AC5007 - Batch 8 - KAI KAOCHEN

Built Cultural Heritage and Sustainable Urban Development Goals: Insights into Sustainable Community

AC5007 Dissertation KAI Kaochen A0298879R

Dissertation submitted to Department of Architecture in Partial fulfilment of the requirement for the Degree of MASTER OF ARTS IN ARCHITECTURAL CONSERVATION at the DEPARTMENT OF ARCHITECTURE NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF SINGAPORE Supervisor: Dr. Ho Puay-peng April 2025

Table of Contents （9834 Words in total）

Acknowledgment ................................................................................ 2 Abstract ....................................................................................................................... 3 List of Pictures and Tables ................................................................................. 4 1. Introduction ......................................................................................................... 6 1.1 Background ......................................................................................... 6 1.2 Literature Review ............................................................................. 10

2. Methodology .......................................................................................................17 2.1 Research Objective ........................................................................... 17 2.2 Research Scope ................................................................................. 19 2.3 Research Method .............................................................................. 21 2.4 Limitation ......................................................................................... 23

3. Analysis of Queensway Shopping Centre .............................................23 3.1 Context and History .......................................................................... 23 3.2 Shopping Centres in National Narrative ........................................... 26 3.3 Comparison ....................................................................................... 31 3.4 Challenge .......................................................................................... 37

4. Community in a Broader Sense .................................................................38 5. Community Sustainability-Heritage Frame ........................................47 5.1 SHIFT-Sustainable Heritage Impact Factor Theory .......................... 47 5.2 Criteria for Community Sustainability – Heritage Frame ................. 51

6. Conclusion ...........................................................................................................54 7. Bibliography .......................................................................................................56 8. Appendix ..............................................................................................................66

1

Acknowledgements I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my supervisor, Professor Ho Puay-peng, for his invaluable guidance and encouragement throughout the process of writing this dissertation. Professor Ho played a crucial role in both the initial stage of topic selection and in later phases of the research, providing important corrections to the research direction and suggesting supplementary research approaches.

I am also grateful to our teaching assistant, Cassandra, for her patience and support.

I deeply appreciate her constructive feedback and the additional reference materials she kindly provided.

This dissertation draws on a wide range of literature and reference materials, including historical documents, maps, academic papers, and more. I would like to thank NUS, the National Library Board (NLB), and the National Heritage Board (NHB) for providing access to online electronic resources. Special thanks are due to all those who participated in the fieldwork at Queensway Shopping Centre, including shop owners, staff, and customers, whose willingness to be interviewed contributed significantly to the community-based perspective of this study. Finally, I wish to thank my family and friends for their immense emotional support, which helped me complete this dissertation smoothly.

2

Abstract The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) have proposed expectations for the heritage field, increasing focus on sustainability. Goal 11, “Sustainable Cities and Communities,” emphasizes community involvement. In Singapore, heritage conservation projects largely follow a top-down approach with limited community participation. A key question is how to strengthen the bonds between heritage and community. This study aims to focus on the community as a central point of analysis, through a community-oriented lens, and seeks to contribute to deeper engagement within this field. Using Queensway Shopping Centre (QSC) as a case study, this study examines how shifts in consumer culture and the concept of community have impacted traditional patterns by comparing QSC with other shopping centers from the same era, highlighting its uniqueness.

Based on fieldwork and interviews at QSC, this essay examines current forms of community connection and explores how culture can act as a bridge to merge heritage conservation with community sustainability moving forward. Through qualitative analysis, to identify and extract key factors for evaluating the sustainability of heritage conservation，and attempts to propose a quantitative framework applicable for assessing community sustainability within this context. Moreover, the interview-based methodology may lead to some subjective interpretations, potentially impacting the objectivity of certain findings. However, the community-centered approach provides a valuable reference for promoting sustainable practices in heritage conservation.

3

List of Pictures: 1. Golden Mile Complex and its context 2. Statue of Phra Phrom, or four-faced Brahma, outside Golden Mile Complex, 2023.

3. 17 Sustainable Development Goals 4. Paradigm shift of Authenticity 5. Paradigm shift of intangible cultural heritage 6. My Queenstown heritage trail 7. Flow Chart 8. Old picture of Queensway shopping center 9. ROH Plan 10. QSC today 11. Expectation of QSC 12. Katong shopping center (view from other side of Mountbatten Road) 13. People waiting for coaches 14. Community continuity 15. Posters of vintage shops 16. Laksa in QSC 17. Tailor shop in QSC

List of Table: 1. Main representative streams in Singapore’s conservation (Page 12) 2. Different phases of shopping centers 4

3. Comparison between Phase 2 and 3 (From the perspective of globalization) 4. Comparison between official narrative and official narrative 5. Formation of identity 6. Conclusion 7. Evolution of the concept of community 8. SHIFT Framework 9. Framework for Assessment

5

1. Introduction 1.1 Background In urban development, historical layers coexist but are often erased or altered. The city itself is a continually rewritten, overlaid, and reinterpreted text— what André Corboz referred to as “un palimpseste artificiel.” 1 Heritage conservation is about preserving the multiple layers of a city, ensuring continuity and integrity in urban development, and considering the city as a collection of various historical periods. However, an inherent conflict exists between modernization and heritage conservation,

the processes of urban renewal often disrupt historical narra-

tives and diminish cultural distinctiveness. In the commercialization of heritage, authentic historical layers are reconfigured, pseudo-memories emerge, and the urban historical narrative becomes fragmented. 2

Urban built heritage serves as both a

vessel for history and art and a key component of social well-being, cultural identity, and sustainable development. Architectural heritage should extend beyond traditional definitions to include ‘non-visible heritage,’ such as street patterns and community activities, which reflect the city’s uniqueness and collective memory.3 In 2018, the Golden Mile Complex (GMC) was sold en bloc, sparking widespread public debate at the time. Following significant efforts from various stakeholders, it was awarded conservation status in 2021. However, it is truly regrettable

1 2

Corboz, André (1983). The Land as Palimpsest. Diogenes 31 (121):12-34.

Wang, Kaixuan, and Kalliopi Fouseki. 2025. "Sustaining the Fabric of Time: Urban Heritage, Time Rupture, and

Sustainable Development" Land 14, no. 1: 193. https://doi.org/10.3390/land14010193 Tweed, Christopher, Margaret Sutherland. 2007.Built Cultural Heritage and Sustainable Urban Development.

Landscape and Urban Planning 83 (1): 62–69.

6

3

that the once-vibrant Thai community has vanished entirely. GMC has now become a hollow shell—a landmark preserved, but a Thai community gone. Although new communities may eventually form, the reconstruction of the urban cultural landscape often risks diluting cultural diversity. In such cases, homogenized modern communities represent a triumph of form rather than a continuation of cultural substance. This represents not only the decline of cultural diversity in society but also the loss of local character and identity. As noted, “Place identity is introduced with scope to brand Singapore as a distinctive city.” 4 Such conservation efforts clearly contradict their original intent. What they reveal is a critical issue in the conservation process of Golden Mile Complex (GMC): the failure to properly recognize and integrate the voices of the community. Although the significance of the community was repeatedly emphasized during the campaign to save the building, the final

Fig 1: Golden Mile Complex and its context Source: Author

4

Yuen, B. (2006). Reclaiming Cultural Heritage in Singapore. Urban Affairs Review, 41(6), 830-854.

7

decision-making process marginalized the community and excluded it from the scope of conservation. This suggests that while public input may be acknowledged to some extent, it remains secondary and lacks real influence over the outcome.

Fig 2: Statue of Phra Phrom, or four-faced Brahma, outside Golden Mile Complex, 2023.

Source: Jimmy Yap 8

Fig 3: 17 Sustainable Development Goals Source: UNESCO

The case of GMC highlights how heritage conservation in Singapore continues to operate under a predominantly state-led, top-down model. As noted, “From the state’s perspective… the state remains the final arbiter of whether changes are considered desirable or deplorable. In the opinion of Liu Thai Ker… the ‘power to shape the city’ should be vested in the hands of the government.” 5 Following the introduction of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) in 2000, the United Nations expanded its agenda in 2015 with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), broadening the original eight goals to a more detailed and inclusive set of 17 objectives. Among these, Goal 11: “Sustainable Cities and Communities” (UN, 2015) is particularly relevant to urban development and architectural heritage. From both the perspective of urban growth and community vitality, the current “black-box-like”

Kong, L., & Yeoh, B. S. A. (1994). Urban Conservation in Singapore: A Survey of State Policies and Popular Attitudes. Urban Studies, 31(2), 247-265.

9 5

conservation model in Singapore is clearly misaligned with the framework of sustainable development. Therefore, a new, community-centered approach in heritage conservation is urgently needed. Within the broader vision of the SDGs, identifying and strengthening the link between heritage and community, and achieving their cosustainable development, remains an underexplored area. This study aims to address this research gap by proposing a framework or model for evaluating community sustainability in the context of heritage conservation.

1.2 Literature review

Fig 4: Paradigm shift of Authenticity Source: Author

From the Venice Charter, which emphasized the preservation of monuments, to the Nara Document on Authenticity, which acknowledged cultural diversity and incorporated community perspectives, and subsequently to the Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention (2005), which 10

formally integrated Intangible Cultural Heritage into the heritage framework, the global discourse on heritage conservation has undergone several paradigm shifts.

Singapore’s heritage conservation has largely followed this trajectory. Heritage protection in Singapore can be traced back to 1937, when the Friends of Singapore proposed the inclusion of a heritage inventory in the 1958 Master Plan. However, this early phase remained heavily influenced by Western-centric notions, with an emphasis on material authenticity and integrity. In the early years following independence, heritage conservation was often regarded as a luxury that a developing nation could not afford. The government prioritized urban redevelopment to address pressing housing needs. In 1970, Barker introduced a bill in Parliament to establish a governmental body—the Preservation of Monuments Board (PMB)—which was officially founded in 1971. However, the PMB lacked the capacity to undertake largescale conservation projects; even the preservation of individual buildings proved challenging, let alone that of entire streets or districts. During the 1980s, the introduction of the Conservation Master Plan by the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) marked a more proactive shift in policy. A more pragmatic approach to conservation was adopted, allowing historic buildings to be adaptively reused or altered to meet contemporary functional needs. This period saw the designation of core heritage areas such as Chinatown, Little India, and Kampong Glam as Conservation Areas. However, the URA’s conservation efforts were not purely heritage driven. Heritage was seen as economically valuable, capable of enhancing property values. Government involvement, investment returns, and geographic location were all 11

carefully considered in conservation decisions. Although policies encouraged the preservation of traditional trades and lifestyles within these core areas, economic pressures led to the displacement of original communities. As a result, the intrinsic relationship between heritage and community was gradually severed.

Table 1: Main representative streams in Singapore’s conservation

S/N

Scholar

Core Idea

1

Dr. Yeo Kang Shua

Restoration and authenticity

2

Professor Johannes Widodo

Inclusive approach & community participation

3

URA

Practice-oriented,

balance

develop-

ment and conservation.

Current research on heritage conservation in Singapore can generally be categorized into three main streams. The first focuses on material authenticity, emphasizing the use of local materials and traditional craftsmanship. This strand, represented by scholars such as Dr. Yeo Kang Shua, concentrates primarily on the tangible dimensions of heritage preservation. The second approach advocates for an inclusive perspective grounded in multiculturalism, arguing that heritage should extend beyond the physical forms to include community participation; Professor Johannes Widodo is a leading scholar in this field. The third category is characterized by practice-oriented perspectives aligned with official institutions such as the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA), which emphasize the balance between development and conservation. Among these dominant approaches, the theme of community participation has received growing attention in recent years, particularly through

12

critically engaged, reality-based studies. Scholars such as Dr. T.C. Chang, Dr. Lily Kong, and Dr. Chua Beng Huat have offered critical analyses of heritage spaces like

Fig 5: Paradigm shift of intangible cultural heritage Source: Author

Chinatown, which are framed within the national narrative. Their work reveals how community intangible cultural heritage has been stripped of its original social functions and reduced to cultural symbols under such strategies. At the same time, there have been increasing calls for empowering communities to participate in heritage discourse. Everyday lived spaces and practices should be acknowledged, and the focus of conservation should not be limited to designated conservation areas. As David Lowenthal argued, “Things worth saving need not necessarily be beautiful or historic as long as they are familiar or well loved.” 6

6

Lowenthal, David (1985). The past is a foreign country. New York: Cambridge University Press.

13

Much of the current scholarship continues to emphasize the role of collective memory and identity formation in heritage discourse, with communities still largely understood in traditional terms. Yet in contemporary society, the function of collective memory is gradually weakening, raising new questions about how community heritage should be understood and preserved. Due to urbanization, rising individualism, and shifting modes of social interaction, traditional strong ties are gradually being replaced by weak ties.7 This transformation reflects a broader decline in social capital.8 In contemporary society, risk has become the new norm, leading individuals to move away from standardized, collective lifestyles toward personalized, individualized living. 9 With increasing social mobility, human relationships have become more fluid, transient, and loosely connected. 10 In the field of heritage conservation, the role and relevance of communities also warrant reconsideration: within this evolving socio-cultural landscape, heritage conservation faces new challenges，against such a social backdrop, it is crucial to reconsider how communities can continue to play an active and meaningful role in the sustainable development of heritage. The term “community” is now widely used across various domains, to the extent that it has become overused and, at times, misinterpreted. However, despite its frequent invocation, communities are often not genuinely recognized or equitably included in decision-making processes. In Nancy Fraser’s theory of social justice, justice is realized through three dimensions:

7 Granovetter, M. (1973) The Strength of Weak Ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78, 1360-1380.

8 Hä uberer, Julia. (2011). Introducing the Civic Perspective on Social Capital – Robert D. Putnam’s Concept of Social Capital.

9 Ulrich Beck, Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity (London and New York, Sage, 1992).

10 Zygmunt Bauman, Modernity and Ambivalence (Cambridge, Polity Press, 1991).

14

economic, cultural, and political. Yet, in the context of heritage conservation, there remains a lack of parity of participation. As Waterton and Smith observe: “As it stands, the heritage sector is dominated by a particular notion of community, one that overlooks the fact that representations of reality can have powerful effects on any group under construction.”11 In the early years of Singapore’s independence, the government suppressed collective actions and protests organized by non-governmental organizations. This limited foundation of democratic political participation has, in turn, constrained the level of public engagement in the field of heritage conservation. The Faro Convention (2005) introduced the concept of heritage rights and actively encouraged public and community participation in heritage processes. In the 21st century, although civil society groups such as My Community have taken the initiative to engage in cultural heritage preservation, their efforts remain constrained within institutional frameworks—dancing in shackles, so to speak—seeking forms of “acceptable collaboration” that align with state-defined boundaries: “Rather than being regarded as co-option by the state, these increased interactions are believed to allow the group to understand the policymakers’ concerns and constraints in order to ‘find the best way forward’…”.12 The importance of communities in heritage conservation has been increasingly recognized—evolving from being seen merely as a backdrop for cultural diversity, to being acknowledged as a key stakeholder in heritage

11 Emma Waterton and Laurajane Smith, The Recognition and Misrecognition of Community Heritage, International Journal of Heritage Studies 16, no. 1–2 (January 2010): 4–15.

12 Wong, Shiau Ching. “Walking Tours and Community Heritage in Singapore: Civic Activism in the Making in Queenstown and Geylang.” In Emerging Civic Urbanisms in Asia: Hong Kong, Seoul, Singapore, and Taipei beyond Developmental Urbanization, edited by Im Sik Cho, Blaž Križ nik, and Jeffrey Hou, 41–70. Amsterdam University Press, 2022.

15

processes, and now regarded as a sine qua non within the heritage discourse. At the community level, sustainability resonates with individual aspirations for a better quality of life, encapsulated in the phrase: “Love where you live.”

Fig 6: My Queenstown heritage trail Source: My Community

However, at the current stage of research and practice, sustainable heritage efforts in Singapore largely remain focused on the adaptive reuse of buildings. Beyond the initiatives of organizations like My Community and The Local People, whose work includes walking tours and community engagement, broader community participation in heritage conservation remains limited. Moreover, there is a notable gap in integrating heritage preservation and sustainable community development within a unified framework. Without considering heritage conservation 16

through the lens of sustainable communities, heritage spaces risk becoming curated, performative environments—detached from the lived realities of the people they are meant to represent. At the same time, community heritage requires appropriate evaluation criteria—ones that reflect the needs and aspirations of local resource users while ensuring long-term sustainability. The transformation of social relationships also calls for a more expansive and inclusive understanding of community support—moving beyond fixed geographic boundaries to embrace more flexible and adaptive forms of collective identity.

2. Methodology

Fig 7: Flow Chart Source: Author

2.1 Research objective

17

Fig 8: Old picture of Queensway shopping center Source: National Archives of Singapore

This study selects Queensway Shopping Centre as the research object, situated in Queenstown, which is Singapore’s first satellite town and remains a mature residential area with a strong community foundation. This essay tries to achieve these objectives below: • The relationship between architecture and community in the development of QSC • Reflect on how bottom-up narratives can complement or challenge topdown urban heritage policies. In response to urban development and the evolving needs of residents, • Identify key factors influencing community sustainability in the context of modern heritage.

18

• Develop a framework for assessing community-based sustainability within heritage sites.

2.2 Research scope Scope of Study: • QSC and related communities.

• History: From QSC’s construction in the 1970s to the present.

• Thematic: Cultural memory, community identity, commercial transformation, urban policy impact

Fig 9: ROH Plan Source: JIMMY-SUM

Queenstown launched the “Remaking Our Heartland (ROH) Program”, 13 which aims to enhance its livability, sustainability, and overall appeal. Among its four key initiatives, one is directly linked to heritage conservation: the revitalization

13 https://jimmy-sum.com/blog/queenstowns-redevelopment-a-new-chapter-for-singapores-hirst-satellite-town/

19

of community spaces. This initiative seeks to reactivate existing communal areas, repurpose the area’s rich cultural heritage, and introduce new amenities to meet the changing needs of the community. By explicitly recognizing the role of heritage in sustainable urban development, this strategy highlights the importance of both tangible and intangible cultural assets—placing community engagement at the core of the urban transformation process.

Queensway Shopping Centre (QSC) is an excellent representation of the second-generation shopping mall in Singapore, throughout its long development history, it has consistently maintained its identity as the nation’s destination for sports retail, forming a deep sense of collective memory among Singaporeans. As one of the few remaining old shopping centres that have retained their functional continuity, QSC holds significant value in understanding how such spaces can preserve their identity and pursue sustainable development during ongoing urban transformation.

Given QSC’s unique position in Singapore’s social memory, it is also essential to examine the relationship between heritage conservation and community from a community-based perspective.

In conclusion, the reasons for selection are below: • Built during the satellite town era, QSC is one of Singapore’s earliest multifunctional shopping centres.

• It played a significant role as a commercial and social hub (“Orchard Road at your doorstep”) for Queenstown’s early residents.

20

• QSC continues to maintain a strong connection to the community and is known for its sports retail identity.

• As part of the Remaking Our Heartland (ROH) initiative, Queenstown now places heritage at the core of urban revitalization, offering a timely context to examine heritage in sustainable urban development.

2.3 Research method This study focuses on Queensway Shopping Centre (QSC), examining its evolution from its establishment to the present day. By situating QSC within the broader official narrative of shopping mall development in Singapore during the 1970s, the research seeks to understand its significance, uniqueness, and value in relation to the nation’s urban and commercial history. Through an in-depth investigation of QSC, the study aims to identify the connection between community and heritage conservation, thereby promoting a community-based approach to sustainable development. In this process, the tension between individual memory and collective memory inevitably arises. While individual memory is undoubtedly valuable, it should not serve as the primary criterion for assessing heritage significance. If everything is deemed to hold heritage value, the concept of heritage conservation risks becoming a meaningless proposition. ‘If all values are equal, then there’s no real value anymore.’14 Therefore, the notion of “community” in this study refers to a broad and critically considered group—one that extends beyond narrow definitions

14 Jukka Jokilehto (2010) “Heritage, values and valuation”, In: M. Quagliuolo (ed.), Measuring the value of material cultural heritage. “Quality in cultural heritage management - Results of the HERITY international conferences - Dossier number 2 (2008), DRI-Fondazione Enotria ONLUS, Rome.

