clc lecture planning for communities: lessons from seoul ... · 21/11/2017 · in seoul, not only...
TRANSCRIPT
CLC LECTURE
Planning for Communities: Lessons from Seoul and Singapore 21 November 2017
Seoul and Singapore benefited from government-led urban planning and development processes
since the 1960s, to successfully transform into two of the most advanced cities in the region within a
few decades. In recent years, both cities also share similar aspirations to interweave greater citizen
participation in shaping the urban environment.
The Centre for Liveable Cities and The Seoul Institute have completed a joint publication, “Planning
for Communities: Lessons from Seoul and Singapore”, which examines case studies on citizen
participation from both cities and their experiences.
As part of the book launch, Dr Miree Byun, Senior Research Fellow at The Seoul Institute, would be in
Singapore to share ideas behind the latest citizen participation initiatives in Seoul. A panel consisting
of experts from both Seoul and Singapore will contribute their ideas and experiences in planning with
communities.
Lecture Segment
Mr Remy Guo 00:00:13
Today we will be launching our latest joint publication with our partner
the Seoul Institute on Planning for Communities: Lessons from Seoul and
Singapore. The Seoul Institute [SI] is the urban research think-tank of the
Seoul Metropolitan Government. The Institute's primary objective is to
improve municipal administration through professional research,
improve the quality of life in Seoul, and reinforce and sustain [the]
00:00:38
competitiveness of Seoul. This joint research between CLC and SI was
also carried out with our supporting agencies: HDB [Housing &
Development Board], People's Association [PA] and the URA [Urban
Redevelopment Authority].
We are very honored to have with us today, Dr. Seo Wang-Jin, President
of the Seoul Institute, as well as our fellow researchers from the Seoul
Institute. Before we begin the lecture, I would like to invite Dr. Seo to
give opening remarks for today's launch.
Dr Seo Wang-Jin 00:01:07
It is with great pleasure, that I am opening the launch of Planning the
Communities: Lessons from Seoul and Singapore. On behalf of Seoul
Institute, I thank Mr. Khoo and the Center for Liveable Cities for inviting
and welcoming us to this event. My special gratitude goes to the CLC
staff who organised this event and our visit to Singapore. We appreciate
the final outcome of [the] collaborative research between Seoul
Institute and CLC.
I have tried to read the book from cover to cover. From what I saw, it
already looks very nice. A mere glance is enough to show the amount of
hard work that researchers at both institutions have poured into this
book. I am personally grateful to see that hiring so many PhD’s in one
building for Seoul Institute and putting up with their egos have finally
brought out something useful. (Some laughter among audience).
Today, I also learned that if I wait long, long enough, they can actually
produce something tangible. And I believe Mr. Khoo feels the same way.
Of course, I'm just kidding!
We have formed a meaningful relationship over the past few years.
Through our exchanges, we found that we have much more in common
than we knew [of]. Singapore and Seoul have grappled with similar
urban problems. For one, we are all trying to move away from a car-
oriented environment. We are trying to initiate a paradigm shift from [a]
car-centered to pedestrian-friendly city.
00:03:14
Seoul has created a number of pedestrian projects, including the
recently opened Seoul Station 7017 or “Seoullo 7017” as we call it.
Through this project, [a] once elevated highway has been converted into
a vibrant pedestrian space for citizens. Observing the transformation of
one eyesore into a pleasant public space is quite an experience.
Singapore has been transforming itself to [become] a car-light city as
well. Our first joint research project, Walkable and Bikeable Cities,
demonstrates how we are making such [an] effort, how we are similar
and in what ways we are different in pursuing the same goal. What really
matters in these projects is to engage with communities.
In the past, Seoul had a heavily top-down planning process with an
authoritarian leadership. As with other developing countries, we pushed
a policy agenda that focused on efficient economic development. We
still yearn for economic growth, but the world around us has changed.
It is freer, with WikiLeaks, Facebook and Wi-Fi internet. People can
express their opinions anytime, anywhere, with no holds barred.
In that sense, the current tact for our joint research is both timely and
promising. In Seoul, not only is it difficult to get things done without
citizen involvement, but planners have realised that citizens can in fact
offer valuable advice. Our joint study introduced various community
programmes from Singapore and Seoul. It will be interesting to see the
similarities and differences in our experience[s] of [sic in] participatory
planning. Through this study, we have come to understand the
possibilities, potentials, difficulties and limitations of community
participation.
I believe our research can offer lessons to planners not just in Singapore
and Seoul, but also to other city government[s] that are preparing for
active citizen involvement. Aside from all the serious work, we became
friends over the years. Key researchers at our Institute and the staff of
CLC, they developed a cordial working relationship. They worked
00:06:26
together overcoming the challenge of our long-distance. What is more,
they shared meals, they openly exchanged jokes and made fun of each
other. This is pretty much what friends do everyday. Whatever we do in
our lives, at the end of the day, that's what really matters.
As the President of the Seoul Institute, I am fully responsible for their
friendly behaviour during 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. on weekdays, that means I am
your friend too. Although this is my first visit to CLC, we are already
getting along pretty well, I think. Right Mr. Khoo? (Laughs) I would like
to thank again Mr. Khoo and the staff of CLC for hosting this wonderful
event. You are the greatest host ever. Thank you very much again.
Mr Khoo Teng Chye 00:07:33
I first went to Seoul, I think almost 20 years ago. And it was a very, very,
different Seoul from what it is today. The Seoul that I went to was really,
very, very congested, very crowded. It was really, you know, the
example of what you wouldn't want to see in a high-density city—now
there's a sense of crowdedness that you associate high density with.
It took us hours to get from one point to another, and most of the time,
we felt we were just sitting in a bus or in a car. But today, Seoul—I mean
I just revisited Seoul maybe two or three years ago and—today's Seoul
is really a transformed city. And I think the transformation probably
started maybe 10 to 15 years ago? And one of the kind of key turning
points I think in the transformation that I think affected the psyche of
the Seoul citizen, was when a highway in the city was demolished. And
where the highway used to be, was a river—the Cheonggye river or the
Cheonggye stream.
And I think today, many of us who visit Seoul, you know, invariably will
want to go and see, you know, this Cheonggye stream that has been so
beautifully restored. You know, it's now a wonderful nightspot for young
couples, for families and so on, besides tourists; and the highway is no
longer there. I think that kind of signified a turning point in Seoul’s
transformation when they began to, kind of, had a lot of confidence that
they could make Seoul a much more liveable city in spite of its density.
00:09:21
Now, Singapore compared with Seoul, we are half the population of
Seoul. You are 10 million, we are 5.6 million. In terms of area, actually,
your area, you know, the city itself, is probably a little bit smaller than
Singapore. So your density is very, very, very high, so you have very high
density. So I think, there’s a lot that, I think, we can, we can learn from
you, in how to be liveable and in high density.
