Skyline Nov/Dec 2000 - Urban Redevelopment Authority

Nov / Dec 2000
Go radical! A unique city in the making exhibition
Focus groups in action
Skyline • Nov/Dec 2000 • 1

CONTENTS
Focus groups in action 2
Go radical! A unique city
in the making exhibition 5
It takes two 8
The promise of a prime site 10
Dine in cosy comfort in
this conserved building 12
Focus groups in
action
by Wendy Lee
The public consultation phase of the Concept Plan
Review was launched on 26 August 2000. Two
focus groups, formed to look into two planning
dilemmas, have swung into action to drill deeper
into the dilemmas to come up with proposed
solutions to overcome our land shortage and to
make Singapore an even better place to live in.
Skyline is a bi-monthly publication
by URA.␣ The teams behind Skyline
are as follows:
Advisory Committee
• Lee Kwong Weng (Chairman)
• Choy Chan Pong
• Foo Chee See
• Ler Seng Ann
• Michael Koh
• Teh Lai Yip
• Ang Hwee Suan
Editor
• Ng Cher Khee
Photography
• Lim Chye Leong
• Ng Chor Seng
Design and Production
OCTOGRAM DESIGN
Front Cover:
To enhance Singapore’s
uniqueness, URA explores the
possibility of creating gateways,
having landmark buildings,
enhancing focal points and
protecting breathtaking views.
The URA Centre
45 Maxwell Road
Singapore 069118
Tel: 221-6666
Fax: 224-8752
URA Online:
http://www.ura.gov.sg/
© Urban Redevelopment Authority, 2000
Note: Plans and models shown are
working tools of the Authority and
therefore, tentative and subject to change.
Diverse backgrounds,
diverse views
The idea of having focus
group consultations was
to tap on the diverse views
of various people with
different background.
Between August and
November, both focus
groups met intensively to
examine ways to overcome
the dilemmas. At the various
focus group discussions,
different perspectives were
shared and varying views
were debated and defended,
sometimes quite passionately.
Complexities of land
allocation
The focus group on land allocation
spent much of their first two
months meeting up with the
different government agencies.
The members were briefed by
officials from the Civil Aviation
Authority of Singapore, Economic
Development Board, Housing and
Development Board, Jurong Town
Corporation, Land Transport
Authority and National Parks
Board in order to help them
better understand the land
needs of these agencies.
Focus groups in discussion.
The group has formed five
sub-groups to look at the following
key topics: housing, working space
(industry and commerce), transport
and infrastructure, green space
(parks, nature areas, golf courses,
training areas) and sea space. Each
sub-group examined one of five key
topics in deeper detail and created
a preliminary framework for further
research and discussion.
Identity, heritage and
sense of place
This second group chose to start
with a series of visits to various
Skyline • Nov/Dec 2000 • 2

places to help the members
understand the various key aspects
related to the issue of identity
and heritage.
They visited the Bukit Timah Nature
Reserve, Joo Chiat, Geylang, Katong,
Sengkang and Bukit Ho Swee.
Public presentation
of views
The focus groups will be handing
in to URA their draft interim reports
that will outline their views. Their
views will be released to the public
in late November 2000.
A public forum will be held on
8 December 2000 for the focus
groups to share their views with the
public and gather more ideas, views
and feedback.
Focus group members visiting housing estates to better understand issues related to identity and heritage for a meaningful discussion.
