World Town Planning Day 2006 - Convention Proceedings

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

WORLD TOWN PLANNING DAY

2006

INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONTowards Liveable Cities - The ASEAN Way

9 & 10 November 2006Nikko Hotel Kuala Lumpur

Convention Proceedings



CONVENTION PROCEEDINGS 2

ANNEX APROGRAMME 6WELCOME NOTE 10KEYNOTE ADDRESS 16CLOSING SPEECH 22

ANNEX B PRESENTATION OF PAPERS 39 Paper 1: ‘Liveable Cities – the Thai Way’ By: Mr. Sakda Arunee

Paper 2: 81 ‘Planning Issues and Challenges in Brunei Darussalam’ By: Mr. Hong Kok Seng

Paper 3: 97 ‘Connected Planning: Economic Competitiveness and Liveability’ By: Dr. Belinda Yuen

Paper 4: 135 ‘Approaching Systematic Urban Development and Management System of Yangon Central Business District’ By: Dr. Su Su

Paper 5: 177 ‘Rethinking Housing Concepts in Malaysia: Designing to Preserve TraditionalValues and a Changing Modern Culture’ By: Prof. Dr. Mohamad Tajuddin Haji Mohamad Rasdi

Paper 6: 211 ‘Improving Urban Air Quality by Integrating Land Use and Transport Policies:A Case Study of Bangkok Metropolitan Area’ By: Dr. L.A.S. Ranjith Perera

Paper 7: 249 ‘Regeneration of the Inner City Area – the Experience of Municipal Council of Penang Island’ By: Madam Maimunah Mohd. Sharif

Paper 8: 297 ‘Planning Liveable Cities in an Environment of Non-Compliance’ By: Dr. Goh Ban Lee

ANNEX CCONVENTION PARTICIPANTS 311

CONVENTION COMMITTEES 320

CONVENTION PHOTOS 324

ContentsContents

1Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia

International ConventionWorld Town Planning Day 2006



2 Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of the 2006 World Town Planning Day International Convention were:• to educate all levels of communities

about planning and its contribution in the liveability of cities and its communities.

• to provide an opportunity to planners from participating nations to learn and exchange new ideas and recent methodologies in planning in line with global development and local needs.

• to provide a beneficial platform for planners to gain experience and exposure as well as to develop inter-country networking.

• to honour and recognise the efforts of significant people involved in the planning process for their contributions in creating quality neighbourhoods and settlements.

• to remind future generations of community-wide needs, the need for personal involvement in planning and community policy making, the significance of balance between development and the fragile nature of the environment, and the necessity to consider planning impacts in community and its surrounding

development.




PROGRAMME

The two-day international convention was held from 9 – 10 November 2006 at the Nikko Hotel in Kuala Lumpur. The launch was officiated by Y.B. Dato’ Seri Ong Ka Ting, Minister of Housing and Local Government of Malaysia.

PRESENTATION OF PAPERS

The 2006 World Town Planning Day International Convention saw the presentation of eight papers in three sessions which were followed by a plenary session. In line with the theme, ‘Towards Liveable Cities – The ASEAN Way’, the presenters consisted of speakers representing ASEAN nations which include Malaysia, Thailand, Brunei, Singapore, and Myanmar. Each session was chaired by different chairpersons. The list of papers presented and the respective chairpersons are included in pages 4 and 5.




ITEM PAPER PRESENTER

SESSION 1CHAIRMAN: Y. Bhg. Dato’ Zainuddin bin Hj. Muhammad

Paper 1 Liveable Cities – the Thai Way Mr. Sakda AruneeSenior Urban Planning AdviserDepartment of Public Works and Town & Country Planning Bangkok, Thailand

Paper 2 Planning Issues and Challenges in Brunei Darussalam

Mr. Hong Kok SengCommissionerDepartment of Town and Country PlanningBrunei Darussalam

Paper 3 Connected Planning: Economic Competitiveness and Liveability

Dr. Belinda YuenPresidentSingapore Institute of Planners, Singapore

SESSION 2CHAIRMAN: Prof. Dr. Che Musa bin Che Omar

Paper 4 Approaching Systematic Urban Development and Management System of Yangon Central Business District

Dr. Su SuDepartment of Architecture Mandalay Technological UniversityMandalay, Myanmar

Paper 5 Rethinking Housing Concepts in Malaysia: Designing to Preserve Traditional Values and a Changing Modern Culture

Prof. Dr. Mohamad Tajuddin Haji Mohamad RasdiDirector of KALAMCentre for the Study of the Built Environment in the Malay WorldUniversiti Teknologi Malaysia, Malaysia

Paper 6 Improving Urban Air Quality by Integrating Land Use and Transport Policies: a Case Study of Bangkok Metropolitan Area

Dr. L.A.S. Ranjith PereraCoordinatorUrban Environmental Management Field of StudySchool of Environment, Resources and DevelopmentAsian Institute of TechnologyThailand

SESSION 3CHAIRMAN: Madam Norliza Hashim

Paper 7 Regeneration of the Inner City Area – the Experience of Municipal Council of Penang Island

Madam Maimunah Mohd SharifDirector of Development PlanningDepartment of Development PlanningMunicipal Council of Penang Island, Malaysia

Paper 8 Planning Liveable Cities in an Environment of Non-Compliance

Dr. Goh Ban LeeColumnist for the Sun Newspaper, Retired Associate Professor in the School of Social Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia Malaysia

Session 4 (Plenary Session)CHAIRMAN: Madam Khairiah Talha

LIST OF PAPERS




PAPER PRESENTATION SUMMARY The committee appointed rapporteurs and minute-takers to summarise the papers.

PARTICIPANTS

Convention participants included:• Representatives from ASEAN members.• Town planners from different levels of public services.• Town planners from the private sectors.• Academics from various fields of study.• Students from institutions of higher learning.• Members of the public.

SECRETARIAT

The secretariat consisted of officers from the Secretariat, Coordination and Corporate Planning Division of Federal DTCP, who were thoroughly committed in carrying out their duties in ensuring the smooth flow of the convention.

CONCLUSION

Generally, judging by the focus and diversity of the papers presented as well as the responses and feedbacks from the participants, it can be safely said that this convention had satisfactorily met most if not all of the objectives that it had set out to achieve.


��

��

��

��


��

��

��

��


8

Programme

Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia

8 November 2006(Wednesday)

2.00 pm – 7.00 pm Registration at Nikko Hotel, Kuala Lumpur

8.15 pm – 10.00 pm Meeting of the ASEAN Heads of Planning Department (invited guests only)

DAY 19 November 2006

(Thursday)8.00 am – 9.15 am Registration

9.15 am – 9.30 am Recital of Doa

9.30 am – 10.15 am Keynote Address by Y. Bhg. Dato’ Mohd Fadzil bin Haji Mohd Khir Director General of Federal Department of Town and Country Planning

10.15 am – 10.45 am Tea Break

Session 1Chairman: Y. Bhg. Dato’ Zainuddin bin Hj. Muhammad

10.45 am – 11.30 am

Paper 1: Liveable Cities – the Thai WayBy: Mr. Sakda AruneeSenior Urban Planning AdviserDepartment of Public Works and Town & Country Planning Bangkok, Thailand

11.30 am – 12.15 pm

Paper 2: Planning Issues and Challenges in Brunei DarussalamBy: Mr. Hong Kok SengCommissionerDepartment of Town and Country PlanningBrunei Darussalam

12.15 pm – 1.00 pm

Paper 3: Connected Planning: Economic Competitiveness and LiveabilityBy: Dr. Belinda YuenPresidentSingapore Institute of Planners

1.00 pm – 2.00 pm Lunch

Session 2Chairman: Prof. Dr. Che Musa bin Che Omar

2.00 pm – 2.45 pm

Paper 4: Liveable Cities – Myanmar Experience: Approaching Systematic Urban Development and Management System of Yangon Central Business DistrictBy: Dr. Su SuDepartment of Architecture Mandalay Technological UniversityMandalay, Myanmar




2.45 pm – 3.30 pm

Paper 5: Rethinking Housing Concepts in Malaysia: Designing to Preserve Traditional Values and a Changing Modern CultureBy: Prof. Dr. Mohamad Tajuddin bin Haji Mohamad RasdiDirector of KALAMCentre for the Study of the Built Environment in the Malay WorldUniversiti Teknologi Malaysia

3.30 pm – 4.15 pm

Paper 6: Improving Urban Air Quality by Integrating Land Use and Transport PoliciesBy: Dr. L.A.S. Ranjith PereraCoordinatorUrban Environmental ManagementSchool of Environment, Resources and DevelopmentAsian Institute of TechnologyThailand

4.15 pm – 5.00 pm Tea Break

7.30 pmGala Dinner with Y.B. Dato’ Seri Ong Ka TingMinister of Housing and Local Government, Malaysia.Official Launch of the 2006 World Town Planning Day and National Urbanisation Policy

DAY 210 November 2006

(Friday)Session 3

Chairman: Madam Norliza Hashim

8.30 am – 9.00 am

Paper 7: Regeneration of Inner City Area – the Experience by Municipal Council of Penang Island By: Madam Maimunah Mohd SharifDirector of Development PlanningDepartment of Development PlanningMunicipal Council of Penang Island

9.00 am – 9.30 am

Paper 8: Planning Liveable Cities in an Environment of Non-Compliance By: Dr. Goh Ban LeeColumnist for the Sun Newspaper, Retired Associate Professor in the School of Social Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia

9.30 am – 10 am Tea Break

Session 4Chairman: Madam Khairiah Talha

10.00 am – 11.00 am Plenary session

11.00 am – 11.30 am Closing Ceremony of the 2006 World Town Planning Day International Convention by the Director General of the Federal Department of Town and Country Planning, Peninsular Malaysia

11.30 am Lunch / Friday Prayer

3.00 pm – 5.00 pm Technical Visit (Optional)


��

��

��

��


��

��

��

��

by

Y.B. Dato’ Seri Ong Ka TingMinister

Ministry of Housing and Local Government

Malaysia


12

Welcome Note


Y.Bhg. Dato’ Ahmad Fuad bin Ismail Ketua Setiausaha Kementerian Perumahan dan Kerajaan Tempatan

Y.Bhg. Dato’ Mohd. Fadzil bin Haji Mohd KhirKetua PengarahJabatan Perancangan Bandar dan Desa Semenanjung Malaysia

Y.Berusaha Tn. Hj. Mohd. Azam bin Mohd. AbidPengerusi Jawatankuasa Sambutan Hari Perancangan Bandar Sedunia 2006

Ketua-Ketua Jabatan, Dato’-Dato’, Tuan-Tuan dan Puan-Puan yang saya hormati sekalian, Terlebih dahulu saya ingin mengucapkan terima kasih kepada pihak penganjur yang telah sudi menjemput saya untuk merasmikan Hari Perancangan Bandar Sedunia 2006 dengan tema ‘Ke Arah Bandar Sejahtera – Gaya ASEAN’ (Towards Liveable Cities – The ASEAN Way).

First and foremost, I would like to extend my warmest welcome to all of you, especially the participants from ASEAN countries. I am honoured and pleased to address you this morning in this distinguished gathering of professionals involved in town planning on this World Town Planning Day 2006. This year, our theme is again ‘Towards Liveable City’ but in ASEAN way.

ASEAN, or the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, consists of ten countries in Southeast Asia, namely, Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos PDR, Malaysia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam. ASEAN has a population of about 500 million and a total area of 4.5 million sq. km.

ASEAN countries are in varying stages of development but mostly face similar urban problems such as urban poverty, air pollution from industries and vehicles, flash flood, poor public transportation system and poor urban management. This makes the ASEAN cities become less desirable to live in. ASEAN cities programme to tackle these problems and improve their environmental performance, nevertheless with increasing population, urbanisation, industrialisation and economic growth, simply ensuring and maintaining good environmental performance is not good enough. It is critical for the long-term survival of cities to go beyond environmental performance and move towards achieving environmental sustainability.

Before we proceed into any further discussion on liveable city, I would like to draw your attention to think about: What characteristics do you think a city needs to be truly liveable?

• A safe city of course, where everyone of us will be able to walk and commute without fear; • An affordable city, where wages become meaningful in relation to prices;• Efficient public transportation, where people spend less money and time on transportation, and easier to get where we need to be; • A city with public places where people could gather for shopping, festivals, outdoor cafes, and community social life;• A network of parks and pockets of open spaces in the city for leisure activities; and• A clean environment.




Hadirin dihormati sekelian,

Pada tahun 2000, terdapat sebanyak 144 bandar di Semenanjung Malaysia, adalah dijangkakan jumlah ini akan meningkat kepada 245 pada tahun 2020. Di samping itu, peratusan penduduk bandar di negara ini telah meningkat daripada 54.3% pada tahun 1991 kepada 70.3% pada tahun 2005. Adalah dianggarkan sejumlah 75% penduduk akan tinggal di bandar-bandar menjelang tahun 2020. Senario ini akan mendatangkan banyak masalah perbandaran seperti pencemaran alam sekitar, kesesakan lalu lintas, kewujudan kawasan ‘brownfield’, hilang daya tarikan pusat bandar, kemerosotan kualiti infrastruktur dan kemudahan awam serta kekurangan kawasan hijau.

Kemiskinan Bandar

Peluang-peluang pekerjaan yang banyak dalam pelbagai sektor merupakan faktor tarikan khusus penduduk di negara ini menetap di kawasan bandar. Walau bagaimanapun, persaingan yang tinggi, migrasi penduduk yang sentiasa bertambah dari setahun ke setahun, jurang ekonomi antara kaum, serta kesan daripada kemelesetan ekonomi telah mewujudkan satu kelompok terpinggir yang boleh dikategorikan sebagai penduduk miskin di bandar. Bandar yang tersusun, bersih dan cantik akan nampak kepincangannya jika masalah kemiskinan tidak diberikan perhatian yang sewajarnya.

Walaupun negara ini telah membuktikan kejayaannya dalam membasmi kemiskinan semenjak pelaksanaan Dasar Ekonomi Baru, isu kemiskinan bandar masih ketara dan memerlukan perhatian khas. Kemiskinan bandar merupakan faktor penghalang dalam pencapaian bandar sejahtera. Salah satu kesan nyata yang akan timbul daripada masalah kemiskinan bandar adalah peningkatan kadar jenayah disebabkan desakan untuk memenuhi keperluan hidup. Peningkatan kadar jenayah sudah pasti memberikan pelbagai kesan negatif.

Pada tahun 2004, Kementerian Perumahan dan Kerajaan Tempatan telah menubuhkan Bahagian Sejahtera Bandar bagi merancang dan menyelaras semua projek dan aktiviti Program Pembasmian Kemiskinan Bandar. Untuk melaksanakan program ini secara bersepadu, enam program teras perlu diberi perhatian, iaitu pendapatan, perumahan, kesihatan, kemudahan sosial, pendidikan dan pengangkutan. Dalam pada itu, Pihak Berkuasa Tempatan adalah disarankan supaya bertindak sebagai pengurus bandar (urban managers) dan bertanggungjawab bagi memastikan penduduknya dapat menikmati persekitaran hidup yang selesa, bersih dan selamat melalui pemberian perkhidmatan perbandaran yang berkualiti. Ini bukan sahaja terhad kepada berkesan dengan menyediakan ruang ataupun peluang permulaan yang seterusnya membolehkan mereka berusaha sendiri ataupun berdikari.

Kaedah ‘Sewa Kemudian Beli’ Program Perumahan Rakyat

Kini pihak Kementerian masih di peringkat menyediakan garis panduan pelaksanaan konsep penjualan rumah di bawah Program Perumahan Rakyat (PPR) melalui kaedah ‘Sewa Kemudian Beli’. Program ini diharapkan dapat menyelesaikan masalah setinggan dan membantu golongan miskin di bandar untuk memiliki rumah samada dengan cara membeli ataupun menyewa. Harga jualan PPR ditawarkan pada kadar RM35,000 seunit di Semenanjung Malaysia dan tambahan 20% iaitu RM42,000 seunit untuk Sabah dan Sarawak. Sekiranya golongan yang layak tidak mampu untuk memiliki PPR, tawaran untuk menyewa rumah-rumah tersebut juga dibuat iaitu sebanyak RM124 sebulan.


