ruang 8 preservasi aksi

RUANG
kreativitas tanpa batas

PRESERVASI

08 | 2014 V O L U M E

2 :

A K S I

RUANG

PEMBUKA
”Preservasionis” adalah seseorang pragmatis yang sadar akan tugas ”waktu” untuk memakan
umur sebuah bangunan atau kebudayaan, sementara ”konservasionis” adalah seorang
romantis yang ingin menghadirkan sisa masa lalu dalam kemasan yang baru. Dua-duanya
harus sadar dengan apa yang dilakukan serta konsekuensinya terhadap kota, arsitektur, serta
penghuninya.
Setelah “Abstraksi” menawarkan konsep, nilai, atau pemahaman tentang ”Preservasi”,
kini ”Aksi” akan membuka pencarian, aktualisasi, dan implementasi dari nilai-nilai tersebut

melalui tujuh buah kontribusi. ”Aksi” akan dibuka oleh Kenta Kishi yang akan berbicara
mengenai “preservasi” sebagai hak dan representasi identitas mayoritas pada wajah kota
lewat “The Rightfulness of Preservation”. Kemudian hal-hal teknis mengenai aktor, biaya dan
fungsi terkait sebuah warisan arsitektur kolonial, khususnya benteng, akan dibahas dalam
“A historic legacy, former Forts in Indonesia today” oleh Cor Passchier. Restorasi (konservasi)
bangunan dan kawasan kolonial yang dapat membentuk identitas sebuah kota akan dibahas
oleh Johannes Widodo lewat “Conservation in Singapore”. Adapun solusi alternatif melalu
strategi urban akupuntur untuk mengaktivasi kawasan Kota Tua yang telah mati, diusulkan
oleh Diana Ang dan Daliana Suryawinata lewat “Event Space as a Solution for Kota Tua
Jakarta”. M. Ichsan Harja Nugraha akan mengilustrasikan beberapa ide intervensi Budi Lim
dalam upaya mengaktivasi Kota Tua. Yusni Aziz kemudian berusaha menggali realita arsitek
konservatoris di Indonesia dalam artikelnya “Mencari Arsitek Konservatoris”. ”Aksi” akan
ditutup oleh sebuah pencarian dalam usaha mempreservasi arsitektur tradisional dalam
“Yori Antar: Perjuangan untuk Nusantara”.
Pada akhirnya, seperti seleksi alam, yang bertahan dan terus dimaknai akan tinggal, yang lain
akan menjadi reruntuhan bahkan terkubur dalam-dalam. Kita sendiri yang akan memaknai
preservasi. Dan pada gilirannya, apa yang seseorang preservasi akan memaknai dirinya
sendiri, begitupula apa yang dipreservasi di kota akan memaknai penduduknya.
“If you don’t know where you’ve come from, you don’t know where you are.” (James Burke)
Selamat menikmati ruang | kreativitas tanpa batas

ruang arsitektur

2

ISI

vol.2: Aksi
the rightfulness of
preservation
esai Kenta Kishi

intervensi budi lim
untuk kota tua
lukisan M. Ichsan Harja Nugraha

a historic legacy,
former forts in
indonesia today
esai Cor Passchier

conservation in
singapore
esai Johannes Widodo

event space as a
solution for kota tua
esai Daliana Suryawinata & Diana Ang

mencari arsitek
konservatoris
esai Yusni Aziz

yori antar:
perjuangan untuk
nusantara
wawancara Yusni Aziz

RUANG
editor:
ivan kurniawan nasution

mochammad yusni aziz
web-blog: www.membacaruang.com
tumblr: ruangarsitektur.tumblr.com
email: akudanruang@yahoo.com
twitter: @ruangarsitektur

segala isi materi di dalam majalah elektronik ini adalah hak cipta dan
tanggung jawab masing-masing penulis. penggunaan gambar untuk
keperluan tertentu harus atas izin penulis.
Lukisan pada sampul depan oleh Sri Suryani
Lukisan pada sampul belakang oleh M. Ichsan Harja Nugraha
3

edisi #8: Preservasi. volume 2: Aksi

Pintu masuk dari sisi utara Plaza Fatahillah, anta
sejumlah karya seni dan monu
- Moch. Ichsan

4

ruang | kreativitas tanpa batas

ara gedung Kantor Pos dan Gedung Jasindo, dengan
umen berlantai kaca di tengahnya.
Harja Nugraha -

5

‘R i g h t f u l n e s s o
Rightfulness and Two Questions
In many case of ‘preservation’ in the city, there are controversies of the application of
‘rightfulness’ as fundamental condition required for the attitude towards preservation, as well
as its implementation. As such, the ‘rightfulness’ needs to be answered by many ‘questions’,
for example, “what can be preserved?”, “why it needs to be preserved?” and “how it should
be preserved?”.
However, in order to understand the ‘rightfulness’, we need to identify the nature of those
questions. One of the ways is by categorizing them into two broad types. Some related to
‘the questions about meanings’ (for example, “What is the preservation?” and “Why do
we preserve things?”). The others related to ‘the questions about values of instrument and

purpose’ (for example, “What is the purpose of preservation?” and “What beneit can be
expected by preservation?”).
In the ‘questions about meanings’, we can recognize diverse types of question asked in order
to construct a common vision of a city. For example, in the context of urban (re)development,
people will ask about the meaning of ‘preservation’ based on their own experiences and
interpretations of the history of the built environment. However, in reality, the ‘questions
about values of instrument and purpose’ are more often asked. It is practical. And it seems to
represent the desire of the ‘majority’ in the society who shares similar identity and interest.
Nevertheless, the bases of such questions are opportunistic, i.e. how much contribution and
beneit that preservation can give to the ‘majority’.
When historical buildings and/or urban spaces are recognized as social resources by the public,
memories and experiences are celebrated nostalgically in order to reinforce the ‘rightfulness’
of the majority’s identity. At the same time, the ‘rightfulness’ will also be recognized as a tool
to generate beneits for the ‘majority’. Preserved landmarks/landscapes, and its nostalgic and
glorious images, will create opportunity to (re)develop its surrounding areas, while expecting
new and massive inlux of people and money from outside the area. The answer for the
‘questions about values of instrument and/or purpose’ in urban preservation acts as medium
that directly connects the majority’s identity and their economic activity. Yet, such premise
does not considering to ind an alternative deinition and meaning of preservation. As such,
the notion of the ‘right preservation’ today can be understood as a realization of ‘themeparked identity’. However, we must imagine and discuss possibilities of alternative concept of

the ‘rightfulness’ in urban preservation.

f P r e s e r v a t i o n’
by Kenta Kishi
Some references should be introduced. One example is the redevelopment of shop-houses
area in Chinatown in Singapore that re-applies colorful paintings on building facade and
constructing huge weatherproof canopies in between buildings. For Chinese descent citizens
who are the actual majority of Singapore society, such attitude is accepted as the ‘right one’
that reinforces majority’s identity and brings economic advantages. This also supported by
tourists as global consumers. However, for minorities who are not sharing same background
and behavior, such preservation project seems to propose ‘empty urban space’ where none
of them able to project their identity onto it. Another example of the ‘right’ preservation
could be found in small local cities in Japan. In order to revitalize economically depressed city,
an idea of “Retro-Town Program” is applied into the planning strategies of redevelopment
project. The effort to revive urban environment is supported by ‘rightfulness’ for majority,
but minorities, such as both foreign and domestic migrants and recent generations, perceive
dificulties to maintain and sustain this ‘someone else’s history’. In fact, they are the ‘prisoners
of unreal past’.
Through understanding above references, we can recognize a similarity between practical
way of preservation that answers the ‘questions about values of instrument and purpose’

and ‘master planning’-type of urban (re)development. Both have a tendency of itness for
purpose and exclusiveness. Yet, on the contrary, city has been (re)produced organically and
sustainably by accumulation and network of small actions of people’s daily life. For such
condition, what is the ‘rightfulness’ of preservation?
Micro-Projects vs. Master-Planning
In recent years, I have been focusing on the urban settlement in Asian cities as important
reference to answer those questions. If we step into any settlement, we will be able to
recognize small actions of residents that are constantly performed to maintain and improve
the quality of their daily life. Even though most of the residents in those settlements are
belong to lower-middle class, the place is rich with realities and dynamics.
In 2010-2011, I directed an urban study project ‘Camp-on Kampung’ in Surabaya, Indonesia.
This project covers living environments of Kampung–urban settlements that spread
throughout the city. It focuses on social structures, living environments and local daily activities
of the settlement at speciic site.The project emphasizes on their system of self-organization,
as well as to “how the identity is sustained”.

edisi #8: Preservasi. volume 2: Aksi

Sample of “micro-project” at Kampung Ketandan (top) and Kampung Ampel (bottom). ©Orange House Studio

We observed many small programs done by the residents to maintain the continuity of the
built environment, which I call ‘micro-projects’. We considered them as strategic materials for
an alternative way of urban re-production. Furthermore, through the study of possibilities of
linking and networking of the ‘micro-projects’, we tried to propose ‘methodology of urban
design system and/or urban management that can contain a potential of complexity of urban
ecosystem’. As such, we hoped that the analysis would be able to overcome the risk of
negative impact and singularity of the quality of the built environment in ‘master-planning’type of urban development, which rapidly growing in many Asian cities recently.
For the purpose of this study, it was necessary to understand the potentials and possibilities
of Kampung and the city itself. Instead of depending on objective analysis of measurable
data of the city, we went through various cooperative study activities with diverse local
actors from Kampung, government oficials, academic societies, business, civic groups and
mass media. ‘Master Planning’ seems to be considered as exclusive method of investigation
that carried out by a speciic team, while we opt for cooperative method that can suggests
an open-system process to explore possibilities of spontaneous and dynamic urban activities.
Preservation:Visual Interface of City
In the irst phase of project, ‘micro-projects’ were gathered. Diverse facts and possibilities of
the connections and relationship were analyzed and translated into visual information. Daily
8

ruang | kreativitas tanpa batas

Icons for ‘micro projects’ (top). Visual interface of Kampung’s ecosystem (bottom) ©Orange House Studio

life activities in Kampung were diverse; and their complementary forms were also complex.
In order to understand the complexity of Kampung’s system, we developed a technique to
visualize the urban information. A speciic icon was given for each ‘micro-project’, and their
speciic relationships were carefully mapped in, so called, the landscape photo.
9