Focus Group on Land Allocation
Co-chairperson
Associate Professor Vivian Balakrishnan
Chief Executive Officer, Singapore General Hospital,
and Medical Director, Singapore National Eye Centre
Co-chairperson
Mr Tham Tuck Cheong
Partner, Consultants Incorporated Architects & Partners
Members
1. Mr George Abraham Chairman of Feedback Group (Economic Development)
2. Mr Sunny Chan Vice-President, Site Services, TECH Semiconductor
3. Mr Chia Ngiang Hong Second Vice-President, REDAS
4. Mr Fazlur Rahman bin Kamsani Manager (Portfolio Management), DTZ Debenham Tie Leung (SEA) Pte Ltd
5. Dr Geh Min Consultant Eye Surgeon, Mount Elizabeth Medical Centre
6. Mr Goh Chong Chia Chairman of Feedback Group (Housing)
7. Mr Goh Peck San Vice-Chairman, Yuhua CCC
8. Mr Heng Chee How Deputy Secretary-General, NTUC
9. A/P Ho Kong Chong Head, Department of Sociology, NUS (represented by Prof Chua Beng Huat)
10. Dr K Raguraman Chairman of Feedback Group (Transport)
11. Dr Amy Khor President, Singapore Institute of Surveyors and Valuers
12. Mr Khor Thong Meng Honorary Treasurer, REDAS
13. Ms Lyn Lee Manager (Training), The Right Angle Communications
14. Mr Lawrence Leow Executive Director, Excalibur Holdings
15. Mr Victor Liew Executive Vice-President, Overseas Union Bank Ltd
16. Mr Lim Lee Meng Chairman of Feedback Group (Housing, Mandarin)
17. Mrs Shirley Lim Community Outreach Executive, Metropolitan YMCA
18. Mr Liu Chih Wei, Christopher Welfare Secretary, NUS Students Union
19. Dr Malone-Lee Lai Choo Senior Lecturer, Department of Real Estate, NUS
20. Mr Meng Ta-Cheang Principal Architect, OD Architects
21. Mdm Phua Siok Gek, Cynthia Member, Bishan East CCC
22. Mr Quek Suan Kiat Country Manager & COO Singapore, Barclays Bank PLC
23. Ms Saw Phaik Hwa President, DFS Venture Singapore Pte Ltd
24. Mr Shiau V L, Daren Lawyer, Allen and Gledhill
25. Mr Sim Wong Hoo Chairman and CEO, Creative Technology Ltd (represented by Dr Kwok Kian Woon)
26. Mr Mason Tan President, Singapore Institute of Landscape Architects
27. Mr Tan Shee Tiong Vice-President, Singapore Institute of Planners
28. Mrs Wong Sioe Hong Managing Director, Metro (Pte) Ltd
29. Ms Yang Geok Foong Assistant Director, Elderly Services, Asian Women’s Welfare Association
continued on page 4
Skyline • Nov/Dec 2000 • 3

Focus groups in action
Concept Plan 2001 — your opinion
URA launched a web page for
the public to give their ideas and
feedback on the two planning
dilemmas. This web page was
launched on 26 August 2000.
Since then, we have received
nearly 200 e-mails.
It is good to hear so many different
views and suggestions. These have
been channelled to the respective
focus groups for their discussion.
Some of the areas that have been
touched on in the e-mails we have
received include:
Land allocation
• Ways to overcome limited land
supply in Singapore with regard
to Housing, Industry, Parks and
Gardens, Transportation, etc.
• Possibilities of building higher
and denser.
• Possibilities of going underground.
• Varied co-location and integration
of uses.
• More quality housing.
• Policy reviews to meet demands
of land-scarce Singapore.
Identity
• Landscapes worth retaining.
• Ways to retain these landscapes.
• What constitutes Identity and
how we can improve our
conservation efforts.
The focus groups will be drafting
interim reports that will outline their
views. The reports will be released
to the public some time in late
November or early December
2000, so keep a lookout for it.
A public forum to discuss these
proposals has been scheduled
on Friday, 8 December 2000.