14

Welcome Note



Laporan Kualiti Hidup Malaysia 2004 menunjukkan antara 1990–2002, semua indeks kualiti hidup telah meningkat di negara ini, kecuali aspek alam sekitar dan keselamatan. Kualiti persekitaran bandar perlu ditingkatkan untuk menjamin kemampanan petempatan manusia, memandangkan ia adalah sangat berkait rapat dengan kualiti hidup penduduk bandar yang sejahtera.

Dasar Perbandaran Negara

Kesungguhan Malaysia ke arah mewujudkan bandar sejahtera dapat diperlihatkan di bawah Rancangan Malaysia Kesembilan (RMK 9). Dasar Perbandaran Negara digubal di bawah Rancangan Malaysia Kesembilan (RMK 9) bagi meningkatkan keberkesanan kualiti perkhidmatan bandar ke arah mewujudkan bandar yang selamat, bersistematik, moden dan menarik.

Di antara aspek-aspek yang ditekankan di bawah Dasar Perbandaran Negara ke arah mewujudkan bandar sejahtera adalah:• Pembangunan perbandaran yang efisien dan mampan;• Pembangunan ekonomi bandar yang kukuh, dinamik dan berdaya saing;• Sistem pengangkutan bandar yang bersepadu dan efisien;• Penyediaan perkhidmatan bandar, infrastruktur dan utiliti yang berkualiti;• Pengwujudan persekitaran kehidupan bandar yang sejahtera dan beridentiti; dan• Tadbir urus bandar yang lebih efisien.

Pengangkutan Awam Yang Bersepadu dan Efisien

Kesesakan jalan raya yang semakin meningkat merupakan isu besar di bandar-bandar. Ketidakcekapan dan ketiadaan integrasi di antara mod pengangkutan awam telah menggalakkan penggunaan kenderaan persendirian, di mana nisbah penggunaan pengangkutan persendirian berbanding pengangkutan awam bagi Lembah Klang adalah 89:1. Masa yang panjang dan kos yang tinggi untuk sampai ke satu-satu tempat merupakan faktor yang menyebabkan kehidupan suatu bandar menjadi tidak sejahtera. Dalam pada itu, DPN mencadangkan pembangunan satu sistem pengangkutan awam yang bersepadu, efisien dan mesra pengguna, dilengkapi dengan sistem pengurusan dan rangkaian jalan raya yang lebih menyeluruh. Selain itu, perancangan pengangkutan hendaklah diintegrasikan dengan perancangan guna tanah yang meliputi pembangunan rangkaian jalan raya mengikut hierarki dan menerapkan konsep ‘Transit Oriented Development’ (TOD) serta ‘park and ride’.


Tanah Lapang Awam

Saya ingin menyarankan supaya penyediaan taman awam diberi perhatian dalam penyediaan rancangan tempatan. Jaluran hijau (green belt) yang menghubungkan kawasan-kawasan




bandar perlu diwujudkan bukan sahaja untuk rekreasi tetapi juga sebagai kawasan tadahan air. Penyediaan dan pengagihan kawasan lapang yang berkualiti adalah penting ke arah mewujudkan bandar sejahtera. Kawasan lapang hendaklah disediakan mengikut Garis Panduan Kawasan Lapang dan Rekreasi yang disediakan oleh Jabatan Perancangan Bandar dan Desa. Pihak berkuasa tempatan perlu memastikan kawasan lapang yang disediakan dirancang dan diagihkan di lokasi yang sesuai. Dasar peruntukan 10% kawasan lapang awam bagi setiap pembangunan hanya dapat dibuktikan keberkesanannya sekiranya kawasan-kawasan lapang tersebut disediakan di kawasan yang sesuai dan kemudahannya dapat dinikmati oleh semua lapisan masyarakat setempat. Pihak berkuasa tempatan perlu mengambil usaha untuk mewartakan kawasan lapang supaya kawasan-kawasan tersebut tidak ditukar kepada jenis kegunaan yang lain. Kawasan lapang dan rekreasi yang telah disediakan hendaklah sentiasa bersih, selamat dan berfungsi diselenggarakan dari semasa ke semasa.

Urus Tadbir Bandar Yang Berkesan

Kini, peranan perancang bandar bukan sahaja terhad kepada perancangan guna tanah, penyediaan dan pengagihan kawasan lapang, kemudahan awam, infrastruktur serta utiliti sahaja, tetapi juga perlu menekankan kepada pengurusan dan pentadbiran suatu perbandaran. Kawasan bandar perlu diurus dengan efisien bagi memastikan ia dibangunkan secara mampan.


Tragedi tanah runtuh yang berlaku baru-baru ini di Wangsa Maju jelas memperlihatkan kelemahan usaha pemantauan terutama di peringkat kerajaan tempatan. Penduduk tidak lagi berasa selamat mendiami kawasan-kawasan berbukit. Sistem Penyampaian (Delivery System) dan fungsi pemantauan di peringkat pihak berkuasa tempatan perlu diperkukuhkan lagi. Tanggungjawab pihak berkuasa tempatan bukan lagi terhad kepada penyediaan perkhidmatan kepada orang awam, tetapi juga perlu memastikan kualiti perkhidmatan yang diberikan memenuhi keperluan penduduk serta mampu menangani masalah penduduk secara mampan.

Distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen, A ‘Framework on Environmentally Sustainable Cities for ASEAN’ is developed in 2003 by the ASEAN Working Group on Environmentally Sustainable Cities (AWGESC). The vision of the Framework is ‘Towards environmentally sustainable cities in ASEAN’. The goals are responsible planning and long-term cultural, economic, and environmental health and vitality. Nevertheless, I strongly feel that a further impetus on planning towards liveable cities needs to be taken into account. In creating and planning towards liveable cities in ASEAN, perhaps we have to go back to the basic, which is to solve the cities’ problem first, followed by strong urban management.

This conference provides the opportunity to exchange information and experiences on planning towards a liveable city. Overall, this would be an enriching experience for all participants.

Lastly, I wish this conference a great success. With that, I now declare open the World Town Planning Day of 2006. Thank you.


��

��

��

��


��

��

��

��

by

Y. Bhg. Dato’ Mohd Fadzilb. Haji Mohd Khir

Director-General

Department of Town and Country Planning

Peninsular Malaysia


18

Keynote Address


Distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen,

‘Assalamualaikum’, ‘Selamat Datang’ and welcome to the World Town Planning Day Conference 2006.

It is an honour and a great pleasure on behalf of the Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia, Ministry of Housing and Local Government, and the Government of Malaysia we welcome all participants to this conference. We take great pride to extend our warmest welcome to our ASEAN participants especially to our dignitaries, city managers, administrators and urban planners from ASEAN Cities for your positive support and participation. A special welcome is also extended to all speakers especially from Myanmar, Thailand, Brunei Darussalam, Singapore and also from Malaysia, for your willingness to accept our invitation for today’s conference.

This conference is organised in conjunction with the World Town Planning Day celebration, which is held worldwide on every 8th day of November. This year, Malaysia has chosen ‘Towards Liveable Cities - the ASEAN Way’ as the theme for the celebration.


Why do we have this conference and … why the ASEAN Way? The reason for this is mainly because we in Malaysia ‘care’, we do care about the development of our neighbouring ASEAN cities. We care about the diversity of these cities, the vast and great potential these cities possess, and most importantly, we care and we are concerned about the future challenges to be faced by all ASEAN cities.

ASEAN cities generate a tremendous energy from vibrant multicultural and social values which have been embedded into a unique identity that demand for careful treatment towards development change in accommodating future needs.

Hence, we believe that as ASEAN partners and counterpart in city and urban planning, management, and development we do need to share and exchange our experiences, which will enable us to learn from each other in finding solutions to some of our common urban problems. It is hoped that from today’s conference with the participation of city managers, administrators and urban planners from participating ASEAN cities, together with Malaysian counterpart, will strengthen networks and linkages for the sharing of knowledge and expertise among ASEAN cities.


When we talk about liveable city, there are bound to be a series of questions that will cross our mind. Among those questions are, what is a liveable city? How does a liveable city look like? And most importantly, what are the qualities of a liveable city?




According to H.L.Lennard (the author for the book ‘Principles for the Liveable City’), a liveable city should be characterised with these basic principles:

1. City that does not segregate its people;2. City that offer activities, celebration and festivities that bring all together;3. City that is not dominated by fear;4. City that is a place for learning and socialising;5. City that has many functions and not specialise in one;6. City that prioritise beauty and aesthetic;7. City that appreciate and use the wisdom and knowledge of its people; and 8. City that holds dialogue.

If we based on these basic principles as a guide towards liveable cities, do ASEAN cities have these qualities? If they do not, does it really matter?

How do we fare in the world and among ourselves?

From a recent survey published by the London-based Mercer Consult, most cities that offer the best quality of life in 2006 are located in Europe and North America, with Zurich and Geneva topping the first two spots. Out of the top 50 best cities in the world, only one was in ASEAN that is the City of Singapore, at 34th place.

On the other hand, The Economist Intelligence Unit’s (EIU) liveability survey, which looked at the conditions in 127 cities has listed the Canadian city, Vancouver as the world’s most desirable place to live. The EIU’s study assessed nearly 40 indicators in five broad categories – stability, healthcare, culture and environment, education, and infrastructure.

In the current global political climate, it is of no surprise that the most desirable destinations are those cities with a lower perceived threat of terrorism. Nevertheless the report value that the most liveable destinations are cities with low crime rates, cities with little threat from instability or terrorism, and cities with a highly developed infrastructure.


Statistics have shown that currently, half of the world’s largest cities are located here in Asia. We have 10 mega cities and one hyper city in Asia. A hyper city is a city with more than 20 million people. And a mega city is a city with more than 10 million people. Out of the 10 mega cities, two are located in ASEAN. They are Jakarta and Metro Manila, with the current population of 14 million and 11 million respectively.

Besides that, there are six other large cities in ASEAN, which have more than 4 million people. These cities are Bangkok, Singapore, Ho Chi Minh City, Hanoi, Yangon, and Bandung. All of them are larger than Detroit in the U.S. and Milan in Italy.



Keynote Address

It is projected by year 2020, 60% of ASEAN population will live in urban areas, hence there will be great pressure on the current and the future of our cities with regard to the management of its urban resources and infrastructures. City managers, administrators, and urban planners of ASEAN cities will face an uphill task in achieving liveability if efforts are not tackled now to start improving the quality of our cities.

Malaysia Liveable City Vision

As part of ASEAN, Malaysia has its own vision towards achieving liveable cities with great responsibility of fulfilling the needs of its multicultural and multi-religious society ensuring a prosperous and stable country.

Our vision is to provide a decent place to live, to work, reside, and interact within its multi-cultural and multi-religious community in an environment that is pleasant, healthy and safe. Philosophically, it’s being interpreted as one that has the propensity to:

1. Generate economic development in order that the nation’s prosperity is shared equitably and beneficial to all.2. Provide quality urban services, utility and infrastructure required by the population.3. Emphasise safety aspects in towns.4. Ensure the design and quality of urban fabric is based on the local cultures and values of the nation.5. Focus on the preservation and conservation of the environment.6. Promote social development and national unity.7. Promote participation of the residents in their respective community development towards enhancing urban governance for greater efficiency and effectiveness.8. Eradicate urban poverty.9. Be sensitive and innovative towards technological advancement and development.


Malaysian Approach for Liveable City

The above vision accumulate to the sharing of responsibilities from various Government and Cooperate Agencies at all levels in blending its efforts toward realising the aspirations. As urban planners we are committed to this vision and today I would like to take this opportunity to share and to demonstrate on the approach by Federal Town Planning Department Malaysia in its contribution toward liveable city by focusing in Urban Growth Management through its National Urbanisation Policy (NUP) and the application of Malaysia Urban Indicators (MURNInet) programme as tools for Monitoring City Development.

NUP’s Role in Guiding and Managing Urbanisation

Basically what NUP is trying to achieve is to increase the effectiveness in the quality of urban services towards the creation of safer, systematic, modern and attractive city.




The NUP will guide and coordinate planning and urban development of the country to be more efficient and systematic particularly in managing the increase of its urban population by 2020 with emphasis on balancing the social, economic, and physical development within urban areas. The NUP will serve as the foundation to encourage racial integration and solidarity of the urban areas.

The NUP will be the main thrust for all urban planning and development activities in Peninsular Malaysia including development plans at the state and local level. This policy outline the thrust, policy, measures and implementation plan to coordinate and manage the urbanisation process of the country.

The NUP prepared recognised that major issues and challenges presently faced by Malaysian cities will need to be resolved through Urban Growth Management Policy. These issues and challenges are:

1. Rapid Rate of Urbanisation2. Degradation of Environmental Quality3. Less Competitive Urban Economy4. Inefficient Transportation System5. Decline in Quality of Living for Urban Dwellers6. Lack of Emphasis on Urban Design and the Conservation of Heritage7. Ineffective Urban Governance

The above issues and challenges are believed to be common problems faced by other ASEAN cities. It is just a matter on how we differently handle and manage to solve such problems due to the different complexity.


Acknowledging the issues and challenges face by cities, it is hoped that the NUP introduced will be able to solve if not all but to a great extent the NUP will hopefully be able to encourage an effective urban growth.

Purpose of NUP

To Create a Visionary City with a Peaceful Community and Living Environment through Sustainable Urban Development

Objectives of NUP

1. To develop a planned, quality, progressive and sustainable city;2. To develop and strengthen a competitive urban economy;3. To create a conducive environment to encourage social development;4. To eradicate urban poverty;5. To strengthen the planning, implementation and monitoring system;6. To strengthen urban management and administrative institutions.



Keynote Address

Policy Thrust in the NUP

Thrust 1: Towards an efficient and sustainable urbanisation.

Urban development should have a clear guidance on the direction of future expansion to accommodate an orderly and manageable development. The development of an urban system needs to be based on a clear system of hierarchy so that the provision and distribution of facilities and infrastructure will be more efficient, thus, preventing wastage of national resources.

Urban development needs to be carried out within a specified area to ensure urban sprawl is avoided. Towards this end, land use development should be based on the adopted development plan and comply with all policies, programmes and action plans proposed by the respective plan.

The urban limit needs to be identified to implement the development of a more efficient land use. Urban development should be implemented as smart growth with emphasis on redeveloping suitable areas especially in urban centres, preserving green areas for recreational purpose, and conserving environmentally sensitive areas. This is to prevent development from encroaching upon agricultural and environmentally sensitive areas, to promote the optimum usage of existing infrastructure and to revive the attractiveness and liveliness of the urban centres.

Villages in the urban areas will also be developed and not be left out nor isolated from urbanisation whilst conserving the villages’ unique features. These areas will also be equipped with infrastructural facilities and public amenities.

Urban redevelopment programme of suitable and strategic areas is one way of increasing the efficiency of urban areas. In addition, such programme is capable of fulfilling local needs for enhancing the quality of living and environment, generating economic activities and employment opportunities.

Thrust 2: Development of a resilient, dynamic and competitive urban economy.

There is a need to identify the economic strength and specialisation of each urban centre to develop, promote and strengthen its future growth and development. A strong correlation between economic growth and urban growth further clarifies the role of the local economic base in national economic growth.

A major conurbation will encounter challenges from globalisation and technological development including the emergence of knowledge-based economy. The growth of knowledge-based economy requires a high level of competency among administrators, service providers and consumers. The improvement of skills of the urban dwellers will further accelerate economic growth, expand knowledge, and lead to the upgrading of skilled manpower.

Thus, it is important for urban centres, regardless of size, to create a dynamic economic environment in support of commerce and value-added economic activities and knowledge-based industries.




Besides encouraging the growth and development of major urban centres, the economic development of medium and small sized urban centres should also be supported as they provide consumer goods to the urban population. Small towns also have an important role in improving the standard of living of the rural population as they function as commercial and trading centres especially in marketing agricultural products. The growth of these small towns creates demand for agricultural products and provides non-agricultural employment opportunities; both of which will improve the economic base of the rural population.

