From the perspective of institutional analysis, this paper evaluates the place-remaking process of Niucheshui in Singapore. It is found that the redevelopment of Niucheshui since the 1960s has been substantively shaped by the property rights regime over land and buildings. As property rights are defined by the state in the forms of statutory land-use planning, compulsory land acquisition, rent control, land leasing, and conservation of historical buildings, the free market for land redevelopment is reined in heavily by the state. The built form of Niucheshui before 1960 was by and large the product of many private individuals' and communities' initiatives. Those players have faded from the scene since the 1960s, and the redevelopment of Niucheshui is the result of interactions between the state and market forces, though public participation is practised in the land-use planning process. In view of the urban land market behaving and performing within a framework defined by institutions, and property rights being one of the most important institutions, we argue that, not warranted by rhetoric public participation, pluralism and diversity in the built environment are protected by a diverse structure of land property rights which should be incorporated into the place-remaking process.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BazelonD T, 1963The Paper Economy (Random House, New York)
BlumenfeldS L, (Ed.) 1974Property in a Humane Economy (Open Court, LaSalle, IL)
4.
BuchananJ MYoonY J, 2000, “Symmetric tragedies: Commons and anticommons”Journal of Law and Economics431–13
5.
ChengL K, 1990, “Reflections on the changing roles of Chinese clan associations in Singapore”Asian Culture1457–71
6.
ChewC S, 1973, “Key elements in the urban renewal of Singapore”, in Planning in Singapore: Selected Aspects and Issues Ed. ChuaP C (Chopmen Enterprises, Singapore) pp 32–44
7.
ChoeA F C, 1969, “Urban renewal”, in Modern Singapore Eds OoiJ BChiangH D (University of Singapore Press, Singapore) pp 161–170
8.
DaleO J, 1999Urban Planning in Singapore: The Transformation of a City (Oxford University Press, Shah Alam, Malaysia)
9.
DemsetzH, 1967, “Toward a theory of property rights”The American Economic Review57347–359
10.
Department of Statistics, Singapore1966Yearbook of Statistics
11.
1971Yearbook of Statistics
12.
1996aYearbook of Statistics
13.
1996bSingapore, 1995–1991 Statistical Highlights: A Review of 30 Years' Development
14.
FainsteinS S, 2000, “New directions in planning theory”Urban Affairs Review35451–478
15.
FainsteinS S, 2005, “Cities and diversity—should we want it? Can we plan for it?”Urban Affairs Review413–19
16.
FischelW A, 1985The Economics of Zoning Laws: A Property Rights Approach to American Land Use Control (Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD)
17.
FonsecaR, 1976, “Planning and land use”, in Singapore: Society in Transition Ed. HassanR (Oxford University Press, Kuala Lumpur) pp 221–239
18.
HardinG, 1968, “The tragedy of the commons”Science1621243–1248
HellerM A, 1998, “The tragedy of the anticommons: Property in the transition from Marx to markets”Harvard Law Review111621–688
21.
Hong Lim Citizens' Consultative Committee, 1977Hong Lim: Past and PresentHong Lim Citizens' Consultative Committee, Singapore
22.
HussockH, 1999Dealing with Unexpected Opposition: The Singapore Tourism Board and the Chinatown Enhancement Plan Case C14-99-15190, Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA
23.
InnesJ, 1995, “Planning theory's emerging paradigm: Communicative action and interactive practice”Journal of Planning Education and Research14183–189
24.
JacobsJ, 1961The Death and Life of Great American Cities (Random House, New York)
25.
JacobsJ, 1966, “Where city planners come down to earth”Business Week 20 August, 101–104
26.
JenkinsRGoetzA M, 1999, “Accounts and accountability: Theoretical implications of the right-to-information movement in India”Third World Quarterly20603–622
27.
JohnsonC, 1982MITI and the Japanese Miracle: The Growth of Industrial Policy: 1925–1975 (Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA)
28.