And one of the institutions, I think, that has been really behind a lot of
the transformations of Seoul in the last 10 to 15 years is the Seoul
Institute, right Mr. Seo? President Seo, you are very modest when you,
kind of underclaim the achievements of the Seoul Institute. But we all
know that the thinking in the planning, you know, the forward-looking
research that has driven a lot of Seoul’s city’s achievements, have
actually come from the Seoul Institute, right?
And you are a wonderful institution. I think now, you have 300 people.
75 PhDs and you are really like a think-tank or the advisor to the Mayor
of Seoul. So, I think we were very fortunate at CLC when we got to know
you and we did an MoU [Memorandum of Understanding] with you and
we decided to collaborate and to work on some projects where we could
kind of exchange ideas and knowledge between Seoul and Singapore.
So the first project was one on mobility—which we published earlier and
we had a forum at the World City Summit in 2016—and I’m very glad
that we now have got the second project completed. Today, you will
hear more about it, about, you know, community planning or
participatory planning, comparing Seoul and Singapore. And then, under
your new leadership, President Seo, I hope that our collaboration will go
on from strength to strength. And it’s not just a collaboration between
CLC and the Seoul Institute, I think it’s a collaboration between
Singapore and Seoul, because whenever we do these projects, it's not
just us, I think we involve many other partners besides ourselves—so in
our case we have involved the Land Transport Authority [LTA], we have
00:11:31
involved the HDB, URA, People's Association, all very important agencies
in Singapore.
So, I am very glad that we have completed this project. We all look
forward to hear about it. I hope all of you will enjoy the talk this
afternoon, and don't leave without getting a copy of the publication, and
thanks very much for everyone's support and being here today.
Dr Miree Byun 00:12:02
00:13:14
I am an urban sociologist and so my research area is focused on the
social changes relate[d] to the urban policy or social policy of the city.
And [the] title of my presentation is, “Seoul in 2040.” As we expected
from the title, this is one of the [areas of] future research or future
studies.
Future studies is an area that deals with the changes over time. So, in
my presentation, I want to talk about the demographic and social
changes of the city, now and in the next decades: How are the emerging
issues of Seoul in the present and future. And so, based on my
population projections and data analysis and social survey[s], I will
present the demographic change of population structures, and the
future of a household, and socio and cultural trends of Seoul.
Demographic and Social Changes in Seoul
Okay, let’s start. And first part is, the first, about two decades down the
road from now, Seoul will experience a demographic cliff. In other
words, it’s an emergence of a new population structure that has not
been experienced yet. Seoul’s population reached its largest in 1992, at
well over 10 million, and since then it [has been] steadily shrinking. And
at 2040, it will reach 9 million.
It is the same [as] in the early 50’s, but the important point is that,
fundamentally the new population is totally different in its quality of
structures. As I said, the demographic cliff—and demographic cliff
means that, in the most technical sense of the term, refers to the abrupt
decrease in the size of the working class. So, we have experienced [that]
00:14:24
00:15:49
the annual decrease in working age population of 300,000 persons will
bring [us] to 5.45 million in 2040.
The worst phenomena of this is the abrupt decrease [of population] in
the age of mid-40’s and late-40’s. And this slide shows the abrupt
decrease of the population in their mid, late-40’s. This is the…between
2016 and 2040. And over the past half year, the size of population under
30’s has been rapidly decreasing. The left graph shows that in the 1990s,
under 30’s makes up over almost 60%—that is these areas. And in 1990,
[the] under 30’s population is…makes up 57% of [the] total population.
But at the, in 2014, the size is almost half at just 25%. That is the
demographic change of Seoul in the first part.
Changing Concept of a Family: Atomised City
And second, a new household will arise. In other words, single or two-
person household is popular. And I will show that in 2040, the
population of the household—and there are many numbers, the
population, the household after many numbers—[we are] hoping 2.6
million are single or two-person household[s].
It is [the] emergence of a new population, and this slide shows the rapid
cluster of single person household[s]; [the] left graph shows the
increasing rate of single-person household[s]. In the 1980’s, the
[percentage of] single-person households [was] just under 5%—4.5% of
1980’s. But at the year of 2015, the size increased to 30% and the ratio
of one-person households in Seoul and nation has increased [by] more
than five-fold over the 30 years. And one-person households
constituted, as I said just before, below 5% in the 1950’s. But [in the]
1950’s, the size increased to 30% and that is implicating [sic implying]
that one-third of the household can be regarded as home-aloners.
And this, in other words, [means that] Seoul in the future, will be an
atomised city. And this graph shows that the household type, [the]
typical household type, and most families [with] one or two children as
00:17:47
00:19:10
of the 2000’s, their portion is almost 50%. But at the year of 2035, that
portion is cut in half.
These demographic changes forced us to introducing [sic introduce] a
new concept of family. The family concept is changing and those are the
demographic features of our society. And second, this slide [is] related
to the low birth rate. In Seoul, [the] total birth rate, that means the
number of births the average woman will have over the lifetime, is under
1.0. And Seoul is [sic has] the lowest birth rate among the cities in Seoul
[sic Korea] and it's another emerging issue in Seoul.
And the number of fertile-aged women in Seoul has rapidly decreased.
So as the demographic features, first one is the population structure is
changing; and second, is the household concept is changing; and third,
[someone in their] 50’s is [sic will soon be] regarded as a young person.
Issue: The Super-Ageing Society
By 2040, [the] median age will be 52 years old. By right, as I said at the
year 2040, the population size reaches nine million and we… by running
the nine million people in a single page, we can say that the middle age
is 52 years old. So even as they are having grey hairs, they will not be
regarded as old anymore. So that is…and the median age 52 is related
to the ageing, super-ageing society and so Seoul, the ageing society will
arrive sooner or later.
And another problem is the elder[ly citizens] living alone in Seoul. This
graph, this map shows that the elderly [citizens] living alone, percent of
living alone by district. And sooner or later, we will be the [sic a] hyper-
ageing society. And those are the demographic features of Seoul, and
within a decade or two decades, the humanscape of Seoul will be totally
different—where people live longer and the ageing issues, and the low
birth rate issues [are] the demographic feature[s] of Seoul.
00:20:31
Seoul City’s Social Concern: Happiness
Okay, let's move [on] to social issues in Seoul. As we all know, we have
experienced rapid development and the speed of urbanization. And so,
because of the unified urbanisation, because of that, social values
disappeared and social conflict[s are] emerging. It's in our societies. And
so decreased interpersonal relations and reduced social trust is
prevalent in our cities and because of that, [a] relatively high rate of
suicide and low birth rate is prevalent in our society. It is a social issue in
our cities.
And another issue in Seoul is social integration. And this graph shows
the income level and the education level [of our citizens]. And in our city,
income and education inequality is emerging and [differs] by districts,
for example, you know the Gangnam. Gangnam is the richest district in
Seoul and Gangnam’s education level is relatively high. For example,
[for] bachelor's degrees, [the] portion of bachelor degrees [from
Gangnam] is almost 50%. But [the] Gangbuk area is the lowest income
cities [sic area], [where the] average income is lowest and the education
level is half compared to Gangnam. It’s another inequality problem, and
[be]cause of that social integration is [an] emerging issue.
