Small city can dream big with careful planning; Singapore Land Use policy-making unwrapped

Chua Mui Hoong, Straits Times 8 Dec 07

Marina Bay IR project, for example, can take off smoothly as the basic infrastructure is already in place

WHEN the Marina Bay Sands integrated resort opens in 2009, pundits around the world may gasp at the speed with which a mega development rose on empty tracts of land in record time.

From winning the tender on May 26 last year to its planned opening some time in 2009, it will be a sprint of a mere two-plus years from blueprint to reality.

But National Development Minister Mah Bow Tan says the reason that the Marina Bay IR site can progress so fast and so smoothly is thanks to planning that began well over 30 years ago.

Without that careful planning of land use, plans for the IR would have had to be delayed, he says in an interview on land use and the trade-offs the Ministry of National Development (MND) considers in its plans.

Such careful, thought-through proposals help tiny Singapore achieve 'big dreams', he says.

Plans for a bigger downtown area began back in the 70s, as Shenton Way developed. One obvious solution that would extend the city into the bayfront area: reclaimed land.

'We reclaimed Marina Bay about 30 years ago. We started putting in the infrastructure in Marina Bay about 10 years ago: all services, power, telecommunications, gas, water, then planning for the roads.'

Development plans for the area began around 2000. Options such as residential, commercial, office or mixed uses were considered. To test the market, one site was put up for tender as a 'white' site, which means developers are free to choose whether they want to put up a residential or commercial building.

It was later developed into a residential building - The Sail.

By 2004 and 2005, when debate on the proposed IR intensified, Marina Bay stood ready as a prime location with infrastructure ready for development.

Planners had initially suggested the Southern Islands as the site for an IR, but Marina Bay beckoned.

'We were able to make this offer because we actually had all this ready and waiting to go.'

Mr Mah reckons that the IR bids created more buzz because of the attractiveness of the Marina Bay site.

To Mr Mah, long-term planning is critical for small Singapore, which has to balance myriad land uses.

Apart from the usual needs of a city, such as having land for housing, commercial and office uses, as a nation it also needs land for a port, airports, energy plants, waste disposal and recreational needs.

'If we plan ahead and by being flexible in our planning, by being able to take into account changes in our economy and our social needs, we are able to make best use of what we have.

'In the process, I think we are quite pleasantly surprised at how much land we actually have for all these things.'

Tiny Singapore has gone through several phases in land-use planning. In the 60s and 70s, the emphasis was on rapid physical development, with reclamation to expand the land mass.

In the 80s, a rising wave of conservationist sentiments caused a rethink. Former MND minister S. Dhanabalan noted in a recent interview that young officers in MND and Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) pushed to conserve culturally rich neighbourhoods like Chinatown and Little India.

Heritage conservation was written into the 1991 Concept Plan and remains an article of faith in urban planning.

In the 90s, as a growing population put pressure on demand for land and with limits in land reclamation, the focus shifted to ways to intensify land use, with sweeping increases in plot ratios that allowed for taller buildings.

Mr Mah says the suggestion to raise plot ratios came from a series of focus group discussions, making the point that consultation with stakeholders does result in better policy options.

Another breakthrough in land-use planning came in the decision to dig deeper, with plans for a deep tunnel system to house sewer and infrastructure systems.

For Mr Mah, land-use planning does not exist in a vacuum, but is all about balancing conflicting needs and interests.

He gives examples to illustrate his point.

A granite stockpile in Kranji raised the ire of farmers there. But to the minister, strategic interest comes first in this case. In fact, he says unapologetically, there are plans for more granite stockpiles in Singapore. But the ministry will consider carefully the pros and cons of suitable locations.

Another example of conflicting interests: a group of conservationists wanted to preserve a historic building in Amber Road slated for private development.

Mr Mah discloses that actually, the URA had considered whether to conserve the building, but realised the cost was too high. But when conservationists protested, the ministry helped bring together the activists and developer.

In the end, a 'hybrid' solution emerged, with the developer agreeing to retain the historic facade and changing its design to incorporate this.

This is an example of 'how the interest of a very vocal group can be taken into account', together with the interest of the more silent party - in this case, the developer, he says.

Mr Mah considers the outcome 'win-win', although he acknowledges that 'hybrid' solutions are not perfect and do not please either party 100 per cent.

But then, he shrugs, that's the nature of balancing different interests.

Asked if he considers lobbying by interest groups positive or negative, he replies: 'I would be neutral about it but I also want to make this point that their interests are not the only interests on the floor.

'We have to come in to talk about other interests who may not be so articulate, who may not be so vocal, but whose interests are no less important.'