No sense of history in these buildings?

MENTION Lau Pa Sat, and many Singaporeans will think of satay, barbecued seafood and steamboat.

Is that any way to remember a unique 150-year-old building that looms large in Singapore’s history?

No, says senior lawyer and former judicial commissioner Joe Grimberg, who wrote to The Straits Times last week to say the majestic building is in a miserable state, cluttered by ’stalls and murky tarpaulins’. A new flyover nearby does not help, he added.

Experts contacted agreed that using the cast-iron building as just another foodcourt means much of its historical significance is lost on customers.

Senior lecturer Choo Keng Hui of Singapore Polytechnic’s School of Architecture and The Built Environment said: ‘It is sad that Lau Pa Sat is just a food centre where people go only to eat. Perhaps a contextual study should be done on how other functions can be infused into this place.’

Indeed, while information boards about the history of the market, as well as a small showcase of artefacts from its heyday, are present there, patrons said they hardly bother with them.

Mr Shankar Sevasamy, 40, who works in the legal industry and often eats there, said: ‘Basically I come here to eat, and then I go off. It is not a museum where you go and find out about the history. To many, it is just another hawker centre, maybe a little fancier.’

Others agreed, saying the artefacts on display were not special enough.

Associate Professor Johannes Widodo of the Department of Architecture at the National University of Singapore said treating Lau Pa Sat as just another eating place is wrong.

No other foodcourt in Singapore is housed in such a significant and historic structure, he said.

‘We can’t return to the past, but in the past, it was also a marketplace, a place for everyone to mingle, to buy and to sell, to trade and to consume; not so much different from the current function, although it’s not the same.’

He added that while it is important to conserve a monument’s physical structure, people should also leave with a sense of the building’s history.

Singapore Heritage Society president Kevin Tan said the issue of commercial interests versus preservation of heritage sites is a perennial problem.

‘If the authorities expect to collect commercial rent from historic buildings, then, automatically, the more interesting businesses, trades and activities that give character to a building will move out as they can’t afford the high rentals.’

High-yield businesses such as food outlets, pubs, bars and clubs, which diminish the building’s historical significance, will move in instead, he said.

Lau Pa Sat, Singapore’s first wet market, was ordered built by Stamford Raffles, who envisioned it as a ‘great commercial emporium’.

It was gazetted as a National Monument in 1973 for its historical and architectural value.

But like other such monuments that have been turned into commercial outlets, much of its historical significance is lost on customers.

Chijmes, for example, is known more for its nightspots than its architecture or history. The Cathay building, Singapore’s first skyscraper, is just another mall to most.

‘It is the triumph of money over heritage,’ Prof Widodo said, referring to The Cathay, where only a little of the old building has been retained.

But while the experts agreed with Mr Grimberg that monuments should feature more than a nod to their past, they said his suggestion to relocate Lau Pa Sat to a site in Marina South, where it would be ‘visible for miles around’, was a non-starter.

Doing so would dilute its historical significance, said a spokesman for United Engineers, the firm responsible for rebuilding Lau Pa Sat in the 1980s.

‘Preserving a historic building is not just about retaining its original structure as far as possible, but also keeping its history, land use and interaction with its surroundings,’ he said.

Ms Jean Wee, director of the Preservation of Monuments Board, did not respond to questions about the use of Lau Pa Sat as a foodcourt.

But on the question of moving the market, she said: ‘If the market were to be relocated, the authenticity of the site would be questioned.’

Source : Straits Times – 13 Apr 2010
Singapore Property