore government came into power, it approached the United Nations to help revive the flagging economy. This move resulted in the Winsemius Report, which played a pivotal role in initiating Singapore’s industrialisation programme. The report highlighted the need to increase the level of manufacturing to support export-oriented industrialisation and implement an industrialisation programme to promote economic growth. This paved the way for the development of industrial estates on the island to provide the infrastructure required by Singapore’s industrialists, beginning with the Jurong Industrial Estate.

1960s–1970s — Labour to skillintensive industrialisation The development of the Jurong Industrial Estate was pivotal in alleviating mass unemployment in the 60s, facilitating the quick start-up of businesses to ramp up economic growth and create jobs. The development blueprint for the estate included the provision of the necessary infrastructure for facilitating businesses, preparing land-based

1960. Aerial view of Jurong. An area of mangrove swamps and jungles. JTC / Urban Design & Architecture Division

INDUSTRIAL ESTATES IN SINGAPORE: A BRIEF HISTORY

factories for companies requiring more extensive facilities, and building industrial spaces in the form of Flatted Factories for companies that needed smaller production spaces. Planned as the first industrial garden township in Singapore, Jurong was envisaged not only to house the industrial factories that would provide large-scale employment but also to be an attractive new urban area in the west, with supporting land use that included residential, educational, recreational and communal facilities served by an excellent infrastructural and transport network. 1980s — CAPITAL-INTENSIVE INDUSTRIALIsATION In 1980, the economy moved into a capital intensive and high-technology phase of industrialisation. A 10-year masterplan was developed that highlighted opportunities for the new industrial infrastructure that would be needed to support higher-value industries. The Economic Development Board was attracting multinational

synergies and collaboration between industry and academia. By the end of the decade, Singapore had established itself as a stable, reliable, and efficient location for manufacturing with a skilled and educated workforce.

Minister Dr Goh Keng Swee (3rd from left) with officials, inspecting a site in Jurong in the 1960s.

“The industrial sector is projected to remain as an important pillar of Singapore’s economy and will continue to require a steady supply of land and space.”

Singapore Science Park developed in the 1980s.

Map of the Jurong Industrial Estate.

corporations involved in R&D and high-tech activities specialising in the financial, educational, lifestyle, medical, IT and software sectors. There was a need to create a new industrial typology – the Business Park – with clean and conducive office-like settings that could accommodate a combination of manufacturing activities and high-end services. Opened in 1980, the first Business Park was the Singapore Science Park I, a science and technology hub in a park-like setting located near the National University of Singapore to facilitate

Six units of Terrace Factories in Jurong, built in the late 60s.

View of the Jurong factories in the early days, c. 1973.

The canvas

amalgamating seven offshore islands to create Jurong Island, a petrochemical hub that would house a cluster of chemical companies functioning as one mutually supportive ecosystem. A specialised integrated network of shared infrastructure and service corridors provided an attractive industrial environment that helped reduce costs and improve processes, pioneering the promotion of industrial symbiosis and circular economy.

1990s — TECHNOLOGY-INTENSIVE INDUSTRIALIsATION The vision outlined in the 1991 Strategic Economic Plan was to achieve “the status and characteristics of a first-league developed country”, resulting in the need to move Singapore’s economy upstream to ensure its competitive edge. The Cluster Development strategy was critical in identifying mutually supporting industries to form clusters, as industry integration would bring about economies of scale across companies in the value chain. By clustering the industries in one location, companies could share resources and facilities, resulting in land optimisation. New specialised industrial parks were developed to meet the industry requirements of the identified clusters – the Tuas Biomedical Park for the biomedical cluster, the Airport Logistics Park for the air logistics cluster and Jurong Island for the chemical cluster. The Jurong Island project is a prime example of successful industrial clustering. With the decline of the electronics sector in the late 1980s, the decision was taken to actively ramp up the promotion of chemical projects and increase Singapore’s competitiveness with other countries in the region who were building their own refineries. And to cope with the land crunch, Singapore looked into extensive land reclamation as well as 19

Reclamation works in Jurong Island taken in the late 90’s.

