SINGAPORE — Singapore’s continuing transformation of its limited land resources is once again at the centre of debate as plans to develop parts of Gillman Barracks and Sunset Way raise questions about the balance between environmental preservation, housing demand and the country’s long-term economic needs.
For decades, the city-state has undergone almost continuous redevelopment as authorities reshape available land to accommodate changing residential, commercial, industrial and recreational requirements. In a country where land is scarce and population pressures continue to evolve, development has often meant that familiar spaces, open views and places with sentimental value eventually give way to new buildings and infrastructure.
For many residents, that transformation can be difficult to accept. A new apartment block may obstruct a previously open view, a familiar building may disappear through redevelopment, or a patch of forest that has become part of a neighbourhood’s identity may be earmarked for housing. Such changes can generate strong emotional reactions, particularly when residents feel that valued natural or heritage spaces are being sacrificed.
Yet Singapore’s circumstances make some degree of continual change difficult to avoid. Since independence, the Republic has relied heavily on careful land-use planning to support economic activity, provide housing and build the infrastructure required by a growing and increasingly sophisticated population.
The scale of that transformation was highlighted at this year’s National Day Rally, when Prime Minister Lawrence Wong said several islands in the western part of Singapore, including Semakau, Bukom and Sudong, could potentially be merged into a larger island to support a new generation of industries. The proposal illustrates the extent to which Singapore continues to examine unconventional ways of creating land and supporting future economic activity.
Against that broader backdrop, the controversy surrounding Gillman Barracks and Sunset Way has become an important example of the difficulties involved in deciding how scarce land should be used.
Development plans trigger environmental concerns
On July 10, the Housing & Development Board announced plans to develop new homes at Gillman Barracks and Sunset Way after environmental and heritage studies examined the possible effects of development on approximately 25 hectares of native forest.
Gillman Barracks, a former military installation located off Alexandra Road and known for its heritage buildings, is planned to become part of a 40-hectare mixed-use residential neighbourhood containing both public and private housing. The development would also involve part of the forest surrounding the former military site.
At Sunset Way in Clementi, the designated land would be used for public housing. The proposals therefore involve not only questions about environmental conservation but also the country’s need to provide additional homes as household numbers increase.
The original plans were developed with the involvement of nature groups and proposed retaining about 40 per cent of the green spaces at Gillman Barracks and approximately 35 per cent of Maju Forest at Sunset Way. Despite that proposed retention, residents and nature groups voiced strong objections over the amount of greenery that would be lost.
Following public feedback, the government subsequently announced that it would retain more green space at both locations. The adjustment came with a corresponding reduction in the number of homes that could ultimately be constructed on the two sites.
The changes demonstrated that development plans can be modified in response to public concerns. They also suggested that housing and conservation do not necessarily have to be treated as completely opposing objectives, provided that planners are willing to reassess the balance between the two.
However, the debate did not end with the decision to retain additional greenery. A rally at Hong Lim Park held soon afterwards saw participants calling for greater transparency in decisions concerning land use and expressing continuing concern about the loss of green spaces.
The dispute therefore raises a larger question about how Singapore should make difficult land-use decisions as the country becomes increasingly constrained by competing demands.
The complicated value of green spaces
There is little doubt that accessible green areas contribute to the quality of life in a densely developed city. Having natural spaces close to residential communities can provide opportunities for recreation and can support physical and mental well-being.
The challenge, however, lies in determining how much land should remain undeveloped when the same land could potentially provide homes, businesses or other facilities that residents also need.
There is also a more complicated dimension to the debate. In a country with a high rate of homeownership, residential property represents a substantial part of the wealth of many households. The surroundings of a property can therefore influence how homeowners perceive development proposals.
A home surrounded by attractive greenery may be viewed as more desirable than one facing construction or a dense new development. Consequently, opposition to the removal of nearby green spaces can sometimes involve not only environmental concerns but also anxiety about changes to the character and perceived value of residential property.
That does not diminish legitimate environmental concerns. Instead, it highlights why land-use debates can become particularly difficult. Different groups may attach entirely different values to the same piece of land, with some viewing it primarily as an ecological asset, others as a heritage space and still others as an opportunity to address housing shortages.
The government must consequently navigate between competing interests while making decisions that extend far beyond the immediate concerns of residents living close to a development site.
Singapore’s population is growing
The pressure to find additional land for housing is particularly significant because Singapore’s population and number of households have continued to increase.
In 2025, Singapore’s total population stood at about 6.11 million. That represented a 7.5 per cent increase from approximately 5.69 million in 2020 and a 10.4 per cent increase compared with about 5.54 million in 2015.
The number of resident households has also risen. Singapore had approximately 1.49 million resident households in 2025, compared with about 1.37 million in 2020 and around 1.23 million in 2015. The increase represents an 8.3 per cent rise over the five-year period from 2020 and a 21.4 per cent increase compared with 2015.
At the same time, the average size of resident households has been declining. Average household size fell to 3.06 persons in 2025 from 3.22 in 2020 and 3.39 in 2015. The figure was 3.50 in 2010, 3.56 in 2005 and 3.70 in 2000.
