After the guest lecture at URA, I have a deeper understanding of conservation.

In this
reflection, I want to talk about why we need conservation, what should be conserved,
and the management framework for conserving.
Heritage conservation in Singapore is outstanding, and Singaporeans, as citizens
of a very small country, are aware that there is something of value here for humanity
because of heritage conservation, and that they are part of this great human cultural
family. Heritage conservation is not about tourism, nor pride, but more about
adjusting the local understanding of this country and Singapore's connection and
potential value to the world in the cultural sphere. It is not economics, nor all the other
rigid and speedy metrics; it is the culture that inspires heritage conservation. So why
is it important to preserve cultural heritage? First and foremost it is about linking the
past to the present. What is the one memory that makes people feel happier when they
are homesick? I think it's a memory of a smell or taste that was important to them
when they were a child, which is very physical. Thus, heritage buildings have the
potential to become a physical chain to the past and people's culture. More officially,
heritage can provide contrast and diversity to the city. Secondly, a building is
preserved because it creates the atmosphere of a city. It is about the identity of each
individual, as a family, and as a community. It makes people feel at home. And all of
this enhances life in a subjective way.
In this case, what should we conserve? There are six factors: architectural merit,
rarity, historical significance, contribution to the environment such as some
meaningful building that should face to the city and people, identity, and economic
impact like Clarke Quay. In my opinion, the most important thing is the historical
significance and then is architectural merit. However, I have a question about how to
balance these values. During the lecture, the professor said that they will serve one
value as a purpose to conserve the building and then do the research to explore other
values of this building, so I wonder why they do not consider all of these values and
“calculate” the value to determine whether the building should be conserved. For
example, in the project of the national library, people who are responsible for it can
discuss the weight of each value like the historical significant weight of 30%, and
architectural merit weight of 20%, and then they can give a score for each value of the
national library to determine whether it should be torn out according to the total point.
Finally, for the management process, I think it is a good circulation from the
agency as manager to agencies business community with the voice of government
agencies, heritage and identity panel, owners, local grassroots groups, online citizens,
former residents, and so on. I know there is two-way communication with businesses
or citizens, but with the picture of the management process, I wonder whether it lacks
some output. The promotion of the concept and the building should be more pre-
conservation and during the decision-making process, so that there may be more
effective two-way communication. Otherwise, during communication, it's important
to use the right language for the right audience; a person might care about emotion or
economy, or the law. We can't tell an accountant who cares about economics how
many people love your project; nor can we tell someone who loves culture that the
project is great because it makes so much money that they won't care.
 In conclusion, heritage conservation is a complex and enduring process that needs
a group of people to persevere and work hard.