edisi #8: Preservasi. volume 2: Aksi

The visual information was not a tool to understand physical and measurable information of
an environment, but rather a tool to recognize the quality of an environment. For us, it was
important to step back from the conventional attitude of using measurable urban data that
can be applied for ‘master planning’.
Preservation: Cooperative Behaviors
In this phase, this urban study project was geared to design and apply a Kampung’s urban
system to an actual city. A public exhibition was operated by various participants (Kampung
residents and their communities, government oficials, academic societies, business, civic
groups and mass media). It was considered as a prototype of alternative way of urban

preservation.
The theme and title of the exhibition is ‘Refugees of Future Cities’. In this time of massive
economic growth of Asian city, we tend to imagine a future vision of city with ‘master-planning’.
But should we challenge to look for a new future vision of city instead of compromising
ourselves to choose and live in a ‘master-planned’ city, we might end up become refugees of
a future city. All residents in this world have a potential to be a refugee in the future.
The exhibition became a platform to recognize, consider and share critical issue of our built
environment. We wanted to stress that this “refugee” is not necessarily negative or tragic
terms, as we imagine that in order to survive in the future city, a person will be forced
to produce positive actions and search for various possibilities. This exhibition delivered a
message to all residents in Surabaya that everybody should be an active producer instead of
being an active consumer.
10

ruang | kreativitas tanpa batas

Icons for ‘micro-projects’ (image: Orange House Studio)
A military tent was provided by city government and it used for a main exhibition space ©Orange House Studio

A poster of exhibition ©Orange House Studio
11

edisi #8: Preservasi. volume 2: Aksi

Audiences from Kampungs at movie screening by local cultural organization ‘Kinetik’. ©Orange House Studio

The aim of this exhibition was to provide a public space to share and discuss the possibilities
of urban system of Kampung. It consisted of three parts: architecture, design and art. Each
part offered various activities, such as art exhibition, performing arts, movie screening, craft
workshop and conference. The structure of program was produced through an extensive
and comprehensive discussion among the stakeholders of the city. In a way, it was also an
experiment to apply urban systems of Kampung into public and social activities.
Three Kampungs in the city joined as the main collaborators of this exhibition. These
Kampungs are facing different types of critical issues that conlicted with ‘master-planning’
of Surabaya, particularly in this transition period. Speciic problems of each Kampung were
introduced to the public through various activities that offer the participants to consider
these problems as their own problems. Each activity in the exhibition was programmed as
a ‘micro-project’ in Kampung. Each exhibition meant to be independent, yet had a certain
connection and intersection to each other.

12

ruang | kreativitas tanpa batas

Public discussion with residents of Kampungs and other cooperators, such as students, designers, architects,
educators, government oficer, journalists, owner of broadcasting company, and etc. ©Orange House Studio

In the end, the collaborators and participants realized that the quality of exhibition would
depend on a degree of their participation.They also recognized how much hidden problems
and possibilities of city they could found, if they were deeply committed to cooperate in
urban activities. Such interactive experience should be considered and even suggested as
a methodology to re-produce our built environment, as it also suggests us to try to apply
‘questions about meanings’ for both social and physical environment of city in order to
discover ‘rightfulness’ of preservation of city.
The city that encompasses variety of issues and area of expertise can be deined as a
platform to receive simultaneous issues to be considered. As long as the investigation and
study are proceeding by the proper induction technique, urban activity can be a public
intellect, and it should be a clue to preserve a motivation of urban residents, hoping for the
future of the city and encouraging participation in their own built environments.

13

edisi #8: Preservasi. volume 2: Aksi

a historic legacy, former

The meaning of urban-architectural heritage
I was born and grew up near the sea side of the village Noordwijk in the Netherlands. On
one day, in 1951 and six 6 years old , I stood on the beach, watching a spectacular blow up of
a big German ”Atlantic wall” bunker located at the south side of our boulevard; just a month
later there was only a sand dune left. A signiicant evidence of German occupation in the
Second World War was vanished completely and years later it felt to me as I was robbed of a
speciic reminder, only a picture and a history book remained.
Probably it was a governmental policy to skip the era of German occupation out of the
people’s minds; a form of urban planning by destroying, creating a ”correct” environment
without any tangible uncomfortable memorial. It sounds like an ultimate post-colonial issue,
pointing a question like: is the architectural-urban historic legacy from the colonial past
logically and automatically accept as heritage by the former colonised people as well?
14

ruang | kreativitas tanpa batas

forts in indonesia today
by Cor Passchier

Fort Otahiya, Gorontalo (±1590) (photo: Cor Passchier/PDA)

With reference to the example of the destroyed German bunker, I tend to
afirm such; although the perception may have a different emotional load.
The preservation of the German bunker might have contribute to the
collective memory of later generations as a memorial landmark on the sea
side, but apparently it did not it the conservation policy of the government,
which envisaged the image of a fashionable seaside resort.
Where does the term preservation stands for?
At least it should be based on a question like: ”what are the challenges for
the building or structure today” and how we intent using it? By ignoring such,
there is hardly any prospect for a historic building to survive.
15

edisi #8: Preservasi. volume 2: Aksi

Preservation is a logical part of the urban planning process, a holistic approach dealing with
the characteristics determining the identity of the city, considering the physical and economic
possibilities and opportunities for survival; these in balance with growth and expansion plans
of the city including the related infrastructure. The latter is not meant as a pure technocratic
statement, there is more. Probably the main reason for the presence of architectural heritage on
the agenda is enclosed in the thesis that ”historic and modern buildings are both an exponent
and product of the same dynamic society”.The mix of continuity and change give signiicance to
human existence and conditions for hope in the future. Considering modernity as the opposite
of historic is to me just a created forced contrast, tomorrow we will deine today as yesterday.
Obviously, in the irst decades of the young state Indonesia, the architectural- urban environment