Focus Group on Identity vs Intensive Land Use
Co-chairperson
Mr Simon SC Tay
Associate Professor, Faculty of Law
National University of Singapore
Members
Co-chairperson
Mr Philip Ng
Chief Executive Officer
Far East Organization
1. A/P Chan Yew Lih Department of Architecture, NUS
2. A/P Chew Chin Tiong, Ernest Department of History, NUS
3. Ms Chua Chwee Ngo, Peggie Member, Yew Tee CCC
4. Mr Richard Ho First Vice-President, SIA
5. Dr Hum Tee Yeow Chairman, Bukit Panjang Youth Executive Committee
6. Mr K Jayapalan Chairman, Marsiling Zone 4 RC
7. Mr Khew Teck Fook, Edwin Chairman of Feedback Group (Environment)
8. Mdm Kwang Yeit Lam, Madelyn Secretary, Tampines Vista RC
9. Dr Kenson Kwok Director, National Heritage Board
10. A/P Leong Eng Choon Lecturer, NTU
11. Mr Liew Kai Khiun Manager, Friends of Singapore Programme
12. Ms Lim Joo Lee President, NTU Students Union
13. Mr Lim Siew Wai, William Committee Member, Singapore Heritage Society
14. Mr Lim Tze Guan, Tony President of TIBS Taxi Drivers Association
15. Mr Loh Soo Eng Honorary Secretary, REDAS
16. Mdm Ong Siew Kiow, Sabrina Secretary, Queenstown Women’s Executive Committee
17. Dr Ooi Giok Ling Senior Research Fellow, Institute of Policy Studies
18. Dr Quek Cho Inn Chairman of Feedback Group (Transport, Mandarin)
19. Mr Rajoo Kathirasen Vice-Chairman, Queenstown, Mei Ling Zone RC
20. A/P Victor R Savage Head, Department of Geography, NUS
21. Mr Soo Kwok Yow, Johnny Treasurer, Punggol East Zone 4 RC
22. Mr Tan Kim Wee, Ivan Vice-Chairman, Tampines Courtview RC
23. Mr Tay Kim Hock Secretary, Cairnhill Community Club Management Committee
24. Dr Teo Ho Pin Executive Director, Icost System Pte Ltd
25. A/P Brenda yeoh Department of Geography, NUS
26. Dr Yu Lai Boon Chief Innovation Strategist, Asia-Pacific, Jones Lang LaSalle
27. Mr Zainal Bin Ramli Chairman, Tampines Greenvale RC
28. Guest participant:
Mdm Siti Habibah Siraj
Principal Architect, SZ Partnership
Skyline • Nov/Dec 2000 • 4

Go radical!
by Angelina Seow
A unique city
in the making exhibition
One day, Singapore will not just be a city
remembered for its greenery, cleanliness or
cultural variety. Like Australia which has its
magnificent Sydney Opera House or Hong
Kong with its contemporary Bank of China
building, Singapore will have its brand of
awe-inspiring landmark buildings, going by
URA’s Landmark and Gateway Plan unveiled.
T
he exhibition, which
stretched from
20 September –
30 November 2000 at the URA
Centre, showcased the new
landmarks masterplan and a 3-D
model, while doubling up as a
platform for public feedback.
In this plan, some 27 landmark sites
have been set aside along strategic,
highly visible routes in the city.
The six routes are Orchard-Marina
Centre, Bukit Timah-Rochor, New
Bridge Road-Victoria Street, Central
Business District, Singapore River,
and lastly, the future route at the
New Downtown.
Some examples of the landmark sites
include the future sale site above
Orchard MRT Station, Raffles City
site, Fullerton Building site and the
Subordinate Courts site. As these are
all special sites meant for landmarks,
architects can look forward to having
a freer hand to express themselves
creatively.
“In our dialogues with private
architects, some have told us that
some of our urban design guidelines
stifle their creativity. That’s why we
are prepared to relax and waive
some of these guidelines to bring
about more imaginative, highquality
building designs,” disclosed
Mrs Teh Lai Yip, URA’s Acting
Director of Conservation and Urban
Design.
To give an illustration, we currently
have a set of urban design
guidelines to guide developments
along Singapore River. There
is a 4-storey height control for
developments along the waterfront
and a 10-storey height control over
the general area. In addition,
developments need to be set back
15 m from the river edge. Now, for
the landmark sites along Singapore
River, we are prepared to allow
parts of a 10-storey building to be
built up to the river edge or even
arched over the river.
Mind your manners
Yet, the lack of controls can be a
double-edged sword for it could
spawn disastrous eyesores, as
much as it could result in elegantly
tasteful works.
Minister for National Development,
Mr Mah Bow Tan, cautioned during
the exhibition’s official launch that
Minister Mah Bow Tan (centre) and
Minister of State (MND) Dr John Chen
(second from right) at the launch of
the exhibition.
“not only should the landmark
buildings be unique on their
own, they should also be good
neighbours, enhancing our city,
instead of detracting from it.
