A Tale of Six Buildings

In 2004, as the National Library at Stamford Road was being demolished, the mainstream media was on site to film and photograph the demolition.?

I was there making photographs as well, a silent observer as the jackhammers went to work on the columns of the front foyer.?

That the media would be present is something unthinkable today – as the outcry on social media over the destruction of such a loved building would spread like a wildfire and soon everyone would be up in arms.?

These days, those who destroy buildings prefer to start the process quietly; usually with the erection of a hoarding so tall nobody can look inside.?

There was no social media in 2004, and smart phones with video recording capabilities were only just coming onto the market. I photographed the last days and the demolition of the National Library on a film camera.?

So some of us forget just how much opposition there actually was against the proposed demolition of the library and what questions were asked in the mainstream media (there was not yet any form of credible alternative media) and even by Members of Parliament on the need to pulverise a building that almost nobody wanted to see go.

Despite a very rare public outcry in the late 1990s toward the URA and LTA's decision to demolish the Stamford Road Library, then Minister of National Development Mah Bow Tan announced in Parliament on 6 March 2000 that the government had studied all proposals but in the end decided that the Library would have to be demolished.?

Fast forward twenty years to the present.?

Unsurprisingly, the demolition of the National Library is still brought up when the topic of conservation is discussed.

Surprisingly, it is used in an apathetic manner of resignation and nonchalence - “If they can demolish even the Library, nothing else is worth conserving.”

Most recently, this line of reasoning was again brought up in the Rice Media piece on Golden Mile Complex's “real value”.

More than one person has come to me, puzzled that the URA has decided, two decades after its failings vis-à-vis the National Library, to propose Golden Mile Complex for conservation. Many of them, (as a matter of opinion I hope), feel that the building is ugly, seedy, rundown and an “eyesore”.?

“Why did the URA not save the National Library but instead want to save this ugly building?”?

There is alot to unpack here, so bear with me.?

Let's start with the logical fallacy of a false dilemma shall we? There are no fixed number of buildings that can be gazetted for conservation. Each and every single building is unique and goes through much consultation and deliberation at the URA before it is proposed for and ultimately conserved.?

Also, buildings in Singapore should not be seen as existing on a spectrum of “worthiness for conservation” because such a spectrum cannot possibily exist in any useful way.?

So to say that any building is “less worthy” of conservation than the now demolished National Library is painting the picture of a false dilemma since there is a) no quota for number of buildings that can be conserved and b) no worthiness continumm of any sort to rate these buildings.?

Secondly, one should not confound architectural and design merit with how a building is currently used or maintained. It is no fault of the architects that many strata-titled buildings from the 1970s have not been upkept properly at all and now have severe maintenance issues.?

The reading of Golden Mile Complex as a “vertical slum” is commonly attributed to former Nominated Member of Parliament Prof. Ivan Png, who said in Parliament on 6 March 2006 that Golden Mile Complex:

“(sic) is a terrible eyesore and a national disgrace. The appearance of Golden Mile Complex appals me whenever I drive along Nicoll Highway. It must create a terrible impression on foreign visitors arriving from the airport. How can we be a world-class city in a garden? The Golden Mile Complex is just the most extreme of how a strata-title property can deteriorate. It illustrates what economists call a "negative externality". Each individual owner acts selfishly, adding extensions, zinc sheets, patched floors, glass, all without any regard for other owners and without any regard for the national welfare. The result is market failure. Unless we take resolute measures, other strata buildings will go that way. I ask the Minister to quickly act to arrest the deterioration of such property.”

Upon careful reading of Prof. Png's speech, especially the part where he asks the Minister of National Development to “quickly act to arrest the deterioration of such property” I would actually argue that our dear Prof. has been maligned all these years and that he could very well have meant that the MND should work with MinLAW to strengthen the Land Titles (Strata) Act so that residents are required by law to contribute to the proper maintenance of the building they all partially own.?

This reading is in contrast to most who have largely quoted Prof. Png negatively as someone who did not appreciate the building or assumed that by asking Minister to “quickly act”, he meant for Golden Mile Complex to be demolished.?

Again I'd like to repeat myself – a building's current state of maintenance (or lack thereof) is no fault of the architect's.?

Thirdly, as brought up in the Rice Media story, is the issue of apathy as self preservation where Ivan Wu the writer of the story says:

“Having said goodbye to so much of our iconic architecture—the old National Library, the National Theatre, Rochor Centre, Dakota Crescent, and Pearl Bank Apartments—many of us have decided it’s safer not to care, in order to avoid getting hurt again.”

