Rethinking the National Library Debate
"As it stands, the URA will still see its original demolition plans through."
|
by Shiau Vee Hueng, Don
As residents of a young, land-scarce but economically vibrant country, Singaporeans are constantly faced with the conundrum of development and heritage conservation (Huang, Teo and Heng 25). Nowhere else has this dilemma been fleshed out so fully as in the recent controversy surrounding the National Library building. Slated for demolition by the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) to make way for an overground tunnel and a brand new city campus of the Singapore Management University (SMU), it has been the subject of a heated debate which has unfolded through the local press and several public forums (Kwok, Ho and Tan 62, 68). Thus far, two sharply opposing views have emerged: the "for" argument, made by government and SMU officials, which stresses the advantages of situating a business school in the city; and the "against" argument, put forward by architects and other concerned members of the public, which decries the demolition as disrespectful of the library's historical and cultural significance. Though these views have been debated to exhaustion, the parties involved have not reached any form of compromise--as it stands, the URA will still see its original demolition plans through. During a forum organized by the Singapore Heritage Society (SHS), a dissenting Kelly Fu drew attention to this stalemate, suggesting that the debate itself is problematic because the "people adopting the two different positions don't understand or speak to each other" ("Open Discussion" 121). Despite being the only view of its kind raised at the forum, it is a crucial observation; it implies that there is more to the controversy than what either side can offer. This paper takes up Ms Fu's point, and argues that both the URA and the pro-preservationists have indeed failed to understand each other's perspective. It contends that what is at stake in the demolition of the National Library is more than just business practicality on the one hand, or social memory on the other; it is in fact the emergence of what could be a truly ideal landscape.
But what is an "ideal landscape," and how is it related to the discussion at hand? An "ideal landscape" is a concept developed by American academic John Brinckerhoff Jackson-to him, it is a place which balances both change and permanence (148). He believes that, throughout history, an overemphasis on either of these two traits has caused landscapes to be detrimentally imbalanced. This concept is especially pertinent to Singapore, whose planners have always chosen to err on the side of modernity and commercial viability (Huang, Teo and Heng 25). Moreover, Jackson uncannily echoes Miss Fu's sentiment when speaking of the precarious relationship between changing landscapes and permanent landscapes: "my concern is that these two landscapes do not always recognise what each has to offer to the other and that [a new landscape] may fail to achieve a balance between them" (154). Had Jackson been present at the SHS forum, he would undoubtedly have raised this same concern over the tension between the changes to the library site proposed by the URA and the status quo desired by architects and members of the public.
He would also have introduced his own paradigms of change and permanence to the discussion. Fu feels that the current paradigms being used-the economic and the cultural-do not "communicate" ("Open Discussion" 121). In this respect, Jackson's "ideal landscape" concept is helpful, because it not only gives a new angle to the debate, but also offers a solution in the form of a balanced landscape. As we shall see, Jackson's frame of argument breaks the stalemate and compellingly identifies one of the two parties as the winner. It should be qualified, though, that as he writes about North America, some of his more specific concepts (such as his landscape typology, which need not be belabored here) do not work well in the Singapore context. Nevertheless, the fundamental issues of balance, change, and permanence may be distilled for our purposes. It now remains to critically examine both sides of the debate, and to use Jackson's ideas to give it a new lease of life.
The present argument for keeping the National Library building intact is essentially one that stresses its historical, cultural and social significance. It contends that the following points make the building worth preserving: firstly, having been built in 1960, around the time of Singapore's internal self-government, it is an emblem of the country's independence history (Lau 25). Secondly, unlike most of Singapore's pre-Second World War or colonial-era landmarks, it has a relative youth which places it within the living memory of young and old alike. Thirdly, it is a truly national building, because unlike the majority of gazetted monuments, it is a genuine public space which does not pander to any specific ethnic or cultural group ("Open Discussion" 85, 113-4). Lastly, it bears the unique architectural characteristics of a red-brick facade and a balustrade which cannot be found on any other public building in Singapore (Lau 35). Ho Weng Hin, a speaker at the forum, feels that it does not do the National Library justice to have its "emotional depth, rich memories, and historical complexity . . . reduced to a one-liner" on a single plaque, should such a plaque be used to commemorate the building after it is demolished (49).
The opposing view, on the other hand, is far more practically motivated. To the URA, pulling down the library achieves several things: first, it allows Stamford Road to be realigned, so a tunnel running through the current library site can be built to ease nearby traffic congestion (Tan 174). Second, it allows a reasonably sized land parcel to be set aside for one of six city campuses of the SMU. Third, it facilitates the library's move to a bigger and better building at Victoria Street, which has five times the floor area of its current premises ("Public Will Have a Say" 159). Lastly, it paves the way for a crucial revitalization of the Civic and Cultural District (CCD) by transplanting a new student base into the area, giving the district's museums and arts groups a much-needed boost in patronage (Seah 162; Long 208; Lim, "Picture-perfect Setting" 210). The URA constantly uses this interlocking set of reasons as the rationale behind its blueprint for the area.
next: "It is not difficult to see why these two lines of argument have failed to reach any mutual conclusion."