Conservation does not just mean turning a building into a monument that prohibits commercial use. There are many other approaches, including integrating a new building with the old. When done well, conservation is part of a visual telling of the Singapore story.
The loss of Singapore’s modern architectural heritage – such as the National Theatre at the foot of Fort Canning Park and the National Library in Stamford Road – is still lamented by some Singaporeans.
And their sense of loss has been heightened since the news in February of the sale of Pearl Bank Apartments, and in the next month, the announcement that People’s Park Complex and Golden Mile Complex have been put up for collective sale.
Since then, concerned citizens have weighed in on the price society pays for unyielding urban construction, the merits of good architecture, and the consequences of the loss of heritage and social memory. Noteworthy amid the outcry are a petition organised by passionate architects, and the Singapore Heritage Society’s position paper with strong, clearly thought-out recommendations.
Equally loud is the opposing voice to not interfere with the workings of a capitalist market economy that has served Singapore’s ascent as an admired and prosperous global city.
And, on a more personal level, how do you deny a person the opportunity to sell what is his? How many of us would give up the chance for a new home or a possible windfall for the sake of our collective social memory? Not many.
But must we assume that conservation inevitably means devaluation? We must not confuse conservation with leaving old buildings as they are and doing nothing at all. Neither is it turning a building into a monument that prohibits commercial use or does not generate economic value.
There are many approaches and levels of sensitive intervention, including the integration of a new building with the old. When done purposefully, such interventions not only increase land-use efficiency, but express the realistic changing socio-economic constitution of a city.
OLD AND GOLD
There are recent examples around the world where “old and ugly” buildings with social and cultural significance are conserved and given a new lease of life as part of a viable commercial plan.
The Torre Velasca in Milan, completed in 1958, has been labelled as one of the world’s ugliest buildings but is loved by architecture enthusiasts as an icon of modern Italian architecture. The tower was given cultural protection in 2011. The new owner, who took over in 2012, embarked on a revitalisation programme.
First,the once-private base of the commercial-residential building was opened and transformed into a welcome public square for the Milanese and tourists. Several residential floors were renovated for upscale short-term leasing, boasting a prime location and fantastic views of the city as part of its profitability plan.
Closer to home, the historic Murray Building located in Central, Hong Kong, was sold in 2013 at 35 per cent higher than its valuation, despite a conservation restriction. Built in 1969 as a government office block, it reopened as a hotel in January this year.
These projects serve as examples of a win-win situation where a piece of architectural history in a high-density city is preserved without compromising the property’s financial value.
In the case for conservation of our significant post-independence landmarks, stakeholders are faced with different sets of challenges: The en bloc committee to maximise the sale price for the strata-title owners; the private developers to choose demolition or to undertake a calculated financial risk; and the regulatory authorities to deliberate on provisions to allow creative, workable incentives for private developers who take on the cost of conservation.
Government advice and support are critical to the success of conservation effort.
In Singapore, in the mid-80s – after addressing pressing needs for housing and economic growth – the Government formulated a heritage conservation plan to save our historic districts.
There are also successful interventions in cities like Hong Kong, New York and Perth where, in addition to offering bonus plot ratios to a development, the transfer of plot ratios to another property on a different site was enacted in special cases, as a greater economic incentive for owners and developers to conserve historical buildings.
A case in point was the conservation of four historic landmarks in Central, Hong Kong, including St Paul’s Church and The Bishop House, privately owned by Hong Kong Sheng Kung Hui (Anglican Church) or HKSKH. To encourage the conservation of all four buildings and in recognition of the Anglican Church’s needs for new facilities on the site, the Development Bureau allowed new categories of use and for two additional buildings at restricted height to be built, and approved the transfer of additional space requirements to the owner’s other development at another site.
In exchange, HKSKH agreed to finance the full cost of the preservation of the four buildings and the building of an open plaza for public use.
To promulgate a similar policy in Singapore would require an intensive study of its efficacy in our local context, exhaustive consultations with many stakeholders and a possible rewrite of our land-use zoning regulations – an immense effort but, in my opinion, one worth researching.
URBAN REDEVELOPMENT MATTERS
The socio-cultural significance of architectural heritage cannot be dismissed. Neither can we undervalue the importance of urban redevelopment to the growth of our still-young nation.
Over the years, we have seen the loss of some charming neighbourhoods, but we have also witnessed the development of remarkable urban-scapes that have become popular representations of contemporary Singapore.
One thing is for certain, physical buildings are inseparable from our interactions and experiences as human beings. Memories always have a place and time. We cannot put a price on the collective memory of a nation.
While we try to meet the demands of rapid urbanisation, it is also important to recognise that buildings such as Pearl Bank Apartments, People’s Park Complex and Golden Mile Complex, completed in the early 1970s, are the first few landmarks designed by Singaporean architectural practices. (Disclosure: The latter two were designed by DP Architects’ founders).
They are emblematic of a young nation’s greater aspiration towards prosperity and progress. They form part of our national identity and collective cultural consciousness and were praised internationally for their revolutionary design.
The course of urban renewal is irreversible. If our architectural heritage is made up of only colonial-era buildings designed by foreign architects that are currently protected by conservation rules, alongside new buildings of just the last two decades, this would surely leave a gap in the visual telling of the Singapore story for future generations
Ultimately, it is a matter of will and courage. How far are we willing to go to protect our architectural and social heritage? Have we looked hard enough at possible alternatives? And have we the patience for drawn-out deliberation to achieve a solution that satisfies both preservation and redevelopment?
Architecture serves an important role in the branding of a city, its social development and economic growth. A city’s cultural heritage can enhance its charm as a vibrant and attractive tourism destination.
Without clear emblems of our nation’s past, our urban redevelopment would place greater pressure on our identity as a people, and may compromise Singapore’s ambition to be an acclaimed world city.
• Angelene Chan is chief executive of DP Architects.
“Source:[A city’s future is built – literally – on its past; many ways to approach conservation] © Singapore Press Holdings Limited. Permission required for reproduction”
