Third Master Plan ('90s to 2000s)

– Review by T.K. LIU (Pte) Ltd in association with RSP Architects

Planners & Engineers (Pte) Ltd.

In late 1990s, the University decided to undertake the task of developing a comprehensive master plan review to help rationalize the use of land while increasing the number of uses and facilities to accommodate the university in their need to expand and meet the challenges of being a premier university locally, regionally and globally. Under the directive of then NUS President, Prof Shih Choon Fong, Prof Yong Kwet Yew, Vice President (Campus Infrastructure) was charged to lead a small team with officers from both Office of Estate and Development (OED) & Office of Finance (OFN) to undertake the master planning review of the Kent Ridge Campus.

Dr Liu Thai Ker, a prominent local architect, ex-Chief Planner, URA & ex-Chief Architect, HDB was selected through a short list to undertake the campus master plan review in 2000. Dr Liu Thai Ker was formally appointed in his personal capacity as Master Planner on 23 December 1999; his scope of works included the review of NUS development plans vis-a-vis the 1991 Barnes Master Plan, as well as to propose a new conceptual CMP and a set of Urban Design Guidelines (UDG) that would support the University’s long-term strategic growth; and if required, to study expansion beyond the present campus.

On 10 January 2002 the university successfully presented a conceptual CMP to Cabinet. In-principle approval was then given to NUS to expand into Warren / Medway subject to NUS/MOE and MND working together to determine the exact amount of land needed at Warren / Medway to achieve the NUS Campus Master Plan’s strategic intent.

Despite several iterations with MOE and URA, the project was eventually held in abeyance pending resolution of issues relating primarily to funding availability. The opportunity to revisit the expansion of NUS campus into Warren was revived with the new MOF initiative to launch and drive the Public Private Partnership (PPP) Framework (all capital projects exceeding $ 50 million would have to consider using the PPP Framework).

With a new funding model, the Provost Office took the opportunity to re-visit some of the earlier academic, pedagogical and planning parameters to evolve a mode of student accommodation that would be distinct from the existing traditional hostel as well as the residences at PGP – the proposed concept of 12 residential colleges located within a university village (UV) would essentially emphasise residential learning, where curricular teaching and learning occur alongside academic mentoring and informal intellectual activities in residences; these will be set amidst a range of social and recreational facilities that would provide an environment to support social, physical and emotional growth.  

The main features

The master planning attempts to describe, for selected precincts and land parcels,

• The Planning Parameters – for example, the prescribed use, the gross floor area, building height, open spaces/landscaped areas and building setbacks;
• The Building Form and Mass;
• Special Requirements – for example, axial alignments, building articulation, walkways; and
• The Transport System – both pedestrian and vehicular.

The guidelines will provide broad parameters to ensure cohesion in the physical expression of the buildings and for the execution of the key master planning concepts, like:

• Allowing for a seamless flow of people and ideas in an academic environment without borders;
• Complementing and enhancing the role of the university as a teaching and research institute;
• Providing students a well-rounded experience through a wide range of non-academic activities;
• Preserving the lush green environment as much as possible;
• Creating opportunities for memorable spaces;
• Maintaining a car-free and pedestrian friendly campus.

The guidelines aim to achieve the following urban design objectives:

• A campus environment that is encouraging and facilitates movement and inter-mingling of people through creation of indoor and outdoor meeting places.
• A strong sense of place and collegiate ambience with arrival plazas, squares, greens and comfortable connecting links.
• A campus nestled in, and in harmony with, nature by taking advantage of the presence of the ridge, ponds, wooded areas, knolls, basins and undulating topography.

The objectives will be achieved through the following strategies:

• To make connections (physically and visually) within campus and without:  A campus that is easy to get to, legible and efficient.
• To achieve a pedestrian oriented campus that is safe, comfortable and seamlessly connected.
• To create a place that is rich in character & identity with a sense of community. A vibrant place that provides opportunities for working, living and learning.  An environment that is stimulating and inspiring, that fosters creativity and innovation.
• To create opportunities for rich and robust activity, and character, by encouraging mix of uses to meet various demands from a wide range of users.
• To acknowledge and enrich the existing visual asset of the campus and its potential.
• To respect and enhance the natural environment and each site’s intrinsic visual resources: the climate, landform, landscape and ecology.
• To create guidelines that are responsive to the future changes in use, lifestyle, demography and academic direction of the campus.