Language:
Search
 
Upgrading Programmes – Transforming the Living Environment through Collaboration with the Grass Root
Housing and Development Board
Singapore

The Problem

Older public housing estates (developed in the 1960’s to early 80’s), though generally well maintained, were increasingly lagging behind newer estates: the fittings in the apartments were wearing out, the lifts did not serve every storey, the amenities were no longer suitable or adequate, the block designs were monotonous and similar. Moreover, the profile of the residents had changed: many of the young families decades ago had become empty nests, while others had moved to newer estates or private condominiums. Consequently, these older estates were losing not only their population and popularity, but also their property values.

Solution and Key Benefits

 What is the initiative about? (the solution)
The various upgrading programmes*, implemented to meet the various needs of older estates, have brought about remarkable benefits to the residents. Some of the key benefits are as follows:

i. Total transformation of the living environment: The ageing estates were visibly rejuvenated and endowed with a new lease of life. The improvements carried out within the apartments, in the blocks and in the precincts met the residents’ needs practically and gave them a markedly improved living environment.

ii. Preserving and strengthening of community ties: As the residents did not have to move out of their homes of many years in order to enjoy a better living environment, the existing community ties were preserved. On top of that, through the processes of resident feedback, design proposal formulation and collective decision making, as well as the common experience during the construction period, the social ties among residents were strengthened.

iii. Increasing property values: The values of upgraded flats were obviously higher than that of non-upgraded ones. For a small amount (ranging from 5% to 25% of the cost), citizen flat owners had their property values enhanced. In some cases where an additional room was provided, the owners were even able to rent out the room for supplemental income.

iv. Fostering sense of belonging and pride: By reversing the degeneration into an active regeneration and renewal, the residents had a new sense of belonging and pride in their estates. New families were also attracted. And as the residents were directly involved in the remaking of their living environment, they were expected to assume ownership and care for their environment more than before.

v. Achieve better understanding of public policies and residents’ needs: Through the consultative approach, intensive interaction with (a large number of) residents and policy reviews and revisions, both the government and the residents had come to a better understanding of each other’s goals, constraints, needs and preferences. This deepening of the relationship should help in nation-building and other aspects of governance.

* The programmes included: the Main Upgrading Programme, which was most extensive in scope (including improvements at the precinct, block and flat levels) and was for the oldest estates; the Interim Upgrading Programme (IUP), which was less extensive (including improvements at the precinct and block levels only) and was for the relatively younger estates; the Lift Upgrading Programme (LUP), which was specifically to improve lift accessibility, and the IUP Plus, which was a combination of IUP and LUP.

The success of the upgrading programmes was firstly measured by the polling results. For the upgrading proposal to proceed, at least 75% support from the residents was required. Almost all the precincts polled so far had voted “Yes”, and even for the handful that did not get the requisite support level, the percentage of “Yes” votes mostly exceeded 50%.

Periodic surveys of upgraded precincts were also conducted to gather the residents’ feedback. The survey results affirmed the success, popularity and relevance of the upgrading programmes.

Actors and Stakeholders

 Who proposed the solution, who implemented it and who were the stakeholders?
The upgrading programmes were proposed by the government and implemented by the Housing and Development Board (HDB), in conjunction with the advisors (political leaders) of the estates, the Town Councils managing/maintaining the estates, and the grassroots leaders of the estates. Each upgrading precinct was overseen by a Working Committee which comprised the advisor and representatives from the HDB, Town Council, Residents’ Committees, Citizens’ Consultative Committee and the residents of the precinct itself, as well as professionals such as architects, engineers and quantity surveyors. The Committee actively sought the residents’ feedback on their needs and preferences during the design stage. A suitable design proposal was then formulated and put up for the residents’ decision at the poll. With at least 75% support, HDB would call a tender and award the project to a private contractor to carry out the works.

(a) Strategies

 Describe how and when the initiative was implemented by answering these questions
 a.      What were the strategies used to implement the initiative? In no more than 500 words, provide a summary of the main objectives and strategies of the initiative, how they were established and by whom.
As the upgrading programmes involved carrying out fairly extensive improvements to lived-in apartments and blocks, they had to be planned and implemented with care so that disturbance to residents’ daily life was minimised. In particular, the Main Upgrading Programme, which included works within the flats and hence affected residents the most, needed to be tested and proven, before full scale implementation. Therefore it was piloted in two sites with vacant blocks to test out the technical and practical aspects. With the experience gained, the programme entered the demonstration phase in which six precincts, at prominent locations and with various flat types and conditions, served as a showcase of how upgrading works could be carried out. The overwhelming support from these six precincts very quickly ushered the programme into the steady phase. Thereafter, the pace was adjusted periodically to match the needs of the residents and the prevailing economic and financial conditions. The scope of works and budgets were also reviewed regularly to meet the expectations and aspirations of the residents.

