This case was written by Tan Shin Bin under the guidance of Donald Low, Lee Kuan Yew School of Public (LKY School), National University of Singapore and has been funded by the LKY School. The case does not reflect the views of the sponsoring organisation nor is it intended to suggest correct or incorrect handling of the situation depicted. The case is not intended to serve as a primary source of data and is meant solely for class discussion.
Copyright © 2014 by the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy at the National University of Singapore. All rights reserved.
This publication can only be used for teaching purposes.
Renting out State Properties: Short Term Uses, Long Term Consequences
Introduction
In June 2007, the former Methodist Girls’ School (MGS) campus at Mount Sophia was leased from Singapore Land Authority (SLA), and revamped into Old School, a creative arts enclave. The lease, after two renewals, was scheduled to run out in June 2012, and the site was slated for residential development, despite efforts by the tenants of Old School to extend the lease. In response, a group of former MGS students embarked on an impassioned campaign “Save Old School” (SOS) to conserve all the buildings, most of which faced demolition. This campaign garnered significant public support and press coverage.
SLA’s scheme to let out unused state properties on a short-term basis had been formulated and operationalised to serve very practical, pragmatic purposes such as optimising state assets and providing additional built capacity that can be deployed quickly and flexibly to meet a variety of short-term demands for space. However, the SOS campaign, and others similar to it, demonstrates how the implementation of a seemingly clear-cut, pragmatic policy can trigger unanticipated and emotive responses from tenants and the public.
As the leases of other developments on rented state properties such as the trendy night club Zouk and the hugely popular cluster of restaurant, bars, cafes and retail shops at Tanglin Village draw closer to expiry, how should the government address the challenges arising from possible entrenchment of uses that were always intended – by government planners – to be temporary, and balance public demands against longer-term land development needs?
Overview of the State Properties Rental Scheme
The Singapore Land Authority (SLA), a statutory board under the Ministry of Law, is responsible for optimising Singapore’s scarce land resources. One of its key responsibilities is to manage state land and buildings, land sales, leases, acquisitions and allocation.1 Today, approximately 5,000 state properties2 are under SLA’s care. These state properties range from residential, commercial, industrial to institutional (e.g. schools, community centres), and add up to about 3.8 million square metres of gross floor area—a sizeable portfolio.3
SLA’s properties are generally made available to potential users via open tender. While tender submissions typically have to conform to a set of pre-approved uses for the property, entrepreneurs can submit creative ideas on ways to utilise state properties, via the “Ideas Tender Scheme”.4 This was intended to support entrepreneurship and allow commercially viable ideas to emerge and compete with one another.
1 SLA’s website, http://www.sla.gov.sg/htm/abo/abo01.htm (cited Jan 27 2014)
2 SLA’s 2012-2013 Corporate Report,
http://www.sla.gov.sg/htm/new/SLA_e-AR1213/downloads/SLA-eAR-2012-13.pdf
3 3.8 million square metres is about 27 times of Vivocity. Source:
http://www.vivocity.com.sg/pdf/VivoCityFactSheet.pdf (cited Jan 27 2014)
State buildings may be tendered out either individually or in clusters under a master tenancy where the successful master tenant can then sublease units or floors of each building to other sub-tenants. Leases for state properties are typically up to three years a term, sometimes with an option to extend for two further terms of three years each. Having shorter leases allows SLA to maintain maximum flexibility over the reallocation and use of the properties.
Constitutional Safeguards on State Properties
To appreciate the rationale behind the state properties rental scheme, it is important to first understand its context.
One may wonder why the state does not simply demolish the unused buildings, and reinstate a blank slate of land, as this would help save on maintenance costs and facilitate quicker development of the land if needed. However, SLA continues to maintain vacated state buildings, even those that are not of particular cultural, historical or architectural value. This policy can be attributed to institutional safeguards that guide the development and disposal of state-owned land and properties, both of which form part of Singapore’s national reserves.
The Singapore government has built up a sizeable pool of national reserves that are intended to provide a financial buffer that can be utilised in times of crisis, and provide a stream of investment income for the government’s annual budget.5 Given the importance attributed to having a healthy store of reserves, the Singapore Constitution has checks in place to prevent a profligate government from drawing down the past reserves accumulated in previous terms of government. The elected President can veto any draw down on past reserves. State land is considered part of these past reserves, since there is a risk that a profligate government might decide to sell state land (even at fire sale prices) in order to raise monies for spending. Under the safeguards on reserves, the government of the day is thus required to sell state land only at a “fair market value”- established either by the Chief Valuer (a statutory appointment) or through a competitive tender process.
In 1999, a White Paper was tabled at Parliament, which established a set of rules governing what constituted a drawdown of past reserves. According to these rules, a state-owned building should be demolished only if it is deemed obsolete or unsafe6, otherwise demolition could constitute a draw on past reserves, an act that is not undertaken lightly and which requires the President’s approval.7 Revenues from the disposal of state land, which includes the granting of leasehold titles of more than 10 years, and the granting of renewable lease terms that add up to over 10 years, accrue back to past reserves.8
5 MOF website, “Our Nation’s Reserves” http://app.mof.gov.sg/reserves.aspx and “Second Reading Speech for Constitution of Republic of Singapore (Amendment) Bill 2008, Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam”
“http://app.mof.gov.sg/data/cmsresource/Parliament/2ndReading_ConstitutionAmendment_2008.pdf (cited Jan 27 2014)
6 Singapore Parliament White Paper, “The principles for determining and safeguarding the accumulated reserves of the government and the fifth schedule statutory boards and government companies” Printed for the
Government of Singapore by the Government Printers, 1999.
