I disagree with the points raised in the letter “Society should progress, but things like hawker centres should be retained” (April 9).
If we follow the logic of the arguments, it would support a return to antiquated amenities — such as non-air-conditioned buses, or ceiling fans for interior cooling of heritage buildings such as City Hall or the National Museum — in the interest of nostalgia and cultural flavour.
Since independence, attap huts have given way to high-rise flats designed for communal living. Vegetable plantations and pig farms have been replaced by hydroponics and industrial estates.
All of these were once part of our unique cultural tapestry, but they have given way to the march of progress or undergone an appropriate reinvention for our modern times.
A change in architecture would not compromise hawker centres’ enduring status as cultural institutions, so long as efforts are made to preserve the essence of their identity as food meccas.
We must come to accept necessary changes so as to create a more livable built environment for us and future generations.
With regard to higher food prices, these are more the result of rentals imposed by landlords, rather than the costs incurred by peripheral facilities such as air-conditioning, as suggested in the letter “Hawker centres help moderate food prices” (April 11).
Hence, some of the food at hawker centres are just as expensive as, if not more so than, food courts.
There is little cause for concern over the profit motivation of the National Environment Agency, which is a statutory board.
Implementing air-conditioning at hawker centres, while retaining their distinct cultural characteristics of affordable good food, is both desirable and feasible.
If we follow the logic of the arguments, it would support a return to antiquated amenities — such as non-air-conditioned buses, or ceiling fans for interior cooling of heritage buildings such as City Hall or the National Museum — in the interest of nostalgia and cultural flavour.
Since independence, attap huts have given way to high-rise flats designed for communal living. Vegetable plantations and pig farms have been replaced by hydroponics and industrial estates.
All of these were once part of our unique cultural tapestry, but they have given way to the march of progress or undergone an appropriate reinvention for our modern times.
A change in architecture would not compromise hawker centres’ enduring status as cultural institutions, so long as efforts are made to preserve the essence of their identity as food meccas.
We must come to accept necessary changes so as to create a more livable built environment for us and future generations.
With regard to higher food prices, these are more the result of rentals imposed by landlords, rather than the costs incurred by peripheral facilities such as air-conditioning, as suggested in the letter “Hawker centres help moderate food prices” (April 11).
Hence, some of the food at hawker centres are just as expensive as, if not more so than, food courts.
There is little cause for concern over the profit motivation of the National Environment Agency, which is a statutory board.
Implementing air-conditioning at hawker centres, while retaining their distinct cultural characteristics of affordable good food, is both desirable and feasible.
