The Pearl of People’s Park: A Position Paper on the Conservation of People’s Park Complex (Part 2 of 5)

Statements

20 Feb

This is the second of five posts on Docomomo Singapore’s proposals for the conservation and adaptive reuse of this pioneering modernist structure in Singapore. Our full Position Paper can be downloaded here.

This post contains the following sections (highlighted in red) from the full Position Paper:

1. Introduction
2. Building Data
3. Site & Building History
4. Summary Statement of Significance
5. Key Elements & Principles for Retention

6. Policy & Process Strategies
7. Programmatic Strategies
8. Building-Level Strategies
9. Precinct-Level Strategies
Bibliography & Further Reading

4. Summary Statement of Significance

What is the significance of PPC?

It signalled the start of Singapore’s shift from a developing to a developed nation. A centrepiece of the country’s first urban renewal zone, PPC was a significant update to Chinatown’s urban environment and provided the people with a cleaner and more manageable space for mercantile activities.

This reflected the state’s growing pursuit of liveability. The focus on providing vibrant urban spaces materialised in the form of the City Rooms, which were the first of its kind. The Summary Statement of Significance presents 3 aspects - Architectural, Urban & Historical and Social, under which the values of PPC are showcased.

“These buildings (People’s Park and Golden Mile Complexes) were not intended to be landmarks but became landmarks... and they are absolutely stunning, radical, and amazing.”

- Rem Koolhaas, Pritzker Laureate, 2000 Business Times, Dec 17, 2005, “Scriptwriter of a different kind”

“We theorised and you people are getting it built.”

- Fumihiko Maki, Pritzker Laureate, 1993 Rem Koolhaas & Hans Ulrich Obrist Project Japan: Metabolism Talks p.637 “Flashback: Singapore Songlines”

*People’s Park Complex, 1973. (Source: DP Architects: 50 Years Since 1967)*

1. Architectural Significance

PPC was the work of pioneering Singaporean architects William Lim, Tay Kheng Soon and Koh Seow Chuan.
The Slab on Podium Typology of PPC was a significant cultural legacy from the Modern Movement in architecture.
PPC was a visionary, civic-minded integration of large-scale modern urban development with the life, grain, and culture of the city.
The “City Room” was the first of such Metabolist urban concepts to be realised anywhere in the world.
PPC was internationally lauded by esteemed architects as a rare realised work inspired by Metabolist ideas.

“[T]he People’s Park Complex was like a phoenix arising from the ashes, for before that was an old people’s park of wet market, sundry and cloth stalls, open air restaurants, all thrown into one, that was partially destroyed by fire… To Chinatown, this is an icon of modernisation.”

- Victor Yue “Chinatown Boy” Bullockcartwater, 24 October 2005

*Historic aerial panorama of Precinct S1 development. People’s Park Complex can be seen on the left side of the photograph. (Source: 1975/76 URA Annual Report)*

2. Urban & Historical Significance

The site was a centre for public urban visitors in Singapore dating to 1886 and was the country’s first urban renewal zone.
An architectural “jewel in the Crown,” PPC was a centerpiece of the key precinct S1 “bookend” development that marked the start of a large-scale urban renewal in Singapore.
PPC became the new base for the historic mercantile ‘heart’ of Kreta Ayer - People’s Park Market which was “transplanted” during resettlement and renewal of the area.

“We’ve been here for about 40 years. Business is good enough. Our roots are here - it’s where my father started his business. Compared to an Orchard Road Mall, it’s not as swanky but there are tourists here and we are surviving.”

- Henry Ho, Second-generation owner of Hang Lung Jewellery “People’s Park Complex, People’s Park Centre, Golden Mile Complex and Golden Mile Tower attempting collective sales”, 2018

*Interior of People’s Park Complex showing the “City Room” during the People’s Scholarship Fair. (Source: DP Architects: 50 Years Since 1967)*

*PPC was a source of inspiration for* At the Shopping Centre (1974), a book illustrated by Kwan Shan Mei for the Ministry of Education’s Primary Pilot Project.

3. Social Significance

1. PPC and its adjacent buildings and public spaces became the “social heart” of Chinatown.

2. PPC became a crucial bulwark for “living” communities against the tourist-focused transformation of surroundings.

3. The City Rooms in PPC were the earliest civic spaces in Chinatown’s urban renewal. These became an important platform for national events to be accommodated (e.g. Speak Mandarin Campaign, People’s Scholarship Fair).

