The Pearl of People’s Park: A Position Paper on the Conservation of People’s Park Complex (Part 4 of 5)
This is the fourth of five posts on Docomomo Singapore’s proposals for the conservation and adaptive reuse of this pioneering modernist structure in Singapore. Our full Position Paper can be downloaded here.
This post contains the following sections (highlighted in red) from the full Position Paper:
1. Introduction
2. Building Data
3. Site & Building History
4. Summary Statement of Significance
5. Key Elements & Principles for Retention
6. Policy & Process Strategies
7. Programmatic Strategies
8. Building-Level Strategies
9. Precinct-Level Strategies
Bibliography & Further Reading
8. Building-Level Strategies
Building-Level Opportunities
RE-THINKING THE URBAN CONNECTIVITY OF PPC
The image pinpoints areas where PPC’s connection and stitching to its surroundings can be improved. This increased connection supports the legacy of PPC inverting the “introverted” shopping centres of the past with pedestrian entrances on all sides. PPC has the potential to become a node for on-going efforts to transform Pearl’s Hill neighbourhood.
We can take this opportunity to restore the original public and civic nature of the adjacent pedestrian mall - which has since lost this quality. (Compare the 1976 image below versus a recent one on the right)
A pedestrianised public square bounded by PPC and People’s Park Market, 1976. (Source: Singapore Press Holdings)
People’s Park Square today, 2023 (Darren Soh)
Potential points for connection beyond the urban envelope. (Source: Image adapted from Google Earth)
Strategy 1: Intensification of Carpark
The carpark requirement can be offloaded to nearby Government Land Sales (GLS) sites to allow for conserved development. The carpark block of the podium can be converted or reconstructed as additional GFA with an additional single-story GFA to the podium roof set back from the street, similar to National Gallery Singapore’s roof with restaurants.
While there seems to be little space for new additions, reconfiguring the volume occupied by the existing car park space can be considered. The rear of the podium facing Park Crescent is also a potential area for alterations and adaptations.
Pros
No impact on City Rooms
Existing massing can be retained
Structurally independent from rest of building
Cons
Possible structural intervention
Existing floor-to-ceiling height possibly insufficient for commercial use
No ideal adjacent location to re-allocate minimum carpark needs
The extent of the carpark in the podium dedicated to intensification. (Source: Image adapted from Darren Soh)
Rear of the podium facing Park Crescent may also be intensified. (Source: Image adapted from Google Earth)
Rear of the podium viewed from Park Crescent. (Source: Author)
Strategy 2: Intensification at Rear
An intensified slab can be added at the rear of the existing podium with 3 to 5 additional floors above the current roof level, either through strengthening or reconstruction. The footprint of this additional slab should be defined by the edge of the City Rooms.
Pros
No impact on City Rooms
Existing massing can be retained
No impact to significant views at street level
Large enough floor plate for flexible configuration for commercial needs.
Cons
Interfaces with current slab block
Potential puncturing through slab block
Possible structural intervention
Intensification of the rear of the existing podium with an additional 3-5 storeys above its current roof level. (Source: Image adapted from Darren Soh)
Strategy 3: Extension of Slab
A new extension can be added on the carpark-face of existing slab. The extended volume can accommodate additional lifts and support the commercial viability of the slab block units (e.g. loft volumes, balconies, larger floorplates)
Pros
No impact on City Rooms
Integrated strategy for upgrading and increasing commercial viability of the slab block.
Cons
High structural and visual impact.
Likely requires partial demolition at existing podium
Intensification of PPC by extending the slab to enhance the commercial viability of the units in the residential component of the development. (Source: Image adapted from Darren Soh)
Combination Strategy
Strategies 1, 2 and 3 are not mutually exclusive and can be combined harmoniously if needed to achieve a higher additional GFA. However, in pursuit of achieving the right balance of options for optimal GFA, a “maximalist” approach is discouraged. All options must be sympathetic to PPC’s original architectural vision and seek to preserve its architectural integrity.
Challenges
PPC was designed to adhere to older building standards. Interventions are needed to improve circulation, services and relieve internal pressures within the slab block. Any such additions or enlargements should be sensitively applied, and sympathetic to PPC’s overall architectural concept and massing.
VERTICAL CIRCULATION
Circulatory devices such as staircases need to be adapted to contemporary fire-escape requirements. Existing lifts in PPC do not cater to every floor and will require upgrading and possible re-planning to ensure that the building addresses accessibility requirements.
STRUCTURAL STRENGTHENING
Intensification of various parts of the building, along with current building codes, will likely necessitate structural strengthening works on PPC. Sensitivity and care must be exercised to localise strengthening works to minimise irreversible and adverse impact to the historic fabric and character.
