Day 3: What is an architect/planner to do?

On the last day of our workshop in Singapore, we heard three very different lectures at the National University of Singapore (NUS).

The first lecture was called Conservation Policy & Practice of Shophouses in Singapore and presented by Dr. Widodo in the architecture department of NUS. The lecture was about Singapore's lack of true historical preservation, although historical conservation is done in name. Dr. Widodo focused primarily on shophouses, which are an older housing type consisting of ground floor commercial space and housing above. These were prevalent throughout the city but were razed down due to shoddy living conditions. In some areas like Chinatown, an area of shophouses was redeveloped into a commercial and office space, completely changing the use of the buildings and the life of the neighborhood.

From my time spent working in community development in Boston's Chinatown, I am personally critical of any redevelopment that destroys a neighborhood's social network and vibrant street life. The salt in this wound is Singapore's attempt to preserve and mimic the past by merely saving a building facade or even recreating an old facade by scratch. This redevelopment practice lends an artificial, sterilized, theme park feel to some of Singapore's communities. The entire lecture led to more questions: Can culture really be preserved by maintaining a neighborhood's physical appearance and use alone?If culture is constantly being shaped by external factors, how can we say that redevelopment practices are "bad" for cultures and communities?

The URA's top down approach to planning (highly controlled, little public participation) and its conflict of interest between development and redevelopment are two issues that influence how neighborhoods are preserved. These two issues were touched upon by the next two lectures given by Professor Non and Professor Goethert. Professor Non discussed Shanghai's politics of urban form - basically a history of Shanghai's development and city-wide redevelopment. It seemed to completely contrast Dr. Widodo's talk. Or perhaps it was the other side of the same coin but very large scale. I thought it was interesting how razing down and rebuilding can actually help create a culture (British colonialism's li nong homes in Shanghai, for example, were embraced by Shanghai and became icons for the city). So is it legitimate to criticize current redevelopment in places like Shanghai and Singapore?

Professor Goethert discussed something that interests me a lot - Community Action Planning to rebuild communities after disasters. This means directly involving the people in a rebuilding process, not just through a forum or by giving them the ability to approve plans, but through direct participation in jointly deciding what, where, and how things will be built. It's a fascinating process and concept that completely changes what it means to be an architect/planner.

That was a theme of the day's lectures - for me at least. As a planner, what will I be doing in third world countries? Can people plan for themselves better than I can plan for them? And am I willing to relinquish the control? What is my role?

After the lectures, we did the fun stuff. We ate lunch at a Chinese restaurant at Vivocity, a mall with a fantastic roof garden. Professor Goethert treated us to a ride on cable cars to the top of Mt. Faber, where we took pictures of the view and of the Merlion (I found four on the trip). Then some of us went to Little India, which reminded me a lot of India but with a slight Singaporean twist (no street vendors, no cows, but ample air conditioning in indoor restaurants).