The Greater Southern Waterfront, Singapore

02.562: Research Studio Research Final Report – URA Team

Building an Inclusive Development at the Greater Southern Waterfront

Ho Jiahan, Jonathan — Irwan Soetikno — Ma Ka Kui Muhammad Badrul Hisham Bin Ismail — Norio Sim Zuo Min

2

CONTENTS

CHAPTER 01: INTRODUCTION

05

CHAPTER 02: SITE SWOT ANALYSIS

17

CHAPTER 03: CASE STUDIES

33

CHAPTER 04: RECOMMENDATIONS

109

CONCLUSIONS

127

References Appendices

3

4

Chapter 01: INTRODUCTION

5

01.1 Introduction Land scarce Singapore faces tremendous pressures on land use, with rapid urbanization and modernization emphasizing the need for deliberate and sensitive planning efforts. The outcome is for an efficient and productive land utilization according to the values of ‘highest and best use’, while fulfilling the goals of an enhanced physical environment, quality of life, social welfare and economic growth. Urban planning, by its very nature, is future-oriented, which is exemplified by the Urban Redevelopment Authority’s (URA) announcement of the ‘Greater Southern Waterfront’ (hereafter, “GSW”) project in 2013.

This project is essentially a pragmatic planning approach to free up primary land at the central waterfront location to optimise its use value for future development. The land currently functions as container ports which stretch from Tanjong Pagar, Keppel, Pulau Brani and Pasir Panjang, as well as housing three exclusive gated condominiums: the Caribbean, the Reflections, and Corals by the Bay (Karthik, 2018). The ports will relocate to a consolidated central port at

Tuas, which will start operation in 2025, thereby freeing up land of about 1,000 hectares to form the Greater Southern Waterfront (URA, n.d). With this vision, the GSW will be ready for urban regeneration after 2030 and URA is officially calling for ideas (URA, n.d). URA has

Fig 01. Site Location

6

stipulated four key development strategies in the research scope. They are decentralisation, building a city for all ages, going car-lite, encouraging mixed-use developments and colocation. These strategies culminate to promote the idea of ‘inclusiveness’ for all ages, social fabric and communities while achieving the ideals of land optimization. Our research project will focus on providing policy recommendations for the planning of GSW, learning from waterfront development projects from other major cities.

01.2 Review of Literature The review of literature will touch upon some key words/subtopics which are represented in the bedraggled daisy (Fig 2). First, it relates to the background study of GSW. Second, it seeks a deeper understanding of Singapore planning history and urban waterfront development.

Lastly, it compares the typology of urban waterfront development from multiple cases across the world.

“A River Transformed: Singapore River and Marina Bay” (Auger 2016) provided a concise and empirical study on waterfront development along the Singapore River and the Marina Bay area, which are adjacent to the GSW. This publication illustrated the overall planning framework along the Singapore River to the Marina Bay and highlighted key development typologies at both areas. By investigating and analysing the typologies here, we can generate a development gap analysis to the GSW. As part of URA’s six broad ideas (URA, n.d.), GSW has the potential to function as an extension of the city and a part of the Marina Bay Central Business District (CBD). However, it is important to note that the character of urban development at Marina Bay CBD focuses on business and finance, while the Singapore River, such as Boat Quay, Clarke Quay and Robertson Quay are driven for commercial and tourism purpose (Jingyao, 2010). These sites illuminate two key characteristics of Singapore’s urban waterfront redevelopment: low-rise commercial cluster for leisure and tourism along the Singapore River and high-density mixed-use development at the Marina Bay for the financial centre and tourism.

7

There are many developments in other major cities around the world that can provide vital lessons on the optimal use of waterfront areas. Patrick Malone (1997) has done a thorough study on urban waterfront development of world global cities such as London, Sydney, Hongkong, Tokyo, and Amsterdam. He examined the economic and political forces behind the planning and urban design of those cities to determine the key success factors of the urban waterfront development. However, his work stopped short of providing specific recommendations on physical planning and design strategy. “Urban Waterfront Regenerations” (Timur, 2013) and “Planning, design and managing change in urban waterfront redevelopment” (Gordon, 1996) gave a thorough explanation on the planning process, methodology, and typologies of the urban waterfront. Gordon articulated succinctly the planning and design principles which define the success of waterfront redevelopment. By comparing the four key urban waterfront development: Battery Park New York, London Docklands, Toronto’s harbourfront and the Charlestown Navy Yard (CNY) in Boston, Gordon came with several conclusions. First, Battery Park was a success as a result of mixed of London and Boston’s model, while Toronto was a failure (1997: 263). Second, the success planning factors for Battery Park are due to good physical phasing strategy; good public space which utilised the public infrastructure and the creation of a continuous waterfront by the edge; and the incremental planning with multiple sites. (1997: 261-290).

Fig 02. Bedraggled Daisy

8

Most of all the world urban waterfront developments discussed above were developed during the post-industrialisation and were curated to meet cities’ specific economic development goals. Singapore today, has other challenging issues, the growing ageing population and changing social fabric. After examining the global cities waterfront case studies, the next question to investigate is: how to build an inclusive and mixed-use development on the waterfront?

World Health Organization has established a guideline for global-age friendly cities to meet the challenges of humanity in a rapidly urbanising world (WHO 2007). We will adopt this guideline to align with URA’s strategy on building cities for all ages. However, the inclusive city is not just about ages, but also about creating a city that is open for cultural diversity, entrepreneurism and mobility (Eveland, 2019). In terms of mixed-use, the greatest challenges lie in achieving the right balance of providing amenities that support the needs of everyday life (Eveland, 2019).

The project site currently has at least three exclusive gated condominiums: the Caribbean, the Reflections, and Corals by the Bay. These development shape Singapore’s most iconic and luxurious urban waterfronts living. However, the gated nature of these development brings about the question of waterfront living only for the rich and privileged. The prime waterfront land commands development with high use value but reimagining the future urban waterfront should strive to provide for development beyond mere profits. This can come in the form of introducing other types of residential properties and functions, contributing to an inclusive and accessible neighbourhood for all. This is exemplified in Feinstein (2010) study of urban waterfront renewal in Amsterdam which have promoted inclusive development. The project showcased the seamless marriage of residential buildings and types, which housed people of varying age and social class. Values of inclusiveness and diversity were emphasized, showing how the rights of its people can be advanced while moving away from traditional waterfront development for luxurious development.

9

01.3 Problem Statement and Research Questions The purpose of this study is to explore planning/policy recommendation(s) for an inclusive development at the GSW which is centred on the four key strategies. The research will include a SWOT analysis of the site, focusing on potential opportunities as well as possible threats. In addition, it will focus on comparative case studies of waterfront developments, across geographical and temporal scales, as an exploratory and descriptive tool to mitigate the identified threats and provide recommendations for GSW, towards a sustainable, flexible and resilient planning.

Primary Research Question: How can the new development in Greater Southern Waterfront create an inclusive urban neighbourhood?

Sub Questions: ●

What are the potential opportunities, as well as threats, to an inclusive development at the Greater Southern Waterfront?

●

What are the approaches taken in other waterfront developments?

●

What can be learned from the case studies, and how can the inclusive ideas be translated into Greater Southern Waterfront?

10

01.4 Research Design

Hypothesis Through the study of Singapore’s planning history and typologies of waterfront development both locally and globally, it has illuminated that the recent trend in such development is to include attributes of inclusivity. This is premised not only on physical connectivity to other parts of the city but development that caters to the entire demographic based on functions, needs and demands. Singapore has traditionally utilized a comprehensive top-down approach in the planning of the country and with the opportunity of a clean slate of land like the GSW, perhaps an unconventional and non-pragmatic approach could be used to engender new developments. This is also complemented by the fact that ‘inclusiveness’ can be readily encapsulated by the 4 key strategies converge into creating a city that caters to all; mixed-use development procures functions for a diverse group of needs and wants while providing spaces to engage in a wide range of activities. The combination of these ideas therefore led to the conception of the initial recommendation of “Building an Inclusive Waterfront Development” for the GSW.

The understanding that urban governance is not in fact independent reveals that cities tend to draw both positive and negative lessons from elsewhere to inform their policy making and planning decisions (Robertson, 1991). Examining success models have been traditions used by government in search for better ways to meet their individual preferences by looking at the experiences of others. It is this principle that have guided us to use case studies as the primary form of analysis to unearth potential strategies that can be translated and utilized in the development of the GSW. The research design framework was conceived by drawing from a model proposed by Yin (2014:49). It articulates a model for research that involves case study analysis and the ways to triangulate the findings to inform a final decision. The diagram below illustrates the process and flow of research design from the initial literature review to the outcome.

11

Fig 03. Research design framework

Data selection and assessment protocol The selection of case studies is based on multiple scales from global to local scales to gather a depth of lessons learnt. It also takes into consideration the performance indicators, its relevance to Singapore and the key development strategies as stipulated by URA.

The 4 key development strategies All the selected case studies should be of relevance to either one or more of the four key development strategies as outlined below. These key development strategies will also be used as parameters to measure the degree of success and/or failure of each case. â—? Decentralization: to create more jobs near homes, and to reduce commute time and distances. This also helps to reduce peak hour travel demand and provide more locational options for businesses of today and the future. â—? Building a city for all ages: to ensure that our infrastructure and services are sustainable and resilient in meeting the needs of a changing social fabric and ageing population. In doing so, we hope to meet the changing lifestyles and aspirations of people living in Singapore, and to build strong communities. â—? Going car-lite: to encourage greater use of public transport and active modes of commute (e.g. walk, cycle), promote greater use of shared services and reduce 12

ownership and use of personal cars. This also contributes to larger goals of sustainable urban living. ● Encouraging mixed-use developments and co-location: of facilities and services to enhance accessibility and convenience for people and optimize use of land and space.

Additional indicators ● Actors: To investigate the role of the various stakeholders (e.g. developers, government, planners, community, etc) in driving and influencing the waterfront development. ● Typologies: To investigate the function of development, land use, and physical characteristic (e.g. planning parameter). ● Economic: To investigate the economic performance indicator (e.g. land value, revenue, rental value, and job opportunity). ● Social: To investigate the function to the society. (e.g. meaning, level of satisfaction to place, security, etc) ● People: to understand the users, visitors and community of development.

Case Studies The case studies are categorised into three types, based on scale: global, regional, and local.

They are site and location specific within each selected city. These case studies represent five key fundamentals: magnitude (i.e. scale); significance (e.g. iconic); developmental stage (i.e. the urban development condition of the cities. For example, NYC and London are advance industrial cities, while Shanghai is an emerging industrial city); timeline and milestone (i.e. the time development was conceptualised and executed; and its current state); and relevance to GSW (e.g. Shanghai, although relatively younger than NYC in its developmental stage, shares similar and comparable characteristic of a ‘port city’ with Singapore. It has overtaken Singapore since 2010 as the world busiest port container (AAPA, 2016)).

13

Global scale ● New York City, London and Boston (Gordon, 1996) ● Amsterdam (Feinstein, 2010)

These case studies provide a backdrop of waterfront redevelopment that occurred in the 1970s and 1980s in response to a decline in old inner-city port activities as a result of containerization. The predominantly Western-centric examples reflect the origins of the decline in manufacturing and maritime trade industries in these geographies which prompted the need for urban renewal to alter the prior use of the area and inject new form of life. The valuable geographical locations that these inner-city ports used to occupy warrant efficient and productive land utilization that seek to maximize the potential of these ideal locations.

At a time when waterfront regeneration was still at its infancy, these renewal projects have provided well-established basis for waterfront redevelopment in other places and have functioned as key models to study even in present day.

Regional scale ● Hongkong (Lau, 2014) ● Shanghai (Jingyao, 2010)

The regional case studies provide a useful backdrop to understand the thought process and decision making behind the rejuvenation of its old ports given similar cultural underpinnings, status as major economic centres of the world and port cities. Hong Kong is a worthy example to analyze given its geography as a small island nation state with limited land, thereby placing emphasis on land optimization of the highest use values. Shanghai on the other hand is a major metropolitan city both within China and the world and its long stretches of waterfront areas housing a variety of functions allows understanding of providing diversity in a fastdeveloping economy and how rejuvenation efforts can contribute as an engine of growth.

14

Local scale ● Singapore river: Boat Quay, Clarke Quay and Robertson Quay (Chang & Huang, 2011) ● Marina Bay (Auger, 2016) ● GSW site analysis. In addition to all case studies above, we will also conduct a separate site analysis on the GSW. The finding will form the SWOT analysis for the final recommendation.

Waterfront development in Singapore can largely be analyzed in three categories, each possessing a different function. Redevelopment projects along the Singapore River furnishes the country with high quality nightlife and entertainment venues that cater for leisure and tourism. The Marina Bay CBD development aims to cement Singapore’s position as a crucial actor within the global economy, with skyscrapers and amenities that feed into the rhetoric of a global city. Further supplementing the country as an ideal place to live, work and play, is Singapore’s first waterfront living that is composed of public housing. This shifts away from the rhetoric of waterfront living as gated communities for the high socio-economic status, but enhanced quality of life and standards of living for the masses as well.

15

16

Chapter 02: SITE SWOT ANALYSIS

To begin our research, we conduct a SWOT analysis on the site. The purpose of the SWOT analysis is to provide us a better understanding of the site, giving us insights on the situation on the ground. We analyse the site in relation to its surrounding neighbourhood, taking into consideration developments that are already there as well as what is already planned. We focus specifically on possible opportunities and potential threats that future development might bring. The analysis is also broken into two level; macro (the entire GSW), and micro (a specific site within the GSW). The macro analysis examines the site in relation to the development of Singapore, and how it can complement or contrast existing development, while micro level is more site-specific, zooming into a smaller area within the boundaries of GSW.

17

Fig 01. Site Context

Fig 02. Singapore Overall Land Use Master Plan

18

02.01 GSW and its relation to national development of Singapore

Strengths ● It is centrally located on the southern tip of the island. ● There exists a convenient connectivity to the regional and transport hubs both in eastern and western of Singapore, facilitated by the east-west running expressway (AYE and ECP) ○ East: Tampines Regional Hub and Changi Airport are both 22 km from the GSW or a 30-minute drive ○ West: The upcoming Jurong Lake District and Tuas Mega Port are between 20 to 30 km from the GSW or a 20 to 30-minute drive ● It is adjacent to the Central Business District (CBD) and the Marina Bay Financial District. ● It has a large plot size of approximately 1000 hectares.

Weakness ● The relative lack of connectivity to the north and north-east of Singapore, with several upcoming developments ○ North: Woodlands Regional Hub and Johor Bahru ○ North-east: Upcoming Punggol Digital District

Opportunities ● The last available brownfield site in the central region which could be transformed to help decentralize the CBD, to provide complementary and niche mixed-use functions. ● It is by the waterfront which offers the opportunity to harness people’s affinity to water to create attractive spaces. This could be in the form of a continuous waterfront corridor on the Southern coast to accentuate the tropical island nature of the country.

We presently have a short stretch along the Northern coast in Woodlands and the East Coast Park.

19

● The potential to promote new forms of sustainable and innovative developments. The large plot size permits the opportunity to experiment with and engender innovative ideas that have yet to be implemented in Singapore, which could be used to cater to the dynamic nature of demands and aspirations and to cement Singapore’s position as a leading global city.

Threats ● It is adjacent to heavy industrial and shipping zones in the Western parts of Singapore, which presents potential environmental impacts of air and water pollution. ● It is by the waterfront which might subject it to higher vulnerabilities and risks to adverse impact of climate change such as rising sea level, as compared to inland areas.

20

Fig 03. Air pollution at the GSW site from surrounding industrial area

21

Fig 04. Site Location and Local Context

Fig 05. Site Land Use Master Plan (URA, 2014)

22

02.02 Macro Analysis: The Greater Southern Waterfront

Strengths •

The site is surrounded by established developments with diverse functions and characteristics, catering to a wide-ranging demography, needs and demands. o

Tourism: The 500 hectares Sentosa island is an international tourist destination which can accommodate more than 200 million visitors (Sentosa, 2013) and has generated more than S$ 3.4 billion annually towards Singapore’s economy (Switow, 2015). The island features a series of attractions, facilities and amenities such as a 2 km long sheltered beach, 14 hotels and 2 golf courses.

Additionally, the integrated resort of Resorts World Sentosa comprise the Universal Studios theme park and retail facilities while the luxurious waterfront living of Sentosa Cove dot the island’s Eastern region.

o

Nature: The existence of several neighbourhood parks in the region that provides relief from the urban monotony, offers a rich biodiversity while providing spaces for leisure and recreational activities. These include the Labrador Park, Mount Faber Park, Telok Blangah Hill Park and Kent Ridge Park, amongst other smaller parks, gardens and playgrounds. The Southern Ridges, a 10 km park connector also helps to link up these isolated parks to provide for a network of green links that enhances accessibility and connectivity.

o

Mixed-use: Many developments in the area were developed for a mix of functions and uses. Sentosa features an amalgamation of theme parks, retail, attractions and hotel for the tourism and leisure industry. Harbourfront sees a different mix of function, where retail, offices and cruise and ferry terminal coexist. Vivo City is one of the largest shopping malls in Singapore offering a wide array of retail and dining options for visitors while Harbourfront Centre is home to a ferry and cruise terminal which connects to neighbouring islands in Indonesia and Malaysia and also comprise retail in the lower levels with office inventories on the higher floors.

