Re-introduction of White Flat?

28 May 2024

i recalled this so-called "White Flat" was piloted in Punggol in 2000, but the initiative was unsuccessful then, so it was scrapped... if this idea was piloted before, how is this considered a 'pilot' again? but "White Flat" concept makes more sense now, as many crazy young couples like to tear down the internal walls of their BTO, something i'm sure they will regret years later. Response to: https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/housing/open-concept-hdb-flats-without-partitions-or-beams-to-be-piloted-in-kallang-whampoa-bto-project

Labels: , , , , ,

Re-introduction of White Flat?   © 文彬 2004~2024. All rights reserved.

East Coast Long Island (finally?)

29 November 2023

aiya, not sure why many Singaporeans are complaining about this East Coast Long Island, when it is not exactly 'news'. this reclamation proposal was first conceptualized in Concept Plan 1991, widely published on newspapers and discussed in the 90s & already announced by PM in NDR2019... [my sec2 geography teacher already mentioned about this Long Island in class back in 1999.] in fact it has been pretty much a '只闻楼梯响 不见人下来' hypothesis for 3decades & finally some 'details' of implementation now.

Long Island will just be a 'repeat' of the East Coast reclamation project in the 60s, where the waterfront/beach shifted from East Coast Road to where it is now & to the shore of Long Island in the future. from Concept Plans, it seems likely the NSL or other MRT lines will be extended to this island.

i'm actually just more annoyed by the boring name 'Long Island', which reminds me of that 'Long Island' at New York. cant it be given a better name? the same applies for many road names (eg Park Street, Commerce Street, Union Street, Utility Street) at Marina South area. in the past (i mean 60s-80s), reclaimed land seems to have better names (e.g. Marine Parade, Bayshore), but the standard of naming just dropped ard 2000s (e.g. Marina Bay, Sentosa Cove, Tuas View). i also hope the agencies stop 'murdering' local names in favour of atas-sounding English names like what LTA did for many CCL, DTL & TSL MRT stations (e.g. Mayflower instead of Kebun Baru, Marymount instead of Shunfu, Havelock instead of Bukit Ho Swee). guess Bulim is really the only exception where JTC revert 'Wenya' to its original name when developing JID.

Response to:
- "Long Island to be reclaimed off East Coast could add 800ha of land, create Singapore’s 18th reservoir" by "Straits Times" (original article at https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/long-island-to-be-reclaimed-off-east-coast-could-add-800ha-of-land-and-singapore-s-18th-reservoir);
"Reclaimed 'Long Island' will be about twice the size of Marina Bay, tripling length of existing East Coast waterfront: Desmond Lee" by "Today" (original article at https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/reclaimed-long-island-will-be-about-twice-size-marina-bay-tripling-length-existing-east-coast-waterfront-desmond-lee-2313716);
"两个滨海湾般大可防洪 东海岸外填海造“长岛”建蓄水池" by "Lianhe Zaobao" (original article at https://www.zaobao.com.sg/news/singapore/story20231128-1452967).

Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

East Coast Long Island (finally?)   © 文彬 2004~2024. All rights reserved.

Should developers incorporate stormwaters control systems within developments?

13 October 2020

Topic
The developers in a city should incorporate stormwaters control systems within their developments. This will obviate the need for the city authority to expand public drainage infrastructure to discharge the increased runoffs from their developments.

Background of Topic
Stormwater collection system in HDB Towns
Public Utilities Board (PUB) is the national water agency that manage water supply, drainage and sewerage.[1] Housing and Development Board (HDB) is the planner and developer of public housing. HDB has always collaborate with PUB to build infrastructure to drain surface runoff and channelled the collected rainwater into reservoirs.

PUB is constantly exploring options to expand the water catchment area to maximize Singapore's water sources. The Bedok – Sungei Seletar water scheme was completed in 1986 and it is the first urban water catchment in Singapore.[2] Under this scheme, rainwater are collected in the urban catchments of Bedok, Tampines, Pasir Ris, Ang Mo Kio and Yishun New Towns through a comprehensive network of drains and 9 stormwater collection facilities.[2] Rainwater are either drain directly into Bedok or Lower Seletar Reservoirs, or collected in stormwater collection facilities.[2] As there is a capacity limit for drains and reservoirs, the stormwater collection facilities act as additional storage space to drain surface runoff and rainwater collected will be pumped into the reservoirs when capacity permits. The Bedok – Sungei Seletar water scheme can collect 47,000m³ of water a day.[2] The water scheme won the Environmental Engineering Honour Award in the United States' National Competition in 1987.[2]

Initially, the 8 stormwater collection facilities at Bedok, Tampines and Loyang are utilitarian square concrete tanks that does not blend well with the residential surroundings. Subsequent stormwater collection facilities like Yishun Pond and Pang Sua Pond are landscaped ponds that collects stormwater and drains it to the respective reservoirs in their catchment.[2] In addition, existing ponds in Pasir Ris Town Park, Punggol Park and Woodlands Town Garden were adapted into stormwater collection facilities. The natural drainage network at Bukit Panjang, Woodlands and Sembawang New Towns were transformed into new urban water catchment during public housing development under the Seletar Streams water scheme.[2] These strategies are win-win solutions for both HDB and PUB, as Singapore lacks the space to collect and store rainwater, solve issues of excessive surface runoff and drainage capacity limit, and the waterbodies beautify the landscapes of HDB New Towns.

The latest instalment is Alkaff Pond, an artificial lake in Bidadari Park that is inspired by the former Alkaff Lake Gardens.[3] HDB designed Alkaff Pond to create a tranquil urban oasis within Bidadari Estate, its latest public housing estate.[3] Alkaff Pond also double as a flood control facility to slow surface runoff from the flood-prone Potong Pasir vicinity.[4]

Stormwater collection facility under flyover
Besides HDB, Land Transport Authority (LTA) built a stormwater collection facility under the junction of Bukit Timah Expressway (BKE) and Seletar Expressway (SLE) when constructing the interchange.[2] Besides collecting surface runoff, this reinforced concrete stormwater collection pond also maximized under-utilized space under flyover.[2]

Great Orchard Flooding
On the morning of 16 June 2010, Orchard was flooded by the infamous "Great Orchard Flood".[5] PUB's hydraulic analysis reported that intense rain and heavy accumulation of debris in the covered Stamford Canal drainage system caused the flood at Singapore's prime shopping district.[5] Debris trapped in a culvert obstructed water flow and reduced the draining efficiency of Stamford Canal, resulting in rainwater overflowing onto Orchard Road.[5] Furthermore, the construction of new malls (e.g. Ion Orchard, 313 Somerset and Orchard Central) on previously vacant greenfields might increase surface runoff beyond the maximum capacity of Stamford Canal.[22]

