It is not too late to preserve options

The National Library debate
At the URA Concept Plan Forum held last Friday, we witnessed once again public concern over development plans in the Bras Basah area. Points of contention included the siting of SMU campus buildings on the Bras Basah Park a 178-year-old civic open space, the re-alignment of the equally historic Stamford Road, and the impending demolition of a much-loved peoples landmark, the National Library building.

Over a span of 14 years, there has been similar occasions where we observed both public calls and professional advice against the demolition of the National Library.
In a 1987 government commissioned feasibility study for the development of the Civic District (Heritage Link Study, 1987), the invited panel of foreign experts cautioned that the National Library building, "simply as an element in architectural development in Singapore should be protected. It should not be casually removed."
Contrary to the authorities latest claim that "there was general support for removing the library" (ST, 7 March 2000) at a 1988 URA public dialogue, a press report revealed that there was "a consensus that touched the speakers hearts like not pulling down the National Library", and "sentiment prevailed in an argument for the preservation of the building" (ST, 29 May 1988).
11 years later, the issue was again hotly debated during the SMU public symposium last year (ST, 14 March 1999). This time round, the Bras Basah Park, safeguarded in URA plans until recently, entered the debate. The following months saw a huge groundswell of public dissent in both English and Chinese language media.
When architect Tay Kheng Soon presented his alternative master plan for the area, there were again public calls for URA and SMU to reconsider their plans.
This year, a public forum organised by the Singapore Heritage Society on the specific issue of National Library, was again well-attended by people from different walks of life, including non-Singaporeans. The passionate floor discussion provided a deep sense of the many stakes involved.

The most significant note to make of all these is that rarely had a building been so treasured and defended, drawing together a wide spectrum of people from all walks of life, cutting across boundaries such as race, religion, language and class.

Learning our lesson
Returning to the URA Concept Plan 2001 Forum, a member of the Focus Groups, responding to the National Library debate, asserted that the issue should not be brought up to reverse decisions that have been made, but to draw lessons which could be learned, so that similar incidents will not happen again. (PE, 10 Dec 2000)

The question is, how long do we need to take to learn a lesson? How much more can we afford to lose before we truly learn our lessons? Indeed, how serious are we about learning these lessons?

The fact is, redevelopment plans for the Bras Basah area have changed several times for the past 14 years. There has been more than enough time to reassess the plans, and engage more deeply with the public to arrive at a satisfactory consensus on the issue.
There has been in fact many opportunities, for authorities to respond to changing circumstances and technological advances, and to take heed of the importance of the National Library to the people.

During the Forum, a member from the audience recounted how the 70-year-old YMCA building at Stamford Road had to be demolished in the early 1980s for intensified redevelopment into the present ten-storey high building. The priority then was to fulfil YMCAs important social welfare agenda.
The speaker conceded that the hard choice to sacrifice the beautiful three-storey red-brick structure had to be made in those difficult times of need.
Similar examples abound in the Civic and Cultural District, such as Eu Court, Raffles Institution, Raffles Girls School, and the National Theatre also a marker of our early nation-building years.
However in hindsight, if there had been an emphasis put on protecting our built heritage, and had alternative development strategies been supported by the authorities, this large sacrifice of heritage in the name of progress probably would not have occurred.

Twenty years later, we are now at another crossroads, weighing the benefits promised by a traffic tunnel planned to smoothen traffic flow in the city centre, against the rich collective social memory and a shared sense of identity embodied in the National Library building.

The value of National Library
In contrast, during a recent public event held in the Substation, playwright Kuo Pao Kun made a comparison between the value of the National Library and the National Day Parade, another rallying point for the people.
He recalled that during the National Librarys 40 years of history, it has enjoyed support and patronage from at least 3 generations of students studying in the Bras Basah area, now aged between their 30s to 50s. Including other users such as researchers and casual readers, the total number of people who can associate part of their daily living memory with the building easily exceeds 1 million.
This number far exceeds the attendance of our annual National Day Parade. It is rightly so that we dedicate the huge amount of resources and manpower to this significant national event.
However, can we confidently say that we have committed the same degree of effort when we were deliberating the fate of the National Library?

