|
(Click on image or file to view the full case study) |
Buildings that have been demolished to make way for urban redevelopment do not always make the news. Even when they do, the ensuing public debate frequently centres around economic reasons rather than national identity. This article compares three cases of building demolition as a result of urban redevelopment in Singapore – the Old National Library, the Old Kallang Stadium, and Dakota Crescent housing estate. Unlike other demolished private buildings, these buildings bear national significance and were publicly owned. Firstly, we observed that the government’s reasons for demolition are still underpinned by economic factors. However, a closer comparison suggests an evolving role of civil society in advocating for the preservation of these buildings, with implications on national identity. Additionally, a comparison of the different governmental responses to civil society activists for these three instances indicates a possible shift from an authoritarian to a more consultative government over the years.
Why are buildings demolished in Singapore?
In these cases, the government’s rationale for demolishing the buildings was primarily utilitarian. The Old Kallang Stadium was demolished to make way for a new Sports Hub that possesses state-of-the-art sporting infrastructure and serves as a venue that can accommodate large-scale sports events and concerts – a functional upgrade.
The site for the Old National Library became the Fort Canning Tunnel, which increased road capacity in the city area – a faster road. Dakota Crescent was an old HDB estate, where the bulk of its blocks would be replaced by new residential developments – more and newer flats. While the Singapore government recognises the importance of heritage and nostalgia, the spirit of renewal and redevelopment continues to characterise the country’s growth and its successful developmental story.
Beyond these cases, urban renewal and redevelopment in Singapore usually occur with the aim of deepening Singapore’s engagement with global capital. While there might be a variety of reasons for gentrification or constructing new developments, including the creation of spaces for art, music, and sports, these projects still point to the need to attract global capital as the dominant priority for the use of space in land-scarce Singapore. In short, old buildings have to give way to facilitate the continuous inflow of global capital.
Building a National Identity
The economic rationale for the demolishment of these three buildings is not ubiquitously accepted by all Singaporeans. The Singaporeans who called for the preservation of the respective buildings rallied around their heritage value, and its implications on national identity. After the government’s plans regarding the Old National Library’s demolition were made known to the public, many notable architects and academics stepped forward to propose alternative plans to keep the building, but to no avail. For Dakota Crescent, many activists and civil society groups produced a Conservation Report, which surfaced in Parliament, and they managed to preserve a segment of the old housing estate.
Aside from being physical structures, these buildings also represent the everyday activities of the people who used to frequent or inhabit them. These activities define the individual’s sense of belonging, as they constitute a significant part of everyday life and identity. Hence, even if the demolished buildings are replaced with buildings that serve a similar function, it is unlikely that the new buildings can replicate the experiences that Singaporeans had in the demolished ones. These cases illustrate that a state orchestrated renewal of built heritage and national identity possibly diverge from the more organic, ground-up sentiments about what being Singaporean means.
This dissonance between the old and the new usually stems from how the gentrified version of the place (i) is catered to a different audience, (ii) lacks a sense of attachment as it has broken up communities, and, perhaps most importantly, (iii) it lacks authenticity as it is a state-orchestrated project whose function has deviated from the organically-formed place.
The fact that ground-up efforts to preserve these buildings are being heard nowadays may suggest that the primacy of economic growth is perhaps no longer as compelling to Singaporeans, but it could also be the fallibility of that approach is starting to be understood by a maturing citizenry listening more carefully to civil society.
Civil Society Involvement
There were also different levels of civil society involvement in calling for the preservation of these three buildings. Demolition plans of the Old National Library caught attention because the government made an attempt to discuss the technical possibilities of working around the building for the Fort Canning Tunnel’s construction, in response to the vehement appeals by architects and academics. For Dakota Crescent, the activists took it a step further and managed to work with their Members of Parliament to bring their agenda to Parliament. In contrast, the Old Kallang Stadium had the least opposition to its demolition, perhaps due to the relative absence of high-ranking advocates and social media at that time, which are crucial to rally activists together for a common cause.
A More Consultative Government?
The increasing involvement of civil society and the greater leeway that the government has acceded (especially in the recent Dakota Crescent case) suggest that the government has increasingly been taking ground-up concerns more seriously. The case illustrates that the government no longer meets advocates or activists in a tokenistic manner, seeking only to communicate their rationale behind their decisions, rather than allow for room for negotiating the decision.
While civil society groups seem to have a greater role in lobbying for their interests, caution should be taken to not leap into a sweeping conclusion that there is a paradigm shift in state-society relations. Rather than making room for ground-up initiatives and for civil society to take greater ownership in policy decisions, perhaps a more appropriate conjecture is that the government is pragmatically showing that it pays attention to the citizenry’s concerns. This could be because the government might not be able to bear the costs of ignoring these concerns in the context of an increasingly demanding and articulate citizenry. Even so, this calls for greater optimism towards closer state-society bargaining, as it suggests that citizens have more space in voicing their demands and shaping their national identity in this global city.
Conclusion
The preservation of heritage could be a politically charged issue for any government of the day, not least because it pertains to national heritage and the nation’s common past, but also because it provides a meaningful avenue for future generations to form memories and connections with earlier generations. Once the people have reached a general state of relative affluence and civic maturity, the government has to consider how to work together with its citizens and civil society to choose what to remember and what to forget. These cases provide hope and clarity on how Singapore is indeed making its way there.
Read more about the case study here.