And another inequality issue is hierarchical ladder anxiety. People in
Seoul don't think that Seoul is not anymore [a] hope[ful] society. And
[the]possibility of class mobility—this graph shows that—the possibility
of class mobility is lower and lower by year. And just around 35% of
people think that it is possible to move up [to be part of the] upper class
in this society.
There is a big problem in our society, and so the public policy or public
agent and civic government’s aim is to raise the citizens’ happiness. And
this map shows the happiness map—we call it happiness map of Seoul—
by categories and there, we recognise that there's a disparity or
inequality in happiness score by district.
00:23:25
00:24:11
And so, generally there is a correlation between income and happiness.
By the way, after certain levels, this is the correlation between [the]
income level, GDP [gross domestic product] level and happiness score.
It is a world…global word. And so, generally as I said, income and GDP
and happiness score is correlated. But by the way, after certain levels of
that—of the level of the income—happiness score does not increase as
much as income [is] increased. We call it the Easterlin’s Paradox.
Happiness Analysis & Study of Seoul City
And I want to tell [sic talk about] another part of the happiness—the
correlation between happiness and age issues. As I said before, Seoul is
facing the [risk of becoming a] super-ageing society, we are transitioning
toward that. And the World Happiness Report published by the UN
[United Nations]—UN published the Happiness Report from 2012 and
the World Happiness Report said that the happiness score by age
show[s] typically a U-shape pattern. And in other words, early ages [are]
the stages [where they] feel they are happier. But in the mid-ages,
exactly the age is 46 years old, 46 years old is the desperate age, and
they are the unhappy and totally unhappy. But year by year, in the senior
period, almost [all] people start to feel happier than ever before.
We call it [a] U-shape pattern, and [the] U-shape pattern has appeared
all around the world. But… and so there's no evidence of U-shape
pattern in Seoul. In their 50’s and their 60’s, there is [actually] a drastic
drop of the happiness score as there are problems in our society—our
aging societies—and this is the problem of our society, and we should
have some actions for [addressing] that.
And so, I conducted an analysis: what are the key factors to [sic that]
impact the citizens’ happiness score in Seoul? I have many analyses and
as a result, the end result, I will briefly explain [them]. According to OLS
[Ordinary Least Squares] [regression] model, [the] socio-economic
factors [that] explain the increasing happiness score [are] ageing and
income. And age factor could explain the happiness of people; and age
00:26:27
factor’s impact was negatively [sic negative]—as I said in Seoul—and
income factor is [able to impact] positively.
And [the] state mobility variable means the possibility of future hope, so
that variable affects significantly the happiness score, that implies very
important policy implications. Why we should, why the urban
government should [be] involved in the topic of social integration as
important issues, and to solve the social inequality problems.
And social capital factors could explain the happiness score: trust—
neighbourhood trust or government trust [could] affect significantly the
happiness score; and regional identity also affects significantly the
happiness score of the citizen.
This is part of my presentation in our joint research, we co-researched
on those citizens’ participation and in my presentation, I talked about
the democratic changes and the social issues in Seoul. And we
conducted a survey—a citizen survey, and we asked how [will] Seoul [be]
in 2040? And people replied [that the] future of Seoul will be diverse,
but social and economic polarisation and unfairness will still reign
supreme as key social issues now and in the future.
As a result of that survey and people looking at my presentation, I stress
on the Mayor Park’s vision. Mayor Park’s main policy stress[es] on the
urban inclusiveness and the inclusive growth—inclusive growth is the
vision of Mayor Park’s administration. For the implementing [of]
inclusive growth of Seoul, the role of social capital, based on my analysis,
is so important to reach that goal. Citizen participation is the major
factor in the area of social capital. Paradigm shift[s] to citizen
participation is ongoing. This is the story of my presentation. Thank you
for your attention. Thank you. (Applause).
Mr Remy Guo 00:29:02
So this is the second joint research project between the CLC and SI. The
project focuses on examining the approaches to citizen participation in
planning. We looked at several case studies from both cities, and from
00:29:13
there lessons are distilled from both cities’ experiences, on how citizens
can be involved in urban planning and development processes.
Dr Hyunchan Ahn 00:29:23
The research team of CLC and SI, visited the relevant cases, site locations
in each city to deepen our understanding of each other’s context and
approach to citizen participation. We didn’t know each other well, so
when I was in Singapore on [sic in] December of last year with my team,
I felt that the weather was hot at the time, and discussion with your
committee was harder than your weather, yeah.
And our friends from the Singapore agencies for example, HDB and PA
and MCCY [Ministry for Culture, Community and Youth], joined the CLC
for a study trip to Seoul on [sic in] February of this year. And we also
tried to reach out beyond the research team and engaged other experts,
and the practitioners and citizen volunteers through the roundtables
and interviews. So I can say, I think, this publication that we have today
is not solely the efforts of CLC and SI, but the product of everyone who
has contributed their experience[s], ideas and perspectives on
participatory planning in Singapore and Seoul. So, I can find someone in
the audience, so I [would like to express my appreciation to] all of them
again.
Mr Remy Guo 00:30:55
So just to give you an overview of the case studies, we organised them
into different scales and context, ranging from town-level rejuvenation
plans, neighborhood-level planning initiatives, major developments and
existing communities; to programmes that are targeted at smaller scale
projects to encourage community participation and ownership.
And aside from these case studies, we also studied the urban planning
frameworks, as well as the system of local community organisations in
both cities. This allowed us to better understand the context in Seoul
and Singapore, and consequently the kind of differences in approaches
in both cities towards citizen participation in planning.
00:31:37
Research Findings: Two Key Questions
And so, as for the research findings, we actually distilled the case studies
based on two key questions: First is how governance and planning
framework can facilitate community involvement. Regardless of whether
citizen participation is facilitated by the government or through bottom-
up initiatives, public policies and planning systems will have a
fundamental impact on creating room for citizens to contribute to
planning and development processes.
The second question examines how community involvement can
generate better outcomes. Good outcomes from community
engagement do not happen by chance. To produce constructive and
inclusive outcomes that contribute positively to the plan and
development, the engagement process needs to be well-curated and
well-designed.
Now we'd like to share with you briefly, some of the lessons under these
two key questions.
Dr Hyunchan Ahn 00:32:33
I think that before citizen participation in urban planning, we have to
create a system that aligns the various stakeholders within the
government. Such coordination is especially crucial in macro-level
planning or the large-scaled community developments.
So, Our Tampines Hub [OTH] in Singapore is a good example of how 12
different agencies came together to meet various residents to create a
town-level community hub. My colleagues and I visited the OTH
yesterday, and I could see the very impressive and well-integrated public
programmes, which are oriented by the agencies.
Mr Remy Guo 00:33:20
So next, the relevance of urban planning to citizens actually increases as
one moves down the various layers of planning. The more local the scale,
the more residents can relate to the plans. The experience of both
Singapore and Seoul shows that incorporating more detailed local plans
00:33:37
within the overall planning framework can create more opportunities for
community involvement. For example, in Seoul, the city government
actually divided the whole city into 116 local communities. Detailed
plans were developed with inputs from residents, and local community
plans also served as intermediate plans to coordinate between the
overall Seoul master plan and the urban management plans, which are
used for detailed implementation.
