Who wants a densely packed Singapore?

Who wants a densely packed Singapore?
I REFER to Wednesday's article, 'Pack them in, build them up'.

I am both shocked and dismayed by Professor Edward Glaeser's short-sighted and highly flawed opinion that a population of 6.5 million would be essentially beneficial for Singapore. His notion that there is nothing unhealthy about living in skyscrapers does not take into consideration the many Singaporeans who wish Singapore would lose its tag as a concrete jungle and focus on creating a city with more 'green spaces'.

He also welcomes the addition of more 'smart people', whom he defined as a typical man in his 40s with children, without considering whether these individuals would be able to assimilate into Singapore culture with no accompanying problems which are already plaguing many immigrants here.

He also mentioned that a city with high density would also serve people's needs but he has conveniently forgotten that the basic human need of privacy, comfort and space would be severely compromised in public spaces if the population hit 6.5 million.

As it is, many of my peers have expressed a sincere wish to emigrate, not because of the high cost of living or the stressful lifestyle. It is primarily because they are appalled by how Singapore has been transformed into a city where it is difficult to find a seat on the MRT on a weekday afternoon, or seek peace and solace even in the suburbs, when Sembawang Mall is now as crowded as Plaza Singapura. Homes are getting smaller and more expensive, and people feel blessed to secure a seat in a foodcourt at any time of the day.

Prof Glaeser also claimed that packing individuals close together in smaller homes would reduce transport costs and energy usage, but this is overly simplistic and short-sighted. There is every possibility that smaller homes may use more energy if more time is spent on home entertainment.

Prof Glaeser's view that a city with high population density would reduce transport cost is also problematic as recent research shows that individuals living in residential zones which are overly crowded have a higher tendency to travel out of their residential area to seek leisure arenas that are 'less congested' and where they are 'less scrutinised' than in flats built in close proximity to each other.

Prof Glaeser's comments are certainly not representative of most Singaporeans who seriously wish for a less crowded living environment.

Robin Chee

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=25161.1

Pack them in, build them up

March 25, 2009

THE ST INTERVIEW

Pack them in, build them up

A 6.5m population is fine. Dense cities thrive by attracting smart people

By Tan Hui Yee, Correspondent
		Prof Glaeser photographed at the Mandarin Oriental hotel, with the Marina Bay integrated resort construction site behind him. Not only is there nothing unhealthy about having lots of tall skyscrapers, he says, it is good urban and environmental policy as well. -- ST PHOTO: DESMOND FOO

IF YOU feel uneasy about the fact that Singapore is gearing up for a population of 6.5 million, Professor Edward Glaeser has this to say: You've nothing to worry about.

'Density is underrated and undervalued and the pleasures of density are in fact quite remarkable,' he declares.

Expert on the dynamics of cities PROFESSOR Edward Glaeser, 41, is the Fred and Eleanor Glimp Professor of Economics at Harvard University. He is also the director of its Taubman Centre for State and Local Government and Rappaport Institute for Greater Boston, both research institutes at the university which work on governance issues. He is noted for his studies of the dynamics and real estate markets of American cities, and last year published the book Rethinking Federal Housing Policy: How To Make Housing Plentiful And Affordable, with Professor Joseph Gyourko, professor of real estate and finance at the University of Pennsylvania. ... more ON HOW ARTS APPRECIATION SHOWS PROGRESS 'It is a remarkable statement of the prosperity of humankind that we are increasingly willing to say that guys may actually care about having a downtown buzz and an artistic buzz in cities. That's actually a great thing, that we have reached that level of prosperity.' ... more

'Living with 6.5 million people doesn't mean you necessarily have less private living space. There is absolutely nothing unhealthy about having lots of tall skyscrapers and people walking around between them. Not only is it good urban policy, it is a good environmental policy as well.'

If urban density ever needed a salesman, it would be Prof Glaeser.

The 41-year-old economist at Harvard University made his name studying what made cities tick.

In Singapore earlier this month to give a talk at the Civil Service College, he stressed that cities survive and thrive by constantly reinventing themselves, which is only possible if there are enough 'smart people' present to generate a creative buzz.

His view is shared by urban theorist Richard Florida, who famously argued that a 'creative class' of talented professionals flocks to vibrant global cities for work and lifestyle opportunities and in turn contributes to their growth.

Except, both men differ on what constitutes talent.

Dr Florida's idea of a skilled worker, Prof Glaeser says half in jest, 'is a 28- year-old who wears a black turtleneck' and frequents coffee houses.

'My model of a skilled worker is that 42-year-old biotechnology worker who has a husband and two kids and is trying to live a decent life.

'Those lead you to very different views of what the fight for talent is all about. Florida thinks you need a lot of coffee houses, and I think you need good schools and safe streets and fast commutes. And I'm pretty sure I'm right.'