5. Key Elements & Principles for Retention

Key Principles for Retention

1. Both podium and slab should be retained.

2. Any additions to the complex must preserve the legibility of the original architecture.

3. The original building should retain its function as a heterogeneous mixed-use urban complex .

4. A “maximum retention” approach embraces global best-practice in retaining embodied carbon.

5. Any insensitive demolition would be highly conspicuous and may generate negative public feedback.

Podium & Slab

Due to the significance of PPC’s Slab on Podium Typology, its historic massing and fabric should be retained. The diagram below illustrates guidelines for how additions should co-exist with (or be set back from) the original architecture. Sophisticated and sensitive alternatives for intensification and retrofit can be commercially feasible.

Formal principles to safeguard PPC’s visual integrity

1. The original slab-and-podium massing facing Eu Tong Sen Street should be clearly legible with no competing “new architectural elements”. Any new massing additions to the podium should be sufficiently set back.

2. The original roof datum line should be observed.

*Diagram for illustrative purposes, not to scale.*

If a new massing is added:

1. Any additional tower needs to be sufficiently offset from the existing slab block to create adequate “breathing space.”

2. Any new massing additions must be set back from Eu Tong Sen Street.

3. The massing of any additional tower should be slender (ideally having a similar width as the original PPC slab block) in order to avoid an imbalanced massing bulk.

Key Elements of Original Slab Block

PROPORTION & MODULARITY

Adaptations to the slab block fenestration (e.g. floor to ceiling glazing) should be done with sensitivity in reference to the original design’s proportions and modularity. Defining overhanging “shadow lines” in the slab should be restored per the original massing.

ARCHITECTURAL SLENDERNESS

There should be no external additions to the building which severely alter its bulk, mass or proportion. This includes any pre-cast volumes (which may also have structural implications on the City Room voids beneath). The addition of slender horizontal planes (e.g. sunshading fins, or thin balcony slabs) can be considered, but it must not alter the original massing. The volume must remain subservient to the original architectural features. (e.g. stair cores)

*Example of a sympathetic facade re-cladding / re-design of Park Hill Estate, Sheffield, UK, by Urban Splash. (Source: Urban Splash)*

*Proportions of the PPC slab block. (Source: Nicolas Lannuzel via Flickr)*

City Room

The City Rooms in PPC are interlocking volumes that serve as iconic public spaces and are a rich repository of social memories for generations of Singaporeans. They were the first of such large-scale interiorised urban spaces to be built in Singapore, with connections to Fumihiko Maki and the architectural Metabolism movement. The City Rooms were a crucial design-driver and succeeded in creating a microcosm of Chinatown in a modernist high-rise building.

The City Rooms offer dynamic spatial experiences as the user passes through two inter-locking atriums with varying ceiling surfaces. The variation of vertical spaces is created through the use of full-height glass walls and half-height parapets.

The full integrity and subtlety of this complex urban space must be retained — including the relevant wall and ceiling surfaces. There should be no “dumbing down” or arbitrary “filling-in” of spaces. The ‘elevation’ compositions of the City Rooms (e.g. corridor ‘streets’, glazed ‘facades’) should be retained.

*Sectional perspective of the City Room and City Mall in PPC. (Source: DP Architects)*

Urban Envelope

The street-front envelope of PPC facing People’s Park Square, The Majestic theatre and Eu Tong Sen Street forms the boundary of highly significant public spaces. PPC’s recessed street-fronting plan and section also form the boundary of a key civic space in Chinatown, and should be retained.

One of the essential design drivers for PPC was to carve out public urban spaces in a private brief, creating a porous interface with the urban realm which was a key Metabolist precept.

Street life on the urban edges of the PPC podium. (Source DP Architects: 50 Years Since 1967)

Historic View & Urban Connectivity

Any new tower needs to be sufficiently set back from Eu Tong Sen Street to maintain the historical landmark view of PPC from Upper Cross Street junction. The slab block’s facade elevation and its relation to the podium from that landmark junction should be kept mostly visible.

The current “elevated Chinese garden” deck is little used — and obstructs a critical vista of the original complex. The possibility of replacing this with a more effective and “urbanistically sympathetic” bridge connection should be evaluated to better bring out PPC’s urban connectivity ideas.