7 Quote from Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam, “Use of Past Reserves since 2002 “, July 9 2013, Parliament “…our Past Reserves form a critical part of our nation’s resources. Any usage of Past Reserves is done in a disciplined and sustainable manner. An actual draw on Past Reserves, as was done in 2009, can only be contemplated in extraordinary circumstances and with the approval of Parliament and the President.”
http://sprs.parl.gov.sg/search/topic.jsp?currentTopicID=00000227-WA¤tPubID=00000254- WA&topicKey=00000254-WA.00000227-WA_1%2BhansardContent43a675dd-5000-42da-9fd5-40978d79310f%2B
In short, under the current framework, state properties in reasonable, usable condition are to be retained rather than demolished, until the land is ready for sale or redevelopment. Revenues from subsequent disposal of the land would be returned to past reserves and safeguarded.
Managing Land Supply and Development
Another reasonable question one may ask is: why does SLA choose to rent out its state properties for a relatively modest yield instead of releasing the site onto the market for private redevelopment, which would bring in much larger sums for the state? The answer to this hinges on the government’s approach to land use planning and development.
Given Singapore’s land scarcity, the development of land is tightly controlled. As the government owns over 80 percent of land in Singapore9, it is able to set aside a stock of reserve land that is not slated for immediate development. This reserve acts as a land bank10 that provides a contingency buffer for future land needs and provides the government a lever to respond to volatility in property markets through supply-side measures, i.e. releasing more land when land prices are rising and less when prices are falling.
As it is the majority owner of land, the government actively releases state land for sale, via a Government Land Sales (GLS) programme11. Two key principles govern the GLS programme: first, the release of state land for development is calibrated to meet market demand, and to moderate property prices and rentals. Secondly, the choice of GLS sites to release is based on planning strategies, such as developing regional commercial centres like Jurong Lake District and Paya Lebar Central. Sites in these centres are prioritised for release, which means demand for commercial space is deliberately channelled there. This ensures development takes off in these centres.
If there is no pressing market demand or overarching planning strategy that necessitate the immediate redevelopment of the land that state properties are on, the land would be set aside for future use as part of Singapore’s land bank.
Putting State Properties to Good Use
Instead of leaving vacant state properties unused, SLA lets them out on short-term leases. This enables SLA to reap rental revenues, and outsources the premises’ upkeep to tenants.
Vacated state buildings also provide a stock of immediately available, relatively cheaper spaces suitable for small businesses, arts and cultural organisations, as well as voluntary organisations providing social services that may find it difficult to afford to build their own spaces. Start-ups and businesses looking for premises to run niche social services such as
9 Lum Sau Kim, “The Impact of Land Supply and Public Housing Provision on the Private Housing Market in Singapore”, IRES Working Paper Series, April 2011 http://www.ires.nus.edu.sg/workingpapers/IRES2011-005.pdf
10 Citynet “Municipal Land Management in Asia: A Comparative Study”, United Nations (1995), 36-28,
http://www.unescap.org/huset/m_land/mun_land.pdf (cited Jan 28 2014)
11 Designated sales agents for State land include SLA, the Urban Revelopment Authority (URA), the Housing Development Board (HDB), JTC Corporation (JTC) and the Land Transport Authority (LTA). The URA is the main land sales agent for the Government. Each GLS programme is announced every 6 months and sites are released either through the Reserve List or Confirmed List. Commercial, hotel and private residential
childcare centres and homes for the aged, are allowed to make direct rental offers to SLA—a process that is more than twice as fast as going through the typical open tender process.12 State properties also provide additional capacity that can be quickly released in crunch times, when the time lag between the sale of land the eventual completion of buildings is too long. For instance, in 2007, a prime office space crunch sent rents rocketing, and forced companies to move out of the city.13 In response, SLA released several state properties in central
locations14 specifically for office use. In 2008, vacant state properties were tendered out for use as temporary foreign worker dormitory use, in order to ease current overcrowding in premises arising from a shortage of accommodation for foreign workers.15
SLA also partners other agencies in strategic national initiatives by releasing suitable buildings for specific uses. For example, as part of an overarching strategy to promote Singapore as a regional arts and culture hub, theNational Heritage Board (NHB) and SLA invited proposals to develop, operate and manage integrated private museum and art facilities for state buildings at 222 Queen Street—the former Catholic High Secondary School, and the Loewen Road properties in Tanglin Village in 2008.16 As an incentive, rents were fixed at about 20 to 30 percent below commercial rates.17 222 Queen Street today includes a mix of dance studios, private art museums, art schools and dance club18 (see Exhibit 1).
In a similar manner, SLA partners the Economic Development Board (EDB) to market disused State properties to the education sector under the Global Schoolhouse Project19, a scheme to create an “education ecosystem” that can become “an engine of economic growth, capability development and talent attraction for Singapore”. 20 It also works with the Media Development Authority (MDA) to rent out suitable State buildings to independent filmmakers, television and film companies for filming purposes, as these often have much sought-after, unique design features (e.g. spiral staircases, colonial architecture). This initiative supports the stated objective to make Singapore a “vibrant global media city”21.
12 SLA, “RentDirect scheme makes renting of disused State buildings faster and simpler”,
http://www.sla.gov.sg/htm/new/new2005/new0254.htm (cited Jan 28 2014)
13 Joyce Teo, “Demand for State properties rises on tight office supply”, The Strait Times, June 8 2007. 14 Properties included the former police headquarters in Pearl’s Hill Terrace, the former Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau on Cantonment Road, as well as the former River Valley Primary School campus. Source:
http://www.redas.com/doc/cir070202.pdf (cited Jan 29 2014)
15“ New sites designated for temporary dormitories” AsiaOne, Dec 04 2008,
http://news.asiaone.com/News/AsiaOne%2BNews/Singapore/Story/A1Story20081204-105464.html (cited Jan 29 2013)
16 Joint Press Release from NHB and SLA“NHB And SLA Launch First Ever Request-For-Interest For Integrated Museum And Art Facilities At Queen Street And Loewen Road”, Oct 15 2008,
http://www.sla.gov.sg/htm/new/new2008/new1510.htm (cited Jan 29 2013)
17 Adam Majendie, “Singapore Offers Cut-Rent Prime Buildings for Private Museums “, Bloomberg, Oct 15 2008, http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aHuMyKk2G.sU&refer=muse (cited Jan 30 2014)
18Serene Thia, “Queen Street: Art, sushi and pole dancing” CNN Travel, Sept 30 2010,
http://travel.cnn.com/singapore/play/rise-queen-street-435337 (cited Jan 29 2014)
19SLA, “SLA-EDB Global Schoolhouse Project”, http://www.sla.gov.sg/htm/new/new2005/new0252.htm (cited Jan 30 2014)
20Contact Singapore, “Singapore, the Global Schoolhouse” Synergy, (2011),13,
http://www.contactsingapore.org.sg/Library/1/publications/46/Synergy_SepOct2011.pdf (cited Feb 3 2014) 21SLA, “Short-Term Rental of State Properties for Filming (SRF) Programme”
http://www.sla.gov.sg/htm/ser/ser0209.htm (cited Jan 30 2014) Exhibit 1. Queen Street 222, 2014.
