URA seeking public feedback to finalise their Concept Plan 2011.
In land-scarce Singapore, lots of precious land have been taken up to provide parking lots for thousands of private heavy trucks, lorries, buses, etc., for overnight parking, and for MRT trains and SBS bus depots.
Do we know the total land space that has been taken up in this 713 sq km island state for parking of vehicles and MRT trains?
.
======
.
How to create more land space out of airspace and underground:
1. Use reservoir catchment areas for green-controlled pollution-free offices, etc.
2. Use air-space above expressways for heavy-vehicle parking, MRT train and bus depots.
3. construct building over canals or rivers [precedence of covered canal along Orchard Road.
4. Dig deep to have caverns for storage space and shopping/offices/residential/parking, but it will be expensive excavation. [precedence of underground shopping malls connecting Raffles City to Marina Square].
.
=======
..
What else should we build above the expressways?
LTA should build parking lots above expressways or busy roads, where appropriate, to replace the present parking lots that are all over the island.
Create the tunnel effect when the elevated parking structures are built over the expressways like the 62m-long Eco-Link@BKE.
The elevated space created over expressways, open MRT tracks, bus and MRT train depots, and parking lots for overnight heavy-vehicles can be used to install solar panels to generate electricity.
The structures above open MRT tracks, for holding the solar panels, can be used to cut down the noise pollution in heavily-built residential areas.
It is like killing two birds with one stone.
.
=======
.
Greenery, forested areas, nature reserves or to clear more land for public housing?
Every square foot is precious and expensive in this 713 sq km island state.
To waste even a square foot is unthinkable, and the moral authority and credibility will be questionable. It can be viewed a criminal act against our island for anyone to waste even a sq foot of our precious land.
How many sq km of land in total are used for overnight parking of heavy vehicles and buses?
Why not have high-rise windowless auto parking facilities and more underground parking?
Or, create from airspace by having elevated carparks above expressways for heavy vehicle parking? – ref: URA Concept Plan 2011
.
=======
.
In total, how many sq km of land space have been used as carparks in tiny red dot of 713 sq km?
What is the solution, and who will ask for it in Parliament?
.
What are the options available nationwide?
If we cannot go underground, then go above ground.
How many big trucks and buses are there in Singapore, and the number of overnight parking lots in total and depots?
How many sq km of land space in total are used for heavy vehicle parking and bus depots?
When it comes to the push, we might have to consider building above expressways, build concrete landings above expressways [air space] for providing the parking space for heavy vehicles, and release the land space for other uses.
If we can build a landing outside People’s Park and an Eco-Bridge [covered with greenery over concrete] for animals at BKE, I hope those in architecture will know how to build strong landings above expressways [not near residential areas, but in the outskirts in remote areas].
.
=====
.
Lock it up and use it judiciously or never, but what are the solutions in land scarce red dot of 713 sq km?
There must be alternatives. Get it into the open before locking up our precious forests, and make it into law that it is criminal to waste even a sq foot of land in red dot.
We cannot have the cake and still want to eat it up.
.
Time to lock up natural reserves with ‘second key’
Our remaining forests are long-term assets that need protection like our fiscal reserves
Chua Mui Hoong
Associate Editor
The Dover forest may be cleared to make way for new Housing Board flats.ST PHOTO: LIM YAOHUIPUBLISHED on 22nd Jan 2021 in Straits Times
It is only January, and already, two forests have received public attention and galvanised petitions to protect them from development.
The two forests in question are in Clementi and Dover. Both are zoned for residential use. There are no immediate plans to develop the Clementi forest for now.
The Dover forest, however, may be cleared to make way for new Housing Board (HDB) flats to be launched this year in the Ulu Pandan Estate in Queenstown. The HDB had put online the report of an environmental baseline study on the area for public feedback.
The Nature Society Singapore counter-proposed to keep the forest as a “public-cum-nature park”, citing concerns over loss of biodiversity and impact on wildlife connectivity if the forest is cleared.
A petition to save Dover forest drew the signatures of over 33,000 people by yesterday evening. I was one of them.
I did not sign the Clementi forest petition, as there are no immediate plans to develop it. Future generations may want to use the land for housing, or they may want to keep it as a forest. We don’t know what they want; nor can we imagine the demands on the island then – what if we need much more land for water or food in 2030 because other sources dry up? We can’t know and it’s unfair to tie the hands of today’s government by asking it to commit to protect the forest.
