Tag: Public Housing

The World’s Most Livable Cities: Singapore (Housing)

As nations struggle to house their rapidly growing urban populations, Singapore offers a promising solution with its profusion of innovative high-rise, high-density housing “estates,” as is the local parlance. Today, over 80 percent of the city-state’s resident population lives in public housing.

Key to this success is the Housing & Development Board (HDB), the nation’s public housing agency, which was set up in 1960 to tackle the shortage of housing and clearly overcrowded slums. HDB has since evolved from resettling Singaporeans who once lived in overcrowded villages to catering to the lifestyles of its now 5.5 million inhabitants.

In the last decade, public housing has gone from utilitarian rectangular blocks formulated by faceless public servants to stylish complexes designed by top local architecture firms, such as WOHA Architects, which completed their SkyVille@Dawson in July. Containing 960 units of a variety of apartment types and sporting tropical landscaping and extensive communal spaces, the three-tower scheme humanizes the HDB housing blocks of yesteryear.

SkyVille@Dawson is just one example of HDB enlisting the private sector to create more distinctive public housing. “The concepts that we have tested out in Dawson are also being implemented in other new housing projects in different ways,” says Dr. Cheong Koon Hean, HDB’s chief executive officer. “Our new estates will be greener and more garden-like, to provide a more conducive living environment for residents.”

Against this backdrop of progressive public housing for low- and middle-income residents, Singapore’s developers have turned to starchitects to differentiate their profit-driven projects. Jean Nouvel, Zaha Hadid, and Toyo Ito have all recently designed signature high-rise luxury residences. OMA and Ole Scheeren’s Interlace and Moshe Safdie’s soon-to-be-completed Sky Habitat offer further examples. Yet, Safdie is discerning: “Very few countries at this point are building housing by the government for the people as Singapore does. I don’t think there is any country like that.”

Read the complete report at Metropolis

Singapore Alternatives

dsc_0001How else can Singapore look like today?

This is a question lacking in the Singaporean psyche today. The Peoples’ Action Party’s version of the Singapore success story has been so entrenched as the only possibility that such a question often paralyses us. A nation that was not meant to be yet enjoying such stellar success today is such a amazing tale that we often see no need to revisit the what ifs. Even when we did try to re-imagine our present, we tend to fear a lack of success than imagine other possibilities of success.

Yet, if we look back at our history, there were choices and possibilities that could have led to a very different Singapore today. It was not simply just a choice between a communist or the democratic socialist one today as is so often told.

“Singapore – A Decade of Independence” is one book (left) that gives us a peek into these possibilities. It was published in 1975 by the Alumni International Singapore, an organization representing the old boys of tertiary educational institutions from eleven countries. In it are various essays written by figures such as Robert Yeo, Francis Thomas, Professor S.S. Ratnam and William Lim that propose alternatives to government policies then. These include the criticism on policies to control the growth of the population as well as calls for more support for the arts, raising the standards of the public transport and encouraging citizenship participation in policy-formulation. If anything, it shows that these issues, which are as pertinent today, have been a problem since ten years into our independence.

imageAn interesting point to note was how this book was meant to raise funds for the organisation to built a “Monument to the Early Pioneers” that never came true. All that is left of this effort is a foundation stone (right) that is found in the National Archives today. It was originally located at the waterfront side of Collyer Quay and was relocated to its present location because of road works there.

Another group that proposed an alternative vision of urban Singapore was the Singapore Planning and Urban Research Group (S.P.U.R.) that was set up in 1965 by a group of architects and planners. Its more prominent members include William Lim and Tay Kheng Soon. Its ideas and works can be found in “SPUR 1965-1967” (left), a self-published report and you can still purchase limited copies of it at Select Books. The proposals of this group are a clear alternative to Singapore’s urban renewal strategy that if implemented would have given a very different-looking city. For instance, they made calls for HDB neighbourhoods to have more distinct identities to better foster community-bonding, something that has only been implemented in recent times. Other more radical suggestions included questioning the plan to build distinct areas of work and living. S.P.U.R. pushed for the idea of housing work, living and play all in one mega structure so as to avoid transport congestion issues that we face today. For a sense of these structures, think of mixed-use buildings like People’s Park Complex and Golden Mile. The ability to do all three in one place eliminated the need for travel to a city centre for work and out of it to go home.

These books are but two examples of alternative visions of Singapore. I think the ability to imagine another Singapore is something fundamentally lacking in many of us. This apathy in imagination is probably because Singapore is so well run that it doesn’t need its people. Add to that, the fact that we can export our public sector expertise to other countries like Dubai and China shows how little Singaporeans can factor in the policy-making process. It is important to have alternatives in case things fail, and the seeming lack of it today is probably because Singaporeans have forgotten how to imagine.

Some things I’ve seen in two days

Blocks 3, 4, 8 to 11, and 11A to 14 are some blocks of flats in Hougang Avenue 3 and 7 that will be cleared by August 2008 as part of the HDB’s plans to continually improve facilities and land conditions in Singapore. Armed with a deep sense of impending loss, I decided to drop by for a photo shoot for an upcoming project. Yet, what was supposed to be a nostalgic journey turned into one filled with sympathy at the living conditions and despair the place seemed to be in.

Three things really struck me was how as I walked up the stairs of a block of rental flats.

Firstly, almost every floor had a spray-painted sign that read “O$P$”, a sign that loan-sharks frequented this area and how desperate these people were that they had to lend money from them.

Secondly, the corridors of each floor were dim and musty that even the most optimistic tenant would be overshadowed by the lighting conditions.

Finally, many tenants had electricity meters that operated on some kind of credit top-up system, too poor to afford regular electricity bills.

You wonder with so much economic prosperity in Singapore, surely these people deserve better living conditions simply by the fact that they are citizens as well. Suddenly, I felt my initial disappointment of “yet another demolition” was uncalled for because these people definitely deserved better.

But at the same time, these people seemed to cherish their “community” better than their material well-being. The nearby market and town centre was bustling with old folks sitting around and just watching the world go by, and I can understand how the demolition would take this all away too.

CORPORATISATION OF COFFEESHOPS
Is it just me, or are our coffee shops increasingly being bought up by corporations? Today, I read about how foodcourt operator, Koufu, had paid $12 million for a coffee shop in Jurong. Might we soon expect similar signages, uniforms and perhaps even standardisation of food variety like in every Koufu coffee shop in Singapore? Would all coffeeshops and hawker centres become air-conditioned?

I think the common thread of these two things that struck me in the past two days is how I have yet to reconcile progress and nostalgia, returning once again to the fundamental tension between modernism and postmodernism. Is newer always better? Is there value in the past?