How Do Mega Projects Fit in Urban Society?

Abstract

In "What buildings do", Thomas Gieryn (2002) reminds us that buildings stabilize social life. Gieryn argues that human agency & the configuration of significant actors is necessary to give birth to buildings. However, once such structures are in place, they organize social life. In this paper, I want to use this idea that buildings -- through their design & organization of social practices -- produce & reproduce a set of meanings, values, interests & relationships & apply this to an analysis of mega projects & their local impacts. & I want to do this by avoiding the more sensational impacts (the debate over iconicity, the protests over costs & displacements of residents & businesses) that mega projects invariably generate. Rather, I will like to move the discussion to an understanding of how mega projects "fit" with other parts of urban society. Three issues are explored in terms of the involvement of local society: (a) If mega projects are built to conform to international standards rather than local sensitivities, how are these projects consumed locally? How is "ownership" produced? (b) If mega projects tend to be mono-functional rather than multipurpose, how do new features seep in? Are such projects disconnected rather than integrated with the immediate environment? (c) Compared to community structures (religious structures, health facilities, schools), mega projects are examples of "single-minded" spaces (Walzer, 1986). Will regulation & the differing access for different segments of the population add to the stratification effects? I will explore these issues in reference to three prominent elements in Singapore's civic & cultural district; the mega & iconic US $300 million Esplanade, CHIJMES, a catholic school that has been converted to an entertainment complex, & the Armenian church, the oldest church in Singapore.