What we need is not for the government today to decide for tomorrow’s citizens, but a process that helps today’s government balance interests across different generations.
The issue with the status quo
The problem is that now, government agencies plan, and the public reacts when it knows the plan. This sets off an episodic cycle of reaction-response, lacking a holistic perspective that considers other areas being conserved.
Some public activism succeeded: In 2001, Chek Jawa was saved from reclamation and remains an intertidal flat, although it is not protected as a nature reserve which means it is vulnerable to development any time.
Most times, activism did not stop development.
ILLUSTRATION: MANNY FRANCISCO
Parts of the Kranji marshes were cleared for Singapore’s then 20th full-range golf course in 2004. More recently, the Tengah forest in Bukit Batok and the Lentor/Tagore forest in Upper Thomson were cleared for housing.
More forested areas will be cleared in the coming years.
According to an article by Associate Professor Yun Hye Hwang from the National University of Singapore: “Based on URA (Urban Redevelopment Authority) plans, almost half of existing secondary forests, covering a total area of about 4,700ha, could be converted into new development land uses, such as residential, commercial, institution and reserve sites within the next 10 to 15 years.”
In the balance between development and conservation, between economy and ecology, the Singapore state has tended to favour the former over the latter. But it can no longer do so as a matter of course, as public sentiments are changing.
One need only see how crowded nature parks and reserves are each day, and see how quickly petitions to conserve nature areas garner signatures.
But while public views cannot be ignored, it would be unwise to allow the strength of public opinion to be a key arbiter of which forest should be preserved.
A better decision-making process is needed – one that allows for development to proceed, but which also takes into account the environmental and ecological impact of such development plans, for the long term.
Decision-making process
There are now four designated nature reserves: the Bukit Timah, Central Catchment and Labrador Park nature reserves, and the Sungei Buloh wetland reserve.
These are gazetted for protection under the law. But they can be removed from such protection with a few strokes of the pen.
In 1992, for example, there had been plans to build a golf course on stretches of Lower Peirce Reservoir Park. The plan was scuppered after the Nature Society Singapore led a public campaign against such encroachment on a Central Catchment area reserve.
Under the law, the minister may, after consulting with the National Parks Board (NParks), amend the gazetted list of nature reserves and national parks, and then present the change to Parliament, after which the change is to be gazetted and made public. This essentially means the Government can remove any nature reserve or national park, or parts of it, from the gazetted list, and rezone its use, so long as it has Parliament’s support.
NParks has designated another 20 so-called “nature areas”. These are “subjected to administrative safeguards” according to its website. They include the Singapore Botanic Gardens Rainforest, the Kranji area and the Chestnut/Dairy Farm forested area. However they lack the legal protection from development given to nature reserves.
To its credit, NParks has in recent years assiduously added a string of buffer nature parks in the central catchment area (Springleaf, Windsor and Thomson nature parks) and Bukit Timah area (Chestnut, Hindhede, Dairy Farm nature parks). These divert human traffic away from fragile nature reserves and provide safe havens for wildlife. They also bring nature within closer range of more Singaporeans.
While nature lovers applaud moves to add more nature areas, the truth is that every hectare added potentially removes land available for future development needs. Trade-offs are needed, and a clearer sense of priorities needs to be developed.
Less land for housing could drive up prices; and shortage of industrial land could cost the country investments, and hence jobs. These are the realities of living on an island of 725.7 sq km that cannot be wished away.
Meanwhile, new guidelines are being developed on environmental impact assessment (EIA) that will improve conservation needs.
MORE ON THIS TOPIC
Nature groups oppose zoning of Dover Forest in Ulu Pandan for residential use
Zoning stays but ‘no immediate need’ for housing there
For example, developments will need to be assessed for biodiversity impact, similar to the way worksites are now assessed for noise and pollution control. Environmental studies will be required for certain developments, such as those close to areas of ecological significance. And such studies must be made public online unless there are security or special reasons not to do so.
These are all positive changes for nature conservation.
Long-term view
Singapore has come a long way in conserving our natural resources.
We can, however, do better.