Effectiveness of the State Properties Rental Scheme
By and large, the scheme to rent out state properties has been successful in putting properties to productive uses. In recent years, the occupancy rates of state properties have hovered close to 100% (see Exhibit 2).
Exhibit 2: Occupancy Rates of State Properties
Source: SLA Annual Report 2012/2013
There have also been several successful adaptive reuses of old state properties, the best known of these being Tanglin Village, formerly known as Tanglin Barracks. (Exhibit 3).
Tanglin Village comprises three clusters of former military buildings: Dempsey, Minden, Loewen. The properties were returned to the State in 1990s, after the Ministry of Defence (MINDEF) moved out of the premises, and were progressively let out to the private sector.22 Today, Tanglin Village has a mix of popular dining places, education facilities, retail shops and art galleries23
Another example of successful adaptive reuse of a state building is Zouk, a nightclub that is housed within three single-storey pre-war warehouses. (see Exhibit 4) Zouk opened its doors in 1991, and has since won multiple local and international accolades.24
Lobbying for Lease Extensions
While the short tenure of lease may have been specified upfront in the agreement between SLA and its tenants, there have been notable tussles over lease extensions.
22 SLA Press Release, “Tanglin Village—A Distinctive Community Of Lifestyle, Education And Art Interests”, Nov 7 2006, http://www.sla.gov.sg/htm/new/new2006/new0298.htm (cited Feb 2 2014)
23 URA, SLA, http://www.singaporecitygallery.sg/images/wmTanglinVillage-Book.pdf (cited Feb 2 2014), 24Zul Othman and Benita Aw Yeong , “Zouk, out?”, The New Paper, Feb 24 2013,
http://stcommunities.straitstimes.com/music/2013/02/26/zouk-out
Exhibit 3: Tanglin Village, Dempsey cluster, 2014. Author’s photographs.
(A) Seletar Airbase
The redevelopment of Seletar Airbase provides an example of tenant resistance against the expiry of their leases. In 2006, JTC Corp, a statutory board overseeing industrial land in Singapore, announced plans to develop an industrial aerospace park in Seletar, which would create 10,000 jobs and contribute $3.3 billion a year to the economy25.
To develop the aerospace park, parts of Seletar Camp, which was formerly a British Royal Air Force (RAF) base, had to be comprehensively overhauled. Redevelopment plans included the removal of the existing Seletar Base Golf Course, as well as demolishing 174 of the 378 black and white bungalows in the area. These bungalows were leased out by the state at relatively low rents, and offered a tranquil, rustic abode. As the tenant leases expired at the end of 2008, tenants were requested to leave, to make way for redevelopment.
Of the 204 bungalows remaining, some would be retained as homes while the others would be be refurbished for non-residential use (e.g. aerospace training schools and food-and-beverage outlets).26 32 bungalows were slated for official conservation27. (see Exhibit 5)
Golfers and residents petitioned to preserve a portion of the area for public use, and tenants wrote to the local press, lamenting the impending loss of their tight-knit community and idyllic, rustic living quarters. They appealed to the authorities to preserve the residential area28. Local film-maker Li Xiuqi, directed a short documentary, “Seletar Airbase - Singapore's Secret Garden”, because she “objected to the callous bulldozing of such a charming and historic area.[…]It should not just vanish like that without Singaporeans ever knowing what was lost”29
In response, JTC said that it shared the residents' and public's desire to retain as much of the architectural heritage and the charm of Seletar as possible30. It made plans to conserve select buildings, heritage trees and features like the distinctive post-war lampposts of the camp. Nevertheless, as Mr Leong Hong Yew, JTC’s then-deputy director for industrial development commented, while JTC “tried [their] best to balance the needs of industry and community and
25Seletar Camp, Singapore Infopedia, http://infopedia.nl.sg/articles/SIP_1771_2011-02-28.html (cited Feb 6 2014)
26 Karamjit Kaur, “Lights out? Not for quaint lamp posts in Seletar” , The Straits Times, Jul 31 2008 27Karamjit Kaur, “Black and whites at old Seletar airbase to get new lease of life”, The Straits Times,
http://www.straitstimes.com/breaking-news/singapore/story/black-and-whites-old-seletar-airbase-get-new-lease-life-20140211 (cited Feb 11 2013)
28 Teo Xuanwei, Residents, golfers ink a petition to save part of area's rustic charm, TodayOnline, June 8, 2006 29Ci’en, “Seletar Airbase: Singapore’s Secret Garden”, Culturepush, Jul 25 2007.
http://culturepush.com/2007/07/25/seletar-airbase-singapores-secret-garden/ (cited Feb 6 2014) 30 Koh Gui Qing, “Singapore set to raze third of heritage bungalows”, Reuters, Jul 15, 2007,
http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/07/16/us-singapore-heritage-bungalows-idUSSIN20875420070716?sp=true
(cited Feb 5, 2014)
at the same time attempted to integrate the surroundings of the area into the plan [...] there will be some who will not be happy”. 31
Affected tenants moved out when their leases expired, the golf course was closed and development of the park went ahead as planned. Phase 1 and 2 was completed by 201132 and full completion of the aerospace park is scheduled for 2018.
