The Architectural Mastermind Behind Modern Singapore | Liu Thai Ker | TED

Transcriber:

A lot of people say, "Why didn't you continue

with your father's career as a painter?"

My answer to them is very simple: I’m also a painter.

The only difference is that my father's painting

is only a few square meters in size.

My painting is a few thousand kilometers in size.

That's the only difference.

Singapore, when the British left us, in 1960,

three out of four people lived in squatter areas.

You probably don't even know what is a squatter area,

but in those days, it was just all over town.

So the government of Singapore decided

that, if we want to have a sustainable city,

compatible with all the other, larger countries,

we must achieve excellence.

And one of the signs of removing backwardness

is to remove the squatters and house everybody in housing.

And to do so, since the people in those days were very poor,

we then introduced public housing,

to build subsidized housing --

good-quality housing, but subsidized,

with affordable rental and affordable selling price.

That is a very important key to the transformation of Singapore.

So within 25 years, between 1960 and 1985,

we actually got rid of all the squatters.

We housed every Singaporean into public housing,

as well as, of course, private housing.

So that transformation is very thorough, very impressive.

That's a remarkable story of Singapore.

If you want to plan a city, the first thing is to ask:

"How many people are we planning for"?

In 1990, when we were planning the city,

I proposed a plan for 100 years, to 2091.

But nowadays, when I plan for other cities,

I suggest that we plan up to 2070,

because beyond that, really,

the whole world may have to control population growth,

so it's like planning for the ultimate population size,

because every city wants the city to be unique.

So, for Singapore and for cities I plan,

I look for the design gene of that locality,

to give it its unique character.

Now, what are the key design genes?

You see, different localities have different characteristics.

For example, they have different climates --

climates also affect planning and design --

and they also have different customs,

and that also affects what you put into the city plan or design.

And also, some kind of architectural heritage.

For example, in Southeast Asia, because of the strong sun,

we never have very strong colors.

If you look at Malay villages, the colors are kind of pastel.

Why? Because if you paint very strong colors

on Malay village buildings,

after a few years under the hot sun,

they all turn into pastel colors.

And the second is heritage.

As I mentioned earlier, every city has its own locality conditions.

So even though in Singapore we have shophouses,

our shophouse design

and the shophouse design in Malacca and Hong Kong,

they're different, because of local influence.

So we must protect our own heritage,

and they are very, very unique.

And the third thing,

which very few people talk about,

is density.

So as I mentioned earlier,

the large city, we must have a higher density,

and make the design more grand.

Small city, we have low density,

make the design more romantic.

So if we pick the right density for the cities of different sizes,

when you arrive at a city,

without even looking at the buildings,

you already know you're going into a different kind of city.

I told myself that despite the high-density building,

the high-density city that we plan,

we should not use high density as an excuse

for not creating a good environment.

So I told myself,

"How can I live with a high-density policy,

and yet create a nice urban environment?"

It dawned on me that you can have a high-density city

with a nice environment

by using the Western chessboard idea.

Because in the Western chessboard,

you have the black square and the white square alternating.

So if we put the [high-density] buildings in the black squares,

then [in] the white square we’d put the parks or schools

or low-rise shopping centers, and so on.

So in that case,

if you can disperse the high-density buildings

with a lower-density development,

you don't feel the oppressiveness of high density.

So in a new town, I plan it this way,

and later, when I planned Singapore, the whole city,

I also alternate it.

For example,

some of the historical area is naturally low-density,

and not far from a historic area,

like Shenton Way,

we allow high density.

But when you are in Shenton Way, it doesn’t feel oppressive,

because if you just turn your head around,

you see the sky.

And that's how Singapore was planned.

You don't actually go through miles and miles of high-rise buildings,

you go a few miles, one or two miles.

Then, you go to medium density, low density and higher density again.

So that creates a variety of environments,

and actually makes the city a better city.

I realized that we should not treat the city as one body.

We must treat a city as a family.

In a family, you have grandparents,

below that, you have several parents,

and below each parent, you have several children.

So in a city like Singapore,

I divided the city.

Below that, I divide it into regions.

Each region would have a population size of around a million people.

And below the region, I divide them into new towns.

Each new town will have a population size of around 150,000 to 200,000,

occasionally up to 300,000 people.

And below the new town,

we have neighborhoods;

below the neighborhoods, we have precincts.

That's how Singapore was planned.

