Searching for place identity in Singapore
Introduction
Many cities are increasingly realising that in a changing world of growing urban competition, mobile capital flows and global city formation, the more distinctive, unique and special a city is, the more chances it has to succeed (Knight, 1989; Askew & Logan, 1994). This has led to greater appreciation of the role that heritage can play in urban development, whether through sustaining built and lived heritage, encouraging and investing in heritage industries or recognising the impact that heritage plays in defining identity, generating civic pride and fostering a sense of empowerment (Hewison, 1987; Ashworth & Turnbridge, 1990; Vanneste, 1996). The maintenance of heritage character and urban development are not opposing and incompatible notions. In Europe, the Council of Europe has argued for the concept of integrated conservation where physical conservation simultaneously satisfies economic and social objectives. In Asia, the city-state of Singapore is rewriting the city's development for a 5.5 million population with greater emphasis on identity.
Since the mid-1980s, instead of just demolish and build, there is a greater effort to reinforce and integrate past heritage with present developments in Singapore (Kong & Yeoh, 1994). A major turning point is the 1989 amendment to the Planning Act that provides for the appointment of a conservation authority, the designation of conservation areas, the enforcement of conservation requirements and the formulation of conservation guidelines. With the entry of urban conservation in the statute, conservation is firmly established on the planning agenda. By September 1991, the number of areas identified for conservation had increased to more than 20, covering a total land area of 751 ha. As Boey (1998, p.137) has observed,
Where there are historic buildings that show ‘Singapore's rich, multi-ethnic origins’, they will be ‘targeted for conservation to preserve the unique feel and heritage of Singapore’.
The search is on for buildings and places to conserve. Singapore is not unique in its emphasis on urban conservation and localisation. The New South Wales State Government in Australia is implementing a locality place-based planning approach in its local plans (DUAP, 2001). So are many European and American cities. As documented by Partners for Livable Communities (2000), these cities are emphasising local solutions to national problems and reaffirming the conviction that urban liveability requires place-based strategies.
Globalisation has seen a revival of interest in the ideas of locality and place (Kearns & Philo,1993; McDowell, 1997; Jacobs & Fincher, 1998). Some scholars, in particular the geographers, have attempted to explain the structure and centrality of locality and place in the built environment (Relph, 1976; Sack, 1997). According to Relph (1976, p. 61), ‘there is no discernable limit to the diversity of identities of place, and every identifiable place has unique content and patterns of relationships that are expressed and endure in the spirit of that place.’ The identification with symbols and landmarks in the built environment and the general culture of place are said to enhance the collective memory of place identities and localities.
This has prompted others to recast planning analysis of the culture-economy dichotomy into a cultural political economy of urban identities and places (Dunn, McGuirk, & Winchester, 1995; Jacobs & Fincher, 1998; Sandercock, 1998). Yet others advocate policy attention should be given to place-based planning (Baum, Stimson, Mullins, & O’Conner, 2000; Joshi, 2001). In the UK, place-based planning is seen to be emerging in public sector discourse as a potential solution to tackling social exclusion and building social capital (Davoudi, 1995). Since the late 1980s, the Australian government has given impetus to cultural planning, developing local cultural resources as the expression of local place identities to support quality of life (Landry, 2000). As Landry (2000) elaborated, the identity of place is bound up with planning the ‘creative city’.
This focus on place identity and building local places offers a perspective to restate the significance of place in our cities and to reiterate that urban planning and design need to embrace difference and diversity to enliven the city. It is becoming a more frequently cited objective in urban plans. This paper will examine Singapore's recent attempt to search for place identity. Using the case study of the Singapore development plans, attempt will be made to distil the process of participative place making that recognises people as active participants in urban conservation. In the maintenance of heritage character, such participation attempts to increase awareness, integrate conservation within the planning process and admit heritage issues as part of the public agenda.