(B) Old School, Mount Sophia
A more recent example of dispute over lease extensions centres on a site on Mount Sophia. In June 2007, the former Methodist Girls’ School (MGS) campus at Mount Sophia, was leased from Singapore Land Authority (SLA), and revamped into Old School, a creative arts enclave. Old School comprised a mix of art galleries, café, dining and entertainment spaces, artist studios and an art film theatre. Numerous arts events were held at Old School, such the “A Design Film Festival”, Asia’s first film event dedicated to design and architecture. Old School came to be seen as a hub in Singapore for independent arts and culture33, and was also held up by authorities as an example of good adaptive reuse.34
Old School’s lease, after two renewals, was scheduled to end in June 2012. The appeal for a third extension was unsuccessful, as the site had been slated for residential development. Various tenants as well as members of Singapore’s creative community protested the re-designation of the Mount Sophia site, framing this as an irreplaceable loss of a space uniquely well suited for the arts. Mabel Tay, the publicist for Old School argued that “ artists and musicians are going to lose a space where they can go and create, work and curate.” A tenant, Kult, which held regular exhibitions to promote young street artists and illustrators35, expressed difficulty locating a similarly suitable, central space to move to.36 Similarly, multinational design agency NiCE, shared that without a venue like Old School, it would likely downsize its operations in Singapore. Organisers of the Design Film Festival shared that they were likely to end the festival should Old School go37.
These initial concerns may seem unfounded, as many of Old School’s tenants, including Kult and NiCE have successfully relocated elsewhere (See Appendix 1 for details). As for the Design Film Festival, the 2013 run was held in the School of the Arts (SOTA). Nevertheless, others have argued that the greater blow to Singapore’s creative community was not the loss of individual office or gallery spaces, but that of a organically formed arts cluster, as the original tenants had scattered all over Singapore. While there are other government initiated arts clusters such as Wessex Estate, Goodman Arts Centre and Gilman Barracks that enjoy
31Karamjit Kaur “Seletar gets ready for makeover as aerospace hub” The Straits Times, Jun 27 2007 32 JTC Website, “Real EState Solutions|Seletar Aerospace Park Development”
http://www.jtc.gov.sg/RealEStateSolutions/Seletar-Aerospace-Park/Pages/Development.aspx (cited Feb 5, 2014) 33 Justin Zhuang , “Singapore Artists Fight for ‘Old School’ Landmark”, Wall Street Journal, Nov 23 2011,
http://blogs.wsj.com/scene/2011/11/23/singapore-artists-fight-for-old-school-landmark/ (cited Feb 3 2014) 34 Joint Press Release from NHB and SLA, 2008
35 Kult website, http://www.kult.com.sg/home/gallery (cited Feb 4 2014)
36 Teo Wan Gek, “No Lease Extension for Arts Enclave at Mt Sophia”, Business Times, April 14 2012,
http://www.btinvest.com.sg/property/local/no-lease-extension-for-arts-enclave-at-mt-sophia/ (cited Feb 4 2014) 37 Justin Zhuang (2011)
Exhibit 6: Old School, Source:
greater security of tenure, Old School was the first of its kind as a private initiative. “It wasn’t just the location […] but also the atmosphere of having a cluster of creative companies. It was a gathering of people who are passionate about what they’re doing,”commented Gwen Lee, the director of 2902 Gallery, a tenant of Old School.38
Besides the creative community, another group emerged to lobby for keeping Old School. In 2010, a group of old girls from MGS embarked on a campaign “Save Old School” which focused on lobbying authorities to preserve the existing structures. Of the six buildings that made up the old campus, only one was officially conserved under the Urban Redevelopment Authority’s (URA) Conservation Programme. However, Mount Sophia itself had earlier been designated as a ‘secondary settlement’39 conservation area, with over 80 buildings already conserved40 (Appendix 2 provides details on URA’s conservation programme).
Supporters of the SOS included architectural historian Lai Chee Kien of the National University of Singapore, who argued that the site was historically significant as one of the first few educational institutions for girls, and also possessed conservation merits such as historical architectural type, structural integrity and demonstration of workmanship41. Architectural conservation consultant Ho Weng Hin similarly commented that the two-storey Sophia Blackmore Memorial Hall commemorated an important period of Singapore’s history and was thus integral to social memories.42
The campaign garnered significant public attention and press coverage. The SOS founders petitioned the authorities, and held rounds of dialogue with the Ministry of National Development (MND), as well as the URA43. In response, the authorities acknowledged Mount Sophia’s heritage and the campus’s significance to the SOS group, but maintained that a difficult trade-off had to be made44. According to URA, "While the government is committed
to retain as much of our built heritage as possible, we need to balance this against other needs, such as housing for our people. Much thought goes into which buildings we conserve and which sites we need for development. Schools will always hold special memories for alumni, but it is not possible for us to conserve every former school"45.
MND thus resumed plans to sell the site. To enhance public access to the conserved Olsen House, the future developer would be given the option to use it for commercial purposes. The site would also be sold without demolishing the existing structures (as would normally be the case), to give the future developer an option to retain and integrate these into the
38 “Art of the enclave”, The Business Times, 27 Jan 2012.