21

and is recognized for its relevance and value within the context of heritage conservation.

By analyzing the historical context and surrounding physical environment, the research aims to clarify the development of its cultural diversity and its evolving relationship with the community. Urban conservation involves preventing the decay of heritage through dynamic management, ensuring the transmission of cultural and natural heritage values to future generations. For long-term sustainability, “Engaging with communities and stakeholders ranks among the best practices for heritage management and conservation, shifting from a top-down… to bottom-up, proactive, and participatory approaches.”15 Research methods adopted are below: • Archival research: Historic maps, policies, media materials, etc. (Sources are from NUS Central Library, NAS, NLB, URA, and NHB).

• Field observation: Observation of QSC’s layout, usage, and community interactions, guided by Lefebvre’s “production of space” theory.

• Cultural mapping: Identifying community-specific practices, spatial memory, and symbolic value.

• Semi-structured interviews: Conducted with long-term shop owners and regular visitors to understand lived experiences, sense of identity, and perceptions of heritage value

15 Cunha Ferreira, Teresa, Pedro Murilo Freitas, Constanza Frigolett, Hugo Mendonça, and Ana Tarrafa Silva. "The Contribution of Stakeholder Engagement to Cultural Signihicance Assessment: The Case of Values-Based Conservation Management Planning for the Ocean Swimming Pool, Portugal." Built Heritage 8, no. 1 (12, 2024): 26.

22

• Comparative analysis: Cross-examination with other shopping centres of the same era in Singapore.

2.4 Limitations This research also acknowledges certain limitations: • Restricted access to historical documents may affect the depth of the historical analysis.

• Interview responses may be influenced by subjective biases, potentially affecting the objectivity of the findings.

• Due to limited access to relevant channels, this round of interviews was unable to include policy-related stakeholders—such as officers from the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA)—as well as architects or scholars in urban planning.

• The proposed framework does not include quantitative analysis of specific indicators, as a result, the framework has certain challenges in terms of practical implementation.

Despite these challenges, the study aims to contribute to a deeper understanding of QSC’s heritage significance and its role in balancing conservation and urban development, particularly with regard to the exploration and assessment of sustainability from a community-oriented perspective.

3. Analyse of Queensway Shopping Center 3.1 Context and History

23

Located Queensway

at

and

the

junction

Alexandra

of

Road,

Queensway Shopping Centre (QSC) was completed in 1976 to serve the Queenstown community. Developed alongside Queensway Tower (QT), QSC is a mixeduse complex featuring four floors of commercial space and residential apartments above the fourth floor, comprising Fig 10: QSC Today Source: Author

a total of 241 commercial units and 78

residential apartments. In 2019, QSC was proposed for en-bloc sale, sparking divided opinions within the community. Some residents supported redevelopment, stating: “The building is really not doing very well, so if they can tear it down, it might be good.” Others, however, opposed the idea, emphasizing QSC’s unique cultural significance: “If this place is demolished, there won’t be a second Queensway.” 16A third group remained neutral, choosing to observe the situation. Ultimately, the enbloc sale proposal failed as it did not reach the required 80% approval threshold.

As one of Singapore’s earliest mixed-use developments, QSC became a landmark of Queenstown. Notably, during the 1970s, Singapore’s film and retail industries flourished, and many prominent shopping centers shared common features

16 https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/queensway-shopping-centre-en-bloc-sale-falls-through-after-lukewarm-response?utm_source=chatgpt.com

24

such as luxury retail chains, cinemas, and large supermarkets 17 . However, QSC differentiated itself by eschewing such trends. Instead, it thrived with a specialized retail focus, sustaining itself through a niche market in sportswear and simple Fig 11: Expectation of QSC

commercial activities—a characteristic

Source: NLB/Straits Time

that continues to define its identity today.

In its early years (1970s–1990s), QSC primarily focused on sportswear retail, selling products from major international brands such as Adidas and Nike, making it a key shopping destination beyond the Queenstown community and widely popular across Singapore. Alongside sports retail, QSC also offered additional services such as tailoring and printing to cater to local needs. During its transitional phase (2000s–2020s), QSC retained and expanded its original business model, incorporating more service-oriented businesses such as printing and tailoring, while also introducing new dining options to enhance visitor experience. Popular food establishments such as Katong Laksa, cafés, and fast-food outlets were added, encouraging longer customer visits. Today, a search for QSC on social media reveals a new cultural identity—it has become a hub for second-hand fashion, attracting a younger demographic and further enhancing its cultural appeal. This evolution underscores

17

https://mothership.sg/2019/05/queensway-shopping-centre/

25

QSC’s continued relevance and ability to adapt to changing consumer trends, reinforcing its significance as a heritage site within Singapore’s urban landscape.

3.2 Shopping Centres in National Narrative The 1970s marked a period of rapid urban transformation in post-independence Singapore. The national economy shifted toward an export-oriented model, accelerating industrialization. Simultaneously, to address the housing shortage that had persisted since the 1960s, the Housing & Development Board (HDB) continued its large-scale public housing construction, improving living conditions and leading to the rise of new towns.

As one of Singapore’s earliest satellite towns, Queenstown was initially developed in the 1950s–1960s by the Singapore Improvement Trust (SIT), which laid down its basic infrastructure. By the 1970s, Queenstown had entered a mature phase of urban development, with the introduction of HDB flats prompting a major population shift into public housing. The widespread adoption of public housing led to the gradual disappearance of traditional kampongs, transforming Singapore’s social structure toward an urbanized model. The steady population growth and government-led nation-building efforts fostered a stable community in Queenstown. Its successful development served as a model for other emerging new towns such as Ang Mo Kio and Toa Payoh, making Queenstown a symbol of Singapore’s post-independence urbanization and modernization, particularly in public housing policy and development，at this stage, shopping centres also play a significant role.

26

Table 2: Different phases of shopping centers

Phase Time

Characteristics

Colonial-era 1

Depart- Single-owner, upmarket department stores cen-

ment Stores (1840s- tered along High Street; symbols of colonial 1960s)

2

mercantile modernity.

Planned

Strata-titled

Shopping

Centres

(1960s -1990s)

REIT-managed 2

grated residential, commercial, and transport facilities; suburbanized expansion; functional, everyday spaces.

Cu-

rated Malls (2000spresent)

Multi-owner (strata-title) complexes; inte-

Single-owner

REIT

management;

themed,

standardized mall environments; focus on luxury brands and international chains; visual and functional homogeneity.

In the 1960s, “planned shopping centres” emerged as part of Singapore’s post-independence New Town development strategy, aligning with the nation’s broader modernization agenda. Unlike the pre-colonial era’s high-end department stores—typically owned and operated by a single proprietor—these new centres adopted a strata-title ownership system. Designed as mixed-use complexes combining residential, commercial, and retail functions, they played a vital role within the HDB communities of satellite towns. These centres contributed significantly to the suburbanization of Singapore’s urban landscape, marking a shift in the city’s spatial structure. In the 21st century, Singapore’s shopping centres began to evolve into curated and thematized retail environments, exemplified by developments such as VivoCity, managed under Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs). This marked the end of the multi-owner, strata-title planned shopping center era. Despite being state27

planned and embedded with identity features aligned with national narratives, these second-generation shopping centres—because of their strata-title structure— allowed for the emergence of alternative, non-official narratives. These narratives sometimes challenged dominant urban discourses and, in turn, fostered grassroots community activities: “…enabled and encouraged what might be termed a ‘bottomup’ evolution… according to the eclectic interests of individual shop-owners, local customers and other mall participants.”18 The third phase of shopping centre development in Singapore is driven by globalization, aiming to create the image of a modern, advanced nation in the new millennium.

Shopping malls from both the second and third phases of development in Singapore have been influenced by globalization, though their objectives are not entirely the same. Globalization is a long and continuous process, and closely linked to changes in Singapore’s political and cultural context. In the 1970s, during the early post-independence period, the introduction of global brands aimed to improve the quality of life and foster national confidence and identity. In contrast, the third phase seeks to project Singapore onto the global stage and shape a new international image. Malls such as Marina Bay Sands, ION Orchard, and Jewel Changi exemplify this 21st-century shift. These spaces are not merely retail environments—they also serve as symbols of Singapore’s national identity. Their architectural design, brand selection, and consumer culture clearly distinguish them from second-phase malls.

Within this context, the non-branded, family-run stores inside Queensway Shopping 18 The Singapore Mall Generation: History, Imagination, Community, edited by Liew Kai Khiun. Singapore: Marshall Cavendish, 2022, 304pp. ISBN: 978-981-5009-392

28

Centre (QSC) have become increasingly difficult to replicate. This shift illustrates how third-phase globalization has not only transformed the commercial logic of shopping malls but also reshaped urban space and consumer culture. Today’s consumers are more drawn to experiences that reflect Singapore’s transition toward a globalized, experience-oriented city.

Table 3: Comparison between Phase 2 and 3 (From the perspective of globalization)

Dimension

Phase 2

Phase 3

Ownership

Strata-title, multiple indi- Single owner via REITs or vidual owners

Spatial Character

GLCs

Functional, eclectic, or- Standardized, ganically evolved

themed,

globally recognizable layouts

Globalization Manifesta- Strongly localized, rooted Highly internationalized, tion

in

domestic

entrepre- dominated by global re-

neurship Consumer Culture

tail brands

Daily necessities, afforda- Experiential ble consumption

consump-

tion, brand premiumization

Cultural Identity

Local cultural memory Global city branding and and community attach- cosmopolitan ment

Global Capital Influence

lifestyle

promotion

Minimal global capital in- High capital intervention, fluence

profit maximization

However, this model has often come at the cost of community creativity and vitality, leading to cultural homogenization and the erosion of social cohesion. In an 29

era where standardized, corporatized mall typologies have become the norm, public nostalgia and renewed interest in earlier generations of shopping centres reflect not only a sense of loss but also a critique of the limited space for community participation within the dominant national narrative. These sentiments reveal deeper reflections on the current state of heritage and community engagement in Singapore’s urban development.

Table 4: Comparison between official narrative and official narrative

Dimension

Official Narrative

Community Narrative (from “Life is

(from “Arcade in the Air”)

Not Complete Without Shopping”)

Governance

Planned shopping centre un- Grassroots, strata-titled owner-

Model

der state-led urban renewal ship allowing organic growth of and suburbanization strate- diverse shops. gies.

Air-conditioned,

elevator- Messy, eclectic, and community-

Spatial Char- connected, multi-use modern centered; shaped by local needs acter

complex promoting efficiency and interests. and order.

Cultural Role Part of building a modern, A site of everyday life, emotional globally competitive “First attachment, and functional conWorld” Singapore.

sumption for ordinary people.

Identity Pro- Projecting national progress, Sustaining localized identities, duction

modern lifestyle, and urban subcultures (e.g., sports culture, sophistication.

printing services), and informal economies.

Economic

Enhancing economic produc- Serving practical, affordable, and

Logic

tivity and spatial optimization customized goods and services for through state planning.

diverse social groups.

30

Heritage

Seen as outdated or transi- Remembered nostalgically as a

Value

tional in the face of REIT- place of authentic community exdriven, standardized malls.

perience and grassroots entrepreneurship.

3.3 Comparison When compared with other shopping centres from the same period—the second phase of development—it becomes clear that Queensway Shopping Centre (QSC) has retained its vitality for several reasons. Although QSC has undergone certain changes over time, it has managed to preserve a degree of continuity that distinguishes it from its contemporaries. In terms of commercial typology, QSC has maintained a strong focus on sports retail, supported by a complementary range of services that together form a self-sustaining ecosystem. While other centers, such as Katong Shopping Centre, also maintain small retail units, the nature of their businesses has shifted significantly. Katong, for instance, has transitioned from a community-based social space with diverse functions to one increasingly dominated by maid agencies and other unrelated services, leading to a rupture in its original social memory and identity. The Katong area, where Katong Shopping Centre (KSC) is located, was historically a gathering place for the Peranakan community. As such, it has also been referred to as the “Chinatown of the East.”19 However, with the advancement of urban planning, the eastern coastal area was developed through land reclamation, which significantly altered the character of the surrounding

19 https://www.99.co/singapore/insider/katong-shopping-centre-potential-gold-mine/

31

communities. Residential developments gradually became more upscale, and as the area evolved, the original communities were displaced. The traditional commercial activities could no longer meet the needs of the new demographic. In this context, maid services began to take up a larger share of the commercial landscape. These changes led to a disruption in social memory and a fragmentation of the area’s original identity. In examining the impact of top-down planning on communities, Golden Mile Complex (GMC) offers a more nuanced perspective. The formation of the Thai community within GMC was largely facilitated by the establishment of the Singapore–Thailand long-distance bus stop, which—although not originally intended for this purpose—provided a convenient foundation for community gathering and cohesion. However, this community has now been completely erased due to recent redevelopment plans. This example illustrates that top-down planning can, under certain circumstances, have positive effects on community formation. Therefore, thoughtful urban planning and supportive policy frameworks play a crucial role in promoting community sustainability.

Fig 12: Katong shopping center (view from other side of Mountbatten Road) Source: https://katongshoppingcentre.com/ 32

Fig 13: People waiting for coaches Source: https://biblioasia.nlb.gov.sg/vol-19/issue-2/jul-sep-2023/golden-mile-complex-photos/

The development of Katong Shopping Centre (KSC) demonstrates how changes in nearby communities can significantly influence the continuity of commercial activity. Businesses that depend heavily on local communities often lack resilience and struggle to adapt quickly to changes in the urban environment. In this process, shopping centers tend to take on a passive role. Therefore, it is remarkable that Queensway Shopping Centre (QSC) has maintained a high degree of continuity and consistency in its development. Early urban planning played a constructive role in this outcome. Queenstown, where QSC is located, was equipped with a relatively high concentration of sports facilities. Its proximity to schools highlighted sports

33

retail as an early key functional component. Unlike today’s branded outlets and curated multi-label stores, Singapore’s sports retail industry in the 1970s–1980s operated through authorized distributors who sold goods to independent retailers.

This flexible model generated an agglomeration economy within QSC and led to a form of path dependency, making it an irreplaceable destination for sports equipment. Over time, this contributed to the formation of a distinct social identity and embedded QSC deeply in Singapore’s collective memory.

Table 5: Formation of identity

S/N

Reason

1

Proximity to sports facilities and schools, strong localized demand for sports goods.

2

Early tenant curation focused on attracting sports retailers.

3

Brand distribution through agency model; individual retailers aggregated under common supply.

4

Consumer attraction through variety and price competition reinforced concentration.

5

QSC became culturally recognized as the 'go-to place' for buying sports shoes, especially among students and athletes.

From an operational standpoint, QSC continues to rely on individually owned units, many of which are family-run businesses that have operated since the 1970s and 1980s. Similar centers such as Funan Mall, which originally served as a cluster for electronic goods, have transformed into modern lifestyle complexes aligned with the globalized model of third-phase shopping centers. This transformation has

34

resulted in the loss of a distinct identity and the weakening of associated cultural communities. This highlights the importance of commercial adaptability, just as several shop owners at Queensway Shopping Centre (QSC) referred to during the interview: “If you don’t change with the times and attract new customers constantly, the shop will eventually die.” QSC’s shops do more than sell goods—they offer additional services such as equipment maintenance, personalized sports gear advice, and product customization. Sports equipment has evolved alongside broader societal and lifestyle changes, increasingly incorporating specialized user experiences. As a product category, sports goods are marked by strong personal preferences and a high potential for customization. In response, the services offered at Queensway Shopping Centre (QSC) have also been gradually upgraded to meet these changing consumer expectations. These added-value services foster a sense of attachment among customers, creating stickiness and an emotional connection to the place. This comparison illustrates that while official narratives can assign a thematic identity to a space, the community narrative sustains, enriches, and diversifies that identity over time. In this regard, community-led continuity is far more crucial in such spaces' long-term sustainability.

Today, QSC's presence has deviated from the official narrative—it no longer aligns with Singapore’s early nation-building discourse or the polished image of a developed, first-world shopping destination. Instead, it preserves a landscape of small, long-standing businesses, reflecting a more grounded and organic form of commerce that contrasts sharply with the sleek, curated environments of 35

contemporary malls. In the official narrative, Queensway Shopping Centre (QSC) represents the convenience of modern urban living, a tangible marker of Singapore’s progress toward becoming a “First World” nation. It embodies the integrated complex model as a symbol of a new social structure and reflects the government’s broader agenda of ethnic integration and modern governance. From the perspective of community narrative, however, it becomes evident that while the state can assign a thematic identity, it is the community that plays a more crucial role in ensuring the long-term sustainability of that identity—expanding, enriching, and imbuing it with diversity and vitality. In this narrative, QSC functions much like a large urban kampung: a cluster of family-run businesses centered around sports retail, interwoven with the everyday needs of local residents. This environment has given rise to an alternative identity that exists outside of official semantic frameworks—a subcultural community rooted in sports culture. QSC is thus a product of dual narratives.

It is simultaneously a space shaped by state planning and governance and a place that has been re-signified by the community. The continued presence of long-standing family-run shops preserves a sense of everyday urban life and serves as a quiet form of resistance to the standardized, corporatized model of REIT-managed shopping centers. “Goods and services are in a real sense the reason for the city’s being and drive its economic and emotional life.”20 As stated in the book, commodities and consumption equally play a role in shaping the character of the city.

Table 6: Conclusion

20 Chua, Beng Huat. “Life Is Not Complete Without Shopping: Consumption Culture In Singapore.” (2003).

36

Shopping mall

Conclusion

Queensway Shopping Center

It has maintained a stable ecosystem of longstanding tenants and established long-term customer relationships, serving as a representative example of a "neighborhood-oriented” shopping center.

Katong Shopping Center

Gradually lost its retail function and transitioned towards service-oriented businesses.

Funan Shopping Center

It has fully entered a capital-driven urban redevelopment logic, with its focus shifting toward youth-oriented markets and the experience economy.

3.4 Challenge In conclusion, shopping centers, as a building typology heavily reliant on customer flow, are significantly influenced by changes in their surrounding environment. Urban redevelopment and renewal have transformed social structures, contributing to the gradual collapse of traditional place-based concepts of community.

The rise of third-generation malls and online shopping platforms has further disrupted traditional retail models, creating significant challenges for older shopping centers. In this context, the significance of community engagement in preserving shopping centers as architectural heritage has been called into question. Whether

37

this participation remains relevant and effective in preserving evolving urban spaces is a matter that warrants further investigation.

The Queensway Shopping Centre (QSC) is facing a cruel reality: traditional sports retail is slowly losing its competitiveness, and many store owners have reported a notable decline in foot traffic. Although there have been no major changes in the planning or development of the surrounding area—and a sizable residential community still exists—the widespread presence of modern malls with extensive and convenient retail offerings has significantly diminished the functional reach of traditional shopping centers like QSC. As traditional patterns of community life fade, it becomes more important to explore how heritage conservation can be understood through a broader concept of community. This shift has crucial implications for the sustainable development of heritage spaces in modern urban environments.

4. Community in a broader sense As social structures change and technological advancements reshape production and interaction, the idea of community has evolved to include broader and more fluid definitions. The standards for defining communities have also evolved over time.