KayeB, 1960Upper Nankin Street, Singapore: A Sociological Study of Chinese Households Living in a Densely Populated Area (University of Malaya Press, Singapore)
29.
McGeeT G, 1976, “Beach-head and enclaves: The urban debate and the urbanization process in Southeast Asia since 1945”, in Changing Southeast Asian Cities: Reading on Urbanization Eds YeungY MLoC P (Oxford University Press, Singapore) pp 66–75
30.
MarkJ HGoldbergM A, 1981, “Land use controls: The case of zoning in the Vancouver area”AREUEA Journal9418–435
31.
MoY P, 1998, “Retaining cultural heritage as the key to revitalizing Niucheshui”Lianhe Zaobao 26 October (in Chinese)
32.
MothaP, 1989Singapore Real Property Guide3rd edition (Singapore University Press, Singapore)
33.
NorthD C, 1990Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge)
34.
PaulE FMillerF DJrPaulJ, 1994Property Rights (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge)
35.
PejovichS, 1990The Economics of Property Rights: Towards a Theory of Comparative Systems (Kluwer, Dordrecht)
36.
PerryMKongLYeohB, 1997Singapore: A Developmental City State (John Wiley, Chichester, Sussex)
37.
ReeveA, 1986Property (Macmillan, London)
38.
Republic of Singapore Government, various years Government Gazette (Republic of Singapore Government, Singapore)
39.
SHS, Singapore Heritage Society1998a, “Do not engineer an artificial Niucheshui”Lianhe Zaobao 21 November (in Chinese)
40.
1998b, “Chinatown as theme park?”Sunday Times 22 November
41.
2000Rethinking Chinatown and Heritage Conservation in Singapore
42.
SimL L, 1996, “Urban conservation policy and the preservation of historical and cultural heritage”Cities13399–409
43.
SimL L, 1997, “The conservation of Singapore's Chinatown”Journal of Architectural Conservation343–57
44.
SmithD WScarpaciJ L, 2000, “Urbanization in transitional societies: An overview of Vietnam and Hanoi”Urban Geography21745–757
45.
SmithR A, 1988, “The role of tourism in urban conservation: The case of Singapore”Cities5245–259
46.
STB, 1998Enhancing the Chinatown Experience (Singapore Tourism Board, Singapore)
StullW J, 1975, “Community environment, zoning, and the market value of single-family homes”Journal of Law and Economics18535–557
49.
TanT K, 2001, “Social capital and state–civil society relations in Singapore”, WP 9, Institute of Policy Studies, Singapore
50.
URA, Urban Redevelopment Authority, Singapore1983A Pictorial Chronology of the Sale of Sites Programme for Private Development
51.
1989The Golden Shoe: Building Singapore's Financial District
52.
1995aChinatown Historic District
53.
1995bConservation Guidelines for Historic Districts
54.
WebsterCLaiL W C, 2003Property Rights, Planning and Markets: Managing Spontaneous Cities (Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, Glos)
55.
WeldonPTanT H, 1969, “The socio-economic characteristics of Singapore population 1969”, TP 40, State and City Planning Project, Department of Statistics, Singapore
56.
WhiteGWadeR, (Eds) 1988Developmental State in East Asia (St Martin's Press, New York)
57.
WongK C, 1984Report of the Tourism Task ForceMinistry of Trade and Industry, Singapore
58.
WongT CYapA L H, 2004Four Decades of Transformation: Land Use in Singapore, 1960–2000 (Eastern University Press, Singapore)
59.
Woo-CumingsM, (Ed.) 1999The Developmental State (Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY)
60.
XuY S, 2001Shuoba, Niucheshui [A tale of Niucheshui]Xinhua Wenhua Shiye [Xinhua Cultural Enterprise], Singapore (in Chinese)
61.
YeohB S AKongL, 1994, “Reading landscape meanings: State constructions and lived experiences in Singapore's Chinatown”Habitat International1817–35
62.
YeungY M, 1973National Development Policy and Urban Transformation in Singapore: A Study of Public Housing and the Marketing SystemDepartment of Geography, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL
