My interests include looking at current and future developments in Singapore (and other countries), and see how we can develop our cities, where more than 50% of the gloabl population lives, to see how can we make our cities more liveable. Zoning is not the solution. The solution would be having small parks, better public transport, enough living and working spaces for all, human-sized architecture (2 or 3 storey architecture, but nothing higher unless it's an useable landmark, or that there is great demand in the cities) and having a fair amount of reasonable mixed-use buildings.
I also thought about the new projects and developments in Singapore (and many other cities around the world) - the most famous building in the Singapore landscape looks, after all, all steel and concrete, and it seems to suggest a very Chinese idea (to me) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fu_Lu_Shou - the Three Attributes to Good Life - Good Fortune, Prosperity and Longevity. Very ironic, given that this building is casino - the most distinctive landmark in Singapore presently. Then the arts centre looks like a durian, while the apartment buildings just look like long matchboxes. Only the pre-WWII shop houses and apartments look really authentic, fitting into the Singapore landscape. Apparently, even with more money than ever before, we forget about creating an unique Singapore experience here in Singapore.
At least, in Europe, the landscape, the buildings in the inner cities and villages, look timeless. So does much of Japanese cities, in my opinion. I wouldn't be interested in urban planning if I'm not quite shocked at the lack of coherence in both the Sinosphere (where I think I live in) and perhaps the Anglosphere.
I think what makes us special is not the tall buildings - though they look good. It is, rather, the nautal features of the landscape - be it the plains, hills; the lakes, rivers, oceans; or the islands or deserts in the cities. To me, also, the temple/church is the centre of life, the government is really important as a moderating force (but should not strifle our daily life), and grandness, through the breadth and height of the building, should be limited to certain institutions.
But slowly and surely, we build higher buildings, we love our longish buildings (because of inevitable large airport and convention developments), and many of us want to have personal space in our tight spaces. We prefer roads to nature and farms, we prefer large developmental projects to self-contained towns and cities with its own economic sustainability, we like congestion and hustle where we just return home to our small cubicles even more than community-building, where every neighbor knows each other, where everyone feels they are part of a community.
But in China, Singapore and the United States, especially in the larger cities, even if we have 'urban planning', change seems to be the only constant. In Gertrude Stein's words, 'there is no there there'. In Beijing and Shanghai, the Hutong/Nongtang or alleys are gone, and replaced by 6-storey or higher apartment buildings. Even 2nd-tier cities have older houses clearer for uglier housing. As for Singapore, post-1960 architecture just looks overtly utilitarian. I need not mention the United States, where everything just looks car-oriented.
Until the day we stop being hoodwinked by zoning, skyscrapers, autos and lifts, perhaps we will continue to lead lives with much ugliness. Planners, or land use regulators in governments in my view, will have to reluctantly accept this - as there are few alternatives to expand building supply more effectively as it seems; even though this lifestyle is indeed unsustainable in this age, where energy is scarce and lives become more stressful.
This is why I am not yet an urban planner. I don't know whether I can find any way to deal with continued disappointment in life, from idealist iutopia to practical, concrete actions.
I also thought about the new projects and developments in Singapore (and many other cities around the world) - the most famous building in the Singapore landscape looks, after all, all steel and concrete, and it seems to suggest a very Chinese idea (to me) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fu_Lu_Shou - the Three Attributes to Good Life - Good Fortune, Prosperity and Longevity. Very ironic, given that this building is casino - the most distinctive landmark in Singapore presently. Then the arts centre looks like a durian, while the apartment buildings just look like long matchboxes. Only the pre-WWII shop houses and apartments look really authentic, fitting into the Singapore landscape. Apparently, even with more money than ever before, we forget about creating an unique Singapore experience here in Singapore.
At least, in Europe, the landscape, the buildings in the inner cities and villages, look timeless. So does much of Japanese cities, in my opinion. I wouldn't be interested in urban planning if I'm not quite shocked at the lack of coherence in both the Sinosphere (where I think I live in) and perhaps the Anglosphere.
I think what makes us special is not the tall buildings - though they look good. It is, rather, the nautal features of the landscape - be it the plains, hills; the lakes, rivers, oceans; or the islands or deserts in the cities. To me, also, the temple/church is the centre of life, the government is really important as a moderating force (but should not strifle our daily life), and grandness, through the breadth and height of the building, should be limited to certain institutions.
But slowly and surely, we build higher buildings, we love our longish buildings (because of inevitable large airport and convention developments), and many of us want to have personal space in our tight spaces. We prefer roads to nature and farms, we prefer large developmental projects to self-contained towns and cities with its own economic sustainability, we like congestion and hustle where we just return home to our small cubicles even more than community-building, where every neighbor knows each other, where everyone feels they are part of a community.
But in China, Singapore and the United States, especially in the larger cities, even if we have 'urban planning', change seems to be the only constant. In Gertrude Stein's words, 'there is no there there'. In Beijing and Shanghai, the Hutong/Nongtang or alleys are gone, and replaced by 6-storey or higher apartment buildings. Even 2nd-tier cities have older houses clearer for uglier housing. As for Singapore, post-1960 architecture just looks overtly utilitarian. I need not mention the United States, where everything just looks car-oriented.
Until the day we stop being hoodwinked by zoning, skyscrapers, autos and lifts, perhaps we will continue to lead lives with much ugliness. Planners, or land use regulators in governments in my view, will have to reluctantly accept this - as there are few alternatives to expand building supply more effectively as it seems; even though this lifestyle is indeed unsustainable in this age, where energy is scarce and lives become more stressful.
This is why I am not yet an urban planner. I don't know whether I can find any way to deal with continued disappointment in life, from idealist iutopia to practical, concrete actions.