Good taste and good manners
are essential to achieving such a
delicate balance.“
Hence, the new Design Guidelines
Waiver Committee (DGWC),
a committee formed by URA
to consider all proposals seeking
waivers, has been set up. This is
an independent body chaired by
Associate Professor Milton Tan,
Head of Architecture at the
National University of Singapore,
Simulated view of landmark sites around
Marina Bay.
Skyline • Nov/Dec 2000 • 5

Go radical!
with members from the private
sector: Mr Lee Kut Cheung, director
of RSP Architects, Mr Richard Ho,
the Vice President of Singapore
Institute of Architects, and Mr Wong
Mun Summ of Woha Design.
Sense of entry
Besides landmark sites, URA has
also identified a few gateway sites
including a gateway view.
Simulated view from proposed Fort Canning Observatory Tower.
Many of our visitors find the
experience of driving along East
Coast Parkway quite memorable,
especially when they near Benjamin
Sheares Bridge and catch the view
of the city skyline for the first time.
Now imagine if years later, new
skyscrapers start mushrooming
to totally block off this view.
To prevent this from happening,
URA will safeguard this gateway
view. Other gateways include the
future Marina Cruise Centre and
the Marina Barrage. Out of the
27 landmark sites set aside, four
of them act as gateways.
Simulated view along High Street towards Fort Canning.
Spaces and views
Buildings alone do not let
people enjoy the city. In an urban
environment, focal points or popular
public spaces where people mingle
infuse a city with much character
and life. The plaza at Ngee Ann City
is a fine example.
Thus, URA has safeguarded focal
points in its plan to ensure that even
if re-development takes place in the
future, similar public, open spaces
will be provided. On top of that,
great ‘view corridors’ within the city,
with views towards Fort Canning
Hill, Singapore River, Marina Bay
and the sea, will be protected so
that people can enjoy the view of
the city. In addition, developers
would be required, at selected
‘look-out point’ sites, to provide
publicly accessible observatory
amenities for people.
Before After
An example of how we can safeguard the visual link between the Civic District and the
Central Business District.
Play your part
All in all, it seems that URA’s plan
has not left any stone untouched
as it covers buildings to spaces
to views. But executing this
ambitious plan is yet another
uphill task.
There are three main players: the
planning authority, the developer
and the design consultant. As the
planning authority, URA can review
its urban design guidelines
to ensure that these do not
unnecessarily hamper creative
designs. However, the quality of
the development also depends
on the developer and his design
consultant. For the city to have
outstanding landmarks, they must
also do their part to be daring and
imaginative and to break new
grounds. For without them, it
would just be another plan.
Skyline • Nov/Dec 2000 • 6

Have your say
The exhibition saw many
visitors although the majority
are professionals like private
architects, developers and planners.
Many students from the tertiary
institutes also came and shared
their feedback.
Most of the professionals
welcomed the greater flexibility
and the DGWC. “We have projects
now which offer solutions that
could never have been considered
previously. As architects, we are
always willing to break convention,”
enthused Wong Chui Man, design
director of Nikken Sekkei
Partnership.
defined too narrowly in this plan,
with its focus on ‘new’ buildings
and little appreciation for the old.
URA, in no way, denies the value
of historic buildings. In fact, it has
a Conservation Plan that safeguards
more than 5,600 buildings within
the Central Area. This Landmark
and Gateway plan is basically
another exciting layer to shape
the cityscape and make it more
distinctive and beautiful.
Overall, many felt that relaxing
urban design guidelines, holding
dialogues with project developers
and design consultants, and
organising international design ideas
competitions are some effective
ways to ensure quality landmarks.
However, quite a handful
commented that ‘landmarks’ is
Visitors examining the 3-D simulated models, fascinated at how exciting
the future city can look like.
Sum it up
URA’s four-prong strategy to
create a unique cityscape includes
identifying 27 landmarks sites,
of which four act as gateways, in
the city centre. Besides that, 12
additional sites have been set aside
as focal points, with another eight
assigned as look-out points. Here’s
a quick rundown of what are
landmarks, gateways, focal points,
view corridors and vantage points:
Landmarks sites
• Strategic and highly visible
locations where developers
and design consultants are
encouraged to create distinctive
buildings. At such sites, URA is
prepared to relax some urban
design guidelines to encourage
outstanding building designs.