2000s — KNOWLEDGE/INNOVATIONINTENSIVE INDUSTRIALIsATION To remain competitive in a maturing economy amid globalisation and technological advances, Singapore needed to diversify its economy into entrepreneurship and the creative industries. This led to the creation of an “enterprise ecosystem” where large companies and innovative start-ups could come together to generate new knowledge and capabilities. Singapore also started to pursue innovation-driven industries, like biomedical sciences, information communications and media, clean technology, and environment and water management. As part of the 2001 Concept Plan, the URA instituted a new “impact-based” zoning system where different non-polluting businesses could be housed within a single development. The liberalisation in land zoning created great opportunities for a new typology of mixed-use environments and buildings where one could work, live, play and learn. Conceived in 2000, one-north aimed to secure Singapore’s competitive edge in the region JTC / Urban Design & Architecture Division

INDUSTRIAL ESTATES IN SINGAPORE: A BRIEF HISTORY

as a key technopreneurial and knowledge-intensive research hub. Envisaged as an inclusive, urban, work-centric neighbourhood, one-north is a mixed-use development that seeks to attract international and local talents. This integrated business park serves to support the new knowledge-driven clusters of Biomedical Sciences, Infocomm Technology (ICT), Media, Physical Sciences and Engineering. 2010s — NEW DIRECTIONS IN INDUSTRIAL PLANNING The industrial sector is expected to remain an important pillar of Singapore’s economy and will continue to require a steady supply of land and space. Today, a significant area of the island’s total landmass is allocated for industrial use. Moving forward, we will need to source more creative and cutting-edge solutions to alleviate our industrial space constraints. In addition, the projected increase in Singapore’s population will lead to competing land uses within a denser built environment, which means that industrial land will be planned in closer proximity to urban areas, residential areas, water catchment and recreational areas. Increasingly,

One-north is a vibrant research and business park for r esearch, innovation, and test-bedding.

the challenge will be finding ways to integrate these different land uses within a compact setting whilst maintaining a high level of liveability. Also, to address land scarcity and population growth, decentralisation was initiated as part of a long-term national strategy to develop polycentres and create job centres closer to homes. Driven by the decentralisation strategy and the vision to create more integrated mixed-use estates, three new polycentres are currently being developed – the Jurong Innovation District and Jurong Lake District in the west, and the Punggol Digital District in the north-east. 2020 AND BEYOND — THE FUTURE OF MANUFACTURING To further optimise land, there will be opportunities to rejuvenate mature industrial estates to maintain a steady stream of land supply for economic growth. There will also be a growing need to redevelop brownfield sites and opportunities to enhance estate infrastructure. And as industries become cleaner and less polluting in their operations, industrial parks will be planned with environmental sustainability in mind and be well integrated with the surrounding urban fabric and the wider community. Aside from economic trends, the master planning and infrastructure provision for new industrial estates are also guided by the Government’s broader strategic plans and national

Aerial view of the seven southern islands that were reclaimed and merged to form Jurong Island. The canvas

Punggol Digital District, an upcoming smart district.

initiatives. For example, Singapore recently embarked on its “30 by 30” food security target, an effort to ensure the island-state can produce 30 per cent of its nutritional needs locally by the year 2030. As part of this initiative, a new AgriFood Innovation Park is being developed in the North Region, envisioned as an integrated urban agriculture and aquaculture technology hub that will contribute to Singapore’s food security goal. It will be strategically located in the Sungei Kadut Eco-District to seed the progressive development of the northern Agri-Tech & Food Corridor. And with the increasing efforts to make Singapore a more sustainable and resource-efficient nation, there will be opportunities to adopt circular economy concepts and co-locate synergistic industries that can share common resource loops in upcoming industrial estates. Through better resource optimisation and an integrated planning approach, these coordinated efforts will contribute to the drive towards a zero-waste Singapore. JTC / Urban Design & Architecture Division

AN INDUSTRIAL CONDITION

nirmal kishnani

THE SUNGEI KADUT INDUSTRIAL ESTATE Sungei Kadut is a 500-hectare industrial estate in the north of Singapore. It is bordered by residential developments to the south, the Central Catchment Nature Reserve to the east and farming areas, wetlands and a freshwater reservoir to the west. Its northern boundary is provided by the Straits of Johor, which separate Singapore from Malaysia. In its present state, the site is a low-rise and low-density estate, home to timber, furniture, construction and waste recycling industries. Over the next 20-30 years, it will be progressively redeveloped into a new industrial park with high-rise factories serving new growth sectors such as environmental technology and agrotech.

an industrial condition