23

o

Waterfront Living: This is in the form of luxurious waterfront living in Sentosa Cove, complete with berths for personal yacht as well as 3 gated condominiums, Reflections at Keppel Bay, Corals at Keppel Bay and the Caribbean at Keppel Bay. Together, these condominiums provide more than 26,000 residential units.

o

Business Parks: The numerous business parks in the area provide for employment opportunities across different industries. The Mapletree Business City is an integrated business hub just outside the CBD providing good quality office spaces for leading IT companies and businesses like Google. Science Park 1 & 2 is also a major industrial and research hub for scientific research while one-north represents the home of the creative and innovation clusters, with thriving start-ups and incubator labs.

o

Educational institutions: It is within reach to a rich talent pool from tertiary educational institutions like Singapore’s top ranked university, the National University of Singapore, INSEAD Asia Campus and the Singapore Polytechnic.

o

Public transportation: The Circle line runs parallel to the coast connecting the south of Singapore to key interchanges in the west and central. The North-east line is also available to connect the central region to the North-east. There are several bus services that run parallel to the GSW as well as the Seah Im Bus Interchange in Harbourfront that provides feeder, town-link and intra-town routes.

Weakness •

There is a disconnection between the GSW to the periphery areas by existing physical and natural structures. o

Physical: The West Coast Highway which runs parallel to the GSW creates a north-south divide between the GSW and the developments to the north.

There also exist limited pedestrian crossings between the 2 regions which inhibits connectivity and accessibility. The Sentosa Gateway, the bridge linking Sentosa to the mainland also separates the Harbourfront area from the terminals at Keppel and Tanjong Pagar, which might constraint a seamless development of the area.

24

o

Natural: The creek at Labrador Park serves as a natural delineation between the Pasir Panjang Terminal and the residential neighbourhood in Keppel Bay.

•

The current provision of park connectors does not extend into the GSW, with the only connections at Labrador Park and West Coast Park.

Fig 06. The GSW site divided by existing physical and natural structures

Fig 07. Site photo at Telok Blangah Road and Pasir Panjang Road

25

Fig 08. Existing Park Connectors

Opportunities •

The GSW site offers various development opportunities and potentials which can be leveraged from existing developments or even from untouched natural potentials like green spaces and the water. o

Innovation clusters: This could be harnessed from the existing talent pool of tertiary educational institutions and the various industrial and business parks to expand the creative and innovative sector as a new driver of growth.

o

Ecological development: This would tap into the existing ecological infrastructures of parks and connectors to offer a new ‘water park’ link ecological

development

to

stimulate

environmentally-sensitive

and

sustainable development. It adds to offer more spaces for residents and visitors to engage in recreational and leisure activities that enhance quality of life and psychological well-being. o

Inclusive living community: By tapping into the existing waterfront living at Keppel Bay and the Harbourfront mixed-use development, the site can position itself as a new model of inclusive residential community which

26

provides a balanced synergy of working, living, and playing while promoting decentralisation from the high-density CBD at the Downtown Core area. o

Integrated business and tourism development: The site at the Pulau Brani, Tanjong Pagar and Keppel Terminal is flanked by the downtown core of the CBD and the Marina Bay Financial District as well as Sentosa Island. These key business and commercial areas can be catalysed to create an integrated development that plays an instrumental role in optimising its potential, where international business activities meet tourism and recreational activities.

Threats •

The environmental impacts from adjacent shipping and industrial parks could have adverse impacts on the quality of life in the area.

•

Overdevelopment and speculative economic investment may deteriorate the ecological condition of natural structures like parks and waterbodies.

•

The risk of new developments that function as a mere production of space that is driven by neo-liberal capitalism and the emphasis on economic growth. The tendency of cities to emulate the best practice models fosters narrow discursive framings of urban futures and the learning of success risks breeding imitation that lacks cohesion with its surroundings. o

The potential of new development that fails to honour the history and heritage of the previous port areas which have contributed significantly to Singapore’s progress.

27

02.03 Micro Analysis (sub-area) The sub-area to be analysed is the portion of land in the middle of the GSW, with Labrador Park and Vivo City serving as the boundaries. We chose to study this area in greater detail as it allows us to integrate the 4 key strategies to provide for a more holistic development of the place. The current conditions of this area within the GSW present opportunities for us to capitalize on the use values of these strategies to engender recommendations that address our research aims.

Strengths •

Availability of public transport linkages to other parts of the city through means of the Circle Line that runs parallel to the GSW. This area is well-served by the Labrador Park and Telok Blangah stations that are within walking distances. In addition, a network of bus services that ply the Telok Blangah Road complements the train service to provide feeder and intertown services.

•

The Bukit Chermin Boardwalk that connects Labrador Park and Keppel Bay provides an idyllic seafront setting for people to enjoy the water and partake in recreational activities of running, jogging and sightseeing.

Fig 09. Average resale price of condominium and HDB

28

Weakness •

There exists a huge disparity in the sales and rental prices of residential units in the GSW and its surrounding areas. The gated condominiums in GSW are of a higher value as compared to the public housing to its north, reflecting a segregation of residential types and socio-economic status of the residents.

Opportunities •

The relocation of Keppel Club and its golf course frees up valuable land spaces that can be utilized for residential and mixed-use development.

•

The disparity between residential types and prices presents the opportunity to engender new developments that seek to promote better inclusivity amongst the diverse population.

Threats •

Additional development in the area might put a strain on the capacity of public transportation serving the area given the high existing traffic volume.

Fig 10. Traffic nodes (ingress and egress) analysis

29

Traffic Analysis •

We referenced a Traffic Impact Analysis done by some of our colleagues for another module, that with future development, there would be an increase in traffic along Telok Blangah Road.

•

The analysis tested 2 simulations of increased traffic demand to see which method of mitigation would be more effective — Changing Signal Timings or Changing Road Structure in alleviating congestion along the main Telok Blangah Road that dissects GSW.

•

In the first simulation, it was found by modifying timings of how long traffic lights remained green within a 120 second time frame, would influence how fast traffic disperses. o

Longer green time for traffic travelling northbound and eastbound onto Alexandra Road and Telok Blangah Road respectively.

o

A trade-off however is the decrease in speed of vehicles travelling along Telok Blangah Road in both directions.

•

It was observed that there was a marked improvement in all aspects of the traffic characteristics of the road network. The most significant change is in the delay time, which reduced from 175.6 sec/km to 95.93 sec/km — about half the time.

•

On the other hand, the other recommendation was to modify existing roads to cater for the increase in traffic by adding another lane for the northbound Telok Blangah road as well as Labrador Villa Road from 2 lanes to 3 to cater for future increases in traffic demand

•

The change in numbers of lanes did have a positive impact in alleviating congestion along Telok Blangah Road.

•

Clearly both recommendations were able to alleviate predicted future traffic congestions along the road, with recommendation 2 being a more effective solution.

•

However, as Telok Blangah Road is only a segment of the entire network, implementing one policy (either changing traffic signal timings or expanding the number of lanes of the road) even at one of the two junctions will affect both downstream and upstream traffic as well as the associated node(s).

30

o

It is understood that the local political climate does not encourage the building of additional roads according to industry experts that the group has spoken to and thus it is most like that recommendation 1 would be enforced.

•

More in depth and systematic studies must be carried out to investigate how feasible and applicable these changes will be in view of the future developments along the road. Given the centralised location of Telok Blangah Road, there is obviously a need to achieve an optimal balance along the entire the road network to avoid adding further stresses to the infrastructure.

Metric

Current Future

Recommendation 1: Changing Signal Timings

Recommendation 2: Changing Road Structure

Speed(km/h)

43.78

30.17

35.41

37.26

Flow (veh/h)

3948.5

3689

3950.5

3953.5

Density (veh/km)

5.49

9.76

5.44

5.36

Delay Time (sec/km)

39.44

175.6

95.93

90.74

Mean Queue Length (veh)

31.22

134.5

44.78

43.77

Fig 11. Traffic OD matrices along Telok Blangah Road

31

32

Chapter 03: CASE STUDIES

In the previous SWOT analysis chapter, we have identified a set of opportunities as well as possible threats that need to be addressed in order to create an inclusive environment for GSW, and they are mainly on the issue of connectivity and accessibility, as well as addressing the issue of disparity between different neighbourhoods in and around GSW. In this chapter, we look at waterfront development in a selection of major cities to explore positive or negative outcomes from their approaches, and what can be learned from them to address the needs of GSW development. As mentioned earlier, the case studies are selected based on multiple scales, from global to local, to gather the large spectrum of lessons learnt, while taking into consideration the performance indicators and its relevance to Singapore key development strategies—as stipulated by URA.

33

Fig 01. Amsterdam: Centrum and Eastern Docklands

Fig 02. Amsterdam Land Use Plan (Gementee Amsterdam).

34

03.1 Amsterdam: Centrum and Eastern Docklands Introduction Amsterdam, as elucidated by Fainstein (2010) in her book Just City, remains as one of the role models of a place with greater equality, often a comparison for policy orientation of most European and American cities which faces increasing global competitiveness and changing demographic (2010: 139-140). Amsterdam’s waterfront housing also showcases a progressive modern architectural typology with diverse class mixing (149). Like Singapore, urban planning in Amsterdam is top down and driven by municipal government who owns the land. However, the post-war development trajectory in Amsterdam until mid-1980s, unlike other global city such as New York or London, puts more emphasis on social benefit instead of economic growth.

By studying Amsterdam Centrum (city centre) and Eastern Docklands waterfront redevelopment, we aim to understand the theoretical Just City model which offers a unique diversity and social class mix development. This condition offers a contrast to the neoliberal capitalist development in Singapore, especially within the GSW, as signified by the cluster of private gated condominiums within the Keppel Bay. This would strive to engender alternative developmental strategies which optimise high use value while promoting inclusiveness to diverse social class and community.

Old Inner-City vs New Development The site of our case studies covers an area of about 1,000 hectares which is similar in size with GSW. It is a single continuous area adjacent to the Ij River, a former tributary of the South Sea. This area comprises of two contrast development, and old-historical inner city in a halfmoon shape, and the new Eastern Dockland development (Fig.01). This area is considered one of the world’s most significant case studies of innovative development and urban revitalisation, with the largest, conserved historic inner city (Marshall, 2001: 139).

35

The inner city has a long history of planning. Its urban development history can be traced back to the end of the nineteenth century when the government embarked on the land acquisition policy, whereby government owned the land and developer obtained the leasehold right to their property. The main typology of the inner city was predominantly housing, which represent a diversity of types and social mixed class (Fig. 03). Today, the inner-city area has undergone physical changes, and most of the late nineteenth century small lot development has been amalgamated or transformed into a bigger lot (Fig. 04). Even though the inner-city has undergone a lot of changes, with Amsterdam being less diverse, equitable and a diluted social mixed-class, these developments still represent a relevant model for policy orientation (Fainstein, 2010: 140).

`

Fig 03. Spatial distribution of property values in 1832 Central Amsterdam based on rental. It shows a diverse type of housing and social mixed. (Lindenthal et al., 2017: 60)

Fig 04. The pairwise redevelopment of lots between 1832 and 1860, and between 1832 and 2015. Redeveloped lots are denotated in red, unchanged lots in blue. It shows the housing lots transformation in the inner city (Lindenthal et al., 2017: 60)

36

During the 1960s, there was an influx of migrant workers from Turkey and Morocco. Later in 1975, after the independence of Suriname, a lot of Surinamese immigrant settled in Amsterdam. The urban renewal program which was started from late 1960 in the inner city triggered a series of urban social movement, which protested the modern urban development and demolition of old buildings. During that time, many emptied buildings, which were ready for demolition, were occupied by squatters to beat back the attempt of removal. This events later contributed to the social class mix and diversity within the inner city, as the government finally legalized and turned over the squats to their occupant, including some very valuable canal houses (Fainstein, 2010: 147).

The inner city today has approximately 80,000 residents with estimated 80,000 jobs (Marshall, 2001: 139). Although mainly occupied by housing (Fig.01), this area functions as a cultural centre, tourist destination, retail and new form of creative economic activity. One of the unique places is the Niewmarkt. It is a market square which signifies the concept of colocation, as it accommodates a fresh market (including organic fare market on Saturday), and hangout places for the younger generation in the evening as the area is surrounded by many cafes and restaurants.

Comprehensive Planning vs Opportunistic Development The redevelopment along the Ij River began in 1980s. During this time, there was a decline in harbour related industry. Like GSW, the port along the river, which is adjacent to the inner city was emptied to provide new development opportunity to connect the waterfront and its historic core. One of the primary sites for redevelopment was the Eastern Dockland, which sits on the north east of half-moon shape inner city. From 1960s to 1970s, many harbourrelated companies in this area moved to western harbour or closed. Interestingly, the waterfront redevelopment along the Ij River bank was done without the typical modern comprehensive planning approach. Instead, the development was carried out in an opportunistic and strategic way (Marshall, 2001: 143). Development was carried out incrementally, depending on the availability on vacated site and market feasibility. The democratic land-lease system policy, which allows the government to own the land, control

37

the development and mitigate the market speculation, helped facilitate the provision of affordable housing in the very desirable waterfront locations (145).

The government played an active role in strategic development, providing the catalyst for projects such as public buildings and squares, which laid the path for the private developer to infill the rest of the land. The development of public spaces paid attention to the connection of the islands and the historic inner city. Corridors between the island and the inner city are placed with catalytic projects such as the iconic Nemo Science Museum by Renzo Piano, the Passenger Terminal by HOK, Bimhuis Music Centre by Nielsen and Nielsen, and monumental living and working space Silodam by MVRDV.

Mixed-use Development The mixed-use development at the Eastern Dockland with its modern and innovative housing typology is a relevant lesson learn for the GSW, which is currently is occupied by homogenous condominium and developed by a single developer. Mixed-use development has been part of the Amsterdam urban planning policy since 1980s, which aims at mostly mixing housing and employment (Hoppenbrouwer, 2005: 975).

Shared premises dimension

Horizontal dimension

Vertical dimension

Time dimension

Fig 05. A conceptual model of four dimensions mixed land use model. (Hoppenbrouwer, 2005: 973)

38

The Eastern Dockland consisted of several artificial islands which was developed around 1900s. During the redevelopment in 1990, the local government made an important decision to create a mixed-use development which catered to small-scale business spaces for offices, workshops and studios on the ground floor of apartment blocks and home-working premises (975). This decision was believed crucial to maintain area’s vitality and to achieve a diverse and attractive urban environment which were adjacent to inner city.

The concept of the mixed-use development in Eastern Dockland can be categorised into four categories (Hoppenbrouwer, 2005: 973): 1. Shared premises dimension: in this type, the mixed-use between housing and working occurs within a single building.

2. Horizontal dimension: mixed-use between housing and working happens in different buildings which are located within same plot.

3. Vertical dimension: housing and working activities happen in a single building at different vertical floor.

4. Time dimension: this mixed-use type envisions a transformation of working activities to housing over a certain period, in a single building.

Fig 06. Map of Eastern Docklands with its sub-area (Hoppenbrouwer, 2005: 976)

39

The mixed-use development is comprised of approximately 8500 dwelling units; with 100,000 sqm of commercial spaces — offices, businesses, and shopping mall; and 20,000 sqm of educational and service facilities. The Eastern Docklands has eleven sub-districts. Three of them are for industrial area — Cruquius, Zeeburgerpad and Veemarktt. The remaining eight sub-districts are used for mainly residential and each are completed in about five years. In detail, the eight sub-districts are as follow: ● Abbatoir (1987). The housing typology here is influenced by the standard social housing of the 1970s and 1980s. Some warehouses in this island were converted for housing. ● Entrepot and KNSM (1990-1995). This area has a monumental large-scale housing block. ● Java (1994-2001). Housing at Java represents the historic canal in Amsterdam. ● Borneo / Sporenburg (1997-2002). This island is occupied by high-density low-rise housing with some experimental on lots division. Housing on this island also represent the Dutch housing policy change since 1990s from social housing to private housing development, where more units were built for private rented and owner-occupancy sector. ● Rietland (2003)

Type Shared premises dimension

Building Java Borneo / Sporenburg Rietlanden

Building-block

Horizontal dimension

Vertical dimension

Borneo / Sporenburg Rietlanden

Time dimension

Borneo / Sporenburg

Entrepot KNSM Rietlanden Abbatoir KNSM Java Borneo / Sporenburg

Table 01. Eastern Docklands mixed land use types in different sub-areas (Hoppenbrouwer, 2005: 977)

40

In 2002, it was recorded that Eastern Dockland had about total of 1541 business with 4197 fulltime and 408 part-time employees (Hoppenbrouwer, 2005: 978). This redevelopment area was dominated by small companies with one or two employees (62%), which were located within the residential areas. This number was considered as an indicator to measure the success of the mixed-use policy implementation.

Type of Companies Manufacturing Trade Crafts Finance and Insurance Media and ICT Consultancy Other Offices Public services and shops Other

Within Overall Eastern Docklands Area (%) 13 11 6 4 18 28 5 12 2

Within Residential Area (%) 10 6 6 5 23 35 4 10 0

Total (Total Number)

100 1541

100 956

Table 02. Distribution of diverse type of companies within overall and residential area (Hoppenbrouwer, 2005: 979)

Development Typology Dwelling (shared premises dimension) Homeworking property (shared premises dimension) Commercial spaces (horizontal and vertical dimension) Unknown Total

Eastern Docklands (%) 49 1 34 16 100

Residential Area (%) 71 1 18 10 100

Table 03. Distribution of companies based on development typology within overall and residential area (Hoppenbrouwer, 2005: 979)

Eastern Docklands Sub-areas Abattoir Entrepot KNSM Java Borneo / Sporenburg Rietlanden

Companies in a dwelling (%) 100 73 65 74 80 54

Companies in a commercial space (%) 0 27 35 26 20 46

Total residential areas

73

27

Table 04. Distribution of companies within residential area based on sub-areas (Hoppenbrouwer, 2005: 979)

41

Conclusions Centrum and Eastern Dockland share several similarities with the GSW site. First, the relationship of the Centrum as the city centre and Eastern Dockland as the new redevelopment site resembles the relationship of Singapore central core CBD (Marina Bay, Tanjong Pagar and Chinatown) with the GSW. Second, both areas (Centrum and Eastern Dockland; and Singapore CBD and GSW) are adjacent and connected. Third, Eastern Dockland was developed as the part of decentralisation strategy from the old inner city which requires new housings and new type of (economic) activities to maintain the urban vibrancy. This strategy is like the decentralisation strategy of Singapore’s high-density CBD to the GSW. Lastly, both sites share similar area size, which is easy for physical planning comparison.