There are also urban centres with unique features that contribute significantly to the growth and development of the economic base to these areas. Towns like Malacca and George Town are recognised as popular tourist centres in Malaysia. Furthermore, Kuah in Langkawi and Lumut are small towns that are developing fast as a consequence of their linkage to an active tourism industry. The uniqueness of these towns should be administered and preserved to continue contributing to the economic sector. The enhancement of the uniqueness of these towns should be encouraged in addition with efforts to diversify their economic base.

Towards the eradication of urban poverty, various programmes will be implemented. One component of the programme includes the provision of housing to generate income and facilities, education and training. Development of urban areas shall take into consideration the Malaysian identity that is multiracial. Bumiputera participation and those with low income from the urban economic sector shall be improved. At the same time the interest, opportunity and future potential of other races will not be neglected nor obstructed.

Thrust 3: Towards an integrated and efficient urban transportation system.

An efficient and comprehensive transportation system is vital in enhancing the competitiveness of an urban centre. The increase in population and high private vehicle ownership compounded by an inefficient public transport calls for a strategy that could resolve these issues. Thus, the development of an integrated transportation system needs to be implemented with emphasis on multi-modal and environmentally friendly features to address the problems of congestion in large cities like Kuala Lumpur, George Town, and Johor Bahru conurbations.

A policy that promotes the use of an integrated public transportation system that is effective, reliable, user-friendly and affordable to all levels of the population should be formulated. Transportation planning integrated with land use planning will be the main thrust to ensure the success of a policy on promoting a public transportation system. Furthermore, traffic management has to be implemented comprehensively in order to reduce congestion in the cities.

Thrust 4: Provide quality urban services, infrastructure and utility.

The provision of infrastructure and utility should be viewed in terms of fulfilling the demand of the population and supporting the growth of the urban economy as well as contribute to the competitiveness of a particular township. Infrastructure and utility need to be adequately provided, in terms of quantity, coverage of distribution and be of high quality that utilises the latest technology.



Keynote Address

The provision of infrastructure and utility should be coordinated with the hierarchy level and function of a town. In conurbation areas, the supply of utilities such as electricity and telecommunication should be of a higher standard to meet the requirements of value-added and k-economy activities. Moreover, these facilities need to have an efficient level of management and maintenance with good back-up services to reduce interruption during service.

Other infrastructure like solid waste disposal and sewerage system need to be provided on a joint basis between several townships to be more cost-effective and prevent wastage of resources.For an efficient urban service, the main strategy is to widen its coverage and improve the quality of service by ensuring the sustainability and cost-efficiency of maintenance. Major urban services such as waste collection, sewerage maintenance, drainage maintenance, cleaning and management of public places should be provided extensively and be of high quality. This will improve the quality of living of the local population as well as increase the attractiveness of the urban area. For more efficient and cost-effective management of domestic effluent, the existing sewerage system needs to be improved in addition to the construction of new facilities.

The involvement of the local community needs to be encouraged to assist the local authority in administering and managing the urban area.

Thrust 5: Create a conducive urban living environment with a distinct identity.

Society today is primarily concerned with a comfortable, user-friendly living environment with facilities for social interaction, in addition to creating a sense of belonging for its population. This thrust shall emphasis peaceful urban living to be equally enjoyed by all urban residents to achieve the goal of improving solidarity. As the urban population increases, the urban environment should be planned and managed as a more attractive place for living, working and recreation.

To create a liveable urban environment, it is vital that sufficient basic facilities such as housing be provided, particularly for the low-income group and foreign workers. Programmes for low-cost housing should be undertaken in urban areas in order to provide adequate and affordable housing for the low-income group as well as to resettle squatters. Housing should be located near to place of work with good accessibility to public transport and public amenities. Housing for foreign workers should be planned at specific locations for the convenience of the residents and reduce problems for the urban environment.

Major public amenities such as schools, recreational areas, sports complex, places of worship, health facilities and cemeteries should be adequately provided at suitable locations for use by all groups of the urban population. Nonetheless, the high value of urban land reduces the opportunity to provide adequate amenities at certain areas. Thus, it is suggested that a number of public amenities be provided on a shared basis among several towns or local authorities, for instance, the provision of cemeteries.

The level of provision for public amenities should be based on the hierarchy of a town so that appropriate facilities may be provided. For the main conurbations, such provisions should consider the needs of the business community that require various facilities of higher quality.




The maintenance of public amenities should be given emphasis to ensure that they could be effectively utilised. In this context, community involvement should be promoted to reduce costs borne by the government to provide and maintain these facilities. A culture of maintenance needs to be introduced through awareness programmes for the residents.

To address the problem of increasing crime rate in urban centres, a safe city programme should be undertaken. There are 23 measures to be implemented to maintain safety and reduce crime rate.

To create an urban environment of quality, beautification and landscape programmes should be implemented. The element of urban design should be given emphasis as good design could aid in building a distinct identity or character for the town. For a quality urban design that incorporates local cultural values, historic and heritage areas will be conserved and integrated with urban development.

Thrust 6: Effective urban governance.

An effective urban governance system should be established to administer urban growth and development at various levels particularly at the local authority level. This will ensure that the value of assets, economy, social and the environment will be maintained and value-added towards attaining sustainable urban centres in Malaysia.

The local authority, as the main agency responsible for urban management, needs to update the administration and management system to optimise its financial revenue including new sources, upgrade its capacity to enable towns to become more competitive, viable and strengthen human resources by employing skilled and experienced staff as well as expand the use of technology.

With rapid urbanisation, local authorities should emphasise the use of innovative approach and technology to reduce cost and increase efficiency in all aspects of urban planning, development and management. In addition, these efforts will contribute to the management of a more viable environment.

The management and administration system practised should be founded on an ethical work culture, be transparent and efficient to ensure a more effective delivery system. In this light, there is a need to review and strengthen the respective system and work procedure, implementation approach, standards, and guidelines to achieve the highest standard of services. To complement actions being carried out, the existing legislations related to urban administration and management should be reviewed for the more effective enforcement and implementation of the urban development.

Local authorities need to cooperate closely with the local community, non-governmental organisations and the private sector to plan and implement appropriate urban planning and management programmes that comply with their requirements for sustainable development as mooted in the Local Agenda 21. Such cooperation will provide opportunity for the local community to monitor and give feedback on the programmes implemented in their respective area. To facilitate this proposal, the local authority should establish a unit responsible for coordinating and managing programmes to improve local community participation in urban planning and governance activities.



Keynote Address


Liveable City Performance

Malaysia, for once, is making effort to make life better in the city. Malaysian Urban Indicators (MURNInet) programme was developed by the Department with the purpose to measure sustainable development and as a tool to measure the quality of development and living conditions in towns and cities utilising 56 indicators which are grouped under 11 planning sectors.

The ability to gauge development by way urban indicators will provide decision and policy makers with answers to fundamental questions about critical issues that need to be addressed and indicators are also tools to help measure progress.

The MURNInet programme was to assist governments and local authorities to:

• Amplify ability to collect, interpret and use empirical information on urban trends and conditions• Formulate and implement national and local policies and plans of action based on a better understanding on how urban areas work• Enrich the knowledge base for urban management and participatory decision making processes

The sets of urban indicators used in MURNInet programme is to measure urban performance as guidance that will benefit city managers with regard to:

• Availability of regular urban performance review• Enable evaluation of the impact on policies and regulations• Indication on effectiveness of urban decision making• Creation of permanent urban data-collection system

The strategy is to work towards improving the lives of city dwellers indirectly, by directly improving the base of information for participatory decision making, sustainable settlement and liveable city.

The Historic City of Melaka is Malaysia’s best choice of a city that could be called home, as Melaka was the only state capital that has fared adequate results that meet the sustainable level from the MURNInet evaluation programme conducted for year 2005. Melaka’s performance has edged past 13 other capital cities which mostly managed to achieve a moderate level of sustainable development.

Melaka scored well in several categories of the evaluation including among others its tourism, social impact and urban economics. Cities that fared poorly generally lost points with regard to performance of cleanliness, environment, public transport and community facilities.




Cities that fared poorly in the evaluation generally lost points with regard to their performance in the related indicators within the sectors of Tourism and Heritage, Utility and Infrastructure, Transportation and Accessibility and Environment. The indicators which are found to be unsustainable among most cities are mainly related to:

• Maintenance Expenditure on Heritage and Urban Beautification• Rate of Water Loss• Development over Flood Prone Areas• Domestic Waste Management• Road Accident Occurrence• Noise Level• Inadequate Development Expenditure

From the recent evaluation of cities performance for 2006 it has shown that there is great improvement in the overall sectors of performance of the 14 capital cities evaluated. The only sector which showed no improvement and was still unsustainable is the Heritage and Tourism sector. Other sectors which were unsustainable in 2005 results has improved their level of performance.

With the improvement in the sector performance it was noted that the score obtained by the 14 cities had changed from their previous year results. From the score tabulated six cities had shown an increase in their city performance results and seven cities experienced a decrease in their level of performance.

Melaka still topped the list to be the only city that is sustainable for the year 2006 city performance even though it has shown a decrease in its score. It is also rightly to acknowledge cities that had improved in their score performance even though they are still in the moderate level category in the evaluation. The cities are Kuching Utara, Shah Alam, Johor Bahru, Alor Star, George Town and Kuala Terengganu.

Cities that fell in their score performance should view this evaluation system as an important guide for their city managers, administrators and planners whose responsibility is to accommodate the needs of a rapidly growing urban population within their limited space and resources. The evaluation has managed to identify the local authority’s strength and weaknesses. It is their best ability to utilise these results and transform it into plans of action and programmes towards a balanced development and better living condition for their community.



Keynote Address


As for other ASEAN cities, there are two recognitions among others that have been noted for their effort towards liveable cities. First, we would like to congratulate Home Development Mutual Fund of Philippines, for becoming one of the six recipients of the United Nation Habitat Scroll of Honour Award 2006. This award was given at this year’s World Habitat Day celebration in Italy on the 2nd October and Russia on the 2nd and 3rd October 2006.

Home Development Mutual Fund project started 27 years ago. It was recognised for working towards realising the dreams of every Filipino family, to own a home of their own. The Habitat Scroll of Honour Award is the most prestigious award given by the United Nations in recognition of work carried out in the field of human settlements development. The aim of the award is to honour individuals and institutions that have been instrumental in improving the living conditions in urban centres around the world.

Second, congratulation also to the Mayor of Phnom Penh, Cambodia, the Mayor of Angeles City and the Mayor of Makati City, Philippines. They have all been selected as the finalists of the 50 world most outstanding mayors this year. The selection of the finalists was done by London based NGOs – city mayors, via a worldwide nomination campaign, through the internet.

Convention Programme

Ladies and Gentlemen, today and tomorrow, we will have the opportunity to share valuable experiences with eight respectable speakers from ASEAN countries, on how to make cities liveable.They are from Singapore, Thailand, Myanmar, and Malaysia. These speakers will cover topics ranging from mechanism, programmes, best practices, design, planning, policies and public participation in the creation of liveable cities.





Before I conclude, I would like to thank our distinguished guests from ASEAN countries especially to our Planning counterpart from ASEAN cities and to all participants for being here to lend your utmost support in this event. To distinguished speakers, thank you for your commitment in sharing your experiences and thoughts which will make this convention a successful one. And to the organising committee, thank you for your dedication and hard work, which has made this convention a possibility.

I hope all of you will have a good time here, and participate actively in the discussion. I also wish that this year’s conference will be a useful and memorable one to all.

I would like to quote Harry Lash, the Director of Planning, Vancouver, who had written 30 years ago:

When livability became the key word for our regional planning, we knew we would have to fi nd effective ways to deal with many problems … Producing a plan and regulations would not be enough. We had to deal with long term future livability, but also with people’s ongoing satisfaction, their day-to-day experience of living … ‘The proof of the planning, would be in the living.’

Thank you.

Y. Bhg. Dato’ Mohd Fadzil b. Haji Mohd Khir


��

��

��

��


��

��

��

��

by

Y. Bhg. Dato’ Mohd Fadzilb. Haji Mohd Khir

Director-General

Department of Town and Country Planning

Peninsular Malaysia



Yang dihormati En. Kamalruddin bin Shamsuddin

Timbalan Ketua Pengarah IJabatan Perancangan Bandar & Desa Semenanjung Malaysia

Y. Berusaha Tuan Haji Mohd. Azam Mohd AbidPengerusi Jawatankuasa Induk Sambutan Hari Perancangan Bandar Sedunia 2006

Ketua-Ketua Jabatan, Pembentang-Pembentang Kertas Kerja, Dato’-Dato’, Datin-Datin,

Honourable guests, delegates, ladies and gentlemen.

Assalamualaikum warahmatullah and very good afternoon.

1. We have now come to the end of a productive two-day convention on Towards Liveable Cities – The ASEAN Way. It is an honour for me to be here with you today, to conclude this meaningful discussion.

2. It is our wish to see all our ASEAN cities progress to achieve more liveable and sustainable status and at the same time, we face the inevitable impact of globalisation which make us lose our unique cultural, religious and traditional identities.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

THE ASEAN WAY

3. The so-called ‘ASEAN Way’ is what has made ASEAN a peaceful region and what makes ASEAN increasingly relevant to the modern world. Our tolerance towards our diverse social and political backgrounds, cultures, ethnicities and religions is the key factor in our resilience – in helping us resolve conflict and maintain peace amongst ourselves.

Closing Speech




4. Culture is our legacy and our future. We draw upon it to shape our identities – as individuals, as a nation and as a region. Culture defines our heritage and helps in our personal and national development. An essential part of our culture is our value system. Let us attempt to examine what the behavioural attributes are of an ASEAN citizen. From that characterisation, we might be able to get a clearer picture of the values underpinning ASEAN citizen’s outlook towards themselves and the world, and how these shared values could shape the future of ASEAN as a family of nations.

5. We know that an ASEAN citizen’s home country, ethnicity, socio-economic background, religion and professional experiences determine his or her values. Work habits, views about time and life-opportunities may vary from country to country for example, Confucian values are dominant in Singapore and Vietnam while the Islamic values govern much of social practices in Brunei Darussalam, Indonesia and Malaysia. Latin influences are prevalent in the Philippines while the Buddhist and Hindu values are deeply rooted in Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar and Thailand.

6. Generally speaking, an ASEAN citizen is family-oriented, traditional-minded, respectful of authority, consensus-seeking and tolerant. These common qualities in attitudes and predispositions are clearly reflected in the Bali Concord II (Declaration of ASEAN Concord II) adopted by ASEAN Leaders at their Summit in Bali, in October 2003. This important document has stressed the importance of shared responsibility, prosperity and identity. With all this, let me summarise ASEAN as:

A : Accountability and Amiable

S : Spirit and Soft-hearted

E : Equitable and Equilibrium

A : Affinity and Acquaintance

N : Neighbourly and Noble



Closing Speech

Ladies and Gentlemen,

LIVEABLE CITIES – THE ASEAN WAY

7. For the past one and a half days, eight speakers from all over ASEAN countries had shared with us on what and how our liveable cities should look like in the ASEAN perspective. Some of the main conclusions and the way forward for for this convention are:

The 8 principles of Liveable Cities identified by H.L Lennard can be met in the planning of ASEAN Cities:

Each city has to develop its own vision, indicators and strategies for liveability and to ensure that projects are implemented to achieve the Liveable City;

Town Planning is an ongoing process that needs to be responsive to new market forces, social and political make-up and environmental changes and it is the duty of all town planners to balance and achieve the best results for the community where the development occurs;

Culture is a means of defining a rich and shared identity as well as a source of prosperity; hence the cultural dimension of urban planning is an area that planners can no longer neglect in our quest for the Liveable City;

Town Planners must take into consideration human factors (individual, family and community) as focus when designing a Liveable City in ASEAN Countries;

The challenges facing Town Planners are not only to ensure that the lower income groups and urban poor have a stake in the Liveable City but also that development plans can be implemented and are complied with; and

Future seminar / workshop should address the issues of social, safety, security, health, economy, culture and human elements in the making of Liveable Cities.




8. I would like to take this opportunity to express my gratitude to all the paper presenters, delegates from all the ASEAN public planning department in particular from Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Thailand and Singapore in contributing and sharing your experience in this convention. I do sincerely hope, that this strategic alliance and cooperation effort amongst us will be strengthened in the near future. I would also like to congratulate all the organisers and all the individuals who have contributed directly or indirectly to the success of this convention.