Fort Van den Bosch, Ngawi (photo: Cor Passchier / PDA)

got not immediate affected by modernity; the young state at the start suffered under political
and economic instability. The capital, Jakarta, was undergoing a tremendous grow in population
and the answers were found in an enormous increase and condensing of inhabitants captured
within the limits of the colonial city Batavia. Simultaneously combined with the power and the
lush of independence which causes a creative whirlpool, where politicians, writers, painters
could launch their statements in an overwhelming and optimistic mainstream.
Meanwhile, dealing with the reality, the government focused to transform the archipelago in
one nation; common symbols were needed with a clear and straight message, strengthen the
national awareness of the people.They create an Indonesian layer over the colonial town, street
names were changed, sculptures from the colonial era removed and new symbolic sculptures
16

ruang | kreativitas tanpa batas

arose often relecting the struggle of freedom and independence. For instance, in Jakarta the
former Koningsplein (Kings square) became Medan Merdeka (Freedom square), making it clear,
the times were a changing.
The architectural-urban legacy, after regime change, could not suddenly disappear or
demolished, the latter seemed quite unrealistic. Former colonial ofices got overcrowded by
more employees than ever and the new elite went to live in the homes of the former colonial
elite, while some Jakarta people (until the present) called themselves ”orang Betawi”.

Fort Willem, Ambarawa (± 1835) (photo: Cor Passchier/PDA)

Streets, squares, parks, buildings and all that together, create the environment and décor, which
is known as ”identity”.
Say ”Bandung” and one will react ”Gedung Sate”, ”ITB”, ”Hotel Homann”, the irst two built
in 1921 and the last in 1939. Mention ”Jakarta” and one will respond with ”Monas”, ”Jalan
Sudirman” or ”Kota”; the irst two are after war references, but the last dated from the early
days of the founding of the colonial town. That’s the way people react proudly and in their own
way. It is my town; I live here identify myself with the décor, which stands for my neighbourhood
– or town. Even expressions of nostalgia became famous and already subject of heritage itself.
In my mind comes up the song Bandung selatan di waktu malam, the original by Ismail Marzuki
(1948), I do regard it as an ultimate expression of intangible heritage.
17

edisi #8: Preservasi. volume 2: Aksi

Bunker from Second World War,Tarakan
(photo: Cor Passchier / PDA)

Forts in Indonesia
An article is necessarily limited in size, also
in content; I will spend some attention to a
particular legacy and heritage, the many forts
built in Indonesia in the course of the centuries
are a relection of the turbulent history.
The project ”identiication and inventory of
Forts” (2007-10) in Indonesia is developed
by the NGO’s PDA Indonesia and PAC the
Netherlands; behind both NGO’s were
the governments of Indonesia and the
Netherlands. This ambitious project covered
the entire Indonesia archipelago. In the
ield survey, we operated with two teams,
supported and assisted by the local ofices
of the Ministry of Culture and Tourism, in
cooperation with several local universities and
heritage organizations, support by numerous
volunteers. Soon we experienced, the legacy
of historical forts and fortiications in Indonesia
was of an exceptional extent. Originally, the
government hand over a list about 270 forts
but soon we discovered and determined
more than 440 and numbers additionally built
objects, such as small bunkers, etc.
18

Makassar – Fort Rotterdam (±1670) (photo:
/ PDA)

In the Indonesian archipelago, forts and
remains are everywhere. From the 15th to the
18th century, the Portuguese and the Spanish,
followed by the Dutch and English and also
the local rulers had their fortiications. Forts
were built at strategic locations, usually at the
sea, with some smaller forts in the hinterland
protecting trade routes. Except as defence
against enemy attacks, forts also served as
warehouses of herbs and spices. Within the
walls lived soldiers-, merchants- and artisans,
often an inner garden and a small hospital,
sometimes a church were built. Forts
were as foreign stations in the country and
storage places of merchandise; spontaneous
settlements arose around such sites. Coastal
forts have often become the cradle for the
establishment of later big cities.
The later forts, from the 19th century served
more strictly military purposes, while in the
20th century, the fortress as a defence bastion
lost its signiicance and strategic defences
were more dispersed, while the older forts

ruang | kreativitas tanpa batas

Cor Passchier

Model Fort Rotterdam (image: Cor Passchier / PDA)

only served as military barracks. Forts were
built according to European functional military
regulations and an architectural style is no
question; except perhaps in the gatehouses,
where sometimes an architectural accent is
shown, baroque, classicism we may encounter.
Nowadays, there are many forts disappeared
or merged in nature, certainly this applies to
the former wooden blockhouses- and beach
reinforcements. However a number of forts
survived often felt into decay, losing their
original function since long. About some we
only know they exist ones and some ruins are
preserved as a ixed in stone as a memorial
of history.
In the history of the Indonesian built heritage
like former forts occupy a special place. They
are tangible reminders of the past and still
of signiicance in everyday life. Sometimes
the built environment is part of the identity
in the everyday decor, sometimes to found
far away from human settlement. Ancient