Next is working with existing residential organizations. Well-established
resident organizations often form the heart of the community. They
anchor extensive networks within the community and possess a wealth
of knowledge on the local neighborhoods. Existing resident
organizations are therefore important partners for community planning.
One very good example is the Gyeongui Line Forest Park, which is an
urban park created from the former rail line in Seoul. So essentially, it is
Seoul’s version of Singapore’s Rail Corridor.
Following its completion, the Seoul Metropolitan Government actually
set up a Community Council, from existing communities and resident
organizations. And this council actually oversees the maintenance and
vibrancy of the public space. This encouraged a greater sense of
ownership by the communities, and allowed local solutions to be
customized to local needs.
Dr Hyunchan Ahn 00:35:04
Making the planning process easier can help to attract the wider and
more diverse participants. It makes the planners incorporate
perspectives that may otherwise be missing in [the] planning process
and ensures the inclusiveness in planning outcomes. For this to happen,
the engagement platform, the method and the contents should be
made as accessible as possible.
For example, the rail corridor in Singapore benefited from the diverse
range of engagement platform set up by the URA. I heard that the five-
year engagement efforts involved site walks, idea competitions and
00:35:54
community dialogues to reach out to various interest groups and
understand their needs.
Mr Remy Guo 00:36:00
So, another factor that we thought was very important in community
engagement is the involvement of experts. While communities possess
in-depth local knowledge, especially on their own neighborhoods,
residents often do not have the technical skills to translate that
knowledge into feasible solutions. Involving these experts and
community engagement processes can help bridge the gap between local
needs on the ground and broader planning considerations. Experts can
also provide more objective and professional perspectives that balance
the diverse voices within the community.
For example, the Vibrant Community Center in Seoul, aims to create
resident run community spaces in the dong-office [동 or
neighbourhood] building—which is the local neighborhood public
administration office in Seoul. So this programme actually involves social
architects to work together with the community, to create shared space
solutions that address the needs and concerns of various parties.
Mutually agreeable and beneficial spaces were then created through
this collaboration between the experts and community stakeholders.
But all having said that, not issues at the local level actually require
government or even expert intervention.
Actually, given the right kind of skills and social connections, there is often
scope for communities to develop their own solutions especially for less
complex day-to-day issues. Seoul’s approach, and in particular to
community development, emphasises on the importance of giving
citizens decision-making powers and resources.
One very good example is the dong-level community planning—which is
the neighborhood planning programme in Seoul—that aims to
empower communities to solve their own problems. So residents are
actually given authority to decide on certain community-level issues and
00:37:58
this eventually helped to encourage them to build up the community
planning capabilities over time.
Dr Hyunchan Ahn 00:38:04
Nowadays, I think the physical improvement is not the only goal of
planning and development. With successful participation, committees
can build a stronger social bond and mutual trusts in applying planning
process[es].
In Singapore, HDB's Building Our Neighbourhood’s Dreams [BOND]
initiative—its short form—[was] introduced as the part of the NRP
[Neighbourhood Renewal Programme]. [It] uses a little bit different
[and] deeper engagement activities to identify the kind of community
activities and infrastructure upgrades [required] with the residents.
This kind of process achieved not just physical improvements, but also
social outcomes. 18% of resident participants said that they got to
understand the concerns and ideas of other neighbours, and another
18% remarked that they got know new neighbours and new friends from
the workshop.
Panel and Q&A Segment
Dr Limin Hee 00:39:10
So perhaps Miree, you could first share with us on why the Seoul
Metropolitan Government places so much emphasis on involving citizens
in its policy-making processes?
Dr Miree Byun 00:39:26
In my presentation, I stressed on the paradigm shift of Seoul and so,
[the] first reason is the population changes and social changes pushes
the city government towards the citizens’ participation. And so the city
government should adapt to the change and their administration is
changing towards participatory governance—[that] is one reason.
And [the] second reason is the role of Mayor Park. Mayor Park is our
current city mayor, and he’s [a] former civil activist and so, he knew—
he knew well the power of citizen participation. So after taking the office
as a mayor of Seoul, he established many organizations related to the
citizens’ participation. That’s the second reason, I think.
Dr Limin Hee 00:40:26
We have heard also quite a bit from Seoul, let's now hear some of the
Singapore perspective. The People’s Association has served to connect
the government with the people since the early days.
Ms. Foo, could you share with us, on why involving citizens in creating
community spaces, like community centers is so crucial for the PA?
Ms Foo Soon Leng 00:40:52 00:41:28
The PA was established by our founding father, Mr. Lee Kuan Yew in
1960, with the mission in promoting racial harmony and social cohesion
for a multiracial Singapore. So the Community Centres [CC] were built
with the involvement of the citizens to engender a sense of belonging
to the community. The community also raised funds to cost-share 10%
of the construction cost to instill a greater sense of community
ownership.
Community Infrastructure & Bonding
The PA[‘s] role in building community bonding is relevant and important
in today’s context; so do the CC[s] and RC [Resident’s Committee]
00:41:36
Centre[s], in widening the PA[‘s] network outreach and engagement of
residents [to] build trust in the community. And the CCs and RCs provide
a common community space for people of different background[s],
different races, religion and age, to come together to interact and bond.
So the community centre and RC also served as the…served to connect
the people to the people, people to the government and government to
the people; and strengthening, strengthen the connection between the
people and the government.
So the building of community infrastructure, small and large—small
ones, like the RC center of only 160 square metres, large ones, like the
Tampines, Our Tampines Hub of 120,000 square metres is a process to
bond the people and build communit[ies]. The community ownership
therefore is set as the strategic objective of PA for all the building and
upgrading of its infrastructure, its community infrastructure.
The Tampines hub is a pilot of the hundred…of a large-scale lifestyle
integrated hub, bringing 12 multi-agencies to provide service[s] and
facility[ies] to Tampines residents. The name of the Our Tampines Hub
itself mean[s] that the integrated hub is planned by the people, built and
for the people of Tampines. [This is] in line with the strategy set by the
grassroots advisors and PA management in 2010, when the town hub
concept was initiated.
First, OTH is anchored…First the OTH is anchored on a very sound vision
and strategy: to build a resident centric integrated hub for the people of
Tampines Hub [sic]. Residents’ centricity [and to] engender community
ownership are the two key strategies set for OTH development.
Dr Limin Hee 00:44:08
So Eileen, perhaps you can share with us on HDB's perspective on
community development and involvement when rejuvenating the spaces.
Ms Eileen Neo 00:44:19
I think for HDB the two key motivating factors for us to want to involve
the community in our rejuvenation programmes is really firstly, I think
after pumping in so much resources and time in our rejuvenation
00:44:27
programme, what we want is really, [is for] the spaces and the facilities
that we provide under the programmes to be well-utilised and [that] it's
relevant for the community.
