The Pearl of People’s Park: A Position Paper on the Conservation of People’s Park Complex (Part 5 of 5)
This is the final 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
9. Precinct-Level Strategies
Why a Precinct Improvement Plan (PIP)?
Aerial view showing the redevelopment of Precinct S1 with private participation under the URA Sales of Sites Scheme (Source: URA Annual Report 1974-75)
The first is to overcome the limitation for the expansion of the PPC and to incorporate future developments into an overall framework that extends the original design ideas found in the building.
Second, adopting the dual strategy of conservation and redevelopment that takes into account overall management at the precinct level carries with it a number of advantages or benefits, as outlined below.
Third, adopting a PIP approach allows a great design idea – the ‘City Room’ strategy – to be extended at the urban scale in the precinct level.
Overcoming limitations to expansion for PPC and future developments:
PPC’s GPR is already maximised to its limit at 5.4 with no available adjacent plot for additional 30% GFA development
Any addition of massing on existing structure may alter the design and historical significance of PPC
The PIP allows for envelope control of a historical precinct and micro-control of developments and transfers of plot ratios to sites within the precinct.
Additional GFA can be accommodated at the precinct scale to allow for the conservation of PPC.
Benefits of conservation / adaptation at precinct level:
Reflect the history of city renewal by precinct. S1 and N1 were conceived as precincts and are the first urban renewal projects in Singapore.
Palimpsest approach. Reflect the history of how different lots in each precinct are developed in response to the context (e.g. community groups, economic strategies of merchants and government policies.)
Heritage futures. Allow many future players to participate and value the heritage in the precinct as their heritage hinterland to draw up as a unique proposition for urban identity.
‘City room’ at the precinct level
The City Rooms of PPC could be extended to the entire precinct through incisive developments or additions of space uses, green connections, elevated decks and open and enclosed ‘city rooms’.
Extending PPC’s City Rooms to the Precinct
The historical significance of S1 and PPC
This proposal seeks to celebrate the significance of S1 as the first precinct, along with N1, of the Inner City Urban Renewal Programme proposed by Erik Lorange and developed by the State and Country Planning Department, through the retention and enhancement of PPC. S1 and N1 were also the first precincts to activate the Land Acquisition Act of 1966. In fact, PPC was part of the first “Sale of Sites Programme” in 1967. It is therefore a highly significant landmark in the history of the URA’s land management policy milestones. As pioneer urban planner Alan Choe remarked in a commemorative publication on Singapore’s planning history and its role in “The Early Years of Nation-Building”:
“The Land Acquisitions Act, which was legislated in 1966, enabled the government to acquire private land, in support of national development programmes, at market value compensation to the owner. Within the Central Area, two precincts better known as South 1 (bounded by Havelock Road, Outram Road, and New Bridge Road) and North 1 (bounded by Crawford Street, Beach Road, Jalan Sultan, and Victoria Street/Kallang Road), served a pilot sites for land acquisition and urban renewal. By 1968, 85% of the land in South 1 and North 1 had been acquired for public redevelopment.”
- Alan Choe, 2017 “The Early Years of Nation-Building: Reflections on Singapore’s Planning History,” 50 Years of Urban Planning in Singapore, p.13
Out of the 14 original sites in the first Sale of Sites Programme of 1967 only nine sites remain, of which three are at N1, four at S1, and two at Kallang (Note that this refers only to sites. Oasis Restaurant at Kallang, for instance, is no longer in existence).
1. Multiple small landscaped courtyards (Outram Park Redevelopment)
4. Single large landscaped courtyard (Tanjong Pagar Plaza)
5. Multiple landscape courtyards, no access (Crawford Court)
6. Multiple small courtyards, public plaza, not landscaped (Bras Basah Complex)
‘City Rooms’
PPC was designed with two “City Rooms” as new urban elements. These are voluminous interior spaces which remain connected to exterior public plazas (green) and open spaces outside the envelope. The most evocative of such spaces is the one found between PPC and The Majestic theatre. An overhead bridge spanning across the canal running along Eu Tong Sen Street also connects the PPC City Rooms to the conservation district at Kreta Ayer (Chinatown).