There are at least four key lessons learnt that we can draw from the Centrum and Eastern Dockland. The four key lessons learnt are: •

Building a connection between new development and old inner city by creating a spatial connection and synergy while maintaining unique characteristic and function of each development.

•

Adopting a flexible and adaptive planning instead of a rigid comprehensive planning.

The government should play role in driving strategic and catalytic public projects, while allowing the private sector to infill depending on market demand and economic condition.

•

Creating a mixed-use development which caters to diverse types of housing (social/public and private) and commercial/business spaces, through a greater application of the four-dimension mixed-use model.

•

Creating co-location facilities and services within the development.

42

Summary Tables Key indicators/ Parameters

Description

Explanation

Decentralisation

●

●

●

Building for all ages

●

● ●

Going car-lite

Mixed-use and colocation

● ● ●

●

●

Actors

●

● ● ●

●

Government Developers Stakeholders

●

●

●

Typologies ● ●

●

Function (programs) Planning Parameters (Density, ratio, etc) Land Use

●

plot

●

The site is located at the central Amsterdam, at the historical inner-city area The site is preserved by the government as the historic city and listed as a UNESCO World Heritage City.

Popular for its Niewmarkt market square for residents and tourist.

It functions a farmer’s market with cafes and restaurant.

It serves as a vibrant place for commercial and social activities The area is accessible for pedestrian and cyclist (with less car) Walkable waterfront Public access to waterfront Inner city functions as the centre for culture, tourism and retail activities (for creative economy) Eastern dockland is developed as the mixed-use development with main aim to mix housing and employment (with target on service sector and small companies) Market is co-located with café and restaurant Municipal government own the land; private developers own leasehold rights.

Municipal government lead the planning Until mid-1980’s the municipal government’s emphasis was on social benefits NOT economic growth In 1990 plan for redevelopment of Eastern Dockland was implemented.

Initial focus during the post-war planning was housing provision.

Currently housing typology is mixed with small scale office spaces on ground floors Eastern dockland: 8500 dwellings, 100,000 sqm commercial spaces, 20,000 sqm educational and service facilities.

43

●

● ●

● ● ●

Niewmarkt is retained as the central historical area Eastern Dockland is redeveloped as a new mixed-use development to complement and support central historical area Retain the historical significance Its central location surrounded by residential area contributes to the vibrancy of place

Public transport accessibility through Niewmarkt Metro and Central Station.

● ●

Compact City concept: small scale business space for offices, workshops and studio on the ground floor of apartment blocks; and home working premises.

●

●

The development has no comprehensive planning, instead it allowed an opportunistic and strategic planning which paid attention to the contextualism and diversification of old and new area.

●

●

The development is developed with compact city concept to promote mixed-use development in the central area to maintain vibrancy despite the high pressure of housing demand

●

●

Economic

●

● ● ● ●

●

Revenue Rental value Development cost Job opportunities

Social ● ●

Racial/Social class mix Safety / Security

People

●

(Overall density: 100 dwellings/Ha) The model was a city with clear edge, limited growth along corridors, functional segregation of uses.

Main land use is for residential area Eastern Dockland, in 2002, attracted 1541 business; 62% of them were small companies— one or two employees.

●

The economic growth is successfully achieved by targeting the right type of business with tailored architectural (housing typology) which promote the mixed-use

The development provides a mixed of social and private housing

●

The development meets its social class mixed due to government policies and control

Diverse mixed of social class

●

The diversity is historically part of the government policy

● ●

Key data

Remarks

Site area

1000 Hectares

Land use

Mainly Housing (80-90%) with incremental change towards office and commercial; Industrial and Mixed-use

Plot ratio

2.5 - 3

Site coverage

30%

Total GFA

Estimated about 9 million sqm/ 900 hectares (based on the plot ratio and site area)

Development construction cost

Unknown

Development revenue

Unknown

Population

Estimated about 80,000 at inner city; 35,000 at eastern Dockland

Development timeline

Historical core was established from 1832; Eastern Dockland built from 1882-1890 and redeveloped after 1989.

44

Fig 07. Silodam, a mixed-use residential development (top); Housing at KMNS island (bottom left); The Whale apartment at Sporenburg Island

Fig 08. Apartment at Rietlanden Island

45

Fig 09. Houses at Borneo Island (top), which resembles the diverse characters of the old housing at the inner city (below)

Fig 10. Houses at Java Island

46

Fig 11. Some of the most iconic public buildings: NEMO Science Museum (top), Passenger Terminal (bottom left), and Bimhuis Music Centre

Fig 12. Nieuwmarkt at the inner city with a vibrant and diverse community

47

Fig 13. Battery Park City, New York City

Fig 14. Battery Park City land use plan

48

03.2 New York City: Battery Park City Introduction Battery Park City is a planned urban community that occupies a 37 hectares land in Lower Manhattan, New York City. With the rise in container shipping in the late 1950s which diverted shipping traffic to larger ports in New Jersey, there was a need to redevelop this prime waterfront land and rescue Lower Manhattan from economic and urban obsolescence.

Established by the state of New York and governed by the Battery Park City Authority (BPCA), Battery Park City paved the way for a successful cooperation between the government and private developers, in a time where competing interests and conflicting priorities within the government led to the faith that only the private sector was deemed to be successful in pushing out new development. The redevelopment was hugely recognized as a success as it helped to reinvigorate the economy but also created a pleasant, high quality living environment with large open spaces and enhanced accessibility.

Land use pattern The need to redevelopment the area saw the conception of a revitalization plan in 1962 which was followed up by the completion of the first master plan in 1969. However, the rapidly changing development concepts, planning techniques and dynamic nature of market forces and economic growth, coupled with the lack of direction by the government, led to the creation of the BPCA and its subsequent appointment as the main governing and planning authority. The BPCA conducted a review of the 1969 Master Plan and conceived a second master plan in 1979 complete with development phasing and an update of planning objectives and strategies that are in line with current market conditions and the demands of the people. Development phasing was particularly important as it helped to minimize the construction appearance of the area and permitted the close regulation of the interim conditions of the area. This helped to maintain a positive image in the publics’ mind as often, they would have begun using the area before the entire development is completed. Two main strategies born out of the 1979 Master Plan was firstly, to invoke historic images of New York 49

as the land was built on a new landfill site and secondly, to enhance public access to the area through the provision of huge expanse of green and open spaces in a time when ‘greening’ was still a novel concept.

Land use pattern observed within Battery Park City today was thus developed in accordance to the 1979 Master Plan, where land was parcelled and leased to private developers to develop but based on design guidelines created by the government especially for the area to achieve a coherent integration of commercial, residential and retail in the area. This exemplified the collaborative working relationship between the BPCA and the state, where private developers were given the liberty to engage in private developments but where the state still possess some authority in guiding these developments to ensure coherence with neighbouring developments and a mixture of uses for the area. Herein lies the importance of the integration of Battery Park City to Lower Manhattan, by taking advantage of existing services and facilities and preventing the development from functioning as a new selfcontained town. The Master Plan thus incorporated plans to knit the existing grid-like patterns of the streets of Lower Manhattan, which would allow the seamless integration of new building forms and transport connections with the periphery areas. The plan also calls for allowing the adaptable replacement of existing derelict buildings and the enhancement of buildings with value, adding to the fostering of small-scale development within New York City that gives it a special character from block to block.

Amenities and functions The resultant development saw residential (42%) and recreation/open spaces (30%) as the primary functions of the area with commercial activities (9%) and streets (19%) making up the remaining uses. The main commercial area was in the centre with residential and recreational areas to the North and South. One of the two major office buildings in the area, Brookfield Place is located adjacent to the World Trade Center as well as other office inventories of Lower Manhattan and houses major banking and asset management companies like Merrill Lynch, American Express and RBS. 200 West Street, the other commercial development of Battery Park City is also home to the global headquarters of Goldman Sachs. This therefore allows people to live, work and play within the area, reflective

50

of attempts at decentralization and supporting the main economic hub in Wall Street and the larger Lower Manhattan financial district. The congregation of these banking and financial corporations serve to reinforce New York City as a global city and the importance of the concentration of transnational corporations in advanced producer services which helm important command and control functions.

The compact arrangement of land parcels and the persistence to provide ample open spaces also meant that land was maximized to its full potential. This resulted in largely high-rise buildings with an average of 16.5 stories. Efficient use of land was also realized through some degree of mixed-use development, where a mixed of functions was achieved through the retainment of the New York streetscape with sidewalks alongside buildings by individual developers and the provision of public amenities by the state. Examples include Rector Place which amalgamates commercial uses with a neighbourhood park, Chambers Street Park neighbourhood which sees a residential apartment located next to a neighbourhood park and the waterfront esplanade and Brookfield Place which is an office complex with a shopping mall at the lower levels.

The array of functions certainly fulfils the needs of its main users, which comprise of residents living there, office workers and tourists. The successful redevelopment has witnessed the growth of the local population to approximately 16,000 people, with the makeup of 65% White, 20% Asian, 8 % Hispanic/Latino and 3% African American. With the aim to provide for a high-quality living environment, significant investments were injected towards infrastructure such as road networks, utilities and pedestrian paths to support the predicted high-density uses. The enhancement of physical accessibility to the area was achieved through the exploitation of existing public transport network system of subways, PATH, bus and ferry services. The planning emphasis was on connectivity at the ground level to provide a seamless and comfortable circulation within and around the area and access to public transportations. The provision of huge expanse of green and open spaces, feeding into quality living environment saw the construction of a 1.2-mile-long continuous esplanade which provides access to the waterfront for a variety of recreational activities such as cycling, jogging and strolling. This emphasizes the renewed connection to the water and the previous use function of the area. Public spaces in the form of the Waterfront Plaza also portrayed a 51

seamless blend of form and function where the stone covered walkways extend into a large public plaza. Restaurants and eateries line the perimeter, with water fountains adding an aesthetic touch. Steps along the edges provide sculptural sitting areas for people to interact and mingle while the centre provides opportunities for performances and recreational activities that enliven the space. Public spaces also come in the form of gardens and playgrounds for children, interspersed within residential neighbourhoods throughout the development site. These green areas satisfy the recreational needs of the residents while providing a cool waterfront micro-climate, serving as a getaway from the humid and warm inner-city areas.

A gated community?

But while these developments indicate the intentions to serve a wide audience, it can be regarded as a gated community of sort given the demography residing and commercial activities happening within it. Residential property prices of Battery Park City have more than doubled from $500 per square feet (psf) in 2003 to $1,300 psf in 2019, a value that is higher than the average prices in Manhattan. Most residential property are in the form of good quality condominiums, furnished with a range of amenities like swimming pools, gymnasiums, laundry services and 24-hour security. This reflects the residential community of the area comprising largely of white-collared workers of nearby office buildings and the Wall Street financial district with high educational attainment (more than 87% with a bachelor’s degree and higher), a median household income of $190,000 (more than 3 times the national average) who yearn an enhanced quality of life. The neighbourhood has been described as a “resort-like community” and a “quasi-suburban” residential neighbourhood which contrasts with periphery residential areas. Recreational activities are also regarded as of high socioeconomic status, with several of the old port area like North Cove being converted into a marina for yacht and sailing schools, feeding into the narrative of a high living standard neighbourhood. This explains the racial domination of Whites and Asians, reinforcing racial stereotypes and segregation.

Despite the private sector-led development, the BCPA did not only emphasize on good design and achieving financial returns but engendered a novel approach to finance low-income and

52

social housing in other parts of New York City. The successful redevelopment saw annual profits in excess of $200 million, due largely to the high taxes paid by property owners of the prime area, with the revenue surplus used to finance low-income housing in Harlem and South Bronx. The use of developmental revenue surplus has helped to address housing shortage issues without dipping into tax revenues or burdening the development with mortgage, with the conversion of abandoned apartment buildings into more than 1,600 units for residents in the two boroughs. This success has witnessed the project being studied by other US cities, with the aim to replicate the model to fund low-income housing in their cities as well.

Conclusion In sum, the Battery Park City redevelopment showcased the redevelopment of waterfront areas into positive neighbourhood that provides ample open spaces to cater to a range of functions and people. Some of the key lessons learnt are as follow: ● A collaborative partnership between the public and private sector in developing prime waterfront land such that both their interests can be readily achieved to reinvigorate the local economy ● The importance on the provision of green and open spaces, to facilitate a greater interaction with the water while supporting high-quality living environment that caters to an array of recreational and leisure functions. ● The importance of integrating new development with existing areas to ensure a coherent built environment and connectivity with the rest of the city. This would translate into taking advantage of current offerings in the area while constructing new ones that complements it. In this case, it has functioned to support the Wall Street financial district while continuing to cement New York City’s position as a dominant player in the global economy while integrating the neighbourhood through the existing offerings of public transport systems. ● The stringent yet flexible planning guidelines and strategies provided local government some degrees of certainty while permitting private developers to build quality living, working and public spaces.

53

Summary Tables Key indicators/ Parameters

Description

Explanation

Decentralisation

● Near the Wall Street Financial Centre in ● Helps support the key Lower Manhattan

● Main commercial centre in the centre with residential areas to the North and South

● ●

Building for all ages

● 1.2-mile-long waterfront esplanade, ●

neighbourhood parks, playgrounds, public plazas E.g. Waterfront Plaza: central plaza for performances, sculptural sitting on edges, restaurants on its perimeter

●

● ● ●

Going car-lite

● No overt strategy to achieve car-lite

● Mixed-use and colocation

● ●

● Actors ● ● ●

Government Developers Stakeholders

● ● ● ● ●

but accessibility was improved through the exploitation of existing public transport network systems of subways, PATH, bus and ferry services Emphasis on connectivity at ground levels through pedestrian paths and road networks Sidewalks alongside buildings by individual developers and the provision of public amenities by the state Complementary uses: Rector Place (neighbourhood park and residential), Chambers Street Park Neighbourhood (waterfront esplanade, neighbourhood park, residential) Mixed-use buildings: Brookfield Place (office and shopping) Established by the state of New York Set design guidelines for the development Governed by the Battery Park City Authority Conceived the 1979 Master Plan Parcelled and leased land to private developers

54

● ●

functions of the financial district Network of pedestrian streets and roads support easy travelling to work Array of amenities and green spaces enhance quality of life Provides access to the waterfront for all to engage in a range of activities and satisfy recreational needs Permits mingling and interaction amongst people Breaks up the urban monotony of buildings Confers a cool waterfront micro-climate as a getaway from the humid, warm innercity areas Provided a range of transport options for people To allow for seamless and comfortable circulation and access to transportation options

● Maximizes the full potential of land parcels

● Retains the New York streetscape character

● Paved the way for a successful cooperation between the government and private developers, in a time where competing interests and conflicting priorities within the government led to the faith that only the private sector was deemed to be successful

●

● Typologies ● ●

●

Function (programs) Planning Parameters (Density, plot ratio, etc) Land Use

● Land use: commercial (offices) 9%, ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

residential 42%, Recreational/open spaces 30%, streets 19% Plot ratio: 4.9 GFA: 1,814,300m2 Mean no. of stories: 16.5 Knitted the existing grid-like patterns of the streets of Lower Manhattan Largely in accordance with the 1979 Master Plan Introduced developmental phasing Provision of green and open spaces was key Integration to Lower Manhattan was constantly emphasized

●

●

●

●

● Economic ● ● ● ●

Revenue Rental value Development cost Job opportunities

● Predominantly banking and financial ● ● ● ● ●

People

corporations e.g. Merrill Lynch, American Express, Global headquarters of Goldman Sachs Quality office buildings and environment Development cost: $80 million Development revenue: $200 million Surplus development revenue used to fund low-income housing for Harlem and South Bronx

● Population of ~ 16,000, White 65%, ●

Asian 20%, Hispanic/Latino 8%, African American 3% White-collared workers with high educational attainment (87% with a bachelor’s degree and higher)

55

●

●

●

in pushing out new development State possess authority in guiding developments to achieve coherent integration with neighbouring areas and a mix of functions Private developers given freedom in their individual projects A recognition that there was already a surplus of office inventories in the Lower Manhattan area but the lack of enough housing that would bring people back to the area One of the main planning strategies was to provide ample open spaces and improved accessibility to the waterfront to enhance living quality To allow for seamless integration of new building forms and transport connections To minimize the construction appearance of the area and maintain a positive image in public’s mind To prevent the development from functioning as a selfcontained town Reinforces the rhetoric of New York City as a global city and the importance of the concentration of transnational corporations in advanced producer services which helm important command and control functions Revealed the emphasis of developers beyond good designs and achieving financial returns but also as a model to finance social housing developments Quality residential apartments, facilities and amenities; property prices averaged at $1,300 psf (2019); condominiums furnished with amenities like

● High median average household ●

income of $190,000; 3 times the national average) Tourists

●

●

swimming pools, laundry services and 24-hour security Provides the community with a ‘resort-like community” and a “quasi-suburban” residential neighbourhood High socio-economic recreational activities: marina for yacht and sailing schools

Key data

Remarks

Site area Land use Plot ratio Site coverage Total GFA

37 hectares Commercial (offices), residential, recreational (park) 4.9 39% Commercial (9%), residential (42%), recreational/open spaces (30%), streets (19%); Gross external floor area: 1,814,300 m2; Footprint of building: 14.3 hectares; Mean no. of stories: 16.5 $80 million (USD)

Development construction cost Development revenue Population Development timeline

$200 million (USD) ~ 16,000, 65% White, 20% Asian, 3% African American, 8% Hispanic or Latino 1962: conception of revitalization plan 1968: Creation of the Battery Park City Authority 1969: First master plan 1979: Second master plan with development phasing 1983: First residential complex, Gateway Plaza was built 1988: The World Financial Center (currently Brookfield Place) was completed 1990s: Addition of roads and other transport infrastructure to support increasing development End 1990s: Most of the area had been developed 2000: Published the “Residential Environment Guidelines” to set the standard for environmentally responsible buildings

56

Fig 15. Brookfield Place, with the World Trade Centre in the background

57

Fig 16. Battery Park Esplanade

Fig 17. Hudson River Greenway

58

Fig 18 Waterfront Plaza on a normal day and during a concert

59

Fig 19. London Docklands

Fig 20. London Docklands land use map

60

03.3 London: London Docklands Introduction The first plans to regenerate the Port of London in the early 1970s, in response to the imminent closure of the ports, led to the publicization of the term ‘London Docklands’. It occupied a 2,200 hectare of old port space by the River Thames, spanning across 7 districts in London, presenting prime urban land for redevelopment. By and large, the regeneration efforts of London Docklands had helped to revitalize the area and brought in new, valuable functions to the old port spaces, however, the redevelopment was also met with conflicts and disagreements, particularly amongst the residents and the ‘newcomers’ into the areas.

