Commentary: Forests vs flats? Singapore’s land development debate needs to move beyond that

Commentary: Forests vs flats? Singapore’s land development debate needs to move beyond that Amid concerns about clearing Maju Forest for housing, suggestions that Singapore should only build on “brownfield sites” are reasonable. But they may also overlook a few things, says Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy’s Woo Jun Jie. SINGAPORE: When the Housing and Development Board (HDB) announced in July the plan to clear nearly two-thirds of Maju Forest for a new residential development in Sunset Way, a familiar discussion emerged. Does Singapore really need to sacrifice its forests for housing development, the refrain goes. Then don’t complain there aren’t enough flats, comes the retort. But the underlying expectation is rarely that Singapore should stop building – it is that it should build homes somewhere else first. This is not the first time that the public has responded to such housing development plans. In 2021, there was concern over the zoning of Dover Forest for residential use. The question increasingly being asked is: Can Singapore pursue a “brownfield only” development strategy? BROWNFIELD FIRST, NOT ONLY It is a reasonable suggestion, but in practice, Singapore is already redeveloping brownfield sites where such opportunities exist. Brownfield sites are previously developed land, with existing buildings and infrastructure, unlike greenfield sites that have never been built on. Singapore has been doing this in several ways. Plans to redevelop the Gillman Barracks for housing were announced at the same time as the Sunset Way site. The Gillman Barracks site consists of 86 buildings, of which 25 will be retained for their heritage value. Another recent example is the redevelopment of the Old Police Academy into the Mount Pleasant public housing estate, with about 6,000 new flats across four projects planned. Six historic buildings will be conserved and integrated into the new estate. Across Singapore, sites where once stood primary and secondary schools have also been transformed or zoned for residential developments. The Selective En bloc Redevelopment Scheme (SERS) had also been a mechanism to redevelop older neighbourhoods into higher-density public housing estates. The sites of two golf courses, often raised as sites to be prioritised for redevelopment, have been earmarked for housing after their leases expire in 2030. Redeveloping brownfield sites has long been part of our approach to intensify the use of relatively less utilised spaces and create more space for housing. WHY NOT JUST BUILD ON EXISTING SITES? Yet, brownfield development is not as straightforward as it might seem, for a variety of reasons. First, and importantly, are the people. Existing residents, businesses and communities have to relocate. It disrupts lives and livelihoods, measured also in years’ worth of social and emotional connections. Old buildings and spaces are often imbued with the collective memories of the families and individuals who have frequented or lived there. A good example would be Golden Mile Complex. Initially slated for a collective sale and likely demolition, Golden Mile Complex was subsequently gazetted in 2021 as a conserved building following extensive public consultation by the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA). Then, there are practical challenges. Existing buildings and infrastructure must be demolished and replaced, construction waste transported and processed. All of this can also release what is known as end-of-life embodied carbon. So brownfield redevelopment comes with financial, time and environmental costs too. What about building on the empty fields we sometimes see in our neighbourhoods? Some have argued that the pockets of green spaces interspersed across the island could also be tapped for housing. But not every site may be able to support meaningful housing development. Adding even a few blocks to an existing neighbourhood could strain existing amenities (such as supermarkets, preschools and clinics) and transport infrastructure. So the size of such fields will affect their suitability. WHAT A CITY IN NATURE MEANS In an ideal situation, we would be able to keep all our forests and heritage spaces. However, the reality is that as Singapore continues to grow and develop, we will need to find more spaces to accommodate our growing needs. Even taking a “brownfield first” approach, it may be inevitable that we will need to turn to some of our green spaces. Then the challenge is how to do it in a way that is sensitive to our ecological spaces and biodiversity. For Maju Forest, the plans include clearing 15ha of secondary forest to build new flats in Sunset Way and setting aside the remaining 8ha as a wildlife refuge. HDB has said that the plans are “not final” as it looks to balance housing needs and residents’ concerns. Likewise, a new housing site at Sembawang will set aside 6ha of existing forest, grassland and scrubland to preserve part of an existing freshwater swamp forest. In Bidadari estate, natural features of the landscape such as knolls, hills and heritage trees were conserved and integrated into the housing estate and its park. The estate has in fact won a gold award in the Master Plan category of the 2024 FIABCI World Prix d’Excellence Awards while Bidadari park has won the ULI Asia Pacific Award for Excellence. Singapore is not alone in taking this approach. In Sweden, in a residential district known as Hammarby Sjöstad, planners retained substantial amounts of the pre-existing woodlands as well as an oak forest. Substantial effort was made to connect the oak forest to the rest of the development, rather than leaving it as a stand-along feature, by pedestrian and cycling paths. A similar approach can be seen in Finland’s Tapiola garden city, a suburban forest was designed and integrated into the 238ha housing district. This included the development of recreational facilities within the forest. All these local and overseas examples suggest that for developments that cannot avoid difficult trade-offs, the measure of success is whether nature remains an integral part of the neighbourhood – and what “City in Nature” means for Singapore. Perhaps more importantly, this means recognising that a City in Nature is more than just preserving every green space. It is also continuing to create new green and blue spaces, even as some existing ones are preserved and others make way for future development. Dr Woo Jun Jie is Assistant Dean (Academic Affairs) and Senior Lecturer at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, National University of Singapore