39 The Secondary Settlements refer to areas in Singapore which developed later when people started to move out of the crowded city to live at the fringe. Source:
http://www.ura.gov.sg/uol/guidelines/conservation/~/media/User%20Defined/URA%20Online/Guidelines/Cons ervation/Cons-Guidelines.ashx (cited Feb 12 2014)
40 URA, “Mount Sophia (includes Ellison Building and Rex Cinema)”,
http://www.ura.gov.sg/uol/conservation/conservation-xml.aspx?id=MOSO# (cited Feb 12 2014) 41 Teo Wan Gek (2012)
42 Barbara Quek, “MGS memories of 11 Mount Sophia”, BiblioAsia Vol.8 Issue 3, Oct-Dec 2012,
http://www.microsite.nl.sg/PDFs/BiblioAsia/BibAsia_v08_03.pdf (cited Feb 5 2014)
43 Elaine Ee, “A question of heritage, what’s worth saving in Singapore?” CNN Travel, Nov 11, 2011.
http://travel.cnn.com/singapore/visit/question-heritage-what%E2%80%99s-worth-saving-singapore-767851
(cited Feb 4 2014)
44 Eisen Teo, “Old girls fight to save Old School”, Straits Times, Oct 23 2011.
45 “Not possible to conserve every former school in S’pore: URA” Channel Newasia, Nov 7 2011,
development46. There was, however, no guarantee that the developer would indeed do so. The site was put up for sale in June 2013 and attracted strong bids from developers. The winning bid was $442.3 million, and experts estimated that units were likely to sell at a high $1,900 per square foot at its launch47.
Negotiating Tradeoffs between Pragmatism and Public Sentiment
Public Sentiment and Sentimentality
Public attachment to State properties can generate significant public pressure against curtailing the use of such spaces, and the demolition of these buildings for redevelopment.
“State properties are often rich in history and character and are popular with the public," said SLA’s director of land operations, Mr Lee Seng Lai.48 As many State properties were previously school buildings, army camps and community centres, they represented institutions where many Singaporeans spent formative years in, and where strong collective memories and shared experiences were created. The MGS alumnae’s strong attachment to their old school campus was a case in point. Tan Chuan Jin, former Senior Minister of State for National Development, shared another similar anecdote, “I was at Chung Cheng High School, an old school. I asked the students, when the time comes, would they all fight to preserve the building and the answer was yes.”49
As the State properties put up for rental are in areas slated for longer-term development, they sometimes evoke nostalgia for a less urbanised Singapore, as evident from the appeals to keep Seletar Camp rustic. Such bucolic pockets appear all the more compelling as a counterpoint to the rapid urbanisation, population growth and densification in Singapore, which have generated much public angst in recent years.50
Furthermore, when interim uses of State properties prove successful and popular, the heightened public awareness, exposure and attachment to these places render reclaiming the buildings for future redevelopment even more difficult.
Pragmatic Considerations
On one hand, policy-makers face public pressure to preserve old landscapes. On the other hand, they have to weigh the practical considerations that the state properties rental scheme has been crafted out of. To recap, these include optimising state assets, providing additional built capacity that can be deployed quickly and flexibly, as well as supporting economically driven initiatives such as those that would make Singapore a global hub for arts and culture, education and media.
It is thus perhaps unsurprising that pragmatic, macro-level considerations guided policy-makers’ decision to continue with the redevelopment plans for Mount Sophia and Seletar
46 MND’s reply to SOS, “11 Mount Sophia”,
https://www.facebook.com/saveoldschool/photos/a.111013489007441.17234.110230952419028/308239919284 796/?type=1&theater &
https://www.facebook.com/saveoldschool/photos/a.111013489007441.17234.110230952419028/308240282618 093/?type=1&theater (cited Feb 12 2014)
47Cheryl Ong, “ $442.3m for unique Mount Sophia site” The Straits Times, Sep 13, 2013,
http://business.asiaone.com/property/news/4423m-unique-mount-sophia-site (cited Feb 5 2014). 48 Melody Zaccheus, Historic sites in demand for private events, The Straits Times, January 14 2014
49 Lily Kong, “Interview with Tan Chuan Jin—Finding Space to Collaborate” Urban Solutions (June 2013), 9 50 Heather Tan, “Singapore seethes over population plan” Al Jazeera, Feb 17 2013,
Airbase. Selling the Mount Sophia site for private residential development would increase the supply of housing in the city centre, which was one of URA’s stated growth strategies under its Draft Master Plan 2013.51 Advantages of providing more housing closer to the city centre include potential reduction in overall commuting times, and peak hour congestion, as this enables more to live closer to their workplaces in the city. Planners in URA also highlight that this strategy increases the diversity of housing choices for residents, beyond the more ubiquitous suburban residences.52 As for the redevelopment of Seletar Airbase, the creation of an aerospace park in its stead would generate jobs and economic growth.
These decisions fall neatly within a framework of pragmatism that has guided urban planning and development in Singapore since independence. In a 2004 article, civil servant Kwek Mean Luck53 observed a bias in Singapore’s approach of allocating scarce land resources towards uses with the highest economic return. He further commented that state’s shift towards prioritising heritage conservation in the 1980s had clear economic moorings, as it was mooted in part to boost a declining tourism industry, and at a time when an oversupply of commercial facilities made redeveloping old historic buildings for commercial use less compelling. 54
However, to conclude that planning or conservation decisions are based only on economic returns would be an overstatement. In fact, planners repeatedly emphasise the importance of conservation in terms of building national identity, and preserving history, which are less tangible, less quantifiable benefits.
Nevertheless, one may infer from the former Minister for National Development Mah Bow Tan’s statement the relative priority of competing objectives:
“We must redevelop our city to keep it attractive and competitive in the global economy, putting in much needed infrastructure, and creating new commercial, residential and recreational spaces. But in doing so, we must not forget the past. We need to conserve our urban heritage, because it contributes towards a greater sense of history and identity, and helps to preserve the soul of our city, making Singapore a special home for our people.”55
Balancing Pragmatism vs Public Sentiment
In view of the recent tussles over Old School and Seletar Airbase, one may question if policy-makers should rebalance of the pragmatic pursuit of economic goals versus public desires for preservation, as part of the state properties rental scheme.