Many buildings, including Liat Tower, Tangs Plaza, Lucky Plaza and Ion Orchard, were severely affected by the "Great Orchard Flood".[6] While then Minister for the Environment and Water Resources Yacob Ibrahim described the June 2010 flood as an 'once in 50 years' freak event,[7] Orchard Road was flooded again by at least 6 flash floods in July 2010, June 2011, October 2011, December 2011,6 November 2012, and May 2018.[8]

After the June 2010 flood, PUB increased the frequency of clearing debris and maintenance of the Stamford catchment.[5] PUB also constructed the Stamford Detention Tank and Stamford Diversion Canal to improve the drainage capability of Stamford Canal and protect Orchard against floods.[9] Completed in September 2018, the Stamford Detention Tank under Botanic Gardens will temporary store excessive surface runoff, before pumping the rainwater back to Stamford Canal when capacity permits.[9] The covered Stamford Diversion Canal divert stormwater from the upstream of Stamford catchment into Singapore River.[9] Similar underground stormwater storage tank was built in Greater Tokyo (i.e. The Metropolitan Outer Area Underground Discharge Channel).[10]

PUB worked with building owners (e.g. Liat Tower, Tanglin Mall, Lucky Plaza, Wisma Atria) to install flood protection barriers.[9] In December 2010, Liat Tower spent $200,000 to install 19 anti-flood panels to form a 54m long barrier against floodwater of 80cm high.[11] In addition, the basement shops (i.e. Hermes, Wendy's, Starbucks and Massimo Dutti spent more than $11,000 to install portable slide-in floodgates at their entrances. However, the flood protection measures at Liat Tower did not work and the basement shops were flooded by rainwater again in December 2011.[6, 12] In March 2013, Lucky Plaza spent $1,000,000 to construct a 150m long pop-up flood barrier around the building.[13] The 1.2m high concrete panel lies flat as part of the corridor, but will sprung up after sensors detect water and set off a siren to warn pedestrian to keep clear. However, the flood barrier has not been activated yet.[13]

Flood Control Measures at Kovan
Intense downpour on 17 November 2014 resulted in the worst flash flood at Kovan, Hougang.[14] The heavy rain caused water to overflow from the upstream canal of Sungei Serangoon, flooding landed houses and basement carparks of condominiums along Tampines Road and triggered power outages.[14] The water level is ankle-deep at ground level and reached the windows of cars parked in the basement carpark of Fortune Park condominium, located along Tampines Road.[14] Severe flash floods were reported at the area again on 14 July 2017 and 30 April 2020.[15, 16]

As Kovan is a flash flood hot spot, several measures were implemented to address the problem. PUB completed the drainage improvement works to the upstream of Sungei Serangoon in March 2019, where the canal is widened and deepened, and roadside drains in the vicinity were upgraded.[17] Hydraulic analysis showed the drainage improvement works reduced the flood-prone area by 86%, and the 30 April 2020 flood was confined to the depressed road junction of Tampines Road and Hougang Avenue 1.[17] PUB and LTA are studying the feasibility to raise the depressed road junction.[17]

In addition, PUB loaned portable flood protection barriers to residents staying at the landed properties along Tampines Road,[18, 19] which were built decades ago and do not meet the prevailing minimum platform level standard.[19] The flood protection barriers are inflatable panels to be installed at doorways and requires the owner to manually pump to inflate it.[18, 19] Although it is difficult to setup the barriers, residents feedback that it is better than having nothing to protect against the flood and hope that innovation would improve the design.[18, 19]

On 12 August 2020, PUB announced that Fortune Park condominium was chosen for experimentation of a new smart flood protection system.[20, 21] The flood barriers will be installed at the entrance of Fortune Park, which will prevent the basement carpark from being flooded again.[21] The system do not requires electricity or manual operation,[20] as it will be automatically activated in the event of a flash flood and it will be able to block floodwater of up to 1m high.[21] This is the first flood control project piloted by PUB at a private residential development and is expected to be completed in October 2020.[21]

Private Developments
In the context of private development, PUB imposed minimum platform level as conditions for Government Land Sales (GLS) site, Additions and Alterations work and redevelopment.[23]

Assessing the Topic
In my personal opinion, to a certain extent, developers should incorporate stormwater control system within their developments as a 'final line of defence' against flash flood. However, the drainage authority should continue to forecast, plan, expand, manage and maintain the drainage infrastructure to discharge increased runoffs from new developments.

Developers to Raise Platform Level
Currently, PUB mandated that the minimum platform level of a development must be at least 104mRL and 104.5mRL for developments along the southern coast and northern coast respectively; or 300mm above adjacent road or ground level; or 600mm above the highest recorded flood level; whichever is higher.[23]

The highest floodwater level Singapore ever experienced was 40cm high.[19] Perhaps, PUB should consider revising the minimum platform level requirements from 104mRL and 104.5mRL to 105mRL, which is above the highest floodwater level. In this way, the development will be less likely to be affected by flash flood and rising sea level.

Incorporate Water Features in Urban Design
While PUB already encourage developers to incorporate ABC Waters design features within developments, the authorities might wish to consider providing incentives (e.g. bonus GFA, property tax rebates) to developers that incorporated such features (e.g. bioswales, rain gardens, wetlands) within landscape to reduce surface runoff.

If developers are to incorporate advance stormwater control system within their developments, there will be opportunities to create innovative multi-functional spaces where utilitarian stormwater collection facility could blend into the urbanscape through urban design. These stormwater collection facility could take the form of landscaped pond, water plaza, fountain garden, aquaculture or hydroponic farming. In fact, Benthemplein Water Square at Rotterdam is a successful stormwater management facility that doubles as a public square when dry and becomes a pond after a storm.[24, 25]

PUB may also consider imposing the construction of underground stormwater detention tank as part of a GLS condition.

Who to Bear the Cost & Responsibilities?
However, let's not forget that the Great Orchard Flood was a mistake (lack of maintenance), misjudgement and oversight (increase surface runoff from new developments) by PUB.[5]

It is unfair for developers and owners of existing buildings to bear the cost of constructing stormwaters control and flood management systems. The flood protection barriers at Liat Tower and Lucky Plaza are funded and built by developers and owners of existing buildings. It is particularly insulting for Liat Tower to pump so much money on a system that did not work.

While getting the developers and building owners to implement and bear the cost will help PUB to save substantial cost and effort, this strategy is not ethical and reflects badly on the image and competency of PUB as the national water agency. Furthermore, developers and owners are not experts in stormwater management. This strategy is as bad as shifting the mistake and blame to the developers and owners, which will cost heavily in political opinions.

Therefore, conditions imposed needs to be moderated, so that it is fair and not too onerous for the developers and owners. Alternatively, PUB should provide grants to existing building owners who need to install flood protection barriers.