CONSTRUCTION
Rehabilitating PPC poses unique challenges, especially when it is sited upon a densely built-up urban area, such as considerations of construction access to the site and protection to adjacent properties during construction. Careful planning and execution of construction access, tower crane position and stringent safety controls must be in place at all times.
PPC Position Paper Working Group and Contributors
CHANG Jiat-Hwee
Calvin CHUA
ENG Jia Wei
FONG Hoo Cheong
HAN Jiajun Adrian
HO Weng Hin
KOH V-Nying
LAI Chee Kien
Ronald LIM
Jacob MEYERS
Jonathan POH
Imran bin TAJUDEEN
TAN Kar Lin
Justin ZHUANG
DocomomoSG would like to express our gratitude to the following individuals for their kind assistance and support:
Mdm KOH
Mr LAI Kuo Cheong
Mr PEH Ching Her
Mr Victor YUE
Bibliography & Further Reading
Asian Building & Construction. 1975. “Singapore project retains way of life.” Asian Building & Construction, April 1975. Hong Kong: Far East Trade Press.
Centre for Liveable Cities. 2014. Urban Systems Studies – Land Acquisition and Resettlement: Securing Resources for Development. Singapore: Centre for Liveable Cities.
Centre for Liveable Cities. 2016. Urban Systems Studies – Urban Redevelopment: From Urban Squalor to Global City. Singapore: Centre for Liveable Cities.
Centre for Liveable Cities. 2021. Urban Systems Studies – The Government Land Sales Programme: Turning Plans into Reality. Singapore: Centre for Liveable Cities.
Chang, Jiat Hwee, Ho, Weng Hin & Tan, Kar Lin. 2018. “Adding value without demolition, rebuilding: Regenerating Singapore’s modernist icons.” The Business Times. Singapore: The Straits Times, 6 April. Accessed 22 January, 2025. https://www.businesstimes.com.sg/property/adding-value-without-demolition-rebuildingregenerating-singapores-modernist-icons.
Chang, Jiat-Hwee, Justin Zhuang, and Darren Soh. 2023. Everyday Modernism. Singapore: Ridge Books Singapore.
Chang, Jiat Hwee, Ho, Weng Hin & Tan, Kar Lin. “Conserve a building, save the planet.” The Straits Times. Singapore: The Straits Times, 12 November. A24.
Chin, Soo Fang. 2023. “People’s Park Complex being studied for conservation, may impact collective sale.” The Straits Times. Singapore: The Straits Times, 22 December.
Choe, Alan. 2017. “The Early Years of Nation-Building: Reflections on Singapore’s Planning History.” In 50 Years of Urban Planning in Singapore, edited by Heng Chye Kiang. Singapore: World Scientific.
Chua, Beng Huat. 1989. The Golden Shoe: Building Singapore’s Financial District. Singapore: Urban Redevelopment Authority.
Dobbs, Steven, and Loh Kah Seng. 2023. “The Origins of Urban Renewal in Singapore: A Transnational History.” Journal of Urban History, 49 (1): 60-84.
Docomomo Singapore. 2019. 8th mASEANa International Conference Singapore 2019. Accessed 21 January, 2025. https://www.docomomo.sg/happenings/8thmaseana-international-conference-singapore-2019.
Docomomo Singapore. 2023. Docomomo Singapore Statement on People’s Park Complex. Accessed 21 January, 2025. https://www.docomomo.sg/happenings/docomomo-singapore-statement-on-peoples-park-complex.
DP Architects. 2018. DP Architects: 50 Years Since 1967. London: Artifice Press.
Eng, Jia Wei. 2023. People’s Park Complex: Heart Transplant in the City Centre 60 Years Ago. Accessed 21 January, 2025. https://www.docomomo.sg/happenings/peoples-park-complex-heart-transplant-in-the-city-centre-60-years-ago.
Far East Architect & Builder. 1967. “S$90M. Urban Renewal Projects, Singapore.” Far East Architect & Builder, August 1967. Hong Kong: Far East Trade Press.
Far East Architect & Builder. 1968. “People’s Park Shopping and Flats Complex.” Far East Architect & Builder, February 1968. Hong Kong: Far East Trade Press.
Far East Builder. 1969. “Park Road – Pilot project in urban renewal.” Far East Builder, August 1969. Hong Kong: Far East Trade Press.
Far East Builder. 1969. “Tenders for People’s Park Complex.” Far East Builder, January 1969. Hong Kong: Far East Trade Press.
Far East Builder. 1971. “Space for all in People’s Park Complex.” Far East Builder, April 1971. Hong Kong: Far East Trade Press.
Heng, C.K., and V. Chan. 2000. “The making of successful public space: a case study of People’s Park Square.” Urban Design International 5: 47-55.
Ho, Weng Hin, Dinesh Naidu, and Kar Lin Tan. 2015. Our Modern Past: A Visual Survey of Singapore Architecture 1920s-1970s. Singapore: Singapore Institute of Architects.