On top of the pragmatic approach to ensure that the programmes could be implemented steadily at the government’s end, clear “rules of the game” were set forth to the residents in terms of the requisite support and cost-sharing expected from them. The strong mandate of at least 75% support from the residents unequivocally proved that the programmes met their needs and was what they wanted. The cost-sharing helped to ensure that they also assumed ownership and responsibility for their environment, as well as considering their requests and decisions carefully.

(b) Implementation

 b.      What were the key development and implementation steps and the chronology? No more than 500 words
The key development and implementation steps were as follows:

i. Precinct selection and announcementEligible precincts were nominated for the various programmes by the Town Councils in the yearly selection exercise. These were then compiled and reviewed by HDB before submission to the Ministry of National Development (MND) for final decision. The selected precincts were then announced to the residents by the advisors.

ii. Design formulation and pollAfter the announcement, a Working Committee was formed. The Committee was responsible for gathering the residents’ feedback, formulating a suitable design proposal and selling it to the residents. At the poll, the refined proposal was formally presented to the residents for their support.

iii. Tender and constructionWith the requisite support, HDB called a tender and awarded the project to the most suitable contractor. During the construction phase, HDB and the contractor worked closely with the residents to ensure that the works were carried out safely and efficiently.

iv. Completion and billingAfter the works had been completed, the necessary inspections were conducted and the accounts finalised. The flat owners were then billed their share of the upgrading cost and advised on the payment modes and financial assistance available.

v. Surveys and policy reviews Periodic surveys of completed precincts were carried out to ascertain the residents’ satisfaction levels and to obtain their suggestions for improvement. These feedback were then considered in subsequent policy reviews and revisions to ensure that the programmes remained attractive and relevant.

(c) Overcoming Obstacles

 c.      What were the main obstacles encountered? How were they overcome? No more than 500 words
As these were highly subsidised and value-for-money programmes, there were no major obstacles posed by the residents or general public. However, there were some challenges such as pacifying a minority whose wishes could not be fulfilled because of technical or budget constraints; minimising disruption to daily life during the construction phase; ensuring that the proposal could be realised in the face of rising costs; and answering to the residents when a contractor could not perform. These were overcome through patient explanation and a consistent stand; continual exploration and adoption of methods to reduce construction noise and dust; exercising financial vigilance and prudence; and developing and activating emergency response teams to attend to critical needs immediately.

(d) Use of Resources

 d.      What resources were used for the initiative and what were its key benefits? In no more than 500 words, specify what were the financial, technical and human resources’ costs associated with this initiative. Describe how resources were mobilized
The budgets for the various programmes were determined upfront and approvals were obtained from the Ministry of Finance before implementation. The computer systems and databases needed to support the implementation were mostly developed and managed by HDB staff. The human resource was mainly from HDB while the technical consultants were engaged through established, transparent and accountable government procurement methods.

Sustainability and Transferability

  Is the initiative sustainable and transferable?
The upgrading programmes are long term programmes committed by the government. Although individual programes may see revisions or even be replaced by new programmes over time, the government is committed to overall estate renewal and rejuvenation. The number of projects to be announced each year, however, is dependent on the economic performance of the country and the availability of budget surplus to fund these projects.

We think that it is possible for the programmes to be replicated in other countries and HDB will be happy to share her experiences. However, the specific details and implementation steps will need to be modified to suit the local conditions.

Lessons Learned

 What are the impact of your initiative and the lessons learned?
The key elements for the success of the programmes are:

i. Strong government commitment and support. This constitutes the foundation of the programmes, without which there will be no budget, backing and basis for the implementation.

ii. Strong resident support. This is the second most important element, without which the programmes cannot even proceed.

iii. Intensive interaction with residents. To gain the residents’ support, it is imperative to get their feedback on their needs and preferences. Otherwise, the proposal will not receive widespread support and may even be a waste of resources.

iv. Committed staff. The commitment of the personnel implementing the programmes, be it the Working Committees, HDB staff or even contractors, also plays a key role in ensuring the programmes’ success in the practical aspects and details.

v. Cooperation of the media. The cooperation of the media in presenting an accurate and fair account, especially of negative incidents or misunderstandings, helps to ensure that people’s perceptions are not adversely affected by rumours and half-truths.

Contact Information

Institution Name:   Housing and Development Board
Institution Type:   Government Agency  
Contact Person:   Chee Kheng Chye
Title:   Deputy Director (Upgrading)  
Telephone/ Fax:   64902007
Institution's / Project's Website:   64902135
E-mail:   ckc3@hdb.gov.sg  
Address:   HDB Hub, 480, Lorong 6, Toa Payoh West Wing, 10th storey
Postal Code:   310480
City:  
State/Province:  
Country:   Singapore

          Go Back
Print friendly Page