Aims of the regeneration plan The need to redevelopment the London Docklands was established primarily by the London Docklands Development Corporation (LDDC), together with the conservative government.

The LDDC was set up in 1981 and had diverse local authority responsibilities for the area, albeit under the direct control of the central government. The setting up of the LDDC signalled the shift in urban renewal policy from the local government towards the private sector, with the aim to bring in greater economic investments to reinvigorate the economy. In accordance to the 1971 Docklands Plan, the aim of the LDDC was to prepare and market land for development and create an attractive environment for physical and social functions which was deemed to help spur investment in housing and commerce. The focus was on a propertyled regeneration effort to increase home ownership and ensure that housing was available for all. This was underpinned by the belief that encouraging people to invest and settle in the area would help reinvigorate the city. Such efforts were extended to enhance the business community’s perception of the area and build private sector confidence through marketing efforts involving glossy brochures, promotional films and videos, which emphasized the aesthetics of office and commercial developments in the area. Secondary aims of the regeneration efforts focused on improving the physical accessibility to the previously isolated areas within the port areas and to conserve the historic character of the old port area through warehouse conversion and adaptive reuse of buildings.

61

Materialization of the plan The redevelopment of the London Docklands saw land use segregated into 3 main functions, commercial, residential and transport. The development of commercial uses in the area encompassed office buildings, retail complex as well as hotels, with Canary Wharf serving as the ‘poster boy’ and the watershed development of the project. It marked the physical transformation of the docklands from warehouses and industrial shed into purposeful office development, with more than 34.8 hectares of office and retail space. This functioned to transform Canary Wharf into a new business district for London, helping to support and complement the central business district. The development emphasized on the creation of an attractive environment and aesthetics to give the area a feel of establishment, luxury and class. The materials used for the buildings ranged from imported marble to adorn walls and buildings, teak wood for the exterior of stores to bronze finishing on lamps and glass facades.

Investment were also made in the physical environment of the office blocks with water fountains, street art and sculptures and award-winning landscaping. Most of the buildings are tall skyscrapers, having some of the tallest buildings both within London and Europe, like One Canada Square which is UK’s second tallest building at 235m and where buildings have a mean height of 19 stories. The aesthetically attractive environment helped to attract major businesses and companies to the area, which houses many of the headquarters of global banks and financial institutions such as HSBC, JP Morgan Chase, MasterCard and Ernst & Young. Attraction of businesses were also through new policies like the setting up of enterprise zones which provided subsidies for rental space during a period where land prices were increasing in other areas. It was a means through which the long-term attractiveness and viability of Canary Wharf as an ideal business location was promoted, which helped to generate wealth in the area.

The development of Canary Wharf did not occur without complementary functions in its vicinity. Key to its success was the enhancement to transport systems to improve accessibility and connectivity both locally and globally. This witnessed approximately 44% of the 6.8 billion pounds used for roads and transport, which included the opening of the Docklands Light Railway in 1987, an instrumental mode of transport which has improved access to the docklands area. Over the years, the railway has undergone further extensions and now spans 62

more than 38 km and serving 45 stations, of which the extension of the Jubilee Line to serve Canary Wharf helped to meet the shortage of capacity on the light railway. New roads totalling 145 km were also constructed to link previously isolated regions and provide better road access to the area. In addition, the London City Airport was also constructed in the Royal Docks, to better connect London to other financial hubs in the world. It was a convenient alternative To Heathrow airport located on the outskirts of London therefore providing business travellers a faster commute to the business district in Canary Wharf and other parts of central London as well. This sediment the position of London as a key economic centre of the world and the renewed emphasis on the connections between global cities.

With improved transport accessibility and the provision of high standards office buildings, employment in the area also grew. Service sector employment increased from 31% to 70% while financial service sector employment jumped from 5% to 42%, reflecting the success of economic revitalization of the area. The construction of the London City Airport provided jobs for those who previously worked around the docklands and the high maintenance needed to ensure cleanliness and order helped to create some semi-skilled employment. With the focus on property-led regeneration, providing an affordable and enough supply of housing was also crucial. This allowed people to develop a renewed sense of ownership to the area while providing ease of access to nearby offices and commercial areas. Between 1981 and 1991, home ownership in the area rose from 5% to 38% as a result of the construction of 24,000 new homes.

Failures of private-sector led development The provision of new homes certainly fulfilled the initial goal but most of these homes were targeted towards the wealthy elites and employers of international companies. The formation of the LDDC meant a loss of local council housing authority and as a result, most of the land were sold off for private housing development for profits and investment. Out of the 24,000 new homes, only approximately 2,000 were affordable homes. The infiltration of new wealthy elites in glitzy apartment complex drives out the local community, while those who choose to remain in the area were left homeless.

63

Similar observations were also witnessed in terms of the provision of suitable employment for the local community. The enhanced transportation connectivity and building up of commercial buildings, however, does not reflect the actual growth of employment in the area as most of these jobs were merely transferred from other areas into the docklands. Out of the 7,877 jobs created since 1981, only 2,838 were new and even then, most of these new employments were part-time, service-sector based, catering to largely the low-income population. Jobs in the service industry was not like the traditional employment in the docklands, contributing to the decline of these traditional industries. Moreover, many of these new jobs required new skills that the locals did not possess, highlighting the ways locals suffered from the impact of the change in the nature of the economy from secondary to tertiary. This therefore showed how the LDDC prioritized the economic regeneration of the area on the attraction of top banking and financial firms, where exponential profit making is valuable. They have ignored policies that are concerned with the quality of local employment such as female labour force participation and jobs skills matching, issues that would have been addressed with public agencies as the primary governing body.

The significance of economic regeneration by the LDDC also meant that they paid minimal attention to the urban design of the development. The reluctance to regulate urban design was due to historical reasons, where the regard that guidelines and planning controls would ‘suffocate’ businesses. This led to a decentralized, development-led approach that had no prescriptive design parameters for developers and relied largely on architects and developers to implement designs with the necessary degree of sensitivity. As a result, most of the office and residential buildings have diverse and conflicting styles that have no relevance to the surrounding landscapes or the water. There was also a lack of consideration of public agenda which translated into inadequacy in public infrastructures. There were insufficient provision of jobs and housing and the LDDC has little interest in creating public spaces. This was however reversed in the 1990s as part of the second wave of urban regeneration, focusing on social regeneration. Local parks were built to serve the recreational needs of the residents while breaking up the monotony of the clutter of office blocks. The new plans also revisited the prior objective to bring land back to use and the importance of the water. The waterfront area was extended from 6 km to 50 km, opening new public spaces for people to enjoy a myriad of recreational activities and bring back memories of the old port city. There was also 64

a heightened initiative to inject the maritime character of the old port through the preservation of the original signages of the old docks and the setting up of floating ships as restaurants and bars.

Conclusion The revitalization of the London Docklands exemplified the successful use of old port spaces as new commercial, residential and transportation functions that supports the key function of London as a global financial hub. The LDDC played a major role in helping to ascertain Canary Wharf as a new financial centre and proved efficient in carrying out its plans. Some of the key lessons learnt are as follow: ● There is a need for a master plan or urban design guideline that can ensure a greater connectivity and coherence in the urban form and fabric. ● The juggle between public and private-sector led development can have conflicting outcomes. It is important to ensure a good balance between generating investment and revenue receipts while looking after the social provisions of the local community. ● The creation of employment as a major catalyst of economic revival, which can be enhanced by a quality built-environment and attractive governmental policies. This would also be supported by the provision of key transport infrastructures. ● Decentralization to create a new central business district that supports and complements the functions of the city.

65

Summary Tables Key indicators/ Parameters

Description

Explanation

Decentralisation

● Canary Wharf developed as the new

● Helps support the key

business district for London

● ●

Building for all ages

● No clear plan to achieve this ● Emphasis on building up the local

●

economy

● The focus on social regeneration only ● ● ● ●

Going car-lite

●

●

Mixed-use and colocation

● ● ● ●

took place during the second phase of redevelopment in the 1990s Local parks for residents Extended waterfront area from 6 km to 50km Preservation of the heritage character of the old port area Adaptive reuse of old warehouses, preservation of original signages, setting up of floating ships as restaurants and bars No overt strategy to achieve car-lite but accessibility was improved through the expansion of road and public transport network Underground serving the area span more than 38 km and serving 45 stations More than 150 km of new roads built Multiple mixed-use buildings with commercial and retail functions One Canada Square (office, shopping mall, underground station) 1 West India Quay (hotel with residential apartments)

● Provided a range of transport options for people

● Maximizes the full potential of land parcels

● As a result of flexible,

● Actors

● Government ● Developers ● Stakeholders

● Established by the London Docklands ●

Development Corporation (LDDC) Prepare and market land for development

66

functions of the banking and finance industry The provision of retail, hotels, residential facilities in the area Expansion of road networks and public transport systems for enhanced accessibility and connectivity.

Parks and open spaces regarded as minor benefits but reversed when the community lamented

●

development-led planning that lacked a master plan or design guideline to provide a coherent urban form A clutter mix of buildings with varying architecture and designs Setting up of the LDDC signalled the shift in urban renewal policy from local government to the private sector

● To create an attractive environment ● ● Typologies

● Function (programs) ● Planning

●

Parameters (Density, plot ratio, etc) Land Use

● Land use: commercial (offices, retail, ● ● ● ● ●

Economic

● ● ● ●

Revenue Rental value Development cost Job opportunities

that would help spur investment in housing and commerce To improve physical accessibility and retain the heritage character of the old port areas Set up under the direct control of the government

●

● ●

● ● ● ● ●

hotels), residential, transport, waterfront area Plot ratio: 4.7 (for Canary Wharf only) GFA: 1,626,800m2 (for Canary Wharf only) Mean no. of stories: 19 (for Canary Wharf only) Flexible urban design that lacked a prescribed master plan A clutter of office blocks with diverse and conflicting styles that lack coherence with the surrounding and to the water 34.8 hectares of predominantly office buildings which house banking and financial corporations e.g. HSBC, JP Morgan Chase Growth of service sector employment from 31% to 70%, financial service sector employment from 5% to 42% New jobs created around the London City Airport and high maintenance needed to ensure cleanliness and order created some semi-skilled jobs Quality office buildings and environment Materials used include marble, glass, teak wood, bronze finishing Emphasized on the creation of a feel of establishment, luxury and class Development cost: 6.8 billion pounds 30% roads and transport, 14% Docklands Light Railway, 12% admin and maintenance

● A property-led regeneration

● ●

●

●

● Reinforces the narrative of

●

●

●

● ●

People

● Population of ~ 137,700 ● 24,00 new housing were built

● ●

67

effort where the belief that encouraging people to invest and reside in the area would assist in reinvigorating the area Private developers given freedom in their individual projects A recognition that office buildings and skyscrapers would help to regenerate the area, alongside quality transport access and housing London City Airport as a key transport facility to connect London globally and a convenient alternative to Heathrow A reluctance of the LDDC to regulate urban design as it was seen to ‘suffocate’ businesses London as a major player within the global economic arena and a global city with key advanced producer functions Revealed the emphasis of private-led development with the financial return as the main priority The creation of enterprise zones conferred subsidies for rental space in a period where land prices were increasing Most employment increase were a result of the transfer of jobs from other areas rather than the creation of new ones Most new jobs were unsuitable for residents that lacked the necessary skills Reflected the change in the economy from secondary to tertiary Marginal increase in home ownership from 5% to 38% But only 2,000 were affordable housing, more

than 3,500 people remained homeless

Key data

Remarks

Site area Land use

2200 hectares, 34.8 hectares (for Canary Wharf) Commercial (offices, retail, hotels), residential, transport (London City Airport) 4.7 (for Canary Wharf) 35% (for Canary Wharf) Gross external floor area: 1,626,800 m2 Footprint of building: 12.1 hectares Mean no. of stories: 19 (for Canary Wharf) 6.8 billion pounds, 30% to roads and transport, 14% to Docklands Light Railway, 12% to admin and maintenance

Plot ratio Site coverage Total GFA Development construction cost Development revenue population Development timeline

Unknown ~137,700 1970s: First Docklands plan 1981: London Docklands Development Corporation was formed 1985: Development of Canary Wharf 1987: The open of London City Airport and Docklands Light Railway 1990: Second wave of regeneration: focus on social regeneration 1998: Withdrawal of the LDDC

68

Fig 21. Canary Wharf, London

Fig 22. Square Mile, London

69

Fig 23. Boston Charlestown Navy Yard

Fig 24. Boston zoning master plan (www.bostonplans.org)

70

03.4 Boston: Charlestown Navy Yard Introduction The Boston Charlestown Navy Yard is a 42-hectare land that faces the Charles River, north of downtown Boston and was home to one of the oldest shipbuilding factories in the United States. With the imminent closure of the Navy Yard in 1973, there were calls from the Boston Redevelopment Authority to study the potential of redeveloping and reusing the vacated space into new functions. The Navy Yard was thus officially incorporated into the wider Charlestown Urban Renewal Plan in 1976, where the objective of the redevelopment would be to enliven the place and draw people closer to the water.

A mixed-use redevelopment The redevelopment of the navy yard was spearheaded by the Boston Redevelopment Authority which prepared the development plans and the strategies to be employed. The involvement of the primary planning authority of the city represented the use of strategies that accorded the best value redevelopment while meeting the demands and needs of the population. As part of the 1973 plan, there were 3 main objectives namely, to preserve the character of the navy yard with respect to the U.S.S. Constitution which is being anchored in the yard, to take advantage of the waterfront location and to include redevelopment that relates back to the wider needs of Charlestown and Boston. The details of the strategy therefore entailed a mixed-use function approach through a hotel, convention centre, housing and institutional development. Incorporated within the development would be 1,200 units of luxury housing, a 500-room hotel and convention centre, a National Historic Park, a 500-slip marina, the reuse of historic buildings for colleges, museums, offices, loft and retail, a waterfront park and some light industries. This ensured that the land use has a good mix of functions that caters to an array of uses, while helping to retain the heritage, charm and character of the area through adaptive reuse efforts.

71

The development would be split into 3 sections, each carrying a different major function. The historic monument transfer area would consist of 22 buildings dating back to the 1820s, with structures from both World Wars to be restored sensitively and governed by design guidelines to preserve the exterior elements of the buildings. The aim was to use the architecture and design styles to reconnect the history of the navy yard to the people, an attempt to stage historic reminiscence of the place while making history both visible and accessible. The U.S.S. Constitution Museum has opened within restored shipyard buildings and have now been utilized as a form of heritage tourism to attract tourists while exhibiting the rich naval history.

Evidences of the potential of the commercialization of heritage tourism is witnessed in 1981 when the planning authority designated the area as a Commercial Area Revitalization District.

This entailed the encouragement of private sector investment in greater reuse and revitalization that would add value to the area, to provide additional financing mechanism to support redevelopment and to maximise employment opportunities. This have attracted the use of the restored buildings into restaurants and retail that complements the museum in trying to attract tourists while conserving the distinct heritage of the area. As part of this effort, accessibility to the area was also enhanced. More than 752 parking spaces were provided for within the historic monument transfer area as it was deemed to be necessary to the successful redevelopment of the area due to the lack of street parking and public transport access. Issues of inadequate public transport provision were duly addressed in the form of a regional water-bus service that links Charlestown with the other parts of Boston as well as the construction of pedestrian bridges within the navy yard to help link up previously separate and isolated parts. The enhancement in public accessibility and internal connectivity was therefore a crucial element to attracting people and businesses to the area.

Aside from the historic area of the navy yard, a portion was also dedicated to the provision of public recreational uses in the form of the Shipyard Park. Staggered into 4 phases, the development would add 30,000 sq ft of open and green spaces, which permits a range of recreational and leisure activities for people of all ages and 1,300 feet of public docking space for boating and water activities. This brings a close connection between people and nature, with the water while providing facilities that caters to people of all ages. The public docking space also doubles as a continuous waterfront walkway to offer an uninterrupted view of the Boston waterfront, which conferred a cool waterfront micro-climate as a getaway from the 72

humid, warm inner-city areas. More importantly, the park permits mingling and interaction amongst people and helps to break up the urban monotony of the buildings, where its lowrise nature seamlessly blends in with the surrounding buildings to create a coherent urban fabric.

Lastly, a new development area would form the main economic and residential area for potential residents of the navy yard. Referenced after the Harborpark Plan, the area was designed to take advantage of the economic attractiveness of waterfront development to secure the maximum public benefits. They encouraged a mix of public and private developments to engage in a community-based planning process for the Yard’s End on the northern tip of the navy yard, using revenue from earlier projects to initiate the subsequent phases of development. This helped to facilitate the creation of 1,900 construction jobs as the Boston Residents Job Policy stipulated the requirement of developers of private commercial buildings to hire at least 50% Boston residents, out if which, 25% must be ethnic minorities and 10% women. To further encourage businesses to relocate here to spur the local economy, tax advantages were also given to the use of historic buildings. These efforts helped to ensure that employment opportunities were granted to residents while providing the impetus for local economic growth. One such development is the new Spaulding Rehabilitation Hospital which opened in the navy yard in 2013. The hospital helped provide some skilled and semi-skilled job opportunities while showcasing attempts of sensitive design that marries seamlessly with its unique natural surroundings. 75% of the first floor of the hospital is open for public use as it is integrated with the Boston HarborWalk, providing a therapeutic environment for patients. The mixed-use function therefore takes advantage of the tranquil surrounding with nature to add quality to rehabilitation and quality of life. The building also utilized grey materials for its façade, in reminiscent of the military battleships and aircraft carriers that used to berth at the navy yard, an attempt at creating a coherent appearance with its surroundings.