So I think to achieve that, it's really important that we actually involve
the people on the ground, because I think they are the people that know
the needs and the issues on the ground better. And secondly, I think for
HDB, with 80%, or more than 80% of the residents living in HDB flats,
it’s…our role goes beyond just being a housing provider, a provider of
flats, we want to build communities as well.
So I think it was shown earlier in one of the BOND…the BOND project,
really the outcome for us is not just about the infrastructure or the
facilities, but to build communities through the process. And because
we believe that through participatory planning, it is really a very
powerful tool and a good platform to bring the residents together.
I think through the discussions, focus group discussions and design
workshops et cetera, they can actually come together, talk about their
local issues, understand each other's perspective and hopefully they can
actually come out to see the better good. So, I think that’s really the two
motivating factors for HDB.
Dr Limin Hee 00:45:40
So other than this dedicated community spaces, like community centres
and community places in HDB, Singapore is also increasingly focusing on
providing good quality public spaces for the people. And one of the
major public space projects in the pipeline is the Rail Corridor.
So See Nin, could you tell us more about this project and how URA worked
with the community in planning the Rail Corridor?
Mr Tan See Nin 00:46:12
First, I’ll give a quick introduction of the Rail Corridor. Most of us already
know about the Rail Corridor. It’s 24 kilometres long, generally refers to
a land that was returned by Malaysia to Singapore on 1st July 2011.
00:46:24
What you may not know however, is that there are one million people
who live within one kilometre of the Rail Corridor. Now obviously, there
are also many employment places near the Rail Corridor. There are a lot
of parks, recreational areas and there are 58 educational institutions in
close proximity to the Rail Corridor and that's really exciting.
Because if you think about the Rail Corridor a legacy infrastructure,
really the beneficiaries of this Rail Corridor is really these young people
and students in the schools. Now, how do we do public engagement? I
would say that we did not instigate public engagement initially. What
happened, I'll have to go back to a little bit of history because back in, I
think it was, May 2010, the two prime ministers of Singapore and
Malaysia announced that the issues with regards of the return of the
land to Singapore, the KTM [Keretapi Tanah Melayu] land was resolved
and the land would be returned on 1st July 2011.
And that got a lot of people interested in the future of the Rail Corridor,
in particular, the nature lovers and we have to thank the Nature Society
for that. Because within a couple of days, they already wrote a letter to
the newspaper and said look, we should keep the Rail Corridor—that
means don’t develop on it, don’t sell it, don’t cut it into pieces, just leave
it as a green corridor.
And four months later, they came up with a report to the ministry and
said the same thing—basically keep it as a nature corridor. We didn’t say
anything for a long time, because you know between May 2010 and July
2011, it wasn’t our land, right? And obviously, there’s some negotiations
going on for the details of the handover and so it wasn’t appropriate for
us to really jump in.
But as time goes on, there were more people writing in to us about,
“What are your plans for the Rail Corridor?” So we decided to take the
two-prong approach. One, was that we decided to call up those people
who wrote in to the press and we just want[ed] to meet up with them—
00:48:20
some of these people we’re not familiar with—so we wanted to chat with
them and see what are their views and wanted to assure them that
actually we have no plans for the Rail Corridor. No firm definitive plans,
right? That was important.
And we told them that there’ll be a period of public engagement, and in
fact I should also mention that May 2011 was a watershed year—
election year, right? And we were more than willing to listen after that
election. And so we tell them that, “Look, we want to go through a
period of public engagement, and we want to hear ideas from people
on what are their views. So come and join us.”
We decided to form a group called the Rail Corridor Consultation Group.
So we invited members from the Nature Society, we had the blogger,
we have a[n] avid cyclist, we have, you know, we have I think, there was
a butterfly expert as well.
So a number of these people, we invited them on to this Rail Corridor
Consultation Group chaired by Minister of State, Tan Chuan-Jin, at that
point in time. And essentially, this group was to help us chart public
engagement and plans for the Rail Corridor over the next few years.
The other prong we took was, we decided to go out and meet people, to
hear what people has to say about the Rail Corridor because we realized
that not everyone has been to the Rail Corridor. So we decided to set up
a website—I don't know whether I can work this...yup—so we set up a
website ourselves where we could able to post information about the
Corridor, what’s coming up. We asked people to post their pictures,
their ideas and in fact, we made it a very interactive website through the
help of one of the members of the Rail Corridor Partnership.
We decided to use, what we call a user-voice platform, where people
could actually vote on the ideas that people have posted and they could
also, you know, comment [on] other people's ideas, right. So we did a
number of things, we had a lot of walks. A lot of people had not been to
00:50:10
the Rail Corridor. So every time we had a community workshop, we
organised walks, and the main idea really was to find out from them:
What is your feeling about the Rail Corridor after the walk? What do you
like about it? What do you not like about it? What do you think about
the landscape? Do you feel threatened by the landscape? Some people
are actually threatened by the landscape, you know, too much tall grass,
for instance. What do you think about the trail? Do you think it should
be improved, you know?
So the idea was to get people to be emotionally connected with the
place, right? And that helps us a lot because it gives us a sense of what
people value as far as the Rail Corridor is concerned, and that
subsequently helped us very much in translating [these ideas in]to a set
of urban design guidelines, planning design guidelines for the RFP
[request for proposal] which I will talk about later on, maybe.
Dr Limin Hee 00:50:56
It’s interesting to note that Seoul, as you have seen in the earlier case
studies presented, also has a disused rail line, the Gyeongui Line, which
has been…I can never say that properly, which has been converted into
a public park.
So, in this case, Hyunchan and Chang Yi, perhaps you could tell us more
about this project and how the SMG [Seoul Metropolitan Government]
had been involved, had involved the communities in this process?
Dr Chang YI 00:51:41
Airport Man here, helping out. (Some laughter among audience)
Gyeongui Line, the project itself can be, kind of divided into two
segments of period. One is before Mayor Park and then after [the]
current Mayor Park inaugurated.
So before Mayor Park was in place in City Hall, you know, we had many
plans for facilities, bike lanes or a sports facility and so forth. So there
are not really, you know, many [sic much] room for the residents to
enjoy in Gyeongui Line Project.
So then Mayor Park came in and saw how the project was going and he
felt that well, this is not the way we should go, let’s, kind of, you know,
00:53:00 take the facilities away. So that, let’s make [the] park first and then later,
the residents or citizens can fill in the programme[s] by themselves.
So, after the park was completed, you know, in a nutshell gentrification
happened. Real estate prices going [sic went] up, waste problem, many
people coming into people’s residential communities, making noises
and so forth. So and there were civil complaints and we are not
hesitative—Koreans you know—Seoul citizens especially. We don’t
hesitate to complain, to call and make civil complaints. So, you know,
mayors and city officials, they kind of established or organised a citizen
kind of committee for making this Gyeongui Line better place for
communit[ies to live in].