References
1. Public Utilities Board. (2020, July 28). About Us. Public Utilities Board. Retrieved October 9, 2020, from https://www.pub.gov.sg/about
2. Lee, J. (1997, June 16). Catchment areas coming up in urban sites. The Straits Times.
3. Xue, J. (2013, August 29). New Alkaff lake for Bidadari estate. Today. Retrieved October 9, 2020, from https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/new-alkaff-lake-bidadari-estate
4. Tan, C. (2020, March 14). Bidadari to have flood prevention lake. The Straits Times. Retrieved October 9, 2020, from https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/environment/bidadari-to-have-flood-prevention-lake
5. AsiaOne. (2010, June 17). PUB: Heavy rain and debris likely cause of Orchard flood. AsiaOne. Retrieved October 11, 2020, from https://www.asiaone.com/News/AsiaOne%2BNews/Singapore/Story/
A1Story20100617-222707.html
6. Won, X. L. (2018, December 27). 4 Floods in Singapore You May Have Missed In The Past 10 Years. The Epoch Times Singapore Edition. Retrieved October 11, 2020, from https://epochtimes.today/4-floods-in-singapore-you-may-have-missed-in-the-past-10-years
7. Au Yong, J. (2013, September 17). Idea of the '50-year flood' has been misunderstood. The Sunday Times. Retrieved October 11, 2020, from https://www.asiaone.com/singapore/idea-50-year-flood-has-been-misunderstood
8. Lam, L. (2018, May 26). Heavy rain causes flash flood in Orchard Road; vehicles stuck in murky water. The Straits Times. Retrieved October 11, 2020, from https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/flash-flood-in-orchard-road-pub-issues-high-flood-risk-alerts-in-central-region
9. Public Utilities Board. (2018, September 28). Stamford Diversion Canal and Stamford Detention Tank Go Operational. Public Utilities Board. Retrieved October 11, 2020, from https://www.pub.gov.sg/news/pressreleases/
stamforddiversioncanalandstamforddetentiontank
10. 江戸川河川事務所. 首都圏外郭放水路とは. 江戸川河川事務所. Retrieved October 11, 2020, from https://www.ktr.mlit.go.jp/edogawa/edogawa00402.html
11. Today. (2010, December 23). New pop-up anti-flood system for Liat Towers. Today. Retrieved October 11, 2020, from https://www.eco-business.com/news/new-pop-anti-flood-system-liat-towers
12. Tan, L., & Liang, A. (2011, December 27). Countermeasures fail to stop flooding at Liat Towers. The New Paper. Retrieved October 11, 2020, from https://www.asiaone.com/News/Latest%2BNews/Singapore/Story/
A1Story20111227-318299.html
13. Koh, H. T. (2013, March 8). Lucky Plaza goes from sandbags to concrete. The New Paper. Retrieved October 11, 2020, from https://www.asiaone.com/print/News/Latest%2BNews/Singapore/Story/
A1Story20130306-406696.html
14. Tan, A. (2014, November 18). Tampines Road hit by flash flood. The Straits Times. Retrieved October 9, 2020, from https://www.asiaone.com/singapore/tampines-road-hit-flash-flood
15. (2017, July 14). Heavy rain causes flood at Tampines Road. Channel News Asia. Retrieved October 9, 2020, from https://news.nestia.com/detail/-/93285
16. Lay, B. (2020, April 30). Flash floods in a few areas in S'pore as torrential downpour pounds island. Mothership. Retrieved October 9, 2020, from https://mothership.sg/2020/04/flash-floods-singapore-2020
17. Ministry of Environment and Water Resources. (2020, May 27). Parliament Q&A. Ministry of Sustainability & the Environment. Retrieved October 9, 2020, from https://www.mse.gov.sg/news/written-reply-by-mr-masagos-zulkifli--minister-for-the-environment-and-water-resources--to-parliamentary-question-on-flash-floods--on-26-may-2020
18. Hariz, B. (2019, November 22). PUB to lend new anti-flood devices to residents and businesses for monsoon season. The Straits Times. Retrieved October 9, 2020, from https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/pub-to-lend-new-anti-flood-measures-to-residents-and-businesses
19. Ang, H. M. (2019, November 22). PUB to deploy new portable flood protection devices for northeast monsoon season. Channel News Asia. Retrieved October 9, 2020, from https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/pub-portable-flood-protection-devices-northeast-monsoon-12117310
20. 黄, 贝盈. (2020, August 12). 公用局拟试用新自动防洪栅栏. 联合早报. https://www.zaobao.com.sg/realtime/singapore/story20200812-1076372?amp
21. 吴, 俍㬕. (2020, August 12). 政府拟装新防洪栅栏 阻水淹进私人公寓. 8视界. https://www.8world.com/news/singapore/article/pub-flood-barrier-trial-1217736
22. Chua, G. (2010, June 17). PUB probes Orchard Rd flood. The Straits Times. Retrieved October 11, 2020, from https://wildsingaporenews.blogspot.com/2010/06/pub-probes-orchard-rd-flood.html
23. Public Utilities Board. (2013, June). Code of Practice on Surface Water Drainage. Public Utilities Board.
24. C40. (2014, August 27). Benthemplein Water Square: An innovative way to prevent urban flooding in Rotterdam. C40 Cities. Retrieved October 1, 2020, from https://www.c40.org/case_studies/benthemplein-water-square-an-innovative-way-to-prevent-urban-flooding-in-rotterdam
25. Bokern, A. (2014, June 5). Water Square in Rotterdam by de Urbanisten. Uncube. Retrieved October 1, 2020, from http://www.uncubemagazine.com/blog/13323459

[This is an essay submitted for "DEP5105 Urban Infrastructure & Mobility Systems" module on 13 October 2020 for AY2020/2021 Semester 1. "DEP5105 Urban Infrastructure & Mobility Systems" is offered by National University of Singapore (NUS) Department of Architecture (DoA) Master of Urban Planning (MUP).]

Labels: ,

Should developers incorporate stormwaters control systems within developments?   © 文彬 2004~2024. All rights reserved.

Can a city be planned and built scientifically?

29 April 2020

Title
Can a city be planned and built scientifically?

Abstract
Urban planning is a multi-disciplinary, progressive and utopian concept. Over the decades, several planning theories, principles and models were conceptualized by various creators from diverse background. Subsequently, these planning concepts were experimented and implemented (wholly or partially) around the world to varying degree of success.

This paper will examine whether a city can be planned and built scientifically according to various planning models conceptualized. Furthermore, if a planning concept is successfully implemented in a city, can the same concept be duplicated in another city?

What is Urban Planning?
There is no standard definition for urban planning. In modern context, urban planning can be defined as a multi-disciplinary, creative, geopolitical process that encompasses land use planning, architecture, economic development, social engineering, etc. The purpose of urban planning is to evaluate, design and organize proposed land uses and buildings into logical spatial arrangement to maximize land efficiency. Planners also aspire to create a new social order to assert control over the population and economy.

Historically, cities of ancient civilizations were planned, evident in the city wall and grid pattern. Modern urban planning originated at Europe in the late 19th Century. The successful industrialization of Manchester and rejuvenation of Paris fuelled the urbanization and spatial transformation of cities across Europe. However, the first comprehensive planning projects were experimented in colonies before implementation in Europe. (Rainbow, 1989) The invention of skyscrapers expedited the development of high-rise, high-density urban settlements.