Section snippets
Place of urban conservation in Singapore
Compared to American and European cities, Singapore has a relatively short history. Modern Singapore was founded in 1819 as a British trading port for the fast expanding trade of the British East India Company. Opportunities for work in the new port together with famine, war and unemployment in neighbouring countries of China and India fuelled rapid immigration and population growth of Singapore. From a small fishing village of less than 150 people Singapore grew to a modern city of 1 million
Forging a sense of place
In research on man–environment relations, arguments for unpacking the memories of places and forging the unique feeling of locality or a sense of place have been propounded in architecture (Norberg-Schulz, 1980), geography (Relph, 1976) and environmental psychology (Canter, 1977). According to Relph (1976) and Norberg-Schulz (1980, p. 23), every place has what they define as genius loci or the spirit of place, representing not just ‘a mere flow of phenomena, but has a structure and incorporates
The search for identity
At the national level in Singapore, place-based planning is given particular emphasis in the country's latest long-term development plan (Concept Plan) with much of this focus on place identity. The challenge is to create a thriving world-class city in the 21st century where Singapore is not just a workplace but also a home. As articulated in the Revised Concept Plan released in 2001,
We envisage a city that is dynamic, a thriving business hub that can hold its own in the global playing field; a
Conclusion
This paper has outlined some of the issues and possibilities of place identity and conservation in the city. Places that are identifiable encourage people to dwell, to stay a little longer and connect with one another and be connected. They are healthy places. They provide opportunities for urban life and are important to the health and well being of the people living in the city. They have a tangible image, we know where and when we are there. They are not empty spaces but engender the active
References (66)
Place-identity as a product of environment self-regulation
Journal of Environmental Psychology
(1989)- Agnew, J. A., & Duncan, J. S. (Eds.). (1989). The power of place: Bringing together geographical and sociological...
- Altman, I., & Low, S. (Eds.). (1992). Place attachment. New York: Plenum...
A ladder of citizen participation
Journal of the American Institute of Planners
(1969)- et al.
The tourist historic city
(1990) - et al.
Cultural identity and urban change in Southeast Asia
(1994) - Bachtiar, I. (2002). The conservation story in Skyline. Commemorative Edition 2002, Urban Redevelopment Authority,...
- et al.
Welfare dependency in communities within Australia's metropolitan regions
People and Place
(2000) - Boey, Y. M. (1998). Urban conservation in Singapore. In B. Yuen (Ed.), Planning Singapore. Singapore Institute of...
- et al.
A future for our past
(1996)
Social space and the planning of residential areas
The psychology of place
City challengeThe three way partnership
Planning Practice and Research
The city as text
Place makingThe social construction of Newcastle
Australian Geographical Studies
The Singapore house and residential life 1819–1939
The power of place
Building institutional capacity through collaborative approaches to urban planning
Environment and Planning A
The heritage industry
Cultures of the past and urban transformation
Is there a place for area-based initiatives?
Environment and Planning A
Conservation as an integral part of urban renewal
Planews: Journal of the Singapore Institute of Planners
Urban conservation in SingaporeA survey of state policies and popular attitudes
Urban Studies
The creative cityA toolkit for urban innovators
Urban design
Cited by (46)
Defining urban identity in a post-socialist turbulent context: The role of housing typologies and urban layers in Tirana
2020, Habitat InternationalCitation Excerpt :Similarly, urban regeneration or transformation projects may also have negative consequences in the uniqueness of cities’ built environment (Gür & Heidari, 2019). The continuous pressure of the global capital flow, as in the case of İstanbul, Singapore city, or Gulf cities like Doha, causes a continuous changing built environment, imposing the need to conserve certain buildings as representatives of its urban identity (Boussa, 2018; Gür & Heidari, 2019; Yuen, 2005). Also, not only is it important to conserve the physical built environment of a city, but also its cultural landscape features (Ziyaee, 2018).
What is the value of built heritage conservation? Assessing spillover effects of conserving historic sites in Singapore
2020, Land Use PolicyCitation Excerpt :URA plays a large role in selecting sites and buildings for conservation, as government planners “search[ed] and finely hone[d] the historic morphology of buildings and streets to identify and recover heritage inscribed in not just individual buildings and structures but also streets or entire areas” (Yuen, 2005). Owners can also volunteer their properties for conservation, and are incentivized by an assortment of waivers of development-related charge (Yuen, 2005). In determining whether a property should be conserved, 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.
Visual preference dimensions of historic urban areas: Thedeterminants for urban heritage conservation
2015, Habitat InternationalCitation Excerpt :By the same token, special attention is now paid to urban heritage conservation toward sustainability. According to Yuen (2005) urban conservation produces civic pride and economic benefit as the uniqueness of cultural heritage increases urban capability of existing or performing in harmonious or congenial combination. Furthermore, Ryberg-Webster and Kinahan (2013) demonstrated the capability of heritage preservation “as an agent of urban change” and as a “facilitate[or for] community and economic development” (p. 119).
EPC<sup>HC</sup>-ENERGY PERFORMANCE CONTRACTING (EPC) MODEL FOR HISTORIC CITY CENTRES
2023, Acta Innovations