|
|
| Plans
for Ubin URA's current plans | feedback to URA | how plans came about |earlier plans Feedback on Ubin to URA: Focus Group on Identity vs Intensive Land Use for the Concept Plan 2001 The Dilemna Excerpts from Minister Mah launches public consultation phase of the review of Concept Plan 2001 URA News Release 26 Aug 2000 The planning dilemna The need to keep our identity and heritage vs The need to make full use of our limited land As Singapore becomes a more modern, cosmopolitan city we must find ways to retain our uniqueness, identity and history. This "identity" could be expressed through our buildings, natural features or other landmarks. The challenge With limited land for development, as highlighted in the first Dilemma on Land Allocation, we cannot retain every landmark, place or building. So what do we retain? How do we ensure that they are retained? How best do we retain without impeding development and redevelopment? Some possible ideas to get around this problem Selectively retaining distinctive features while developing around them. e.g. Little Guilin in Bukit Batok New Town. Selectively retaining existing buildings while re-developing around them e.g. China Square. So tell us … What are the buildings, landmarks or natural features which you think must be retained and how do you propose they be retained while making good use of the land they are sitting on? The Focus Group's Report Excerpts from Final Report on Identity versus Intensive Use of land: Concept Plan 01 Review, Focus Group Consultation, Dec 2000 (launches PDF file) on the URA website Executive Summary 1. The Focus Group on Identity vs Intensive Use of Land deliberated on the question of identity and how Singapore should seek to preserve a sense of place, history and belonging in the context of the intensive use of land. 7. New developments should strive towards achieving distinction as well as utility so that they add to the Singaporean identity. New developments should proceed at higher densities to relieve pressure from existing areas. New developments should evolve around existing pockets of nature areas and natural features. However, identity should not be rushed or forced, but be allowed to develop over time, in tandem with the building of the community. 9. Singapore’s natural heritage is richer than that of many bigger countries and should be given due protection, status and respect. The recommendations of the Nature Conservation Review Committee should be seriously considered and adopted. 10 Housing and other developments near or on nature areas should be allowed only if environmental impact analyses conclude that there will be no adverse impact from the construction of these developments. More parks and extensive planting should be provided to heighten the sense of Singapore as a Garden City. Significant parks and even roads should be protected through gazette. 11 Singapore’s sense of identity as an island should be enhanced through retention of existing natural coastlines and parks and conserving our off-shore islands as far as possible. Where reclamation is necessary, it should innovatively create new waterfronts, beaches and coastal parks and be sensitive to any important natural coastal heritage. 2. Identity versus Intensity 2.1 Identity can be viewed as rootedness, ‘spirit of the place’, a sense of place, home, national pride, distinctiveness, feelings of nostalgia and familiarity. The sense of identity is attached to places that evoke shared memories or are linked to significant historical events and/or personalities. 2.6 The identity of Singapore as an island city state should be enhanced. Popular coastal parks, such as East Coast Park and Changi Coast Park, as well as the offshore islands and nature areas like Pulau Ubin and Pulau Hantu are all part of this identity. Natural coastlines such as in Simpang should be retained and integrated with the development of a future coastal new town in the area. Where it is necessary, reclamation should be planned creatively and implemented sensitively to preserve the existing waterfronts while creating new ones, including new beaches, waterways and coastal parks. 5. NATURAL HERITAGE AND PARKS 5.1 Nature areas and parks are a very important and distinctive element in the identity of Singapore as a garden city and a tropical city. Singapore has a rich natural heritage with a core of rainforest that gives the small island a wider bio-diversity than much larger countries. Dating as it does from the beginning of time in Singaporeans’ collective memories, our natural heritage contributes greatly to our identity and sense of place. It gives Singaporeans a sense of permanence and pride in a fast-changing world. Nature areas also provide utility as water catchment, for military training, and for recreational use. 5.2 Existing nature areas account for 5% of Singapore’s land area (including land within military areas). These should be enhanced to ensure their continuance in the longer term. Where there are areas of good and distinctive natural heritage, these should be added to the protected nature reserves or otherwise given special status. The recommendations of the Nature Conservation Review Committee in this regard should be seriously considered and adopted as far as possible. 5.3 Our distinctiveness as an island nation should be enhanced through protection of those coastlines which are either unique or are rich in biodiversity. Special care should be taken concerning reclamation and landfill that threaten coral reefs and marine nature areas. The planning process should incorporate measures that will identify the impacts of such developments and propose solutions that will limit the damage to these unique and rich coastal areas. 5.4 Developments in the proximity of nature areas can impact adversely on the ecology of the nature area and catalyse deterioration. Furthermore, if only selected or small parts of the nature areas are conserved, there may be problems of regeneration and continuance of vitality. Hence, if we have to develop land close to nature areas, we have to ensure that we minimise disturbance to nature areas. Some nature areas, including marine nature areas and coastlines, can be demarcated as special areas in the Concept Plan and Development Guide Plans (DGPs). Developments encroaching on these special areas are allowed only if 18 environmental impact analyses (EIAs) show the developments to have no adverse impact on the nature areas and after the public has been informed. In many cases, suitable buffers of open space, parks and low-intensity community use, like community farms, can be introduced to better protect the integrity of such nature areas. The possibility of 1- or 2-storey bungalows with larger plot sizes prescribed to those in Good Class Bungalow Areas should be explored and be allowed in buffer areas. In this way, such surrounding tracts of land would not be totally sterilised. 