forts are used in various ways, sometimes
they are slowly demolished and the old brick
reused by the people. Also a large number of
forts are placed on the national- regional lists
of monuments. A very few are still in use as
military barracks, others having a new function
like: museum, cultural centre, or as leisure and
tourist objects.
In Gombong, central Java, the octagonal fort
(about 1820) has undergone a technical
maintenance; nowadays it is now used as a sort
of amusement park. In the immediate vicinity
of the Fort, one can ind are all kind of funfair
attractions, even plastic dragons; above on the
octagonal wall drives a small fair train on rails;
they actually did not make any meaningful
use of the building space and structure and I
guess this kind of function will not prove being
sustainable.
In Banten, west Java, the remains of the former
Fort Surosowan (around 1680) undergone a
consolidating restoration and is as part of the
landscape an archaeological park.
19

edisi #8: Preservasi. volume 2: Aksi

Yokyakarta - Fort Vredeburg (±1760) (photo: Cor Passchier / PDA)

In Makassar, Sulawesi, the big Fort Rotterdam (about 1670) is since
centuries the identity carrier of the town on the seaside. It is recently
restored and has a main cultural function; one inds here the regional
museum Galigo, the inner space is a fairground for the city dwellers
and the branch ofice of the ministry of Education and Culture is
established here.
In Ambon, the small tower fort Amsterdam (about 1633), is restored
to its former glory, on beautiful location near by the sea; unfortunately
one did not paid serious attention to establish a new meaningful
function after the rehabilitation; so for some time it was still an empty
witness of history.
20

ruang | kreativitas tanpa batas

Recommendations and conclusions
It is clear that the national and regional governments are willing to invest in the
conservation and reuse of built heritage, such as forts. However, not all stakeholders,
architects and investors, have knowledge and information about the conservation
and reuse of old forts. In November 2013, an international European conference
(ArtFort) was held and also an Indonesian delegation participated. The information
exchange regarding to the reuse of this category built heritage was considered as
very positive and it is an actual subject of thoughts to organize such an international
workshop also in Indonesia. Which I would highly recommend; beside the share of
information, it may broaden the scope how to treat historic Forts as useful heritage,
how to organize the approach and with references to economic beneits and
integrating in urban planning.
21

edisi #8: Preservasi. volume 2: Aksi

Sketsa ini menggambarkan konsep ‘perlambatan jalan’ yang
diterapkan tahun 2008 pada segmen utara Jalan pos, pe
gedung Museum Senirupa yang menyimpan koleksi lukisan
Dengan memperbaiki kondisi di sekitar Museum, JOK berh
kreatif yang diharapkan bisa me
- Moch. Ichsan
22

ruang | kreativitas tanpa batas

g awalnya direncanakan JOK (Jakarta Old Town Kotaku) untuk
ersis di sisi timur Plaza Fatahillah. Di latar belakang nampak
n dan keramik karya seniman-seniman terkemuka Indonesia.
harap bisa menjadikannya sebuah ikon bagi kalangan pekerja
enghidupkan kembali kawasan ini.
Harja Nugraha 23

edisi #8: Preservasi. volume 2: Aksi

conservation in
singapore*
by Johannes Widodo

“While Singapore continues to transform, it is important to enhance our sense of
identity and identiication with our city. Singapore is our home. People must feel
this in themselves and in their surroundings. URA’s role is to make Singapore a
city with character and identity through our physical landscape. So far, more than
6,500 buildings and structures across the country have been conserved, despite
our limited land and a relatively short history. Retention of our identity through
conservation will become more important as more of our city becomes developed
and redeveloped to cater to the needs of a larger population.” 1
The Central Role of the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA)
Soon after the separation from Malaysia and became an independent nation, Singapore was in a
dire condition physically and economically.Two most important institutions were set-up in 1965
to deal with the most pressing physical and economics issues and to develop Singapore, namely
the Housing Development Board (HDB) and the Economic Development Board (EDB). In
1967 the Urban Renewal Department (URD) was set up under the HDB to tackle the physical,
social, and economic regeneration of the Central Area, until 1974.
On 1 April 1974 the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) was created as an independent
statutory board under Ministry of National Development (MND) to take over the URD
responsibility, with primary task to redevelop the Central Area and resettle residents affected
by the redevelopment. Within the period of 1967-1989 a total of 184 hectares of land were
cleared, assembled and sold under the URA Sale of Sites Program, resulting in the development
of 155 projects.Through this program, Central Area was transformed from an area of slums and
squatters into a modern inancial and business hub
In 1980 URA prepared a comprehensive long-term plan for the Central Area including the
development of Marina City on 690 hectares of reclaimed land. Three years later in 1983
the Urban Design Plan for the Central Area was created and aimed to guide ”an orderly
transformation of the city skyline and the creation of an environment interwoven with the
historical, architectural and cultural heritage of the older parts of the city”, followed by the
announcement of Central Area Structure Plan in 1985. Thus URA was exercising its power to
”develop” and at the same time to ”conserve” the central area of Singapore. Although the URA’s
1

From the speech by Mr Mah Bow Tan Minister for National Development at URA Corporate Plan Seminar