In early community theories (19th to early 20th century), scholars like Ferdinand Tönnies and Émile Durkheim classified communities according to geographical proximity and social cohesion. These early frameworks focused on territorial and localized social groups as the primary basis for community formation. In the modern era (mid-to-late 20th century), community theory expanded to recognize 38

the importance of social capital and identity formation. Scholars such as Jane Jacobs and Pierre Bourdieu emphasized the role of social capital in fostering community cohesion. Benedict Anderson further argued that modern nations and national identities function as “imagined communities”, suggesting that communities can extend beyond physical boundaries and instead be rooted in shared historical memory, cultural practices, or collective values. In the postmodern era (21st century), mobility and digitalization have reshaped community structures. The space of flows has replaced the space of places, as globalization and the internet facilitate the rise of virtual communities21. The shift from place-based communities to interest-based communities has also become increasingly evident, with social media playing a growing role in heritage conservation. The Glocal Community Model22 highlights the fusion of local and global networks in community building, reinforcing that in a broader sense, community identity is increasingly defined by shared cultural affiliations rather than strict geographical ties. This trend is also reflected in heritage conservation practices. For instance, the Mun San Fook Tuck Chee temple—originally sustained by the local Sar Kong community—has seen most of its original members relocate. Today, the temple depends not only on local networks but also on a transnational community that shares a common cultural identity, with global exchanges further enriching its cultural influence.

Table 7: Evolution of the concept of community

Theory

Representative Scholars Core Idea

21 Castells, M. (1996). The rise of the network society. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 22 Chen, Y., Wang, YW. Approaches to sustaining people–place bonds in conservation planning: from value-based, living heritage, to the glocal community. Built Heritage 8, 10 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s43238-024-00121-8

39

Gemeinschaft

Ferdinand Tönnies

Gemeinschaft (community) empha-

&

sizes close relationships and tradi-

Gesellschaft

tional values, while Gesellschaft (society) emphasizes contractual relationships and rational organization.

Chicago School

Robert E. Park,

The community is an ecosystem in-

Ernest Burgess

fluenced by population, environment, and social organization. The urban structure follows a concentric zone model.

Social

Capital Pierre Bourdieu

Social capital is key to fostering com-

Theory

James Coleman

munity cooperation and develop-

Robert Putnam

ment, encompassing trust, norms, and social networks.

Social Network Mark Granovetter

Social networks are crucial for indi-

Theory

viduals and communities in access-

Barry Wellman

ing resources, while weak ties facilitate innovation and information dissemination.

New Urbanism

Andrés Duany

It advocates for compact, walkable,

Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk

and mixed-use urban design to enhance community interaction and sustainability.

Sustainable

Peter Newman

It emphasizes environmental, eco-

Community

Timothy Beatley

nomic, and social sustainability

Theory

while advocating for community resilience and inclusivity.

On-site observations and interviews were conducted to gain a comprehensive understanding of the current relationship between the building and the 40

community from the perspectives of various stakeholders. A total of 15 individuals were approached, and interviews were successfully collected from 13 participants, as 2 declined to participate. Among those interviewed were 5 consumers, 5 shop owners, and 3 tenants.

Fig 14: Community continuity Source: Author

During the observation, it was observed that many customers were engaging in conversations inside the shops. Their movement patterns demonstrated a strong sense of purpose, implying that previous relationships had already been formed prior to their visit. This business model fosters the growth of long-term patronage, turning transactional interactions into relationships built on trust and familiarity.

41

Observation shows that a sense of community still exists within QSC, which can be categorized into two main forms： a. The first aspect is the social interactions among shop units, which are especially prominent in traditional family-run businesses. In modern, corporatized, and commercialized shopping malls, such connections are seldom found. Employees are typically hired as staff with minimal relationships beyond their own store, and interactions with nearby units are limited. In contrast, many family-run businesses at QSC cultivate a sense of neighborhood familiarity. Daily interactions and mutual support among shop owners foster a type of local social cohesion that is becoming increasingly rare in today's retail environments. b. The second aspect involves the relationship between the shops and their customers. Due to the customized nature of sports equipment and the necessity for ongoing maintenance services, there is potential for deeper and sustained interactions between merchants and consumers.

These two forms of social connection offer a new perspective on community sustainability—not one based solely on geographic proximity, but rather a community linked by cultural ties. "The shop owner knows my sports preferences and can provide me personalized advice.” “They provide maintenance services for badminton and tennis rackets.” “I come here regularly to buy clothes and have built a familiar relationship with the shop owner.” During interviews with customers, comments like these were commonly heard. These statements reflect the personalized service and long-term customer relationships that define the unique community 42

atmosphere within QSC. Sports culture, as a form of short ties, has allowed Queensway Shopping Centre (QSC) to maintain a strong connection with a community united not by geography, but by shared interests and practices. This culturally cohesive community has expanded its influence well beyond the local neighborhood and now stretches across all of Singapore.

However, these connections have not escaped the pressures of the modern market economy. Globalization has transformed traditional shopping centers, and its effects are also apparent within QSC. For example, chain sports retailers such as Weston Corp have begun to replace some of the traditional, family-run shops, signaling a shift toward more standardized, commercialized retail formats even within this historically unique space. The customer base today is no longer limited to loyal, long-term patrons; drawing in new customers has become essential for survival. As one interviewee emphasized: “Without new customers, it’s impossible to keep things going.” Another key factor that cannot be overlooked is the role of social media. On the upper floors of QSC, newer vintage-themed stores often display signs that promote their online presence, including social media accounts and QR codes. In contrast, traditional family-run shops often lack this form of exposure. During onsite fieldwork, it was observed that several shops were operated jointly by two generations of family members. However, their focus remained mainly on offline, timeintensive services, such as racket stringing, left them with little capacity to manage online business operations. Nevertheless, based on real cases and field observations, it is clear that despite the absence of formal marketing, community-driven social 43

media posts have naturally increased QSC’s visibility and influence. QSC’s reputation even circulates on Chinese international student social media, where a common saying encourages people to “go to QSC for sports gear.” Interviews with several customers, particularly international students from China, indicated that most of them learned about QSC through social media. In the digital age, individuals often navigate multiple, overlapping group identities, and the internet has made it easier than ever to form cultural communities. In a highly mobile society like Singapore, social media provides an effective way to integrate into unfamiliar environments. This suggests that beyond the collective memory of local Singaporeans, QSC has maintained a strong reputation—particularly in sports retail—and has managed to preserve its identity over time.

Fig 15: Posters of vintage shops Source: Author 44

This reflects a degree of cultural visibility and symbolic resonance that exceeds the boundaries of Singapore’s physical geography. In this context, shared practices, values, and ongoing interactions foster a community rooted in cultural affinity, which has significant implications for heritage conservation and urban resilience. However, compared to traditional communities, these virtual ties tend to be more fragile. That said, from this perspective, as long as QSC continues to uphold its service quality and preserves its niche identity in sports gear and vintage fashion culture, these interest-based communities may continue to sustain themselves digitally maintaining visibility and relevance through online networks. Thus, while QSC, as a second-phase shopping centre, once played a foundational role in Queenstown’s early development and formed strong bonds with the surrounding community, in an era of fading traditional communities, culture has increasingly become the vital link—connecting people to each other, and to heritage. From the interviews, we identified two main ways through which cultural

groups

become

aware

of

Queensway Shopping Centre (QSC): recommendations and searches on social media platforms. Encouragingly, on media platforms, Red Note, QSC’s identity is Fig 16: Laksa in QSC Source: Author

no longer limited to sports retail, the vintage culture and Laksa food culture are 45

both included. This suggests that QSC is continuously enriching its cultural significance in response to evolving social trends.

In addition to the pressures of globalization, divergent voices also exist within the community itself. While many residents and shop owners voted against the en bloc sale proposal, their reasons were often grounded in pragmatic concerns rather than emotional attachment to the community. During interviews, numerous respondents cited that the ofFig 17: Tailor shop in QSC Source: Author

fered compensation was insufficient to al-

low them to relocate and continue their businesses elsewhere—effectively threatening their livelihood and daily survival. Nevertheless, it is encouraging that a sense of attachment to the community still persists. One elderly seamstress, for instance, proudly shared that she still maintains connections with members of the Malay community because she once made school uniforms for them—an enduring bond that transcends transactional relationships. However, a critical issue that emerged is the lack of genuine community involvement in the heritage management process. Some interviewees had never even heard of the Queenstown Remaking Our Heartland (ROH) plans, and noted that no officials had reached out to gather their views. This highlights a severe deficit in community participation—despite being the very 46

people most affected, their voices remain marginalized or altogether excluded in the planning and decision-making processes.

5. Community Sustainability-Heritage Frame 5.1 SHIFT- Sustainable Heritage Impact Factor Theory Cultural heritage is complicated, particularly when considered from the perspective of sustainable management within communities. Nanetti, A., Cheong, S. A., & Mei, Q conceptualize heritage as one dimension within the complex Human–Heritage–Landscape system, and based on this understanding, they proposed the Sustainable Heritage Impact Factor Theory (SHIFT). 23 This theory introduces five quantitative indicators to assess the sustainability and impact of heritage elements.

These five indicators are: (1) Associations between tangible and intangible heritage.

(2) Importance (e.g., from social media content).

(3) Strength of transmission.

(4) Rate of transformation.

(5) Impact: future value estimated from current sacrifices or commitments.

Table 8: SHIFT Framework S/N

1

Indicator

Explanation

Associations between tangible and intangible heritage

Measure the mutual reinforcement between tangible heritage (e.g., buildings) and intangible heritage (e.g., social practices).

23 Nanetti, A., Cheong, S. A., & Mei, Q. (2016). Sustainable Heritage Impact Factor Theory (SHIFT): A complexity framework for heritage assessment and planning].

Journal of Architecture Heritage, 4, 21-37.

47

2

3

4

5

Importance

Assess the public influence of the heritage, such as its appearance on social media or other public platforms.

Strength of transmission

Measure how strongly intangible heritage is transmitted and replicated across generations.

Rate of transformation

Measure how fast the heritage practices or values are transforming or deviating from tradition.

Impact:

Assess whether the heritage can contribute to a better future, such as community identity, wellbeing, or cultural innovation.

Heritage conservation is a dynamic process of management, and from a sustainability perspective, it requires consideration of several key characteristics. At a minimum, the following dimensions are essential for evaluation: a. A Stable Foundation – Heritage must be rooted in a consistent and identifiable cultural or historical context that provides continuity over time. This foundation ensures that conservation efforts are not arbitrary but anchored in meaningful significance. b. Adaptability and Flexibility – Sustainable heritage must possess a degree of variability and adaptability allowing it to respond to evolving environment and ensures relevance across generations while maintaining core values. c. Recognized and Evolving Value – Heritage value is not fixed; it is shaped by ongoing interpretations and community engagement. A sustainable approach acknowledges both tangible and intangible dimensions.

48

These characteristics together enable heritage to function not as a static relic of the past, but as a living and evolving asset that contributes meaningfully to contemporary life and future development.

These indicators offer a valuable reference point for constructing an evaluation framework for community sustainability. However, they primarily focus on the value of heritage itself. Communities, as dynamic and evolving systems, require more flexible and adaptive assessment criteria that account for their complexity and fluidity. Moreover, from a long-term perspective, it is essential that communities are not only subjects of evaluation but also active, equitable participants in the heritage conservation process. Sustainable outcomes can only be achieved when local voices are genuinely integrated, and the processes of decision-making are inclusive, transparent, and responsive to the changing needs of the community. Nancy Fraser’s theory of social justice highlights three core dimensions: economic, cultural, and political. Achieving genuine parity of participation requires addressing all three dimensions simultaneously. Therefore, this study will explore community sustainability from these perspectives with a focus on long-term objectives.

Cultural sustainability is a crucial dimension of heritage conservation, and community heritage fundamentally relies on cultural identity and recognition. Both tangible and intangible heritage hold immense value, influencing not only urban and community development but also education and economic growth. In the realm of cultural heritage conservation, economic sustainability is essential to ensuring longterm viability and effective management. Stable long-term funding serves as the 49

foundation for heritage conservation while simultaneously contributing to local economic growth and community well-being. This aligns with SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth. Economic incentives also attract private investment, stimulating related industries such as cultural and creative sectors while encouraging wider public participation, ultimately enhancing the impact and visibility of heritage conservation. Furthermore, adaptive reuse of heritage sites reduces resource consumption, lowers environmental impact, and, through close community engagement, minimizes long-term maintenance costs.

In assessing community sustainability, policy frameworks play a critical role.

The dominance of the Authorized Heritage Discourse (AHD) has often resulted in community voices being marginalized24. A legally binding and stable heritage policy is essential for ensuring community agency while providing oversight on the implementation of economic and cultural initiatives. Effective policies can safeguard genuine community sustainability, ensuring that conservation efforts align with the needs and aspirations of local populations. One successful example is France’s “Heritage Lottery”, a policy-driven incentive that has generated substantial financial support for cultural heritage conservation. By integrating money and power, such mechanisms provide critical financial and political backing for the protection and sustainable development of heritage assets.

In the final evaluation framework, a combination of top-down and bottomup approaches is essential. The top-down perspective shapes identity and

24 Smith, L. (2006). Uses of Heritage (1st ed.). Routledge.

50

positioning by providing structure, direction, and recognition within broader policy and planning frameworks. At the same time, the bottom-up approach enhances the community's adaptability and vitality, showcasing lived experiences, local needs, and creativity. These two dimensions create a dynamic and balanced model where institutional support and community agency collaborate to foster the sustainable development of both heritage and community.

5.2 Criteria for Community Sustainability-Heritage Frame In the analysis of Queensway Shopping Centre (QSC), it was found that within interest-based communities sustained by shared culture, cultural consistency over time serves as a fundamental basis for shaping identity. Similarly, the study of family-run shops revealed that economic and policy support is crucial for maintaining cultural continuity. Building on these insights and incorporating the SHIFT framework, the following tailored evaluation criteria are proposed to assess the sustainability of community-based heritage spaces like QSC: a. Cultural Continuity – Assesses whether cultural practices, values, and expressions maintain coherence over time throughout the development process. This includes evaluating whether a consistent sense of identity has been preserved, which is essential for fostering a sense of belonging among community members. b. Community Stickiness – Evaluates the extent to which sustained relationships are formed through interactions within the community. This serves as a measure of the strength of social bonds, which is particularly critical for long-term

51

sustainability. High community stickiness indicates resilience, mutual support, and a strong sense of place attachment among members. c. Flexibility & Adaptability – Assesses the capacity of cultural heritage to evolve in response to changing social, economic, and environmental conditions. As noted, “As any living body, it follows a life cycle and therefore some elements are likely to disappear, after having given birth to new forms of expressions…”25 This indicator evaluates whether the heritage element is able to maintain relevance by adapting without losing its core identity. From a cultural perspective, such adaptability is crucial for ensuring long-term sustainability. d. Economic Contribution—Assesses whether identity-related cultural practices and heritage create enough economic value to sustain the ongoing existence and growth of the community. In the long run, economic viability is crucial—it alleviates the pressure for transformation or displacement and motivates stakeholders to engage in active, self-sustaining roles in preserving and maintaining the community. A culturally grounded economy enhances both heritage and local resilience. e. Policy Support—Evaluates how government policies acknowledge and prioritize heritage conservation, especially regarding community empowerment. This includes evaluating whether the community’s voice is represented in heritage conservation and management processes. The presence of inclusive policies, incentive schemes, and institutional support can provide communities with both the rights and the confidence needed to actively participate in and sustain heritage efforts.

25 Engelhardt, R. A. and Rogers, P. R. (2009) Hoi An Protocols for Best Conservation Practice in Asia, Bangkok: UNESCO. Compromised integrity in Malacca, Malaysia.

52

In order to quantify the five dimensions for evaluation purposes, a five-point Likert scale was adopted. Each dimension was assigned a corresponding set of reference criteria to guide scoring, aiming to minimize subjective bias and enhance the objectivity of the results. The evaluation framework is outlined as follows: Table 9: Framework for Assessment S/N

Dimension

Criteria

Grades

Do cultural elements still persist in the community’s everyday practices?

Cultural

Do the community’s everyday practices still reflect the

Continuity

characteristics of its earlier period?

1

(1-5)

Does the younger generation participate in and identify with these practices?

Are intergenerational relationships present within the community?

Community 2

Is interaction among community members frequent?

Stickiness

(1-5)

Are there any spontaneous activities within the community?

Can the community’s social ties adapt to new developments?

Flexibility & 3

Is change accepted by the existing community and incorpoAdaptability

(1-5)

rated into their practices?

Is there integration between the old and the new?

Can heritage generate sustainable and stable income?

Economic Can it attract people from outside the community?

4

Contribution

Can it contribute to addressing employment issues within the community to some extent?

53

(1-5)

Is there clear policy support from the government?

Policy

Are there any incentive measures in place?

Support

Is the community properly recognized and involved in the

5

(1-5)

decision-making process?

Each dimension is scored on a scale from 1 to 5, with each score corresponding to a specific description of the sustainability status.

1(High unsustainability): Very weak or completely absent.

Clarification

2(Low unsustainability): Slightly evident.

3(Medium sustainability): Basically evident.

4(Good sustainability): Clear, although further improvements are possible.

5(High sustainability): Sustainability is strongly evident and well-integrated.

Although a quantitative framework has been proposed, the weighting of each evaluation dimension requires further research and clarification.

6. Conclusion Culturally bonded community forms hold considerable potential for promoting sustainable development, especially in the realm of heritage conservation. As society continues to shift toward individualization, identity-based cultural belonging gains increasing relevance. This sense of cultural affiliation provides a foundation for maintaining social connections—even amid rapid urban renewal, accelerated population mobility, and economic instability. In the contemporary context, where cultural landscape is widely employed as a conceptual and analytical tool, culture is understood in an expanded sense—not only as the core value of heritage

54

conservation but also as a vital mechanism for fostering community ties. Through the everyday practice of culture, alternative narratives emerge—distinct from official discourses—contributing to the multiplicity and richness of urban life. It is, therefore, essential to recognize the value of these new forms of community, which are shaped through shared cultural practices. With appropriate policy support and adaptive development strategies, such communities can serve as a bridge between heritage conservation and sustainable community development, ultimately achieving a dual objective that benefits both.

55

7. Bibliography [1] BiblioAsia. "Golden Mile Complex." BiblioAsia, July-September 2023. https://biblioasia.nlb.gov.sg/vol-19/issue-2/jul-sep-2023/golden-mile-complex/.

[2] BiblioAsia. "Golden Mile Complex." BiblioAsia, July-September 2023. https://biblioasia.nlb.gov.sg/vol-19/issue-2/jul-sep-2023/golden-milecomplex/.

[3] Christopher Tweed and Margaret Sutherland, ‘Built Cultural Heritage and Sustainable Urban Development’, Landscape and Urban Planning 83, no. 1 (November

2007):

62–69,

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landur-

bplan.2007.05.008; [4] United

Nations.

“The

17

Goals.”

Accessed

April

18,

2025.

https://sdgs.un.org/goals.

[5] United Nations. “Goal 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities.” Accessed April 18, 2025. https://sdgs.un.org/goals/goal11.

[6] United Nations. “Sustainable Cities and Human Settlements.” Accessed April 18, 2025. https://sdgs.un.org/topics/sustainable-cities-and-human-settlements.

[7] Jimmy Sum. “Queenstown’s Redevelopment: A New Chapter for Singapore’s First

Satellite

Town.”

Accessed

April

18,

2025.

https://jimmy-

sum.com/blog/queenstowns-redevelopment-a-new-chapter-for-singaporesfirst-satellite-town/.

[8] Today Online. “Queensway Shopping Centre En Bloc Sale Falls through after Lukewarm

Response.”

Accessed

April

18,

2025.

https://www.to-

dayonline.com/singapore/queensway-shopping-centre-en-bloc-sale-falls-thr

56

[9] Mothership.sg. “The Legendary Queensway Shopping Centre: A Look at Singapore’s OG Shopping Mall.” Accessed April 18, 2025. https://mothership.sg/2019/05/queensway-shopping-centre/.

[10]James, Paul, and others, Sustainable Communities, Sustainable Development: Other Paths for Papua New Guinea (Honolulu, HI, 2012; online edn, Hawai'i

Scholarship

Online,

17

Nov.

2016), https://doi.org/10.21313/hawaii/9780824835880.001.0001, accessed 18 Apr. 2025.

[11]Shua, Yeo Kang. “Bridging Positivist and Relativist Approaches in Recent Community-Managed Architectural Conservation Projects in Singapore.” Sojourn: Journal of Social Issues in Southeast Asia 33, no. 3 (2018): 647–76. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26538281.