Focal points
• Popular public spaces such
as Ngee Ann City Plaza along
Orchard Road. These spaces
can be enhanced by having
prominent sculptures. One
possibility is to mark the busy
Orchard and Scotts Road junction
with a multi-media signage tower.
Getaways
• Gateways give a sense of entry
into the city, such as the view of
our city skyline from the Benjamin
Sheares Bridge. They could take
many forms, from a structure to
a view, to a landmark building.
Look-out points
• Vantage points that provide
panoramic views of the city either
from street level or from high-rise
observation decks. URA could
require developers of selected
future buildings, for example,
the future Twin Towers at Marina
Bay, to provide publicly accessible
look-out points.
View corridors
• Views that orientate people
around the city, giving glimpses
of prominent buildings and
natural features such as hills
and waterbodies. Significant
views could be protected.
Skyline • Nov/Dec 2000 • 7

In our last issue, we gave you a glimpse of the
review of some conservation guidelines that
URA and the Singapore Institute of Architects
(SIA) have been carrying out since October 1999.
Recently on 19 October 2000, URA and SIA
jointly announced the revision of 23 of the 70
conservation guidelines. Skyline brings you
the full story.
It takes
by Colin Lauw
Most of the revisions are
relaxation of the current
guidelines on building
materials and form. The revisions
give building professionals greater
scope for creative design solutions,
and owners more flexibility in the
adaptive re-use of old buildings
without eroding their heritage value.
Roof gardens
One revision, for example, is to
allow owners to build concrete flat
roofs that can be creatively used as
roof gardens in the rear courtyards
of shophouses. In the past, owners
could only adopt a conservative
approach in what they could
use over the rear courtyard. They
could only have a roof made from
lightweight material or tiled roof
matching those of the main roof.
Air-condensing units
Another revision is on
air-condensing units. The old
guideline allowed these units to
be suspended on the rear walls;
and for projects with three or
more connecting units, owners are
encouraged to install a centralised
system or to create balconies to
house the units.
An example of integrating aircon units
at the rear of buildings.
But these exposed air-condensing
units make the rear appearance of
these heritage buildings unsightly.
The new guideline now requires
all air-condensing units to be
integrated into the building
envelope at the rear. Its opening
will also need to be screened with
timber trellis. This tightening of
guideline, only applicable for new
applications for restoration, will help
ensure that these modern amenities
are ‘tucked’ away and integrated
with the conserved buildings instead
of projecting out conspicuously.
No mere replicas
of the old
Revisions were also made to
guidelines on new buildings or
extensions within a conservation
area. For example, conservation
The past guideline stated that lightweight or tiled roof
cannot be higher than 2nd storey floor level and
rear boundary wall.
Now, concrete roof and roof gardens are allowed. One can also
raise the rear boundary wall and incorporate aircon units in
roof parapet.
Skyline • Nov/Dec 2000 • 8

two
The old guideline which required pitched
roofs and compatible materials and texture
has now been completely lifted.
shophouses in Secondary
Settlements, such as Joo Chiat
and Geylang, have always been
allowed to build new extensions in
the rear section of the shophouses.
The old guideline stated that they
must have pitched roofs which
are similar to the neighbouring
conservation buildings. It also
encouraged the owner to use
materials and textures that were
visually compatible with the main
building. But it often happened
that the new extensions were mere
replications of their main building,
which is why the new guidelines
have now removed controls on
the design and material of the
new rear extension.
Similarly, for envelope control
sites, i.e. vacant parcels of land
in a conservation area, the old
guideline was also similar for new
rear extensions, so the guidelines
have thus been lifted.
More creative license
The lifting of guidelines on both new
rear extensions and envelope control
sites will give more creative license
to architects and owners to come up
with innovative designs. They may
choose to design something which
is compatible with the main building
or to strike out with a bold new
design departing totally from
the conservation shophouse.
Said Committee member, Richard
Ho, also First Vice-President of the
Singapore Institute of Architects,
“The new should not imitate the
old — we need to support the
notion of evolution, of a living city
and not one ‘frozen’ in time. It is a
lifting of all controls but only for the
new building or new extension, not
the original building.”