24

ruang | kreativitas tanpa batas

Singapore street market in 1960s (Source: old postcard of Singapore)

conservation policy seems comprehensive in
adhering good conservation principles, but in
reality the results are not satisfying. It focuses
too much to the physical and economic
aspects of gentryiyng most of the remaining
heritage buildings in the central area, and not
giving enough attention to preserving the
existing community or social-cultural fabric.
The ”demolish and rebuild” policy during
the 1970-1980s has cleared or destroyed a
large stock of old shop-houses and townhouses in a vast area of the central area of
Singapore, and its communities have been
displaced from the historic mixed-used
settlement areas and dispersed elsewhere.
Some of the reasons for demolition and
population-removal policy were to sanitize
the social diseases (like overcrowding,
prostitution, gambling, gangsters), to improve
the environmental problems (bad utilities,
unhygienic sanitation, structural dilapidation),
and to reclaim unproductive area for new

commercial development with much higher
values and returns. Vast shop-house area
inside the old central area, like Kampong
Glam, Middle Road, and Kereta Ayer areas
were re-developed and replaced by high-rise
housing-cum-commercial blocks to house
some of the existing inhabitants, and the
original communities have been relocated
somewhere else.
The extent of demolition and redevelopment was so large, until inally the
government realized the irreversible loss
of tangible cultural heritage and intangible
identity of place especially in the central area.
Therefore since 1990s the conservation plans
have been drafted and implemented, to save
the remaining stocks of this valuable urban
heritage – although it was mainly driven by
the tourism industry and the speculative
property re-development schemes. Many old
shop-houses were given second lease of life
by ”adaptive re-use” approach, from empty

25

edisi #8: Preservasi. volume 2: Aksi

buildings they were turned into new shops,
restaurants, cafés, hotels, or ofices. Mayor
changes in the interior space to adapt the
new functions and to comply with stringent
building safety regulations were permitted,
while façade features or style should be kept.
The original white-indigo lime-based plaster
was removed and replaced by stronger
PC-based plaster, often with new weatherproof and colorful exterior paints. The dying
traditional craftsmanship and the usage of
traditional building materials are not revived,
but replaced by modern contemporary
technology and materials, and resulted in the
loss of authenticity and discontinuity in the
production of material culture.
URA Conservation Plan was announced in
1989. Historic districts like Chinatown, Little
India, Kampong Glam, Singapore River including Boat Quay and Clarke Quay - as well
as residential areas like Emerald Hill, Cairnhill,
Blair Plain, and secondary settlements like Joo
Chiat and Geylang were given conservation
status. The naming or labeling of these areas
followed the Singapore Tourism Board
“branding” strategy to sell Singapore, which
turned the central areas of the city into
“theme parks”.
URA Early Conservation Approach
In 1993 URA together with the Preservation
of Monuments Board (PMB) published
”Objectives, Principles and Standards for
Preservation and Conservation”. Here it
is stated that the objectives, principles and
standards have been speciically written with
the Singapore context in mind, and they are
derived from local experience, and where
appropriate are drawn from international
sources (among others are Venice Charter
1964, Burra Charter 1988, etc.).
URA prescribes ”3R Principle”: maximum
2

26

URA & PMB (1993), p. 12

Retention, sensitive Restoration, and careful
Repair. This principle is further elaborated as:
1) Building should not be altered, or parts of it
demolished, if they can be preserved in their
original condition.
2) When upgrading and adapting a building
to a new uses, the existing structure must
be retained. This can be done through
strengthening and repairing the structural
elements in the most sympathetic and
unobtrusive way, and using original methods
and materials, wherever possible
3)Selective replacement should only be
considered when absolutely necessary.
4) Total reconstruction goes against accepted
international conservation practices
5) A thorough research of the conservation
building will also facilitate the proper
execution of works on site.
6) The technical aspects and process of the
various activities must be documented at
every stage.
To implement the principles, URA deines
”7 Levels of Conservation Activities” and
”Top-Down Approach”. The seven levels
of activities are: 1) Maintaining the essential
character of the building, 2) Preventing further
deterioration, 3) Consolidating the fabric
of the building, 4) Restoring the building to
original design and material, 5) Rehabilitating
the building without destroying its character,
6) Replacing missing signiicant features of the
building, and 7) Rebuilding severely damaged
parts of the building.
The ”Top-Down” Approach literally means
that works start from the top (roof) and
progress downwards, while retaining the
loor(s) and roof. This enables the lower
elements of the building to be repaired
or replaced without affecting the existing
structure. The beneits from this construction
method are: the building remains structurally

ruang | kreativitas tanpa batas

stable, the work can proceed under all
weather conditions, and deterioration due to
weather is minimized.
In shop-house conservation, URA endorses
“facadism” and prefers to retain the façade
and allows alteration of the rest of the
building. To facilitate this façade classiication
was deined according to linear periodization,
with meticulous stylistic description of its
parts:
1) Early Shop house style (1840-1900)
2) First Transitional Shop house style (early
1900s)
3) Late Shop house style (1900-1940)
4) Second Transitional Shop house style (late
1930s)
5) Art Deco Shop house style (1930-1960)