[12]Rivenc, Rachel. “Objects, Memory, and Restorative Justice (A Personal Reflection on Conservation’s Meaning).” Journal of the American Institute for Conservation

63,

no.

2

(April

2,

2024):

94–109.

https://doi.org/10.1080/01971360.2023.2266261.

[13]Veljko Radulović et al., ‘Sustainability of Cultural Memory: Youth Perspectives on Yugoslav World War Two Memorials’, Sustainability 14, no. 9 (6 May 2022): 5586, https://doi.org/10.3390/su14095586; [14]Jean-François Orianne and Francis Eustache, ‘Collective Memory: Between Individual Systems of Consciousness and Social Systems’, Frontiers in

57

Psychology

14

(12

October

2023):

1238272,

https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1238272; [15]Yulia Nurliani Lukito and Amalia Nurul Rizky, ‘Collecting Memories of the City through the Conservation of Heritage Building’, IOP Conference Series: Earth

and

Environmental

Science

126

(March

2018):

012081,

https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/126/1/012081; [16]Melinda J. Milligan, ‘Buildings as History: The Place of Collective Memory in the Study of Historic Preservation’, Symbolic Interaction 30, no. 1 (January 2007): 105–23, https://doi.org/10.1525/si.2007.30.1.105; [17]Melissa Liow Li Sa and Sam Choon-Yin, Sustainable Urban Development in Singapore: Imagining Walkability in an Urban Concrete Jungle, Sustainable Development Goals Series (Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore, 2023), https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-5451-3; [18]Hannah Jones, ‘Exploring the Creative Possibilities of Awkward Space in the City’, Landscape and Urban Planning 83, no. 1 (November 2007): 70–76, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.05.007; [19]H. Jones and P. Jones, ‘Cities and Sustainability’, Landscape and Urban Planning 83, no. 1 (November 2007): 1, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.05.011; [20]Trond Jacobsen, Ricardo L. Punzalan, and Margaret L. Hedstrom, ‘Invoking “Collective Memory”: Mapping the Emergence of a Concept in Archival

58

Science’,

Archival

Science

13,

no.

2–3

(June

2013):

217–51,

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10502-013-9199-4.

[21]Lynsey Hogarth and Stephen Emmitt, ‘What Value in Preserving a Fragment of Building? A Sociological Enquiry into the Museum Preservation of Robin Hood Gardens’, Journal of Architectural Conservation 30, no. 1 (2 January 2024): 1–18, https://doi.org/10.1080/13556207.2023.2278272.

[22]Anita Forjette, ‘HERITAGE CONSERVATION AND The SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS’, n.d.; Dorna Eshrati and Parastoo Eshrati, ‘Urban Conservation in the Public Eye: Evaluating the Integrity Achieved in the Rehabilitation Plan of Karim-Khan Zand Complex, Shiraz, Iran Based on People’s Perceptions’,

Land

Use

Policy

117

(June

2022):

106121,

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2022.106121.

[23]Maryam Keramati Ardakani and Seyyed Saeed Ahmadi Oloonabadi, ‘Collective Memory as an Efficient Agent in Sustainable Urban Conservation’, Procedia Engineering 21 (2011): 985–88, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2011.11.2103.

[24]Sarah Al-Alawi et al., ‘Linking Cultural Built Heritage and Sustainable Urban Development: Insights into Strategic Development Recommendations for the German-Polish Border Region’, disP - The Planning Review 58, no. 2 (3 April 2022): 4–15, https://doi.org/10.1080/02513625.2022.2123160.

59

[25]John Wood, ‘Synergy City; Planning for a High Density, Super-Symbiotic Society’, Landscape and Urban Planning 83, no. 1 (November 2007): 77–83, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.05.006.

[26]Christopher Tweed and Margaret Sutherland, ‘Built Cultural Heritage and Sustainable Urban Development’, Landscape and Urban Planning 83, no. 1 (November

2007):

62–69,

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landur-

bplan.2007.05.008.

[27]Robert Tavernor, ‘Visual and Cultural Sustainability: The Impact of Tall Buildings on London’, Landscape and Urban Planning 83, no. 1 (November 2007): 2–12, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.05.010.

[28]Rachel Rivenc, ‘Objects, Memory, and Restorative Justice (A Personal Reflection on Conservation’s Meaning)’, Journal of the American Institute for Conservation

63,

no.

2

(2

April

2024):

94–109,

https://doi.org/10.1080/01971360.2023.2266261.

[29]Veljko Radulović et al., ‘Sustainability of Cultural Memory: Youth Perspectives on Yugoslav World War Two Memorials’, Sustainability 14, no. 9 (6 May 2022): 5586, https://doi.org/10.3390/su14095586.

[30]Jean-François Orianne and Francis Eustache, ‘Collective Memory: Between Individual Systems of Consciousness and Social Systems’, Frontiers in Psychology

14

(12

October

2023):

1238272,

https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1238272.

[31]https://www.zaobao.com.sg/news/singapore/story20250227-5941824 60

[32]Yulia Nurliani Lukito and Amalia Nurul Rizky, ‘Collecting Memories of the City through the Conservation of Heritage Building’, IOP Conference Series: Earth

and

Environmental

Science

126

(March

2018):

012081,

https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/126/1/012081;.

[33]Melinda J. Milligan, ‘Buildings as History: The Place of Collective Memory in the Study of Historic Preservation’, Symbolic Interaction 30, no. 1 (January 2007): 105–23, https://doi.org/10.1525/si.2007.30.1.105.

[34]Melissa Liow Li Sa and Sam Choon-Yin, Sustainable Urban Development in Singapore: Imagining Walkability in an Urban Concrete Jungle, Sustainable Development Goals Series (Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore, 2023), https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-5451-3.

[35]Hannah Jones, ‘Exploring the Creative Possibilities of Awkward Space in the City’, Landscape and Urban Planning 83, no. 1 (November 2007): 70–76, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.05.007.

[36]H. Jones and P. Jones, ‘Cities and Sustainability’, Landscape and Urban Planning 83, no. 1 (November 2007): 1, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.05.011.

[37]Milan Jaros, ‘Towards Re-Definition of Space-Ness in the Post-Mechanical Age: Methodological Notes’, Landscape and Urban Planning 83, no. 1 (November

2007):

84–89,

bplan.2007.05.005.

61

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landur-

[38]Trond Jacobsen, Ricardo L. Punzalan, and Margaret L. Hedstrom, ‘Invoking “Collective Memory”: Mapping the Emergence of a Concept in Archival Science’,

Archival

Science

13,

no.

2–3

(June

2013):

217–51,

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10502-013-9199-4.

[39]Lynsey Hogarth and Stephen Emmitt, ‘What Value in Preserving a Fragment of Building? A Sociological Enquiry into the Museum Preservation of Robin Hood Gardens’, Journal of Architectural Conservation 30, no. 1 (2 January 2024): 1–18, https://doi.org/10.1080/13556207.2023.2278272.

[40]Anita Forjette, ‘HERITAGE CONSERVATION AND The SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS’, n.d.; Dorna Eshrati and Parastoo Eshrati, ‘Urban Conservation in the Public Eye: Evaluating the Integrity Achieved in the Rehabilitation Plan of Karim-Khan Zand Complex, Shiraz, Iran Based on People’s Perceptions’,

Land

Use

Policy

117

(June

2022):

106121,

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2022.106121.

[41]Maryam Keramati Ardakani and Seyyed Saeed Ahmadi Oloonabadi, ‘Collective Memory as an Efficient Agent in Sustainable Urban Conservation’, Procedia Engineering 21 (2011): 985–88, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2011.11.2103.

[42]Sarah Al-Alawi et al., ‘Linking Cultural Built Heritage and Sustainable Urban Development: Insights into Strategic Development Recommendations for the German-Polish Border Region’, disP - The Planning Review 58, no. 2 (3 April 2022): 4–15, https://doi.org/10.1080/02513625.2022.2123160.

62

[43]Sim Loo Lee,Urban conservation policy and the preservation of historical and cultural heritage: The case of Singapore, Cities, Volume 13, Issue 6, 1996, Pages 399-409, [44]Blackburn, Kevin and Tan Peng Hong Alvin. "The Emergence of Heritage Conservation in Singapore and the Preservation of Monuments Board (1958-76)." Southeast Asian Studies 4, no. 2 (08, 2015): 341-364.

[45]Coningham, R., & Lewer, N. (Eds.). (2019). Archaeology, cultural heritage protection and community engagement in South Asia. Springer Singapore.

[46]Cunha Ferreira, Teresa, Pedro Murilo Freitas, Constanza Frigolett, Hugo Mendonça, and Ana Tarrafa Silva. "The Contribution of Stakeholder Engagement to Cultural Significance Assessment: The Case of Values-Based Conservation Management Planning for the Ocean Swimming Pool, Portugal."

Built Heritage 8, no. 1 (12, 2024): 26. doi:https://doi.org/10.1186/s43238024-00138-z.

[47]Chitty, G. (Ed.). (2016). Heritage, Conservation and Communities: Engagement, participation and capacity building (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doiorg.libproxy1.nus.edu.sg/10.4324/9781315586663 [48]Peggy Teo, Shirlena Huang, Tourism and heritage conservation in Singapore, Annals of Tourism Research, Volume 22, Issue 3, 1995, Pages 589-615, ISSN 0160-7383,

63

[49]Tan, S. B., & Ti, E. S. (2020). What is the value of built heritage conservation?

Assessing spillover effects of conserving historic sites in Singapore. Land use policy, 91, 104393 [50]Henderson, Joan C. "Built Heritage Conservation, Urban Development, and Tourism: Singapore in the 21st Century." Tourism, Culture & Communication

11,

no.

3

(05,

2011):

137-147.

doi:https://doi.org/10.3727/109830412X13346876802112.

[51]Yuen, B. (2006). Reclaiming Cultural Heritage in Singapore. Urban Affairs Review,

41(6),

830-854.

https://doi-org.lib-

proxy1.nus.edu.sg/10.1177/1078087406289187 (Original work published 2006) [52]Lucia, Della Spina. "Adaptive Sustainable Reuse for Cultural Heritage: A Multiple Criteria Decision Aiding Approach Supporting Urban Development Processes."

Sustainability

12,

no.

4

(2020):

1363.

doi:https://doi.org/10.3390/su12041363.

[53]Pineschi, L. (Ed.). (2023). Cultural Heritage, Sustainable Development and Human Rights: Towards an Integrated Approach (1st ed.). Routledge.

[54]Bortolotto, C., & Skounti, A. (Eds.). (2023). Intangible Cultural Heritage and Sustainable Development: Inside a UNESCO Convention (1st ed.). Routledge.

[55]Han, Fang, Zhaoping Yang, Hui Shi, Qun Liu, and Geoffrey Wall. "How to Promote Sustainable Relationships between Heritage Conservation and

64

Community, Based on a Survey." Sustainability 8, no. 9 (2016): 886. doi:https://doi.org/10.3390/su8090886.

[56]The Singapore Mall Generation: History, Imagination, Community, edited

by Liew Kai Khiun. Singapore: Marshall Cavendish, 2022, 304pp. ISBN: 978981-5009-39-2 [57]Zihao Cao, Linqi Huang, Yongchun Mao, Muhizam Mustafa, Mohd Hafizal Mohd Isa, Navigating complexity in sustainable conservation: A multi-criteria decision making of architectural heritage in urbanizing China, Journal of Building Engineering, Volume 102, 2025, 111906, [58]Nanetti, A., Cheong, S. A., & Mei, Q. (2016). 可持续遗产影响因素理论—— 遗产评估和规划的复杂性框架研究 [Sus-tainable Heritage Impact Factor Theory (SHIFT): A complexity framework for heritage assessment and planning]. 建筑遗产, 4, 21-37.

[59]Engelhardt, R. A. and Rogers, P. R. (2009) Hoi An Protocols for Best Conservation Practice in Asia, Bangkok: UNESCO. Compromised integrity in Malacca, Malaysia.

65

8. Appendix 8.1 Seme-structure interview The article employed a semi-structured interview approach, and the key questions posed during the interviews were as follows: 1. Are you a customer / Shop owner / Tenant?

2. (If customer): What is your main purpose for coming here?

Do you live nearby?

How do you find out about QSC? 3. (If shop owner): Do you support or oppose the en bloc sale of the building?

What is your reason or concern?

How is your business these years?

Do you still have connections with the old community?

Do you have more new customers or regular (old) customers?

Are you still mainly using the traditional offline transaction model, or have there been any new developments?

4. (If tenant): How is your business these years?

Do you still have connections with the old community?

Do you have more new customers or regular (old) customers?

66

Are you still mainly using the traditional offline transaction model, or have there been any new developments?

5. Do you think this place has a cultural atmosphere?

6. Can you share your thoughts about QSC? What do you think are its strengths and weaknesses?

67

2025/4/19 14:40

Similarity Report

Final Essay.pdf

Similarity Index

By: Kaochen KAI

8%

As of: Apr 19, 2025 1:51:28 PM 12,867 words - 77 matches - 63 sources

Mode: Similarity Report

paper text: Built

Cultural Heritage and Sustainable Urban Devel- opment

59

Goals: Insights into Sustainable Community AC5007 Dissertation KAI Kaochen A0298879R

Dissertation submitted to Department of Architecture in Partial fulfilment of the requirement for the 10 Degree of MASTER OF ARTS IN ARCHITECTURAL CONSERVATION at the DEPARTMENT OF ARCHITECTURE NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF SINGAPORE Supervisor: Dr

. Ho Puay-peng April 2025 Table of Contents Acknowledgment ................................................................................ 2 Abstract ....................................................................................................................... 3 List of Pictures and Tables .................................................................................

4 1. Introduction

......................................................................................................... 6

1.1

22

Background......................................................................................... 6 1.2 Literature Review ............................................................................. 10 2. Methodology .......................................................................................................17

2.1

Research Objective ........................................................................... 17 2.2 Research ................................................................................. 19 .............................................................................. 21

2.3

Scope

37

Research Method

2

.4 Limitation ......................................................................................... 23 3. Analysis of Queensway Shopping Centre .............................................23 3.1 Context and History .......................................................................... 23 3.2 Shopping Centres in National Narrative ........................................... 26 3.3 Comparison ....................................................................................... 31 3.4 Challenge https://app.ithenticate.com/en_us/report/115254625/similarity

1/33

2025/4/19 14:40

Similarity Report

.......................................................................................... 37 4. Community in a Broader Sense .................................................................38 5. Community Sustainability-Heritage Frame ........................................47 5.1 SHIFT-Sustainable Heritage Impact Factor Theory .......................... 47 5.2 Criteria for Community Sustainability – Heritage Frame ................. 51

6. Conclusion ...........................................................................................................54 7.

53

Bibliography.......................................................................................................56 8. Appendix

..............................................................................................................66 1

Acknowledgements I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my supervisor, Professor Puay-peng,

for his invaluable guidance and

encouragement

Ho

17

throughout

the process of writing this dissertation. Professor Ho

played a crucial role in

both

the

initial stage

of

topic selection

and in

39

later phases of the research, providing important correc- tions to the research direction and suggesting supplementary research approaches. I am also grateful to our teaching assistant, Cassandra, for her patience and support. I deeply appreciate her constructive feedback and the additional reference materials she kindly provided. This dissertation draws on a wide range of literature and reference materials, including historical documents, maps, academic papers, and more.

I would like to thank NUS, the

National Library Board (NLB), and

the

National Heritage Board (NHB) for

providing access

18

to

online electronic resources. Special thanks are due to all those who participated in the fieldwork at Queensway Shopping Centre, including shop owners, staff, and customers, whose willingness to be interviewed contributed significantly to the community-based perspective of this study.

Finally, I wish to thank my

family and friends

for their

immense emotional

support

34

, which helped me complete this dissertation smoothly. 2 Abstract The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) have proposed expectations for the heritage field, increasing focus on sustainability. Goal 11, “Sustainable Cities and

https://app.ithenticate.com/en_us/report/115254625/similarity

2/33

2025/4/19 14:40

Similarity Report

Communities,” emphasizes community involvement. In Singapore, heritage conser- vation projects largely follow a topdown approach with limited community partic- ipation. A key question is how to strengthen the bonds between heritage and com- munity. This study aims to focus on the community as a central point of analysis, through a communityoriented lens, and seeks to contribute to deeper engagement within this field. Using Queensway Shopping Centre (QSC)

as a case study, this study

examines

how

shifts

in

45

consumer culture and the concept of community have im- pacted traditional patterns by comparing QSC with other shopping centers from the same era, highlighting its uniqueness. Based on fieldwork and interviews at QSC, this essay examines current forms of community connection and explores how culture can act as a bridge to merge her- itage conservation with community sustainability moving forward. Through quali- tative analysis, to identify and extract key

，and attempts to propose a quantitative framework

factors for evaluating the sustainability of heritage conservation

applica- ble for assessing community sustainability within this context. Moreover, the inter- view-based methodology may lead to some subjective interpretations, potentially impacting the objectivity of certain findings. However, the community-centered ap- proach provides a valuable reference for promoting sustainable practices in herit- age conservation. 3 List of Picture: 1. Golden Mile Complex and its context 2. Statue of Phra Phrom, or four-faced Brahma, outside Golden Mile Complex, 2023. 3. 17 Sustainable Development Goals 4. Paradigm shift of Authenticity 5. Paradigm shift of intangible cultural heritage 6. My Queenstown heritage trail 7. Flow Chart 8. Old picture of Queensway shopping center 9. ROH Plan 10. Expectation of QSC 11. Katong shopping center (view from other side of Mountbatten Road) 12.

People waiting for coaches 13. Community continuity 14. Posters of vintage shops 15. Laksa in QSC 16. Tailor shop in QSC List of Table: 1. Main representative streams in Singapore’s conservation (Page 12) 2. Different phases of shopping centers 3. Comparison between Phase 2 and 3 (From the perspective of globalization) 4 4. Comparison between official narrative and official narrative 5. Formation of identity 6. Conclusion 7. Evolution of the concept of community 8. SHIFT Framework 9. Framework for Assessment 5 1. Introduction 1.1 Background In urban development, historical layers coexist but are often erased or al- tered. The city itself is a continually rewritten, overlaid, and reinterpreted text— what André Corboz referred to as “un palimpseste artificiel.” 1 Heritage conserva- tion is about preserving the multiple layers of a city, ensuring continuity and integ- rity in urban development, and considering the city as a collection of various histor- ical periods. However, an inherent conflict exists between modernization and herit- age conservation, the processes of urban renewal often disrupt historical narra- tives and diminish cultural distinctiveness. In the commercialization of heritage, au- thentic historical layers are reconfigured, pseudo-memories emerge, and the urban historical narrative becomes fragmented. 2 Urban built heritage serves as both a vessel for history and art and a key component of social well-being, cultural identity, and sustainable development. Architectural heritage should extend beyond tradi- tional definitions to include ‘non-visible heritage,’ such as street patterns and com- munity activities, which reflect the city’s uniqueness and collective memory.3 In 2018, the Golden Mile Complex (GMC) was sold en bloc, sparking wide- spread public debate at the time. Following significant efforts from various stake- holders, it was awarded conservation status in 2021. However, it is truly regrettable 1

https://app.ithenticate.com/en_us/report/115254625/similarity

3/33

2025/4/19 14:40

Similarity Report

Corboz, André (1983). The Land as Palimpsest. Diogenes 31 (121):12-34

31

Wang, Kaixuan, and Kalliopi Fouseki. 2025

12

.2

Rupture, and Sustainable Development"

. "Sustaining the Fabric of Time: Urban Heritage, Time

Land 14, no. 1: 193.

https://doi.org/10.3390/land14010193

3

Tweed, Christopher, Margaret Sutherland. 2007.Built Cultural Heritage and Sustainable Urban

16

Development. Landscape and Urban Planning 83 (1): 62–69

. 6 that the once-vibrant Thai community has vanished entirely. GMC has now become a hollow shell—a landmark preserved, but a Thai community gone. Although new communities may eventually form, the reconstruction of the urban cultural land- scape often risks diluting cultural diversity. In such cases, homogenized modern communities represent a triumph of form rather than a continuation of cultural sub- stance. This represents not only the decline of cultural diversity in society but also the loss of local character and identity. As noted, “Place identity is introduced with scope to brand Singapore as a distinctive city.” 4 Such conservation efforts clearly contradict their original intent. What they reveal is a critical issue in the conserva- tion process of Golden Mile Complex (GMC): the failure to properly recognize and integrate the voices of the community. Although the significance of the community was repeatedly emphasized during the campaign to save the building, the final Fig 1: Golden Mile Complex and its context Source: Author 4

Yuen, B. (2006). Reclaiming Cultural Heritage in Singapore. Urban Affairs Review, 41(6), 830-854

25

. 7 decision-making process marginalized the community and excluded it from the scope of conservation. This suggests that while public input may be acknowledged to some extent, it remains secondary and lacks real influence over the outcome. Fig 2: Statue of Phra Phrom, or four-faced Brahma, outside Golden Mile Complex, 2023. Source: Jimmy Yap 8 Fig 3: 17 Sustainable Development Goals Source: UNESCO The case of GMC highlights how heritage conservation in Singapore contin- ues to operate under a predominantly state-led, top-down model. As noted, “From the state’s perspective… the state remains the final arbiter of whether changes are considered desirable or deplorable. In the opinion of Liu Thai Ker… the ‘power to shape the city’ should be vested in the hands of the government.” 5 Following the introduction

of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) in 2000 https://app.ithenticate.com/en_us/report/115254625/similarity

4/33

2025/4/19 14:40

Similarity Report

23 , the United Na- tions expanded its agenda

in 2015

with

the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs

), broadening

the

49

original eight goals to a more detailed and inclusive set of 17 objec- tives. Among these, Goal 11: “Sustainable Cities and Communities” (UN, 2015) is par- ticularly relevant to urban development and architectural heritage. From both the perspective of urban growth and community vitality, the current “black-box-like” 5

Kong, L., & Yeoh, B. S. A. (1994). Urban Conservation in Singapore: A Survey of State Policies and

13

Popular Atti- tudes. Urban Studies, 31(2), 247

-265. 9 conservation model in Singapore is clearly misaligned with the framework of sus- tainable development.