Dr Limin Hee 00:54:16
Okay, in the example shared so far, we have seen that the governments
in both Seoul and Singapore have been working very hard to create
more opportunities for community involvement.
So Miree, I’m going to ask you, from what you have been very actively
talking about, collecting feedback from residents for policymaking
purposes, could you share with us more about this and how citizens
inputs are translated into action?
Dr Miree Byun 00:54:50
We all know that nowadays the evidence-based policy decision or
evidence-based policy process is very important. And so I want to tell
you about a real brief explanation of Seoul’s survey. Seoul’s survey is a
huge scale of urban policy indicator systems. It is composed of 12 areas,
42 topics and almost composed of over 200 indicators. And two-thirds
is updated by administrative data and then one-third is collected
through the citizen survey.
And that survey is conducted to 20,000 households, and in each
household [the respondents are] either eight years old or over, and the
total number of samples [in the] survey is over almost 50,000 people.
Every year we update the data and based on the data analysis, [we can
figure out] which policies impact on citizens, which areas relatively, has
00:56:10
the least problems and the level of happiness score, and which district
has more problems than other cities.
So, Seoul’s survey is the reference, or reference indicator and
representatives in Seoul are using that data and so, Seoul has
the…Seoul’s policy, the system[‘s] impact on the policy, is a kind of
evidence-based policy process.
Dr Limin Hee 00:56:49
Seoul’s innovative ways of reaching out to citizens are indeed very
refreshing. There have also been several programmes introduced
recently in Seoul, to increase citizen participation at local level planning.
So Hyunchan and Chang Yi, can you share more about these?
Dr Chang Yi 00:57:14
So with all those programmes, let’s kind of focus on local community
planning and dong-level community planning.
So before the two plans, our master plan called, “Seoul Plan 2030” was
the first master plan in [the] big city with citizen participation as the core
element. But there, you know, it generate[d] more homework to realise
the visions that was put forth by our Seoul Plan 2030.
So we have in the very lower level, we have what is called Urban
Management Planning. It deals with the shape of architecture and, you
know, where cars can get in and so forth—a kind of detailed plan—it is
called the Urban Management Plan. Now [that] we have a Seoul Plan
2030 Master Plan, you know, we had to have something in between that
is a local community plan.
So Seoul divided that whole area into 116 local communities, and we
held workshops in every…at every of those small districts. So [the] local
community plan is [something] in between a master plan and the very
lower-level kind of plan[s]. Dong-level plan is something different. We
have more than 400 dongs in Seoul—[they make up the] very smallest
unit, administrative unit in Seoul. And Mayor Park, before he became
Mayor he was a civil activist and he always emphasized, kind of a very
00:59:39
lower level participatory plan at a very small scale kind of unit. And that
was the dong-level plan.
So from 2012 we are witnessing about 5000, you know, small kind of
community groups who are eager to participate in very low-level kind[s]
of plan[s]. So those thoughts, you know, those participants, we will say
[were] not an average citizen in Seoul. They were very active—if not an
activist—[and they were] eager to participate in any [of the] planning
activities in Seoul.
So from 2015, [the] Seoul Metropolitan Government finally got up and
said, “Well, you should be part of our inclusive planning process within
this kind of institutionalised set up planning process within Seoul
Metropolitan Government.”
So from each dong, we would say on average, about 100 people are now
participating in dong-level planning and they're on their way, the
planning is underway. So then [the] homework would be that Seoul
Master Plan 2030 and local community plan—those are a kind of
statutory plan[ning], legally-binding kind of planning—but dong-level
plans are not statutory planning. It’s not required, nobody is required to
follow any of the proposals in there, but our homework in SI—which,
you know, is making our life kind of difficult—is that we have to, kind of,
be inclusive to try to [include] dong-level plans in the institutionalised
process, so that the Master Plan and local community plan[s] and dong-
level plan[s] would be kind of aligned based on an institution, [and]
should be recognized by the law.
Dr Limin Hee 01:02:28
And Ms. Foo, Our Tampines Hub has been very successful with strong
resident involvement. What do you think are some of the important
factors that contributed to the success of this engagement process?
Ms Foo Soon Leng 01:02:42
Okay, the OTH, Our Tampines Hub, is fortunate to have five grassroots
advisor[s] as the champion[s] for this resident-centric development. And
also, the PA senior management set the leadership for the [project]
because we are [sic were] involving multi-agency [collaboration]. So the
01:03:08
PA Chief Executive Director chair[ed] a steering committee to ensure
that decisions are [sic were] made collectively at the Steering
Committee meetings; and then the Steering Committee met quarterly,
regularly up to the completion—from the planning to the completion of
the projects, okay.
And in 2011, one year into the planning of the OTH, the grassroots
advisor[s] and PA management decided to defer the finalisation of the
concept plan [and] the design, to incorporate [and] to conduct [a] very
extensive community engagement programme to solicit views [and]
feedback from the resident[s].
Through one year of very extensive community engagement in many
channel[s]—for example, we conducted face-to-face interviews at many
of the roadshow in Tampines, phone survey[s] were conducted with the
resident[s], feedback was obtained from many block part[ies] organised
by the RCs in Tampines; [and] there were also focus group discussion[s]
chaired by the five grassroots advisor[s] where resident[s] gave their
input on their wish, their idea, their aspiration on five theme[s], which
are: Active Tampines, Caring Tampines, Green, Creative and Learning
Tampines.
And the PA and the project team, the grassroots leader[s], the
advisor[s], took it very seriously—that feedback and input from the
resident. Okay, so more importantly, the feedback from the resident[s]
on [sic through] the resident engagement were implemented and
changes were made to the plan for the OTH. For example, we added
facilities and services such as the hawker centre, medical facility,
performing arts theatres and also senior care centre to the OTH in 2012.
That means that we had to redesign, replan the whole of OTH and also,
the other thing is that, we also took very seriously the concern[s] of the
resident[s]. When the resident feedback that they are very concerned
about replacement of the jogging track in the stadium, our grassroots
01:06:14
leader and staff visited the user of the existing sport complex and found
out what their concerns [were]. And we found that it’s not that the
jogging track that they miss. Actually, they were very concerned that we
will not provide rubberised jogging track floo—flooring and marker on
the track which will be built on the roof, where when you jog, you have
shade, you can have very good view. And then their suggestions were
incorporated in[to] the design.
We also [added] in many parking, bicycle lots to the development at
convenient locations of…at the entrance of, various entrance of OTH.
The building was, the OTH was built in four phases. An annex was even
added in to house more cycling parking lot[s], showering facility[ies],
[and] lockers for the cyclists under the phase four construction.
That was already in 2015. So the key factor is that we are prepared to
take into consideration feedback from the resident[s], feedback from
the community and change our plan to meet the needs and aspirations
of the community. And then this built trust of the community and then
more feedback were put forward to us.
Then there was also a suggestion to provide linkage of OTH to the
Tampines Central Park at grade. It was a suggestion from the Re-imagine
Tampines study. Actually, HDB was already building a road cutting
through the park. We made a decision, [and] decide[d] to truncate the
road and then incorporate the pedestrian link between OTH and Central
Park.
