This paper is a survey of the Government Land Sales (GLS) programme in Singapore as a mechanism through which design aspects of private developments are regulated by the state. By comparing specifications in tender documents with what was eventually built, and tracing how much design weighed in the awarding of tenders, the survey shows how design regulations moved from an experimental phase in the 1960s when controls were sparse and discretionary, to being institutionalised by the 1980s, when controls became comprehensive, precise, and technical. Still, this did not translate planning visions directly into reality, as developers and architects successfully made counterproposals during and after the tender process. By examining the Integrated Resort development at Marina Bay against shifts in political culture and economic conditions in the 1990s, this paper concludes by arguing that the state deployed the GLS programme to procure ‘iconic’ buildings while excluding public involvement from actual design-review processes.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BarnettJ, 1974Urban Design as Public Policy: Practical Methods for Improving Cities (Architectural Record, New York)
2.
ChoeA, 1969, “Urban renewal”, in Modern Singapore Eds OoiJ BChiangH D, (University of Singapore, Singapore) pp 161–170
3.
ChoeA, 1975, “Urban renewal”, in Public Housing in Singapore: A Multi-disciplinary Study Ed. YehH K, (Singapore University Press, Singapore) pp 97–116
4.
ChuaB H, 1989The Golden Shoe: Building Singapore's Financial DistrictUrban Redevelopment Authority, Singapore
5.
ChuaB H, 1996, “Singapore—management of a city-state in Southeast Asia”, in The Dynamics of Metropolitan Management in Southeast Asia Ed. RulandJ, (Singapore Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, Singapore) pp 207–224
6.
CostonisJ, 1989Icons and Aliens: Law, Aesthetics and Environmental Change (University of Illinois Press, Urbana, IL)
7.
DaleO J, 1999Urban Planning in Singapore: The Transformation of a City (Oxford University Press, Shah Alam)
8.
EllinN, 1996Postmodern Urbanism (Princeton Architectural Press, New York)
9.
ERC, Economic Review Committee, Ministry of Trade and Industry, Singapore2002Land Working Group. Final Report
10.
ERC, Economic Review Committee, Ministry of Trade and Industry, Singapore2003New Challenges, Fresh Goals: Towards a Dynamic Global City
11.
GrantM, 1998Singapore Planning Law: Commentary on the Planning Act 1998 (Singapore Butterworths Asia, Singapore)
12.
HDB, Housing Development Board, Ministry of Law and National Development, Singapore1967Tender Documents—Government Land Sales Programme
13.
HDB, Housing Development Board, Ministry of Law and National Development, Singapore1969Tender Documents—Government Land Sales Programme
14.
HengC KHuoN, 2007, “The making of state-business driven public spaces in Singapore”Journal of Asian Architecture and Building Engineering6(1) 135–142
15.
HinshawM, 1995Design Review (American Planning Association, Chicago, IL)
16.
LeeK W, 2007, “Encoded histories: Design reviews and regulations in Singapore”, MA (Architecture) thesis, School of Architecture, National University of Singapore
17.
LimH K, 1994, “Focusing on three goals”The Straits Times 4 November
18.
MillerK F, 2007Design on the Public: The Private Lives of New York's Public Spaces (University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, MN)
19.
NasarJ LGrannisP, 1999, “Design review reviewed”Journal of the American Planning Association65424–433
20.
OoiG L, 2004The Future of Space: Planning, Space and the City (Eastern Universities Press, Singapore)
21.
Planning Department, 1964, 1968/69Annual ReportMinistry of Law and National Development, Singapore
22.
PowC K, 2002, “Urban entrepreneurialism and downtown transformation in Marina Centre, Singapore: A case study of Suntec City”, in Critical Reflections on Cities in Southeast Asia Eds BunnellT TDrummondL B WHoK C, (Times Media Private, Singapore) pp 153–184
23.
PreiserW F ERohaneK P, 1988, “A survey of aesthetic controls in English-speaking countries”, in Environmental Aesthetics: Theory, Research and Applications Ed. NasarJ L, (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge) pp 422–433
24.
PunterJ, 1986, “A history of aesthetic control: Part I, 1909–1953. The control of the external appearance of development in England and Wales”Town Planning Review57351–381
25.
PunterJ, 1987, “A history of aesthetic control: Part II, 1953–1985: The control of the external appearance of development in England and Wales”Town Planning Review5826–62
26.
PunterJ, 1994, “Design control in Europe”Built Environment20(2) 84–87
27.
PunterJ, 2004, “From the ill-mannered to the iconic—design regulation in central Sydney 1947–2002”Town Planning Review75405–445
28.
PunterJCarmonaM, 1997The Design Dimension of Planning: Theory, Content and Best Practice for Design Policies (E&FN Spon, London)
29.
RodanG, 1989The Political Economy of Singapore's Industrialization: National State and International Capital (Macmillan, Basingstoke, Hants)
30.
ScheerBPreiserW F E, 1994Design Review: Challenging Urban Aesthetic Control (Chapman and Hall, New York)
31.
SchusterJ M D, 1997, “The role of design review in affecting the quality of urban design: The architect's point of view”Journal of Architectural and Planning Research14209–225
32.
SIAJ, Singapore Institute of Architects Journal1967Urban Renewal Sites for Private Developmentnumber 13/14
33.
SIAJ, Singapore Institute of Architects Journal1969Second Sale of Urban Renewal Sites for Private Developmentnumber 32
34.
SIAJ, Singapore Institute of Architects Journal1970Third Sale of Urban Renewal Sites for Private Development January/February, number 38
35.
SIAJ, Singapore Institute of Architects Journal1973Oasis Restaurantnumber 60, September/October
36.
Singapore Legislative Assembly, 1958Select Committee on Planning Bill
37.
SouthworthM, 1989, “Theory and practice of contemporary urban design: A review of urban design plans in the United States”Town Planning Review60369–402
38.
STB, 2005, “Launch of request for proposals for the Integrated Resort at Marina Bay—Government outlines key specifications of RFP”, press release, 4 November, Singapore Tourism Board
39.
URA, Urban Redevelopment Authority, URA Library, The URA Centre, 45 Maxwell Road, Singapore 069118
40.
URA, Urban Redevelopment Authority, URA Library1978Developers' Package—Government Land Sales Programme
41.
URA, Urban Redevelopment Authority, URA Library1979/80Annual Report
42.
URA, Urban Redevelopment Authority, URA Library1980Developers' Package—Government Land Sales Programme
43.
URA, Urban Redevelopment Authority, URA Library1980/81Annual Report
44.
URA, Urban Redevelopment Authority, URA Library1982, “Planning a better Central Area”Skyline February
45.
URA, Urban Redevelopment Authority, URA Library1983/84Annual Report
46.
URA, Urban Redevelopment Authority, URA Library1985, “Changing the cityscope: Golden Shoe Area”Skyline September/October 1989/90 Annual Report 1989/90 Annual Report
47.
URA, Urban Redevelopment Authority, URA Library1994Changing the Face of Singapore Through the URA Sale of Sites
48.
YuenB, (Ed.), 1998Planning Singapore: From Plan to Implementation (Singapore Institute of Planners, Singapore)