Who are the Urban Planners?
Planning is such a diverse and ambiguous discipline that many “experts” tried to define through scientific methodologies. With the exception of Architects Camillo Sitte (“City Planning Accordingly to Artistic Principles”) , Le Corbusier (Radiant City) and Frank Lloyd Wright (Broadacre City), it is interesting to note that many inventors of revolutionary and influential planning theories are not academically or professionally trained in urban planning, urban design, architecture or geography.

For example, Ebenezer Howards, who invented the “Garden City” concept, ended his formal education at 14-years-old and was not trained in architecture or urban design. (Fishman, The Ideal City Made Practicable, 1982) Christopher Alexander, who invented the “Pattern Language” and co-authored the highly influential “A Pattern Language: Towns, Buildings, Construction” was a mathematician before crossing over to architecture.

In addition, many bureaucrats and supporters who advocated, critiqued or implemented planning projects were also not trained in planning. Baron Haussmann, the Prefect of Seine who engineered the urban renewal of Paris studied law; Robert Moses, the “Master Builder of New York City”, studied political science. Similarly, opposer like Jane Jacobs was a journalist without training in spatially-related fields.

Since these planners were not trained in spatial discipline, it raise questions on the credibility and validity of the concepts proposed and implemented by them. While urban planning is a multi-disciplinary practice, it is still ironic if most of the fundamental concepts were not developed by professionals trained in relevant field. Nevertheless, these planners share a common goal: to invent a perfect urban planning model to guide the creation of an ideal city.

The Science of Urban Planning
Several major cities around the world are entirely planned and built from scratch; examples includes Singapore (1819), Sapporo (1869), Canberra (1913) and Brasilia (1960). In addition, many cities like Berlin, Hiroshima and Seoul were destroyed by wars or natural disasters in the 20th Century and were rejuvenated using scientific and systematic approaches.

Ebenezer Howard invented the “Garden City” concept in 1898, which is a compilation of existing ideas created to resolve assorted problems caused by capitalism and urbanization. Howard managed to see the connection between these ideas, adapted and compiled them into a coherent design. The “Garden City” aims to re-construct a new social-economic environment through decentralisation of cities, cooperation and re-distribution of wealth and power. (Fishman, Inventing the Garden City, 1982) Land is collectively owned and part of the rental income are deposited into a sinking fund for investment, maintenance and provision of services. (Fishman, Design for Cooperation, 1982)

The “Garden City” is a tightly-organized, self-contained, low-density development where 30,000 dwellers live in the urban core. The “Garden City” is surrounded by farms or forest, where 2,000 farmers would supply food to the urban core and constitute an integral part of the cooperative economy. The countryside also doubles as green spaces for leisure and prevents urban sprawling. If the population grows, the existing “Garden City” shall not be expanded or intensified for the system to work. Instead, a new sister “Garden City” could be developed beyond the green buffer. Eventually, 6 “Garden Cities” would cluster around a main city to form a “Social City” network. (Fishman, Design for Cooperation, 1982)

The “Garden City” concept is a simple and functional idea that can be easily applied. Howard founded Letchworth in 1903, the first New Town constructed based on the “Garden City” concept. The “Garden City” was eventually adapted into various decentralization concepts by planners worldwide. (Fishman, The Ideal City Made Practicable, 1982)

Modernist urban planning is generally a top-down process. Bureaucrats would identified urban issues and planners are tasked to conceptualize a plan to resolve these problems. Such process were criticized by planners, intellectuals and activists to be problematic and insensitive, because solutions were designed based on projected efficiency and profits, without taking into consideration environmental impact, social diversity, feedback, everyday life and memories of residents. This approach eventually leads to the failure of “big planning” projects. Therefore, Susan Fainstein, Oscar Newman and Paul Davidoff proposed new planning theories to counter these issues. These models focus on different planning process, perspectives and emphasis; each producing varied outcomes, with its pros and cons.

The “Communication Model” juxtaposed top-down planning by using pragmatism and communicative rationality. Planners need to listen and mediate among stakeholders to reach consensus on differing viewpoints for a project. While this is ideal, the “Communication Model” is unrealistic, inefficient and time-consuming to obtain 100% consensus. This method results in biases, Not-In-My-Backyard (NIMBY) syndrome, domination by powerful grassroots and placing of unwanted facilities near community with weaker voice. (Fainstein, 2000)

“New Urbanism” is a neo-traditionalism design-oriented model that aims to use urban design to create an array of mixed-use buildings, housing typologies for different demographic groups and public spaces to construct a diverse and cohesive community. The basic planning unit is the neighbourhood, which has a defined boundary and focal centre where residents could access essential amenities within walking distance. “New Urbanism” believes that improvement in physical environment will enhance spatial relationship between living and working spaces. However, “New Urbanism” is market-driven and needs to rely on private developers to build and finance the projects. This often result in destroyed and displaced community, homogeneous development and ‘forced conformity’ among the people. These contradicts the emphasis on community, creativity and diversity. (Fainstein, 2000)

A “Just City” aims to resolve social inequality caused by capitalism through participation in decision-making and advocates for the needs and wants of the community. Planners need to identify a purpose and fight to achieve the spatial goal. However, the “Just City” is unpopular in developed cities as it ignores the interests of the middle-class majority and certain minority groups. Furthermore, the dismissal of economic importance makes the “Just City” model only suitable for cities with a mature economy. (Fainstein, 2000)

The “Defensible Space” concept deploys architectural design, spatial planning and behavioural psychology to create a safer environment that enables casual and continuous surveillance of the public spaces by residents. Planners of “Advocacy Planning” advocates an idea and opines that planning should be more pluralistic and democratic, with stronger participation from individuals, communities and interest groups. (Davidoff, 1965)

Planned City: A Study of Singapore
Singapore was a planned settlement, with the first town plan drawn in 1822. A Master Plan needs to have legislative power for effective implementation and regulation. However, early plans were merely records of existing developments, without anticipating problems and proposed plans proactively. (Dale, 1999) Urban planning only starts to take off after Singapore obtained self-governance in 1959 and Singapore was successfully urbanized and transformed within 30 years.

To a huge extent, Singapore is planned using a top-down approach based on ideas extracted from various planning principles. Ideas from the “Garden City” are echoed in the Koenigsberger Ring City Plan, New Town developments and Constellation Plan. The “New Urbanism” vision to promote social mixing of different racial, cultural and income groups was achieved by building public housing flats of various typologies next to each other.