One impetus for change is growing public pressure. Local expert on cultural policy and national identity Professor Lily Kong observes that today, “there is a more engaged citizenry, in part facilitated by new technologies of communications, resulting in views published via
51URA, “Growth Strategies for Central Area”,
http://www.ura.gov.sg/MS/DMP2013/regional-highlights/central-area/Growth%20Strategies%20for%20Central%20Area.aspx (cited Feb 17 2014)
52 A high quality living environment for all Singaporeans: Land Use Plan to Support Singapore’s Future Population , Jan 2013, Pg 19, http://www.mnd.gov.sg/landuseplan/e-book/
53 At time of writing, Mr Kwek is the Dean and CEO of Singapore’s Civil Service College, as well as the Deputy Secretary (Development), Public Service Division, Prime Minister’s Office.
54 Kwek Mean Luck, “Singapore: a Skyline of Pragmatism,” in R. Bishop, J. Phillips and Wei Wei Yeo (eds), Beyond Description: Singapore Space Historicity, (London, Routledge, 2004), 112-24.
blogs, and complaints that are sent hurtling through email.” 56 As the push for the preservation of loved spaces is likely increase over time, policy-makers may find it hard, if not impossible, to conduct ‘business-as-usual’.
However, one may contend, on the premise that campaigns for conservation often cater to a relatively privileged segment, acceding to such requests should not a priority compared to other policy objectives. Urban theorist Susan Fainstein, when unpacking the limits of public engagement in planning, argues, “middle-class participants may be passionate about historic preservation but concern themselves little with the housing problems of the poor57”. Thus, such concerns may not be representative of poor, minority groups. A survey of national conservation organisations in the UK reveals a similar perception amongst the conservation community that the “educated, influential classes” formed the backbone of support for conservation, because “[t]hose with the passion and time to devote to conservation will always be more involved than those living in miserable areas who are exhausted by work”.58
On the other hand, elsewhere, experts in the field of heritage have observed changing attitudes towards conservation and cultural heritage management. The significance of heritage seems to be shifting towards the familiar and local, away from a larger national perspective. Support has also broadened from an elite minority to include a larger, grass-roots majority, and towards safeguarding the societal and cultural aspects of the built environment, beyond the purely architectural and historic.59
To respond to these shifts, some have argued for heritage to be redefined, to be more inclusive and open to citizen participation, and to encompass more local, familiar aspects of the built environment beyond the usual definitions of historical and architectural value. Broadening the current definitions of built heritage could thus achieve a “democraticisation of culture”60, defuse charges of elitism and build a more widely shared sense of belonging and identity. However, other critics argue that doing so would be overly populist, and would elevate kitsch as culture.61
If similar trends in changing attitutdes towards conservation manifest themselves in Singapore, policy-makers are likely to face increasing pressure to preserve a wide variety of buildings and areas, which may not fall neatly under the set of values prescribed under the URA Conservation Programme. (see Appendix 2 for details). There could thus be demands to widen definitions of ‘value’ to include far more localised values, which would encompass a more holistic view of the built environment to include the familiar and everyday.62
In fact, when authorities take a national, growth-driven perspective in providing pragmatic, economically reasonable reasons to the public about why sites like Seletar Airbase and Mount Sophia are needed for redevelopment, these explanations often already fail to resonate with a community which experiences these changes as very personal losses. For example, Soh Edward Fitzgerald, a long-time resident in Seletar expressed his community’s dismay over the
56 Lily Kong, Conserving the past, creating the future : Urban Heritage in Singapore (Straits Times Press, 2011), 215
57 Susan Fainstein, “The Limits to Public Engagement”, Urban Solutions, Issue 3 (June 2013) 84
58Edward Hobson, Conservation and Planning-Changing Values in Policy and Practice, (Routledge 2003), 94 59 Esther H.K. Yung and Edwin H.W. Chan, “Problem issues of public participation in built-heritage
conservation: two controversial cases in Hong Kong”, Habitat International, 35 (2011): 457-466.
60 Christopher Tweed and Margaret Sutherland, “Built cultural heritage and sustainable urban development”, Landscape and Urban Planning, 83 (2007): 62-29
61 Ibid.
plans for Seletar Aerospace Park, in a letter to the local paper, "We feel sad that in Singapore, decisions always have to be made based on economic returns”63.
With changing expectations, as well as a more vocal public, policy makers may have no choice but to reassess the feasibility of adopting a purely pragmatic approach.
Furthermore, opponents of a wholly pragmatic approach to planning argue that “[p]ragmatism places a premium on what is quantifiable. What is unquantifiable at the time of the decision-making is left out of the equation, even though it has an economic impact. Consequently, what appears to be a rational economic decision in the face of a limited set of quantifiable factors, may be far from so when the totality of factors reveals itself in due course”64. If one adopts this perspective, the case for retaining specific state properties would seem much stronger, as there could be unquantifiable benefits such as maintaining community ties, safeguarding social memory and bolstering national identity. These were benefits highlighted by SOS advocates and those reluctant to see Seletar Airbase go, in their bids to retain their own pieces of Singapore.
Impending Challenges
Tanglin Village and Zouk are two examples of State properties developments that are well-known and well-loved. They are, however, unlikely to remain so for perpetuity.
In the URA’s 2008 Master Plan, Tanglin Village has been zoned as residential and reserve land. While there has been no officially indicated timeline for the re-development of Tanglin Village, the earliest of the tenancies there expires in May 201465. It remains to be seen whether their leases would be renewed.
As for Zouk, its site has been zoned for hotel use under URA’s 2008 Master Plan. Rumours of Zouk’s impending relocation had been rampant for a while and have already sparked off negative reactions from the clubbing community, who view the club as a national landmark and national icon. Mr Brendon Perera, a former resident DJ at Zouk noted, “There is a certain sentimental value attached to the space at Jiak Kim Street and many people believe it is always going to be there.”66
When the leases of Tanglin Village and Zouk finally expire, policymakers are likely to face a tough time claiming back these buildings for redevelopment.