If he is, Singapore - seen as clean, safe and sterile - is in a good position.

Cities, he says, need the right kind of buzz to bring them forward. 'The things that people define as what makes a city buzz, a lot of them have to do with public spaces and restaurants and bars and cafes. But I don't think it's at the heart of what makes cities well-functioning and successful. It's a mistake to think that the buzz is just the number of pages that you read in Time Out magazine.'

Take the buzzing research triangle in North Carolina in the United States, home to companies like IBM Corporation.

'It may not be the hippest area to spend a Saturday night but there sure is a heck of lot of new innovations going on. A lot of Silicon Valley is pretty boring from the perspective of an urban hipster. But in terms of what really matters, there's a lot of buzz there.'

To maintain what he refers to as an intellectual edge, he says Singapore needs to constantly expose itself to cutting- edge ideas and have a sizeable pool of skilled workers.

Asked what skills are valued in the context of recurring discussions over the value of an arts degree versus a science degree here, he says: 'Studying Shakespeare does not make up for innumeracy. It certainly does enrich our lives. The more prosperous a country is, the larger the role of arts.'

He points out that a recent study on the effect of mandated science and maths curricula in American schools found that they improved the earnings of the less advantaged significantly. 'It suggests that forcing the school to teach maths and science ended up being very good for them.'

The arts, he says, is 'a bit of a luxury good'. 'If you told people of my great- grandfather's generation that a thriving arts scene was going to determine which city you were going to go to, they would have thought you were mad.

''Can I put bread on the table?' and 'Would we be shot?' - those would have been the primary issues that would have driven people two generations ago.'

A small country like Singapore, with a four million population, he says, need not worry that its size will disqualify it from the big league as long as it has enough quality and diverse talent.

'The question is more an issue of the high human capital people you have, how many potential entrepreneurs you have, how much diversity there is, rather than the actual body count. You can add on an extra five million unskilled labour and it is not going to make a difference to your ability to innovate.'

But primarily, he maintains that cities should serve people's needs rather than exist for their own sake.

In 2005, he wrote an article against the rebuilding of New Orleans after it was destroyed by Hurricane Katrina, saying that its residents were better off getting money to rebuild their lives elsewhere if they wished. The city, he said, had been declining way before the hurricane hit, and it was not doing a good job of looking after its poor residents either.

Putting people first means getting rid of unnecessary rules that make business and housing unaffordable. From his studies of New York and Boston over the past 30 to 40 years, he contends that the cities' recent surge in home prices is more a result of tightening building regulations, rather than anything else.

Logically, if there is enough supply of homes, housing prices will converge around the cost of building that next floor up. In places where land is scarce - like Singapore - height restrictions act as a dampener on housing supply.

Although the demand for housing reflects the attractiveness of a city, its ability to produce enough affordable housing to meet that demand is 'a sign of urban health'. He notes in some parts of the US, 'it feels as if every neighbour has gotten the right to say no to every project'. In suburbs, it is all about zoning and minimum lot size. In cities, it is about maximum heights.

He is quick to admit that his model applies to cities where housing is supplied by the market. The fact that more than 80 per cent of Singaporeans live in public housing makes it trickier to apply here, but he ventures: 'I think you want to think of how well you are delivering pleasant affordable housing. The Government has played such a heavy role in housing, not inappropriately so, that I think the ability of the private sector to deliver cheap affordable housing is potentially not as strong as it could be.'

Not only does density make housing affordable, he says it is also sustainable. 'Crowding more people on less land is fundamentally good for the environment. Partly because people have lower transportation costs, live in smaller homes, and use less energy.'

A 2008 US study he did found that the carbon footprint of the people who choose to live 'close to nature', surrounded by woods or lawns, was higher than that of city folk. 'If you want to be good to the environment, stay away from it,' he advocates.

Density is also exciting. 'Chicago's lakefront has grown and strengthened the city. The high-rise buildings in Boston have been associated with an increasing vitality in that city's downtown. Philadelphia only recently broke its height restriction, and the high rises there have been able to support more stores and night life.'

If he had it his way, all cities would be planned around actual human dynamics rather than according to preconceived notions of what they should look like.

During his walks around Singapore, he noted that its hot, humid climate keeps people off the streets in the day.

'There's a huge amount of pedestrian traffic but it's indoors. It's all in the air- conditioned malls, which is really where the street life is. That means connections between those malls are actually what city planning needs,' he prescribes.

Still, by any standard, Singapore has a lot going for it. 'The density levels are remarkable...if you love the ability of cities to bring people together and experience a collective world, there's a lot to admire there.'

tanhy@sph.com.sg

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=25166.1