# Commentary: Forests vs flats? Singapore’s land development debate needs to move beyond that

- **Source:** Channel NewsAsia
- **Published:** 2026-08-02T22:00:00.000Z
- **Author:** Woo Jun Jie
- **Original:** https://www.channelnewsasia.com/commentary/commentary-forests-vs-flats-singapores-land-development-debate-needs-move-beyond-6292601
- **Topics:** HDB & Public Housing, Government & Policy, Sustainability & PropTech

## Featured rationale

The land-use trade-off signals that brownfield supply alone may not meet housing needs, potentially making nature-integrated planning more important for future estates.

## AI summary

Plans for Maju Forest involve clearing 15ha of secondary forest for Sunset Way flats while retaining the remaining 8ha as a wildlife refuge.

## Original article

SINGAPORE: When the Housing and Development Board (HDB) announced in July the plan to clear nearly two-thirds of Maju Forest for a new residential development in Sunset Way, a familiar discussion emerged. Does Singapore really need to sacrifice its forests for housing development, the refrain goes. Then don’t complain there aren’t enough flats, comes the retort. But the underlying expectation is rarely that Singapore should stop building – it is that it should build homes somewhere else first. This is not the first time that the public has responded to such housing development plans. In 2021, there was concern over the zoning of Dover Forest for residential use. The question increasingly being asked is: Can Singapore pursue a “brownfield only” development strategy?

BROWNFIELD FIRST, NOT ONLY It is a reasonable suggestion, but in practice, Singapore is already redeveloping brownfield sites where such opportunities exist. Brownfield sites are previously developed land, with existing buildings and infrastructure, unlike greenfield sites that have never been built on. Singapore has been doing this in several ways. Plans to redevelop the Gillman Barracks for housing were announced at the same time as the Sunset Way site. The Gillman Barracks site consists of 86 buildings, of which 25 will be retained for their heritage value. Another recent example is the redevelopment of the Old Police Academy into the Mount Pleasant public housing estate, with about 6,000 new flats across four projects planned. Six historic buildings will be conserved and integrated into the new estate.

Across Singapore, sites where once stood primary and secondary schools have also been transformed or zoned for residential developments. The Selective En bloc Redevelopment Scheme (SERS) had also been a mechanism to redevelop older neighbourhoods into higher-density public housing estates. The sites of two golf courses, often raised as sites to be prioritised for redevelopment, have been earmarked for housing after their leases expire in 2030. Redeveloping brownfield sites has long been part of our approach to intensify the use of relatively less utilised spaces and create more space for housing. WHY NOT JUST BUILD ON EXISTING SITES? Yet, brownfield development is not as straightforward as it might seem, for a variety of reasons. First, and importantly, are the people. Existing residents, businesses and communities have to relocate. It disrupts lives and livelihoods, measured also in years’ worth of social and emotional connections. Old buildings and spaces are often imbued with the collective memories of the families and individuals who have frequented or lived there. A good example would be Golden Mile Complex . Initially slated for a collective sale and likely demolition, Golden Mile Complex was subsequently gazetted in 2021 as a conserved building following extensive public consultation by the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA).

Then, there are practical challenges. Existing buildings and infrastructure must be demolished and replaced, construction waste transported and processed. All of this can also release what is known as end-of-life embodied carbon. So brownfield redevelopment comes with financial, time and environmental costs too. What about building on the empty fields we sometimes see in our neighbourhoods? Some have argued that the pockets of green spaces interspersed across the island could also be tapped for housing. But not every site may be able to support meaningful housing development. Adding even a few blocks to an existing neighbourhood could strain existing amenities (such as supermarkets, preschools and clinics) and transport infrastructure. So the size of such fields will affect their suitability. WHAT A CITY IN NATURE MEANS In an ideal situation, we would be able to keep all our forests and heritage spaces. However, the reality is that as Singapore continues to grow and develop, we will need to find more spaces to accommodate our growing needs. Even taking a “brownfield first” approach, it may be inevitable that we will need to turn to some of our green spaces. Then the challenge is how to do it in a way that is sensitive to our ecological spaces and biodiversity.

For Maju Forest, the plans include clearing 15ha of secondary forest to build new flats in Sunset Way and setting aside the remaining 8ha as a wildlife refuge. HDB has said that the plans are “not final” as it looks to balance housing needs and residents’ concerns. Likewise, a new housing site at Sembawang will set aside 6ha of existing forest, grassland and scrubland to preserve part of an existing freshwater swamp forest. In Bidadari estate, natural features of the landscape such as knolls, hills and heritage trees were conserved and integrated into the housing estate and its park. The estate has in fact won a gold award in the Master Plan category of the 2024 FIABCI World Prix d’Excellence Awards while Bidadari park has won the ULI Asia Pacific Award for Excellence. Singapore is not alone in taking this approach. In Sweden, in a residential district known as Hammarby Sjöstad, planners retained substantial amounts of the pre-existing woodlands as well as an oak forest. Substantial effort was made to connect the oak forest to the rest of the development, rather than leaving it as a stand-along feature, by pedestrian and cycling paths.