This actually improved the connectivity of the resident from the other
part of the HDB estate to the OTH. We are very happy that we made
that decision, you know, although it involve a lot of hassle with the
planning authority. The planning authority, URA, LTA, HDB, SLA
[Singapore Land Authority] really gave us a lot of help to facilitate these
changes. I’m very appreciative of their help.
Dr Limin Hee 01:09:09
So now that we see that aside from creating opportunities for [the]
community to be involved, good outcomes from the involvement
process do not come by accident. And Eileen, HDB has been
experimenting with various ways to bring the community on board for
the rejuvenation of neighborhoods.
Can you perhaps share with us some of your experience in this aspect?
Ms Eileen Neo 01:09:35
I think indeed in recent years, HDB has indeed intensified engagement
processes for several of our rejuvenation programs, for example, our
Remaking our Heartlands, as well as the neighborhood renewal
program. Maybe I will just share two examples, two projects.
So the first one is, I think, BOND, Building Our Neighborhoods’ Dream.
We actually injected this BOND process into our existing neighborhood
renewal project, programme. So what happened is we actually bring
forward our engagement up front, where we actually understand, we
try to understand the aspirations of the residents in the neighborhood.
And [by] knowing and understanding, by understanding their
aspirations, we then try to do up the design.
So in the past we would actually design first, you know, then we would
just engage the residents or, you know, do you like option one or two.
But right now is we would actually bring forward the engagement,
understand their aspirations and actually try to accommodate their
needs and any issues actually in the plan itself, right.
And I think in terms of outcome and under that project we usually can
reach out to about five to 600 residents, through various means. And I
think based on, in terms of outcome, I think what’s gratifying is as high
as I think 97%, based on our survey, actually they all look forward to the
facilities that will be put up and they say that they will actually use it. So
that’s actually important for us.
01:10:56
The other project is the Hello Neighbour project, Social Linkway
Concept, which we actually piloted together with NUS [National
University of Singapore]. I think Prof. Cho [Im Sik] is here, our partner.
We actually piloted this project in Tampines Central. What happened is
actually based on our research, I think, link-ways, these are actually
usually the walkways or covered walkways that residents will usually use
to go from one place to another place—for example to go from their
flats to the market—and they’re very heavily utilised. But sadly,
community interactions actually do not happen because they are all
incidental occurrences and all that. So they don’t really interact with
their neighbours.
So what we wanted to do was to add social spaces along this link-ways,
so that residents will actually stop by, you know, linger and they can
actually talk to each other. So we actually reached out to about more
than 1,500 residents through various means. Again, you know, we held
pop-up sessions, workshops, I don’t have slides, but this is actually one
of the workshops that we conducted with the residents, and yeah, focus
group discussions as well. And through interactive walls at the void
decks as well to reach out to the residents.
So I think we are happy that this small…in the end actually what they
need is actually very small interventions, like maybe converting a nearby
void deck into a café. I think what’s…why we’re glad is, these small
interventions actually have created I think a very big impact on the
ground, for example, a cafe that we added at the void deck, I think right
now, some 50 to 60 residents actually patronise that cafe daily. And
maybe because this is actually what they want, and they actually…we
also see a very high level of ownership, they actually help to maintain
the place, you know, they hold potluck sessions there every day, and
actually seniors are also telling us that, one senior was telling me that
she has been living in the neighborhood for 20 years and she probably
in the past only knew about three to five neighbors. But right now,
01:12:47
because with the café, which she actually patronises everyday, she now
gets to know about 30 to 40 neighbours, yeah.
So I think, these are the small interventions that has, I think, bring about
a big impact[s] in the community that we are grateful [for].
Dr Limin Hee 01:13:00
And See Nin, perhaps you could share how you got some of these good
outcomes from the Rail Corridor engagement process.
Mr Tan See Nin 01:13:06
I mentioned earlier about various public engagement we did, you know.
We did ideas competition[s], we had workshops—in fact, we thought
the conversation was too skewed towards nature, greenery and all that.
So what about, you know, other people? Are they interested in using the
Rail Corridor for other purposes, for instance?
So at one stage, we even approached Singapore Amateur Athletic
Association and said, “Hey, you guys why don’t you organize a national
cross-country run along the Rail Corridor?” And it didn’t happen. So it
didn’t happen, so we talked to the Singapore Sports Council then and
said, could you just introduce some event organizers that we can talk to
and get them to be interested to do some events along the Rail Corridor.
But we managed to talk to a person called Ben Williams and this guy, I
think he’s new to Singapore. He was quite eager to organize a run and
that was the first green corridor run, and he had 6,000 runners the first
time round. And you know, subsequently 8,000 and maybe even 10,000,
right.
So the idea was actually, you know, we had to go out and actually that
gave us very good ideas on what you can do with the Corridor. But from
all this input actually, what happens is that we are able to understand
people’s aspirations better—what they value. And the practical thing
about that is to translate that into what are design and planning goals,
as you develop the master plan and design the Rail Corridor.
And all those things that they’ve been telling us, the hundreds of things,
we distilled them to nine planning and design goals—which is all there,
01:14:38
right. And one of the things that stood out for us actually and we didn’t
think about it originally when we started was that, we think this Rail
Corridor should really be an inclusive space, not just for nature lovers.
If you look at the middle photograph, that is the picture taken during the
first Rail Corridor run. And those people running then, with [the] ropes,
are blind people. They ran the entire route from Tanjong Pagar railway
station to Bukit Timah railway station, about 11 plus km and they were
blind, you know. So we spoke to the organizers after a while and said,
“Look how did they feel about it? Was there any major accidents, you
know?”
They said, no. These people enjoyed themselves very much because
while they cannot see, they can smell, they can hear the birds, they can
hear the wind among the trees and all that. And that was really
exhilarating for them, they really enjoyed it.
And subsequently, we even did community workshops. We decided why
not we bring people on wheelchairs down to the Rail Corridor, and it
was very tough. It was very, very tough. You can’t, you can’t push them.
You can, but they can't go very far. So we had a community workshop
and said, “Look, you know, [do] you think we should design this Rail
Corridor for you as well?” They said, “Yes, you should, you should not
forget us. But we are realistic people, you know, we are not Para-
Olympians. We are not going to go up the Rail Corridor for 24 kilometres
in a wheelchair. You just need to provide a short segment for us to enjoy.
In fact, if you can find a high point where I can perch myself and look
down at people enjoying the Rail Corridor, that’s good enough for me.”
See?
So they are realistic. So that brings me to the next point about, you
know, conflicts. Some of the things that we worried about in the
community workshops and public engagements was: What if there are
01:16:16
dissenting views? You know, we have people who hate our plans. You
know they really hate it, and there are people who love it.
But when we call a community workshops, they enroll. They are the first
people to say, I want to come. They put in the website, they enroll. I
remember a conversation I had with my staff, said “Hey should we invite
this guy? Or just tell him it’s full, no need to come.” But what happened
is that he turned up and he waxed lyrical, you know, about the birds you
can see along the Rail Corridor and you shouldn’t do anything to the Rail
Corridor. Just keep it the way it is. The more difficult to walk the better
it is, so people walk slowly and can enjoy the place.