Discussion Questions:
a) Who are the parties or communities most likely to be affected by the expiry of Tanglin Village and Zouk’s leases? What are their concerns most likely to be? What therefore are the potential challenges the government faces when reclaiming these properties for redevelopment?
63 Teo Xuanwei (2006) 64 Kwek Mean Luck (2004)
65 Esther Teo, “More prime housing sites in pipeline”, The Straits Times, May 30 2012,
http://www.stproperty.sg/articles-property/singapore-property-news/more-prime-housing-sites-in-pipeline/a/68169 (cited Feb 5 2014)
b) How should the government work with affected parties to address their concerns?
i. For instance, could the government work with affected stakeholders to identify suitable replacement uses, or replacement location for affected uses? What are the advantages and disadvantages of doing so?
ii. Alternatively, should Tanglin Village or Zouk, which may not otherwise fulfil criteria for conservation, be retained? What possible benefits are there, in retaining the properties, and what are the counter-arguments against preservation?
c) Is there a need for policymakers to formulate a new framework that would allow the preservation of exceptional spaces that may not fall within the purview of the current conservation programme (which prioritises places and buildings with historical and/or architectural value, or social significance for the nation and/ or each racial group)? If so, why and what should this framework look like?
Appendix 1 Status of Old School’s Former Tenants (As of Feb 2014)
List of occupants of Old School
Still in Business? If so, new Address
Source:
2902 Photo Gallery Yes, 222 Queen Street http://www.2902gallery.com/ AETN (rebranded A+E
Networks)
Yes, 80 Bendemeer Road http://www.casbaadirectory.com/regional/ broadcaster-programming/a-e-networks-s-238-c-18.html
Ann Siang Media/ Trevvy Yes, Unknown www.trevvy.com
Anonymous Yes, 18 Chiku Road http://www.anonymous.com.sg/
Asian Culture Enterprise Singapore
Unclear Website defunct
Beach House Pictures/ Sunrise Entertainment
Yes, 189 New Bridge Road, #03-01/02
http://www.beachhousepictures.com/
Chalk No. Had relocated to Sunset
Way, but closed in 2012.
https://www.facebook.com/CHALKGRO UP
Chalkboard No. Closed April 2012 http://blog.yourchalkboard.com/?cat=32 Click Grafix Yes, Sin Ming Midview City
http://www.clickgrafix.com/about-click/contact-us#singapore
CMA Yes, 30 Merchant Road
http://www.cma-academy.edu.sg/contact-us
DP Green Pte Ld Yes, Raffles Boulevard http://www.dpg.com.sg/contact/ Elixr Design/ Lattitude 2.6 Yes, 267 Tembeling Road http://elixrdesign.asia/contact/
Feiyue Yes, EPL Building, 1100 Lower
Delta Road
http://asia.feiyue-shoes.com/contact-us/
Gameloft Yes, 20 Cross Street, China
Square Central
http://www.gameloft.com/corporate/compa ny/world-presence?lang=en
Grain & Green/ Avalon/ Acid/Sauce
Unknown. Website is not updated
Halogen Foundation/ CSR
Asia Yes, 2 Orchard Link, *Scape
http://www.halogen.sg/home/contact-us/
Infinite Imaging Yes, 100D Pasir Panjang Road http://iimagingsg.com/contact.php
Kult Yes, Emily Hill, Blk C2-5
11 Upper Wilkie Rd Singapore 228120
http://www.kult.com.sg/home/
Merge O+R Yes, No.81, Ubi Ave 4#05-01 http://www.mergeotr.com/contact.html Michele Righetti Arte Unclear, Website is not updated
Mikoishi Unclear, No website
Milk Photographie Yes, 63 Spottiswoode Park Road,
http://milkphotographie.com/about-us
New Asia Records Unknown. Website is not updated
http://www.newasiarecords.com
NiCE Ltd Yes, 20 Hardy Road https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=
a.466765356696094.99902.208540332518 599&type=1
Ode to Art Yes, 252, North Bridge Road,
Raffles City Shopping Centre
http://www.odetoart.com/about.php
Oracle Projects
International
Yes,
Oracle Projects International Pte. Ltd. No. 25 International Business Park, #02-53 German Centre,
Osage Singapore Does not seem to have a gallery in Singapore
http://www.osagegallery.com/
Paprika Global Yes, One Sims Lane, #03-11 http://www.paprikaglobal.com/home.html #allv
Philharmonic Chamber Choir / Re:mix
Yes, Unknown https://www.facebook.com/ThePhilharmon
icChamberChoir ,
https://www.facebook.com/remix.sg
PMR Events &
Entertainment Unknown. Website is not updated Sinema Old School Yes, 36 Joo Seng Road #01-00
Singapore 368360 (no theatre)
http://www.sinema.sg/about/sinemamedia/
Sparch (renamed Spark) Yes, 8 Murray Street http://www.sparkarchitects.com/places,htt p://www.archello.com/en/company/sparch-architects
Steelcase Office Solutions Yes, 57 Mohamed Sultan Road Sultan-Link #02-05,
http://www.steelcase.asia/en/locations/asia -pacific/pages/showrooms.aspx
The Art Studio Unclear. No website.
The Hall Unclear. No website
The Red Thread Group Unknown. Website is not updated
http://theredthreadgroup.com/
Timbre Yes. Multiple locations. http://www.timbre.com.sg/
UBlues Group Unknown. No website.
Wee Khim Photography/
Mark Law Photography 100 D pasir panjang road #02-11 meissa singapore 118520
http://www.marklaw.com.sg/contact.php, http://www.weekhim.com/#/contact WERK magazines/ Work Yes. 78B Pagoda Street,
Singapore, 059237
http://www.workwerk.com/gallery.html
WK Design (rebranded as wykidd)
Yes. Address is not clear. www.wykidd.com
Appendix 2
Historical Overview of Singapore’s Conservation Programme
Conservation of Singapore’s built heritage first started under the Preservation of Monuments Board (PMB), which was established in 1971. The first eight buildings protected as national monuments were:
• Cathedral of the Good Shepherd (built 1843–47) • Armenian Church (built 1835–36)
• St Andrew’s Cathedral (built 1856–61. • Hajjah Fatimah Mosque (built 1845–46)
• Telok Ayer Market (also known as Lau Pa (built 1890–94) • Thong Chai Building (built 1892).