73

Housing concerns Despite these redevelopment efforts, one major concern for people living in the area is the lack of affordable housing. The plan was for 1,200 luxury units of condominiums developed by private developers and a small number of affordable housing. The initial promise of affordable housing however was never materialized by 1983 as the private developers had more incentive to build expensive and luxury condominiums. This resulted in the interference of the planning authority which ensured that 30% of the housing units to be constructed by 1989 were affordable units. While this helped to encourage a mix of private and public developments that cater to all segments of the population, disparity in property prices still exists in the navy yard today. Average housing prices ($702/sq ft) in the waterfront tended to be higher than inland Charlestown but it also had some of the cheapest ($594/sq ft) and most expensive properties ($918/sq ft), highlighting the socio-economic disparities of the area. This is somewhat reflected in the population of the area with Whites making up 73.2%, followed by the Hispanic/Latinos at 11.8% and Asians at 7.2%.

Conclusion To conclude, the Boston Charlestown Navy Yard has portrayed the redevelopment of old shipping facilities into new housing and recreational areas for all. Some key lessons to be learnt are as follow: ● Redevelopment to incorporate sensitive planning and design to conserve the unique heritage charm and character of the place to provide a sense of historic reminiscence.

This can be through visible and accessible history through museums and the adaptive reuse of old buildings. ● Planning with a concern for the water to incorporate the water and the waterfront into the area, thereby enhancing people's’ connection to it while functioning as a key area for recreational and leisure activities. ● The encouragement of mixed-use functions that produces valuable and beneficial qualities across a spectrum of uses and demographics.

74

Summary Tables Key indicators/ Parameters

Description

Explanation

Building for all ages

●

●

●

●

Shipyard Park, dedicated for public recreational uses Added 30,000 sq ft of open spaces and 1,300 linear feet of public docking space Construction of a continuous waterfront walkway

● ● ●

Going car-lite

●

●

●

●

Mixed-use and colocation

●

●

Actors

●

● ●

●

●

Government Developers Stakeholders

●

●

Typologies ● ●

Function (programs) Planning Parameters

●

● ●

No plans to eliminate the use of cars, high car ownership: 54% of households with 1 vehicle, 20% with 2 vehicles Provided more parking lots especially 752 parking spaces in the historic monument transfer area Provision of alternative public transport in the form of regional waterbus service Pedestrian bridges help to link up different parts of the navy yard

●

Spaulding Rehabilitation Hospital, 75% of first floor for public use, while integrating with the Boston HarborWalk Trail running alongside the waterfront doubles as a therapeutic environment for patients Established by the Boston Redevelopment Authority Prepared development plans and the strategy to be employed for the redevelopment Strategy: a hotel/convention/housing/institutional development 1,200 units of luxury housing, 500 room hotel and convention centre, National Historic Park, 500 slip marina, reuse of historic buildings for college, museums, office, loft, retail, waterfront park, light industries Land use: commercial (offices, retail, hotel) 19.5%, residential 33.7%, 36% medical research facilities, 10% cultural GFA: 438,818m2 1973 development plan

●

75

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

Provides access to the waterfront for all to engage in a range of activities and satisfy recreational needs Permits mingling and interaction amongst people Breaks up the urban monotony of buildings Confers a cool waterfront micro-climate as a getaway from the humid, warm innercity areas Reflected the heavy reliance of cars for commute Building of car parks was necessary to attract people and business as the area lacked street parking and public transport access Improved accessibility by roads and waterways to and from the navy yard Help improve the internal circulation within the navy yard Takes advantage of the tranquil surrounding with nature to add quality to rehabilitation and quality of life

Developed by the primary planning authority of the city which represented strategies that accorded the best value redevelopment while meeting the demands and needs of the population A planning authority that governs the land use to ensure a good mix of functions

Helps to retain the charm and character of the area through adaptive reuse efforts Utilized for heritage tourism

●

(Density, plot ratio, etc) Land Use

●

● ● ● ●

●

●

Economic ● ● ●

●

Revenue Rental value Development cost Job opportunities

●

● ● ● ● ●

People

●

● ●

●

●

Preservation of the character of the navy yard with respect to the U.S.S. Constitution Take advantage of the waterfront location Relate back to the wider needs of Charlestown and Boston Largely low-rise buildings and the adaptive reuse of old navy buildings Most parcels sit on 99 years lease except for those that have been developed into condominiums Spaulding Rehabilitation Hospital utilized grey materials for its façade that are reminiscent of the military battleships and aircraft carriers that used to berth at the navy yard The mix of old and new buildings created an uneven appearance of public spaces Referenced the Harborpark Plan that is designed to take advantage of the economic attractiveness of waterfront development to secure public benefits Used revenue from initial project to initiate subsequent phases Created 1,900 construction jobs Boston Residents Job Policy Provided tax advantages relating to the use of historic buildings New Spaulding Rehabilitation Hospital helped provide some skilled and semiskilled job opportunities Population of ~ 18,901 for Charlestown in total, White 73.2%, Asian 7.2%, Hispanic/Latino 11.8%, African American 5.8%, Others 2% 3,000 in the Navy Yard Planned for 1,200 units of luxury housing, largely condominiums that were developed by private developers Average housing prices ($702/sq ft) tended to be higher than inland Charlestown but also had some of the cheapest ($594/sq ft) and most expensive ($918/sq/ft) property Utilized a community-based planning process for Yard’s End on the northern tip of the navy yard

76

●

Architecture and design styles that reconnect with the history of the place

●

Impetus to spur local economic growth Helped to ensure that employment opportunities were granted to residents; required developers of private commercial buildings to hire 50% Boston residents, 25% minorities, 10% for construction jobs

●

●

●

●

Not one unit of affordable housing was built by 1983, the private developer had more incentive to build more expensive private developer By 1989, the authority stepped in and ensured that 30% of housing units constructed were affordable To encourage a mix of private and public developments that cater to all segments of the population

Key data

Remarks

Site area

42 hectares

Land use

Commercial (offices, retail), tourism, residential

Plot ratio

Unknown

Site coverage

Unknown

Total GFA

438,818 m2, 33.7% housing, 8.5% offices, 3.6% retail, 7.4% hotel, 36% medical research facilities, 10% cultural

Development construction Unknown cost Development revenue

Unknown

Population

~18,901, 73.2% White, 5.8% Black/African-American, 11.8% Hispanic or Latino, 7.2% Asian, 2% Others

Development timeline

1973: Notice of Navy Yard closure and calls to study reuse options 1976: Incorporated the Navy Yard into the wider Charlestown Urban Renewal; Plan 1978: Public improvement of the Navy Yard begins 1981: Designation of the Historic Monument Transfer Area as a Commercial Area Revitalization District 1982: Phase I and II of the park completed 1984: Redirection of development to follow the guidelines of the Harborpark Plan 1991: Phase III of the park completed 2000: Completion of the redevelopment

77

Fig 25. Part of Shipyard Park, Charlestown Navy Yard, with downtown Boston in the background

78

Fig 26. Charlestown Navy Yard walkway

79

Fig 27. Shanghai Suzhou Creek

Fig 28. Shanghai Suzhou Creek land use plan

80

03.5 Shanghai: The Suzhou Creek Introduction As the economy of China underwent liberalization and economic activities started to diversify in 1979, Shanghai was one of several Coastal Development Areas in China that was opened to trade with foreign entities. With it, came investments pouring into the market, as Shanghai underwent an urgent and intense redevelopment with the new capital. One of the benefits was the return of financial companies such as Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation and Standard Chartered Bank that has made Shanghai the economic and financial hub of China that she is today. She has also been described as the ‘showpiece’ of China’s rapid development at breakneck speeds and rise as a global superpower. Much of the rejuvenation of the Shanghai Bund centres around the development of 3 areas in particular — Suzhou Creek, Mogangshang District and the Brilliant City Housing Estate.

The development of the Shanghai Bund went through several rounds of different iterations, beginning with the initial 12-year long Suzhou Creek Rehabilitation Project beginning in 1998.

It started with the Shanghai municipal government spending and upwards of 865 million yuan (approximately 3.1 trillion yuan in today’s value). The initial stages were aimed at improving water quality of the already heavily polluted creek, largely because of squatter villages that used to dot the riverbanks, with the creek being an easy way for waste disposal for the villagers. These squatter villages were a result of domestic migrants from the countryside who went to Shanghai in search of better employment opportunities. Most of the industries that they worked in were also right next to the squatter villages. As a result, the river was heavily polluted due to the waste that were discharged by the industries, which were partly aided by lax environmental protection policies then. On top of that, Shanghai did not have any sewage treatment systems along the creek that could have treated water flowing from the industries and squatter villages. While this was happening, the Shanghai municipal government had new development targets in mind and set about in the repacking of Shanghai as a global cosmopolitan that was an international hub for financial and economic activities. The

81

Shanghai municipal government then issued a revision of the “Shanghai Central City Plan” which was to intensify clean-up efforts of the Suzhou Creek.

Part of the new plan was to improve on flood impact mitigation which included the building of river walls that doubles as walkways for people, as well as the introduction of wastewater treatment systems and water resource management in a bid to gentrify the Suzhou Creek.

Most of the 865 million yuan that was earmarked for this project went into the building of 19 sewage pumping stations and repairing 65 water treatment stations. In addition, 36 highly pollutive livestock farms were also relocated, 144 abandoned piers removed, and 10,500 squatters relocated. This resulted in a new greenbelt that stretched for 13.2km, a remarkable achievement considering that the efforts only took 4 years to come into fruition.

In late 90’s, efforts were made to remove squatter settlements along the waterfront by the developer, COSCO (China Ocean Shipping Company) ironically a shipping company, to the tune of 2.38 billion yuan, which worked out to an average of 110,000 yuan per household.

The riverside was then designated a protected heritage zone following the initiatives and efforts of several influential artists in the art scene of Shanghai that was quickly gaining popularity, led by now political dissident and artist Ai Weiwei. Older buildings and warehouses were conserved, which provide an avenue for the flouring yet budding art scene in Shanghai to grow.

The Waterfront Planning The main targets in the development of the areas by the Shanghai municipal government was to bring people closer to the waterfront as much as possible and to break down barriers that may hamper the accessibility of people getting so the waterfront. Public access areas were planned with integration in mind and as such, public spaces were specifically placed to break the monotony of urban landscape and to create spaces for the community to mingle and interact. To do that, 1 square km of parks were constructed along both banks of the riverfront (the downtown section of Suzhou Creek between Zhongshan Park and its confluence with the Huangpu river). This also helped in raising the commercial attractiveness of the developments along the river.

82

Besides encouraging people to mingle, the shared space was part of restoration efforts to protect and preserve the natural environment of Suzhou Creek. A river wall was built along the riverfront to preserve the banks from erosion and doubles up as a continuous walkway for people to get as close to the waterfront as possible. The objective of it was to build a river wall that had been planned for a continuous, safe, environmentally friendly and ambient waterfront for the people. The development of the walkway was prioritized as the authorities tried to make the area as pedestrian friendly as possible.

With land gradually being commodified, as China moved towards an opened market, developers were jostling for frontage to the Creek as view was a premium when it came to selling property. Developers attempted to maximise interest by pushing plot ratios of the residential developments to beyond 4, which was 4 times higher than what was mandated.

Most of these new buildings were also building taller buildings that had a negative effect on the visuals of the Creek. As such, the municipal government had to come in again with new policies limiting plot ratios of new developments to 2.5 for residential projects and 4 for public projects. Developers were also forced to reduce the heights of their developments, in turn reducing floor areas of the units as well. Again, green and public spaces were also highly encouraged.

In a bid to attract more families, the Brilliant City Housing Estate was planned for with construction of the first phase beginning in 1999, with a built-up area of 270,000 square meters or space for approximately 2,186 households. This was so largely to cater to couples who are young professionals and have migrated to Shanghai for employment to start their own families and eventually settling in Shanghai. Preferential applicant status was also granted to young families.

Another strict policy that was in place to ensure equity to waterfront access was to limit the extent of which such developments can reach the waterfront. Housing developments are not to restrict public access to the waterfront by restricting access only to residents. Some of the later housing developments by COSCO (the only developer of the Brilliant City Housing Estate) that had violated this code were redesigned with a “conditional open waterfront� which converted some space in private properties into publicly accessible green space.

83

Mixed-use Developments In the case of Mogangshang District, the planners also tried to preserve the warehouses that were along the riverfront. Most of the architecture of these warehouses are unique only to Shanghai, dating from the late 19th to early 20th century, and were only spared from redevelopment as a tribute to Shanghai’s once status as a trading port in the past. These warehouses were once owned by trading companies were designed by renowned architects of influence ranging from Art-Deco to Modernist. With a view of making the most of the warehouses, most were redeveloped into the M50 Suzhou Creek Art District, that houses a unique mix of art studios, galleries and non-governmental organizations (NGOs). The M50 Suzhou Creek Art District was also once featured in Times Magazine that helped boost its reputation as a cultural destination for both international and domestic tourism. While most in the art community were eventually forced out due to the pressure of rising rents, the Shanghai Municipal Commission of Economy and Informatization released guidelines to help taper growth of rent in the area, thereby ensuring that ownership and tenure would remain that same and rent control was in place to retain the creative industry in the area.

Space that was vacated by the creative industry was also turned into commercial entities such as shops, restaurants or offices that were eventually rented to the creative industry at preferential rates. Some of the larger spaces that were vacated were redeveloped again into a boutique hotel that compliments that whole creative vibe of the area.

Conclusion While some may criticise the heavy handedness of the policies, it is these policies that had managed to transform Suzhou Creek area around from a heavily polluted river from decades of neglect that was before. It is now an area that is buzzing with life, with a vibrant dynamic community of residents from different nationalities living there as it serves largely as an ancillary housing estate for residents who work in the nearby Shanghai Bund; with most of them employed in the Financial sector. Besides, the policies were also in place to ensure equity in access to the waterfront. By ensuring that everyone had equal access to the

84

waterfront, instead of leaving it to market forces thereby pricing people out, everyone is then able to reap the benefits of the rejuvenated waterfront.

Key lessons learnt: ● Preservation of nature by rejuvenating the waterfront which has economic and social benefits for the area. ● Policies in place to ensure that there is equity in terms of access to the waterfront by limiting the extent to which the developments can be built to reach the waterfront.

The river wall and walkway allow the synthesis of the whole area and it being barrier free encourages walkability which is one of the aims of going car-lite.

Summary Tables Key indicators/ Parameters

Description

Explanation

Building for all ages

●

Public spaces were specifically planned to break the monotony of urban life and to create spaces for integration.

●

●

3 kinds of open green spaces — centre green space, waterfront promenade and roadside green space incorporated with the waterfront walkways

New plans pushed by 3 international firms to redevelop the riverfront of Suzhou Creek were approved by local district government. Plans included the construction of 1 sq km (250 acres) of parks along the downtown section of the Suzhou Creek between Zhongshan Park and its confluence with Huangpu River to raise commercial attractiveness of the river and commercial developments along it.

●

Public spaces and green area planned for on either sides of the riverbanks focused on the restoration of ecological environment, and the construction of continuous walkways along the elevated river wall next to the creek, allowing pedestrians to walk

85

from the buildings to the riverfront without difficulty.

Going car-lite

Mixed-use and colocation

●

In 2009, “water bus” or the first section of Suzhou Creek was in operation

●

Development of pedestrian walkways along the riverfront was prioritized

●

●

Historically significant buildings such as the Chungming Textile Factory and Fufeng Flour Factory in Moganshan district were preserved and redeveloped into a new artistic enclave for local artists - the Suzhou Creek Art District (M50) with a mix of commercial and cultural activities Other preserved buildings in this district were either designed as western stylized warehouses or contemporary Shanghai residential buildings that were a combination of both Western and Eastern influence dating from the late 19th to early 20th century of Shanghai reflecting her past as trading hub. o

●

Warehouses were designed by renowned foreign architects within a wide range of western styles such as Art-Deco, Renaissance and Modernist

Other buildings that were in the district but not used by artists were turned into residential buildings instead.

86

●

Objective was to build a river wall plan for a continuous, safe, environmentally friendly and ambient waterfront.

●

Removed the reliance on traditional transport methods by diverting tourism and local travel to ferries on the larger adjoining Huangpu River

●

Policies were implemented such that pedestrian flow and public activities along the waterfront was encouraged

●

Occupants of the artistic enclave numbered at 26 art studios, 4 galleries, 2 NGOs and 2 commercial establishments

●

Featured in Time Magazine which helped to boost status as a destination for international and domestic tourists alike

●

Architectural appeal of the preserved buildings aid in the attraction and development of the tourism industry in that area.

●

Unfortunately, artists were gradually forced out of the district due to rising rents, the Shanghai Municipal Commission of Economy and Informatization released a Guideline to Facilitate the Development of Creative Industry in 2008 to ensure that ownership and tenure remain the same and that rent control was in place to retain the creative industry tenants in the area.

Actors ●

Government

●

Developers

●

Stakeholders

●

Development along the riverfront were mainly from the policies implemented and enforced by the local district government.

●

Commercial developers like China Ocean Shipping Company (COSCO) played a part in the demolition and relocation of squatters in the area, as well as the development of new housing estates.