Therefore, a new, community-centered approach in heritage conservation is urgently needed. Within the broader vision of the SDGs, identifying and strengthening the link between heritage and community, and achieving their co- sustainable development, remains an underexplored area.

This study aims to

ad- dress

this research gap by

5

proposing a framework or model for evaluating commu- nity sustainability

in the context of heritage

conservation. 1.2

Literature review

58

Fig 4: Paradigm shift of Authenticity Source: Author From

the Venice Charter

, which

emphasized the

preservation

of

19

monuments,

to the Nara Document on Authenticity

, which acknowledged

cultural

diversity

and

41

incorporated community perspectives, and subsequently to

https://app.ithenticate.com/en_us/report/115254625/similarity

5/33

2025/4/19 14:40

Similarity Report

the Operational Guide- lines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention

19

(2005), which 10 formally integrated

Intangible Cultural Heritage

into

the heritage

framework,

the

60

global discourse on heritage conservation has

27

undergone several paradigm shifts. Singapore’s heritage conservation has largely followed this trajectory. Heritage protection in Singapore

can be traced back to

1937, when

the

Friends

of Singapore

56

pro- posed the inclusion of a heritage inventory in the 1958 Master Plan. However, this early phase remained heavily influenced by Western-centric notions, with an em- phasis on material authenticity and integrity. In the early years following independ- ence,

heritage conservation was often

regarded

as a luxury

that a

developing

50

nation could not afford. The government prioritized urban redevelopment to address pressing housing needs. In 1970, Barker introduced a bill in Parliament to establish a governmental body—

the Preservation of Monuments Board (PMB)—which was However,

officially founded

in 1971

.

32

the

PMB lacked the capacity to undertake large- scale conservation projects; even the preservation of individual buildings proved challenging, let alone that of entire streets or districts. During the 1980s, the intro- duction of the Conservation Master Plan by the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) marked a more proactive shift in policy. A more pragmatic approach to con- servation was adopted, allowing historic buildings to be adaptively reused or altered to meet contemporary functional needs. This period saw the designation of core her- itage

https://app.ithenticate.com/en_us/report/115254625/similarity

6/33

2025/4/19 14:40

Similarity Report

areas such as Chinatown, Little India, and Kampong

57

Glam as Conservation Ar- eas. However, the URA’s conservation efforts were not purely heritage driven. Her- itage was seen as economically valuable, capable of enhancing property values. Gov- ernment involvement, investment returns, and geographic location were all 11 carefully considered in conservation decisions. Although policies encouraged the preservation of traditional trades and lifestyles within these core areas, economic pressures led to the displacement of original communities. As a result, the intrinsic relationship between heritage and community was gradually severed.

Table 1: Main representative streams in Singapore’s conservation S/N Scholar Core Idea 1 Dr. Yeo Kang Shua Restoration and authenticity 2 Professor Johannes Widodo Inclusive approach & community par- ticipation 3 URA Practice-oriented, balance develop- ment and conservation. Current research on heritage conservation in Singapore can generally be cat- egorized into three main streams. The first focuses on material authenticity, empha- sizing the use of local materials and traditional craftsmanship. This strand, repre- sented by scholars such as Dr. Yeo Kang Shua, concentrates primarily on the tangible dimensions of heritage preservation. The second approach advocates for an inclu- sive perspective grounded in multiculturalism, arguing that heritage should extend beyond the physical forms to include community participation; Professor Johannes Widodo is a leading scholar in this field. The third category is characterized by prac- tice-oriented perspectives aligned with official institutions such as the Urban Rede- velopment Authority (URA), which emphasize the balance between development and conservation. Among these dominant approaches, the theme of community par- ticipation has received growing attention in recent years, particularly through 12 critically engaged, reality-based studies. Scholars such as Dr. T.C. Chang, Dr. Lily Kong, and Dr. Chua Beng Huat have offered critical analyses of heritage spaces like Fig 5: Paradigm shift of intangible cultural heritage Source: Author Chinatown, which are framed within the national narrative. Their work reveals how community intangible cultural heritage has been stripped of its original social func- tions and reduced to cultural symbols under such strategies. At the same time, there have been increasing calls for empowering communities to participate in heritage discourse. Everyday lived spaces and practices should be acknowledged, and the fo- cus of conservation should not be limited to designated conservation areas. As David Lowenthal argued, “Things worth saving need not necessarily be beautiful or his- toric as long as they are familiar or well loved.”

6 6 Lowenthal, David (1985). The past is a foreign country. New York: Cambridge University Press

24

. 13 Much of the current scholarship continues to emphasize the role

of collective memory and identity

formation

in

61

heritage discourse, with communities still largely understood in traditional terms. Yet in contemporary society, the function of collec- tive memory is gradually weakening, raising new questions about how community heritage should be understood and preserved. Due to urbanization, rising individu- alism, and shifting modes of social interaction, traditional https://app.ithenticate.com/en_us/report/115254625/similarity

7/33

2025/4/19 14:40

Similarity Report

strong ties are gradually being replaced by weak ties.7 This transformation reflects a broader decline in so- cial capital.8 In contemporary society, risk has become the new norm, leading indi- viduals to move away from standardized, collective lifestyles toward personalized, individualized living. 9With increasing social mobility, human relationships have become more fluid, transient, and loosely connected. 10

In the

field

of heritage

conservation,

the role

and relevance

of communities

8

also warrant reconsideration: within this evolving socio-cultural landscape, herit- age conservation faces new

，against such a social backdrop, it is crucial to reconsider how communities can

challenges

continue to play an

active and meaningful

role in the

sustainable development

of

heritage.

4

The

term “community” is now widely used across various domains, to the extent that it has become overused and, at times, misinterpreted. However, despite its frequent invocation, communities are often not genuinely recognized or equitably included in decision-making processes. In Nancy Fraser’s theory of social justice, justice is realized through three dimensions:

7 Granovetter, M. (1973) The Strength of Weak Ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78, 1360-1380. 21 8

Haüberer, Julia. (2011). Introducing the Civic Perspective on Social Capital – Robert D. Putnam’s

2

Concept of Social Capital

.9

Ulrich Beck, Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity (London and New York, Sage, 1992

28

Zygmunt Bauman, Modernity and Ambivalence (Cambridge, Polity Press, 1991). 14

4

). 10

economic, cultural, and political. Yet, https://app.ithenticate.com/en_us/report/115254625/similarity

8/33

2025/4/19 14:40

in the context of heritage

Similarity Report

conservation, there remains

a lack of

47

parity of participation.

As Waterton and Smith

63

observe: “As it stands, the heritage sector is dominated by a particular notion of commu- nity, one that overlooks the fact that representations of reality can have powerful ef- fects on any group under construction.”11

In the early years of Singapore’s independence, the

35

government suppressed collective actions and protests organized by non-governmental organizations. This limited foundation of democratic political participation has, in turn, constrained the level of public engagement in the field of heritage conservation. The Faro Conven- tion (2005) introduced the concept of heritage rights and actively encouraged public and community participation in heritage processes. In the 21st century, although civil society groups such as My Community have taken the initiative to engage in cultural heritage preservation, their efforts remain constrained within institutional frameworks—dancing in shackles, so to speak—seeking forms of “acceptable col- laboration” that align with state-defined boundaries: “Rather than being regarded as co-option by the state, these increased interactions are believed to allow the group to understand the policymakers’ concerns and constraints in order to ‘find the best way forward’…”.12 The importance of communities in heritage conserva- tion has been increasingly recognized—evolving from being seen merely as a back- drop for cultural diversity, to being acknowledged as a key stakeholder in heritage 11

Emma Waterton and Laurajane Smith, The Recognition and Misrecognition of Community Heritage,

8

International Journal of Heritage Studies 16, no. 1–2 (January 2010): 4–15

. 12 Wong, Shiau Ching. “Walking Tours and Community Heritage in Singapore: Civic Activism in the Making in Queenstown and Geylang.” In

Emerging Civic Urbanisms in Asia: Hong Kong, Seoul, Singapore, and Taipei beyond Developmental Urbanization, edited by Im Sik Cho, Blaz ̌Krizňik, and Jeffrey Hou

, 41–70.

11

Amsterdam University

Press, 2022

. 15 processes, and now regarded as a sine qua non within the heritage discourse. At the community level, sustainability resonates with individual aspirations for a better quality of life, encapsulated in the phrase: “Love where you live.” Fig 6: https://app.ithenticate.com/en_us/report/115254625/similarity

9/33

2025/4/19 14:40

Similarity Report

My Queenstown heritage trail Source: My Community However, at the current stage of research and practice, sustainable heritage efforts in Singapore largely remain focused on

the adaptive reuse of buildings

. Be- yond

the

initiatives

of

3

organizations like My Community and The Local People, whose work includes walking tours and community engagement, broader commu- nity participation in heritage conservation remains limited. Moreover, there is a no- table gap in integrating heritage preservation and sustainable community develop- ment within a unified framework. Without considering heritage conservation 16 through the lens of sustainable communities, heritage spaces risk becoming curated, performative environments—detached from the lived realities of the people they are meant to represent. At the same time, community heritage requires appropriate evaluation criteria—ones that reflect the needs and aspirations of local resource us- ers while ensuring long-term sustainability. The transformation of social relation- ships also calls for a more expansive and inclusive understanding of community sup- port—moving beyond fixed geographic boundaries to embrace more flexible and adaptive forms of collective identity. 2. Methodology Fig 7: Flow Chart Source: Author 2.1 Research objective 17 Fig 7: Old picture of Queensway shopping center Source: National Archives of Singapore This study selects Queensway Shopping Centre as the research object, situ- ated in Queenstown, which is Singapore’s first satellite town and remains a mature residential area with a strong community foundation. This essay tries to achieve these objectives below: • The relationship between architecture and community in the develop- ment of QSC • Reflect on how bottom-up narratives can complement or challenge top- down urban heritage policies. In response to urban development and the evolving needs of residents, • Identify key factors influencing community sustainability in the context of modern heritage. 18 • Develop a framework for assessing community-based sustainability within heritage sites. 2.2 Research scope Scope of Study: • QSC and related communities. • History: From QSC’s construction in the 1970s to the present. • Thematic: Cultural memory, community identity, commercial transfor- mation, urban policy impact Fig 8: ROH Plan Source: JIMMY-SUM Queenstown launched the “Remaking Our Heartland (ROH) Program”, 13 which aims to enhance its livability, sustainability, and overall appeal. Among its four key initiatives, one is directly linked to heritage conservation: the revitalization 13 https://jimmy-sum.com/blog/queenstowns-redevelopment-a-new-chapterfor-singapores-hirst-satellite-town/ 19 of community spaces. This initiative seeks to reactivate existing communal areas, repurpose the area’s rich cultural heritage, and introduce new amenities

to meet the changing needs of the community

18

. By explicitly recognizing

the role of heritage in sustainable

urban

development

, this strategy highlights

the

20

importance of

both tan- gible and intangible cultural assets—placing community engagement https://app.ithenticate.com/en_us/report/115254625/similarity

10/33

2025/4/19 14:40

at the core of

Similarity Report

the

urban transformation

3

process. Queensway Shopping Centre (QSC) is an excellent representation of the sec- ond-generation shopping mall in Singapore, throughout its long development his- tory, it has consistently maintained its identity as the nation’s destination for sports retail, forming a deep sense of collective memory among Singaporeans. As one of the few remaining old shopping centres that have retained their functional continuity, QSC holds significant value in understanding how such spaces can preserve their identity and pursue sustainable development during ongoing urban transformation. Given QSC’s unique position in Singapore’s social memory, it is also essential to ex- amine the relationship between heritage conservation and community from a com- munity-based perspective. In conclusion, the reasons for selection are below: • Built during the satellite town era, QSC is one of Singapore’s earliest mul- tifunctional shopping centres. • It played a significant role as a commercial and social hub (“Orchard Road at your doorstep”) for Queenstown’s early residents. 20 • QSC continues to maintain a strong connection to the community and is known for its sports retail identity. • As part of the Remaking Our Heartland (ROH) initiative, Queenstown now places heritage at the core of urban revitalization, offering a timely context to exam- ine heritage in sustainable urban development. 2.3 Research method This study focuses on Queensway Shopping Centre (QSC), examining its evo- lution from its establishment to the present day. By situating QSC within the broader official narrative of shopping mall development in Singapore during the 1970s, the research seeks to understand its significance, uniqueness, and value in relation to the nation’s urban and commercial history. Through an in-depth investigation of QSC, the study aims to identify the connection between community and heritage conservation, thereby promoting a community-based approach to sustainable de- velopment. In

this process, the

tension

between individual

memory

and collective memory

46

inevitably arises. While individual memory is undoubtedly valuable, it should not serve as the primary criterion for assessing heritage significance. If eve- rything is deemed to hold heritage value, the concept of heritage conservation risks becoming a meaningless proposition. ‘If all values are equal, then there’s no real value anymore.’14 Therefore, the notion of “community” in this study refers to a broad and critically considered group—one that extends beyond narrow definitions 14

Jukka Jokilehto (2010

) “Heritage, values and valuation”,

value of material cultural heritage. “Quality in cultural heritage

In: M. Quagliuolo (ed.), Measuring the man- agement -

9

Results of the

HERITY international conferences - Dossier number 2 (2008), DRI-Fondazione Enotria ONLUS, Rome

. 21 and is recognized for its relevance and value within the context of heritage conser- vation. By analyzing the historical context and surrounding physical environment, the research aims to clarify the development of its cultural diversity and

https://app.ithenticate.com/en_us/report/115254625/similarity

11/33

2025/4/19 14:40

Similarity Report

its evolving relationship with the community. Urban conservation involves preventing the decay of heritage through dynamic management, ensuring the

transmission of cultural and natural heritage

values

to future generations

36

. For long-term sustainability, “Engag- ing with communities and stakeholders ranks among the best practices for heritage management and conservation, shifting from a top-down… to bottom-up, proactive, and participatory approaches.”15 Research methods adopted are below: • Archival research: Historic maps, policies, media materials, etc.

(Sources are from NUS Central Library, NAS, NLB, URA, and NHB). • Field observation: Observation of QSC’s layout, usage, and community in- teractions, guided by Lefebvre’s “production of space” theory. • Cultural mapping: Identifying community-specific practices, spatial memory, and symbolic value. • Semi-structured interviews: Conducted with longterm shop owners and regular visitors to understand lived experiences, sense of identity, and perceptions of heritage value 15

Cunha Ferreira

, Teresa,

Pedro Murilo Freitas, Constanza Frigolett, Hugo Mendonça

, and

30

Ana Tarrafa Silva

. "The Contribution of Stakeholder Engagement to Cultural Signihicance Assessment: The Case of Values-Based Conservation Management Planning for the Ocean Swimming Pool, Portugal." Built Heritage 8, no. 1 (12, 2024): 26. 22 • Comparative analysis: Cross-examination with other shopping centres of the same era in Singapore. 2.4 Limitations This research also acknowledges certain limitations: • Restricted access to historical documents may affect the depth of the his- torical analysis. • Interview responses may be influenced by subjective biases, potentially af- fecting the objectivity of the findings. • Due to limited access to relevant channels, this round of interviews was un- able to include policyrelated stakeholders—such as officers from the Urban Rede- velopment Authority (URA)—as well as architects or scholars in urban planning. • The proposed framework does not include quantitative analysis of specific indicators, as a result, the framework has certain challenges in terms of practical implementation. Despite these challenges,

the study aims to contribute to a

deeper under- standing

of

5

QSC’s heritage significance and

its role in

balancing conservation

and

urban

development

, particularly

with regard to

48

the exploration and assessment of sustainability from a community-oriented perspective. 3. Analyse of Queensway Shopping Center 3.1 Context and History 23 Located at the junction of Queensway and Alexandra Road, Queensway Shopping Centre (QSC) was completed in 1976 to serve the Queens- town community. Developed alongside Queensway https://app.ithenticate.com/en_us/report/115254625/similarity

12/33

2025/4/19 14:40

Similarity Report

Tower (QT), QSC is a mixed- use complex featuring four floors of com- mercial space and residential apart- ments above the fourth floor, comprising Fig 8: QSC Today Source: Author a total of 241 commercial units and 78 residential apartments. In 2019, QSC was proposed for en-bloc sale, sparking di- vided opinions within the community. Some residents supported redevelopment, stating: “The building is really not doing very well, so if they can tear it down, it might be good.” Others, however, opposed the idea, emphasizing QSC’s unique cultural sig- nificance: “If this place is demolished, there won’t be a second Queensway.” 16A third group remained neutral, choosing to observe the situation.

Ultimately, the en- bloc sale proposal failed as it did not reach the required 80% approval threshold. As one of Singapore’s earliest mixed-use developments, QSC became a land- mark of Queenstown. Notably, during the 1970s, Singapore’s film and retail indus- tries flourished, and many prominent shopping centers shared common features 16

https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/queensway-shopping-centre-en-bloc-sale-falls-through-

3

after-lukewarm-response

?utm_source=chatgpt.com 24 such as luxury retail chains, cinemas, and large supermarkets17. However, QSC differentiated itself by eschewing such trends. Instead, it thrived with a special- ized retail focus, sustaining itself through a niche market in sportswear and simple Fig 9: Expectation of QSC commercial activities—a characteristic Source: NLB/Straits Time that continues to define its identity today. In its early years (1970s–1990s), QSC primarily focused on sportswear retail, selling products from major international brands such as Adidas and Nike, making it a key shopping destination beyond the Queenstown community and widely popular across Singapore. Alongside sports retail, QSC also offered additional services such as tailoring and printing to cater to local needs. During its transitional phase (2000s– 2020s), QSC retained and expanded its original business model, incorporat- ing more service-oriented businesses such as printing and tailoring, while also in- troducing new dining options to enhance visitor experience. Popular food establish- ments such as Katong Laksa, cafés, and fast-food outlets were added, encouraging longer customer visits.