This statement makes some assumptions which I'd like to debunk.?

Firstly, I wouldn't go so far as to call Rochor Centre an iconic piece of architecture. Sure, its rainbow-coloured scheme painted later in its life made it iconic, but this had nothing to do with the Centre's architecture.?

In fact Rochor Centre was one of MANY mixed-use complexes the HDB built in the CBD from the mid 1970s to the early 1980s, all designed with residential blocks sitting on a commercial podium of shops, businesses and amenities. Every single one of the other complexes (many which are architecturally far more interesting – Tanjong Pagar Plaza for example) is still standing today.

But I am digressing now.?

The statement also assumes that the Singapore government of 2000 is the same as the Singapore government of 2020.?

TLDR: It is not.?

For starters, Singapore has a new Minister of National Development – Desmond Lee, who took office on 27 July this year. Between Mah Bow Tan and Desmond Lee were two more MND Ministers – Khaw Boon Wan and Lawrence Wong.?

In fact, change in how the government viewed post-colonial buildings in Singapore with regards to considering them for conservation started immediately after the National Library was demolished.?

I am assuming that the government did not take all that outcry lightly, because in 2005 itself, the year the National Library's demolition was complete, several buildings built in or after 1965 were conserved. This included the Blessed Sacrament Church (1965), the Hakka Methodist Church (1966) and the former Jurong Town Hall (1974).?

Every year since 2005, a building or two built after 1965 would be added to the URA's conservation list. Buildings and structures such as the Upper Seletar Lookout Tower (1969), the Queenstown Public Library (1970), the Toa Payoh Town Park Observation Tower (1972), the Change Alley Aerial Plaza (1973) and the former Subordinate Courts Building (1975) soon joined the list of conserved buildings.?

On 28 December 2010, five years after the National Library's demolition, the National Heritage Board gazetted the Singapore Conference Hall completed in 1965 as a National Monument – the first post colonial building to be accorded the status of a National Monument. This was followed by the Jurong Town Hall on 2nd June 2015 – also the first time a conserved building was elevated to National Monument status.?

So the facts are these: before the National Library's demolition commenced in 2004, there were no buildings built in or after 1965 that were conserved. Today, some sixteen years later, we not only have a number of post independence buildings conserved (including Singapore's first neighbourhood public Library oh how ironic), we even have two National Monuments that were built in 1965 and 1974.?

Coincidental? Maybe, but more likely not.?

On 11 December 2017, then Minister for National Development Lawrence Wong announced via Facebook that after lobbying from various groups as well as studying feedback and consulting with a panel of experts, the government has decided to retain six former Singapore Improvement Trust (SIT) built housing blocks at Dakota Crescent.?

Considering that the original plan of the government was to demolish all SIT-built blocks at Dakota Crescent in order to make way for new HDB development, this news signalled that the government was indeed ready to listen, well, much more so than in 1999/2000 I would say.?

But even then, Dakota Crescent is relatively “easy” to conserve as it is state property, just like most of the other post-1965 buildings that the URA has saved.

Now saving a large commercial or mixed-use strata-titled complex is a very different ballgame from saving a church or a government building. It involves discussions and consultations with hundreds if not thousands of stakeholders – all who could become very unhappy citizens should conservation of said large building goes through – if only because they perceive it to mean that it would lower the amount they can ask for in a collective sale.?

Just look at Pearl Bank Apartments. The amount that it was sold for to CapitaLand – $728 million on 13 February 2018 made it impossible for the developer to consider any kind of conservation. And just like that, Singapore lost a true architectural icon.?

The activism that followed after Pearl bank's fate was sealed was alot more well coordinated and organised this time round. Twenty years on, with social media as our main weapons of choice, we set out to draw awareness to the remaining modern icons built just after Singapore's independence that were all threatened by demolition through collective sales. With Op Eds, exhibitions, books and documentaries, we tried to educate and win hearts in a bid to save our heroic architecture from the 1970s.?

On 9 October 2020, the URA announced it would be proposing that Golden Mile Complex be conserved YET support its commercial viability by offering a potential developer a slew of incentives in lieu of redevelopment.?

That the URA has decided to put its foot down and with the support of the MND, make up its mind about wanting Golden Mile Complex to be conserved is proof that the government has learnt to listen a lot better since 2000.

(This piece was originally written on 13 Dec 2020 here.)