"It's the numbers that are creating tension. The more we squeeze on this island, the more people will want to claim space for themselves. When there isn't enough physical and, importantly, intellectual and spiritual space for individuals to breathe, they will start fighting for what little space there is.
Thinking about Singapore's future, I feel it's not about how many parks are within walking distance of a home.
It's about whether you even have the time or inclination to go to the park. Do you have the freedom and space to dream about the world beyond the stresses of daily life? Do you care about the stranger next to you on the bus, train, at the hawker centre?"
"I feel it's impossible for any successful city to cut itself off from foreigners. A great city is one that provides hope, opportunities and livelihoods. New York, London and Shanghai are such great examples.
If a city wishes to remain in isolation and maintain its "integrity", it will soon run the danger of irrelevance and obsolescence. Maintaining social harmony among locals and foreigners is the more important issue.
Our planners are facing a huge challenge as planning is long-term in nature and implementation takes decades. Unfortunately, shorter economic cycles and global competition demand shorter-term masterplans and planners must be nimble and make changes, where necessary.
Our quality of life now needs to be defined in the context of high-density living. We can no longer dream of living on the ground with a large garden setting, like in a low-density environment. What is the alternative?
It is important to balance the three elements of live, work, and play in such an environment. We need to find new inventions that will fundamentally change the way we live and the way we plan our cities.
The White Paper is a great starting point for a debate. We should harness its energy and use it to shape a great city. We should put aside our differences, selfish goals and myopic views to ask ourselves what kind of nation we will want to have in 2030.
The key question to ask is not whether we can house 6.9 million people. Instead, it is: What kind of 6.9 million people do we want to be?
If it is a progressive society like our National Pledge says we are, we can overcome all obstacles."
"I support former civil servant Ngiam Tong Dow's suggestion that we should be a "second-upper" city. Why do we have to be the first? We don't need to be the best in everything.
The young might leave, but they will always come back. If they see a home that gets overpopulated, why would they want to return if they feel like an alien in their own country?
My own son is in the United States and has settled there. My daughter still lives with me.
When home prices are high, and people cannot afford to buy their flats and it takes a long time to pay off the mortgage - that's when our youth will begin to feel like their quality of life is going down.
Singapore can keep its buzz by attracting quality people, allowing the arts and culture sector to grow, to make the country vibrant. I'm sure there's an optimum population for Singapore but I'm not an urban planner. Are we using the right planning parameters?
We have enough leisure and nature spots, but sometimes we can provide it and parents still won't take their children there. I see some children yell when a butterfly flies near them and it's sad because there is just not enough exposure to nature in our society."
"It is also important to keep certain nature and historic sites, as people are yearning for an emotional connection to something physical, in this place they call home.
Our ministers have said we should be prepared for slower economic growth. This is not a bad thing. We should stop and take a breather; things will also become clearer when we stop to take time to think. We're too rushed at the moment.
This is true of our Government, and true of individuals here too."
///
Just some interesting quotes from interviews regarding the White Paper that the Singapore government had published a few weeks ago. I guess it's just some things I should consider about planning for Singapore, perhaps designing for Singapore in the future as well. A few key terms, that all planners should know as well anyway, are community bonding/social harmony, a balance between economic success and well-being (health, nature, social). It seems that most Singaporeans are contented with where they are now - also because that majority of the Singaporeans are not living in poverty, and are relatively well-to-do so I don't see why they aren't contented anyway. It's not so much on how can we further our economic activity, but how can we maximise our economic standards (generally) for the well-being of the entire nation? Public spaces seem to be the "ideal" answer, but then again, with the limited amount of land that we have, plus a distinctly different culture as compared to many other western countries, how do Singaporeans enjoy their public spaces, together?
I regret that in my two months here, I've not gone out once to entirely just people-watch and try to understand the mindset of Singaporeans and basically, our culture. It seems to me a daunting task to at the same time, simply because our culture seems to be radically changing.
Perhaps also, designing for Singapore, the question behind what and how to design, is, who are we designing for? Should the designs retain a local taste, or should we be designing for such general uses and a more multi-racial culture that is open to various cultural groups, especially since in 2030 the government is predicting an almost 50% of foreigners as Singapore's population?
No comments:
Post a Comment