Summary

Podium & Slab

To retain the combined legibility and integrity of the “slab on podium” urban typology
To retain the building’s use as a heterogeneous mixed-use complex
To retain the proportion and modularity of the original slab block
To follow the architectural slenderness of the original slab block for any additional massing City Room
To retain the integrity of the City Rooms, including vertical surfaces that define space

Urban Envelope

To retain the street-front envelope
To consider adjacent public and civic spaces as the key design drivers
To consider the historic view corridor and urban connectivity

PPC Position Paper Working Group and Contributors

CHANG Jiat-Hwee
Calvin CHUA
ENG Jia Wei
FONG Hoo Cheong
HAN Jiajun Adrian

HO Weng Hin
KOH V-Nying
LAI Chee Kien
Ronald LIM
Jacob MEYERS

Jonathan POH
Imran bin TAJUDEEN
TAN Kar Lin
Justin ZHUANG

DocomomoSG would like to express our gratitude to the following individuals for their kind assistance and support:

Mdm KOH
Mr LAI Kuo Cheong
Mr PEH Ching Her
Mr Victor YUE

Bibliography & Further Reading

Asian Building & Construction. 1975. “Singapore project retains way of life.” Asian Building & Construction, April 1975. Hong Kong: Far East Trade Press.
Centre for Liveable Cities. 2014. Urban Systems Studies – Land Acquisition and Resettlement: Securing Resources for Development. Singapore: Centre for Liveable Cities.
Centre for Liveable Cities. 2016. Urban Systems Studies – Urban Redevelopment: From Urban Squalor to Global City. Singapore: Centre for Liveable Cities.
Centre for Liveable Cities. 2021. Urban Systems Studies – The Government Land Sales Programme: Turning Plans into Reality. Singapore: Centre for Liveable Cities.
Chang, Jiat Hwee, Ho, Weng Hin & Tan, Kar Lin. 2018. “Adding value without demolition, rebuilding: Regenerating Singapore’s modernist icons.” The Business Times. Singapore: The Straits Times, 6 April. Accessed 22 January, 2025. https://www.businesstimes.com.sg/property/adding-value-without-demolition-rebuildingregenerating-singapores-modernist-icons.
Chang, Jiat-Hwee, Justin Zhuang, and Darren Soh. 2023. Everyday Modernism. Singapore: Ridge Books Singapore.
Chang, Jiat Hwee, Ho, Weng Hin & Tan, Kar Lin. “Conserve a building, save the planet.” The Straits Times. Singapore: The Straits Times, 12 November. A24.
Chin, Soo Fang. 2023. “People’s Park Complex being studied for conservation, may impact collective sale.” The Straits Times. Singapore: The Straits Times, 22 December.
Choe, Alan. 2017. “The Early Years of Nation-Building: Reflections on Singapore’s Planning History.” In 50 Years of Urban Planning in Singapore, edited by Heng Chye Kiang. Singapore: World Scientific.
Chua, Beng Huat. 1989. The Golden Shoe: Building Singapore’s Financial District. Singapore: Urban Redevelopment Authority.
Dobbs, Steven, and Loh Kah Seng. 2023. “The Origins of Urban Renewal in Singapore: A Transnational History.” Journal of Urban History, 49 (1): 60-84.
Docomomo Singapore. 2019. 8th mASEANa International Conference Singapore 2019. Accessed 21 January, 2025. https://www.docomomo.sg/happenings/8thmaseana-international-conference-singapore-2019.
Docomomo Singapore. 2023. Docomomo Singapore Statement on People’s Park Complex. Accessed 21 January, 2025. https://www.docomomo.sg/happenings/docomomo-singapore-statement-on-peoples-park-complex.
DP Architects. 2018. DP Architects: 50 Years Since 1967. London: Artifice Press.
Eng, Jia Wei. 2023. People’s Park Complex: Heart Transplant in the City Centre 60 Years Ago. Accessed 21 January, 2025. https://www.docomomo.sg/happenings/peoples-park-complex-heart-transplant-in-the-city-centre-60-years-ago.
Far East Architect & Builder. 1967. “S$90M. Urban Renewal Projects, Singapore.” Far East Architect & Builder, August 1967. Hong Kong: Far East Trade Press.
Far East Architect & Builder. 1968. “People’s Park Shopping and Flats Complex.” Far East Architect & Builder, February 1968. Hong Kong: Far East Trade Press.
Far East Builder. 1969. “Park Road – Pilot project in urban renewal.” Far East Builder, August 1969. Hong Kong: Far East Trade Press.
Far East Builder. 1969. “Tenders for People’s Park Complex.” Far East Builder, January 1969. Hong Kong: Far East Trade Press.
Far East Builder. 1971. “Space for all in People’s Park Complex.” Far East Builder, April 1971. Hong Kong: Far East Trade Press.
Heng, C.K., and V. Chan. 2000. “The making of successful public space: a case study of People’s Park Square.” Urban Design International 5: 47-55.