Today, a search for QSC on social media reveals a new cul- tural identity—it has become a hub for second-hand fashion, attracting a younger demographic and further enhancing its cultural appeal. This evolution underscores 17 https://mothership.sg/2019/05/queensway-shopping-centre/ 25 QSC’s continued relevance and ability to adapt to changing consumer trends, rein- forcing its significance as a heritage site within Singapore’s urban landscape. 3.2 Shopping Centres in National Narrative The 1970s marked a period of rapid urban transformation in post-independ- ence Singapore. The national economy shifted toward an export-oriented model, ac- celerating industrialization.

Simultaneously, to address the housing shortage that had persisted since the 1960s, the Housing & Development Board (HDB) continued its large-scale public housing construction, improving living conditions and leading to the rise of new towns. As one of Singapore’s earliest satellite towns, Queenstown was initially de- veloped in the 1950s–1960s by the Singapore Improvement Trust (SIT), which laid down its basic infrastructure. By the 1970s, Queenstown had entered a mature phase of urban development, with the introduction of HDB flats prompting a major population shift into public housing. The widespread adoption of public housing led to the gradual disappearance of traditional kampongs, transforming Singapore’s so- cial structure toward an urbanized model. The steady population growth and gov- ernmentled nation-building efforts fostered a stable community in Queenstown. Its successful development served as a model for other emerging new towns such as Ang Mo Kio and Toa Payoh, making Queenstown a symbol of Singapore’s postinde- pendence urbanization and modernization, particularly in public housing policy and development https://app.ithenticate.com/en_us/report/115254625/similarity

，at this stage,

13/33

2025/4/19 14:40

Similarity Report

shopping centres also play a significant role. 26 Table 2: Different phases of shopping centers Phase Time Characteristics 1 Colonial-era Depart- ment Stores (1840s- 1960s) Single-owner, upmarket department stores cen- tered along High Street; symbols of colonial mercantile modernity. 2 Planned Strata-titled Shopping Centres (1960s -1990s) Multi-owner (strata-title) complexes; inte- grated residential, commercial, and transport facilities; suburbanized expansion; functional, everyday spaces. 2 REIT-managed Cu- rated Malls (2000s- present) Single-owner REIT management; themed, standardized mall environments; focus on lux- ury brands and international chains; visual and functional homogeneity. In the 1960s, “planned shopping centres” emerged as part of Singapore’s post-independence New Town development strategy, aligning with the nation’s broader modernization agenda. Unlike the pre-colonial era’s high-end department stores—typically owned and operated by a single proprietor—these new centres adopted a stratatitle ownership system. Designed as mixed-use complexes combin- ing residential, commercial, and retail functions, they played a vital role within the HDB communities of satellite towns. These centres contributed significantly to the suburbanization of Singapore’s urban landscape, marking a shift in the city’s spatial structure. In the 21st century, Singapore’s shopping centres began to evolve into cu- rated and thematized retail environments, exemplified by developments such as Vi- voCity, managed under Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs). This marked the end of the multi-owner, strata-title planned shopping center era. Despite being state- 27 planned and embedded with identity features aligned with national narratives, these second-generation shopping centres—because of their strata-title structure— allowed for the emergence of alternative, non-official narratives. These narratives sometimes challenged dominant urban discourses and, in turn, fostered grassroots community activities: “…enabled and encouraged what might be termed a ‘bottom- up’ evolution… according to the eclectic interests of individual shop-owners, local customers and other mall participants.”18 The third phase of shopping centre de- velopment in Singapore is driven by globalization, aiming to create the image of a modern, advanced nation in the new millennium. Shopping malls from both the second and third phases of development in Sin- gapore have been influenced by globalization, though their objectives are not entirely the same. Globalization is a long and continuous process, and closely linked to changes in Singapore’s political and cultural context. In the 1970s, during the early post-independence period, the introduction of global brands aimed

to improve

the

quality of life and

foster national confidence

and identity

27

. In contrast, the third phase seeks to project Singapore onto the global stage and shape a new international im- age.

Malls such as Marina Bay Sands, ION Orchard, and Jewel Changi exemplify this 21st-century shift. These spaces are not merely retail environments—they also serve as symbols of Singapore’s national identity. Their architectural design, brand selection, and consumer culture clearly distinguish them from second-phase malls. Within this context, the non-branded, family-run stores inside Queensway Shopping 18

The Singapore Mall Generation: History, Imagination, Community, edited by Liew Kai Khiun.

15

Singapore: Marshall Cavendish, 2022, 304pp. ISBN: 978-981-5009-39- 2

28 Centre (QSC) have become increasingly difficult to replicate. This shift illustrates how third-phase globalization has not only transformed the commercial logic of shopping malls but also reshaped urban space and consumer culture. https://app.ithenticate.com/en_us/report/115254625/similarity

14/33

2025/4/19 14:40

Similarity Report

Today’s con- sumers are more drawn to experiences that reflect Singapore’s transition toward a globalized, experienceoriented city. Table 3: Comparison between Phase 2 and 3 (From the perspective of globalization) Dimension Phase 2 Phase 3 Ownership Strata-title, multiple indi- vidual owners Single owner via REITs or GLCs Spatial Character Functional, eclectic, or- ganically evolved Standardized, themed, globally recognizable lay- outs Globalization Manifesta- tion Strongly localized, rooted in domestic entrepre- neurship Highly internationalized, dominated by global re- tail brands Consumer Culture Daily necessities, afforda- ble consumption Experiential consump- tion, brand premiumiza- tion Cultural Identity Local cultural memory and community attach- ment Global city branding and cosmopolitan lifestyle promotion Global Capital Influence Minimal global capital in- fluence High capital intervention, profit maximization However, this model has often come at the cost of community creativity and vitality, leading to cultural homogenization and the erosion of social cohesion. In an 29 era where standardized, corporatized mall typologies have become the norm, public nostalgia and renewed interest in earlier generations of shopping centres reflect not only a sense of loss but also a critique of the limited space for community participa- tion within the dominant national narrative. These sentiments reveal deeper reflec- tions on the current state of heritage and community engagement in Singapore’s ur- ban development. Table 4: Comparison between official narrative and official narrative Dimension Official Narrative (from “Arcade in the Air”) Community Narrative (from “Life is Not Complete Without Shopping”) Governance Model Planned shopping centre un- der state-led urban renewal and suburbanization strate- gies. Grassroots, strata-titled owner- ship allowing organic growth of diverse shops. Spatial Char- acter Air-conditioned, elevator- connected, multi-use modern complex promoting efficiency and order. Messy, eclectic, and community- centered; shaped by local needs and interests.

Cultural Role Part of building a modern, globally competitive “First World” Singapore. A site of everyday life, emotional attachment, and functional con- sumption for ordinary people. Identity Pro- duction Projecting national progress, modern lifestyle, and urban sophistication. Sustaining localized identities, subcultures (e.g., sports culture, printing services), and informal economies. Economic Logic Enhancing economic produc- tivity and spatial optimization through state planning. Serving practical, affordable, and customized goods and services for diverse social groups. 30 Heritage Seen as outdated or transi- Remembered nostalgically as a Value tional in the face of REIT- place of authentic community exdriven, standardized malls. perience and grassroots entrepre- neurship. 3.3 Comparison When compared with other shopping centres from the same period—the second phase of development—it becomes clear that Queensway Shopping Centre (QSC) has retained its vitality for several reasons. Although QSC has undergone cer- tain changes over time, it has managed to preserve a degree of continuity that dis- tinguishes it from its contemporaries. In terms of commercial typology, QSC has maintained a strong focus on sports retail, supported by a complementary range of services that together form a self-sustaining ecosystem. While other centers, such as Katong Shopping Centre, also maintain small retail units, the nature of their busi- nesses has shifted significantly. Katong, for instance, has transitioned from a community-based social space with diverse functions to one increasingly dominated by maid agencies and other unrelated services, leading to a rupture in its original social memory and identity. The Katong area, where Katong Shopping Centre (KSC) is lo- cated, was historically a gathering place for the Peranakan community. As such, it has also been referred to as the “Chinatown of the East.”19 However, with the ad- vancement of urban planning, the eastern coastal area was developed through land reclamation, which significantly altered the character of the surrounding 19 https://www.99.co/singapore/insider/katong-shopping-centre-potential-gold-mine/ 31 communities. Residential developments gradually became more upscale, and as the area evolved, the original communities were displaced. The traditional commercial activities could no longer meet the needs of the new demographic. In this context, maid services began to take up a larger share of the commercial landscape. These changes led to a disruption in social memory and a https://app.ithenticate.com/en_us/report/115254625/similarity

15/33

2025/4/19 14:40

Similarity Report

fragmentation of the area’s orig- inal identity. In examining the impact of top-down planning on communities, Golden Mile Complex (GMC) offers a more nuanced perspective. The formation of the Thai community within GMC was largely facilitated by the establishment of the Singa- pore–Thailand long-distance bus stop, which—although not originally intended for this purpose—provided a convenient foundation for community gathering and co- hesion. However, this community has now been completely erased due to recent re- development plans. This example illustrates that topdown planning can, under cer- tain circumstances, have positive effects on community formation. Therefore, thoughtful urban planning and supportive policy frameworks play a crucial role in promoting community sustainability. Fig 10: Katong shopping center (view from other side of Mountbatten Road) Source: https://katongshoppingcentre.com/ 32 Fig 11: People waiting for coaches Source:

https://biblioasia.nlb.gov.sg/vol-19/issue-2/jul-sep-2023/golden-mile-complex

26

-pho- tos/ The development of Katong Shopping Centre (KSC) demonstrates how changes in nearby communities can significantly influence the continuity of com- mercial activity. Businesses that depend heavily on local communities often lack re- silience and struggle to adapt quickly to changes in the urban environment. In this process, shopping centers tend to take on a passive role. Therefore, it is remarkable that Queensway Shopping Centre (QSC) has maintained a high degree of continuity and consistency in its development. Early urban planning played a constructive role in this outcome.

Queenstown, where QSC is located, was equipped with a relatively high concentration of sports facilities. Its proximity to schools highlighted sports 33 retail as an early key functional component. Unlike today’s branded outlets and cu- rated multi-label stores, Singapore’s sports retail industry in the 1970s–1980s op- erated through authorized distributors who sold goods to independent retailers. This flexible model generated an agglomeration economy within QSC and led to a form of path dependency, making it an irreplaceable destination for sports equip- ment. Over time, this contributed to the formation of a distinct social identity and embedded QSC deeply in Singapore’s collective memory. Table 5: Formation of identity S/N Reason 1 Proximity to sports facilities and schools, strong localized demand for sports goods. 2 Early tenant curation focused on attracting sports retailers. 3 Brand distribution through agency model; individual retailers aggregated under common supply. 4 Consumer attraction through variety and price competition rein- forced concentration.

5 QSC became culturally recognized as the 'go-to place' for buying sports shoes, especially among students and athletes. From an operational standpoint, QSC continues to rely on individually owned units, many of which are familyrun businesses that have operated since the 1970s and 1980s. Similar centers such as Funan Mall, which originally served as a cluster for electronic goods, have transformed into modern lifestyle complexes aligned with the globalized model of third-phase shopping centers. This transformation has 34

resulted in

the

loss of a

distinct

identity and

the weakening

of

55

associated cultural communities. This highlights the importance of commercial adaptability, just as sev- eral shop owners at Queensway Shopping Centre (QSC) referred to during the inter- view: “If you don’t change with the times and attract new customers constantly, the shop will eventually die.” QSC’s shops do more than sell goods—they offer additional services such as equipment maintenance, personalized sports gear advice, and prod- uct customization. https://app.ithenticate.com/en_us/report/115254625/similarity

16/33

2025/4/19 14:40

Similarity Report

Sports equipment has evolved alongside broader societal and lifestyle changes, increasingly incorporating specialized user experiences. As a product category, sports goods are marked by strong personal preferences and a high potential for customization. In response, the services offered at Queensway Shopping Centre (QSC) have also been gradually upgraded to meet these changing consumer expectations. These added-value services foster a sense of attachment among customers, creating stickiness and an emotional connection to the place. This comparison illustrates that while official narratives can assign a thematic identity to a space, the community narrative sustains, enriches, and diversifies that identity over time. In this regard, community-led continuity is far more crucial in such spaces' long-term sustainability. Today, QSC's presence has deviated from the official narrative—it no longer aligns with Singapore’s early nation-building discourse or the polished image of a developed, first-world shopping destination. Instead, it preserves a landscape of small, long-standing businesses, reflecting a more grounded and organic form of commerce that contrasts sharply with the sleek, curated environments of 35 contemporary malls. In the official narrative, Queensway Shopping Centre (QSC) represents the convenience of modern urban living, a tangible marker of Singapore’s progress toward becoming a “First World” nation. It embodies the integrated com- plex model as a symbol of a new social structure and reflects the government’s broader agenda of ethnic integration and modern governance. From the perspective of community narrative, however, it becomes evident that while the state can assign a thematic identity, it is the community that

plays a

more

crucial role in

ensuring

the

long-term sustainability

of

that

identity

44

—expanding, enriching, and imbuing it with diversity and vitality. In this narrative, QSC functions much like a large urban kam- pung: a cluster of family-run businesses centered around sports retail, interwoven with the everyday needs of local residents. This environment has given rise to an alternative identity that exists outside of official semantic frameworks— a subcul- tural community rooted in sports culture. QSC is thus a product of dual narratives. It is simultaneously a space shaped by state planning and governance and a place that has been re-signified by the community. The continued presence of long-stand- ing family-run shops preserves a sense of everyday urban life and serves as a quiet form of resistance to the standardized, corporatized model of REIT-managed shop- ping centers. “Goods and services are in a real sense the reason for the city’s being and drive its economic and emotional life.”20 As stated in the book, commodities and consumption equally play

a role in shaping the

character

of the city

52

. Table 6: Conclusion

20 Chua, Beng Huat (

. “Life Is Not Complete Without Shopping: Consumption Culture In Singapore.”

62

2003

https://app.ithenticate.com/en_us/report/115254625/similarity

17/33

2025/4/19 14:40

Similarity Report

). 36 Shopping mall Conclusion Queensway Shopping Center It has maintained a stable ecosystem of longstanding tenants and established long-term customer relationships, serving as a representa- tive example of a "neighborhoodoriented” shop- ping center. Katong Shopping Center Gradually lost its retail function and transitioned towards serviceoriented businesses. Funan Shopping Center It has fully entered a capital-driven urban rede- velopment logic, with its focus shifting toward youth-oriented markets and the experience econ- omy. 3.4 Challenge In conclusion, shopping centers, as a building typology heavily reliant on cus- tomer flow, are significantly influenced by changes in their surrounding environ- ment. Urban redevelopment and renewal have transformed social structures, con- tributing to the gradual collapse of traditional place-based concepts of community. The rise of third-generation malls and online shopping platforms has further dis- rupted traditional retail models, creating significant challenges for older shopping centers. In this context, the significance of community engagement in preserving shopping centers as architectural heritage has been called into question. Whether 37 this participation remains relevant and effective in preserving evolving urban spaces is a matter that warrants further investigation. The Queensway Shopping Centre (QSC) is facing a cruel reality: traditional sports retail is slowly losing its competitiveness, and many store owners have re- ported a notable decline in foot traffic. Although there have been no major changes in the planning or development of the surrounding area—and a sizable residential community still exists—the widespread presence of modern malls with extensive and convenient retail offerings has significantly diminished the functional reach of traditional shopping centers like QSC. As traditional patterns of community life fade, it becomes more important to explore how heritage conservation can be understood through a broader concept of community. This shift has crucial implications

for the sustainable

development

of heritage

spaces

in

modern urban

environments

3

. 4. Community in a broader sense As social structures change and technological advancements reshape pro- duction and interaction, the idea of community has evolved to include broader and more fluid definitions. The standards for defining communities have also evolved over time. In early community theories (19th to early 20th century), scholars like Fer- dinand Tönnies and Émile Durkheim classified communities according to geograph- ical proximity and social cohesion. These early frameworks focused on territorial and localized social groups as the primary basis for community formation. In the modern era (mid-to-late 20th century), community theory expanded to recognize 38 the importance of social capital and identity formation. Scholars such as Jane Jacobs and Pierre Bourdieu emphasized the role of social capital in fostering community cohesion. Benedict Anderson further argued that modern nations and national iden- tities function as “imagined communities”, suggesting that communities can extend beyond physical boundaries and instead be rooted in shared historical memory, cul- tural practices, or collective values. In the postmodern era (21st century), mobility and digitalization have reshaped community structures. The space of flows has re- placed the space of places, as globalization and the internet facilitate the rise of vir- tual communities21. The shift from place-based communities to interest-based com- munities has also become increasingly evident, with social media playing a growing role in heritage conservation. The Glocal Community Model22 highlights the fusion of local and global networks in community building, reinforcing that in a broader sense, community identity is increasingly defined by shared cultural affiliations rather than strict geographical ties. This trend is also reflected in heritage conserva- tion practices. For instance, the Mun San Fook Tuck Chee temple—originally sus- tained by the local Sar Kong community—has seen most of its original members re- locate. Today, the temple depends not only on local networks but also on a transna- tional community that https://app.ithenticate.com/en_us/report/115254625/similarity

18/33

2025/4/19 14:40

Similarity Report

shares a common cultural identity, with global exchanges fur- ther enriching its cultural influence. Table 7: Evolution of the concept of community Theory Representative Scholars Core Idea 21

Castells, M. (1996). The rise of the network society. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd

29

Chen, Y., Wang, YW. Approaches to sustaining people–place bonds in conservation planning: from

7

. 22

value-based, living heritage, to the glocal community. Built

Herit- age

8, 10 (2024).

https://doi.org/10.1186/s43238-024-00121-8

39 Gemeinschaft & Gesellschaft Ferdinand Tönnies Gemeinschaft (community) empha- sizes close relationships and tradi- tional values, while Gesellschaft (so- ciety) emphasizes contractual rela- tionships and rational organization.

Chicago School Robert E. Park, Ernest Burgess The community is an ecosystem in- fluenced by population, environment, and social organization. The urban structure follows a concentric zone model.

Social Capital Theory Pierre Bourdieu James Coleman Robert Putnam

Social capital

is

33

key to fostering com- munity cooperation and develop- ment, encompassing trust, norms, and social networks. Social Network Theory Mark Granovetter Barry Wellman Social networks are crucial for indi- viduals and communities in access- ing resources, while weak ties facili- tate innovation and information dis- semination. New Urbanism Andrés Duany Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk It advocates for compact, walkable, and mixed-use urban design to en- hance community interaction and sustainability. Sustainable Community Theory Peter Newman Timothy Beatley It emphasizes environmental, eco- nomic, and social sustainability while advocating for community re- silience and inclusivity. On-site observations and interviews were conducted to gain a comprehen- sive understanding of the current relationship between the building and the 40 community from the perspectives of various stakeholders. A total of 15 individuals were approached, and interviews were successfully collected from 13 participants, as 2 declined to participate. Among those interviewed were 5 consumers, 5 shop owners, and 3 tenants. Fig 12: Community continuity Source: Author During the observation, it was observed that many customers were engaging in conversations inside the shops. Their movement patterns demonstrated a strong sense of purpose, implying that previous relationships had already been formed prior to their visit. This business model fosters the growth of long-term patronage, turning transactional interactions into relationships built on trust and familiarity. 41 Observation shows that a sense of community still exists within QSC,

： a. The first aspect is the social interactions among shop units, which

which can be categorized into two main forms

are es- pecially prominent in traditional family-run businesses. In modern, corporatized, and commercialized shopping malls, such connections are seldom found. Employees are typically hired as staff with minimal relationships beyond their own store, and interactions with nearby units are limited. In contrast, many family-run businesses at QSC cultivate a sense of neighborhood familiarity. Daily interactions and mutual support among shop owners foster a type of local https://app.ithenticate.com/en_us/report/115254625/similarity

19/33

2025/4/19 14:40

Similarity Report

social cohesion that is becoming increasingly rare in today's retail environments. b. The second aspect involves the relationship between the shops and their customers. Due to the customized nature of sports equipment and the necessity for ongoing maintenance services, there is potential for deeper and sustained interac- tions between merchants and consumers. These two forms of social connection offer a new perspective on community sustainability— not one based solely on geographic proximity, but rather a commu- nity linked by cultural ties. "The shop owner knows my sports preferences and can provide me personalized advice.” “They provide maintenance services for badmin- ton and tennis rackets.” “I come here regularly to buy clothes and have built a famil- iar relationship with the shop owner.”