Welcoming news
The revisions not only allow more
innovation in designs, but will
make it simpler for owners to obtain
approvals for restoration works.
This is good news for the current
stock of 40% of the 5,600 buildings
gazetted for conservation that have
yet to be restored, and also for
second time applicants — buildings
that intend to go through a
second round of restoration or
adaptive re-use.
The current guidelines were first
published in July 1995. In October
1999, URA and SIA came together
to do a comprehensive review of
every guideline. The Committee
spent 10 months reviewing the
guidelines. A list of proposed
revisions were then pre-tested
to practising architects at a joint
SIA-URA Seminar on 14 July 2000.
For owners, developers, tenants,
contractors and engineers involved
in restoring conservation buildings,
they gave their feedback via a
customer survey conducted by URA
in August 2000. They too indicated
that they were supportive of the
proposed revisions. For example:
• 86% of respondents agreed to
the relaxation of the guidelines
on design and material of new
rear extension in secondary
settlements;
• 78% of respondents agreed
to the relaxation of controls
on envelope control sites; and
• 69% agreed to the tightening
of guidelines on air-condensing
units.
The agreement on these were
unanimous across various groups of
customers. Said Mr Edward Wong,
President of SIA, “These relaxations
are certainly welcomed by the
majority of building professionals.
Now the revisions give owners
more flexibility in the adaptive
re-use of old buildings. But with
more freedom, there must be
responsibility. As architects, it is our
moral duty to be responsible to the
community in safeguarding our
heritage and ensuring a quality
built-environment.”
The full list of the revised guidelines is in Circular No. URA/PB/2000/-CUDD
and is online at: http://www.sia.org.sg and http://www.ura.gov.sg/dc/
circulars_main.html. These changes will be incorporated into the new edition
of the book, Conservation Guidelines, which will be published by the end of
the year. For any technical queries, please call Mdm Wong Yoke Khien at the
Conservation Enquiry Hotline (tel: 329-3355) or the DCD Technical Enquiry
Hotline (tel: 223-4811).
Skyline • Nov/Dec 2000 • 9

y Ng Cher Khee
After much anticipation since the
announcement of the Government
Land Sales Programme for year 2000, URA
launched the sale site at Marina Boulevard
for public tender on 21 November 2000.
The promise of a
Proposed Marina
Boulevard
SALE SITE
L
ocated just next to Raffles
Place, the land parcel is a
seamless extension of the
existing Central Business District
(CBD). It is thus well positioned
to plug into the vibrancy of the
fast-growing and internationally
renowned financial nerve centre
of Singapore.
The successful developer can
build a commercial development
with the largest floor plate in the
CBD on this large and regular
shaped land parcel of about
1.14 hectare.
With such large floor plates,
the development would attract
modern large space users such
as financial institutions and
multinational corporations.
Flexible uses
With a plot ratio of 13, the land
parcel can generate about 150
thousand sq m of gross floor
area which can house a mix of
commercial, hotel and residential
uses. Being a “white” site, the
developer is free to decide on the
mix of uses and the quantum for
each use. He also has the flexibility
to change the uses at any time to
respond to market forces.
When built, this development will
reach about 50 storeys and thus
command a panoramic view of
the CBD and Marina Bay.
OCEAN
BUILDING
Raffles Place MRT Station
NEDLOYD HOUSE
ASIA INSURANCE BUILDING
JOHN HANCOCK
BUILDING
HONG LEONG
BUIDING
LAU PA SAT
PROPOSED CENTRAL BOULEVARD
COLLYER QUAY
Land Parcel A2
Land Parcel A1
N
Tree-lined Boulevard
Covered Walkway at 1st Storey
2nd Storey Travellator Corridor
Through Block Link at 2nd Storey
Particulars of Land Parcel A comprising Land Parcels A1 and A2
Land Parcel A1
Land Parcel A2
at Marina Boulevard/
Below Finlayson Green/
Land Parcel Reference 1 Raffles Quay/Central Boulevard 1 Raffles Quay/Marina Boulevard
Area (m 2 ) 2 Site area for A1: 11,366.9 Total horizontal cross sectional area
for A2: 4,232.9
Allowable Development White site (commercial/hotel/residential) Underground pedestrian mall with
activity-generating uses
Maximum Permissible For development on A1: 147,770 For development on A2:
Gross Floor Area (m 2 ) (approximate Gross Plot Ratio 13.0) 4 (See note 6 below) 6
Maximum Building Height 245 m AMSL 5 (approx. 50 storeys) Subterranean development only
Project Completion Period 3 9 years for A1 and 5 years for A2
5 years for part of A1 7
Lease Period
99 years
Notes
1 Marina Boulevard and Central Boulevard refer to the future extension of the existing Pickering Street and Cross Street respectively.