9. Before I officially close this convention, I hope all of you have had a pleasant stay in Malaysia and enjoyed the great spirit of ASEAN in Kuala Lumpur. With this, I close the World Town Planning Day Convention 2006 with the theme ‘Towards Liveable Cities – the ASEAN Way’.

Krob-Kun Ka (Thailand);

Salamat (Philiphines);

Cam on (Vietnam);

Kwap Jai (Laos);

Kyay Tzu Tin Pa Te (Myanmar);

Ar Kun (Cambodia);

Terima kasih (Malaysia, Singapore, Brunei and Indonesia);

Thank you.


��

��

��

��


��

��

��

��

Paper 1 - By: Mr. Sakda Arunee‘Liveable Cities – the Thai Way’

Paper 2 - By: Mr. Hong Kok Seng ‘Planning Issues and Challenges in Brunei Darussalam’

Paper 3 - By: Dr. Belinda Yuen ‘Connected Planning: Economic Competitiveness and Liveability’

Paper 4 - By: Dr. Su Su Approaching Systematic Urban Development and Management System of Yangon Central Business District’

Paper 5 - By: Prof Dr. Mohamad Tajuddin bin Haji Mohamad Rasdi ‘Rethinking Housing Concepts in Malaysia: Designing to Preserve Traditional Valuesand a Changing Modern Culture’

Paper 6 - By: Dr. L.A.S Ranjith Perera‘Improving Urban Air Quality by Integrating Land Use and Transport Policies: A Case Study of Bangkok Metropolitan Area’

Paper 7 - By: Madam Maimunah bt. Mohd. Sharif ‘Regeneration of the Inner City Area – the Experience of Municipal Council of Penang Island’

Paper 8 - By: Dr. Goh Ban Lee ‘Planning Liveable Cities in an Environment of Non-Compliance’


��

��

��

��


��

��

��

��

Mr. Sakda Arunee

SENIOR URBAN PLANNING ADVISERDEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING, BANGKOK, THAILAND

Liveable Cities - The Thai Way



Paper 1

Abstract

LIVEABLE CITIES – THE THAI WAY

In order to curb the current urbanisation problems and create livable cities, Thailand’s Socio-Economic Plan Issue 10 (2007 – 2011) that is being drafted, has incorporated an urban development paradigm. This paradigm that simply says ‘Sustainable Happy Urban Society’, is based on the King’s philosophy ‘Sufficiency or Contented Economy’ whereby sufficiency suggests moderation in all modes of conduct. To achieve this, the application of knowledge with prudence and the adoption of the middle path are essential at all levels of the society. In addition to that, five strategies have been promoted as a way to achieve livable city. Firstly, to enhance the urban community’s strength that includes keeping up its unique culture. Secondly, to allocate the resources for economic development by concentrating on self-help development. Thirdly, to enhance development based on the natural resources and environment, by making use of local wisdom. Fourthly, to encourage good governance by decentralising public tasks to local government. Lastly, to develop the human resource towards knowledge-based society particularly by increasing access to information technology. Apart from these strategies, Thailand also acknowledges the significance of programming and project plan implementation emphasising on public-private partnership.




CONTENT

CODIFICATION OF GENERALISATION IN LIVEABLE CITY’S CONCEPTS


1.0 INTRODUCTION

2.0 OVERVIEW ON DEGREE OF URBANISATION IN THAILAND AND ITS IMPACT

3.0 SUFFICIENCY ECONOMY: THE KING OF THAILAND’S PHILOSOPHY AS A GUIDELINE OF THE PATH THAI WAY OF LIFE 4.0 THE TENTH NATIONAL SOCIO-ECONOMIC PLAN (2007 – 2011) AND AND SUFFICIENCY ECONOMY PHILOSOPHY APPLICATION 5.0 THE EXAMPLE OF THE PROJECT PLAN OF BANGKOK METROPOLITAN FOR LIVEABLE CITY FROM THE YEAR 2005 – 2025



Paper 1

CODIFICATION OF GENERALISATION IN LIVEABLE CITY’S CONCEPTS

1. ‘Liveability refers to an urban system that contributes to physical, social and mental well being and personal development of all its inhabitants. It is about delightful and desirable urban spaces that offer and reflect cultural and sacred enrichment. Key principles that give substance to this theme are equity, dignity, accessibility, conviviality, participation and empowerment.’ (Cities plus, 2003. A Sustainable Urban System: The Long-term Plan for Great Vancouver)

2. ‘A liveable city is a city where I can have a healthy life and where I have the chance for easy mobility - by foot, by bicycle, by public transportation. And even by car where there is no other choice … The liveable city is a city for all people that mean that the liveable city should be attractive, worthwhile, and safe for our children, for our older people. Not only for the people who earn money there and then live outside in the suburbs and in the surrounding communities. For the children and elderly people it is especially important to have a place to play and meet each other, and talk with each other. The liveable city is a city for all. (D. Hahlweg, 1997. ‘The City as a Family’)

3. The Liveable City as a link between the past and the future: the liveable city respects the imprint of history (our roots) and respects those who are not born yet (our posterity). A liveable is a city that preserves the signs (the sites, the buildings, the layouts) of history … A liveable city is also a city that fights against any waste of the natural resources and that we must leave intact for the humankind, that is, for our posterity … Therefore a liveable city is also a ‘sustainable city’: a city that satisfies their needs … In the liveable city both social and physical elements must collaborate for the well being and progress of the community, and of the individual persons as members of the community …

A liveable city is a city where common spaces are the centers of social life and the foci of the entire community. A liveable city must be built up, or resorted, as a continuous network – from the central areas to the more distant settlements – where pedestrian paths and bicycle paths bind together all the sites of social quality and of the community life. (E. Salzano, 1997. ‘Seven Aims for the Liveable City’)

The coin of liveability has two faces. Livelihood is one of them. Ecological sustainability is the other. Livelihood means jobs close enough to decent housing with wages commensurate with rents and access to the services that make for a healthful habitat. Livelihoods must also be sustainable. If the quest for jobs and housing is solved in ways that progressively and irreparable degrade the environment of the city, then the livelihood problem is not really being solved.

Ecological degradation buys livelihood at the expense of quality of life, with citizens forced to trade green space and breathable air for wages. To be liveable, a city must put both sides of coin together, providing livelihood for its citizens, ordinary as well as affluent, in ways that preserve the quality of the environment. (P. Evans, ed. 2002. Liveable Cities? Urban struggles for Livelihood and Sustainability)




PRINCIPLES OF LIVEABLE CITY

The following principles are suggested as basic to liveable city:

1. In liveable city, all can see and hear each other. It is the opposite of the dead city, where people are segregated and isolate.

2. Dialogue is important.

3. The public realm offers many activities, celebrations, festivals that bring all of its inhabitants together, events that bring opportunities for its citizens to be together, not in the specialised roles and functions that they usually occupy, but as full human beings.

4. A good city is not dominated by fear, not by a conception of fellow human beings as evil and subhuman.

5. A good city offers the public realm as a place of social learning and socialisation that is indispensable for children and young people. All of the inhabitants of the community serve as models and teachers.

6. Cities must meet many functions – economic, social and culture. In so doing, however, there has been a trend for the modern city to over-specialise in one or two functions; other functions are being sacrificed.

7. All inhabitants confirm and value each other.

8. Aesthetic considerations, beauty, and meaning of the physical environment must have high priority. The physical and social environment are two aspects of the same reality. Just as it was a mistake to think that city inhabitants can have a good civic and social life in an ugly, brutal and physically inhospitable city.

Finally, the wisdom and knowledge of all inhabitants are appreciated and used. People are not intimidated by experts, whether architects or planners, but show a sense of caution and distrust of those who make decisions about their lives.(H.L. Lennard. 1997. ‘Principles for the Liveable City’)



Paper 1


1.0 INTRODUCTION

Thailand, named a land of smile, is located at the heart of Southeast Asia, between the Indian Ocean and the South China Sea. The country covers 513,000 sq km. and has a population of 62 million, the majority of whom are concentrated in the fertile Central Plains and in the capital, Bangkok. It’s geographical feature 53 % is flat plain in central region 20 % the verdant North where is mainly mountainous, and towering ranges run along the long western border with Myanmar. In contrast, the Northeast is a flat plateau, arid region. Much of the eastern border with Laos is defined by the Mekong River. Further south are the hills of northern Cambodia. Thailand’s Southern Peninsula is where many of the best beaches and islands are found.

The distance from Northernmost to Southernmost is about 1,800 kilometer (as the crow flies). Thailand stretches from south of Tropic of Cancer to about 1,000 km. north of Equator; it’s tropical climate is affected by two monsoon. Varied topography and a gentle climate have led to a rich diversity of flora and fauna. Limestone hills in the North are clad in dense tropical forest. Open forest is more usual in the Northeast and Central Plains, while the South and Gulf have superb coastlines and pockets of rainforest. Many habitats are threatened by industry and tourism; deforestation is rife and some animal species face extinction. As a result, many national parks have been established.

In politics and administrative aspect Thailand has 75 provinces, except Bangkok Metropolitan Administration (BMA), 1,156 urban communities or municipalities. Today, Thailand is a member of the Association of Southeast Asian Nation (ASEAN). At least 90 per cent of Thais practice Theravada Buddhism. This was first brought to the region from India around the 3rd century BC., and is based on the ancient Bali canon of the Buddha’s teachings. As economic development, rice and other agricultural productions are long the mainstays of the Thai economy, and farming is still regarded with great respect by Thais. Tourism is now the single largest foreign exchange earner in Thailand. The country annually hosts more than six million visitors, and the tourist infrastructure has been developing to fulfill the tourism destination.




2.0 OVERVIEW ON DEGREE OF URBANISATION IN THAILAND AND ITS IMPACT

Among the urban areas of the kingdom, Bangkok, the capital, is emerging as the primate city in over urbanize situation with a population of around 5.6 million inhabitants. (estimated to be 10% of the total population) The remaining urban populations live in ‘Nakorn’ and ‘Muang’ which are the fi rst and second hierarchy of municipality, additionally the secondary city in the kingdom has less population than Bangkok about 37 times.(Shown in fi gure 1).

Consequently, there is a huge cleft in terms of development among the urban hierarchy and urban rank sized which bring about inequitable exploitation of human and natural resources. Since the year 2001-2005 the urban population growth by growth rate declining. However, urban problems in primate city and other urban areas still remain unsolved and accumulated especially common problems such as garbage disposal, water and air pollution, infrastructure deterioration, social depravity and natural disaster. In conclusion, by theoretical urban ecology how to cope with urban problems is to devise the means to make equilibriums among the three dimension namely social dimension, economic dimension, and physical or environmental dimension to achieve urban sustainable accordingly. Social dimension defi nes as better quality of life, educated society, security in life and property, maintaining uniqueness culture, good governance and integrity society etc.

Economic dimension defi nes as economic stability, self-reliance, equity income distribution etc. Physical or environmental dimension defi nes as an equivalent accessibility to resources, consideration consuming natural resources, urban planning in order and environmental standard for ecological carrying capacity etc. (Shown in Figure 2).

Figure 1 shows degree of urbanisation among Bangkok Metropolitan and other urban areas in municipalities which are the secondary city from the year 2001 – 2005Source Bureau of Central Registration, Department of Local Administration, Ministry of Interior, 2001 – 2005

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��



Paper 1

��

��

��

��

��

��




3.0 SUFFICIENCY ECONOMY* : THE KING OF THAILAND’S PHILOSOPHY AS A GUIDELINE OF THE PATH THAI WAY OF LIFE

The philosophy that influences Thai way of life is His Majesty King Bhumibol of Thailand’s Philosophy namely Sufficiency or Contented Economy, that he does not only illustrate to Thai people but also initiate the real project as an applicable archetype for Thai society development.

‘Sufficiency Economy’ is a philosophy that stresses the middle path as an overriding principle for appropriate conduct by the populace at all levels. This applies to conduct starting from the level of the families, communities, as well as the level of nation in development and administration so as to modernise in line with the forces of globalisation.

‘Sufficiency’ means moderation, reasonableness, and the need of self immunity for sufficient protect from impact arising from internal and external changes. To achieve this, an application of knowledge with due consideration and prudence is essential. In particular great care is needed in the utilisation of theories and methodologies for planning and implementation in every step. At the same time, it is essential to strengthen the moral fibre of the nation, so that every one, particular public officials, academics, businessmen at all levels, adheres first and foremost to the principles of honesty and integrity. In addition, a way of life bases on patience, perseverance, diligence, wisdom, and prudence is indispensable to create balance, and be able to cope appropriately with critical challenges arising from extensive and rapid socio-economic, environmental, and culture changes in the world.

* ‘Sufficiency Economy’ is a philosophy bestowed by His Majesty The King to his philosophy provides guidance on appropriate conduct covering numerous aspects of life. After the economic crisis in 1997, His Majesty reiterated and expanded on the ‘Sufficiency Economic’ in remarks made in December 1997 and 1998. The philosophy points the way for recovery that will lead to a more resilient and sustainable economy, better able to meet the challenges arising from globalisation and other changes.



Paper 1

The philosophy of the sufficiency economy there is a pillar which considers 5 the part as follows:

1. Idea frames: be the philosophy that suggest existence trend and will behave in the sense of that should are by base from way of original life of Thai social can bring, can apply all the time and world manner system staring that have the change stays all the time emphasise getting free from a danger and critical for stability and the permanence of the development.

2. The quality: the sufficient economy has can to bring apply with the behavior in every the level by emphasise the practice on the moderate and the development by the step.

3. The definition: the adequateness will must compose 3 the quality fully prevent as follow

a. Sufficiency means sufficiency that too many and a few too by don’t exploit oneself and others such as the production and consuming in the level moderately.b. The reasonable means the making a decision about the level of that adequateness must happen reasonably by consider from factor cause that relate including consider at suppose will happen from that behavior carefullyc. Having good immunity means the preparation fully take the effect and side change differ to happen by consider the possibility of the situation differs that suppose happen in the both of near future and far

4. The condition: making a decision and proceeding activities differs give stay in enough that level must live both of the knowledge and virtue basically the base that is to say

a. Knowledge condition compose, the omniscience about technical differs at rate type round a side carefulness to lead those knowledge comes to consider affect for engage in planning and the carefulness in a level practice.b. Virtue condition to must reinforce compose there is the awareness in the virtue there is uprightness and have tolerance there is the effort use the intelligence in the way of life.

5. The trend practice and suppose receive: from philosophy lead of the sufficiency economy comes to apply be the development that equilibrium and last long fully take build the change in every side both economic of social environment the knowledge and the technology.




4.0 THE TENTH NATIONAL SOCIO-ECONOMIC PLAN (2007 – 2011) AND SUFFICIENCY ECONOMY PHILOSOPHY APPLICATION

The National Socio-Economic Plan Issue 10 (2007 – 2011), on going in the process to effectively promulgate next year, takes a role and function as development paradigm for guideline country development.

In accordance with this plan, the country’s vision is set up as well as urban area development vision in all over the country that are ‘SUSTAINABLE HAPPY SOCIETY’ and ‘LIVEABLE CITY’ respectively under His Majesty King Bhumibol’s philosophy which is ‘SUFFICIENCY or CONTENTED ECONOMY’ The five strategies are determined in order to achieve the super goal of sustainable happy society and liveable city in line with king ‘s sufficiency economy philosophy as follow:

Firstly, to develop human resources and Thai society to be a knowledge base society by centralizing in Thai people potentiality with merit and moral principle to be ready for global changing. To go ahead by creating peaceful society, persevering in uniqueness Thai culture in addition to make ready for aging group society.

Secondly, to enhance community strength by focusing on integrity, culture differences, local wisdom, and associate with community economy base to cope with poverty.

Thirdly, to modify economic structure into equilibrium and high potentiality to rival in economic world arena emphasizing on self-dependence economy.

Fourthly, to develop base on biodiversities circumstances for natural resources an environmental stability converging public and private participation. Besides to support local intelligence in natural revitalisation and conservation.

Fifthly, to well manage good governance by decentralisation public services to local government especially municipalities so as to respond populace needs together with encouraging democratic society.