Singapore’s success in urban planning is mainly due to the consolidation of power and the government owning majority of the land. The government is able to delegate its land, finance and power to certain ministries and statutory boards to plan, implement and regulate urban planning projects quickly, efficiently and effectively. (Dale, 1999) Such bureaucratic approach empowered the Housing & Development Board (HDB), Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) and Jurong Town Corporation (JTC) to be master developers for public housing, urban renewal and industrial developments respectively and avoided the challenges faced by the “Communication Model” and “New Urbanism”.

Singapore developed a ring of New Towns around the Central Water Catchment. Each town is self-contained and comprises several neighbourhoods organized around a town centre. The provision of shops, hawker stalls and factories within the town allow resettled farmers and entrepreneurs to operate small business, provide services and employment opportunities for the community. Such initiatives were envisioned, but not implemented during Howard’s time.

Initially, New Towns were planned based on the neighbourhood principle, where approximately 100 blocks of flats are built within walking distance to a neighbourhood centre. In 1980s, HDB modified this principle by inventing the precinct as the smallest planning unit. A neighbourhood is de-cluster into several precincts; each containing about 10 blocks of flats planned around a precinct centre where essential shops and amenities are located. The precinct reduced distance to amenities, encourage closer social interaction, foster stronger sense of belonging and improve spatial identity. The layout of precinct, setup of Neighbourhood Police Posts and Community Watch initiative construct a “Defensible Space” that deters crime. The precinct concept was successfully piloted at Tampines in 1982 and was subsequently applied to other New Towns. These adaptation and improvement of the “Garden City” idea was in line with Howard’s vision for his invention to be capable of great improvement.

Similar to “Garden City”, Town Councils were formed to manage and maintain the common areas of New Towns. A Town Council is led by politicians and appointed councillors (who are residents), and run by a team of professionals for ground operations. Town Councils are primarily funded by Service and Conservancy Charges collected from residents. (Dale, 1999)

The New Towns are connected to the City Centre by a comprehensive transport network. Decentralization was proposed in the Concept Plan 1991, which mapped out a constellation of Regional Centres, Sub-Regional Centres and Fringe Centres radiating out from the City Centre. Each decentralized centre serves several neighbouring towns and reduces commuting by providing more amenities and alternative job opportunities closer to homes.

Tampines New Town won the World Habitat Award in 1992, a testament on the success of Singapore’s public housing and innovative urban transformation efforts. Singapore’s success in urban planning inspires several cities to rejuvenate based on the “Singapore Model”. While Suzhou Industrial Park, Tianjin Eco-City and Colombo Beira Lake District resembles Singapore physically, it needs time to evaluate whether the customized “Singapore Model” is successful in other aspects.

Problems of Urban Planning Concepts and Models
Scientific problems are controlled and hypothesis can be tested and proven. In contrast, planning challenges are “wicked problems” that cannot be clearly defined and there are no right or wrong solutions. (Rittel & Webber, 1973) Planning problems are inter-related and decisions might have consequences on other issues. (Dale, 1999)

An urban analysis is never comprehensive, because information was researched based on problems identified by the planner. It is difficult to design a development that would resolve future problems that could not be predicted accurately. Furthermore, every site is unique and the same solution might be incompatible for similar problems. (Rittel & Webber, 1973)

A solution can be classified by different parties as good and bad simultaneously. A planning decision may benefit the majority, but affects some in the name of public good. Big planning also proved to be impossible without loss of liberty and equity. (Rittel & Webber, 1973) For example, urban renewal, land acquisition and resettlement were essential for Singapore, but was disruptive to the resettled villagers, as they could no longer stay at their kampong and farm to be self-sufficient. They need to adapt to urban life and work in unfamiliar jobs to finance HDB mortgages. Fast-forward a few decades, it is interesting to note that most Singaporeans wants their flats to be selected for Selective En-bloc Redevelopment Scheme, which is a form of resettlement with lucrative benefits.

Planning is fuelled by capitalism and efficiency, which is to use minimum land to achieve maximum development potential. Efficiency can be quantified by Gross Plot Ratio, population density and land utilization rate etc. While capitalism has merits in promoting pragmatism and desire for improvement, capitalism is also the root cause of social inequality, unhealthy competition, consumerism, wastage, environmental damages, poor physical and mental health etc. Decision-makers should not approved projects solely from an economic perspective, else residents will be deprived of non-profit-generating amenities near homes and direct bus routes to town centre will be removed. The government could subsidize private operators to ensure services will still be provided for the convenience of the community. In fact, it is controversial to privatize essential service providers, because their main objective would switch to profit-making after privatization.

As the economy and society mature, it is necessary for planning strategies to evolve accordingly. (Dale, 1999) Since 2000, there is a gradual shift towards collaborative planning and participatory design. Planners would organize community workshops, walking conversations and pop-up engagements to gather feedback. While such shift is ideal, planners needs to filter NIMBY noises from feedback and be firm with the initial planning objectives when necessary. To discourage NIMBY, planners could encourage protesters to submit a counter-proposal for consideration. Planners should evaluate alternatives, manage powerful voices and balance feedback objectively in the general interests of the community.

Policy-makers attempt to improve effectiveness by inventing unnecessary systems, which complicates the problem and does not necessarily produced better solutions. Agencies either operate in silo, has overlapping functions, (Dale, 1999) or create ‘grey area problems’ not within anyone’s purview. Consolidating planning into the same organization might not lead to greater efficiency, as departments might have conflicting objectives or lack internal coordination. (Dale, 1999) These necessitate coordination to resolve issues that may not be complicated. Policy-makers might lose touch with the ground and advocate “white elephant” projects that residents do not need or want. Nevertheless, the public will always complain that planners did not solve problems that planners claimed they could solve.

Planning is never perfect, as there are alternative ways to parcellate a site (with accompanying opportunity costs). Furthermore, it is impossible to experiment a land use plan without building it. However, there is no threshold for trial & error, because solutions implemented are usually irreversible and could have severe consequences. Plus, measurement of success and impact is never immediate. (Rittel & Webber, 1973) Planners must note that the view of society changes in response to time, economic development and social diversity. Hence, what was right in the past might be contentious now or in the future.

The Art & Science of Urban Planning
Urban planning is an art and science on balancing: planners need to achieve equilibrium in land use, social needs, economic needs, efficiency, feedback and aesthetics to construct an ideal city. Ideally, the planning process should start with site visits and detailed analysis to understand the existing on-site conditions and identify gaps. This is necessary for conceptualizing functional planning proposals that address gaps.

A city can be planned and built scientifically using a hybrid of planning theories, principles and models. Planning theories are not mutually exclusive; (Fainstein, 2000) most cities are planned using a hybrid of planning models that are customized to fit local context. The strategy is to adopt the pros of a model and replace the cons with the pros of another model. If a planning concept is successfully implemented in a city, the same concept can be duplicated in another city, but it must be customized to suits the different on-site situations and local needs.


References
1. Fainstein, S. S. (2000). New Directions in Planning Theory. Urban Affairs Review, 451-478.