Two concepts from best practices elsewhere could be widely discussed and possibly adopted here.
For a start, consider making EIAs mandatory. The ongoing efforts to improve the EIA framework, especially the requirement to make the full report public and thus open for inspection, are steps in the right direction. Singapore’s planning agencies have also said that EIAs are not necessary here as the planning process coordinated across government departments, does take environmental impact into account.
However, a formal EIA requirement will raise the bar further by requiring developers and planners to consider the holistic impact of their projects on the environment, ecology and community.
MORE ON THIS TOPIC
New fund to boost wildlife conservation efforts in Asia
Ecologists dispute HDB’s finding that Tengah forests were mostly of ‘low conservation significance’
EIAs may be mandated not just for individual developments, but at the strategic level for masterplan conceptualisation. Such “strategic EIAs” – in use in European and other developed countries’ long-term planning processes – ensure that environmental impact is considered in formulating long-term masterplans.
In many developed countries with EIA laws, such requirements mean developers must engage with the public before drawing up final plans. This is spelt out under the Aarhus Convention, that says the public has rights to information and to participate in government decision-making processes on environmental matters. Singapore is not a signatory to this largely European-specific United Nations convention. But a mandatory EIA law would ensure proper environmental considerations for projects and embed public participation in planning processes.
The Republic is a signatory to the Convention on Biological Diversity and in fact helped develop and lent its name to the City Biodiversity Index. It would be a shame if its own biodiversity were to suffer severe losses in coming years.
Another relevant concept is to think of the state as a “trustee of public land” rather than as owner, developer and masterplanner of state land. In property law, the concept of a “public trust doctrine” says that the Government has an obligation to hold natural resources in trust for the public’s benefit. Such resources might be water bodies, wildlife habitats or nature reserves.
As trustee, the state then has to make decisions on the best use of such resources not just for human citizens, but also take into account community, ecological, environmental and other factors – as well as balance interests across generations.
To be sure, Singapore planners do adopt an inter-generational perspective on land use.
This is why earlier this month, when asked about the Clementi forest, National Development Minister Desmond Lee said it had been “zoned ‘Residential (Subject to Detailed Planning)’ 23 years ago, since the Master Plan 1998, and safeguarded for residential use”.
MORE ON THIS TOPIC
Development works in Singapore to be more sensitive to wildlife under changes to EIA framework
EIAs: Enigmas in Action?
He added: “There is no immediate need to develop the site for housing. We will, however, retain the zoning of the site, while giving our future generations the option of deciding whether to use it for housing, if the need arises.”
In 2019, in another debate, he had said:
“As part of our long-term planning process, we set aside land early to meet the aspirations of future generations.”
A multi-generational perspective should alert us to the need, when setting land for future use, to conserve forested lands for future generations.
After all, clearing forests is a one-way street – one can turn forests into vacant land for development in weeks; one cannot reforest vacant land unless one waits decades or centuries.
Singapore is land-scarce; and on its tiny island just 5 per cent of land is protected nature reserve. Nature areas and forested areas add more green mass but can be developed any time. While we often boast that 50 per cent of Singapore is under green cover (these include roadside trees), various estimates put forested areas at around 23 per cent of land.
Principle of last resort
Before more forests are felled irretrievably, it would be prudent to take action to safeguard our dwindling natural reserves. It is well-understood by many these days that forests, mangroves and natural eco-systems are beneficial to people: they cool cities suffering from the urban heat island effect; they store carbon; they help clean the air; and are good for mental well-being, among others. As I argued in an earlier commentary, nature is also good for social cohesion as an appreciation of nature can deepen and broaden ties to the land.
So while development needs to remain critical, planners should increasingly use forested land only as a last resort, when no other alternative is viable.
Our natural reserves should be viewed the way we view our fiscal reserves: as valuable resources for the long term, zealously husbanded from past generation’s efforts, to be conserved and handed over to future generations.
Such stewardship of our scarce natural resources requires us to come up with a process that embeds conservation into the decision-making process for land use.
To do this, the nation can first develop a register of natural reserves that lists the nature reserves, nature areas and forested areas with ecological significance. Marine parks should also be included.
Once this is done – with the help of nature groups – a process can be put in place to ensure checks and balances in development plans, with the requisite EIAs.
