Opinion: Unlocking New Dimensions of Liveability – Being Versus Doing

What if the city was reimagined as a collection of nudges that supported healthy behaviours? If that city possessed intelligence, artificial or natural, how would it enable humans in making wiser choices to prevent the onset of disease, increase longevity and improve healthspan?

We now know certain evidence-based realities of what it takes to be a sustainable and liveable city on a rapidly urbanising planet with finite resources. These include liveable density, compact urban form, accessible public transport with an emphasis on walkability, well-connected open spaces, and a vibrant culture and economy, delivered and managed through effective administration and governance. Indeed, if liveability 1.0 was measured by the quality and performance of the physical, social and economic environment in service of human “doing”—living, learning, working and playing—liveability 2.0 should be concerned with the felt impact of this environment on human “being”. The performance of such an environment would perhaps include the quality of inhabitants’ rest and opportunities for renewal; their emotional, mental and social health; and their levels of attention and awareness. Cognitive engagement and response to public spaces and urban places that make humans feel better is evidence of an intentional, high quality and liveable urban environment—a conscious city.

Liveable density in land constrained Singapore: HDB flats at night (Pixabay)

Being Versus Doing

Urban life keeps us in cycles of continuous physical and mental activity, with productivity and achievement often being the key measures of success, urging us to constantly strive for results. The default pursuit of “more” fuels a perpetual sense of insufficiency—a sense of never having or being enough. The impacts of a doing-oriented world are chronic tension, depletion and the tendency to operate on autopilot mode, mindlessly reacting to life rather than fully engaging with it. Liveability 2.0 calls for a fundamental shift, perhaps even an overhaul, of this conditioned mode of urban living, by reorienting the way we move through our spaces and inhabit the city. The human “being” understands the necessity of slowing down and recognises the value of stillness and rest. Success is no longer measured only by accumulation or quantifiable achievements, but by the quality of experiences and their impact on our health and well-being. Instead of asking how much we have accomplished, we begin to reflect on how nourished we feel.

Intentional recreational public spaces such as the Marina Barrage in Singapore enable human “being” (Pixabay)

Shifting Urbanisms

This is a paradigm I call “conscious and regenerative urbanism”. It brings together ancient wisdom and modern science by broadening the scope of placemaking. It infuses insights gained from mindfulness and neuroscience into the practice of urban design, real estate and finance. Through this lens, placemaking is an emergent concept that acknowledges and recognises the city as a complex system. Harnessing this system requires counter-intuitive ideas to achieve sustainable urban development as we know it, and more dynamic approaches to delivering liveability.

For example, in its evolution from a City in a Garden into a City in Nature, Singapore prioritises the value of natural capital as it continues to transform its urban landscape to be purpose-fit for a variety of life. This pursuit happens concurrently with the expansion and regeneration of public housing estates, new towns and private developments curated as mixed-use, mixed-income and mixed-generation neighbourhoods. Connectivity between humans and with nature, alongside a diverse and ever-improving mobility network, produces opportunities for economies of scope as a potential source of competitive advantage. There is an inherent wisdom to this type of development, which brings together seemingly disparate physical, social and economic dimensions and systems, balancing the doing with the being to produce conditions for liveability 2.0 at scale.

Urban parks like Fort Canning in Singapore serve as a reminder of the primal position of nature in a conscious city (Unsplash)

The Big Sit: Reimaging Third Space

The Big Sit (TBS) is a social experiment that began during the pandemic to explore how we can change our relationship with ourselves, and with our environment. By merely sitting in a public space in the Central Business District (CBD), mindfully and intentionally, we observe how our internal experiential landscape is impacted by our surroundings. Through this simple, yet surprisingly difficult act, we grow in patience and tolerance, acquiring new skills to navigate our urban life responsively rather than reactively. As a formal programmatic yet organic intervention, TBS creatively enables a new dimension of experience of being within the CBD, in contrast to constantly doing or moving within such an environment.

The Big Sit at Guoco Tower’s City Living Room in Tanjong Pagar, Singapore (The Big Sit, www.thebigsit.co)

Fostering connections at The Big Sit (The Big Sit, www.thebigsit.co)

The pandemic introduced new types of social behaviours. Lockdowns and physical distancing became a universal urban response, while technology facilitated connection and co-existence. People everywhere were forced to re-evaluate how to use private space—the home—which had an impact on the perception and utility of shared space—the office. At the same time, the value and role of parks and other types of public space—which have been labelled the “third space”—came into sharp focus. The third space gives people context, even meaning and purpose. Think of any major high street or commercial precinct. If you change the use of the street space, perhaps by restricting vehicle access, it changes the way users perceive the space. Over time, the use of the buildings evolves in response to the change in context. Zoom out and think of the city, and then consider the role of open space. All the green spaces, parks and plazas—these are the places that make the city, give it its unique identity, and foster social connection.

The pandemic induced extraordinary responses from cities that re-imagined and experimented with new ways to organise the relationship between people and public space. TBS is one such experiment born in Singapore, and has since evolved into a “slow-growing social health movement”.

While it is true that many people spend much of their time in their own personal bubbles, it is the time spent outdoors and in other communal spaces, such as parks, markets, theatres and museums, or merely sitting in public spaces, that often makes life more meaningful, purposeful and happy. It may be that the brief time together being in community, intentionally, helps transform loneliness into aloneness, in turn fostering a recognition that responding to urban social isolation may involve acquiring new skills to just “be” in the city, on your own, and know that there is a place for you.

Compassion Made Possible

Whether we consider a global city-state such as Singapore, or human habitats of different scales, scopes and complexities, it is the relationship with our nature that is a key parameter to explore for liveability 2.0. Much as Singapore has evolved from a City in a Garden into a City in Nature, perhaps its socio-economic and cultural vision is similarly shifting to embrace an idea of Compassion Made Possible. Such a transformation entails the production of place more than space, a concept that is particularly fitting for a nation like Singapore with land and resource constraints. It is informed by the desire to be distinctive, yet guided by a pragmatic understanding of the limitations of traditional economic growth that invites deeper engagement with new frontiers of creativity and innovation.

As we move into a post-pandemic world, where context is rapidly changing, how, when and where do we measure liveability? Indeed, what constitutes liveability itself?

Urban art invites positive cognitive engagement such as in Singapore’s art and heritage precinct, Bugis (Unsplash)

Perhaps liveability 2.0 should acknowledge that a meaningful premise for a measurement system could be to understand the value of a pause in the pursuit of happiness in favour of just being happy. Such a shift would entail a significant recalibration of the experience of being in a city, where rest and renewal are normalised and life can flourish.

Rather than the stability and expanse of a city’s infrastructure, which is increasingly vulnerable to climate risk no matter its economic strength, is it more pertinent to measure the response-ability of the city’s social fabric to enable a more compact form and greater community well-being? As society transitions into a new age of AI, would a city that values serendipity over predictability be more attractive to high-quality talent seeking to produce, make, design, create and invent?