CLC LECTURE Planning for Communities: Lessons from Seoul ... · 21/11/2017 · In Seoul, not only is it difficult to get things done without citizen involvement, but planners have

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).


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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?


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.


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.


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.


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.


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].


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?


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.


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.


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.


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?


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].


And See Nin, perhaps you could share how you got some of these good

outcomes from the Rail Corridor engagement process.


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.


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?


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.


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.


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.


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.

Documents

CLC LECTURE Planning for Communities: Lessons from Seoul ... · 21/11/2017 · In Seoul, not only is it difficult to get things done without citizen involvement, but planners have