Paper 1

For Bangkok Metropolitan’s Plan

Under the Tenth National Socio-Economic Plan (2007 – 2011) and keeping in line with theking’s Philosophy are as follow:

Vision: ‘Liveable Metropolitan where keeping on distinguished arts and culture and center of economic with academic base in Southeast Asia Region’.

The Objectives of the Plan are:

1. To brace liveable city affording social services infrastructure in good order and good standard.2. To enhance Bangkok Metropolitan (BM) to be one of economic center and services of the country and Southeast Asia Region.3. To develop, renewal, and revitalise residential area and community’s sub-center.4. Preserving the plenteous agriculture in BK.5. Conserving and reviving arts, culture, renowned architecture and archeological site.6. Natural and environmental conservation in order to protect BM. from natural disaster especially flooding.

Programming and Project Plan of Bangkok Metropolitan for Liveable Metropolitan’s aims

In order to achieve Bangkok Metropolitan’s Urban Plan which has been designed vision and objective in the period 20 years from 2005 – 2025, programme and project plan that consist of 3 project plan categories, first category is Area Development Project Plan, second category is Transportation Development Project Plan, and third category is Environmental Development Project Plan, are depicted.

A. An Area Development Project Plan: consist of : To preserve historical site in Rattanakosin Island and Thonburee District : To revitalise and construct landscape in social and administrative institute area, for example Government House. : To redevelop CBD area : To rehabilitation slum area and residential area : To renovate residential area along the Chaophraya River : To develop residential area in suburb : To improve environment of industrial area : To develop sub-center’s commercial area : To preserve and environmental improvement in rural and agriculture zone around Bangkok : To develop inter-mode junction area




B. Transportation Project Plan: consist of : To construct major road and arterial road : To improve arterial road to connect with local road : To construct the bridge across the Chaophraya River : To develop mass-transit systems such as bus system, pavement, and bicycle lane : To develop waterway transportation : To develop inter-mode hub : To improve and provide car parking area and park and ride area.

C. Environmental Development Project Plan: consist of : To acquire land for open space and recreation area : To improve road landscape and street furniture : To improve landscape along the Chaophraya River and main canal : To keep with good quality control in environment of waterway : To protect and persevere natural environment

In the next page it’s show the programming in budget allocation of Project Plan in three categories in line with vision and objective of the plan.

Budget Allocation of Project Plan in line with Bangkok Metropolitan Development Plan for Liveable City from the year 2005 – 2025.

Project Plan Year 2005 – 2008

Year 2009 – 2012

Year 2013 – 2016

Year 2017 – 2020

Year 2021 – 2025 Total

A. An Area Development Project

7,440 24,905 15,090 2,540 1,510 51,485

B.Transportation Project

36,579 27,355 10,685 8,896 7,330 100,845

C.EnvironmentDevelopment Project

26,497 44,154 22,676 18,950 10,502 122,779

Total 70,516 106,414 48,451 30,386 19,342 275,109



Paper 1

5.0. THE EXAMPLE OF THE PROJECT PLAN OF BANGKOK METROPOLITAN FOR LIVEABLE CITY FROM THE YEAR 2005 – 2025

Refer to programming and project plan of Bangkok Metropolitan for liveable metropolitan’s aims from the third category that is C. Environmental Development Project Plan (on page 11-12) the project plan is to improve landscape along the Chaophraya River and main canal is selected for an example in this paper.

Project Plan’s Title: The improvement of the landscape along the main canal in Bangkok.

Background of the project:

In the past time waterway in Bangkok the capital city had the most affluence of it’s own kind in Southeast Asia. Besides they are abundant the mainstream of transportation network, human settlement pattern, and way of life of people in Bangkok, at least about 1,049 canals, subsequently the foreigners who live and are trader relation with Thailand entitled Bangkok as an ‘Eastern Venice’. As time goes by the waterway has been degenerated by the reason of population growth, environmental change but still essential for the way of live of people in Bangkok.

The purpose of the project are:

1. To improve / rehabilitation the landscape along the canal to be in good environment.2. To develop and construct pavement pedestrian, and bicycle lane along the canal3. To develop and construct public open space along the canal.4. To develop community and neighborhood environment along the canal including improve the water quality of the canal.5. To bolster public and people participation to join hand with the project.

Project Site: There are 2 sites

1. The area along SanSaeb Canal where located in the eastern part of Bangkok.2. The area along Phravetbureelom Canal where located in the southeastern part of Bangkok.

Time period: The year 2006 – 2008

Outcome:Public and people join hand in the project, the environment, landscape, and quality of life of the people along the canal in Bangkok will be better revitalised to fulfill the one of Bangkok Metropolitan’s aims for ‘Liveable City’ and sufficiency economy.

The next page shows the site location, existing condition, and project plan.




��

��

��

��

��



Paper 1

��

��

��

��




��

��

��

��



Paper 1

��

��

��




��

��

��



Paper 1

��

��

��

��




��

��

��

��



Paper 1

��

MR. Sakda Arunee

Department of Public Works

And Town and Country Planning

Ministry of Interior Thailand

OutlineOutline

Introduction : General Information.

Degree of Urbanization in Thailand.

Sufficiency Economy The King of Thailand’s

Philosophy as a Thai way of Life.

Livable city in the Tenth Socio-Economic plan

and Bangkok Metropolitan plan.

The example of Livable city Project Plan of

Bangkok Metropolitan.




Introduction

Thailand is named the land of smiles

Located in Southeast Asian Region among neighboring countries namely :

Laos, Myanmar, Cambodia, Vietnam and Malaysia

Thailand

Area : 513,000 km2Area : 513,000 km2

Land : 511,770 km2

Water : 2,230 km2

Land : 511,770 km2

Water : 2,230 km2

Population : 62 Million PeoplePopulation : 62 Million People

Density : 127 / km2Density : 127 / km2



Paper 1

43 % is flat plain in central region

20 % is verdant North mainly mountainous and flat plateau in Northeast

Thailand’s geographical feature

20 % is superb coastlines with beaches islands and pockets of rainforest.

25 % is diversity of flora and fauna in dense tropical forest.




Tambol : 6,622

Urban Community (Municipality) : 1,156

Provinces : 75 excluded BMA

Degree of Urbanization in Thailand Degree of Urbanization in Thailand



Paper 1

Ideal for Livable City and SustainableIdeal for Livable City and Sustainable“Equilibriums among three main dimensions”

The King of Thailand’s Philosophy as a guideline of Thai way of life.

Sufficiency EconomySufficiency Economy

“Sufficiency” means

“Sufficiency” means

‘ Sufficiency ’ means

Reasonableness.

Enough.

Moderation / middle path.




To use in planning and proceeding : To use in planning and proceeding : The development traditionally the The development traditionally the

sufficient economy is base onsufficient economy is base on

The moderate practice and carefulness.

The reasonable. Building immunity good in. Use carefulness knowledge. The virtue engage in planning

and making a decision and the behavior.

Suggest existence trend and will behave that should are base on way of original life of Thai social.

�

Apply all the time that the world manner system have the change stay all the time.

Emphasize on stability and permanence of the development.

Idea Frame



Paper 1

Apply to the behavior in every the level.

��

The quality

Emphasize the practice on moderate and the development by the step.

enough not too many and a few. reasonable in making decision and

factor cause and effect. having good immunity for the

preparation in the changing both of near future and far.

��

The definition




Knowledge condition/ omniscience to apply for engaging in planning and carefulness in a level practice.

�� The condition for making decision

and proceeding activities base on

Virtues condition /awareness in uprightness/tolerance/intelligenc.

Comes to apply be the development that equilibrium and last long fully in.

�� The trend practice and

suppose receive

Economic

Environment

Social

Knowledge

Technology

Economic

Environment

Social

Knowledge

Technology



Paper 1

Vision : Sustainable Happy Society and Livable City.

The tenth National Socio – Economic Plan (2007 – 2011) and Sufficiency Economy

Philosophy.

Fine strategies for sustainable happy Fine strategies for sustainable happy society and Livable City in line with society and Livable City in line with

sufficiency economy philosophy.sufficiency economy philosophy.

To develop human resources persevering in uniqueness Thai culture.

To enhance community strength. To modify economic structure into

equilibrium. To develop base on biodiversities

circumstance. To well mange good governance by

decentralization process.




Bangkok Metropolitan PlanBangkok Metropolitan Plan

Vision : Livable Metropolitan on distinguished arts and

culture.

Programming and Project Plan of BKK for Programming and Project Plan of BKK for Livable CityLivable City

Bangkok Metropolitan project plan from 2005 – 2025 composes of 3 categories :

1. Area Development Project Plan.

3. Environmental Development Project Plan.

2. Transportation Development Project Plan.



Paper 1

Budget Allocation of Project Plan in line with Budget Allocation of Project Plan in line with Bangkok Metropolitan Development Plan for Bangkok Metropolitan Development Plan for

livable city from the year 2005 livable city from the year 2005 20252025

Budget Allocation of Project Plan in line with Budget Allocation of Project Plan in line with Bangkok Metropolitan Development Plan for Bangkok Metropolitan Development Plan for

livable city from the year 2005 livable city from the year 2005 20252025




The example of Livable city Project Plan of Bangkok

Metropolitan

Project plan for Livable City 2005 Project plan for Livable City 2005 20252025

Project Plan Title The Improvement of the Landscape along the main canal in Bangkok

Background of the project Settlement along the waterway takes a role and

deeplyinvolve in the way of life of people in Bangkok for a

longtimein history until nowadays.

Consequently Bangkok was named “Eastern Venice”



Paper 1

Objective of the project

To improve / rehabilitation the landscape along the main canal to be in good environment.

To booster public and people participation.

Project Site SanSaeb Canal.Phravetleureelom Canal.

Period 2006 - 2008

As time goes on waterway has been deteriorated but still

essential in the way of life of people in Bangkok

Project SiteProject Site

PhravetbureelomPhravetbureelomCanalCanal

Project Project LocationLocation

SanSaebSanSaeb

Project SiteProject Site



SanSaebSanSaeb




SanSaebSanSaeb CanalCanal

��



Paper 1

��

��

� ��

Crosse section Plan of Area 5A Crosse section Plan of Area 5A P lan of Open Space Area of P lan of Open Space Area of SanSaebSanSaeb CanalCanal��

��




��

��

••Total 48,000,000 BahtTotal 48,000,000 Baht••Total 48,000,000 BahtTotal 48,000,000 Baht••Total 48,000,000 BahtTotal 48,000,000 Baht

SanSaeb Canal

��

��



Paper 1



��

��




� ��

� � � � ��

��

� � � � ��

� ��

� � � � � � ��

��

�

�

�

�

�

�

��

��

�

�

�

�

�

�

��

��



Paper 1

ConclusionConclusion

1. Thailand had a lesson � learnt from the result of Economic cris is in 1997 so we try to adjust and modify with searching out our own way for recovery that will lead to a more res ilient and sustainable economy.

2. “ Sufficiency Economy is a philosophy bestowed by His Majesty the King of Thailand that provides guidance on appropriate conduct covering numerous aspects of life bes ides it’s can apply to planning and development by step with carefulness in moderate way.”





3. The vis ion and indicators of livable cities or quality of live in cities in Thai way we focus on.

Happiness . Satis faction in moderate way. Self ‒ Sufficient. Communities and citizen participation.


The End


��

��

��

��


��

��

��

��

Mr. Hong Kok Seng

COMMISSIONER,

DEPARTMENT OF TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING,

BRUNEI DARUSSALAM

PLANNING ISSUES AND CHALLENGES IN BRUNEI DARUSSALAM



Paper 2

Abstract

PLANNING ISSUES AND CHALLENGES IN BRUNEI DARUSSALAM

Town Planning in Brunei Darussalam has been in existence for the last 34 years. Although much of the country has been covered with physical development plans, these plan proposals have not been implemented effectively. This is partly due to planning has not been perceived as the driving force and catalyst to development and the lack of public involvement and stakeholders consultation during plan preparation.

The paper shall then highlight some issues and challenges pertaining to public participation in the planning process in Brunei Darussalam.




CONTENT

1.0 INTRODUCTION

2.0 EVOLUTION OF TOWN PLANNING

3.0 LAND USE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT CONTROL SYSTEM IN BRUNEI

4.0 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN PLANNING

5.0 CONCLUSION



Paper 2

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Brunei Darussalam or the Abode of Peace, nestled amongst the pristine forest of Borneo, is a small nation covering an area of 5,765 sq km with a coastline of 130 km along the South China Sea. With a population of 332, 844 people (2001 census), Brunei has been ruled under the monarchy system for the last six centuries or so and gained its independence from the United Kingdom in 1984.

The independence marked the milestone in land use planning in Brunei Darussalam with the commissioned of the Negara Brunei Darussalam Master Plan (NBDMP). The Master Plan, completed in 1987 was the first comprehensive plan covering the country. It was a 20 years structure plan that sets out the long-term development proposals to the year 2005. It was commissioned in realizing the need to coordinate the rapid physical development in the late 1970s and early 1980s in a comprehensive manner. However due to the then political climate, the urgent need to produce the plan and the fact that there is no provision for public participation in the existing planning law, public involvement and stakeholders consultation during plan preparation was almost non-existent. Therefore public awareness about the plan and town planning in general was minimal.

Since then many more physical development plans have been prepared. However, although much of the country has been covered by development plans, the role of town planning as the main player that spearheads development has not really been recognised. Planning is seen more as a ‘technical matter’. One of the main reasons is the lack of publicity and public involvement in the plan preparation.

In addition, this could also be partly attributed to the non-statutory nature of the plans as plan preparation has not been comprehensively covered by the planning law. This perception is further aggravated by the fact that the Planning Authority is seen more as a controller of development due to its more ‘prominent and tangible’ development control function. However efforts have been underway to review the 1972 Town and Country Planning (Development Control) Act so that the planning function of the department would be more prominent and comprehensively covered.

Currently one of the main emphases of the Planning Authority is to enhance public awareness in the field of planning by involving stakeholders including the public in plan preparation. Although public participation is a good endeavour, the process has also shown that it has its own limitations and challenges.

This paper shall then have a brief account of some of the main issues and challenges face by Town Planners in Brunei Darussalam with a focus on public participation. In the process it shall highlight the evolution of town planning in Brunei Darussalam covering the establishment of the Department of Town and Country Planning and the enactment of the country’s first Planning Act.




2.0 EVOLUTION OF TOWN PLANNING

Since the 15th century, settlements in Brunei Muara District where Bandar Seri Begawan (formerly Bandar Brunei, the capital city of Brunei Darussalam is located) began on water, specifically at the confluence of Brunei and Sungai Kedayan Rivers. The rivers were the source of livelihood and the ‘Kampong Ayer’ (Water Village) was then the center of living even for the royals as well as the administration for Brunei Darussalam. The move to land settlements only began in 1906. As a result there was a boom in development especially in Bandar Brunei and expanded all along the main roads thus creating ribbon development. Development was then not subjected to planning control. It was done on an ad hoc basis and there was not even a proper plan for the capital city. The need to exercise town planning was mainly to exert proper control and curb ribbon development that was so apparent along the major roads, as such in its early days the focus of planning was to control physical development in a proper manner.

Historically, town planning started as early as 1956 and in mid 1960s the Development Section was formed under the State Secretariat with the objective of achieving a more orderly and coordinated physical planning. The first Town Plan (Brunei Town Plan) was prepared during this time and saw the establishment of Town Planning Section to replace the Development Section.

In 1972, the Town Planning Section was detached and became a Department and known as Department of Town and Country Planning (DTCP). It was then, the TCP (Development Control) Act was enacted and the designation of rapidly developing areas as Development Control Areas. Development began to be subjected to sets of laws and regulations.

Since the establishment of the DTCP in 1972, it has played an important role in the countries physical planning and development. The department has since then prepared land use development plans beginning with small schemes for some important localities and the main towns in Brunei followed by large scale physical development plans.

3.0 LAND USE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT CONTROL SYSTEM IN BRUNEI

The 1972 TCP (Development Control) Act, mainly based on the British planning system is a relatively short legislation with only 10 main provisions – mainly to govern the use of land and buildings within the Development Control Competent Authority (DCCA) areas. In this regard the Commissioner of Town and Country Planning is the Chairman of the DCCA who is empowered to process and issue approvals for building and earthwork applications within the declared DCCA areas. Therefore the DTCP as the planning authority also performs development control function.

Currently DCCA areas account for not more than 4% of the country’s total acreage. However they consist of urban and rapidly developing areas. Therefore although small in size, the relative importance and strategic locations of these areas have somewhat elevated the development control function of the planning authority. In consequence, the public perceive planning as the ‘controller of development’ rather than the strategic planner of the country’s development agenda. Public awareness and appreciation of the roles and purpose of land



Paper 2

use planning, or perception towards the planning authority, are very misleading and not well integrated into the mainstream of the government administration. (Hong, 2004).

One of the contributing factors is that planning function has not been comprehensively covered by the 1972 TCP Act. The planning function is in fact performed by virtue of the DTCP being a planning department. The Act only empowers the preparation of planning schemes within DCCA areas. Therefore development plan preparation is not a statutory requirement. In consequence due to the non-statutory nature of the plans, plan proposals have not been effectively implemented.

Despite the lack of mandate to plan, however major efforts especially after the independence to prepare land use plans to guide the development process have been undertaken beginning with the 1987 Master Plan that included the preparation of District Plans followed by Local Plans.

Earlier plan preparation was not subjected to publicity and public inquiry as such a great majority of the public was not aware of the existence of the plans. It could be said that the plans do not belong to the people. The involvement of government agencies and civil societies were also limited. As a result most of the plans do not live up to expectations as many of the proposals have not been taken up by the implementing agencies.

The need to involve public in the planning process has long been recognised, and although not mandated by law, efforts to do so have recently been intensified.

4.0 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN PLANNING

In the field of town planning public participation is interpreted as the involvement of public to assist the local planning authority to identify current and future problems and opportunities in the relevant locality as well as scrutinise and understand the contents of development planning and hence submit appeal, recommendation and views.

In the context of Negara Brunei Darussalam, however, public participation, at this juncture is more of a consultation process to enhance public awareness in the field of planning. Therefore although the public has been asked to put forward their recommendations and needs and wants, the process is also seen as a means of addressing issues and problems, among others to convey the message that planning is not all about controlling development and that land use planning is everybody’s responsibility.

The involvement of public in the planning process in Brunei Darussalam only gained its momentum about one or two years ago through focus group discussions with government agencies and the private sector including the business community as well as through exhibitions and public dialogues during the preparation of District and Local Plans.




The inadequacy of public participation in planning was highlighted in an unofficial questionnaire survey conducted in September 2006 (Hj Abd Samad, 2006) in which the findings indicated that:

i. 63% of the respondents believed that the public has not been adequately consulted in the planning process although 31% was unsure about it. 73% claimed that they have never been consulted or invited to any planning participation process at all.

ii. 82% deemed that participation could contribute to better planning decisions and development results. Although some argued that it would depend on how much of the public’s arguments shall be taken into account by the authority.

iii. 63% of respondents were willing to attend future planning participation process though 9% did not wish to participate. One of the reasons cited was that it should be left to the more knowledgeable persons such as professionals and village heads.

iv. 58% believed that more effective participation could be achieved if it was made compulsory by law. However more significant was the fact that 33% were not sure about it and a few respondents disagreed. One reason offered for the skepticism was that many of the legal provisions in Brunei had not been enforced.

v. Although the sample size was small (88) and may not be representative of the views of the Brunei population, it gives a fair reflections of the issue in contention. In fact the issues and doubts highlighted by respondents were valid points that have always been raised in the debate about participation.

The DTCP has so far conducted several focus group discussions, exhibitions and dialogues for some local plans both in urban and rural settings. They have been useful and fruitful for both the local residents and the planning authority. The process has enabled the authority to observe the level of knowledge of participants in both settings, determine their concerns, needs and wants and serve as a capacity building exercise. For the local residents it was an unprecedented opportunity to voice out their opinions openly in a two way communication with the authority.

However participation is not a straightforward process. Although the benefits of public participation has long been acknowledged on the one hand, on the other public participation is also inundated with issues and problems that include, among others the costs and risks of carrying out such a process. These include costs in terms of time and money, question of representations, the adequacy of the level of participation and barriers to participation.



Paper 2

It is also recognised that town planning is a complex process inundated with planning jargons and technical terms that could hardly be understood by the general public especially village folks. Factors such as issues to be discussed and even ‘finding out’ planning proposals have been identified as some barriers to participation. (Jenkins, 2002). Therefore it was no surprise that the recent experiences in public consultation in Brunei have shown that quite a large number of the issues and problems raised were more related to trivial matters non-related to planning. Perhaps this is more so in Brunei due to the low level of knowledge and exposure to planning matters. In general, in terms of representation it was also recognised that the process has been dominated by outspoken individuals whose views might not be representative of the views of the local community. There was also an apparent lack of representatives of women and youth. It has been acknowledged in many literatures that dominant pressure groups and Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) could hijack the process if it was poorly organised.

However, these are seasoned issues that have long been highlighted in the development discourse and encountered in the real world. Nevertheless these are still valid issues. In Malaysia, for example, it was concluded that although the current approach to participation met the requirements of the 1972 Act, and publicity efforts are supported with other activities, the desired objective of participation has not been fully achieved because of unsatisfactory reception/response. (DTCP Alor Setar, 2006). According to survey findings on publicity conducted in 2001 by the DTCP, Malaysia, only between 1% – 12% and 1% – 8% of local residents in study area went to the exhibitions of draft Local Plan and Draft Structure Plan respectively. Then with such a low rate of interest, is participation worth pursuing?

Many literatures have argued that participation might waste both money and time, and that it may not deliver all that it promises. Cooke (in Hickey and Mohan, 2004), for example argues that participatory planning should consider itself down as there are plenty of other ways to engage politically without having to do participatory development.

The small planning participatory processes recently undertaken in Brunei have also thrown into light of how much of the public views shall have to be taken into account and could we match the interest in participation with our willingness to actually change anything as a result?

It also raises the issue of the will and commitment to promote participation beyond the capacity to make it effective as it was apparent that focus group discussions, exhibitions and dialogues are time consuming. Time is the essence as it was obvious that the longer the process, the least interested people become. For example, the inaugural focus group discussions were held for five consecutive days and followed with three or four days internal meetings to discuss the outcome, views and opinions. In general it was noted that the rate of participation gradually decreased; government officials were not able to attend full time due to other commitments; some participants did not give any views at all, perhaps because they did not have the time to read the reports or they were too technical and difficult to understand.




Based on the above experiences, perhaps at times there is a need to decide who should get involved (stakeholders analysis) and at what stage to be more effective. This could be determined by the levels of participation such as consultation, deciding together or acting together.

However public participation in the planning process is a must, after all we plan for the people. The benefits of participation far outweighed the drawbacks. The findings of study by the World Bank (1994) showed that overall participation by beneficiaries was the most important single factor in determining the success of the overall quality of implementation of projects (WDR, 1994). Participation means accountability to the public, that accountability is more widely shared, as more people are involved in the decision. (Involve, 2005). Individuals are less likely to oppose a plan in which they have participated.

In the short experience of conducting public consultation in Brunei Darussalam the true costs and risks of participation have been recognised. As a result, it has prompted us to re-affirm the objective of conducting participation and perhaps the need to devise a set of strategy – may be the ASEAN way – that would be most appropriate and fitting with our culture, traditions and values. How can we make public participation more effective but with less costs in terms of time and money? Since participation is still at its infancy, it may not be too late for Brunei to search for an ideal model to emulate.

5.0 CONCLUSION

Town planning is an on going process that needs to be responsive to new market forces, social and political make up and environmental changes. Any planning decisions made shall be judged by the general public at large for they would be directly affected by those decisions. It is the duty of the town planners to balance and reach the best value for the community where development is concerned. Most importantly, it is also the responsibility for town planners to chart the course and direction of future development in the country.



Paper 2

References

1. Asiaweek, December 5, 1997, Asia’s Best Cities: The top 40 as places to live

2. Department of Economic Planning and Development, April 2005, A Report on the Population Census 2001 Brunei Darussalam, Government Printing, Brunei Darussalam.

3. Department of Town and Country Planning, West Malaysia, 2006, ‘e publisiti ke arah pembangunan lestari’ (e publicity towards a sustainable development), http://publisiti.townplan.gov.my/e publisiti/article.cfm?id=102, accessed on 20 August 2006.

4. Haji Abd Samad, Z, 2006, Strengthening ‘Good Governance’: Statutory Participation in Land Use Planning as a Means of More Effective Decision Making /Development Process in Brunei Darussalam, University College London, Unpublished.

5. Hickey, S and Mohan, G, 2004, Participation; From Tyranny to Transformation?, Zed Books, London/New York

6. Hong, K S, June 2004, An Investigation of key stakeholders views on perceived need to revitalise the commercial area of central Bandar Seri Begawan, University Brunei Darussalam, Brunei, Unpublished

7. Involve, September 2005, Economic Governance; Creating a Stronger Democracy; The True Costs of Participation, Brief Literature Review. First Draft, www.involving.org, accessed on 12 July 2006

8. Jenkins P, Kirk, K, Smith, H, 2002, Getting Involved in Planning; Perceptions of the Wider Public, Edinburgh

9. UN ESCAP, undated, Human Settlements: What is Good Governance?, http://www.unescap.org/huset/gg/governance.htm, accessed on 3 July 2006.

10. World Bank Development Report, 1994




PLANNING ISSUES AND CHALLENGES IN BRUNEI DARUSSALAM –

With a focus on public participation in planning process

PRESENTATION CONTENTS :

• INTRODUCTION

• EVOLUTION OF TOWN PLANNING

• LAND USE PLANNING SYSTEM

• DEVELOPMENT CONTROL SYSTEM

• PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN PLANNING PROCESS

• CONCLUSION

INTRODUCTIONBRUNEI: FACTS AND FIGURES

• SIZE: 5765 Sq Km, 130 km coastline

• POPULATION: 332,844 people (2001 population census)

• HIGHEST DENSITY: 2,463 persons per sq km



Paper 2

EVOLUTION OF TOWN PLANNING

• WHY WAS TCPD FORMED

-Ribbon development

• 1972 TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (DEVELOPMENT CONTROL ) ACT

• FUNCTIONS OF DTCP

-Land use Planning

-Development Control

LANDUSE PLANNING SYSTEM

DTCP AS THE PLANNING AUTHORITY:

• PREPARATION OF DEVELOPMENT PLANS – began in 1984 (after Brunei’s independence)

• HIERARCHY OF PLANS; 1. Master Plan 2.District Plans 3. Local Plans

- 1987 NEGARA BRUNEI DARUSSALAM MASTER PLAN (1985-2005)

LAND USE PLAN PREPARATION PROCESS:

- Land Use Plan Preparation Committee (DTCP as Chairman)

ISSUES: plans are not statutory in nature




DEVELOPMENT CONTROL SYSTEM

• DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMPETENT AUTHORITY (DCCA) – process and issue approval for earthwork and building applications within DCCA areas

• DCCA AREAS - mainly along major roads and strategically located areas

• ISSUES:

- Overlapping of government agencies dealing with development control

- different standards and guidelines

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROCESSWHY PUBLIC PARTICIPATION:

- to enhance public awareness in the field of planning;

- plan proposals have not been effectively implemented

PROMOTING PUBLIC PARTICIPATION:

- involvement of stakeholders, the private sector and local residents during plan preparation process

- approaches; focus group discussion, exhibitions and dialogues

FINDINGS / OBSERVATIONS

Positive aspects

- proper venue for public to air grievances

- appreciation of the role of planning in the development process

- increased awareness (public more concerned with the planning of their locality)

- able to assess residents’ needs, concerns and wants



Paper 2

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROCESS….continued

Negative Aspects;- time consuming, - low rate of participation - issues raised not related to planning

OTHER OBSERVATIONS- Serves as capacity building exercise for the department- Foster good relations with government agencies and

local residents- A great majority of participants were men- The process demands time and commitment (add to

work burden)

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROCESS….continued• SOME FINDINGS ON PUBLIC PERCEPTION OF

PARTICIPATION IN PLANNING PROCESS; 1. On adequacy of participation process- not adequate - 63% of respondents- not sure - 31%- never been invited - 73%

2. 82% deemed that participation could contribute to better planning decisions

3. Willingness to attend future planning participation process - willing to attend - 63% - not willing to attend – 9%

4. Would participation process be more effective if made compulsory through law?- Agree - 58% - Not sure 33%- Disagree – 9%




THANK YOU

CONCLUSION

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROCESS IN NBD;

Not gain as much as expected or get the right kind of feedback

-Is public participation cost effective? Worth doing?

-Is there an ideal model of public participation?

-How to make it effective, but with reduced costs and risks?

- Should we be selective? And on what basis?


��

��

��

��


��

��

��

��

Dr. Belinda Yuen

PRESIDENT,

SINGAPORE INSTITUTE OF PLANNERS,

SINGAPORE

CONNECTED PLANNING: ECONOMIC COMPETITIVENESS

AND LIVEABILITY


98

Paper 3


Abstract

CONNECTED PLANNING: ECONOMIC COMPETITIVENESSAND LIVEABILITY

Increased globalisation has driven cities beyond the flows of capital and investment to explore innovation and creativity as a driving force for economic growth. Prominently, in recent years the zeal for arts, culture and heritage in the city has grown with the rise of the creative class and the making of the creative city to achieve greater diversity and richness of experiences for the city and its residents. Obviously, there are various strategies that a city can pursue in defining and promoting its store of cultural capital and unique experiences. This paper engages with current global trends and the specific developments of Singapore to examine how cities are developing their understanding, assessing and addressing the creative use of culture and heritage to remake urban spaces, enhance liveability and define city image. A city wishing to compete on the global stage can no longer ignore the importance of including liveability in its planning.




CONTENT

1.0 INTRODUCTION

2.0 REMAKING THE LIVEABLE CITY

3.0 SINGAPORE: EMBRACING CULTURAL PLANNING 3.1 Culture and Place-Making 3.2 Culture and Creative Growth

4.0 CONCLUSION


100

Paper 3


1.0 INTRODUCTION

Planning for better quality urban environment is a major concern of planners in the current century. As Sir Peter Hall (2003) points out,

Urban planning at the end of the twentieth century has been marked by an urgent need to find solutions to the key problems facing our towns and cities – the control of sprawl, sustainable growth, more integrated transport and better-quality urban environments. (p33)

At the present time, more than half of the world’s population is living in cities. The projected world annual urban growth rate is 1.8%. More significantly, much of this growth is expected to take place in the developing world of low- and middle-income countries. By 2025, estimates indicate there will be 486 mega-cities1 in the developing world as compared with a figure of 52 in 1960. As the urban areas expand the task of planning and managing the city will only become more complex. New challenges are emerging ranging from the consequent impacts of globalisation on local communities to the ongoing urban tasks of providing services, dealing with poverty and planning a liveable city (Freire and Yuen, 2004). At issue is how to create cities that enhance the quality of urban life. This paper engages with current global trends and the specific developments of Singapore to discuss the emerging landscape. Intent is on how the city is assessing and addressing the creative use of culture and heritage to remake urban spaces to enhance liveability and define city image.

2.0 REMAKING THE LIVEABLE CITY

Around the world, with few exceptions, cities are reworking existing spaces to enhance the quality of urban life in the current experience of globalisation. Central to this effort is the agenda of ‘glocalising urban landscapes’ to enhance the competitiveness of these cities (Beriatos and Gospodini, 2004, p187). Arguments have been developed to strengthen the cultural economy to express local identity and rejuvenate local economy. As Hall (2000) writes,

Culture is now seen as the magic substitute for all the factories and warehouses, and as a device that will create a new urban image, making the city more attractive to mobile capital and mobile professional workers (p640).