And the community workshop includes different people and there were
uncles and aunties there. And they look at him and said, “Hey, look at all
the tall grass! Got snake or not, you know?” So it's not so simple, there
are other dissenting views that you know, you have to take care of the
environment as well. It has to be safe. While you wax lyrical about the
animals and birds and all that, we want to use the place but we want to
be assured it is safe. So essentially it is a design issue, you know. How do
you design a place that you know, that you can have cake and eat it. So
those are the interesting things.
Dr Chang Yi 01:17:38
So from all these participatory planning efforts from Seoul Metropolitan
Government, the city kind of decided that we were going to set up and
support [a] kind of intermediary organisation connecting [the] Seoul City
Government and the community.
And they’re helping out, it has been you know in had started a few
months ago or maybe a year, so it is in the process—not yet the final
outcome—but we are really excited to see how it is going to turn out.
But the decision that supports something like [an] intermediary
organization, an expert a civil activist connecting city government and
community—it makes easier to communicate, it makes [it] easier to, you
know, get the plan realised in real communities.
AUD1 01:18:38
My name is Si Cheng, I am from the Civil Service College. I have two
questions. One, is actually Mr. Tan elaborated a little bit just now, but I
was wondering if Seoul has the same issues. Sometimes when we engage
citizens, we are a bit worried that they might just think of themselves and
not [be] able to think of the larger community. Given that the 2030 Seoul
Plan is so ambitious, how did you manage to facilitate the conversations
such that people can [sic could] think about difficult conversations, maybe
like, you know, where do you put a hospital? Or where do you put the
incinerator plant? The difficult conversations.
My second question is in Singapore, we sometimes have the difficulty of
engaging certain groups of people, when we do public engagement
exercises. In Singapore, these groups are typically young mothers,
parents with young children—especially primary school [children]—and
working adults or low, people who are [from the] low income [families].
So actually, in order for the Seoul plan to be truly inclusive, what efforts
did you take to try to engage people who don’t usually come to the
meetings?
Dr Chang Yi 01:20:03
Our answer would be that in Seoul Plan 2030’s master planning process,
so we don't [sic did not] deal with difficult question[s], not so much,
right? It’s [more of] setting the vision, and setting that sort of you know,
setting the abstract direction for the whole city, if you will.
But local community plan[s], we have about…it's a more than 100 local
community plan[s]. There are difficult questions, so what we do would
be to gather all the local community plan stakeholders from each [of
the] 116 regions and finally get a vote, you know? You vote. Where the
incinerator should go? We call it deliberative democracy working in
Korea, right. I think, I could you know, frame it that way.
So, you know, there will be experts saying about where, why, you know,
ABC region should have XYZ facilities—in terms of considering the whole
city of Seoul. So then, you know, difficult decisions should be made by,
01:21:10
you know, in a difficult way. If you lose, there would be no way that you
have to, you can avoid hosting the sort of difficult facility in your
communities. So we do that.
Ms Eileen Neo 01:21:30
I think what struck me most is [that] I think Seoul’s approach to
participatory planning focuses quite a lot on building the capabilities and
capacity of the communities; so that I think going forward it can actually
help to resolve their own issues, local issues. I think that’s one area that
HDB can definitely learn from and do more, yeah.
Mr Tan See Nin 01:21:46
I think Seoul is very much like Taiwan as well, right. They are also
bringing capabilities among citizens and do public participation projects,
and contributing solutions to the problem[s]. But what I will find very
interesting this afternoon was to hear about this happiness factor, you
know, and that somehow that’s intrinsically linked to having a sense of
inclusiveness—you know when you are included into the decision-
making process or included into some, you know, planning process that
contributes to well-being.
I think that is something very useful because when you have that
perspective in mind then you will stop thinking about public
engagement as another government project, as another thing you have
to do, you know, as part of your day-to-day work. But really, it gives you
added meaning to why you are doing all these things.
At the end of the day it is really for the benefit of the community, not
yourself, really. It is really for the community. So the Rail Corridor is the
same thing. You know, I mean if I can I will show you just one slide, you
know, because that, essentially when we talk about the Rail Corridor, it
is no longer just a trail, but it is a community space. And if you can do
this, it will be fantastic because then, everyone will have a sense of
community.
So if you design it well and you could say, designate one day in a month
as the Rail Corridor Day and you have communities from both sides of
01:23:03
the Rail Corridor gathering at the Rail Corridor and do their own thing,
their own community thing, it will be fantastic.
You can have a theme. January, let’s get healthy, exercise, because after
Christmas, you eat too much, right? So you need to exercise. You could
have Valentine’s Day or singles’ events. All this supposed to be this
month, right? February…or you could have you know Easter egg, you
know, go and collect Easter eggs along the Rail Corridor in March or
April, you know.
So there are many things you can do as a community and each of them
can do their own thing, organize their own thing. One day in a month
could be a community-cooking day. So maybe somebody along Bukit
Panjang [would] want to, you know, make the longest popiah, you know,
in the world. You can do it along the Rail Corridor, so it’s possible. You
can do your own thing. So I think is where you can have community
ownership [and] stewardship, and I think that’s where it gives you added
value to, you know, some of these community spaces that it is activated,
it is meaningful to the community.
Dr Limin Hee 01:24:04
Okay. So thanks very much to the wonderful panel and for you, and the
questions that you have asked. So we’ve come to the end of the session.
[Transcript ends at 01:24:11]
LECTURE INFORMATION
TITLE
Planning for Communities: Lessons from Seoul and Singapore
SPEAKER
Dr Miree Byun
Director, Senior Research Fellow, Future Research Centre, The Seoul Institute
PANELLISTS
Dr Hyunchan Ahn
Associate Research Fellow, The Seoul Institute
Dr Chang Yi
Research Fellow, The Seoul Institute
Ms Eileen Neo
Director, Policy & Planning, Community Relations Group, Housing & Development Board
Mr Tan See Nin
Senior Director, Physical Planning, Urban Redevelopment Authority
Ms Foo Soon Leng
Senior Director, Building & Estates Management, People’s Association
MODERATOR
Dr Limin Hee
Director, Research, Centre for Liveable Cities
DATE
21 November 2017
LOCATION
MND Auditorium
DURATION
1 Hour 24 Minutes 19 Seconds
Note:
Readers of this document should bear in mind that the transcript is a verbatim recording of the
spoken word and reflects the informal, conversational style that may be inherent in the process. The
Centre for Liveable Cities (CLC) is not responsible for the factual accuracy of the text nor the views
expressed therein; these are for the reader to judge.
[ ] are used for insertions, after the interview. The information is not necessarily contained in the
original recording.
All rights in the recording and transcript, including the right to copy, publish, broadcast and perform,
are reserved to the CLC. Permission is required should you wish to use the transcript for any purpose.