The trend means that the demand for homes is not determined solely by population growth. More people are also forming smaller households, including singles and couples who may want to establish independent homes.
This creates an ongoing requirement for housing supply. If the number of households rises while the amount of available residential land remains fixed, pressure on housing can increase.
Singapore’s attractiveness to migrants adds another dimension. The country’s stability, infrastructure, governance and sophisticated economy make it appealing to people from other parts of the world. If migration continues to contribute to population growth, maintaining sufficient housing supply becomes important not only for accommodating new residents but also for preventing excessive pressure on housing prices.
Population growth also has broader economic implications. A larger working-age population can provide additional labour and bring new ideas and skills that contribute to economic activity. Maintaining economic growth, in turn, provides employment opportunities and generates tax revenue needed to support public services, including those required by an ageing population.
Housing supply and the lessons from other cities
The question of housing supply is not unique to Singapore. In many major cities around the world, existing homeowners have resisted new developments in their neighbourhoods, contributing to restrictions on construction and, in some cases, prolonged housing shortages.
Such shortages can make homeownership increasingly difficult for younger generations while pushing up housing costs. They can also create broader social and economic problems when workers cannot afford to live near employment centres.
Singapore has taken a different approach by maintaining a substantial role for government in housing and land-use planning. This has helped many younger residents become homeowners, even as housing affordability remains an important public concern.
The experience demonstrates why decisions about new developments cannot be viewed solely through the immediate impact on existing residents. A decision to prevent development in one location may preserve a particular green space or neighbourhood character, but it can also mean fewer homes and potentially greater pressure elsewhere.
This does not mean every proposed development should automatically proceed. Environmental, heritage and community concerns remain important considerations. But the broader consequences of refusing development also need to be considered.
Government development can create both winners and losers
Government intervention in Singapore’s property market can produce benefits and disadvantages for different groups.
Homebuyers and homeowners face measures designed to curb speculation and maintain stability in the housing market. At the same time, residents can experience inconvenience or loss when government decisions bring construction closer to their homes.
New developments can create additional traffic, construction disruption and changes to familiar surroundings. The establishment of facilities that residents perceive as undesirable near residential areas can also trigger strong opposition.
Yet government investment and development can substantially increase the value and convenience of existing neighbourhoods. New MRT stations, parks, healthcare facilities, shopping centres, sports amenities and other infrastructure can make residential areas more attractive and accessible.
This creates an inherent contradiction. Residents may oppose a development because they fear its immediate consequences while potentially benefiting from the infrastructure and economic activity that accompany wider urban transformation.
The same principle applies to the national economy. If Singapore continuously adapts its urban landscape to meet changing business, housing and lifestyle requirements, it can strengthen its attractiveness to companies and talent.
New residential developments can accommodate population growth. Commercial and industrial projects can support businesses. Recreational and cultural facilities can improve the quality of urban life. Together, these elements contribute to the country’s ability to remain economically competitive.
No land-use decision can satisfy everyone
The debate over Gillman Barracks and Sunset Way demonstrates the difficulty of producing a land-use plan that satisfies every stakeholder.
Residents understandably want attractive and familiar surroundings. Nature groups seek to protect ecosystems and native forests. Heritage advocates want historically significant places preserved. Homebuyers need sufficient housing. Businesses require land for expansion, while the government must consider infrastructure, employment, public services and long-term economic sustainability.
These interests can conflict even when every side is acting in good faith.
The government’s decision to retain more greenery at Gillman Barracks and Maju Forest following public feedback shows that consultation can influence development plans. But the reduction in the number of homes that can be built also illustrates the trade-offs involved.
The bigger concern is whether increasingly intense opposition to individual projects could eventually make planners reluctant to pursue necessary changes. If every redevelopment proposal faces overwhelming resistance, authorities may become more cautious about transforming spaces even when such changes could serve wider public interests.
That would create a difficult situation for a country whose development model has depended heavily on deliberate and sometimes ambitious land-use planning.
Singapore’s urban landscape has never been static. The city-state has repeatedly redeveloped existing areas, built new infrastructure and found ways to accommodate economic and demographic changes despite its limited land area.
As population patterns change and industries evolve, that pressure is unlikely to disappear.
The challenge, therefore, is not simply whether Singapore should preserve green spaces or develop them. It is how the country can protect important environmental and heritage assets while still ensuring that enough land is available for homes, jobs, infrastructure and future economic opportunities.
Public consultation should remain an important part of that process, particularly when developments affect established communities or ecologically valuable areas. But consultation cannot guarantee that every group will receive everything it wants.
Ultimately, Singapore will have to continue making choices about how its limited land is used. Some decisions will preserve valued spaces, while others will transform them to meet new needs. The task for policymakers is to make those choices carefully, transparently and with an understanding of their long-term consequences.
For a country with limited land and changing housing, economic and population demands, continued transformation is likely to remain unavoidable. The goal should be to ensure that when change comes, it is carried out sensitively enough to respect what communities value while being bold enough to prepare Singapore for the future.
Singapore Must Keep Transforming Despite Pushback Over Green Space, Housing Pressure