2. Fishman, R. (1982). The Ideal City Made Practicable. In Urban Utopias in the Twentieth Century: Ebenezer Howard, Frank Lloyd Wright and Le Corbusier (pp. 23-26). Cambridge: MIT Press.

3. Fishman, R. (1982). Inventing the Garden City. In Urban Utopias in the Twentieth Century: Ebenezer Howard, Frank Lloyd Wright and Le Corbusier (pp. 27-39). Cambridge: MIT Press.

4. Fishman, R. (1982). Design for Cooperation. In Urban Utopias in the Twentieth Century: Ebenezer Howard, Frank Lloyd Wright and Le Corbusier (pp. 40-51). Cambridge: MIT Press.

5. Rittel, H. W., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning. Policy Sciences 4, 155-169.

6. Dale, O. J. (1999). The Government as Planner and Entrepreneur. In Urban Planning in Singapore: The Transformation of a City (pp. 71-115). Cambridge: Oxford University Press.

7. Rainbow, P. (1989). Governing Morocco: modernity and difference. International Journal of Urban and Regional Planning, 32-46.

8. Davidoff, P. (1965). Advocacy and Pluralism in Planning. Journal of American Institute of Planners, 331-338.

[This is my Final Paper submitted for "DEP5102 Introduction to History & Theory of Urban Planning" module on 29 April 2020 for AY2019/2020 Semester 2. "DEP5102 Introduction to History & Theory of Urban Planning" is offered by National University of Singapore (NUS) Department of Architecture (DoA) Master of Urban Planning (MUP) and is taught by Prof Lee Kah-Wee.]

Labels: , ,

Can a city be planned and built scientifically?   © 文彬 2004~2024. All rights reserved.

Public Engagement and Feedback Analytics

28 March 2020

Before studying Master of Urban Planning, I worked as an Urban Planner in the Ministry of National Development (MND) Centre for Liveable Cities (CLC), Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) and Singapore Land Authority (SLA) and I was involved in several public engagements of various types and scale. Public engagement is an important communication channel between planners and stakeholders and it is an important source to collect information and feedback from the community; which provides valuable insights and statistical evidences for agencies to plan projects to meet local needs. Nevertheless, the greatest challenge for public engagement is to choose the most appropriate engagement method for the selected target audience and purpose.

For the "Reimagining Tampines” research project, we utilized 7 engagement methods, namely – stocktaking of ongoing projects, ground audit, user count, user observation, pop-up booth, walking conversation and community workshop, to identify gaps in infrastructure provision, engage local stakeholders and gather feedback from the residents of Tampines. The collected data were analysed and used to design solutions to address gaps and improve local planning and development coordination. As each method has its pros and cons, planners need to use a hybrid of approaches to ensure data collected is objective and comprehensive. For example, walking conversations and community workshops are the more intimate form of engagement that allows planner to establish personal and trusted communication with the residents. However, the information collected might not be objective due to the small sample size and discussions might be dominated by a few vocal minorities. On the other extreme, pop-up booths allow planner to reach out to a larger target audience and the community could feedback anonymously. However, the information collected might not be in-depth or statistically significant. Planners might also receive unexpected feedbacks (e.g. many residents feedback that there are too many covered walkways, making the town looks ugly) during pop-up engagements.

I worked closely with colleagues from government agencies, Ministry of Law (MinLaw), Members of Parliament (MP) and grassroot leaders to resolve encroachments on State Land by properties off Jalan Kayu. After several discussions with the MP, the agencies unanimously agreed not to regularize or sell the land to the affected owners because it will send the wrong signal to the public that land owners can lease or purchase land cheaply through illegal encroachment. We organized a series of engagements with the affected property owners, grassroot leaders and the MP to inform the owners to remove their encroachment by the stipulated deadline. I research intensively on the background and legal policies, which were useful in responding to the difficult enquiries. I also had the opportunity to assist MinLaw with the closed-door engagements with members of affected golf clubs whose lease were not renewed upon expiry; the engagements became rowdy at times.

Therefore, it is important for Urban Planners to be properly trained in planning, organizing and managing public engagements. Planners must know how to engage the community, which includes attentive listening, observation of non-verbal cues, management of dominative participants and handling of unexpected feedbacks. Planners must also filter noise, Not-In-My-Backyard (NIMBY) feedback and grassroot leaders lobbying for personal agenda from the engagements. As reaction and feedback collected from public engagements are important source of primary information, Planners must know how to analyze and interpret the findings objectively; which can be assisted by technology (e.g. Excel, GIS, R, Python). The ePlanner is a very powerful analytical tool that is able to support the findings with information from other sources (e.g. ez-link transaction). I am looking forward to the public version of ePlanner, which will be of significant help in urban analysis. Furthermore, based on evidences gathered, Planners might also need to ‘fight’ productively with colleagues from other agencies to ensure the proposed projects meet the needs of residents.

References
1. Guo, R., Twu, S.M., Lee, L.F. & See, B.P. (2018). Tampines Liveability Blueprint 2018 Addendum. Singapore: Centre for Liveable Cities.
2. Guo, R. (2018, May). Rejuvenating Mature Towns: Some Lessons from Tampines. CLC Insights, 37.
3. Chang, Y., Yang, J., Song, M., Guo, R., Phua, S.H., Sim, J., Ruan, N. & Koay, X.Y. (2017). Planning for Communities: Lessons from Seoul and Singapore. Singapore: Centre for Liveable Cities.
4. Khoo, L., Boh, J. (2018). Engaging Well, Forging Bonds: The Community as Stakeholders in Urban Development. Singapore: Centre for Liveable Cities.

[This is an essay submitted for "DEP5111 Planning Technologies" module on 28 March 2020 for AY2019/2020 Semester 2. "DEP5111 Planning Technologies" is offered by National University of Singapore (NUS) Department of Architecture (DoA) Master of Urban Planning (MUP).]

Labels: ,

Public Engagement and Feedback Analytics   © 文彬 2004~2024. All rights reserved.

Decentralisation & Economic Activities

23 March 2020

Decentralisation was first proposed in Concept Plan 1991, which mapped out a constellation of 4 Regional Centres, 6 Sub-Regional Centres and 7 Fringe Centres radiating out from the City Centre. Today, Tampines and Jurong Gateway have become established Regional Centre of the East and West Region respectively and Woodlands is fast taking shape as the economic hub of the North. Decentralisation and transit-oriented developments are key strategies for sustainable development as it reduces daily commute by providing amenities that were originally provided in the City Centre and alternative jobs closer to homes. The increase in activity generated at these centres contributes to a more vibrant urban lifestyle and diversity at these heartlands.[1] The reduction in travelling will decrease the load of the public transport system and will also minimize the amount of carbon footprint emitted.