5.5 In addition to nature areas, parks and green spaces can also form a special element in Singapore’s identity. This may arise from historical significance or a contribution to the sense of space and scale to the surrounding area. The gazetting of parks and green spaces as special areas should therefore be allowed. First consideration can be given to the Padang, and the Hong Lim and Bras Basah Parks within the civic district and city areas. 5.6 The provision of new and additional parks is essential to the quality of life in Singapore and should be extended to new developments as far as possible. Both larger central parks and smaller and more accessible neighborhood parks and park connectors should be integrated into planning. An example of one innovative approach is in the Tampines HDB Design and Build project which incorporates garden courtyards within the precinct. Similarly, underground car parks should be considered as a means of increasing the land available for parks in housing estates. 5.7 Where possible, pockets of nature areas, or the existing vegetation can be integrated as part of the park to give it a distinct identity. A good example is the mangrove area at Pasir Ris Park. We should strive not only to be a garden city, but to be a city in a garden. 5.8 Trees and greenery by the roadside should also be enhanced by a partnership between both the state and private landowners. Streets with “walls” of greenery and shade can be part of a distinctive urban environment and should be preserved 19 as part of our heritage. Selected roads rich in memory or lined with mature trees should be gazetted as ‘heritage roads’ and protected, e.g. East Coast Road, stretches of Bukit Timah Road, Dunearn Road, Upper Thomson Road, Mount Pleasant Road, etc. 5.9 In addition, overlapping and compatible uses of land should be facilitated, such as existing golf courses or water catchment areas to be used as parks. The Concept Plan should not safeguard more land for golf courses. The land can instead be used for community parks and community agro-technology farms to allow more people to enjoy the use of green spaces. 5.10 Policies should be reviewed to allow and encourage innovative ways to create green spaces without the use of more land. This would make high-rise living more conducive and comfortable. Roof gardens, sky terraces and high-level landscaped plazas should be encouraged in new designs and, where possible, by retrofitting. Other architectural innovations can be encouraged, such as midlevel gardens in high-rise buildings, platforms over highways and garden bridges, such as that attempted in Chinatown. 8 SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS 8.7 The re-use of conservation buildings should be appropriate and sensitive to the history and sense of place. Any redevelopment must be sensitive to that sense of life and identity. Where possible, the original or appropriate land use should be recognised. The aim of conservation is not preservation but to allow change to bring in newer elements of life at a manageable pace. Lead agencies: URA, Conservation Trust 8.6 A new focus should be given to conserve buildings and areas that are more recent. Areas of living interest should be the aim of conservation policy and not just individual buildings. Conservation should look beyond colonial and other early period buildings to places built in more recent periods, for example, public buildings and earlier public housing estates, as well as areas such as Katong and Geylang. The conservation of individual buildings may not be sufficient to retain the character of some neighbourhoods. In Katong, for example, there is a sense of life and activity that goes beyond the conservation of selected houses. For such areas, the conservation of the entire neighbourhood should be considered. An inventory and preliminary assessment of buildings and localities that should be considered for conservation should be undertaken systematically and proactively, incorporating this report’s suggested principles and ideas. 8.10 Areas of significant built and natural heritage and identity should be identified and demarcated in the Development Guide Plans. An inventory of the areas of heritage and identity should be mapped out within each Planning Area. Lead agencies: URA, NParks, Conservation Trust 8.11 Environmental and social impact studies of new developments affecting areas of natural or built heritage and identity should be made compulsory and supervised by the Conservation Trust. The findings of such studies should be made public and be included as inputs in the decision-making process. Lead agencies: URA, NParks, Conservation Trust 8.12 Provide more park land per person and greater access to parks and landscaped areas. NParks and the Conservation Trust should work out an appropriate provision standard. The Concept Plan should not safeguard more land for golf courses, and should instead use the land for parks. URA and HDB should review planning guidelines to encourage more landscaped areas within developments, including rooftop and mid-level gardens. Lead agencies: MND, Conservation Trust 8.15 Where possible, reclamation should be planned creatively and implemented sensitively to retain popular or unique waterfronts while creating more coastlines, beaches and coastal parks to heighten the identity of an island city state. We should identify suitable coastlines including off-shore islands which need protection and/or where there are potential to undertake creative reclamation profiles that will enhance the use and ambience of our waterfront areas. Lead agencies: URA, NParks 8.16 Developments in new areas should be of higher density and evolve around existing natural and built features. Where possible, undeveloped areas can be rezoned for higher density developments. The Development Guide Plans should respect the ‘spirit’ of the place and existing natural and built features, including topography, to ensure that they are retained amidst development. Lead agencies: MND, NParks 8.17 Local and regional identities are important to cultivate. The conservation and re-use of both built and natural heritage of local interest should be promoted. Other desirable measures would be better alignment of boundaries and demarcations in planning, administration and political constituencies and the naming of streets, schools and community buildings. Lead agencies: MND, PMO, Conservation Trust |