●

Typologies ●

Function (programs)

●

Planning Parameters (Density, plot ratio, etc)

●

People

Policies were introduced for old squatter settlements to be cleared as well as the rejuvenation of the rivers with cleaning up and removal of pollutive industrial activities that used to line the riverbanks

●

Favourable tax cuts for COSCO such as a 5% business tax refund and 70% income tax refund

International renowned architectural consultancies such as Edaw Consultant and East China Architecture Design and Research Institute were hired to draw up site plans for certain sites along the river.

●

Focus of the redevelopment centred on the walkability along the riverfront since the policy to redevelop the riverfront was implemented by the Central Government of China

●

Access to the river that used to be restricted were also converted into public accessible green space through regulations and policies.

Land Use

●

●

Preservation of Chungming Textile Factory and Fufeng Flour Factory through the initiative of artists resulting in the creation of the M50 art enclave

●

Residential - families and expats working in the nearby Shanghai financial district

87

o

Residents were relocated at a cost of 110,000 yuan per household on average

o

Relocation costs totalled to 2.38 billion yuan in 1998

●

Retained the charm and character of the area through adaptive reuse efforts

●

Utilized for heritage and cultural tourism

●

Architecture and design styles that reconnect with the history of the place

●

Brilliant City Housing Estate is located near the Shanghai Railway Station, close to the city centre. It is also a 10minute drive to the downtown CBD and 16-min drive to the historical Bund area

Key data

Remarks

Site area

Suzhou Creek - 2017 hectares Monganshan District - 11.5 hectares Brilliant City Housing Estate - 49.5 hectares Commercial (offices, retail), tourism, residential, cultural and public green spaces Unknown Unknown Suzhou Creek - 2.5 for residential and 4 for public projects Moganshan District Brilliant City Housing Estate - 4 phases Phase 1: 1999 - 2001 270,000 sq m for 2,186 households Phase 2: 2000 - 2003 390,000 sq m for 2,896 households Phase 3: 2002 - 2005 294,200 sq m for 2,444 households Phase 4: 2004 - 2006 482,000 sq m for 4,100 households Unknown

Land use Plot ratio Site coverage Total GFA

Development construction cost Development revenue Population Development timeline

Ongoing 5.4 million planned for in Shanghai Master Plan (19990-2020) with room for more future developments 1979: Central government started to diversify industrial structure in Shanghai 1986: State Land Administration issued “The People’s Republic of China Land Management Law” 1990’s: Decentralization of economic management; more planning power for local district offices to decide 1990: Economic reforms and the opening of Shanghai, starting with the area of Pudong district 1992: 3.65million square meters of squatter settlements were cleared and urban regeneration developments began in 1992 for the development of the Brilliant City housing estate 1998: Shanghai municipal government initiated the first phase of the 12 year Suzhou Creek Rehabilitation Project (1998 -2002) by cleaning up the Suzhou Creek or Wusong Jiang at a cost of 865 million yuan, aimed at improving water quality, mitigating flood impact, the introduction of wastewater and water resource management and urban revitalization which spearheaded the gentrification of the area and the waterfront 1998: Removal of squatter settlements by COSCO to the tune of 2.38 billion yuan or 110,000 yuan per household on average Late 1990’s: Riverside was designated as a protected heritage zone following the initiatives of several artists, chief of which is political dissident and artist Ai Weiwei. Buildings and warehouses were conserved providing quarters for the flourishing yet young art scene in Shanghai.

1999: Free allocation of welfare housing units stopped, residential housing market fully commodified 1999: Start of Brilliant City Housing Estate developments 2001: Shanghai Master Plan (1999-2020) implemented for whole Shanghai metropolitan area approved 2003: Second phase of cleaning of the Suzhou Creek 2004: Zhongyuan Moganshan Unit Control Plan released by Putao district government specifically for the redevelopment of Moganshan district 2006: Suzhou Creek Adjoining Area Control Plan approved and implemented

88

2008: Shanghai Municipal Commission of Economy and Informatization released a Guideline to Facilitate the Development of Creative Industry to combat rising rent for the M50 district to retain the artistic presence in the area

Fig 29. Suzhou Creek development

Fig 30. Adaptive reuse of old industrial buildings into the mixed-use art and retail M50 Suzhou Creek Art District

89

Fig 31. Kai Tak Development

Fig 32. Kai Tak land use master plan

90

03.6 Hong Kong: Kai Tak Development Introduction Kai Tak Development (KTD) is the redevelopment of the site that used to be Kai Tak International Airport. The Kai Tak Office (KTO) was set up for this very purpose in 1998 when the airport was shifted to the new Chek Lap Kok island. In the same year, the government of Hong Kong also drafted redevelopment plans for the site. Although there were several periods where the old Kai Tak Airport was put into action due to operational deficiencies of the new airport, it was never a permanent solution for Hong Kong to revert to using the old Kai Tak Airport as it was severely in need for refurbishment and could not keep up with the demands of air travel as it was handling far more passengers and flights than it was originally planned for. Besides, it had constantly been on the list of the most dangerous airport to fly in or out for years.

In July of 2004, the government sets up “Kai Tak Planning Review� to get more involvement from the public as they seek ways to rejuvenate the area. Finally, in October 2006, the blueprints to redevelop the area was finalised with constructions started in 2002 with the extension of exiting highways into the area, and later, 2 new MTR stations built to cater to future demands. Finally, in 2013, the first stage of several infrastructure projects such as the Kai Tak Cruise Terminal, Kwun Tong Promenade, as well as the public housing estates of Kai Ching and Tak Long.

Kai Tak is like the Greater Southern Waterfront (GSW) in several areas. One, it used to be an airport, as is the case of the ports that line the GSW, which means that there is a tremendous amount of flat land involved that is up for redevelopment.

91

Decentralization KTD is part of the Hong Kong government’s plan to redevelop the Kai Tak district as well as the surrounding districts such as Kowloon City, Wong Tai Sin and Kwun Tong. In totality, they will form the new Kowloon East area, with a new CBD that will complement the current CBD 2

in Central that is across the Victoria Harbour. The whole area is planned in view of the future demands for commercial space in Central and would double the current size of Central in terms of commercial space. Besides, it is envisioned as a development with “smart-city elements�. To encourage the move, the government of Hong Kong has also allowed the conversion of some industrial into commercial space such as offices, shops and even hotels.

Several of these sites are already up for bid with developers paying a premium especially for the sites that are right at the edge of the waterfront. Besides, there are also several statutory boards, mainly the Inland Revenue Department who will be shifting to the new CBD area. There is a huge potential for commercial developments, especially when rent will be forcing companies out of the old CBD. In the case of the GSW, this is reflected in the development

of

the

new

Downtown

core.

This perhaps, could be something that URA considers as we seek to diversify and expand the Downtown Core in Singapore. Given how demand for office spaces is constantly growing, this results in an ever-expanding CBD that is spilling over to the GSW. Government agencies that support the financial and business sector of the economy can situate themselves in the hinterlands of GSW for cheaper rent as well as connectivity.

Waterfront Living Another similarity is the waterfront living factor in both KTD and GSW, which people would be willing to pay a premium for such a luxury.

Currently, there are some 18 sites that are being reserved for private housing in KTD, with 4 sites right at the edge of the waterfront which obviously come at a premium in terms of the price per square feet. While Hong Kong is already facing an acute housing shortage, the willingness for developers to bid for and price these waterfront properties at a premium seems to suggest the attractiveness of waterfront living for people who can afford such 92

properties. However in the case of KTD, it is worth noting that the properties are reserved for private housing, whereas the sites that are earmarked for public rental houses are much further inland and will not be enjoying the luxury of being near the waterfront and of course the magnificent view of Victoria Harbour. Some may question the exclusivity that will price many out, as well as the effectiveness of integrating the community this way. However, in order to mitigate this issue, the CEDD, besides planning for and building a generous number of public spaces such as parks, have built a 1km long GreenWay that is along the Kwun Tong Promenade on what used to be the runway of the old Kai Tak Airport. The pilot project that has been in place since July 2018 has met with only positive reactions from the people who use the facility to “explore the new concept of shared use of roads by pedestrians and cyclists”. This stretch of the pilot will eventually be integrated into a larger 13km routes (to be completed in 2025) once development of KTD is completed. The new cycling network will cover some of the most scenic areas of KTD as well to bring tourism and recreational value to the area.

Car-lite One of the main aims of the CEDD in developing KTD was to be as car-lite as possible. There are 2 new MTR stations that are built to cater to future increase in demand for transportation once development of the whole area is completed. Besides, it is amazing that there is only one single carriageway road (Shing Fung Road) that leads to the Kai Tak Cruise Terminal and the housing. While only time will tell how effective and if indeed it is adequate for the development, the CEDD has not included plans for more future roads to be built. Instead, to further supplement the 2 Kowloon Motor Bus route that are already serving the area, more mini-bus (unique to Hong Kong) routes are being planned for with one that is already in use serving people who are getting to Kai Tak Cruise Terminal, Kowloon Tong and the new Hong Kong Children’s Hospital in KTD. These mini-buses are smaller than the usual buses, that only carry a maximum of 19 seated passengers. These buses are popular as they are typically faster and more efficient in terms of frequency and choice of routes despite costing slightly more.

Recent push by the government is also encouraging drivers to switch to more environmentally friendly buses such as those running on Liquefied Petroleum Gas or electricity. The ones that

93

are serving or potentially serve the KTD must be “green” (pun intended) as they are painted green and will be newer environmentally friendly buses.

Another feature of being car-lite is the Kai Tak Environmentally Friendly Linkage System or the Kai Tak Monorail that will surround the perimeter of KTD. Built at a cost of $12 billion Hong Kong dollars (SGD $2.08 billion), the Kai Tak monorail is expected to account for up to 15% of public transportation needs in the area when completed in 2023. Several of the 12 stations of the system will also link KTD to the upcoming CBD in the Kowloon East area and 2

will complement as well as connect residents and workers alike to existing transport nodes that are already serving the larger Kowloon area. The aim of the Kai Tak monorail also serves to help alleviate first and last - mile issues the people living or working in Kai Tak and Kowloon East. On top of that, there is also the 13 km GreenWay to encourage a more active lifestyle of the people living or working in KTD by either cycling or walking instead of driving.

Conclusion Key lessons learnt: •

Decentralization, the huge developmental potential for KTD as a part of the greater Kowloon East district that will form the new CBD. Housing developments in KTD to cater for future increase in demands.

•

Government statutory boards like the Inland Revenue Department of Hong Kong already moved to KTD in a bid to encourage companies to make the move as well

•

To go car-lite, the CEDD has planned and built infrastructure to cater for future traffic demands •

More mini-bus routes to serve the area, which are popular with the locals.

•

2 new MTR stations to connect KTD to the rest of the public transport grid

•

Purpose built Kai Tak monorail that will connect KTD to the greater Kowloon East area to complement the development of the next CBD.

•

Different housing options available, however, those that are at the waterfront will come at a premium thereby being exclusive.

94

Summary Tables Key indicators/ Parameters Decentralisation

Building for all ages

Going car-lite

Mixed-use and co-location

Description

Details

•

Part of the new planning area of • Central is where financial services Kowloon East, that will form the corporations and other ancillary second CBD (CBD 2) in Hong Kong. industries have their headquarters.

It will be supplementing the However, it is already crowded and current CBD that is across the congested, thus driving up rental and Victoria Harbour known as costs.

“Central”. Given the proximity to • Development of Kai Tai Development Victoria Harbour which has always as part of the new Kowloon East will been the centre for trade and provide space for recreational economic activities when the activities and housing which is British used to rule Hong Kong as especially needed. one of her colonies.

• There is a clear focus for public • The aim of the new Kai Tak interaction such as efforts by the Development is to ensure that there is KTO to ensure that public spaces enough integration of the community. are planned. One of which is the 13 Both public and private housing are built km cycling network. in the area, with an approximate ratio of • A mix of housing, business, tourism, 1:1. Most of the housing will be targeted at families with parents and infrastructures such as 3 schools, 2 grandparents who will be working in hospitals and the new Inland Central or the upcoming CBD 2 in the Revenue Tower, as well as new Kowloon East area. transportation nodes such as MTR stations and a cruise centre.

• Several Community Halls and squares for events to be held, as well as larger parks such as the Runway Park that is repurposed runway of the old Kai Tak Airport • Proposed Environmentally Friendly • Kai Tak Monorail estimated to provide Linkage System or the Kai Tak up to 15% of all public transportation Monorail with 12 stations demands in the greater Kowloon East Development, and is a feeder to other • 2 purpose-built MTR East — services such as HSR to China, other MTR West Line Kai Tak and Sung lines as well as Hong Kong Tramways or Wong Tai Stations “Ding Dings” • 13 km of cycling network • 2 additional stations to further cater to planned for travel demands into the Kai Tak district • Green spaces along the waterfront where the runways used to be • Large amounts of public spaces, • The aim of the new Kai Tak one of which is the 13 km cycling Development is to ensure that there is network. enough integration of the community.

Both public and private housing are built • A mix of housing, business, in the area, with an approximate ratio of tourism, infrastructures such as 3 1:1. Most of the housing will be targeted schools, 2 hospitals and the new at families with parents and Inland Revenue Tower, as well as grandparents who will be working in new transportation nodes such as Central or the upcoming CBD 2 in the MTR stations and a cruise centre.

Kowloon East area.

95

Actors

•

• • •

•

Government Developers Stakeholders

Typologies • •

•

Function (programs) Planning Parameters (Density, plot ratio, etc) Land Use

Economic • • • •

Revenue Rental value Development cost Job opportunities

• •

•

•

•

•

•

Social • •

•

Racial/Social class mix Safety / Security

People

•

Civil Engineering and Development Department (CEED) Private developers who are largely local such as Sun Hung Kai, China Overseas Land and Investment or Wheelock Mixture of both public and private housing Cruise Terminal for the various international luxury cruise liners that call Hong Kong as homeport Commercial, both retail and Grade A offices

•

Development of KTD is to cater for and complement the development of the New CBD2 that will be in Kowloon East.

To revitalise and inject new redevelopment opportunities for the surrounding districts such as Kowloon City, Wong Tai Sin and Kwun Tong that will for the larger Kowloon East area in future Commercial developments such as offices for companies that are forced to shift out of Central due to rising rents Part of China’s efforts to develop the Pearl River Delta area To develop “a distinguished, vibrant, attractive and peopleoriented community by the Victoria Harbour”

•

Mainly for families that will be and homeowners who work in the CBD as well as those looking for employment opportunities in the upcoming CBD2

•

96

•

•

•

•

The proximity of KTD to both the current CBD as well as CBD 2, large potential for development New infrastructure such as new MTR stations and housing in the area Cruise Terminal that caters to tourists who travel to Hong Kong on cruises annually as well as the various luxury cruise liners whose homeport is Hong Kong Commercial developments that will complement the new CBD2 that is being planned for in Kowloon East, with most of the housing being developed to cater to the expected increase in demand for housing when CBD2 is completed Positive outcome for a densely populated city like Hong Kong as rental for offices and demand for cheap housing driving costs of living up, new developments to cater to such demands

Mix of private and public housing, with several new infrastructure developments such as 3 primary schools, 2 secondary schools, 2 hospitals and the various parks that will be built as well as new transport nodes Competition for space and rental pressures within Central, the traditional CBD, forcing companies to look for alternatives to site their offices

Key data

Remarks

Site area

320 Hectares

Land use

Commercial (offices, retail), tourism, residential, cultural and public green spaces

Plot ratio

Unknown

Site coverage

Unknown

Total GFA

30,000 housing units (43.3% public housing, 56.7% private housing), 2 housing estates with 15 blocks of public housing (35-40 stories) and 7 private projects 110 hectares of green space

Development construction cost

HK$100 billion in the beginning, but expected to rise

Development revenue

Ongoing

Population

90,000 (planned for)

Development timeline

1998: Relocation of the airport to Chek Lap Kok island October 1998: Government of Hong Kong drafts redevelopment plans for Kai Tak Airport site November 1999: “Feasibility Studies on the Revised Southeast Kowloon Development Plan” by The Territorial Development Department July 2004: Government of HK sets up “Kai Tak Planning Review” for public consultation June 2006: New Kai Tak development blueprint by released by the government October 2006: Revised blueprint 2012: MTR East - West Line Kai Tak and Sung Wong Tai Stations begin construction specifically for Kai Tak redevelopment 2013: First stage of infrastructure projects completed • Kai Tak Cruise Terminal • Kai Tak Fire Station • Kwun Tong Promenade • District Cooling System (first phase) • Kai Ching Public Housing Estate • Tak Long Public Housing Estate 2016: Second stage completion for some infrastructure projects, and beginning of third and final stage of infrastructure projects • Kai Tak Cruise Terminal: second berth, helicopter landing zone and Tourist Centre • Route 6 from Central Kowloon Route to Trunk Road T2 (to ease congestion and allow access to Kai Tak district) • Underground street to Kowloon City and San Po Kong • District Cooling System (Second Phase) • Hong Kong Children’s Hospital 2021: Expected completion of final stage • Multi-use sports stadium • Environmentally Friendly Linkage System • District Cooling System (Final Phase)

97

Fig 33. Kai Tak Airport

Fig 34. Kai Tak Stadium

98

Fig 35. Kai Tak Development

99

Fig 36. Singapore River and the three Quays

Fig 37. Land use plan along the Singapore River

100

03.7 Singapore: The Three Quays (Boat Quay, Clarke Quay, and Robertson Quay)

Introduction Singapore had developed its waterfronts before, namely the three quays; Boat, Clarke and Robertson. The approaches taken by Singapore in developing its waterfronts have been to make them “worldly”, by borrowing ideas from cities and waterfronts around the world. In fact, one might not be too far off to say that this is the approach of Singapore’s urban development in general. The state has been combining elements of foreign aesthetics, alien design, and transnational businesses rationale in deciding the planning, cherry-picking what is considered “good”, leaving out the “bad” elements (Chang & Huang, 2010: 2086).