There are at least six configurations of semi-enclosed public spaces of Podium-Tower blocks that can be developed for the enhancement and expansion of PPC along the same model of the City Room idea:
Multiple small landscaped courtyards
Multiple big landscaped courtyards
Single large courtyard, not landscaped
Single large landscaped courtyard
Multiple landscaped courtyards, no access
Multiple small courtyards, public plaza, not landscaped
Connecting PPC to the Pearl’s Hill Masterplan and S1 Heritage
The PIP proposal also seeks to enhance the synergies with the existing elements of S1 Heritage and aspects of connectivity and spatial strategies.
These elements comprise the following:
Pre-Independence Heritage Buildings
Post-Independence Buildings
Green Network linking Duxton Plain Park, Pearl’s Hill City Park, York Hill area to the Singapore River
Significance of Lower Barracks, adjacent to PPC, as a potential gateway to Pearl’s Hill City Park
Potential of New Bridge Road canal as new urban space / connector
Significance of Duxton Plain Park as the original railway line connecting town to Keppel Harbour.
People’s Park (denoted in the red “+”) is proximal to the Duxton Plain Park, thus leaving a significant opportunity to stitch up the various green networks.
Green Network from Duxton Plain Park to Pearl’s Hill City Park (and city reservoir)
Identifying the “City Pearl” node (denoted in orange) as an extension of PPC, doubling as a transition point for the existing green networks and Outram Park Development (Source: Spatial Anatomy, image adapted from URA)
One of the existing challenges of the precinct is that Duxton Plain Park is currently relatively disconnected from surrounding networks and parks. The PIP strategy would enable a rethinking of the public space in front of Lower Barracks as a gateway to Pearl’s Hill while simultaneously providing a natural connection to Duxton Plain Park. It would thus continue and extend the same palimpsest approach to nature and railway heritage that we observe in the creation of Duxton Plain Park.
The Lower Barracks, adjacent to PPC, is a potential gateway to Pearl’s Hill City Park. It can perhaps be called the “City Pearl” node as it is a transition node for the Green Network and connects PPC to the upcoming Outram Park Development.
The following two proposals are part of the PIP strategy for the redevelopment of PPC, and account for the need to manage both conservation and new plot ratio requirements at a precinct level.
Proposal 1: Combining GFA with Adjacent Plot
PPC’s Annex (30% GFA) can be inserted into an adjacent plot as an elevated building above an open space in front of Lower Barracks. This creates a new gateway to Pearl’s Hill.
Sheltered and active public space in PPC’s proximity. (Source: Spatial Anatomy)
As seen in the diagram above, the building also provides a sheltered active public space (open ‘City Room’) in front of Lower Barracks and spatially connects the Outram Park MRT area to PPC.
Pros:
Anchors gateway to Pearl’s Hill
Provides sheltered lively public space in front of Lower Barracks
Frames Lower Barracks volumetrically
Re-conceives PPC’s enclosed ‘city room’ as an open ‘city room’
Cons:
Requires inter-agency coordination between the Urban Redevelopment Authority and the Singapore Land Authority.
The PPC Annex also acts as a connector by continuing an elevated deck network extending throughout the network (as indicated in orange lines above), while providing access to Outram Park MRT station. In this way, the PPC Annex becomes an anchor and gateway to Pearl’s Hill.
Stitching up the Pearl’s Hill precinct with an elevated deck network. (Source: Spatial Anatomy, image adapted from URA)
Proposal 2: Transferring GFA to the Precinct
The second proposal involves providing GFA incentives for developers to improve heritage and community spaces within the precinct. The advantages and disadvantages of this strategy are as follows:
Pros:
Strengthens identity and participation at precinct level
Creates and shapes identity of the precinct, going beyond a single building.
Cons:
How to clearly define contribution to improvement of heritage and community spaces
This proposal offers complimentary GFA for developers that engage in heritage and community projects in the precinct. Rather than providing GFA incentives for community uses within a building, incentives in this case are to be considered at precinct scale. This thereby allows for a precinct scale approach in development.
Transferring additional GFA to the precinct to minimise the developmental pressure on PPC whilst injecting value for heritage and community projects . (Source: Spatial Anatomy, image adapted from URA)
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.