The Land Use Plan 2030 proposed to upgrade Toa Payoh Town Centre into a Sub-Regional Centre and Alexandra into a Fringe Centre to supplement the existing Constellation. It is a great idea to enhance these places as they are already established business hubs and have easy access to comprehensive public transport system. Beyond 2030, there is potential to develop another Fringe Centre at Great World (after completion of Thomson – East Coast Line) and more Sub-Regional Centres at Bedok (potential to redevelop and intensify industrial land and former sports site opposite Town Centre), Choa Chu Kang (interchange of North-South, Jurong Regional and Bukit Panjang LRT lines) and Yishun.

For Decentralisation to materialize, it is essential to have a comprehensive public transport system and to constantly improve the existing public transport system. Furthermore, integrating land use and transport planning is necessary to optimise land utilization and value; ensure suburbs are well-connected to commercial centres and encourage people to switch from car owners to public transport users.1 In fact, the Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) is a catalyst for urban development, because the MRT network contributes in shaping the urban development pattern, provides opportunities for strategic integration and intensification.[2]

As dictated in the Land Transport Master Plan 2040 (LTMP40), planners aim to make public transport journeys more seamless, convenient and time-saving by increasing rail coverage; expanding active mobility network and improve reliability of public transport.[3] Building on the LTMP40, there is still potential to construct more radial and orbital MRT lines to increase rail coverage and close existing gaps. These gaps can be easily identified through ez-link transaction data and pedestrian counts.

For example, there is strong potential to construct a North Shore Line to connect Pasir Ris, Punggol, Seletar, Simpang and Woodlands. (Pasir Ris, Woodlands LRT link under study, 1996) Serving the North Coast Innovation Corridor, the North Shore Line will significantly reduce the passenger load for buses plying between these areas, hence reducing the traffic volume along Tampines Expressway. New radial lines like Seletar Line, Holland Line, West Coast Line and Paya Lebar Line can provide direct rail connection from new development areas (e.g. Tengah, Defu and PLAB) and areas not served by existing MRT lines (e.g. Seletar, Sengkang West, Whampoa, Sunset Way, Ulu Pandan, Tanglin Village and Bukit Merah Town Centre) to the City. New in-fill stations can also be added to existing lines to improve accessibility.

References
1. Chow, C., Chia, J., & Zhan, M. (2018). Integrating Land Use & Mobility: Supporting Sustainable Growth. Singapore: Centre for Liveable Cities.
2. Guo, R. (2016). Urban Redevelopment: From Urban Squalor to Global City. Singapore: Centre for Liveable Cities.
3. Land Transport Master Plan 2040. (2019, June 27). Retrieved March 23, 2020, from https://www.lta.gov.sg/content/ltaweb/en/about-lta/what-we-do/ltmp2040.html

[This is an essay submitted for "DEP5111 Planning Technologies" module on 23 March 2020 for AY2019/2020 Semester 2. "DEP5111 Planning Technologies" is offered by National University of Singapore (NUS) Department of Architecture (DoA) Master of Urban Planning (MUP).]

Labels: ,

Decentralisation & Economic Activities   © 文彬 2004~2024. All rights reserved.

Infrastructure & Mobility Planning

18 March 2020

Each car in Singapore drives an average of 50km daily, which is comparable to distance driven by cars in countries much larger than us. As Singapore strikes to improve its public transport connectivity, the question on whether driving into the city centre should continue to be relatively affordable and convenient should be studied in detail.

Many cities have successfully removed and converted major highways into green and recreation urban spaces. Examples include Seoul’s restoration of the 11km long CheongGyeCheon modern stream, which was restored into a civic space after the elevated highway was demolished in 2003.[1]

Without doubt, it is definitely good for Singapore to progress towards a Car-Lite City. I think we are making good progress in reducing car ownership over the decades, as many young Singaporeans no longer view car ownership as a social status and are transiting to public transport for their daily commute.

However, it is important for urban and transport planners to understand that nudging of social behaviours takes time and should not be rushed. This is because if such social experiment failed, it might never be able to take off again in the future. For example, dockless bike-sharing and Personal Mobility Devices (PMD) complements the first-mile and last-mile connectivity of the public transport network.[2] However, the recent burst of the dockless bike-sharing bubble economy might means it will be more challenging for new vendors to enter the market and new users to adopt the technology. The public backlash and social sigma against the use of Personal Mobility Devices on footpath proves that it is generally difficult to bring back a social experiment once it failed, even if the outcome was expected to be good. In addition, it is important for urban and transport planner to note that car-lite measures might cause inconveniences to an aging population. Therefore, active mobility implementations should be balanced to ensure it does not caused disamenities.

Furthermore, transport planners have unlimited tendency to widen congested roads. While it is necessary to widen important corridors to ensure flow of logistics between the city, port and airport etc., the continuous widening of roads might also send the wrong signal that roads will always be widen whenever it is congested. This does not provide drivers a nudge or incentives to switch to alternative mode of transports.

it is important to use public transport ez-link transaction to analyse demand for public transport and first-mile and last-mile connectivity. However, it is important to note that while a public transport option is available, it might not be the most convenient option due to the number of transfer and distance travelled. Public transport provider should strike to provide better coverage. For instance, Singapore can definitely improve the public rail density and connectivity. New radial lines like Seletar Line (along Central Expressway and Jalan Kayu), Holland Line (along Holland Road and Bukit Batok Avenue 3), West Coast Line (along Jalan Bukit Merah and Ayer Rajah Expressway) and Paya Lebar Line can provide direct rail connection from new development areas (e.g. Tengah, Defu and PLAB) and areas not served by existing MRT lines (e.g. Seletar, Sengkang West, Whampoa, Sunset Way, Ulu Pandan, Tanglin Village and Bukit Merah Town Centre) to the City. New in-fill stations can also be added to existing lines (e.g. Lentor along North-South Line and Toh Tuck along East-West Line) to improve accessibility. Singapore also has a missed opportunity of building an Airport Express Line, which can be constructed in tandem with the Thomson – East Coast Line.

References 1. Cheonggyecheon. Retrieved March 18, 2020, from http://english.visitseoul.net/attractions/Cheonggyecheon-Stream_/35.
2. Zhou, Y., & Xu, Y. (2018, October). Dockless Bike-Sharing and Short Distance Travel Demand in a Car-Lite City. CLC Insights, 20.

[This is an essay submitted for "DEP5111 Planning Technologies" module on 18 March 2020 for AY2019/2020 Semester 2. "DEP5111 Planning Technologies" is offered by National University of Singapore (NUS) Department of Architecture (DoA) Master of Urban Planning (MUP).]

Labels: ,

Infrastructure & Mobility Planning   © 文彬 2004~2024. All rights reserved.

Data for Amenities Planning

09 March 2020

Amenities are essential in our everyday life. Data collected from various sources are important secondary information to assess and analyse the needs and user patterns of residents. These data quantifies and supports decision in planning the location and size of the amenities to be provided.