You see, if you take a city like Singapore,

it would take, for example,

the highest level of commercial center is CBD,

in the central part of Singapore.

But in the region, I have regional centers.

It's one rank below the CBD.

And below the region, I have town centers,

in new towns.

It's one rank below the regional center.

and below the town centers are neighborhood centers.

So if I live in a neighborhood,

I want to buy a piece of soap,

I don't have to go to CBD,

I just walk to the neighborhood center.

I can get it.

But if I want to have,

maybe, a special dress,

I may have to go to a town center and get it.

So we actually cascade them in ranking.

And in a similar way,

in a city, I would plan for hospitals in different regions.

Universities in different regions.

But below that, in new towns,

I would plan for a polytechnic.

Below that, in neighborhoods,

I'd plan for high schools, primary schools.

So we cascade the functions, facilities and amenities

according to different family members.

In other words, if you are a grandfather,

you are very mature, you take care of the big issues.

But when you are a father,

you are still mature,

but you cannot take care of as many things as your grandfather.

But if you are a son,

you're not independent, you depend on your father and grandfather.

You can take care of only certain limited things.

So it's like, that's how a city should function.

If we don't subdivide the city in this kind of manner,

and we treat the city as one city,

the problem is that it's like putting the weight

of five or six people onto one person.

Now, what kind of person is he?

He cannot function, he can't move, you know?

That's what I mean, by traffic jams.

I'm quite worried about the fact that in today's world,

when things are changing very fast,

people say, "Well, we should not plan a city long-term,

because things are changing very fast.

What you plan today may be different tomorrow.

Just plan short-term."

I totally cannot accept that,

because a city is made up of concrete and steel.

It's long-term.

You cannot say, "Oh, I built a 50-story building today,

and I accept that five years later,

I'll pull it down for changed circumstances."

It's not possible.

But on the other hand,

you can ask, "How can we be sure

that whatever we build will last a long time?"

My answer is that if you spend time

studying the basic human needs of a city

and also understanding the basic need of the land for the city,

if you spend time studying that

and find out the answer and plan accordingly,

then the city should be able to last for a long time.

I just feel that there's too much noise, nowadays,

to say that the world is changing so fast,

and therefore, we have to go with the change.

And also, this belief that the more sexy-looking the city,

if the plan has a crazy-looking road layout,

crazy-looking buildings,

that would actually become creative.

I don't go for that,

because if you live in a city,

what you want is calmness, legibility,

a sense of community, predictability.

And we should never turn a city into a theme park.

In other words,

despite the fact that we must be very disciplined,

and create calmness, tranquility and so on,

we still have to create a city that is enjoyable to live in,

so it's fun.

Now once you know what creates fun for the people,

then you identify the functions to serve the fun.

“Fun” would include education, cultural activities and so on.

So then, you identify the functions,

and once you identify the functions,

then you create a city form

to satisfy the function.

Form follows function follows fun is the guideline for me in city planning.

And we must give them housing,

we must give them commercial centers

so that they create jobs.

We must give them industry, and also schools, hospitals

and even police stations and fire stations

and sports complexes.

Because we want the city people to be able to lead a healthy life.

And also parks.

So even a small, simple thing like parks:

we have parks at the city level;

in the region, we have regional parks;

new towns, we have town parks;

neighborhoods have neighborhood parks;

and in precincts, we have precinct parks.

And the location and size of each type of park

was also studied and kind of calibrated.

And that's how Singapore is seen as a garden city,

something to do with that.

All these things were identified as basic human needs

and incorporated in the plan.

To plan a city well,

I'd say you just have to remember three things.

To have a humanist's heart,

a scientist's head

and an artist's eyes.

"Humanist's heart" in the sense that you have to plan for people and land.

You have to create a plan

where people who live inside find the city liveable

and also the society resilient.

Land --

you want to design a city where the land is highly functional

and also ecologically highly sustainable.

Now the scientist's head is that,

to my mind, a city is like a machine

for living.

Now to design a machine,

you must know all the machine parts,

the sizes of each part,

the number of the parts that you put together,

and put them at the right places.

So it is a very precise science.

It's not something you would just draw according to your fancy.

But to put this machine onto the land,

we have to massage the machine

so that when the machine is put on the land,

it would compliment nicely with the land

and would not destroy the land.

And to help you understand that,

you need to have an artist's eyes

to romance with the land.

That's [what] I always keep in my mind when I plan a city.