Similar stylistic classiication and approach was
applied to different conservation areas, like
Chinatown, Kampong Glam, and Little India,
with some adjustments to match with the
special ”theme” assigned for those particular
areas. Three books elaborating the historical
background of the place and special physical
features of shop-houses typology for each
conservation area, with very little attention
given to the existing social-cultural signiicance.
To encourage and to give incentive to private
conservation initiatives, The Architectural
Heritage Awards was created.3 It was started
in 1994, when URA gave ”Good Effort”
Award for well-restored buildings. The annual
”Architectural Heritage Awards” was irst
introduced in 1995 to replace the previous
award. In 2003, the awards category was
27

edisi #8: Preservasi. volume 2: Aksi

URA façade classiication &
Stylistic description (Source: URA, 1995)

further reined: ”Category A” for national
monuments and fully conserved buildings,
and ”Category B” for old buildings with
new, innovative and sensitive interventions.
The judging is conducted by an Assessment
Committee appointed by the URA.
The policy and the guideline are profoundly
inclined towards physical conservation of
multi-racial, colonial, and national heritage of
Singapore – while the conservation of social
fabric of community is noticeably missing. It
became apparent later that the conservation
policy which is focused mainly on the tangible
aspect has created problems in the intangible
aspect of heritage.
Holistic Urban Heritage Conservation
and Regeneration
Cultural puriication and elimination of parts
of our layered or hybridized identity which
have been formed for generations are not
truthful to our own history and to our future

28

generations. Buildings and elements from
various cultures and inluences from past to
present have become indispensable parts of
our cultural heritage, and it will continuously
evolve into the future. Inhabitation aspect is
always related to the articulation of the built
forms or the material culture.When the social
fabric (community, inhabitants) is gone, then
building and settlement will turn into empty
shells where deterioration will take place. In
this critical stage, the choices are demolition
or re-development, especially when it takes
place in the central urban prime locations.
Conservation, preservation, restoration,
revitalization efforts of our material and
living heritages should be aimed towards
the community cultural continuum. The
community’s cultural continuum can be kept
and nurtured by preserving the community’s
tangible and intangible cultural heritages
through faithful and careful restoration, and
through sensitive and sensible care and

ruang | kreativitas tanpa batas

Former Shop Houses in China
Square after redevelopment

interventions. The dying or missing traditional
skills and craftsmanship can be revived and
restored through training and education, and
to be updated with the current technological
advancement. Following the principles of
traditional medicine to cure the sickness
by invoking good energy for holistic healing
process of body and soul, effective and
afirmative actions can be developed in the
spirit of good will and good faith in order to
preserve our memory and identity through
conservation of our cultural heritage in
entirety and holistically.
The community should be empowered by
technical skills and sustained by economic and
institutional infrastructure, through holistic
conservation and preservation strategy in
mobilizing all stake holders. Recognitions
such as awards and status should be aimed
to generate greater impacts towards a
more sustainable and effective heritage
policy, planning, and management of the
community’s tangible and intangible cultural
heritages, and not for the sake of marketing
or branding for the sake of mass-tourism
money.
Good conservation projects and practices
are those which successfully demonstrating
the following points:
5

1) articulation of the heritage values in
order to convey the spirit of place through
conservation,
2) appropriate use or adaptation of the
structure,
3) interpretation of the cultural, social,
historical and architectural signiicance of the
structure(s) in the conservation work,
4) understanding of technical issues of
conservation/restoration in interpreting the
structure’s signiicance,
5) appropriate use or adaptation of the
structure,
6) interpretation of the cultural, social,
historical and architectural signiicance of the
structure(s) in the conservation work,
7) understanding of the technical issues of
conservation/restoration in interpreting the
structure’s signiicance,
8) use of appropriate materials,
9) how well any added elements or creative
technical solutions respect the character and
inherent spatial quality of the structure(s),
10) manner in which the process and the
inal product contribute to the surrounding
environment and the local community’s
cultural and historical continuum,
11) inluence of the project on conservation
practice and policy locally, nationally, regionally,
or internationally,

Refer to UNESCO Asia Paciic Awards for Culture Heritage Conservation criteria. Detail information about the
awards can be found in: http://www.unescobkk.org/culture/our-projects/empowerment-of-the-culture-profession/asia29
paciic-heritage-awards-for-culture-heritage-conservation/

edisi #8: Preservasi. volume 2: Aksi

12) ongoing socio-economic viability and
relevance of the project, and provision for its
future use and maintenance, and
13) technical consistency, complexity and
sensitivity of the project methodology.
Changes in Singapore Urban
Conservation Approach
Recognizing the need to involve the community
in the urban planning process URA started to
embark on public consultations exercise in the
urban planning process since the drafting of
Concept Plan 2001 (Aug 2000 – May 2001).
The ideas and feedbacks from public were
gathered through public forums, exhibition,
and public dialogue before the Concept Plan
was inalized at the end of 2001. In 2002
similar process was repeated again when
Master Plan 2003 was drafted. Three Subject
Groups were appointed by the Minister of
National Development to study proposals
on: 1) Parks & Water-bodies Plans and Rustic
Coast, 2) Urban Villages and Southern Ridges
& Hillside Villages, and 3) Old World Charm.
The ideas and recommendations were to be
incorporated into the draft of Master Plan
2003.
The Subject Groups comprise professionals,
representatives from interest groups, and
laymen. They felt that a shift in the balance
between conservation and re-development
is required, and a new framework is needed
for holistic conservation – an integrated,
synergistic approach that goes beyond
physical structures to include communities
and activities that contribute to the old world
charm. Holistic conservation encompasses
the
whole
neighborhoods,
including
contemporary and less architecturally
6