Heritage Conservation Trust
Scrutinising the recently announced winning entries for SMUs campus masterplan competition, we are greatly disturbed by the lack of indication of how the selected designers have dealt with another significant heritage marker the RGS gateway memorial.
To cite other past examples, both the Early Settlers Memorial Stone and the Merdeka Lions have been uprooted from their respective original heritage sites of Collyer Quay and Merdeka Bridge.
It seems that it is often too easy to trivialise the memories and heritage that have been reduced to a mobile icon, especially when bigger plans and brighter visions tend to shadow humble beginnings.
With this in mind, it is not too difficult to imagine what may eventually happen if National Library is demolished, and a plaque erected in its place to bring back the memories.

We need to ask ourselves, how can we safeguard the integrity of our heritage sites and buildings? How can we ensure a more rigorous and appropriate yardstick to measure the value of places that cannot be categorically conserved - such as the National Library, beyond the normalcy of bureaucratic expediency?
Thus, we strongly support the recommendations of the Identity vs. Intensity Focus group to constitute a permanent Heritage Conservation Trust.
It is necessary to have an independent and proactive conservation body which holds the same level of negotiation power with authorities such as the URA, LTA, STB, HDB etc. It must have adequate funding to carry out independent research, environmental impact studies and other attendant programmes.

Preserving options
We would like to propose to SMU to exhibit all competition entries, from the ideas competition stage up to the final stage, including the disqualified entries. It is necessary that the public get to see the diversity of ideas and different options available on the redevelopment of our Civic and Cultural District.

SMU has stated that the current winning design is far from the finalised building plans, and construction is expected to start only in mid 2002, and will take at least 2-3 years.
Let us acknowledge that the development of the area is still at a premature stage, and we should allow for changes and uncertainties. There is still an opportunity to adjust to new circumstances and learn from our past experiences.
Technically speaking, we have yet to exhaust possible alternatives where the traffic tunnel and the National Library building can co-exist.
Let us preserve, rather than deprive, options for our future generations, carefully and conscientiously.

Let's save our heritage before it's too late

AT THE first public forum held on the Concept Plan last Friday, we witnessed, once again, public concern over development plans in the Bras Basah area.

Points of contention included the siting of the Singapore Management University (SMU) campus building at Bras Basah Park, the re-alignment of the equally-historic Stamford Road, and the impending demolition of a much-loved landmark, the National Library building.

A member of the focus groups, responding to the National Library debate, asserted that the issue should not be brought up to reverse decisions that have been made, but to draw out lessons which can be learnt so that similar incidents will not happen again.

The question is, how long do we need to learn a lesson? How much more can we afford to lose before we learn?

The fact is, redevelopment plans for the Bras Basah area have changed several times in the past 14 years. There has been more than enough time to reassess the plans, and engage further with the public to arrive at a satisfactory consensus on the issue.

During the forum, a member from the audience recounted how the 70-year-old YMCA building at Stamford Road had to be demolished in the early 1980s for intensified redevelopment into the present 10-storey-high building.

Similar examples abound in the civic and cultural districts, such as Eu Court, Raffles Institution, Raffles Girls' School and the National Theatre.

If there had been an emphasis on protecting our built heritage earlier, these sacrifices in the name of progress would probably have not occurred.

Twenty years later, we are now at another crossroads, weighing the 'benefits' promised by a traffic tunnel, planned to smoothen traffic flow in the city centre, against the rich collective social memory and a shared sense of identity embodied in the National Library building.

To cite other past examples, both the early settlers' memorial stone and the Merdeka Lions were uprooted from their respective original 'heritage sites' of Collyer Quay and Merdeka Bridge.

It is often too easy to trivialise our heritage, reducing them to 'mobile' icons, especially when bigger plans and brighter visions overshadow our humble beginnings.

With this in mind, it is not too difficult to imagine what may eventually happen if the National Library is demolished, and a plaque erected in its place 'to bring back the memories'.

We need to ask ourselves: How can we ensure a more rigorous and appropriate yardstick to measure the value of places such as the National Library?

We strongly support the setting up of an independent and proactive conservation body which holds the same level of negotiation power with authorities such as the Urban Redevelopment Authority and the Land Transport Authority.

We would also like to ask SMU to exhibit all competition entries so that the public gets to see the diversity of ideas available on the redevelopment of our civic and cultural districts.

Let us acknowledge that the development of the area is still at a premature stage, and that there is still the opportunity to adjust to new circumstances and learn from our past experiences.