Ho, Weng Hin. 2021. Pearl Bank Apartments. 12 May. Accessed 25 January, 2025. https://www.docomomo.sg/modernist-100/pearl-bank-apartments.
Ho, Weng Hin. 2021. People’s Park Complex. 12 May. Accessed 21 January, 2025. https://www.docomomo.sg/modernist-100/peoples-park-complex.
Housing & Development Board. 1967. Housing & Development Board Annual Report 1967. Singapore: Housing & Development Board.
Housing & Development Board. 1968. Housing & Development Board Annual Report 1968. Singapore: Housing & Development Board.
Housing & Development Board. 1969. Housing & Development Board Annual Report 1969. Singapore: Housing & Development Board.
Housing & Development Board. 1970. Housing & Development Board Annual Report 1970. Singapore: Housing & Development Board.
Koh, Seow Chuan. n.d. The Opening of People’s Park Complex. Accessed 21 January, 2025. https://dpa.com.my/insight/theopeningofpeoplesparkcomplex/.
Lee, Michael Hong Hwee. 2016. People’s Park Complex. Accessed 21 January, 2025. https://www.nlb.gov.sg/main/article-detail?cmsuuid=3cc85ca4-650c-47be-b933-ed3241f93e38.
Lim, William S.W. 1990. Cities for People: Reflections of a Southeast Asian Architect. Singapore: Select Books.
Lim, William S.W. 1998. Asian New Urbanism and Other Papers. Singapore: Select Books.
Lim, William S.W. 2004. Architecture, Art, Identity in Singapore: Is There Life After Tabula Rasa? Singapore: Asian Urban Lab.
Luo, Stephanie. 2018. “Pearl Bank Apartments in Outram sold en bloc to CapitaLand for S$728m.” The Straits Times. Singapore: The Straits Times, 13 February.
mASEANa Project 2019. 2020. “Progressive Once More”: Rejuvenating Mid-Century Modern Architecture in Southeast Asia.” Issuu. Accessed 22 January, 2025. https://issuu.com/hayashilab/docs/maseana-2019_web2.pdf.
Ng, Keng Gene. 2021. “URA to study how to give Singapore’s ageing modernist buildings a new lease of life.” The Straits Times. Singapore: The Straits Times, 16 April.
Ng, Keng Gene. 2021. “Conservation of Golden Mile Complex paves way to protect S’pore’s modernist buildings.” The Straits Times. Singapore: The Straits Times, 26 October.
Ng, Keng Gene. 2022. “Golden Mile Complex gazetted as conserved building; future developers to get building incentives.” The Straits Times. Singapore: The Straits Times, 27 May.
Seng, Eunice. 2013. “The Podium, the Tower and the ‘People’: The Private Development of a Public Complex, c.1965-1970.” In Proceedings of the Society of Architectural Historians, Australia and New Zealand 30, Open, edited by Alexandra Brown and Andrew Leach. Queensland: SAHANZ.
Seng, Eunice. 2019. “People’s Park Complex: The State, the Developer, the Architect, and the Conditioned Public, c.1967 to the Present.” In Southeast Asia’s Modern Architecture: Questions of Translation, Epistemology and Power, edited by Chang Jiat-Hwee and Imran bin Tajudeen. Singapore: NUS Press.
Singapore Heritage Society. 2018. “Too Young to Die: Giving New Lease of Life to Singapore’s Modernist Icons.” August. Accessed 22 January, 2025. https://www.singaporeheritage.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/SHS-Position-Paper-Too-Young-To-Die-Aug-2018.pdf.
Tham, Davina. 2021. “Golden Mile Complex gazette as conserved building.” Channel News Asia. Singapore: Channels News Asia, 22 October.
Urban Redevelopment Authority. 1975. Urban Redevelopment Authority Annual Report 1974-5. Singapore: Urban Redevelopment Authority.
Urban Redevelopment Authority. 1983. Chronicle of Sale Sites: A Pictorial Chronology of the Sale of Sites Programme for Private Development. Singapore: Urban Redevelopment Authority.
Wee, H. Koon. 2019. “The Emergence of the Global and Social City: Golden Mile and the Politics of Urban Renewal.” Planning Perspectives 35 (4): 689–718.
Wee, H. Koon. 2020. “An incomplete megastructure: the Golden Mile Complex, global planning education, and the pedestrianised city.” The Journal of Architecture 25 (4): 472-506.
Wong, Yunn Chii. 2005. Singapore 1:1 City: A gallery of architecture & urban design. Singapore: Urban Redevelopment Authority.
ⓒ 2025 Docomomo Singapore. All rights reserved. This book, or parts thereof, may not be reproduced in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording or any information storage and retrieval system now known or to be invented, without written permission from the Publisher.