signiicant buildings. It is multi-dimensional, to
include buildings, road patterns, streetscapes,
open spaces and vistas; demands multidisciplinary involvement across local and
national levels; and incorporates all stake
holders (users, owners, heritage-supporters,
decision makers) of the conservation
process.
Besides speciic recommendations for
different places across Singapore, the
Subject Groups also suggested the following
proposals to take conservation efforts in
Singapore to the higher level:
1) Valuing the priceless: conserving areas with
rich heritage, charm, and social value, even
though there may be loss in development
potential at the local level.
2) Different levels of conservation: conserving
signiicant exteriors, interiors, and details of
selected buildings; and controlling the use
of selected buildings with strong social and
historical values.
3) Act fast: preparing a comprehensive list of
buildings for safeguarding.
4) A Network of heritage assets: linking
up areas of the conserved area with the
new developments that serve as heritage
connectors.
5) Differential expectations and planning:
adopting different performance and planning
standards that are sensitive to the urban
fabric of areas identiied with the conserved
area.
6) Beyond eficiency, embracing new
solutions: exploring alternatives to widening
of roads within the conserved area, and
exploring the use of different transportation
modes.
7) Recognizing our heartland heritage:

MND (2002), Parks & Waterbodies Plan and Identity Plan - Subject Group Report on Old World Charm, p.8
30

ruang | kreativitas tanpa batas

keeping blocks of public housing architecture and townships that encapsulated the range of
public housing from the 1950s to the present.
8) Wish list: retaining more built heritage for future generations, including the more recent
building that depicts the history of Singapore’s path towards independence and efforts in nation
building process.
9) Heritage economy: recognizing conservation’s contribution to the economy by providing
funding for conservation initiatives and efforts.
10) Money talks: introducing more incentives for owners of conservation buildings
11) Private sponsorship: encouraging the setting up of a privately-run heritage trust.
12) Getting insights: commissioning a study on property value of conserving buildings
13) Promote traditional trades: developing ways to recognize owners of traditional trades
that are valued by the public.
14) Active citizenship: precipitating the formation of local business improvement groups.
15) Renaissance people: developing a heritage education program that takes a more active
and concerted form to inform, educate, and inspire people about their city.

Living heritage: traditional trades in the shop-house in Serangoon area (“Little India”)

31

edisi #8: Preservasi. volume 2: Aksi

Recognitions and the Future of
Conservation in Singapore
In October 2007, Singapore rejoined UNESCO
after 22 years of absence. But even before
this historic turning point, UNESCO had given
Singapore three awards in recognition of the
achievements of individuals, private sector
organisations and public-private initiatives in
successfully restoring and conserving heritage
structures in this small city-state.
UNESCO aims to promote the stewardship
of the world’s cultural resources, including the
built heritage which constitutes our collective
cultural memory, and the foundation upon
which communities can base their future.
In Asia and the Paciic, UNESCO supports
conservation activists at all levels, and
particularly seeks to encourage the role of
the private sector in preserving the region’s
cultural heritage. The UNESCO Asia-Paciic
Heritage Awards for Culture Heritage
Conservation is one of the regional initiatives
that support the organisation’s global strategic
objective of promoting the localisation and
empowerment of the culture profession to
develop and implement the best conservation
standards.
Since 2000 the Heritage Awards committee
has received more than 300 entries from across
Asia. Many of the entries have set technical
and social benchmarks for conservation in the
region, while simultaneously acting as catalysts
for local preservation initiatives. Over the
years, the projects illustrate the increasing
momentum and level of conservation in
Asia and the Paciic. Four Singaporean
conservation projects have so far won
UNESCO Heritage Awards: the Thian Hock

32

Keng Temple (Honourable Mention Award
in 2001), the Convent of Holy Infant Jesus
(Award of Merit in 2002), Old St. Andrew’s
School (Honourable Mention Award in
2006), and inally the Hong San See Temple
restoration project won the highest Award for
Excellence in 2010.
On the community level, recently some
individuals have registered themselves to
become individual members of ICOMOS,
which is the irst important step towards the
formation of ICOMOS National Committee.
Government is also interested to look into
the possibility of submitting some sites in
Singapore for UNESCO World Heritage
listing. Although these developments seem
preliminary and still very early to generate
real impacts, but these are signiicant steps
towards better approach to preservation and
conservation of heritage.
In Singapore both land and heritage are
scarce. These constraints should drive better
and more effective conservation strategies
and methods so that the full positive impact
of conservation may contribute to strong
economic development, nation-building, and
a sense of home. In working towards these
ends, it is essential to form a civic coalition, a
community network and an alliance among all
stakeholders to maintain a balance between
conservation and development, and to ensure
an orderly and healthy evolution of the built
environment and the community that lives
within it.

ruang | kreativitas tanpa batas

We are obliged to prolong the lifecycle of our tangible and intangible heritages for the sake of
the future generation, to ensure the link with their roots and the transmission of memory from
the past into the future. Conservation means nurturing the community’s cultural continuum.
By prolonging the life of our heritage for future generations, we can