During interviews with customers, comments like these were commonly heard. These statements reflect the personalized service and long-term customer relationships that define the unique community 42 atmosphere within QSC. Sports culture, as a form of short ties, has allowed Queensway Shopping Centre (QSC) to maintain a strong connection with a commu- nity united not by geography, but by shared interests and practices. This culturally cohesive community has expanded its influence well beyond the local neighborhood and now stretches across all of Singapore.

However, these connections have not escaped the pressures of the modern market economy. Globalization has transformed traditional shopping centers, and its effects are also apparent within QSC. For example, chain sports retailers such as Weston Corp have begun to replace some of the traditional, family-run shops, sig- naling a shift toward more standardized, commercialized retail formats even within this historically unique space. The customer base today is no longer limited to loyal, long-term patrons; drawing in new customers has become essential for survival. As one interviewee emphasized: “Without new customers, it’s impossible to keep things going.” Another key factor that cannot be overlooked is the role of social me- dia. On the upper floors of QSC, newer vintage-themed stores often display signs that promote their online presence, including social media accounts and QR codes. In contrast, traditional family-run shops often lack this form of exposure. During on- site fieldwork, it was observed that several shops were operated jointly by two gen- erations of family members. However, their focus remained mainly on offline, time- intensive services, such as racket stringing, left them with little capacity to manage online business operations. Nevertheless, based on real cases and field observations, it is clear that despite the absence of formal marketing, community-driven social 43 media posts have naturally increased QSC’s visibility and influence. QSC’s reputation even circulates on Chinese international student social media, where a common say- ing encourages people to “go to QSC for sports gear.” Interviews with several cus- tomers, particularly international students from China, indicated that most of them learned about QSC through social media. In the digital age, individuals often navigate multiple, overlapping group identities, and the internet has made it easier than ever to form cultural communities. In a highly mobile society like Singapore, social media provides an effective way to integrate into unfamiliar environments. This suggests that beyond the collective memory of local Singaporeans, QSC has maintained a strong reputation—particularly in sports retail—and has managed to preserve its identity over time. Fig 13: Posters of vintage shops Source: Author 44 This reflects a degree of cultural visibility and symbolic resonance that ex- ceeds the boundaries of Singapore’s physical geography. In this context, shared practices, values, and ongoing interactions foster a community rooted in cultural af- finity, which has significant implications for heritage conservation and urban resili- ence. However, compared to traditional communities, these virtual ties tend to be more fragile. That said, from this perspective, as long as QSC continues to uphold its service quality and preserves its niche identity in sports gear and vintage fashion culture, these interest-based communities may continue to sustain themselves dig- itally maintaining visibility and relevance through online networks. Thus, while QSC, as a second-phase shopping centre, once played a foundational role in Queenstown’s early development and formed strong bonds with the surrounding community, in an era of fading traditional communities, culture has increasingly become the vital link— https://app.ithenticate.com/en_us/report/115254625/similarity

20/33

2025/4/19 14:40

Similarity Report

connecting people to each other, and to heritage. From the interviews, we identified two main ways through which cultural groups become aware of Queensway Shopping Centre (QSC): rec- ommendations and searches on social media platforms. Encouragingly, on me- dia platforms, Red Note, QSC’s identity is Fig 14: Laksa in QSC no longer limited to sports retail, the vin- Source: Author tage culture and Laksa food culture are 45 both included. This suggests that QSC is continuously enriching its cultural signifi- cance in response to evolving social trends. In addition to the pressures of globalization, divergent voices also exist within the community itself. While many residents and shop owners voted against the en bloc sale proposal, their reasons were often grounded in pragmatic con- cerns rather than emotional attachment to the community. During interviews, nu- merous respondents cited that the of- Fig 15: Tailor shop in QSC Source: Author fered compensation was insufficient to al- low them to relocate and continue their businesses elsewhere —effectively threat- ening their livelihood and daily survival. Nevertheless, it is encouraging that a sense of attachment to the community still persists. One elderly seamstress, for instance, proudly shared that she still maintains connections with members of the Malay com- munity because she once made school uniforms for them—an enduring bond that transcends transactional relationships. However, a critical issue that emerged is

the lack of

genuine

community involvement in the

heritage

management

3

process. Some interviewees had never even heard of the Queenstown Remaking Our Heartland (ROH) plans, and noted that no officials had reached out to gather their views. This highlights a severe deficit in community participation— despite being the very 46 people most affected, their voices remain marginalized or altogether excluded in the planning and decision-making processes. 5. Community Sustainability-Heritage Frame 5.1 SHIFT- Sustainable Heritage Impact Factor Theory Cultural heritage is complicated, particularly when considered from the per- spective of sustainable management within communities.

Nanetti, A., Cheong, S. A., & Mei, Q

conceptualize

heritage

1

as one dimension within the complex Human–Her- itage–Landscape system, and based on this understanding, they proposed the Sus- tainable Heritage Impact Factor Theory (SHIFT). 23 This theory introduces five quantitative indicators to assess the sustainability and impact of heritage elements. These five indicators are:

（以表格概括SHIFT，增加易读

性） (1) Associations between tangible and intangible heritage. (2) Importance (e.g., from social media content). (3) Strength of transmission. (4) Rate of transformation. (5) Impact: future value estimated from current sacrifices or commitments. Table 8: SHIFT Framework S/N Indicator Explanation 1 Associations between tangible and intangible

heritage Measure the mutual reinforcement be- tween tangible heritage (e.g., build- ings) and intangible heritage (e.g., so- cial practices).

批注[YL1]: You might also want to include a table to sum- marise the ideas of SHIFT. This can

enhance readability, es- pecially if the readers want to compare this to your proposed criteria 23

Nanetti, A., Cheong, S. A., & Mei, Q. (2016). Sustainable Heritage Impact Factor Theory (SHIFT): A

https://app.ithenticate.com/en_us/report/115254625/similarity

1

21/33

2025/4/19 14:40

Similarity Report

complexity framework for heritage assessment and planning

]. Journal of

Architecture

Heritage, 4, 21-37. 47 2 Importance Assess the public influence of the heritage, such as its appearance on so- cial media or other public platforms. 3 Strength of transmission Measure how strongly intangible her- itage is transmitted and replicated across generations. 4 Rate of transformation Measure how fast the heritage prac- tices or values are transforming or de- viating from tradition. 5 Impact: Assess whether the heritage can con- tribute to a better future, such as com- munity identity, wellbeing, or cultural innovation. Heritage conservation is a dynamic process of management, and from a sus- tainability perspective, it requires consideration of several key characteristics. At a minimum, the following dimensions are essential for evaluation: a. A Stable Foundation – Heritage must be rooted in a consistent and identi- fiable cultural or historical context that provides continuity over time. This founda- tion ensures that conservation efforts are not arbitrary but anchored in meaningful significance. b. Adaptability and Flexibility – Sustainable heritage must possess a degree of variability and adaptability allowing it to respond to evolving environment and ensures relevance across generations while maintaining core values. c. Recognized and Evolving Value – Heritage value is not fixed; it is shaped by ongoing interpretations and community engagement. A sustainable approach acknowledges both tangible and intangible dimensions. 48 These characteristics together enable heritage to function

not as

a

static

relic

of the past, but as

a living and

evolving

asset

that

12

contributes meaningfully to con- temporary life and future development. These indicators offer a valuable reference point for constructing an evalua- tion framework for community sustainability. However, they primarily focus

on the value of heritage

itself.

Communities, as

dynamic

and

54

evolving systems, require more flexible and adaptive assessment criteria that account for their complexity and fluidity.

Moreover, from a long-term perspective, it is essential that communities are not only subjects of evaluation but also active, equitable participants in the heritage conservation process. Sustainable outcomes can only be achieved when local voices are genuinely integrated, and the processes of decision-making are inclusive, trans- parent, and responsive to the changing needs of the community. Nancy Fraser’s the- ory of social justice highlights three core dimensions: economic, cultural, and polit- ical. Achieving genuine parity of participation requires addressing all three dimen- sions simultaneously. Therefore, this study will explore community sustainability from these perspectives with a focus on long-term objectives. Cultural sustainability is a crucial dimension of heritage conservation, and community heritage fundamentally relies on cultural identity and recognition. Both tangible and intangible heritage hold immense value, influencing not only urban and community development but also education

and economic growth. In the

realm

https://app.ithenticate.com/en_us/report/115254625/similarity

of cultural heritage

23

22/33

2025/4/19 14:40

Similarity Report

conservation, economic sustainability is essential to ensuring long- term viability and effective management. Stable long-term funding serves as the 49 foundation for heritage conservation while simultaneously contributing to local economic growth and community well-being. This aligns

with SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth

6

. Economic incentives also attract private investment, stimulating related industries such as cultural and creative sectors while encouraging wider public participation, ultimately enhancing the impact and visibility of heritage con- servation.

Furthermore, adaptive reuse of heritage sites reduces resource consump- tion, lowers environmental impact, and, through close community engagement, minimizes long-term maintenance costs. In assessing community sustainability, policy frameworks play

a critical role. The

dominance

of the Authorized Heritage

43

Discourse (AHD) has often resulted in community voices being marginalized24. A legally binding and stable heritage policy is essential for ensuring community agency while providing oversight on the imple- mentation of economic and cultural initiatives. Effective policies can safeguard gen- uine community sustainability, ensuring that conservation efforts align with the needs and aspirations of local populations. One successful example is France’s “Her- itage Lottery”, a policy-driven incentive that has generated substantial financial sup- port for cultural heritage conservation. By integrating money and power, such mechanisms provide critical financial and political backing

for the protection and

sustainable development

of heritage

assets. In

the

final

51

evaluation

framework, a combination

of top-down and bottom- up approaches

is essential.

The

40

top-down perspective shapes identity and 24

Smith, L. (2006). Uses of Heritage (1st ed.). Routledge

38

. 50 positioning by providing structure, direction, and recognition within broader policy and planning frameworks. At the same time, the bottom-up approach enhances the community's adaptability and vitality, showcasing lived experiences,

https://app.ithenticate.com/en_us/report/115254625/similarity

23/33

2025/4/19 14:40

Similarity Report

local needs, and creativity. These two dimensions create a dynamic and balanced model where institutional support and community agency collaborate to foster the sustainable development of both heritage and community. 5.2 Criteria for Community Sustainability-Heritage Frame In the analysis of Queensway Shopping Centre (QSC), it was found that within interest-based communities sustained by shared culture, cultural consistency over time serves as a fundamental basis for shaping identity. Similarly, the study of fam- ily-run shops revealed that economic and policy support is crucial for maintaining cultural continuity. Building on these insights and incorporating the SHIFT frame- work, the following tailored evaluation criteria are proposed to assess the sustaina- bility of community-based heritage spaces like QSC: a. Cultural Continuity – Assesses whether cultural practices, values, and ex- pressions maintain coherence over time throughout the development process. This includes evaluating whether a consistent sense of identity has been preserved, which is essential for fostering a sense of belonging among community members. b. Community Stickiness – Evaluates the extent to which sustained relation- ships are formed through interactions within the community. This serves as a measure of the strength of social bonds, which is particularly critical for long-term 51 sustainability. High community stickiness indicates resilience, mutual support, and a strong sense of place attachment among members. c. Flexibility & Adaptability – Assesses the capacity of cultural heritage to evolve in response to changing social, economic, and environmental conditions. As noted, “As any living body, it follows a life cycle and therefore some elements are likely to disappear, after having given birth to new forms of expressions…”25 This indicator evaluates whether the heritage element is able to maintain relevance by adapting without losing its core identity. From a cultural perspective, such adapta- bility is crucial for ensuring long-term sustainability. d. Economic Contribution—Assesses whether identityrelated cultural prac- tices and heritage create enough economic value to sustain the ongoing existence and growth of the community. In the long run, economic viability is crucial—it alle- viates the pressure for transformation or displacement and motivates stakeholders to engage in active, self-sustaining roles in preserving and maintaining the commu- nity. A culturally grounded economy enhances both heritage and local resilience. e. Policy Support—Evaluates how government policies acknowledge and pri- oritize heritage conservation, especially regarding community empowerment. This includes evaluating whether the community’s voice is represented in heritage con- servation and management processes. The presence of inclusive policies, incentive schemes, and institutional support can provide communities with both the rights and the confidence needed to actively participate in and sustain heritage efforts. 25

Engelhardt, R. A. and Rogers, P. R. (2009) Hoi An Protocols for Best Conservation Practice in Asia,

14

Bangkok: UNESCO. Compromised integrity in Malacca, Malaysia

. 52 In order to quantify the five dimensions for evaluation purposes, a five-point Likert scale was adopted. Each dimension was assigned a corresponding set of ref- erence criteria to guide scoring, aiming to minimize subjective bias and enhance the objectivity of the results. The evaluation framework is outlined as follows: Table 9: Framework for Assessment S/N Dimen- sion Criteria Grades 1 Cultural Continuity Do cultural elements still persist in the community’s every- day practices? Do the community’s everyday practices still reflect the characteristics of its earlier period? Does the younger generation participate in and identify with these practices? (1-5) 2 Community Stickiness Are intergenerational relationships present within the com- munity? Is interaction among community members frequent? Are there any spontaneous activities within the commu- nity? (1-5) 3 Flexibility & Adaptability Can the community’s social ties adapt to new develop- ments? Is change accepted by the existing community and incorpo- rated into their practices? https://app.ithenticate.com/en_us/report/115254625/similarity

24/33

2025/4/19 14:40

Similarity Report

Is there integration between the old and the new? (1-5) 4 Economic Contribu- tion Can heritage generate sustainable and stable income? Can it attract people from outside the community? Can it contribute to addressing employment issues within the community to some extent? (1-5) 53 Is there clear policy support from the government? 5 Policy Are there any incentive measures in place? (1-5) Support Is the community properly recognized and involved

in the decision-making process

? Clarification Each dimension

is

scored

on a

20

scale from 1 to 5, with each score corresponding to a specific description of the sus- tainability status. 1(High unsustainability): Very weak or completely absent. 2(Low unsustainability): Slightly evident. 3(Medium sustainability): Basically evident. 4(Good sustainability): Clear, although further improvements are pos- sible. 5(High sustainability): Sustainability is strongly evident and well-inte- grated. Although a quantitative framework has been proposed, the weighting of each evaluation dimension requires further research and clarification. 6. Conclusion Culturally bonded community forms hold considerable potential for promot- ing sustainable development, especially in the realm of heritage conservation. As so- ciety continues to shift toward individualization, identity-based cultural belonging gains increasing relevance. This sense of cultural affiliation provides a foundation for maintaining social connections—even amid rapid urban renewal, accelerated population mobility, and economic instability. In the contemporary context, where cultural landscape is widely employed as a conceptual and analytical tool, culture is understood in an expanded sense— not only as the core value of heritage 54 conservation but also as a vital mechanism for fostering community ties.

Through the everyday practice of culture, alternative narratives emerge—distinct from offi- cial discourses—contributing to the multiplicity and richness of urban life. It is, therefore, essential to recognize the value of these new forms of community, which are shaped through shared cultural practices. With appropriate policy support and adaptive development strategies, such communities can serve

as a bridge between heritage

conservation

and sustainable

community

development

42

, ultimately achiev- ing a dual objective that benefits both. 55 7. Bibliography [1] BiblioAsia. "Golden Mile Complex."

BiblioAsia, July-September 2023. https://biblioasia.nlb.gov.sg/vol-19/issue-2/jul-sep-2023/golden-mile-com- plex/. [2] BiblioAsia. "Golden Mile Complex." BiblioAsia, July-September 2023. https://biblioasia.nlb.gov.sg/vol-19/issue-2/jul-sep2023/golden-mile- complex/. [3] Christopher Tweed and Margaret Sutherland, ‘Built Cultural Heritage and Sustainable Urban Development’, Landscape and Urban Planning 83, no. 1 (November 2007): 62–69, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landur- bplan.2007.05.008; [4] United Nations. “The 17 Goals.” Accessed April 18, 2025. https://sdgs.un.org/goals. [5] United Nations. “Goal 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities.” Accessed April 18, 2025. https://sdgs.un.org/goals/goal11. [6] United Nations. “Sustainable Cities and Human Settlements.” Accessed April 18, 2025. https://sdgs.un.org/topics/sustainable-cities-and-human-settlements. [7] Jimmy Sum. “Queenstown’s Redevelopment: A New Chapter for Singapore’s First Satellite Town.” Accessed April 18, 2025. https://jimmysum.com/blog/queenstowns-redevelopment-a-new-chapter-for-singapores- first-satellite-town/. [8] Today Online.

“Queensway Shopping Centre En Bloc Sale Falls through after Lukewarm Response.” Accessed April 18, 2025. https://www.to- dayonline.com/singapore/queensway-shopping-centre-en-bloc-sale-falls-thr 56 [9] Mothership.sg. “The https://app.ithenticate.com/en_us/report/115254625/similarity

25/33

2025/4/19 14:40

Similarity Report

Legendary Queensway Shopping Centre: A Look at Sin- gapore’s OG Shopping Mall.” Accessed April 18, 2025. https://mother- ship.sg/2019/05/queensway-shopping-centre/. [10]James, Paul, and others, Sustainable Communities, Sustainable Develop- ment: Other Paths for Papua New Guinea (Honolulu, HI, 2012; online edn, Hawai'i Scholarship Online, 17 Nov. 2016), https://doi.org/10.21313/hawaii/9780824835880.001.0001, ac- cessed 18 Apr. 2025. [11]Shua, Yeo Kang. “Bridging Positivist and Relativist Approaches in Recent Com- munity-Managed Architectural Conservation Projects in Singapore.” Sojourn: Journal of Social Issues in Southeast Asia 33, no. 3 (2018): 647–76. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26538281. [12]Rivenc, Rachel. “Objects, Memory, and Restorative Justice (A Personal Reflection on Conservation’s Meaning).” Journal of the American Institute for Conservation 63, no. 2 (April 2, 2024): 94– 109. https://doi.org/10.1080/01971360.2023.2266261. [13]Veljko Radulović et al., ‘Sustainability of Cultural Memory: Youth Perspec- tives on Yugoslav World War Two Memorials’, Sustainability 14, no. 9 (6 May 2022): 5586, https://doi.org/10.3390/su14095586; [14]Jean-François Orianne and Francis Eustache, ‘Collective Memory: Between Individual Systems of Consciousness and Social Systems’, Frontiers in 57 Psychology 14 (12 October 2023): 1238272, https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1238272; [15]Yulia Nurliani Lukito and Amalia Nurul Rizky, ‘Collecting Memories of the City through the Conservation of Heritage Building’, IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science 126 (March 2018): 012081, https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/126/1/012081; [16]Melinda J. Milligan, ‘Buildings as History: The Place of Collective Memory in the Study of Historic Preservation’, Symbolic Interaction 30, no. 1 (January 2007): 105–23, https://doi.org/10.1525/si.2007.30.1.105; [17]Melissa Liow Li Sa and Sam Choon-Yin, Sustainable Urban Development in Singapore: Imagining Walkability in an Urban Concrete Jungle, Sustainable Development Goals Series (Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore, 2023), https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-5451-3; [18]Hannah Jones, ‘Exploring the Creative Possibilities of Awkward Space in the City’, Landscape and Urban Planning 83, no. 1 (November 2007): 70– 76, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.05.007; [19]H. Jones and P. Jones, ‘Cities and Sustainability’, Landscape and Urban Plan- ning 83, no. 1 (November 2007): 1, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landur- bplan.2007.05.011; [20]Trond Jacobsen, Ricardo L. Punzalan, and Margaret L. Hedstrom, ‘Invoking “Collective Memory”: Mapping the Emergence of a Concept in Archival 58 Science’, Archival Science 13, no. 2–3 (June 2013): 217–51, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10502-0139199-4. [21]Lynsey Hogarth and Stephen Emmitt, ‘What Value in Preserving a Fragment of Building? A Sociological Enquiry into the Museum Preservation of Robin Hood Gardens’, Journal of Architectural Conservation 30, no. 1 (2 January 2024): 1–18, https://doi.org/10.1080/13556207.2023.2278272. [22]Anita Forjette, ‘HERITAGE CONSERVATION AND The SUSTAINABLE DE- VELOPMENT GOALS’, n.d.; Dorna Eshrati and Parastoo Eshrati, ‘Urban Con- servation in the Public Eye: Evaluating the Integrity Achieved in the Reha- bilitation Plan of Karim-Khan Zand Complex, Shiraz, Iran Based on People’s Perceptions’, Land Use Policy 117 (June 2022): 106121, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2022.106121.