But EIAs are just consultants’ technical reports; someone still has to make a decision on whether, where, how and when to develop a piece of land. This is where learning from the mechanism to safeguard our fiscal reserves is helpful. Instead of having the Government check itself on possibly profligate use of land, a “second key” is required.
In fiscal reserves, the second key is held by the elected president, whose assent is needed to use long-term past reserves. In natural reserves, this second key can be held by an expert council whose decision can be binding. This council could consist of environmental and ecological experts, those with land planning and development backgrounds, as well as leaders from the community. Someone like Professor Tommy Koh, with his experience and interest in environmental issues, and public stature, could be tapped to chair such a body. Its decisions should be guided by fairness to all sectors and across generations, giving weight to pressing development needs as well as longer-term conservation aspirations.
The details are administrative and can be ironed out. The main point is that Singapore is at a juncture when we need to realise that our dwindling forests constitute a declining natural resource that needs urgent protection.
We need a better framework to protect our forests than the current one based on a battle of wills between a government planning agency and segments of the public.
To recap: Such a framework could start with a register of nature areas with ecological significance, and the requirement for mandatory EIAs at strategic and specific project levels. And then we need to lock up the natural reserves with a second key, to be opened when needed.
This way, there is a chance our children and grandchildren can continue to enjoy Singapore as a City in Nature, not a City Denatured.
.
=======
.
4h ·on 22nd Jan 2021 in Facebook – Michael Petraeus shared a post;
Some people keep asking – why does this foreign ang moh keep writing about Singapore? Well, first of all – I like it. Secondly, I would like to settle down in the city one day. And thirdly – I don’t like entitled whining. And if I see some people peddling baseless falsehoods about anything (not only Singapore, btw.) I feel that I must set the record straight.
I wanted to take a part in the “discussion” (more like mudslinging, really) but since the group refused to admit me, to make a comment there, I thought I’m going to write about the golf courses here – because it’s one of the most ignorantly abused arguments in the entire saga.
Back in 2014 golfing areas took up about 1500 ha. of land in Singapore – quite a lot for a land-scarce city-state and, on the face of it, an enormous space compared to the Dover Forest at 33 ha. Clementi Forest at 85 ha. or even Tengah, with its whopping 700 ha. area.
So, why would Singapore keep them, instead of a patch of “forest” that is, ostensibly, home to rich biodiversity?
Well, let’s make it clear straight away:
The government is already repurposing more area from golf courses than people know or imagine.
Not all sites the courses are located on are suitable for housing or heavy construction.
Some of the courses are older than independent Singapore itself and were founded by the British 100 or more years ago.
Land occupied by golf courses is leased and cannot be taken over before the leases expire without incurring high costs to the government
No matter how much land is reused, it’s still not enough for the enormous housing needs as every BTO is enormously oversubscribed.
Let’s look at it more closely.
People are crying over plans to cut down 33 ha. of trees in the Dover area – despite the fact that they have been known for decades. It’s a prime location with an already existing MRT station on the East-West Line, just across from the Polytechnic.
In the meanwhile, since 2014 the government has either announced its intent or already took possession of 358 hectares of land belonging to golf courses, for various public projects.
That’s nearly 11 times the size of Dover “forest” – that few people (certainly not the complainers) seem to be aware of (and, sadly, are too lazy to even check, despite the fact it would take them a few minutes on Google).
Jurong Country Club and Raffles Country Club have actually been acquired by the government ahead of time, with multimillion dollar compensation (JCC is fighting its in court, actually – demanding 2x the sum it was granted) to make way for planned HSR but also Cross Island Line depot (in RCC location) and lots of housing, office and other real estate.
Keppel and Marina Bay clubs are slated for closure and redevelopment i.a. for HDB and private housing. Growing Changi Airport ate into neighboring courses, shaving off 36 hectares of land and the Orchid Country Club was granted a lease extension until 2030 – which will not be renewed after it ends.
No matter what you may imagine, the golf courses near the airport are not going to see any housing, as they are too close to the landing paths. Singapore Island Country Club, on the other hand, is de facto located in the Nature Reserve in the central catchment area and was originally founded by the British over a century ago. Does anybody seriously imagine bulldozing it over and swapping it for high rise housing? Would that, supposedly, be better for the environment than a few rolling green hills?
