Straits Times Forum 27 Mar 09;
I REFER to Wednesday's article, 'Pack them in, build them up'.
I am both shocked and dismayed by Professor Edward Glaeser's short-sighted and highly flawed opinion that a population of 6.5 million would be essentially beneficial for Singapore. His notion that there is nothing unhealthy about living in skyscrapers does not take into consideration the many Singaporeans who wish Singapore would lose its tag as a concrete jungle and focus on creating a city with more 'green spaces'.
He also welcomes the addition of more 'smart people', whom he defined as a typical man in his 40s with children, without considering whether these individuals would be able to assimilate into Singapore culture with no accompanying problems which are already plaguing many immigrants here.
He also mentioned that a city with high density would also serve people's needs but he has conveniently forgotten that the basic human need of privacy, comfort and space would be severely compromised in public spaces if the population hit 6.5 million.
As it is, many of my peers have expressed a sincere wish to emigrate, not because of the high cost of living or the stressful lifestyle. It is primarily because they are appalled by how Singapore has been transformed into a city where it is difficult to find a seat on the MRT on a weekday afternoon, or seek peace and solace even in the suburbs, when Sembawang Mall is now as crowded as Plaza Singapura. Homes are getting smaller and more expensive, and people feel blessed to secure a seat in a foodcourt at any time of the day.
Prof Glaeser also claimed that packing individuals close together in smaller homes would reduce transport costs and energy usage, but this is overly simplistic and short-sighted. There is every possibility that smaller homes may use more energy if more time is spent on home entertainment.
Prof Glaeser's view that a city with high population density would reduce transport cost is also problematic as recent research shows that individuals living in residential zones which are overly crowded have a higher tendency to travel out of their residential area to seek leisure arenas that are 'less congested' and where they are 'less scrutinised' than in flats built in close proximity to each other.
Prof Glaeser's comments are certainly not representative of most Singaporeans who seriously wish for a less crowded living environment.
Robin Chee
Thriving density? Be wary of potential pitfalls
Straits Times Forum 27 Mar 09;
I REFER to the report on Wednesday, 'Pack them in, build them up'. Professor Edward Glaeser of Harvard University suggests that a population of 6.5 million in a densely built-up city could give Singapore a thriving density attractive to 'smart people' who would generate new jobs and a 'creative buzz'. In turn, this buzz would spur new growth, making Singapore an even better place to live and work, for natives and foreigners alike.
On this rosy feedback cycle, seemingly loaded with an infinite chain of goods, I suggest caution: Beware of possible pitfalls of this model.
The first lies in the possibility of overcrowding. Beyond the obvious speculations of ever more crowded hawker centres, trains and roads, a thriving density cannot be automatically assumed, even with a 6.5 million population on an island as small as Singapore. A thriving density must be deliberately encouraged and designed, or it will turn into overcrowding. A thriving density is the result of people interacting with other people, people wanting to interact with other people; while overcrowding is by default, people brushing by other people.
A thriving density fosters social understanding and productive interaction, culminating in greater social solidarity. On the other hand, overcrowding exacerbates alienation and unproductive competitiveness, consequently turning into open conflict.
Common sense tells us that, while skyscrapers may provide the vertical solution to the problem of overcrowding, they are least ideal to foster a thriving density, since vertical use of skyscrapers via elevators tends to compartmentalise lives, minimise social interaction and reduce chance meetings.
The second pitfall lies in the unqualified emphasis on 'smart people'. No one would deny that Bernard Madoff or the many Wall Street financial wizards who have exacerbated the current financial crisis are 'smart people', or part of the creative class. Yet 'smartness' or creativity without morality, scruples or responsibility - as the current crisis has demonstrated - is a liability rather than a benefit to society.
From what is happening in the world today, being satisfied with a mere 'creative buzz' is likely to alarm many, while trying to foster a 'moral creative buzz' is likely to reassure, and intuitively attract post-financial crisis workers, investors and citizens.
This model of a densely built up, creative city growing on its own dynamics is nevertheless very seductive. But as with any other model to be pursued on a practical level, one should be wary of its potential pitfalls.
Jeffrey Chan