2 Area subject to Government Survey or Resurvey.
3 Computed from the date of acceptance of Tender by the Authority up to the date of issue of Temporary Occupation Permit for the relevant part of
the development.
4 Approximate Gross Plot Ratio is computed based on tendered site area of Land Parcel A1 and is indicated for information of Tenderers only.
5 Above Mean Sea Level.
6 The amount of Gross Floor Area not exceeding that as approved by the competent authority under the Planning Act for the subterranean development on
Land Parcel A2 in the last Written Permission immediately prior to issue of the Temporary Occupation Permit (TOP) for Land Parcel A2.
7 Comprises the completion of hub car park, district cooling plant, 2nd storey travellator corridor and through block link, and bus stop along Raffles Quay.
Skyline • Nov/Dec 2000 • 10

prime
site
Well-connected
The development would
eventually be linked directly
to the Raffles Place MRT Station
through an underground
pedestrian mall lined with shops
and other retail outlets. It would
be similar to the newly-opened
CityLink Mall — a pedestrian-cumshopping
mall which connects
the City Hall MRT Station to the
developments at Marina Centre.
This site would also be the
focal point of an underground
pedestrian network linking future
developments in the vicinity to
the MRT stations. It would thus
be a major intersection for
rail commuters, with heavy
pedestrian traffic throughout
the day.
Other than the extensive
underground pedestrian network,
URA has also planned for a
pedestrian-friendly network at
street level. Inter-linked covered
walkways and tree-lined boulevards
will provide pedestrians a pleasant
walking route on the streets. Shops
and other activity-generating uses
will front these boulevards to attract
people and liven up the streets.
As the extended CBD is envisaged
to be a pedestrian-friendly and
relatively ‘car-free’ business city,
hub carparks would be centralised
within key developments to reduce
the number of vehicles entering
the area. This sale site will include
such a hub car park. Motorists
can park their cars here and use
travellators to move around
comfortably in air-conditioned
comfort between buildings.
Details of tender
The tender will close at 12 noon
on 13 March 2001. Details of
URA Sales of Sites can be found
on the Internet via URA-Online
at http://www.ura.gov.sg/
First to enjoy
the benefits of
common services
tunnels
Common Services Tunnels (CSTs)
are purpose-built underground
tunnels containing various utility
lines such as water pipes, power
cables and telecommunications
facilities.
This sale site will be the first to
benefit from this comprehensive
network of CSTs.
Singapore is the second Asian
country after Japan and the first
in Southeast Asia to implement
a comprehensive CST system.
With such a system, developments
will no longer face inconveniences
such as road excavations for
maintenance of services. There will
be little likelihood of utility supplies
being cut off due to accidental
hacking of cables and pipes. Any
future changes in the demand for
utility services can also be easily
accommodated by installing more
cables and pipes within the CSTs.
Common Services Tunnels — view
of the city above and below.
Skyline • Nov/Dec 2000 • 11

Dine in
cosy comfort
in this conserved building
— Ng Cher Khee
One of this year’s awardwinning
projects of the
annual URA Architectural
Heritage Awards (AHA) involved a
four-storey Art Deco building and
two double-storey shophouses of
the Early Style in the Historic District
of Chinatown.
Innovative yet sensitive restoration
works were carried out to retain
all the original features of these
buildings. The shophouses are now
connected to the Art Deco building
through a new opening and the
slope of the site is creatively used
as an underground wine cellar.
Popular food and beverage outlets now reside at 36 Club Street and 23 Mohammad Ali Lane,
giving diners a cosy and nostalgic environment to dine in.
Skyline • Nov/Dec 2000 • 12