A similar approach can be seen in Finland’s Tapiola garden city, a suburban forest was designed and integrated into the 238ha housing district. This included the development of recreational facilities within the forest. All these local and overseas examples suggest that for developments that cannot avoid difficult trade-offs, the measure of success is whether nature remains an integral part of the neighbourhood – and what “City in Nature” means for Singapore. Perhaps more importantly, this means recognising that a City in Nature is more than just preserving every green space. It is also continuing to create new green and blue spaces, even as some existing ones are preserved and others make way for future development. Dr Woo Jun Jie is Assistant Dean (Academic Affairs) and Senior Lecturer at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, National University of Singapore

## Chinese translation

> Translation model: grok_cli

### 评论：森林与组屋？新加坡土地开发辩论需要超越这一对立

在清拆马裕森林以兴建住房引发关注之际，有人建议新加坡应只在“棕地”上建设，这一说法合理。但也可能忽略了一些方面，李光耀公共政策学院的胡俊杰如是说。

新加坡：当建屋发展局（HDB）于7月宣布计划清拆马裕森林（Maju Forest）近三分之二面积，用于日落路（Sunset Way）一带新住宅项目时，一场熟悉的讨论再度出现。新加坡真的需要为了住房发展牺牲森林吗——这是常见的质疑。对方则反驳：那就别抱怨组屋不够。但背后的期望很少是新加坡应停止建设，而是应先在别处建房。这并非公众首次对这类住房发展计划作出反应。2021年，多佛森林（Dover Forest）被划作住宅用途也曾引发关注。人们越来越常问：新加坡能否推行“只开发棕地”的发展策略？

先棕地，而非仅棕地 这一建议合理，但实际上，只要有机会，新加坡已在重新开发棕地。棕地是指先前已开发、有既有建筑与基础设施的土地，不同于从未建设过的绿地。新加坡已通过多种方式这样做。与日落路地段同期宣布的，还有将吉尔曼军营（Gillman Barracks）重新开发为住房的计划。该军营地段共有86栋建筑，其中25栋将因具有遗产价值而予以保留。另一个近期例子是将旧警察学院重新开发为美景山（Mount Pleasant）公共住屋区，计划在四个项目中兴建约6000套新组屋。六栋历史建筑将获保育并融入新市镇。

在全岛，许多曾是中小学的地段也已转型或被划作住宅发展。选择性整体重建计划（SERS）也一直是将较旧邻里重建为更高密度公共住屋区的机制。两座高尔夫球场——常被提出应优先重建的地段——在2030年租约届满后已被划作住房用途。重新开发棕地长期以来一直是我们的做法：更集约利用相对低效空间，并为住房腾出更多土地。为何不只在现有地段建设？ 然而，棕地开发并不像表面看起来那么简单，原因有多方面。首先也是重要的，是人。现有居民、商家和社区必须搬迁。它扰乱生活与生计，也以多年的社会与情感联结来衡量。旧建筑与空间往往承载着曾在此生活或频繁往来的家庭与个人的集体记忆。黄金里程综合大厦（Golden Mile Complex）就是很好的例子。它最初拟进行集体出售并很可能被拆除，但经市区重建局（URA）广泛公众咨询后，于2021年被宪报列为保育建筑。

此外还有实际挑战。既有建筑与基础设施必须拆除并重建，建筑废料需要运输与处理。这一切也可能释放所谓的寿命终结隐含碳。因此，棕地重建同样伴随财务、时间与环境成本。那么，在我们邻里偶尔见到的空地能否建设？有人主张，散布全岛的零星绿地也可用于住房。但并非每块地都能支撑有意义的住房发展。即使在现有邻里加建几座楼，也可能使既有配套（如超市、学前教育中心和诊所）以及交通基础设施承压。因此，这类空地的规模会影响其适宜性。自然之城意味着什么 在理想情况下，我们能保留所有森林与遗产空间。然而现实是，随着新加坡持续增长与发展，我们需要找到更多空间以满足日益扩大的需求。即便采取“先棕地”方针，仍可能不可避免地需要动用部分绿地。挑战在于如何以对生态空间与生物多样性敏感的方式去做。

就马裕森林而言，计划包括清拆15公顷次生林，在日落路一带兴建新组屋，并将其余8公顷划为野生动物庇护地。建屋发展局表示，计划“并非最终定案”，正努力在住房需求与居民关切之间取得平衡。同样，三巴旺一处新住房地段将保留6公顷现有森林、草地与灌丛，以保存部分现有淡水沼泽林。在比达达利（Bidadari）市镇，山丘、高地和遗产树等自然景观特征获保育并融入住屋区与公园。该市镇实际上还荣获2024年国际不动产联盟（FIABCI）世界杰出大奖总体规划类别金奖，而比达达利公园则获城市土地学会亚太卓越奖。新加坡并非唯一采取这一做法的地方。在瑞典一个名为哈马比湖城（Hammarby Sjöstad）的住宅区，规划者保留了相当多的原有林地以及一片橡树林。他们投入大量努力，通过步行与自行车道将橡树林与其余发展相连，而不是将其孤立成一个独立景点。

芬兰塔皮奥拉（Tapiola）花园城市可见类似做法：一片郊野森林被设计并融入238公顷的住屋区，包括在林中发展休闲设施。所有这些本地与海外例子表明，对于无法避免艰难取舍的发展项目，成功的衡量标准是：自然是否仍是邻里不可分割的一部分——以及“自然之城”对新加坡意味着什么。或许更重要的是，这意味着要认识到：自然之城不止于保留每一寸绿地。它也包括持续创造新的绿色与蓝色空间，即使部分既有空间被保留、另一些则为未来发展让路。胡俊杰博士是新加坡国立大学李光耀公共政策学院助理院长（学术事务）兼高级讲师。