Waterfront Redevelopment In terms of the development process, Boat and Clarke Quay share some similarities. Both quays were developed into an almost fully commercial area, with Boat Quay having almost 100% commercial building, and Clarke Quay with 84% commercial buildings (Wang, 2010: 87).

Both quays are also pretty much single-use, catering mostly for tourism and nightlife activities. For Boat Quay, development was led by government agencies and private owners of the shophouses, and the owners manage and coordinate the tenants. For Clarke Quay, on the other hand, development was between government agencies and a single developer -DBS Land and later CapitaLand. Management and coordination of tenants are run by the developer (Wang, 2010: 87).

Meanwhile, for Robertson Quay, development was between government agencies and twenty individual developers (Wang, 2010: p.122). Each developer implemented their own project, with varied land areas from one to ten acres. The area was also zoned for residential use with commercial and entertainment activities. As a result, a high mixed-use area was 101

created, with 17% commercial buildings, 37% residential area, 3% entertainment, 36% offices and 7% transportation and parking areas (Wang, 2010: 124).

However, the redevelopment of Singapore’s waterfronts faced a few issues, which Chang and Huang (2010) categorized into three main categories -- land use functionality, public access, as well as local identity. The first category, on land-use functionality, concerns the economic bottom-line. Rejuvenating waterfronts takes a lot of money, and it is crucial for the state and developers to be able to not only cover their costs, but also to get satisfactory returns from their investment. This led to development approach that aimed to make the place attractive for commercial purposes, giving less thought on historical aspects of the sites, as well as how the new development will affect existing local community (Chang and Huang, 2010: 2087).

The second category is the issue of public access. While much has been done to make the waterfronts more attractive, not enough infrastructures have been built to improve connectivity, either pedestrian or vehicular. There is also a lack of other infrastructures, that can make the waterfronts more inclusive for a bigger group of Singapore’s society, such as nearby affordable housing, as well as other “material and cultural barriers” that excludes a significant portion of Singapore’s society from participating in the new life at the waterfronts (Chang and Huang, 2010: 2093).

Third, is the issue on local identity. As the economic bottom-line is a crucial element in deciding the direction of redevelopment of Singapore’s waterfronts, incorporating foreign aesthetics to present a “worldly” urban design as a strategy to attract investments, as well as adding commercial values, local identity and history of the place were sacrificed. This, however, created mix reactions from local citizens. Many local Singaporeans appear to not be apprehensive about the dilution of local culture, identity and history, fully embracing the “international landscape” created. But a minority group of local citizens do show their concerns on the loss of local identity, and this sentiment is shared by a big number of foreign tourists that come to visit the country to experience the “local”. This created a dilemma since attracting foreign tourists is a major element in the redevelopment of the waterfronts. Hence, the issue of protecting and promoting local culture, history and heritage need to be relooked into as well (Chang and Huang, 2010: 2098).

102

Fig 38. Boat Quay Land Use Map

Fig 39. Clarke Quay Land Use Map

Fig 40. Robertson Quay Land Use Map

103

Conclusions The findings on the three quays show that in order to have a successful waterfront development, certainly the project needs to make economic sense, for the city to be able to profit from their investment. Equally important is also the issue of accessibility and identity.

To ensure that the development will be able to serve the Singaporean public, the design and activities to be conducted within the space need to be inclusive and serve a multiple array of users. At the same time, a strong sense of identity needs to be kept and promoted to attract potential users, especially foreign visitors as well as culture and heritage aficionados.

Also, it is important to take note of the advantage Robertson Quay has over the other two quays, due to its mixed-use characteristics. This is due to two main aspects; first, the area was zoned into multiple land use -- residential, commercial and entertainment, second, because of the involvement of different developers, developing different types of projects in different scales. This diversity is lacking in the other two quays, and because of that during the economic crisis in 1998, Boat Quay was heavily hurt. At the time, 30 to 40 percent of businesses were shut down because 40 percent of Boat Quay visitors were expats and foreign tourists, who left or didn’t visit the country because of the recession (Wang, 2010: 58).

Boat Quay Key indicators/ Parameters

Description

Explanation

Decentralisation

● Near Singapore’s central business area and Chinatown, but attract mainly tourists

●

Instead of attracting people from the neighbouring central business area, the location only attracts tourists and nightlife crowds

Building for all ages

● ●

No clear plan to achieve this Emphasis on building restoration of historical building

Going car-lite

●

Well connected to its surroundings with pedestrian roads Relatively small districts and many meeting points

●

Single use 100% commercial building

●

There are both vehicular and pedestrian roads that connect to neighbouring area, and the waterfront is accessible by foot Only catering for tourists and nightlife activities

●

Mixed-use and colocation

● ●

104

Actors ● ● ●

Typologies ● ●

●

●

Government agencies, private shophouse owners, shophouse tenants

● ● ●

Land use: commercial Nightlife activities Organize several events, e.g. Singapore Food Festival Touristic activities, e.g. river taxis

Government Developers Stakeholders

Function (programs) Planning Parameters (Density, plot ratio, etc) Land Use

●

●

Private owners manage and coordinate tenants

Clarke Quay Key indicators/ Parameters

Description

Explanation

Decentralisation

● Near Singapore’s central business area and Chinatown

●

Instead of attracting people from the neighbouring central businesses area, the location only attracts tourists and nightlife crowds

Building for all ages

●

No clear plan to achieve this

Going car-lite

●

Well connected to its surroundings with pedestrian roads Relatively small districts and many meeting points

●

Single use 84% commercial building, 16% transport and parking Government agencies, single developer, tenants

●

There are both vehicular and pedestrian roads that connect to neighbouring area, and the waterfront is accessible by foot Mostly catering for tourists and nightlife activities

●

Mixed-use and colocation

● ●

Actors

●

● ● ●

Government Developers Stakeholders

Typologies ● ●

●

Function (programs) Planning Parameters (Density, plot ratio, etc) Land Use

● ● ● ●

Land use: commercial Nightlife activities Organize several events, e.g. New Year’s Eve Party Tourism

105

●

Single developer (DBS Land, later CapitaLand) manages and coordinates tenants and activities

Robertson Quay Key indicators/ Parameters

Description

Decentralisation

● Near shopping district of Orchard Road and the civic centres

Building for all ages

●

No clear plan to achieve this

Going car-lite

●

Well connected to its surroundings with pedestrian roads Relatively small districts and many meeting points

●

Mixed-use and colocation

● ●

Actors

●

● ● ●

Government Developers Stakeholders

Typologies ● ●

●

Function (programs) Planning Parameters (Density, plot ratio, etc) Land Use

● ● ●

Explanation

Mixed-use 17% commercial building, 37% residential, 3% entertainment, 36% offices, 7% transport and parking Government agencies, 20 individual developers, tenants

Land use: commercial, residential, entertainment, offices Day and night activities Tourism

106

●

There are both vehicular and pedestrian roads that connect to neighbouring area, and the waterfront is accessible by foot

●

All tenants managed and coordinated by private developers who own properties in the area

●

All developers implemented their own project with varied land areas and collaborated, e.g. raised $3.5 million for Singapore Repertory Theatre

Fig 41. Robertson Quay with mixed-use development along the waterfront

Fig 42. Robertson Walk showing residential units atop commercial businesses and a central plaza

Fig 43. Robertson Quay promenade

107

108

Chapter 04: RECOMMENDATIONS

As identified in the SWOT analysis, there are opportunities for GSW to develop as a business and tourism hub, as well as developing the creative industries and innovative clusters, while being mindful of the possible threats of poor accessibility and the formation of single-use, exclusive neighbourhood. Drawing from the lessons learnt from the case studies mentioned in the previous section, the following recommendations will be useful to be considered for future development of the site.

109

Fig 01. An integrated business and tourism hub

110

04.01 Recommendations on the macro level: The Greater Southern Waterfront There are 3 macro level recommendations that we are providing to inform the broader development of the GSW.

1. To build an integrated business and tourism hub This would be primarily on the eastern region of the GSW, on the land currently occupied by the Brani, Tanjong Pagar and Keppel Ports. This would involve an extension of the current CBD and Marina Bay Financial District as a decentralization strategy to provide more job opportunities that are closer to residential areas. The enlarged business district would provide more office inventories that supplement the core functions of the business district which would help to sediment Singapore’s position as a global city. In the face of intense global competition, the ability to provide high-quality office infrastructures and stable economic and political climate remains key to attract the agglomeration of transnational corporations that helm major command and control functions. A larger CBD would therefore permit the continual attraction and congregation of high-value adding and key advanced producer services that would support the growth of the economy in the long run. The proximity to Sentosa would also suggest capitalizing on the strengths of the tourism industry, to attract MICE developments that serves to address both business and tourism needs. The extended CBD would also be promptly supported by the network of public train and bus systems that exist in the area, to meet the accessibility and connectivity needs of a new CBD.

Lessons from case studies A. Brookfield Place, Battery Park City, New York a. New York City as a global city which shares similar economic landscape to Singapore such as the need to continually attract the location of international and regional headquarters of transnational corporation, in advanced producer services that would help to solidify its position in the hierarchy of cities.

111

b. Clear attempts of decentralization with Brookfield Place, the primary commercial district in Battery Park City, being conveniently located next to the World Trade Centre as well as in proximity to the main economic hub in Wall Street and the Lower Manhattan financial district. Residential apartments were built to the north and south of Brookfield Place to support the working population. i.

Successful as a complementary business district as it houses major banking and asset management companies like Merrill Lynch, American Express and RBS. The global headquarters of Goldman Sachs is also located at 200 West Street.

ii.

Annual profits from the taxes paid by property owners amounting to more than $200 million yearly

c. Accessibility needs met through the exploitation of existing public transport network systems of subways, PATH, bus and ferry services i.

Provides seamless integration of businesses activities to Lower Manhattan that prevents the development of the new area as a self-contained town

B. Canary Wharf, London Docklands a. London as a fellow global city and major player in the global economy, sharing similar economic landscapes like Singapore and New York City. b. Canary Wharf developed as the second business district as part of the wider London Docklands redevelopment project i.

Served as the ‘poster boy’ and the watershed development of the project, marking the physical transformation of warehouses and industrial sheds into purposeful office buildings

ii.

Located about 4 km from the primary financial district in Square Mile which complements and supports its key financial and business functions.

iii.

Helped to ease shortage of office inventories and building spaces due to restrictive planning policies within Square Mile

c. Successful in attracting major businesses and companies to locate in the area i.

Houses many of the headquarters of global banks and financial institutions like HSBC, JP Morgan Chase, MasterCard and Ernst & Young 112

ii.

Aided by heavy investment on creating attractive environment and aesthetics to give a feel of establishment, luxury and class through building materials used and landscape architecture

iii.

Designated as an enterprise zone which provided subsidies for rental space to promote Canary Wharf as an ideal business location and sustain its longterm attractiveness

iv.

Led to the development of ancillary services that supports the business district in the form of a light railway service, retail and hotels

C. Kai Tak Development, Hong Kong a. Part of larger plans by the government of Hong Kong to develop the Kowloon East area that will serve as the future CBD, the second CBD of Hong Kong to supplement the current one. b. Expansion of the CBD would be economically viable for Hong Kong as it fights to remain competitive in the financial sector against several challengers in the region such as Singapore and Shanghai. c. Kai Tak Development would concentrate on providing housing for people employed in the new CBD i.

Development of ancillary services that support the current / future business districts in the form of a light railway service, retail and hotels as well as new infrastructure

113

Fig 02. Creative industries and innovative clusters zone

114

2. To develop creative industries and innovative clusters This would be targeted at the western end of the GSW which aimed to serve as an extension of the south-western region into a technopole. The development would capitalize on the existence of research and entrepreneurship clusters as well as educational institutions in the proximity to advance the innovative and creative industry. This is underpinned by the belief and understanding that the new knowledge-based economy would be the driver of growth for the future. Singapore has been named the 5th most innovative country in the world and the most innovative in Asia by the Global Innovation Index in 2018, which supports the expansion of these industries to serve as growth engines for the future. The capitalization on existing resources to create larger clusters proves valuable as such economies tend to thrive in traded and untraded interdependencies. The key to success is being in proximity to one another by tapping on to placed-based knowledge and experience and the availability of face to face interactions to generate social relations. The extension of these clusters would then create a buzz and unique fizz that reinforces innovative work but also resonates with notions of institutional thickness.

Lessons from case studies A. Amsterdam a. The University of Amsterdam is located within the central area which creates a synergy with Eastern Dockland industrial area towards an innovative economy. b. The Eastern Dockland development caters to mixed type and scale of development and accommodates at least eight types of industries. The economy activities including creative industries such as crafts, media and information, communications and technology (ICT), and consultancy.

115

Fig 03. Liveable and inclusive neighbourhood zone

116

3. To build liveable and inclusive neighbourhoods The centre portion of the GSW would be reserved to develop liveable and inclusive neighbourhoods that would strive to cater to a wider demographic and offer facilities and amenities that would enhance the quality of life and standards of living. The current provision of residential units creates a distinct segregation of housing types by socio-economic status and the new developments would attempt to address the gap by offering housing types that would dilute this pattern to allow more people to reside there. Given that waterfront living has widely been celebrated as an enhanced standard of living, providing more affordable housing would allow more people to enjoy this quality. The residential development would support earlier recommendations of an extended CBD and innovative clusters to fulfil the aims of decentralization. This would help ease the pressures of the core business districts while allowing more people to reside in areas that are close to their workplace. Moreover, the provision of quality and attractive public spaces would be fundamental in supporting the waterfront residential. This would provide residents with areas to engage in leisure and recreational activities that supports general well-being and enhances the quality of life as well as mixed-use buildings and development that satisfies their needs and demands. Efforts to improve connectivity to and within the area would also support the ease of circulation in the area. Providing amenities and facilities within the neighbourhood would thus promote notions of self-sufficiency which could reduce people’s reliance on automobile.

This recommendation would be elaborated further under ‘Recommendation on the micro level (sub-area) in the next chapter.

117

Fig 04. The micro level liveable and inclusive neighbourhood zone

118

04.02 Recommendations on the micro level (sub-area) The recommendations for the micro level (sub-area) would be a detailed description of the macro level recommendation to build inclusive and liveable neighbourhoods. This would be focused on 4 detailed recommendations that reinforces the notions of inclusivity and liveability.

1. To build diverse housing typologies In addition to the existing diversity of HDB — old slab block with external corridor and new tower with a central core — and condominium, we recommend building more housing types to cater to diverse type of communities. Diverse variety of housing along the waterfront will provide access to waterfront living for a larger social class while offering wider options of living lifestyle. The diversity of housing typologies that we recommend here is beyond the physical form and design. Typology also relates to the mixed-use program that is integrated into residential building, which is not very common in Singapore, and not available within the GSW site at this moment. From the Amsterdam Eastern Dockland case study, there are various residential buildings which integrated commercial and offices spaces within the 119

ground and lower floors. This is of course also quite common in many residential developments in Singapore such as HDB block with retail spaces at the ground floor, or private apartment with commercial at the podium. However, at the Eastern Docklands, the type of economic activities is more various and diverse, which influences the type (spatial design and form) of the residential buildings. Eastern Docklands mixed-use residential accommodates about 62% small scale companies of more than eight type of industries, including craft, manufacturing, trade, finance and insurance. Furthermore, most the ground level of each residential (public and private) are open and accessible to the public. This condition is contrast to the existing condominium at the GSW site, which are gated and deter public access to the waterfront.

2. To build a connected community The aim to good quality housing that are affordable to a wider community should be supported by the enhancement of networks of connectivity and accessibility to allow for easy access to and seamless circulation within the area. In this regard, we propose the building of a continuous waterfront esplanade, the Southern Waterfront Esplanade, that connects the various parts of the GSW as well as to existing part connectors and nature areas. This would help to break the physical and natural barriers between the various parts of the GSW and allow greater access to the entire site. Connection with existing park connectors and green 120

spaces would also expand the ease of accessibility to other nature areas in further regions of Singapore as well. The esplanade would not only function as a source of connectivity but also as a place for leisure and recreational activities both for residents as well as visitors to the area. It would help to convey a sense of the return to nature and allow people to re-establish their relationship with natural landscapes. Being by the water, it also offers a certain microclimate that would allow people to cool off and get away from the humid and hustle and bustle of the city. This is mirrored after the Battery Park Esplanade as part of the Hudson River Greenway in Battery Park City, New York. It is a 1.2 mile-long continuous and multipurpose esplanade along the Hudson River, offering prime waterfront view of the Hudson River and New Jersey. It is part of the larger Manhattan Waterfront Greenway, a 32mile walking, jogging and cycling path around Manhattan that begins in Battery Park and ends at West Side in north Manhattan. The esplanade provides an ideal setting for leisure and recreational activities for residents and visitors to the area while connecting areas in Battery Park with other regions of Manhattan. A 2017/18 survey found that the esplanade was predominantly used by people with children, people with domesticated pets and cyclists.

Within which, non-resident visitors amount to 45% of visitors, with 6% using the esplanade to connect to other parts of Manhattan. This augments the esplanade as a facility that caters to a diverse demographic, attracting more than 500,000 visitors annually. The success of the Battery Park Esplanade in attracting a significant portion of non-residents could be translated to GSW as well. A well-established waterfront could potentially spin-off into a tourist attraction to support the tourism industry and enliven the place. This success was seen in Shipyard Park in Charlestown Navy Yard, Boston, where previous docking space was converted into a continuous waterfront walkway, with pedestrian bridges that help to link up the separate parts of the navy yard. The 1,300 feet walkway provides spaces for boating and other water activities while connecting to the 30,000 square feet Shipyard Park that offers open and green spaces for other recreational activities. The walkway allows people to get an uninterrupted view of the Boston waterfront which has fuelled the growth of tourists. The success of these two waterfront esplanades provides the impetus of a Southern Waterfront Esplanade in GSW that would fulfil the ability to cater to a diverse population and yet confer greater connectivity to previously separated parts. A successful esplanade could also be capitalized as a potential tourist attraction to further reinvigorate the place and attract ancillary services in the area which adds further to diversity.

