Liveability Framework: Part 3 – Achieving a High Quality of Life

Introduction

Liveability in urban environments is not a static concept. It is a continuously evolving construct that changes with each city’s development phase and shaped by emerging individual perceptions and aspirations on urban lived experiences, as well as dynamic external forces. Responding to current and emerging challenges, the LF serves as a practical but non-prescriptive reference for city leaders, policymakers and planners to plan liveable and sustainable cities of the future.

In the LF diagram above, the three vital liveability outcomes – Competitive Economy, High Quality of Life and Sustainable Environment - are represented as intersecting circles. Collectively, they establish a holistic urban system that contributes to overall liveability in a city over the long run. Surrounding these is a "ring" structure consisting of three complementary systems that provide the enabling conditions to achieve and sustain the outcomes.

Achieving a High Quality of Life

Delivering high quality of life is a vital liveability outcome, alongside competitive economy and a sustainable environment. For Singapore, it emphasises the need to keep residents at the heart of planning and policy, and it represents the core belief that urban development should not come at the expense of well-being and welfare.

Some current and emerging trends that will shape how urban dwellers live, work and play include:

1. Disruptions like climate change, pandemics and technological shifts

2. Ageing society

3. Urban densification and greater congestion

4. Greater awareness on the importance of health and mental well-being

Generally, we can think about quality of life in a city based on basic and higher-order functions:

1. First, there are certain fundamental quality of life provisions that need to be in place. These are hygiene factors that are critical to keep residents safe, healthy and comfortable. They include access to food and shelter, basic sanitation and healthcare, and public utilities and services for everyday needs. However, with resource and supply chain disruptions, some of these provisions have also become more costly and may require policy interventions in order to remain affordable to most.

2. Second, cities also need to go beyond basic provisions and cater for higher-order needs of its residents. Generally, these are aspects of liveability that encompass the softer dimensions of a cosmopolitan lifestyle, such as access to sports and recreation, religion, arts and culture, as well as fostering strong social ties and community relations.

Spotlighting Liveability Outcomes and their Intersections

The refreshed LF emphasises the need to harness the synergies and manage the trade-offs between the three liveability outcomes. While a sustainable environment provides the basic foundation for human survival and enables the attainment of broader liveability goals, it can also give rise to inherent tensions in urban development and resource allocation.

At times, the building of perceived “less desirable” uses like funeral parlours and columbariums may lead to “not in my backyard” reactions, where residents raise objections over certain facilities due to concerns on how they could affect the more immediate quality of lived experience. There are no easy solutions – planners and policymakers have the increasingly challenging task of communicating the planning considerations and trade-offs to stakeholders and finding a palatable way forward.

Take the example of the tensions between maintaining a High Quality of Life and to need for land resource to maintain a Competitive Economy. As Singapore’s population diversifies, it is crucial that we continue to strengthen our national identity. This is not only captured in its shared values, but also in the built heritage that connects residents to our past and engenders a sense of belonging to the city. Despite its land constraints, Singapore has made remarkable progress in terms of its conservation efforts, even adopting more innovative ways to conserve and adaptively reuse certain buildings while ensuring viable redevelopment. One example is the landmark case of the conservation and adaptive reuse of Golden Mile Complex, a modernist building completed in 1973.

Nevertheless, every push to conserve comes with an opportunity cost of development potential. In particular, the bulk of our conservation stock is found in the central area where land premium is at the highest. Even in adaptive reuse projects, restoration and maintenance works also incur additional cost to developers or tenants, who are required to adhere to strict conservation guidelines.

As the economy and population continue to grow, the balancing of redevelopment and conservation priorities will need to be constantly recalibrated. In recent years, the calls for heritage preservation have grown, some as a response to the perceived rapid pace of redevelopment. At the same time, given our land constraints, Singapore will have to remain judicious in selecting which buildings or sites to conserve.

Conclusion

As a society’s needs evolve over time, city leaders and planners must maintain touchpoints with the ground in order to respond well to changing expectations of liveability. While many cities may be able to function well, those that are able to also meet the future aspirations of city dwellers will become more attractive to talent and businesses.

For more information on the Liveability Outcomes in the LF, please refer to Chapter 2: The Liveability Outcomes here.

If you prefer to download the full book, please click here.