SINGAPORE – Many in the architecture and heritage communities believe the horseshoe-shaped Pearl Bank Apartments in Outram – which is at risk of demolition – is a beacon of modern Singaporean architecture and should be retained.
But a new study indicates that members of the public do not share that sentiment.
The team from the Institute of Policy Studies’ (IPS) Social Lab found that although many people are aware of its existence (45 of 51 surveyed), only a fraction (10) believe the structure is important.
The team conducted preliminary focus group discussions with 51 Singaporeans aged 21 to 78 from September to October last year (2017) to understand the views of ordinary citizens towards Singapore’s built heritage.
In the focus group sessions, participants were asked to evaluate 90 structures, including national monuments, conserved buildings and heritage sites that became the subject of headlines recently.
The 1976 Pearl Bank Apartments was sold to developer CapitaLand in a collective sale in February this year.
Speaking to The Straits Times, the study’s lead researcher, Ms Paveena Seah, a senior research analyst at the IPS Social Lab, said that some respondents evaluated the significance of some buildings lowly because they found them “ugly” or “run down”.
In other cases, they had simply never heard, seen or visited the place.
In a similar vein, perhaps hinting at a lack of awareness about the merits of post-independence “Singaporean” architecture, eight colonial-era buildings emerged as the respondents’ top 10 most important buildings.
Only two post-independence buildings – the Changi Airport Control Tower and People’s Park Complex – featured in their top 10.
The second phase of the IPS study, to take place later this year, will survey 1,500 Singaporeans for a nationally representative poll. This will help provide greater insight into what the public perceives as significant heritage sites and why people feel this way.
Believed to be the first of its kind, the IPS Social Lab study also comes at a time when familiar landmarks such as Golden Mile Complex and People’s Park Complex – inspired by the Brutalist architectural movements and designed by Singaporean pioneer architects – are at risk of being sold en bloc and disappearing from the island’s skyline.
Other sites featured in the first phase of the study include the 1977 Rochor Centre, which comprises four colourful Housing Board blocks. The centre will be demolished gradually from June 26 in preparation for the Land Transport Authority’s North-South Corridor.
Head of the IPS Social Lab, Dr Leong Chan-Hoong, said the study on public opinion is important since laymen’s views are usually only heard in a piecemeal fashion whenever such redevelopment news breaks.
The first phase of the study therefore helped the IPS researchers establish four criteria the public typically uses to personally appraise heritage sites.
They are: their personal knowledge of a building’s historical and sociocultural significance; collective and personal memories of the place; a structure’s aesthetic appeal and functional utility; and, if applicable, whether the sites have been repurposed appropriately.
Ninety buildings were featured in the study and respondents were most familiar with landmarks in central Singapore. These included Raffles Hotel, St Andrew’s Cathedral, Rochor Centre, the State Courts, Fullerton Hotel, Clifford Pier, the Cathay, the Sri Mariamman Temple and the Old Hill Street Police Station.
The survey results also revealed that many were unfamiliar with the Chesed-El Synagogue monument, the conserved Beaulieu House in Sembawang Park, and old buildings such as the 1950s Palmer House in Tanjong Pagar. Fewer than half of the respondents said they were aware of these places.
The IPS team said the knowledge gap can be closed with more experiential learning activities such as more intensive heritage trails, increasing site accessibility and ramped up programming at various venues by their respective managers and owners.
Chang Architects’ principal architect Chang Yong Ter said such surveys are useful in understanding the sense of awareness on the ground and the public’s level of appreciation towards heritage sites.
He said, however, that “aesthetic values are subjective and personal” and that acquired taste comes with time.
Mr Chang said: “The works by artists Vincent Van Gogh and Paul Gauguin were not appreciated until after their deaths. Discerning, expert eyes and professional bodies should make the final call on what should stay and what can go.”
The IPS researchers said their hope is for the study – which was supported by a grant from the National Heritage Board – to better equip policymakers in their approach towards built heritage conservation, education and engagement.
IPS Social Lab’s senior research fellow, Dr Natalie Pang, said: “Given Singapore’s need to balance between rapid urban renewal and heritage conservation, more needs to be done to study how the public assesses built heritage, what matters to which group of people, and why.”
“Source:[Experts extol Pearl Bank Apartments but study shows not all Singaporeans feel the same way] © Singapore Press Holdings Limited. Permission required for reproduction”