However, big data could be problematic because there might be too much data, missed opportunities and concerns over privacy. Datasets might contain data that are irrelevant, incomplete or inaccurate. Urban planners and data analysts needs to filter noise to extract important information from the datasets to make logical urban analysis. As urban planners are only able to analyse problems they know, urban planners needs to be trained to identify problems and opportunities beyond their current knowledge. This could be overcome through experience and discussion with experts of other domains. Furthermore, data might create a ‘blind spot’ that urban planners would overlooked. An amenity could be available but might not be convenient for residents in the vicinity. For example, a residential block might be within 1km from a market; however, residents within the buffer might not be able to walk there due to lack of crossing or terrain constraint. Residents in Tampines could travel to Woodlands by MRT, but most residents would prefer to take bus 168 as it is a direct route with shorter travel time.

I agreed that there is a lack of data on first and last mile connectivity in Singapore, as such data could not be captured through Ez-link transactions or DataSpark. These data would be available if the bike-sharing model took off.

Singapore is not the only city/country that uses data collected from public transport and telco for planning of infrastructures, amenities and services. Seoul uses big data from taxi ride (meter, booking call and apps etc.) and telco to design the route of Night Owl Bus services to address demand and reduce operating cost.[1] The data is also used to analyse commuting and behaviour patterns, which is used to predict demand for other municipal services (e.g. daytime bus route, senior day care opportunities etc.).[2] Seoul government takes measures to encrypt the data and protect the privacy of citizens. Seoul is creating “Seoul Smart Data” (S-data), a storage of public data from over 500 sources that can be utilized to identify and solve urban issues.[3]

Over in Japan, the Kashiwa-no-ha Smart Center is an energy management and monitoring room that monitors the electricity usage of buildings within the entire Kashiwa-no-ha Smart City. The Area Energy Management System (AEMS) and Home Energy Management System (HEMS) are smart power grid that uses artificial intelligence to visualize the consumption of energy for each building and unit respectively. The visualization enables the Smart Center to efficiently optimize the distribution of energy from various local renewable energy producers (e.g. solar panels, storage battery, etc.) and power companies to buildings within the district. The Smart Center will share information on electricity usage with residents to educate them on energy consumption and conservation. The AEMS and HEMS successfully reduces peak consumption by 26%, effectively reduces carbon emissions. The Smart Center also manage electricity sharing during disasters.[4]

In the age of digitalization, data are important source of secondary information that helps urban planners in analysing, planning and solving urban issues. However, it is still important for urban planners to conduct site observations and community engagements to collect primary data. Offline efforts are still essential to ensure that amenities planned are what residents need and want.

References
1. Night Bus (called Owl Bus_: Route Design Using Big Data. (2014, October 14). Retrieved March 9, 2020, from https://seoulsolution.kr/en/content/night-bus-called-owl-bus-route-design-using-big-data.
2. 2019 Transportation Data of Seoul Analyzed through Big Data. (2020, February 18). Retrieved March 9, 2020, from http://english.seoul.go.kr/2019-transportation-data-of-seoul-analyzed-through-big-data.
3. Seoul to set up “S-data”, an integrated storage for all public data. (2019, July 11). Retrieved March 9, 2020, from http://english.seoul.go.kr/seoul-to-set-up-s-data-an-integrated-storage-for-all-public-data.
4. See, B. P. (2019). More than a Smart City: Kashiwa-no-ha is Healthy, Efficient and Innovative. Singapore: Centre for Liveable Cities. Retrieved March 9, 2020, from https://www.clc.gov.sg/docs/default-source/reports/bc-2019-01-more-than-a-smart-city.pdf.

[This is an essay submitted for "DEP5111 Planning Technologies" module on 9 March 2020 for AY2019/2020 Semester 2. "DEP5111 Planning Technologies" is offered by National University of Singapore (NUS) Department of Architecture (DoA) Master of Urban Planning (MUP).]

Labels: ,

Data for Amenities Planning   © 文彬 2004~2024. All rights reserved.

Singapore City Gallery Free Public Talks & Free Guided Heritage Tour

26 May 2007

6.5 million: Growing Singapore, Planning Ahead (19.5.07)
In conjunction with "International Museum Day", Singapore City Gallery organized a free public talk on 19.5.07, and another free public talk and a free guided heritage tour and 26.5.07. I get to know these events incidentally, while on my routine visit to Singapore City Gallery on 10.5.07 and I immediately signed up for the talk on "6.5 million: Growing Singapore, Planning Ahead".

Content of the talk proper is pretty average, considering the fact that I had already knew so much of these information from past exhibitions and my own research. However, huge credits must be awarded to the presenter Ms Carol Lim, Public Relations Manager from URA Corporate Development Division, who is capable of making the talk lively and yet professional.

I think the most interesting part about this talk would be the Q&A session. Ms Carol Lim patiently answered every question raised. After the Q&A session officially ended, I get to ask Ms Carol Lim and her colleagues more (difficult) questions in person. It is through the Q&A sessions that I obtained satisfactory answers for many life-long questions that had been in my mind. Furthermore, Ms Carol Lim offers to help me with other questions that I cannot recall on site. I would really like to thank Ms Carol Lim and her colleagues for their answers and assistance offered.

Understand Heritage Buildings: More than a Façade (26.5.07)
Benefiting much from the previous talk "6.5 million: Growing Singapore, Planning Ahead", I decided to attend the second talk "Understanding Heritage Buildings: More than a Façade".

Like its predecessor, content of the talk proper covers little technical aspects. But the presenter, Mr Kelvin Ang, Senior Architect from URA, shared tons of personal experiences and opinions on conservation. Mr Kelvin Ang juxtaposed photos of good and bad conservation effort. Mr Kelvin Ang is also humorous in his presentation.

I totally agree with Mr Kelvin Ang that painting the brick façade completely destroyed the beautiful pattern layout and characteristic of the brickworks. It also murdered the identity of the building. Bricks are used in façade for its unique charm and low maintenance required. Painting these bricks actually increases maintenance fees and labour work, as paint needs to be refurnished after a period of time.

After the talk ended, I have the chance to consult Mr Kelvin for places worth visiting. Mr Kelvin recommended some places that had not being restored, which fulfilled my criteria for nostalgic places.

Singapore City Gallery Free Guided Heritage Tour (26.5.07)
After the "Understanding Heritage Buildings: More than a Façade" ended, I spent some time answering the "Know the Central Area Model" Quiz, which I won a Veneer Bookmark. After waiting for a short while, the 2nd slot of the free guided heritage tour "Street of the Red Chambers" finally kicked off.

On the way to our destination Bukit Pasoh, the tour guide provided detailed explanation on Kadayanallur Street, Fairfield Methodist Church and Jinriksha Station. Highlights of this tour began after crossing Neil Road to Teck Lim Road. After a long stroll along Keong Saik Road, we visited a family-run Chinese temple, before heading towards Duxton Plain Park. After walking for 2h, the tour ended at the New Majestic Hotel.

Labels: , , ,

Singapore City Gallery Free Public Talks & Free Guided Heritage Tour   © 文彬 2004~2024. All rights reserved.