Others, prominently Florida (2002) have argued that economically successful cities are those that manage to attract and keep creative workers. Beyond the flows of economic capital and investment, culture has become the new driving force of the global economy. This latest relationship between culture and cities has fuelled culture-led regeneration and the celebration of local heritage to reinforce sense of place and quality of life (Mossop and Walton, 2001; Beriatos and Gospodini, 2004). The basic tenet is that place identity is essential to comparative advantage in global competition. Urban scholars from a wide range of disciplines, architecture (Norberg-Schulz, 1980), geography (Relph, 1976; Sack, 1997), philosophy (Malpas, 1999) to planning and social theory (Jacobs and Fincher, 1993; Sandercock, 1998),

1 These cities have at least 8 million people each.




have long emphasised the importance of sense of place. From a city perspective, sense of place represents a key quality of the good city (Lynch, 1981) and creative city planning (Landry, 2000). As Ng and Ryser (2005, p7) recently assert, the asset of creative cities is their genius loci or spirit of place. Current effort to reinforce genius loci has intensified the zeal to understand, assess and develop the cultural capital of a city. If we adopt the definition offered by Landry (2000), cultural capital is made up of all the creative (arts, media and design) and cultural (such as festivals and distinctive customs) assets of the city, assets that are rooted in the locality and shaped by the history and identity of places.

In a period of globalisation and increasing competition, more and more cities in both developed and developing countries are abandoning ‘demolish and rebuild’ which predominated urban agenda through much of the 1960s and 1970s, and moving to conserve their heritage as a strategy to develop a stronger differentiation from other cities. Since the 1980s, cities are rediscovering heritage and cultural planning as a way to creating more liveable cities. They are re-inventing and remaking the city through a diverse range of strategies that identify and promote local distinctiveness and creativity. Some such as Bilbao and Sydney have chosen to invest in iconic cultural attraction of international reputation to promote the city’s unique identity. The Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao visibly marks the city’s strategy to support cultural innovation and production. With its boldly modern architecture, the museum not only encapsulates Spanish creativity but also stimulates the redevelopment of Bilbao under its cultural plan to become the first global museum. As Azua and Fundacion Metropoli (2005, p37) put it,

For Bilbao, the Guggenheim Museum symbolizes a society’s will for change, and the determination and confidence that it is possible to reinvent and construct a 21st Century metropolitan region on the ruins of an obsolete productive system.

Yet others such as Glasgow, Helsinki and Rotterdam, have turned to the arts and other local cultural resources as the specific basis to promote the city as the centre of culture, in particular, as the Cultural Capital of Europe (Bianchini and Parkinson, 1993). The latter is a partnership project between the city and neighbouring municipalities, cultural actors and organisations, businesses and the state that revalorizes and integrates arts and culture into urban policy. The project will often include a programmed of cultural festivals, performances (from theatre and visual arts to pop music), exhibitions, renovation and construction of new museums, concert halls and other cultural facilities. It will often bring European Union funding for cultural activities, more tourists and international promotion for the host city even though the durability and full extent of the impact of these cultural events on city image may be difficult to measure (Richards and Wilson, 2004). Even unsuccessful bid cities are said to benefit from the bidding process in terms of city image and development. Under the ‘arts means business’ theme, these cities are investing in expressive arts and cultural activities to create a new business climate and impetus for local economic rejuvenation. In Helsinki, for example, the arts and culture sector is a major employer, providing 8.5% of all jobs in the city (the national average is 4%) (Arts and Culture in Helsinki, 2005).


102

Paper 3


In other cities such as Baltimore, London and Melbourne, remaking is interpreted in terms of conserving historic buildings, revitalising and gentrifying the older inner city area such as the obsolete waterfront and abandoned factories and buildings (Malone, 1996; Dovey, 2005; Ng and Ryser, 2005). Pittsburg in USA, for example, has initiated developments to change from being ‘Hell with the lid off’ to ‘America’s most liveable city’. The city is preserving its historic neighbourhoods. It has introduced smoke control legislation and river clean up to promote a more positive city image to attract people and businesses. Philadelphia is another industrial city that is capitalising on its industrial heritage (the city was the cradle of the American Revolution and its first capital city). The city has developed strategic projects to conserve its historical district including the naval yard on the banks of Delaware River (birthplace of US Navy and Marine Corps) and create creative industry clusters, e.g. the Avenue of the Arts to promote the growth of arts and University of Pennsylvania to promote knowledge-based growth. The creative class2, as Florida (2002) analyses, accounts for almost a third of US workforce and is rapidly expanding. The rise of the creative class has encouraged the creation and growth of new cultural, leisure and consumption spaces (Landry, 2000; Evans, 2003).

In many cases, the enthusiasm is for service-oriented precincts often comprising warehouse conversions, loft living, art galleries, restaurants, shopping malls, other entertainment spaces (e.g. bars, pubs, night-time economy) and waterfront housing, to revive urban life and animate the city’s competitive future. An important dimension of this growth is heightened sensitivity to aesthetics and urban heritage, and expansion of leisure and entrepreneurial activities to foster both economic development and community liveability. A city wishing to compete on the global stage can no longer ignore the importance of including liveability in its planning. In the new milieu of inter-city competition, cultural resources and heritage have become major pivots of quality of life and economic attractiveness (Zukin, 1995; Richards, 1996). According to the Travel Industry Association of America (2001), visitors to historic and cultural attraction sites tend to spend more and stay longer than other categories of US travelers. Whether for tourism, potential investment or better quality of life, a common thread in all the differing urban efforts is the quest to remake the city, create difference, a sense of place and mark its place in the new global urban order. Against the acceleration of global flows, Singapore too has begun to reposition and strengthen its place-making quality to become a dynamic, distinctive and delightful city. The remaining of this paper will examine some key aspects of Singapore’s current effort towards a liveable city with culture.

2 According to Florida (2002), the creative class is made up of a)super creative core comprising people working in science and engineering, creative industries, media, publishing and new media, design professions, research and development, ICT and digital content, advanced manufacturing and the like, and b)the creative professionals in business, finance, law, advertising and healthcare who provide value adding services for the creative core.




3.0 SINGAPORE: EMBRACING CULTURAL PLANNING

According to Norberg-Schulz (1980), every place has what he defines as genius loci. In other words, each place and city would have its own identity. Each city is somehow different, shaped by its particular history, form, tradition, culture and social life. As is the experience elsewhere, Singapore in recent years has begun to explore and use culture and heritage to remake urban spaces, enhance liveability and define city image. Since the late 1980s, conservation and heritage is increasingly written into policy guidelines for the future development of Singapore. The planning act has been amended in 1989 to support conservation. Master plans, conservation guidelines and manuals are subsequently issued to guide development in conservation areas. Central to these initiatives is a reassessment of the city’s image focused on the notion that heritage can strengthen sense of place and play an important role in Singapore’s development towards a global city. The benefits especially to tourism and national identity have been highlighted in several early reports (see, for example, Wong, et al, 1984; the Committee of Heritage Report 1988).In assessing Singapore’s heritage capital, the Committee on Heritage (1988) has identified five major assets,

• Nation building heritage – this would include the experience of living under and the people’s response to the British colonial administration, the Japanese Occupation, the post war struggle for independence and the struggle against Communism;• Multi-cultural heritage – this would include the lifestyles, customs and traditions of the different ethnic communities. Following British colonization and immigration policy, Singapore has evolved into a multiethnic society comprising at the present time of Chinese (79%), Malay (14%), Indian (6%) and a residual category of ‘others’, mainly Europeans and Eurasians (1%);• Economic success heritage – this would include the values of our migrant predecessors who came to Singapore and their economic achievements;• Created environment heritage – this would include buildings, landmarks and other visible and tangible links to our past in the physical landscape; and• Natural environment heritage – this would include our territorial identity and location within Southeast Asian ecological region.

As stated in the URA-PMB publication, Our Heritage is in Our Hands (1994, p3; 29), the built heritage is ‘our history, captured in brick, plaster, wood and stone’ and ‘to lose these architectural assets would be to erase a living chapter in our history’. Interest is hence to search the past to construct the present basis for a city that is distinctive.

This effort is at once spatial as well as cultural. Spatially, preservation and conservation plans and strategies are initiated to recover the heritage inscribed in individual buildings, streets and districts and protect them from redevelopment (MND Annual Report 1987; Boey, 1998). Culturally, the historic morphology of buildings and streets is finely honed to offer a sense of Singapore’s Asian heritage and identity. In resonance with the wider global processes, place identity and urban heritage are increasingly recognised as key building blocks for economic growth and social vitality. As the Singapore Minister for National Development has declared,

The future of our city has to go beyond meeting the functional needs of the business


104

Paper 3


community. We need to build vibrant quality places. Singaporeans today want a more attractive and liveable city, as confirmed from the feedback we received from the Focus Groups, which were set up for Concept Plan 2001. (Singapore Government Press Release 30 April 2001)

The conscious choice to build an attractive, liveable city and to connect economic and cultural strategies to create a new business climate is characterised in the country’s long-term development plan, Concept Plan 2001,

Towards a thriving world class city in the 21st century – this is our vision for this Concept Plan (2001). We envisage a city that is dynamic, a thriving business hub that can hold its own in the global playing field; a city that is distinctive with a unique identity that is recognisably our own; and a city that is delightful with energy, excitement and entertainment. We want to be a global business centre, a hub for culture and arts, an island city that celebrates its tropical greenness and a city that reflects its identity and history. (Urban Redevelopment Authority, 2001, p10)

This is the first time identity has been specifically highlighted for attention in the long-term development plan. The Concept Plan first adopted in 1971 is a strategic plan that is reviewed once in every 10 years.3 It provides the broad framework for Singapore’s long-term development and the preparation of the detailed Master Plan at the local level.

3.1 Culture and Place-Making

A frequently devised strategy used to re-image the city and reassert its sense of place is the conservation of old historic areas and buildings. Since 1989, Singapore has encouraged the conservation of its historic fabric even as it develops new buildings and landscape. After two decades of conservation efforts, 6500 heritage buildings and 86 historic and local districts of its multi-ethnic cosmopolitan heritage covering approximately 204 ha or 0.4% of total developable land are conserved. Singapore’s conservation programme is extensively documented and requires no repetition (Boey, 1998; Lim, 2006). Beginning with the Concept Plan 2001, conservation is now not just in terms of the historical and built heritage but also a consideration of the everyday ‘icons, activity nodes, focal points, essential routes and gathering places which are landmarks in our social landscape’ (Urban Redevelopment Authority, 2001, p47).

Beyond museums and historic buildings is the emphasis on keeping familiar sights, existing trades and activities, the common everyday history and culture of ordinary people as anchors of identity. As Searle and Byrne (2002) remind, the vernacular landscapes and collective memories are as much a basis for the construction of place attachment as is the inspiring and historic landscape. Heritage conservation is thus increasingly conceptualised within cultural planning discourses as building community identity, empowering a more place-focused approach that gives prominence to collaborative planning (Healey, 1997).

3 For more detailed discussion of Singapore’s planning system, see Motha and Yuen (1999).




An outcome of this place-based planning is that cities are taking opportunity to create active citizenship in which the future development of the city and its sense of place are debated and refined with community input (Burton, 1997). For Singapore, the challenge, ‘What can we do to retain their history, character and life while they (the areas) continue to grow and evolve?’ (Urban Redevelopment Authority, 2002) presents an opportunity for place-based innovations in its planning.

The capacity of planning to shape places is reaffirmed by the Minister of State for National Development during the launch of the public consultation process of the Master Plan 2003 review, 23 July 2002,

Planning can do its part by recognizing the special traits of these places, and looking into how places can evolve at their own pace, without losing their special qualities to redevelopment. This adds diversity and distinctiveness to our built environment.

Given the centrality of conceptions in the Concept Plan to develop a dynamic, distinctive and delightful city, the major place-making strategies in the Master Plan 2003 include,

• A planning consultation process that emphasises a) extensive consultation with various government agencies, businesses, community leaders and non-government organisations through a variety of means (subject groups, stakeholders discussions, online polls, etc) to identify areas that contribute to the cultural heritage and identity of Singapore, and b)partnership with the community and businesses on how to make Singapore a distinctive city;• Incorporating an identity plan for each of Singapore’s five planning regions to retain and enhance identity in familiar places even as the city develops including retaining the old world charm of familiar neighbourhoods, sustaining existing vibrancy of urban village and hillside village areas, and celebrating the unique qualities of our wooded ridges and coastal areas (Lim, 2002).

In unpacking the culture and heritage in local places, planners the world over are increasingly recognising that people, ordinary citizens, too can be active participants in place-making. As Healey (1997) observes, countries in Europe are exploring and including broad-based local collaborative approaches into the routine of spatial planning practice as they seek to understand and make sense of culturally-framed systems. These discursive practices of participatory planning create liveability. As Partners for Liveable Communities (2000, p11) conclude,

Livability cannot be measured in indices, benchmarks, or in the number of golf courses per 100,000 people. Partners believe livability stems from the 10 arduous teamwork required to improve a system … Livability encompasses attention to both places and the people who live and work in them. Livability is mobilizing change; livability is action for the good.


106

Paper 3


In Singapore, that teamwork is developed on partnership: the joint partnership of public and private sectors with the community. As the Chief Executive Officer of Urban Redevelopment Authority, the national planning and conservation authority, has declared, ‘We want to hear from the public, communities, the grassroots, the man-in-the-street about how they want to live, how we can make Singapore more of a ‘home’ to them’ (Urban Redevelopment Authority 2002 News Release: 23 Jul 2002, URA launches identity plans for 15 areas in Singapore). As played out in the Master Plan 2003 review, community participation provides the vocabulary of the current planning strategy that seeks to engage community at the outset of plan making to define identity and places to conserve. As the Minister of State for National Development announced during the opening of the public consultation and exhibition on the draft master plan, 23 July 2002,

As conservation has gained recognition and success over the years, it is now timely for the planners to work with the public to further develop these efforts towards a Singapore where there is a sense of place, where identity is retained and our built heritage is enhanced. Our planners would like to seed some preliminary ideas in the Identity Plan exhibited to get a discussion started. I would like to stress that this is by no means the final nor the only direction to go. With your feedback and suggestions, the planners hope to arrive at a shared vision through this collaborative effort with the public. We have approached the making of the Identity Plan differently from the usual way of making plans. Instead of pre-determining how a place should shape up according to our plans, we are now looking at how our plans can enhance what is already on the ground and what people already find charming and appealing.

Through the practice of partnership in place-making, Singapore planners are seeking to better understand the essence of places and preserve their familiar use 11 and meaning. The approach provides opportunities for ordinary citizens to become active stakeholders and thus suggests a step closer to working together to improve liveability for all.

3.2 Culture and Creative Growth

The effort to enliven the city and improve quality of life is not limited to conservation. Under the Concept Plan 2001, the thrust to develop Singapore into a dynamic, distinctive and delightful world-class city entails,

• Enhancing the business environment,• Planning for a good quality of life, and• Providing more recreational choices.

This process involves not just more home and work spaces for the projected population of 5.5 million (current population of 4.2 million) within the land area of 700 sq km but also play spaces. The focus on play spaces is aimed to create a liveable city, a city that is not just for work but also with ‘energy, excitement and entertainment’ (Urban Redevelopment Authority, 2001, p9) and supported by ‘a vibrant cultural scene’ (Ministry of Information and the Arts, 2000, p4). With focus on play, arts and sports have been given a particular definition in Singapore’s long-term planning,




Singapore will be a fun and exciting city. The Concept Plan aims to provide places for all of us to enjoy. There will be more sporting facilities to choose from, accessible green spaces with exciting activities to participate in and more cultural facilities in convenient locations. (Urban Redevelopment Authority, 2001, p21)

As an aspect of this quest, arts and cultural activities are being re-conceptualised to improve the fabric of the public realm and city life. A Public Sculpture Master Plan has been launched in 2002 to facilitate public art in the city. The plan identifies key routes (e.g. Orchard Road), activity areas (within the 12 downtown core) and specific sites (e.g. Fort Canning Park, museum precincts, conservation areas, etc) where artists are encouraged to showcase their artwork. The aim is not just to bring an added creative dimension to Singapore streets, parks and plazas but also extend art appreciation among the community and raise the ‘cultural quotient of the city’ (Tng, 2004, p8). An increasing amount of effort is directed towards promoting the arts. The city has invested in new cultural infrastructure for the arts including the S$667 million Esplanade-Theatres on the Bay, a new-built cultural complex opened in 2002 on its Marina Bay waterfront for performing arts. Several vacant, old school buildings in the Civic and Cultural District have been retrofitted into museums and performing arts venue.

