# Land Reclamation & Land Settling Issues



## redstone (Nov 15, 2003)

Singapore did massive reclaiming of the coasts and swamps in the 60s and 70s. You can say all seafront properties lost their seafronts and many swamps were filled up. Guess you can't really justify it as correct or incorrect. Need to take in the context of the situation as well.


----------



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

Given out present environmental standards and expectations, filling up important natural habitats is bound to raise a lot of suspicion and debate. While the construction industry may think it's right to open a few jobs, the other side of the story is often silent. Those migratory birds can't speak for themselves.


----------



## redstone (Nov 15, 2003)

hkskyline said:


> Given out present environmental standards and expectations, filling up important natural habitats is bound to raise a lot of suspicion and debate. While the construction industry may think it's right to open a few jobs, the other side of the story is often silent. Those migratory birds can't speak for themselves.


If there is indeed a desperate need for land (land scarcity) to expand the city, create new jobs (lets say its going to be zoned for industrial usage), etc... It all depends.


----------



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

redstone said:


> If there is indeed a desperate need for land (land scarcity) to expand the city, create new jobs (lets say its going to be zoned for industrial usage), etc... It all depends.


There is always a balance needed on development vs. environmentalism. Yet I don't think people should fall into the trap that to make a few dollars, we should start wrecking the environment as a fully justified reason.


----------



## redstone (Nov 15, 2003)

hkskyline said:


> There is always a balance needed on development vs. environmentalism. Yet I don't think people should fall into the trap that to make a few dollars, we should start wrecking the environment as a fully justified reason.


Singapore's case few decades ago was the desperate need to rehouse people from traditional villages to public housing. I'm not 100% for this, though.


----------



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

redstone said:


> Singapore's case few decades ago was the desperate need to rehouse people from traditional villages to public housing. I'm not 100% for this, though.


Keep in mind today's expectations are far different, and in many cases, far higher than in the past. Hence, I don't see how useful it is to apply today's standards to a decision made long ago before the concept even made it to the mainstream. However, at the moment people start saying that's how people did it in the past, hence it's acceptable today, I'll be the first to jump in asking whether they realize times have changed.


----------



## redstone (Nov 15, 2003)

hkskyline said:


> Keep in mind today's expectations are far different, and in many cases, far higher than in the past. Hence, I don't see how useful it is to apply today's standards to a decision made long ago before the concept even made it to the mainstream. However, at the moment people start saying that's how people did it in the past, hence it's acceptable today, I'll be the first to jump in asking whether they realize times have changed.


Yes, I myself didn't like the idea of reclaiming entire areas just for urban development.


----------



## dösanhoro (Jun 24, 2006)

AG said:


> AFAIK, machines have been used to quicken up the settling process of the sand and rocks that make up the Palm by vibrating the material to compact it. They've done this also to prevent liquefaction that might occur during an earthquake.


They are huge metal sticks attached a machine going up and down. Similar to the machines hammering in foundation for bridges and the like.


----------



## serendip finder (Jun 17, 2008)

hkskyline said:


> I read that reclaimed land is subject to liquefication risks in an earthquake. However, Kansai stood well during the Hanshin quake that levelled so much of the nearby area.


It depends also on where the fill came from.

If it is material dredged from the seabed, like the one in Manila, it takes a long time to settle and stabilize.

But if it is rock material from levelled mountains like what they use in Kansai or Hongkong, it is much more stable early on.


----------



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

serendip finder said:


> It depends also on where the fill came from.
> 
> If it is material dredged from the seabed, like the one in Manila, it takes a long time to settle and stabilize.
> 
> But if it is rock material from levelled mountains like what they use in Kansai or Hongkong, it is much more stable early on.


Nevertheless, even if the fill is solid or not, foundations for big buildings need to go down to bedrock. The sidewalks can crumble nearby but the building must stay solidly anchored.


----------



## serendip finder (Jun 17, 2008)

Of course for big buildings, their foundations have to go down to bed rock or at least very deep (such as w/friction-bearing piles), whether they are on land fill or natural grade.

But a land fill of rock or stable soils could be developed more early for light uses such as ongrade roads, parks, temporary structures, etc.


----------



## jasonsuperpower (Aug 27, 2011)

just want to know, what are the real effects of land reclamation?does it really harm the ecosystem?
also, what about the projects in singapore (like marina bay) and johor,malaysia (like danga bay, iskandar malaysia and puteri habour)?is there any data to prove that the land reclaimed does harm the environment?how much did they reclaimed anyway?


----------



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

jasonsuperpower said:


> just want to know, what are the real effects of land reclamation?does it really harm the ecosystem?
> also, what about the projects in singapore (like marina bay) and johor,malaysia (like danga bay, iskandar malaysia and puteri habour)?is there any data to prove that the land reclaimed does harm the environment?how much did they reclaimed anyway?


Sea creatures die when the sea is filled in. That's already a huge impact.

Stirring up the seabed will also likely release pollutants that otherwise would've settled untouched over time. These can be heavy metals and other very damaging substances.


----------



## jasonsuperpower (Aug 27, 2011)

hkskyline said:


> Sea creatures die when the sea is filled in. That's already a huge impact.
> 
> Stirring up the seabed will also likely release pollutants that otherwise would've settled untouched over time. These can be heavy metals and other very damaging substances.


i have read some things about manuals, laws and rules on reclaiming land, in other countries especially, which is directing towards balancing between economic development and environmental conservation but do they really work efficiently?
in my opinion it sounds more like an excuse rather than a solution to develop more land.
my main concern is on malaysia as its large enough to develop rather than having waterfronts and seafronts.(i dont see a desperate need in those development in malaysia)

also another contradictory issue i thought of was how malaysia boosts their tourism by promoting our nature but reclaiming land does not match what we are promoting.if we were to continue, would our tourism attraction change?


ps i was not able to find data on the net about environmental damage caused by reclaiming land or any sort of maritime industrialization therefore could not support my question.please guide me to proper collection of data on the net if any exists.thank you.


----------