Ho, Weng Hin, Dinesh Naidu, and Kar Lin Tan. 2015. Our Modern Past: A Visual Survey of Singapore Architecture 1920s-1970s. Singapore: Singapore Institute of Architects.
Ho, Weng Hin. 2021. Pearl Bank Apartments. 12 May. Accessed 25 January, 2025. https://www.docomomo.sg/modernist-100/pearl-bank-apartments.
Ho, Weng Hin. 2021. People’s Park Complex. 12 May. Accessed 21 January, 2025. https://www.docomomo.sg/modernist-100/peoples-park-complex.
Housing & Development Board. 1967. Housing & Development Board Annual Report 1967. Singapore: Housing & Development Board.
Housing & Development Board. 1968. Housing & Development Board Annual Report 1968. Singapore: Housing & Development Board.
Housing & Development Board. 1969. Housing & Development Board Annual Report 1969. Singapore: Housing & Development Board.
Housing & Development Board. 1970. Housing & Development Board Annual Report 1970. Singapore: Housing & Development Board.
Koh, Seow Chuan. n.d. The Opening of People’s Park Complex. Accessed 21 January, 2025. https://dpa.com.my/insight/theopeningofpeoplesparkcomplex/.
Lee, Michael Hong Hwee. 2016. People’s Park Complex. Accessed 21 January, 2025. https://www.nlb.gov.sg/main/article-detail?cmsuuid=3cc85ca4-650c-47be-b933-ed3241f93e38.
Lim, William S.W. 1990. Cities for People: Reflections of a Southeast Asian Architect. Singapore: Select Books.
Lim, William S.W. 1998. Asian New Urbanism and Other Papers. Singapore: Select Books.
Lim, William S.W. 2004. Architecture, Art, Identity in Singapore: Is There Life After Tabula Rasa? Singapore: Asian Urban Lab.
Luo, Stephanie. 2018. “Pearl Bank Apartments in Outram sold en bloc to CapitaLand for S$728m.” The Straits Times. Singapore: The Straits Times, 13 February.
mASEANa Project 2019. 2020. “Progressive Once More”: Rejuvenating Mid-Century Modern Architecture in Southeast Asia.” Issuu. Accessed 22 January, 2025. https://issuu.com/hayashilab/docs/maseana-2019_web2.pdf.
Ng, Keng Gene. 2021. “URA to study how to give Singapore’s ageing modernist buildings a new lease of life.” The Straits Times. Singapore: The Straits Times, 16 April.
Ng, Keng Gene. 2021. “Conservation of Golden Mile Complex paves way to protect S’pore’s modernist buildings.” The Straits Times. Singapore: The Straits Times, 26 October.
Ng, Keng Gene. 2022. “Golden Mile Complex gazetted as conserved building; future developers to get building incentives.” The Straits Times. Singapore: The Straits Times, 27 May.
Seng, Eunice. 2013. “The Podium, the Tower and the ‘People’: The Private Development of a Public Complex, c.1965-1970.” In Proceedings of the Society of Architectural Historians, Australia and New Zealand 30, Open, edited by Alexandra Brown and Andrew Leach. Queensland: SAHANZ.
Seng, Eunice. 2019. “People’s Park Complex: The State, the Developer, the Architect, and the Conditioned Public, c.1967 to the Present.” In Southeast Asia’s Modern Architecture: Questions of Translation, Epistemology and Power, edited by Chang Jiat-Hwee and Imran bin Tajudeen. Singapore: NUS Press.
Singapore Heritage Society. 2018. “Too Young to Die: Giving New Lease of Life to Singapore’s Modernist Icons.” August. Accessed 22 January, 2025. https://www.singaporeheritage.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/SHS-Position-Paper-Too-Young-To-Die-Aug-2018.pdf.
Tham, Davina. 2021. “Golden Mile Complex gazette as conserved building.” Channel News Asia. Singapore: Channels News Asia, 22 October.
Urban Redevelopment Authority. 1975. Urban Redevelopment Authority Annual Report 1974-5. Singapore: Urban Redevelopment Authority.
Urban Redevelopment Authority. 1983. Chronicle of Sale Sites: A Pictorial Chronology of the Sale of Sites Programme for Private Development. Singapore: Urban Redevelopment Authority.
Wee, H. Koon. 2019. “The Emergence of the Global and Social City: Golden Mile and the Politics of Urban Renewal.” Planning Perspectives 35 (4): 689–718.
Wee, H. Koon. 2020. “An incomplete megastructure: the Golden Mile Complex, global planning education, and the pedestrianised city.” The Journal of Architecture 25 (4): 472-506.
Wong, Yunn Chii. 2005. Singapore 1:1 City: A gallery of architecture & urban design. Singapore: Urban Redevelopment Authority.

ⓒ 2025 Docomomo Singapore. All rights reserved. This book, or parts thereof, may not be reproduced in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording or any information storage and retrieval system now known or to be invented, without written permission from the Publisher.

Docomomo SG