[23]Maryam Keramati Ardakani and Seyyed Saeed Ahmadi Oloonabadi, ‘Collec- tive Memory as an Efficient Agent in Sustainable Urban Conservation’, Pro- cedia Engineering 21 (2011): 985–88, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2011.11.2103. [24]Sarah Al-Alawi et al., ‘Linking Cultural Built Heritage and Sustainable Urban Development: Insights into Strategic Development Recommendations for the German-Polish Border Region’, disP - The Planning Review 58, no.

2 (3 April 2022): 4–15, https://doi.org/10.1080/02513625.2022.2123160. 59 [25]John Wood, ‘Synergy City; Planning for a High Density, Super-Symbiotic So- ciety’, Landscape and Urban Planning 83, no. 1 (November 2007): 77–83, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.05.006. [26]Christopher Tweed and Margaret Sutherland, ‘Built Cultural Heritage and Sustainable Urban Development’, Landscape and Urban Planning 83, no. 1 (November 2007): 62–69, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landur- bplan.2007.05.008. [27]Robert Tavernor, ‘Visual and Cultural Sustainability: The Impact of Tall Buildings on London’, Landscape and Urban Planning 83, no. 1 (November 2007): 2–12, https://app.ithenticate.com/en_us/report/115254625/similarity

26/33

2025/4/19 14:40

Similarity Report

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.05.010. [28]Rachel Rivenc, ‘Objects, Memory, and Restorative Justice (A Personal Re- flection on Conservation’s Meaning)’, Journal of the American Institute for Conservation 63, no. 2 (2 April 2024): 94–109, https://doi.org/10.1080/01971360.2023.2266261. [29]Veljko Radulović et al., ‘Sustainability of Cultural Memory: Youth Perspec- tives on Yugoslav World War Two Memorials’, Sustainability 14, no. 9 (6 May 2022): 5586, https://doi.org/10.3390/su14095586. [30]Jean-François Orianne and Francis Eustache, ‘Collective Memory: Between Individual Systems of Consciousness and Social Systems’, Frontiers in Psy- chology 14 (12 October 2023): 1238272, https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1238272. [31]https://www.zaobao.com.sg/news/singapore/story202502275941824 60 [32]Yulia Nurliani Lukito and Amalia Nurul Rizky, ‘Collecting Memories of the City through the Conservation of Heritage Building’, IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science 126 (March 2018): 012081, https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/126/1/012081;. [33]Melinda J. Milligan, ‘Buildings as History: The Place of Collective Memory in the Study of Historic Preservation’, Symbolic Interaction 30, no. 1 (January 2007): 105–23, https://doi.org/10.1525/si.2007.30.1.105. [34]Melissa Liow Li Sa and Sam Choon-Yin, Sustainable Urban Development in Singapore: Imagining Walkability in an Urban Concrete Jungle, Sustainable Development Goals Series (Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore, 2023), https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-5451-3. [35]Hannah Jones, ‘Exploring the Creative Possibilities of Awkward Space in the City’, Landscape and Urban Planning 83, no. 1 (November 2007): 70–76, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.05.007. [36]H. Jones and P. Jones, ‘Cities and Sustainability’, Landscape and Urban Plan- ning 83, no. 1 (November 2007): 1, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landur- bplan.2007.05.011. [37]Milan Jaros, ‘Towards Re-Definition of Space-Ness in the Post-Mechanical Age: Methodological Notes’, Landscape and Urban Planning 83, no. 1 (No- vember 2007): 84–89, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landur- bplan.2007.05.005. 61 [38]Trond Jacobsen, Ricardo L. Punzalan, and Margaret L. Hedstrom, ‘Invoking “Collective Memory”: Mapping the Emergence of a Concept in Archival Sci- ence’, Archival Science 13, no. 2–3 (June 2013): 217–51, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10502-0139199-4. [39]Lynsey Hogarth and Stephen Emmitt, ‘What Value in Preserving a Fragment of Building? A Sociological Enquiry into the Museum Preservation of Robin Hood Gardens’, Journal of Architectural Conservation 30, no. 1 (2 January 2024): 1–18, https://doi.org/10.1080/13556207.2023.2278272. [40]Anita Forjette, ‘HERITAGE CONSERVATION AND The SUSTAINABLE DE- VELOPMENT GOALS’, n.d.; Dorna Eshrati and Parastoo Eshrati, ‘Urban Con- servation in the Public Eye: Evaluating the Integrity Achieved in the Reha- bilitation Plan of Karim-Khan Zand Complex, Shiraz, Iran Based on People’s Perceptions’, Land Use Policy 117 (June 2022): 106121, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2022.106121.

[41]Maryam Keramati Ardakani and Seyyed Saeed Ahmadi Oloonabadi, ‘Collec- tive Memory as an Efficient Agent in Sustainable Urban Conservation’, Pro- cedia Engineering 21 (2011): 985–88, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2011.11.2103. [42]Sarah Al-Alawi et al., ‘Linking Cultural Built Heritage and Sustainable Urban Development: Insights into Strategic Development Recommendations for the German-Polish Border Region’, disP - The Planning Review 58, no.

2 (3 April 2022): 4–15, https://doi.org/10.1080/02513625.2022.2123160. 62 [43]Sim Loo Lee,Urban conservation policy and the preservation of historical and cultural heritage: The case of Singapore, Cities, Volume 13, Issue 6, 1996, Pages 399-409, [44]Blackburn, Kevin and Tan Peng Hong Alvin. "The Emergence of Heritage Conservation in Singapore and the Preservation of Monuments Board (1958-76)." Southeast Asian Studies 4, no. 2 (08, 2015): 341-364. [45]Coningham, R., & Lewer, N. (Eds.). (2019). Archaeology, cultural heritage protection and community engagement in South Asia. Springer Singapore. [46]Cunha Ferreira, Teresa, Pedro Murilo Freitas, Constanza Frigolett, Hugo Mendonça, and Ana Tarrafa Silva.

"The Contribution of Stakeholder Engage- ment to Cultural Significance Assessment: The Case of Values-Based Conservation Management Planning for the Ocean Swimming Pool, Portugal." Built Heritage 8, no. 1 (12, 2024): 26. doi:https://doi.org/10.1186/s43238- 024-00138-z. [47]Chitty, G. (Ed.). (2016). Heritage, Conservation and Communities: https://app.ithenticate.com/en_us/report/115254625/similarity

27/33

2025/4/19 14:40

Similarity Report

Engage- ment, participation and capacity building (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doiorg.libproxy1.nus.edu.sg/10.4324/9781315586663 [48]Peggy Teo, Shirlena Huang, Tourism and heritage conservation in Singa- pore, Annals of Tourism Research, Volume 22, Issue 3, 1995, Pages 589-615, ISSN 0160-7383, 63 [49]Tan, S. B., & Ti, E. S. (2020). What is the value of built heritage conservation? Assessing spillover effects of conserving historic sites in Singapore. Land use policy, 91, 104393 [50]Henderson, Joan C. "Built Heritage Conservation, Urban Development, and Tourism: Singapore in the 21st Century." Tourism, Culture & Communica- tion 11, no. 3 (05, 2011): 137-147. doi:https://doi.org/10.3727/109830412X13346876802112. [51]Yuen, B. (2006). Reclaiming Cultural Heritage in Singapore. Urban Affairs Review, 41(6), 830-854. https://doi-org.lib- proxy1.nus.edu.sg/10.1177/1078087406289187 (Original work pub- lished 2006) [52]Lucia, Della Spina. "Adaptive Sustainable Reuse for Cultural Heritage: A Multiple Criteria Decision Aiding Approach Supporting Urban Development Processes." Sustainability 12, no. 4 (2020): 1363. doi:https://doi.org/10.3390/su12041363. [53]Pineschi, L. (Ed.). (2023). Cultural Heritage, Sustainable Development and Human Rights: Towards an Integrated Approach (1st ed.). Routledge. [54]Bortolotto, C., & Skounti, A. (Eds.). (2023).

Intangible Cultural Heritage and Sustainable Development: Inside a UNESCO Convention (1st ed.). Routledge. [55]Han, Fang, Zhaoping Yang, Hui Shi, Qun Liu, and Geoffrey Wall. "How to Pro- mote Sustainable Relationships between Heritage Conservation and 64 Community, Based on a Survey." Sustainability 8, no. 9 (2016): 886. doi:https://doi.org/10.3390/su8090886. [56]The Singapore Mall Generation: History, Imagination, Community, edited by Liew Kai Khiun. Singapore: Marshall Cavendish, 2022, 304pp. ISBN: 978- 981-5009-39-2 [57]Zihao Cao, Linqi Huang, Yongchun Mao, Muhizam Mustafa, Mohd Hafizal Mohd Isa, Navigating complexity in sustainable conservation: A multicrite- ria decision making of architectural heritage in urbanizing China, Journal of Building Engineering, Volume 102,

可持续遗产影响因素理论——遗产评估和规划的复杂性框架

2025, 111906, [58]Nanetti, A., Cheong, S. A., & Mei, Q. (2016).

研究[Sus-tainable Heritage Impact Factor Theory (SHIFT): A complexity framework for heritage assessment and planning].建筑遗产, 4, 21-37. [59]Engelhardt, R. A. and Rogers, P. R. (2009) Hoi An Protocols for Best Conser- vation

Practice in Asia, Bangkok: UNESCO. Compromised integrity in Ma- lacca, Malaysia. 65 8. Appendix 8.1 Seme-structure interview The article employed a semi-structured interview approach, and the key questions posed during the interviews were as follows: 1. Are you a customer / Shop owner / Tenant? 2. (If customer): What is your main purpose for coming here? Do you live nearby? How do you find out about QSC? 3. (If shop owner): Do you support or oppose the en bloc sale of the building? What is your reason or concern? How is your business these years? Do you still have connections with the old community? Do you have more new customers or regular (old) customers? Are you still mainly using the traditional offline transaction model, or have there been any new developments? 4. (If tenant): How is your business these years? Do you still have connections with the old community? Do you have more new customers or regular (old) customers? 66 Are you still mainly using the traditional offline transaction model, or have there been any new developments? 5. Do you think this place has a cultural atmosphere? 6. Can you share your thoughts about QSC? What do you think are its strengths and weaknesses? 67

sources:

1

31 words / < 1% match - Internet from 15-May-2019 12:00AM dr.ntu.edu.sg

2

18 words / < 1% match - Internet from 22-Jul-2022 12:00AM dr.ntu.edu.sg

https://app.ithenticate.com/en_us/report/115254625/similarity

28/33

2025/4/19 14:40

3

Similarity Report

44 words / < 1% match - Publications Kalliopi Fouseki, May Cassar, Guillaume Dreyfuss, Kelvin Ang Kah Eng. "Routledge Handbook of Sustainable Heritage", Routledge, 2022

4

19 words / < 1% match - Internet from 15-Oct-2022 12:00AM ebin.pub

5

16 words / < 1% match - Internet from 17-Sep-2024 12:00AM ebin.pub

6

8 words / < 1% match - Internet from 17-Sep-2024 12:00AM ebin.pub

7

35 words / < 1% match - Internet from 10-May-2024 12:00AM built-heritage.springeropen.com

8

33 words / < 1% match - Internet from 13-Oct-2022 12:00AM acikbilim.yok.gov.tr

9

33 words / < 1% match - Internet from 10-Aug-2022 12:00AM datospdf.com

10

33 words / < 1% match - Internet from 20-Nov-2024 12:00AM issuu.com

11

28 words / < 1% match - Internet from 03-Nov-2022 12:00AM www.bibliovault.org

12

27 words / < 1% match - Internet from 22-Feb-2025 12:00AM WWW.MDPI.COM

13

25 words / < 1% match - Internet from 10-Apr-2023 12:00AM ia801905.us.archive.org

14

24 words / < 1% match - Internet from 17-Dec-2024 12:00AM www.goodfellowpublishers.com

15

23 words / < 1% match - Internet from 05-Feb-2024 12:00AM muse.jhu.edu

16

20 words / < 1% match - Internet from 26-Dec-2022 12:00AM escholarship.org

https://app.ithenticate.com/en_us/report/115254625/similarity

29/33

2025/4/19 14:40

Similarity Report

17

19 words / < 1% match - Internet from 04-Jul-2023 12:00AM omu.repo.nii.ac.jp

18

19 words / < 1% match - Internet from 17-Nov-2014 12:00AM www.badmintoncentral.com

19

18 words / < 1% match - Crossref Qing Mei. "The Values of Gulangyu World Cultural Heritage", Springer Science and Business Media LLC, 2020

20

18 words / < 1% match - Internet from 30-May-2024 12:00AM www-emerald-com-443.webvpn.sxu.edu.cn

21

17 words / < 1% match - Internet from 16-Jan-2023 12:00AM warwick.ac.uk

22

16 words / < 1% match - Internet from 01-Apr-2016 12:00AM digitalcollections.sit.edu

23

16 words / < 1% match - Internet from 11-Nov-2022 12:00AM eprints.mdx.ac.uk

24

16 words / < 1% match - ProQuest Τζήκα, Στέλλα. "Πολιτιστική Κληρονομιά και Πνευματικά Δικαιώματα", University of Piraeus (Greece), 2024

25

15 words / < 1% match - Internet from 10-Oct-2022 12:00AM link.springer.com

26

15 words / < 1% match - Internet from 19-Aug-2024 12:00AM sarankim.art

27

14 words / < 1% match - Publications Kapila D. Silva. "The Routledge Handbook on Historic Urban Landscapes in the Asia-Pacific", Routledge, 2019

28

14 words / < 1% match - Internet from 01-Apr-2025 12:00AM wrap.warwick.ac.uk

29

13 words / < 1% match - Internet from 14-Nov-2024 12:00AM sociology.org

30

12 words / < 1% match - Internet from 04-Aug-2024 12:00AM doaj.org

https://app.ithenticate.com/en_us/report/115254625/similarity

30/33

2025/4/19 14:40

Similarity Report

31

12 words / < 1% match - Internet from 04-Feb-2024 12:00AM pureadmin.qub.ac.uk

32

11 words / < 1% match - Internet from 01-Aug-2024 12:00AM 1library.net

33

34

35

36

10 words / < 1% match - Internet Helal, M. "An investigation of the use of social media for e-commerce amongst small businesses in Saudi Arabia"

9 words / < 1% match - Crossref "New Approach to Cultural Heritage", Springer Science and Business Media LLC, 2021

9 words / < 1% match - Crossref Lily Kong. "Urban Conservation in Singapore: A Survey of State Policies and Popular Attitudes", Urban Studies, 3/1/1994

9 words / < 1% match - ProQuest Lizheng, Xu. "Cultural Landscape, Heritage and Tourism in Beijing", Universidade de Coimbra (Portugal), 2024

37

9 words / < 1% match - Internet from 17-Jan-2025 12:00AM essay.utwente.nl

38

9 words / < 1% match - Internet from 04-Mar-2025 12:00AM ijeas.untan.ac.id

39

9 words / < 1% match - Internet from 12-Nov-2019 12:00AM pdfs.semanticscholar.org

40

8 words / < 1% match - Crossref "New Metropolitan Perspectives", Springer Science and Business Media LLC, 2021

41

42

43

8 words / < 1% match - Crossref "Sustainable Management of Historic Settlements in Asia", Springer Science and Business Media LLC, 2024

8 words / < 1% match - Crossref Jingyi Wang, Safial Aqbar Zakaria. "Morphological Characteristics and Sustainable Adaptive Reuse Strategies of Regional Cultural Architecture: A Case Study of Fenghuang Ancient Town, Xiangxi, China", Buildings, 2025

8 words / < 1% match - ProQuest Mosconi, Cristina. "Mobile Heritage Practices Implications for Scholarly Research, User Experience Design, and Evaluation Methods Using Mobile Apps", University of Exeter (United Kingdom), 2024

https://app.ithenticate.com/en_us/report/115254625/similarity

31/33

2025/4/19 14:40

44

45

46

47

Similarity Report

8 words / < 1% match - Crossref Quang Dai Tuyen. "Heritage Conservation and Tourism Development at Cham Sacred Sites in Vietnam", Springer Science and Business Media LLC, 2023

8 words / < 1% match - Publications Timo Ehmke, John Chi-Kin Lee. "Innovative Teaching and Classroom Processes - Research Perspectives from Germany and China", Routledge, 2025

8 words / < 1% match - ProQuest Wheeler, Anne C.. "Contested Impressions: Visual Remembering of Japanese American Incarceration.", Proquest, 2015.

8 words / < 1% match - Crossref Yingxin Zhang, Deniz Ikiz Kaya, Pieter van Wesemael, Bernard J. Colenbrander. "Youth participation in cultural heritage management: a conceptual framework", International Journal of Heritage Studies, 2023

48

8 words / < 1% match - Internet from 02-Aug-2023 12:00AM cwejournal.org

49

8 words / < 1% match - Internet from 14-Dec-2021 12:00AM dokumen.pub

50

8 words / < 1% match - Internet from 29-Sep-2022 12:00AM englishkyoto-seas.org

51

8 words / < 1% match - Internet from 05-Oct-2022 12:00AM gtr.ukri.org

52

8 words / < 1% match - Internet from 11-Apr-2014 12:00AM hub.hku.hk

53

8 words / < 1% match - Internet from 21-Oct-2022 12:00AM openresearch.ocadu.ca

54

8 words / < 1% match - Internet from 16-Jan-2023 12:00AM researcharchive.vuw.ac.nz

55

8 words / < 1% match - Internet from 24-Sep-2022 12:00AM researchspace.ukzn.ac.za

56

8 words / < 1% match - Internet from 12-Jan-2023 12:00AM theses.lib.polyu.edu.hk

57

8 words / < 1% match - Internet from 14-Dec-2023 12:00AM www.nlb.gov.sg

https://app.ithenticate.com/en_us/report/115254625/similarity

32/33

2025/4/19 14:40

58

59

60

61

62

63

Similarity Report

7 words / < 1% match - Publications María García-Hernández, Maria Gravari-Barbas. "Cultural Heritage on the Urban Peripheries Towards New Research Paradigms", Routledge, 2025

7 words / < 1% match - Crossref Rhonda G. Phillips, Jay M. Stein. "An Indicator Framework for Linking Historic Preservation and Community Economic Development", Social Indicators Research, 2011

6 words / < 1% match - Publications Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable Development, Volume 1, Issue 1

6 words / < 1% match - Publications Rebecca Madgin, James Lesh. "People-Centred Methodologies for Heritage Conservation Exploring Emotional Attachments to Historic Urban Places", Routledge, 2021

5 words / < 1% match - Internet from 02-May-2015 12:00AM en.wikipedia.org

4 words / < 1% match - Crossref Divya P Tolia-Kelly. " and at the (Postcolonial) Museum: Presencing the Affective Politics of ‘Race’ and Culture ", Sociology, 2016

https://app.ithenticate.com/en_us/report/115254625/similarity

33/33