Sale of landmark Pearl Bank Apartments underlines need for new look at leasehold laws to make conservation less onerous to achieve
When the collective sale of Pearl Bank Apartments went through last month for $728 million on its fourth attempt, those residents opposed to it were not the only ones experiencing anguish. Many heritage enthusiasts lamented the loss of this significant piece of modernist architecture.
The distinctive, horseshoe-shaped condominium – once Singapore’s tallest residential building – may join other notable residential buildings in terms of architecture that made a date with the wrecking ball: They include Hilltops (completed in 1965) by architect Victor Chew, Futura (1976) by architect Timothy Seow, and the Geylang Serai public housing estate (1965).
Architects have previously cited the 38-storey Pearl Bank Apartments’ unique architecture and design, and historical significance in being among the pioneers of high-rise, high-density living here, as reasons why they would like it conserved. It was completed in 1976.
Still, while there may have been some missed opportunities, it would be unfair to accuse the authorities of doing nothing to safeguard important buildings that marked different junctures of our national journey.
For example, the Jurong Town Hall building, completed in 1974 by Architects Team 3, was gazetted as a conserved building in 2005 and is now a national monument. The lookout towers of Toa Payoh Town Park (completed in 1972) and Seletar Reservoir (the late 1960s) were also designated as conserved structures in 2009. This was followed by the Singapore Conference Hall (completed in 1965), which became a national monument in 2010, and the Subordinate Courts (1975), gazetted as a conserved building in 2013.
However, all of these structures have one thing in common: They are owned either by the state or by state-controlled entities. None are residential buildings.
Although the pre-war Streamline Moderne Tiong Bahru Estate and parts of Kampong Silat Estate, built by the Singapore Improvement Trust and completed in the 1930s and 1940s-1950s respectively, have been protected, there are no post-Independence residential buildings that have been.
The case of the landmark Pearl Bank Apartments, located in Outram Park and whose architect was Mr Tan Cheng Siong, is especially confounding when the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) had previously noted that the building merits conservation.
The question arises: Why are private residential buildings more vulnerable to the wrecking ball than other types of buildings?
More specifically, why must 100 per cent of the owners agree to a building being conserved, when only an 80 per cent consensus is sufficient for the collective sale of a development over 10 years old?
It is significant that a large majority – over 90 per cent – of the owners of Pearl Bank opted for its voluntary conservation under URA’s Conservation Initiated by Private Owners Scheme, launched in 1991 with extra gross floor area incentives to encourage private owners to offer their properties for conservation.
However, without meeting the authorities’ requirement of 100 per cent consensus from the owners, the bid for the voluntary conservation of the building failed to go through.
Voluntary conservation is a scheme in which private owners approach the URA to consider putting up their properties for conservation, subject to the URA’s determination if the property indeed has conservation merit.
TWO MAJOR FACTORS AT PLAY
Perusing the Planning Act that deals with conservation, as well as the Land Titles (Strata) Act, and the Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act that deals with strata title properties, there seem to be no clear answers. Unfortunately, statements from the authorities and media reports have not shed much light on this important issue, either.
To have a meaningful discussion about architectural heritage and, in particular, privately owned buildings and those under strata title schemes, it is necessary to discuss heritage in terms of property or real estate.
There are two major factors at play here. The first is building maintenance. Buildings have a life cycle of 40 to 50 years before major repairs are needed. However, most buildings in Singapore do not last 50 years before they are demolished.
The second pertains to buildings on a 99-year leasehold, like Pearl Bank Apartments.
Financial institutions here appear to take their cue from the Central Provident Fund (CPF) Board when providing debt financing for old properties. The CPF Board applies more stringent rules to properties with less than 60 years left on their leases. Hence, it is naturally challenging for owners of older properties like Pearl Bank Apartments to leverage debt financing for major repairs or upgrading works, should they not have sufficient sinking funds.
In 2011, owners of another condominium with notable architecture, The Arcadia, completed in 1983 by architect Chua Ka Seng, were unsuccessful in their application to top up their remaining lease to 99 years precisely because of similar concerns.
Issues with financing were also the reason why Pearl Bank Apartments’ voluntary conservation proposal involved the construction of a new block of apartments for sale on top of the carpark – in order to use the proceeds to fund essential repairs to the original tower, as part of its conservation works. However, that proposal fell through as a result of the inability to obtain 100 per cent consensus from the owners.
Owners of such properties, regardless of architectural merits, are jittery because of the massive drop in their property values with the running down of the leases.
As the years pass, the number of such owners will grow exponentially, especially if owners of public housing flats are taken into account.
It has been previously reported that the Singapore Land Authority (SLA) rarely grants top-ups unless for redevelopment or extensive refurbishment. If a building merits conservation under existing provisions of the Planning Act, should the state, in this case the SLA, consider it positively as a valid and strong reason to offer lease top-up?
It is prudent for the authorities to start a comprehensive review of the relevant legislation and policies.
With the current situation, most leasehold properties will not have the time to mature to “heritage age”.
With the recent interest in heritage and with the bicentennial anniversary of modern Singapore approaching, it is timely to reflect on how to better safeguard significant post-Independence architecture.
CapitaLand, the developer that purchased Pearl Bank Apartments, has promised to “look into blending the heritage elements with modern aesthetics” in the new development to “reflect the rich, multifaceted culture of Chinatown”. It is not clear how this may be realised.
Perhaps CapitaLand will take reference from the former Asia Insurance Building, which was conserved after it was sold to the current owner, and the former National Aerated Water Company building, which will soon be conserved after its sale. The former has been sensitively adapted into serviced apartments, while the latter’s main building will be incorporated as part of a condominium development.
For Pearl Bank Apartments, heritage enthusiasts can only hope for now.
“Source:[Safeguarding post-Independence ‘Pearls’] © Singapore Press Holdings Limited. Permission required for reproduction”