• Thian Hock Keng (built 1839–42), • Sri Mariamman Temple (built 1843).
Throughout the 1970s and early 1980s, smaller scale projects to rehabilitate and restore shophouses were carried out. The first comprehensive review of the city centre was carried out in 1982, by the URA, to identify significant historic districts that should be conserved. This review took four years, and included extensive public consultation. As a result, seven areas (3,200 shophouses) were conserved: Chinatown, Kampong Glam, Little India, Boat Quay, Clarke Quay, Cairnhill and Emerald Hill.
At that point in time, conservation became a possibility and priority because most of the basic physical development programmes such as urban renewal of slum areas had been successfully implemented. ‘Higher-order’ considerations of how to preserve Singapore’s character and identity could thus float to the forefront. Furthermore, plans for large-scale reclamation in the Marina area made policy-makers more confident that Singapore would have sufficient land in the city centre for commercial use, and thus enabled the historic, lower density parts of the city centre to be conserved rather than redeveloped for higher-intensity uses. A third consideration was to stem the decline of tourist arrivals by boosting Singapore’s “Oriental mystique and charm which are best symbolised in old buildings, traditional activities and roadside activities” Building, preservation and restoration projects were thus proposed as part of the 1986 Tourism Development Plan67.
In 1989, a new Planning Act was passed, to establish conservation as a planning function. The Act provided the necessary legislative framework that allowed URA to officially gazette 10 conservation areas: Kreta Ayer, Bukit Pasoh, Telok Ayer, Tanjong Pagar, Little India, Kampong Glam, Boat Quay, Emerald Hill, Cairnhill and Clarke Quay68.
URA also sought private sector participation by reaching out to persuade private owners to restore their buildings, providing economic incentives, as well as by sharing its expertise on building restoration.
67 Kwek Mean Luck “Singapore: a Skyline of Pragmatism,” in R. Bishop, J. Phillips and Wei Wei Yeo (eds),
Beyond Description: Singapore Space Historicity, London: Routledge, pp. 116-117, 2004
68 Legislative Council Secretariat, Hong Kong, “Built heritage conservation policy in Singapore”, 2008,
Greater Public Involvement
Greater public consultation begun in the late 1990s, which marked a recognition that authorities may not have a monopoly of wisdom. Various rounds of consultation were held with experts (e.g. Singapore Institute of Architects), citizens (e.g. through focus group discussions and a Conservation Advisory Panel) as well as owners of buildings. This more inclusive approach saw the number of buildings gazetted for conservation increasing by about 1,400.
In 2000, a Concept Plan Review was initiated, which saw consultation of citizens from all over. One of the key issues consulted on was ‘identity versus intensive use of land”, and recommendations ranged from requests that conservation captures social and cultural aspect, not just physical rehabilitation, as well as calls for more sustained public engagement.
In response, the Conservation Advisory Panel, an independent body appointed by the Minister of National Development, was set up in 2002. Its role is to give inputs on built heritage proposals put up by URA, propose buildings for URA to study for possible conservation, and promote public education of built heritage.
Accolades
Singapore’s conservation programme has gained international recognition. In 2006, it won the Urban Land Institute Global Awards for Excellence. The jurors’ citation shared their positive assessment that "Using a collaborative approach involving government organisations, the public, and developers, the island republic's Urban Redevelopment Authority has achieved a balance between free-market economics and cultural conservation."
Criteria and process for conservation
A 1993 publication by URA and PMB, “The Objectives, principles and standards for preservation and conservation” in 1993, spelt out the concept and philosophy of preservation and conservation in Singapore. It articulated definitively the values it sought to conserve through heritage buildings and areas. These are69 :
• Aesthetic Value—The aesthetic value of a place depends on the design, style,
construction and age of architectural work, and could be assessed on criteria such as form, scale, colour, texture and material.
• Historic Value: A place may have historic value because it has influenced, or has been
influenced by, a historic figure, event, phase or activity.
• Social Value: A building of social value is one which has become a focus for spiritual,
political or national cultural sentiment for the nation as a whole or for each racial group.
• Technological value: This depends upon the rarity and quality of technology that was
available at the time of construction and on the degree to which the building, structure, monument or area reflects a certain period.
Since the 1980s, URA has been identifying and safeguarding buildings for conservation.
Owners can also volunteer their properties for conservation, and URA would conduct a thorough conservation study, which involves evaluating a building’s architectural merit and rarity, historical significance, contribution to the environment, identity and economic impact.
Other government agencies, the Conservation Advisory Panel, as well as relevant property owners would be consulted.
A recommendation report would then prepared, and the Ministry of National Development would decide on whether or not to conserve the property.70 According to Section 9 of the Planning Act, the Minister may designate any area, building or group of buildings as a conservation area if it is deemed of special architectural, historic, traditional or aesthetic interest71.
Main information sources:
• URA’s Skyline Magazine 2011, Conservation Supplement “Conserving the Past”,
http://www.ura.gov.sg/skyline/skyline11/skyline11-02/special/skyline%20marapr%20conservation%20supplement%20FA.pdf
• Lily Kong, Conserving The Past, Creating The Future: Urban Heritage In Singapore” Urban
Redevelopment Authority (Singapore), 2011.
70 Arti Mulchand, “A labour of love for conservation”, Going Places, May 30 2012, http://www.goingplacessingapore.sg/heritage/2012/A%20labour%20of%20love%20for%20conservation.aspx (cited Feb 5 2014)
