I admire the passion and organisational skills of HARP, and applaud the URA on negotiating with the developer to save at least the facade of the building.

While I understand that HARP is campaigning for more of the building to be saved, and there is general unhappiness with the design of the hybrid condominium, my feeling is that this is as good as it gets.

I think it is too late for a campaign to save the whole structure. Given that the developer has purchased the land and the building, they are entitled to get the maximum economic value out of it.

While the building is one of few that are distinctive in Singapore, conservation of them is costly and obviously not something which the previous owners were willing or able to do.

I do feel that it is unreasonable to demand that the whole structure be saved unless some other party is willing to bear the costs, and to think of a creative and meaningful way to use the building. And if the public really wants to save buildings, I think at some point the public or lobbyists will have to raise the funds to do this, and not rely on government funding.

While the 'Butterfly House' may be architecturally significant and important to a large number of people, for me, it does not have the symbolic or social value as a public building such as the National Library in Stamford Road.

Given Singapore's physical limitations and the costs that conservation entails, it is inevitable that we have to be selective in conservation and conservation battles, and I am not fighting for this one.

Ho Lee Ling (Ms)

New South Wales, Australia