The use of public artwork and high-profile infrastructure facilities that would create cultural images in their own right to improve city life is not new. It is a strategy that is widely used in many other cities, e.g. Bilbao, Glasgow, Melbourne (as shown above) to promote culture and catalyst new cultural districts and industries (Bianchini and Parkinson, 1993; Mossop and Walton, 2001). However, compared with other cities of comparable population size, e.g. Melbourne and Glasgow, Singapore’s inventory of cultural infrastructure remains limited. There are 17 theatres, 5 concert halls/music venues and 18 museums in Singapore compared with the respective figures of 29, 7 and 11 in Glasgow and 37, 7 and 47 in Melbourne. Singapore has therefore in the last decade diversified its globalisation strategies to support creative growth and enhance the development of a vibrant cultural sector,

• Develop a strong arts and cultural base;• Develop flagship and major arts companies;• Recognise and groom talent; provide good infrastructure and facilities;• Go international by promoting artists overseas and strengthen cultural exchanges and partnerships with other countries; • Develop arts and cultural ‘renaissance’ economy by creating vibrant arts and cultural activities, strengthening arts marketing and cultural tourism and increasing incentives for arts sponsorships (Ministry of Information and the Arts, 2000).


108

Paper 3


In 2003, the Ministry of Information, Communications and the Arts has introduced a creative industry development strategy with a budget of more than S$200 million for FY2004-08 to promote this cluster. The strategy is based on multi-pronged actions to attract global creative companies, enlarge the pool of creative talents, support research and development in key areas and facilitate the entry of creative enterprises into the global market (Statement on creative industries by Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts in Parliament during COS Debate (MICA) on 3 March 2006). The shift towards developing the arts, culture and entertainment is as much to contribute to the growth of cultural industries as it is to create high quality leisure spaces to heighten the experience of fun and pleasure, foster art appreciation at the individual level and strengthen residents’ sense of national identity and belonging. As the Minister for Information and the Arts explains,

A vibrant arts and cultural scene … can give us that creative buzz and stimulate our minds to think outside the box. At the same time, it enlarges our leisure options and makes Singapore an attractive place for talent. Our culture and heritage also help to define who we are as a people, thereby strengthening our shared perspectives and our sense of belonging. (Speech by Minister for Information and the Arts, on the completion of the Renaissance City Report, to be delivered in Parliament on 9 March 2000)

As is the experience elsewhere, arts, culture and creativity is not just an artistic concept, it is an economic sector in its own right. The global market value of creative industries is worth more than US$1 trillion in 2005 (Speech by Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts, at 2006 Creative Industries Scholarships Award Ceremony, 25 August 2006). The creative sector comprising the arts, design and media is growing faster than the Singapore economy: the sector’s value added grew by 7% compared to 4% for the general economy and employment grew by 5.5% per annum compared to 2.3% for the whole economy from 1995 to 2003 (Statement on creative industries by Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts in Parliament during COS Debate (MICA) on 3 March 2006). As with the earlier conservation of heritage in the city, developing culture and the arts is part of the urban agenda to further growth and quality of life, ‘to establish Singapore as a global city of the arts … The idea is to be one of the top cities in the world to live, work 14 and play in’ (Speech by Minister for Information and the Arts, on completion of Renaissance City Report, to be delivered in Parliament on 9 March 2000).




4.0 CONCLUSION

As with many other cities around the world, Singapore in its effort to construct a global city has turned to exploring culture-led strategies as a way to strengthen city image and identity. The desired vision is a city that is dynamic, distinctive and delightful, a great city to live, work and play. Integral to this vision is the invocation of multiple, connected action to promote heritage, culture and the arts to assert local differentiation and at the same time, expand tourism, cultural industries and economic growth. The culture-driven agenda has re-emphasised the interactive nature of planning. As embodied in its spatial planning practice, the Singapore response has been to reach out and work collaboratively with the community to understand the ordinary person’s sense of place and repertoire of heritage and find the bases for what can be done to retain an area’s history, character and life as it continues to grow and change with modernization. In the search for sustainable practices to manage the city’s multi-cultural world, consensus-building in place identity is one way of giving the urban residents more ‘stakes’ in their city and make a general contribution to the city development, ‘Tell us about them’ (Urban Redevelopment Authority, 2002). This policy dialogue reflects an attempt to provide an optimal psychological fit between people and their physical environment, a basic element in the making of attractive places that respects difference and enhances liveability with the capacity to promote urban economic growth in a place-bounded world. While the full measure of the impact of culture-driven strategies awaits analysis, it is worth reflecting that if experiences from European cities are any indication, the cultural dimension of urban planning is an area that planners can no longer neglect in our quest for the liveable city.

Culture is a source of prosperity and cosmopolitanism in the process of international urban competitiveness through hosting international events and centers of excellence, inspiring creativity and innovation, driving high growth business sectors such as creative industries, commercial leisure and tourism, and increasing profile and name recognition … Culture is a means of spreading the benefits of prosperity to all citizens through its capacity to engender social and human capital, improve life skills and transform the organizational capacity to handle and respond to change … Culture is a means of defining a rich, shared identity and thus engenders pride of place and inter-communal understanding, contributing to people’s sense of anchoring and confidence (Comedia, 2002).


110

Paper 3


References

1. Arts and Culture in Helsinki (2005) City of Helsinki urban facts, Web publications 2005:6.

2. Azua, J and Fundacion Metropoli (2005) Bilbao: Blbao Ria 2000 and the Guggenheim effect in Ng, W K and J Ryser (2005) (Ed) Making spaces for the creative economy, ISOCARP Review, ISOCARP, Madrid.

3. Beriatos, E and A Gospodini (2004) ‘Glocalising’ urban landscapes: Athens and the 2004 Olympics. Cities 21(3):187 – 202.

4. Bianchini, F and M Parkinson (1993) (Ed) Cultural policy and urban regeneration: the West European experience, Manchester University Press, Manchester.

5. Boey, Y M (1998) Urban conservation in Singapore in B Yuen (Ed) Planning Singapore, Singapore Institute of Planners, Singapore.

6. Burton, P (1997) Community visioning, Policy Press, Bristol.

7. Comedia (2002) Releasing the cultural potential of our core cities – Comedia Report, http:// www.corecities.com/coreDEV/comed.html accessed on 30 Oct 2006 2:13pm.

8. Dovey, K (2005) Fluid city: transforming Melbourne’s urban waterfront, Routledge, Sydney.

9. Evans, G (2003) Hard-branding the cultural city, from Prado to Prada, Journal of Urban and Regional Research 27(2):417 – 440.

10. Freire, M and B Yuen (2005) (Ed) Enhancing urban management in East Asia, Ashgate, Aldersgate.

11. Florida, R (2002) The rise of the creative class and how it’s transforming work, leisure, community and everyday life, Basic Books, New York.

12. Hall, P (2000) Creative cities and economic development, Urban Studies 37(4):639 – 49.

13. Hall, P (2003) Smart growth on two continents in P Neal (ed) Urban villages and the making of communities, Spon Press, London.

14. Healey, P (1997) Collaborative planning: shaping places in fragmented societies, Macmillan Press, London.

15. Jacobs, J M and R Fincher (1993) (Ed) Cities of difference, Guildford Press, New York.

16. Landry, C (2000) The creative city: a toolkit for urban innovators, Earthscan, London.




17. Lim, C (2002) Making Singapore more enjoyable and memorable, Skyline Sep/Oct, pp6-10.

18. Lim, C (2006) Singapore’s conservation programme bags prestigious award, Skyline Jul- Aug, pp2-5.

19. Lynch, K (1981) A theory of good city form, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

20. Ministry of National Development (MND) Annual Report 1987, Singapore.

21. Ministry of Information and the Arts (2000) Renaissance city report: culture and the arts in renaissance Singapore, Ministry of Information and the Arts, Singapore.

22. Malone, P (1996) (Ed) City, capital and water, Routledge, London.

23. Malpas, J E (1999) Place and experience: a philosophical topography, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

24. Mossop, E and P Walton (2001) (Ed) City spaces: art and design, Craftsman House, Sydney.

25. Motha, P and B Yuen (1999) Singapore Real Property Guide, Singapore University Press

26. Ng, W K and J Ryser (2005) (Ed) Making spaces for the creative economy, ISOCARP Review, ISOCARP, Madrid.

27. Norberg-Schulz, C (1980) Genius loci, Academy Editions, London

28. Partners for Liveable Communities (2000) The liveable city: revitalising urban communities, McGraw-Hill, New York.

29. Relph, E (1976) Place and placelessness, Pion, London.

30. Richards, G (1996) (Ed) Cultural tourism in Europe, CAB International, Wallingford.

31. Richards, G and J Wilson (2004) The impact of cultural events on city image: Rotterdam, Cultural Capital of Europe, Urban Studies 41(10):1931-1951.

32. Sack, R D (1997) Homo Geographicus: a framework of action, awareness and moral concern, John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.

33. Sandercock, L (1998) Towards cosmopolis, John Wiley, Chichester.

34. Searle, G and J Byrne (2002) Selective memories, sanitised futures: constructing visions of future place in Sydney, Urban Policy and Research 20(1):7 – 25.

35. The Committee of Heritage Report 1988, Singapore.


112

Paper 3


36. Tng, S (2004) Drawing waterfront ideas, Skyline May/June, pp6-8.

37. Travel Industry Association, USA (2001) Tourism works for America report, USA Travel Industry Association, Washington DC.

38. URA-PMB (1994) Our heritage in our hands, Singapore.

39. Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) (2001) Concept plan 2001, Urban Redevelopment Authority, Singapore.

40. Urban Redevelopment Authority (2002) Parks and waterbodies plan and identity plan public exhibition pamphlets, Urban Redevelopment Authority, Singapore.

41. Wong, K C, et al (1984) Report of the Tourism Task Force, Ministry of Trade and Industry, Singapore.

42. Zukin, S (1995) The culture of cities, Blackwell, Cambridge, MA.




Connected Planning: economic competitiveness and liveability

Belinda Yuen, PhD

Malaysia World Town Planning Day Convention 2006, Kuala Lumpur, 8-10 Nov 2006

Presentation Outline

Remaking the city with culture Concluding remarks on the

significance of culture


114

Paper 3


Planning for a better quality urban environment

“Urban planning at the end of the 20th

century has been marked by an urgent need to find solutions to the key problems facing our towns and cities—the control of sprawl, sustainable growth, more integrated transport and better quality urban environments.”

Sir Peter Hall, 2003

If cities are to succeed,

…in the challenge of economic globalization,

They will have to be competitive with other cities, in their country, region and worldwide

They will have to create urban conditions that are sufficiently attractive to business and residents




How city could become more attractive, liveable and vibrant…

Creativity: the lifeblood of cities(C Landry: The Creative City)

Cultural resources are the raw materials of the city

Creativity is the method of exploiting these resources and helping them to grow,

Culture moving to centre stage…


116

Paper 3


Remaking the Citywith Culture,

In Europe, America and Australia…




Urban Culture as a tool of urban regeneration

…cities are now capitalizing on their traditional assets – art and culture – to revive their downtowns. They are turning to museums, performing arts centers, theatres, opera houses and concert halls to spur economic growth…(US National Building Museum, 1998).


118

Paper 3


Examples,Redevelopment of urban spaces, Recycle old structures

Old world cities such as London, Paris, Vienna, and new world cities such as Melbourne have invested in museum quarters and facilities, both new-build and conversion of industrial buildings, as well as waterfront developments




Cultural cities,Global branding of cities

Glasgow, Madrid, Helsinki are designated as ‘European city of culture’,

Culture is used as a new economic base, for celebration and city marketing


120

Paper 3


Cultural quarters,Creative industries quarters

Barcelona has emphasized its creative character:‘Gaudi city’

Bilbao has built iconic cultural attraction, Guggenheim Museum

Preservation of cultural heritage, Urban tourism

Vancouver and Manchester compete to have the largest Chinatown

Singapore…a dynamic, distinctive and delightful city




Predominantly

High-rise, moderncity


122

Paper 3


Increasingly not just high-rise, Rediscovering urban conservation

Singapore’s Long-term Development Vision

A thriving world-class city in the 21st century A dynamic, delightful, distinctive city Plans to improve quality of life and revitalize

historic areas Quest for local place identity

‘We want to be a global business centre, a hub for culture and arts, an island city that celebrates its tropical greenness and a city that reflects its identity and history.’ (Urban Redevelopment Authority, 2001, p10)




Growing emphasis

Culture and heritage

ConservationPlace identity

Heritage expressed in the lifestyles and traditions of the different ethnic communities and in the built form defines the location and territorial identity of Singapore…


124

Paper 3


Culture and Place Identity

…essential to rootedness and liveability…essential to attracting

high vvalue investments…essential to tourism

development…

As Zukin (1995) puts it, ‘culture is more and more the business of cities the basis of their tourist attractions and their unique competitive edge’.

Preservation of cultural heritage

Monuments of national standing, mostly institutional and religious buildings are conserved under the Preservation of Monuments Act, 1971

Historic districts are conserved under the Planning Act, 1998




Chinatown, from demolition to preservation

More recently,

•Familiar places since 2001, URA has extended conservation program beyond central area and historic areas to include ‘old world charm’ neighborhoods, urban village and hillside village centers, etc.

About 1900 buildings have been identified for conservation, majority shophouses


126

Paper 3


Preserving Old World Charm, Familiar neighborhoods…

New perception of the value of older buildings

To-date, there are 86 conservation areas with more than 6000 historic buildings, covering a land area of about 200 hectares or 0.4% of developable land




Strengthening Identity,create a city of difference

Identity is a key thrust in Singapore Concept Plan 2001

…we envisage…… a city that is dynamic, a thriving business hub that

can hold its own in the global playing field; …a city that is distinctive with a unique identity that

is recognizably our own;…a city that is delightful with energy, excitement and

entertainment…

What can we do to retain these local areas--the history, character and life–

while they continue to grow and evolve?


128

Paper 3


Opportunities to…

Recognize the special traits of local places – sense of place

Preserve focal elements of the past while integrating new and modern development qualities –sense of evolution

Identify with help of public the areas of unique character and charm – sense of belonging

To redevelop or conserve?

Economic case for conservation is strong in the search for new growth areas ‘to woo tourists back to Singapore, Chinatown

and other historical sites would have to be conserved’ (1984 Tourism Task Force)

Opportunities for building a sense of place and identity against growing globalisation ‘What makes this city uniquely Singapore,

distinct and separate from so many others, are the buildings of our heritage…’




Preserving historic areas and traditional crafts enhances economic competitiveness and attractiveness of the city

Adding City Buzz…Cultural events and otherCultural facilities

Sculptures in public places, street theatres, outdoor cafes, improved public spaces

Establishment of late-night shopping Arts and cultural districts to grow the

emergent creative culture and creative industries

To create the buzz of ‘creativity, innovation and entrepreneurialism’


130

Paper 3


Emphasis on culture and the arts

To establish Singapore as a global arts city To strengthen Singaporean’s sense of

national identity and belonging Develop a more vibrant arts and cultural scene, Develop arts appreciation and education, Cultivate cultural literacy Invest in our cultural capital to develop the

creative cluster

Expand the hardware and software for culture and the arts

museumsconcert halls/music

venues

theatres

18

11

47

517Singapore

729Glasgow

737Melbourne

museumsconcert halls/music

venues

theatres

18

11

47

517

729

737





132

Paper 3


Importance of Creative City…

UN (Habitat) 2004/05 review of state of the world’s cities said,

‘A creative city is one that has learned how to use its cultural capital to attract innovative business and services, as well as members of the ‘creative class’. It respects the city’s social and architectural heritage, provides amenities from bicycle lanes to pavement cafes, and encourages environmentally sensitive buildings and technologies.’

Significance of Urban Culture (The World Bank, 2002)

Culture (and heritage) is an essential part of creating sustainable

cities the greatest ‘development asset’ of any

city

It can contribute to Mobilise communities Mitigate poverty Economic growth Enhance quality of life




Finally, James D Wolfensohn, 2000,former World Bank Chief…

“serious attention to culture is basic to improving development effectiveness – in education, health, the production of goods and services, the management of cities. It is at the very heart of poverty reduction as well as quality of life.”


Documents

World Town Planning Day 2006 - Convention Proceedings