In 2014 there were 17 golf courses in Singapore:
– 5 were closed or are slated for closure
– 4 are located in proximity to Changi Airport, what makes them unsuitable for high-rise projects.
– 2 are located next to two other air strips (Seletar airport and Sembawang air base).
– 2 are located within or next to Nature Reserve (SICC and Mandai).
– 1 is on Sentosa, which is a resort island and a tourist attraction.
– 1 is in Lim Chu Kang area, between marshes, Kranji reservoir and farms.
That’s 15. Two courses that seem to be fairly suitable for future redevelopment are the public Green Fairways course and, perhaps, Warren Golf & Country club in CCK. That’s it.
But who cares, right? It’s always good to bash the “rich” imagining how they stroll across the fairways while “poor” Singaporeans have to put up with HDB apartments and diminishing green spaces – despite the fact that Singapore was named the world’s greenest city by tree cover, which is present over around 30% of its area (and keeps growing, actually).
It seems that no matter what, some people will always complain senselessly.
The really annoying thing is that they find time to keep whining on social media instead of spending a fraction of it to check the basic facts.
They don’t really care about the country – just their own emotional self-satisfaction and a sense of moral superiority.
I’m pretty sure many of them are the first to groan whenever HDB prices are going up or their kids have to queue up for a BTO that’s been oversubscribed by 5 or 10 times.
They want miracles – that everybody gets a big, comfortable apartment, on the cheap, 5 minutes from the MRT and a lush, natural forest, with ample parking spaces, playgrounds, and shopping malls.
There’s also one reason that I write posts like this – as a foreigner. it’s to shame all those complainers by showing them that it doesn’t take much effort even for an immigrant from the other side of the world to learn more about their country than they do.
Far too many take Singapore’s accomplishments for granted, without realizing how many different trade-offs have to be made and how much detailed planning is required to keep the city-state in balance with its demographic, economic and environmental needs.
And the worst thing is that they don’t even want to know.
.
‘Solar roads’ worth looking into
Published in ST Forum Online, 10th Feb 2016
HDB heartlands and URA’s industrial estates have open-surface carparks and multi-storey carparks, which occupy lots of land space.
We have to free the land for better use if we want to grow our population.
=========
Where should we park thousands of vehicles if land is not provided for them?
.
URA is seeking public feedback to finalise their Concept Plan 2011.
Is there a solution?
I hope the following will be included in the URA Concept Plan 2011 to address this issue:
a] To build parking lots above expressways or busy roads, and where appropriate, to replace the present parking lots that are all over the island. Create the tunnel effect when the elevated parking structures are built over the expressways.
b] To build parking lots above busy roads where there is demand for parking spaces, or build high-rise windowless auto parking facilities [see photo below for examples] if there is land constraint; e.g. at popular eating places, food-courts, places of worship, hospitals, polyclinics, schools, airport, HDB heartlands, sport facilities, parks, etc. High-rise auto parking facilities will occupy less land space when compared with open-surface parking where land is limited or space is too tight.
Road side parking at busy and narrow roads should be removed as it slows down traffic flow. It should be replaced by high-rise auto parking.
======
It is nothing new to build structures above ground across the roads.
For example, the garden and walkways at Chinatown outside the People’s Park Complex. Also, the walkway at the new Iluma building above Victoria Street, the walkway across Raffles Boulevard connecting Marina Square to Pan Pacific and Suntec City. Also, the new opened 62m-long Eco-Link@BKE for public viewing.
All these structures have been aesthetically constructed to brand with the surroundings and the environment. It does not appear as an eyesore.
I am sure above-ground open carparks, bus and MRT train depot, and heavy-vehicle over-night parking spaces can be built with good taste too across expressways.
Carparks can be built Balestier Road, Geylang Road, Siglap Road, etc, or near HDB heartlands or in the surburbs.
Greenery can be used to make the structures pleasing to the eyes.
unquote
=============
Takashimaya Osaka – high-rise auto carparking facilities [photo below].
LTA/URA/HDB should send their officials to Osaka.
If the facilities there are not dependable and are unreliable, Takashimaya’s business will collapse as motorists will not dare to park in there for fear of not able to retrieve their vehicles.
tankoktim 