121

With new developments introduced to the area, a foreseeable problem would be the increase in demand for traffic as we seek to decentralize jobs and bring work closer to where people are living. The need would therefore be an enhance in connectivity and mobility through an increase in transport infrastructure. The recent announcement to fully develop the Circle Line by “closing the circle”, so to speak, is an extension of 4 km between Marina Bay and Harbourfront stations by building 3 new stations — Keppel, Cantonment and Price Edward Road. We believe that this would help to alleviate some of the traffic demands by providing more alternatives into and out of the GSW, thereby encouraging the area to adopt a car-lite lifestyle. This additional transport nodes would also encourage businesses and people to move into the GSW. In the case of Kai Tak, the Civil Engineering and Development Department (CEDD) has planned for and are proposing the building of 2 new MTD stations — Kai Tai and Sung Wong Toi for the connectivity of the KTD to the rest Hong Kong via the Tuen Ma Line. It was estimated that these new stops would help to provide up to 15% of the increased travel demands as businesses and residents gradually move into KTD. Similar to the Hudson River Greenway is that Kai Tak GreenWay that is 13 km long the loops the perimeter of KTD. IT was hoped that the Kai Tak GreenWay would help to encourage an active lifestyle for the residents and people working in KTD. Ever since the first section of the GreenWay was opened back in September 2018, there has been and upwards of 100,000 people using the GreenWay till date. The GreenWay allows the residents and people working KTD to either cycle or walk and is a double-edged sword as it reduces the need for people to drive into KTD; as well as, to solve first and last mile issues for the people getting to major transport nodes. Another benefit of the GreenWay is that it encourages people to mingle, thereby promoting social integration in KTD.

122

3. To promote diverse public spaces Connectivity within the area can be further improved through the appropriate allocation of public spaces and nodes that would connect activities and people within the vicinity. Public spaces are crucial to create a social interaction, vibrancy and community engagement. Good public space will withdraw and disperse people through series of built path and road, such as park connector and promenade within surrounding GSW site. Diverse type of public spaces will also give more opportunity to different group of people of different demography and social economic condition.

Waterfront Plaza in Battery Park City, New York represent an example of a public space that caters to a range of users and functions. Located by the waterfront and next to Brookfield Place, the main commercial area, it portrays a seamless blend of form and function where the stone covered walkways extend into a large public plaza. Steps along the edges provide sculptural sitting areas for people to interact and mingle while the centre provides opportunities for performances and recreational activities that enliven the space. Concerts, food festivals and sporting events are common activities that have transformed the public as it can be easily be reconfigured for other purposes, permitting a myriad of activities all year round. The temporality of the public plaza adds diversity to the area as it can be easily be reconfigured for other purposes, permitting a myriad of activities all year round. Similar ideas 123

were conceived from Niewmarkt in Amsterdam which showcased the ability of public spaces to co-locate varying functions and uses throughout the day. In the day, it functions as a market place where local produce and goods are sold to housewives, the elderly and homemakers.

But when night falls, the place transforms into a lively food and beverage attraction, with bars and restaurants catering to a youthful population. This temporal co-location of uses for different demographics maximizes the use-value of the public space while ensuring that diverse needs are readily met. The ideal location of the market, within central Amsterdam meant that it also functions as a space where people can easily get to and provide a means through which social interactions can be encouraged.

4. To encourage new forms of mixed-use development Regarding creating a mixed-use development, lessons can be learned from Singapore’s own development of the Robertson Quay. Different from the neighbouring quays, namely Boat and Clarke Quay, Robertson Quay houses an array of different establishments, providing different businesses and services. The uses of space in Robertson Quay comprises of 17% commercial buildings, 37% residential area, 3% entertainment, 36% offices and 7% transportation and parking areas. The area can achieve this by implementing the following strategies: 124

•

Zoned into multiple uses o Residential, offices, commercial and entertainment

•

Involvement of multiple developers o 20 individual developers o All developers created different projects, with different scales and land sizes o All tenants managed by different owners of the properties

•

All developers still collaborated for one project — Singapore Repertory Theatre

As a result of the approach and strategy taken above, Robertson Quay offers different uses for different users, throughout different time of the day, creating a vibrant and active urban neighbourhood. At the same time, all the different owners still collaborate and cooperate, thus providing a well-managed and cohesive surrounding. Looking abroad, the Shanghai M50 Art District in the Suzhou Creek Development represents another form of mixed-use development that could be introduced within the GSW. Situated along the Huangpu River, the riverbanks of Suzhou Creek used to be lined with warehouses and shophouses, much akin to the 3 quays that we have referenced. The redevelopment of a portion of the Suzhou Creek, into the Shanghai M50 Art District has brought about rejuvenation and new life into the area.

Suzhou Creek used to be heavily polluted due to the wanton and undisturbed building of factories and squatter settlements to facilitate trade in the entrepot that Shanghai used to be. However, with the redevelopment, the abandoned showhouses and warehouses had been adaptively reused and turned into a modern and chic enclave for the budding creative industry. On top of that, there had been space for commercial entities such as restaurants, offices (for NGOs), and even several boutique hotels to add to the quaint yet eclectic charm of the place. Policies are also in place so that rent are controlled, and rental to the creative industry are always preferred to retain their presence in the M50 Art District. New forms of mixed-use development surrounding art, heritage and culture can thus be capitalized and recommended for the GSW. The previous use function of the GSW as a cornerstone in Singapore’s maritime and trade history meant that its heritage should be preserved despite these new developments. Old warehouses and buildings in the ports can thus be reused for other functions that seek to commemorate the history of the ports while promoting other forms of artistic and cultural interventions.

125

126

CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, this project has outlined the possibilities of using case studies as a research method, which permitted the exploration and understanding of waterfront developments around the world and its applicability in providing recommendation for the GSW. This is supported by the fact that urban governments are constantly in search for better ways to meet their individual preferences by looking at the experiences of others, where learning from successful and best practice model are a crucial channel in the urban planning industries (Rapoport, 2015). While recognizing that lesson drawings are enmeshed within a set of urban politics and placed-based characteristics, our recommendations therefore serve as nonprescriptive solutions to the redevelopment of the GSW. These strategies were informed through the identification of unrealized potential and the probable threats that could arise from new developments, while using the positive lessons from the case studies to extrapolate prospective success. It has provided broad level planning recommendations and strategies that would harness the use-value potential of the site while achieving the aims of inclusivity for a diverse community. Promoting a diverse community stem from more than just a mix of demographic but also the wide range of uses, functions and connectivity options available for the population. With an understanding that the GSW would only be ready for redevelopment after 2030, coupled with the dynamic nature of market forces and changing aspirations and demands of the population, these potential outcomes and success are highly speculative and not set in stone. Despite that, the non-prescriptive nature of solutions would pave the way for engineering developments that are stringent yet fluid and be adaptive to changes of the future.

127

References American Association of Port Authorities. 2016. “World Port Rankings 2016”. https://www.aapa-ports.org/unifying/content.aspx?ItemNumber=21048 Anderson, C. & Choo, I. 2015. DP Architects on Marina Bay, Evolution of A Civic Downtown.

New York; San Francisco: ORO Editions.

Auger, Timothy. 2016. A River Transformed, Singapore River and Marina Bay. Singapore: Editions Didier Millet.

Battery Park City Authority. 2019. “About — Who We Are”. https://bpca.ny.gov/about/whowe-are/ http://bpca.ny.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/1979-Master-Plan-2.pdf Battery Park City Authority. 1979. “Battery Park City Draft Summary Report And 1979 Master Plan”. http://bpca.ny.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/1979-Master-Plan2.pdf Boston Planning & Development Agency. 2017. “Boston in Context: Neighbourhoods”. http://www.bostonplans.org/getattachment/6f48c617-cf23-4c9f-b54b-35c8a954091c Calisti, S.P. 1992. “The Redevelopment of The Charlestown Navy Yard: A Model for The Military Base Closure Process”. University of Florida.

Cenicola, T. 2018. “Battery Park City: A Resort-Like Community Built on Landfill”. The New York Times, August 15. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/15/realestate/battery-parkcity-a-resort-like-community-built-on-landfill.html Chang, T.C. & Huang, S. 2011. “Reclaiming the City: Waterfront Development in Singapore”.

Urban Studies, Vol. 48, No. 10, pp. 2085–2100.

Chen Y. 2007. “Shanghai Pudong, Urban development in an era of global-local interaction” City of Amsterdam. 2017. “Land Use 2017”. https://maps.amsterdam.nl/grondgebruik/?LANG=en Evans, A.B. 1989. “Battery Park City: A Model for Financing Low-Income Housing?”. Yale Law & Policy Review, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 229-250.

128

Eveland, J. 2019. “Redesigning Cities for People”. Skyline 10, URA, 06-11.

Eveland, J. 2018. “Ageing and Social Capital”. Skyline 09, URA, 26-33.

Ewing, R., Greenwald, M., Zhang, M., Walters, J., Feldman, M., Cervero, R., Frank, L. & Thomas, J. 2011. “Traffic Generated by Mixed-Use Developments—Six-Region Study Using Consistent Built Environmental Measures”. Journal of Urban Planning and Development, September 2011, pp. 248-261.

Fainstein, S.S. 2010. The Just City. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press.

Fennel, L.A. 2015. “Co-location, Co-location, Co-location: Land use and Housing Priorities reimagined”. University of Chicago Law School, Chicago Unbound.

Gordon, D.L.A. 1996. ”Planning, Design and Managing Change in Urban Waterfront Redevelopment”. The Town Planning Review, Vol. 67, No. 3, pp. 261-290.

Heathcote, E. 2014. “Building a city for all ages”. Financial Times, September 29. https://www.ft.com/content/de165e78-3aa0-11e4-bd08-00144feabdc0 Hoppenbrouwer, E. & Louw, E. 2007. “Mixed-use development: Theory and practice in Amsterdam’s Eastern Docklands”. European Planning Studies, Vol. 13, No. 7, pp. 967983 JLL. 2014. ”Resurgence of mixed-use Developments in Singapore’s CBD”. http://www.ap.jll.com/asia-pacific/en-gb/Research/Resurgence-of-Mixed-UseDevelopments-in-Singapore-CBD.pdf Kai Tak Development. 2018a. Enhancing Accessibility of Hong Kong Children's Hospital. Kai Tak on the Move.

Kai Tak Development. 2018b. GREENWAY Let's Ride Let's Share Let's Enjoy. Kai Tak on the Move.

Kai Tak Development. 2019. Project and Progress. Retrieved from https://www.ktd.gov.hk/eng/programmeandprogress.html Karthik, K. 2018. “Is this how S’pore Greater Southern Waterfront will look like?” Today, December 14, 2018. https://www.todayonline.com/commentary/how-should-sporedesign-greater-southern-waterfront

129

Kong, H., Sui, D., Tong, X., & Wang, X. 2015. “Paths to mixed-use development: A case study of Southern Changping in Beijing, China”. Cities, Vol. 44, 2015, pp. 94-103.

L’Heureux, E.G. 2013. Singapore Metropolitan Region. Centre for Advanced Studies in Architecture. NUS. L’Heureux, E.G. 2010. Singapore Transcripts. Centre for Advanced Studies in Architecture.

NUS. Lam, K. 2019. “Sun Hung Tai pays US$1.43 billion for Kai Tak residential plot in subdued tender that underscores downbeat marker”. January 23. https://www.scmp.com/business/companies/article/2183355/sun-hung-kai-paysus143-billion-kai-tak-residential-plot-subdued Lau, Y., Tam, K., Ng, A.K.Y. & Pallis, A.A. 2014. “Cruise terminals site selection process: An institutional analysis of the Kai Tak Cruise Terminal in Hong Kong”. Research in Transportation Business & Management, Vol. 13, pp. 16-23.

Lindenthal, T., Eichholtz, P. & Geltner, D. 2017. “Land Assembly in Amsterdam, 1832-2015”.

Regional Science and Urban Economics Vol. 64, pp. 57-67.

Malone, P. 1997. City, Capital and Water. London; New York: Routledge.

Marshall, Richard. 2001. Waterfront in Post-Industrial Cities. London: Spon Press.

Oc, T. & Tiesdell, S. 1991. “The London Docklands Development Corporation (LDDC), 19811991: A Perspective on the Management of Urban Regeneration”. The Town Planning Review, Vol. 62, No. 3, pp. 311-330.

Partridge, D. 2015. “Making Cities — Examples of Urban Development in London”. CTBUH Research Paper. http://global.ctbuh.org/resources/papers/download/2451-makingcities-examples-of-urban-development-in-london.pdf Rapoport, E. 2015. Sustainable urbanism in the age of Photoshop: Images, experiences and the role of learning through inhabiting the international travels of a planning model.

Global Networks, Vol. 15, pp. 307-324.

Robertson, D.B. 1991. Political conflict and lesson-drawing. Journal of Public Policy, Vol. 11, No. 1, pp. 55–78.

130

Ronda, M. & Isserles, R. 2018. “Battery Park City Authority Parks User Count and Study 2017-2018”. https://bpca.ny.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/BPCA-Parks-UserStudy-Final-Report-10_3_18-FINAL.pdf Roux-Delagarde, A. nd. “Amsterdam Rowhouses - Eastern Docklands” http://dynamiccities.org/amsterdam-row-houses Ryan, Zoe. 2010. Building with Water: Concepts, Typology, Design. Basel: Birkhauser.

Sreedharan, S. 2013. “URA unveils concept for Greater Southern Waterfront”. Today, November 20. https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/ura-unveils-concept-greatersouthern-waterfront Tan, Y.Y.K. 2018. “Age-friendly Cities: lessons from Singapore, Seoul, and New Taipei City”.

Centre for Liveable Cities Singapore. https://www.clc.gov.sg/docs/defaultsource/lecture-reports/clc-lecture-report-age-friendly-cities Tang, A. 2018. “Demand grows for offices in Hong Kong’s ‘second CBD’: Kowloon East”. https://www.scmp.com/property/hong-kong-china/article/2150326/demand-growsoffices-hong-kongs-second-cbd-kowloon-east The New York Times. 1992. “Battery Park City adds to New York Economy”. March 28. https://www.nytimes.com/1992/03/28/opinion/l-battery-park-city-adds-to-new-yorkeconomy-083292.html?mtrref=www.google.com Timur, U.P. 2013. “Urban Waterfront Regenerations”. Advances in Landscape Architecture.

IntechOpen. Chapter 7.

URA. n.d. “Greater Southern Waterfront”. https://www.ura.gov.sg/Corporate/Planning/Master-Plan/Regional-Highlights/CentralArea Yin, R.K. (2014). Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.

Wang, J. 2010. “Urban Waterfront Development: Urban redevelopment and Urban Politics, a Comparison study of Singapore and Shanghai”. Department of Architecture, National University of Singapore.

WHO. 2007. “Global Age-friendly Cities: A Guide” World Health Organization. https://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2007/pr53/en/

131

Wong, K.M.S 2015. “Punggol Waterway: Waterfront Living, Liveability and Sense of Place in Public Housing�. Department of Geography, National University of Singapore.

132

Appendices Key indicators/ Parameters

Description

Decentralisation

● ●

Building for all ages

● ●

Going car-lite

● ● ●

Mixed-use and co-

●

location

● ●

Actors: o o o

Government Developers Stakeholders

Typologies o o

o

●

Revenue Rental value Development cost Job opportunities

What is development ● Why does the development give impact/relation to the CBD? such an impact (to What is the key (planning and or decentralisation)? policy) attribute that drive the decentralisation?

Who are the users? ● Why does it give such an impact What does it contribute to people? to people? ● How does it ensure accessibility for all?

What is the quality of the ● How does it contribute to public development site accessibility? accessibility?

What is the key indicator of public ● How does it promote car-lite? accessibility in this development?

What is the available public infrastructure in this development?

What are the development ● How does it promote better land programs (functions)? use and functions?

In what ways were the mixed-use ● Does it add vibrancy to the area? development carried out?

What types of complementary functions/services were located together/near each other?

Who are the actors and drivers? ● Why did they make such a What is the planning methodology developmental decision? / approaches? ● How to overcome those What are the challenges and challenges and obstacles? obstacles?

●

What is the function, planning parameters and land use?

●

Why was the development built on this typology?

●

What type of businesses does it attract?

How many new job opportunities have been created?

What is the developmental cost, revenue, and the average rental cost?

What are the push factors for the attraction of new businesses and job opportunities?

●

How does this development achieve its economic growth?

Function (programs) Planning Parameters (Density, plot ratio, etc) Land Use

Economic o o o o

● ●

Explanation

● ●

●

133

Social

●

o

●

o

Racial/Social class mix Safety / Security

People

● ● ● ●

What is the social impact of the development What is the level of inclusiveness?

What are the key attributes?

What is the level of safety/security of the place?

Who does it attract?

Who are the users, visitors, and residents of this development?

What is the type of community it serves?

●

How does this development achieve its social inclusiveness?

●

Why does it attract that segment of users?

KEY DATA

REMARKS

1.

SITE MAP

Google map with site boundary of the development

2.

SITE AREA

Development total site area (ha/sqm)

3. LAND USE

Type and proportion of land use (i.e. commercial, residential, industrial, office, etc)

4. PLOT RATIO

Development overall plot ratio

5. SITE COVERAGE

Development overall site coverage

6. TOTAL GFA

Development overall GFA (Gross Floor Area) and its distribution (i.e. percentage of commercial, residential, office, etc)

7. DEVELOPMENT CONSTRUCTION COST

Overall cost spent on the development (or total investment spent)

8. DEVELOPMENT REVENUE

Overall revenue within certain timeframe (milestone)

9. POPULATION

Overall number of population (e.g., residential, workers, tourist/visitors, etc)

10. DEVELOPMENT TIMELINE

Overall time spent from conceptualisation to completion and operation (including phasing strategy)

134

135

136