Singapore’s rapid urban transformation has often required a delicate balance between development and heritage conservation. As city skylines rise and land is optimised for housing, commerce, and green spaces, the government has become increasingly sensitive to the cultural and historical meaning attached to physical sites.
The Urban Redevelopment Authority’s (URA) draft Masterplan 2025 introduces a thematic framework to assess not just the architectural value but also the significance of buildings in Singapore’s collective memory. This approach is partly shaped by past controversies, such as the demolition of the old National Library, which prompted public outcry over the loss of a site rich in shared memories. Today, such lessons inform a more nuanced evaluation of trade-offs—sometimes, as with Dover Forest, heritage and green spaces are partially preserved; in other cases, urgent public housing needs prevail, as at Dakota Crescent.
To further preserve Singapore’s cultural identity amid ongoing urbanisation, the concept of “identity corridors” was introduced. These designated areas, such as the Historic East corridor (covering Geylang Serai, Joo Chiat, and Katong), aim to maintain not just the physical fabric but also the intangible heritage—traditional crafts, food, and community life—of distinct neighbourhoods. The successful conservation of the Golden Mile Complex, after public advocacy, exemplifies this shift towards valuing both historical architecture and the social practices tied to such spaces. While economic growth and redevelopment remain necessary, Singapore’s evolving urban planning increasingly recognises that the “soul” of the city depends on the preservation and integration of its diverse heritage, fostering a deeper sense of belonging and continuity for future generations.
This is a synopsis of a fuller op-ed which appeared in The Straits Times here.