a sense of place in public housing

Pergamon HABITAT INTL. Vol. 20, No. 2, pp. 31)7-325, 1996

Copyright © 1996 Elsevier Science Ltd Printed in Great Britain. All rights reserved

0197-3975/96 $15.00 + 0.00

0197-3975(95)00065-8

A Sense of Place in Public Housing: a Case Study of Pasir Ris, Singapore

PEGGY TEO and SHIRLENA HUANG National University of Singapore

ABSTRACT

This paper examines the sense of place in a high-rise, high-density urban environment. In the past, most of the public housing estates in Singapore had a uniform, monotonous appearance. This is rapidly changing. The Housing and Development Board (HDB) is using highly visible designs to add variety to the skyline of the estates and to the facades of blocks. Motifs, dormers and colours help to make each estate unique, so that residents have a sense of identity. Precincts, which comprise approximately 750 fiats each, have their own focus of activities. Facilities such as courtyards, walkways and pavilions are meant as areas for interaction. This way, the residents have opportunities to get to know each other better and to develop a sense of bonding and belonging. While these planning principles have been more successful in creating a distinct identity for Pasir Ris, the new-generation estate surveyed in this study, the sense of belonging is not very evident. Is it because HDB has taken an 'outsider's' view of a sense of place? Have the residents been asked what they want to help them bond with each other and with the locality? It may be necessary to go beyond rational planning principles such as cost and efficiency to examine how emotional affective bonds develop in a public housing estate.

INTRODUCTION

Singapore is well known for its public housing programme, which currently houses 87% of the country's population, l Beginning with the Singapore Improve- ment Trust (SIT), the colonial administrative body set up in 1927 to deal with slum conditions within the city centre, housing policy has matured under the auspices of the Housing and Development Board (HDB) which was formed in 1960. Initially, the main objective of the HDB was to provide shelter for Singapore's increasing population. 2 Since achieving this goal in 1975, 3 the HDB has become more concerned with the type and quality of housing it is providing. In particular, HDB has responded to its strongest criticism that its estates are uniform and monotonous. 4 Critics have argued that this standardisation stems from post-war urban planning, whereby the built environment was defined solely in utilitarian terms along the lines of functionalism. 5 By the 1980s, Singapore came to be described as "another modern metropolis ''6 - - international in style, but also faceless and homogeneous and lacking in any sense of place. 7

Correspondence to: Peggy Teo, Department of Geography, National University of Singapore, Kent Ridge, 0511 Singapore.

307

JUlIO

~ F.

/Wr

4 6

8 I

i I

10km

I

\ A

LEG

END

~

STU

DY

AR

EA

~

HD

B E

STA

TE

MR

T(M

ass

Rapi

d ~a

nsit

)

EXPR

ESSW

AY

e, ~z

em

Fig

. I.

Loc

atio

n of

pub

lic

hous

ing

esta

tes

in S

inga

pore

.

A Sense of Place in Public Housing 309

The reference to place is an important one. The interest in this concept within geographical literature is longstanding and has been given diverse treatment in definition and conceptualisation. For Tuan, s Relph 9 and Ley and Samuels,l° the phenomenological and humanistic traditions aimed at uncovering the meanings which an environment holds for individuals. More recent treatments of humanistic geography are far more critical. For example, Philo and Kearns and Squire raised much discussion on urban landscapes which are "irreverent" to the realities of cultures, histories and localities, especially in those landscapes created for the tourist. 11 This evaluative approach is also apparent in Massey's 12 call for a "non-parochial" treatment to the study of a sense of place, in which she argues for a recognition of the global context in shaping the identity of a place. While the structuralist school 13 ascribes man to a determined existence in his urban experience who is subject to overarching structures, Agnew 14 counterargues that people are also agencies who have a role to play in influencing the creation of landscapes. For example, Jackson 15 and Jackson and Penrose 16 draw attention to place as the mediator between state and society, as providing a context to contest or to construct space. According to them, people who live and work in places are not always free and able to shape meanings into these landscapes, because there are others with authority and power to shape the context and constraints.

The purpose of this paper is to address the extent to which the public housing landscape of Singapore reflects the interaction between people as agencies and the political and economic structures represented by the state. Much of the planning in Singapore has been 'top down', going by the criteria of efficiency, pragmatism and orderly growth. In the west, urban planners have taken to task these principles as they are said to replace all vestiges of regional identity with mass produced, formless and standardised landscapes. 17 Modern centralised urban planning, although rational, was demonstrated by Jacobs 18 to be destructive to one's sense of place, which she defines as "that complex bundle of meanings, symbols, and qualities that a person or group associates (consciously and unconsciously) with [a] particular locality or region".19 These 'people places' have been disappearing too quickly under the bulldozer in the name of urban renewal, progress and commercial development. What results is placelessness, which is "an abstract geometric view of place, denuded of its human meaning". TM

Today, as many contemporary western cities make conscious efforts to shave off excessive modernist growth, designs of houses and offices, layouts of parks and streets are now dominated by diversity characterised by "colourful playfulness of architects mixing and matching all manner of styles, references and materials". 21 These ideas are given empirical review in Pasir Ris, a public housing estate in Singapore (Fig. 1). In this study, we will first demonstrate the importance of the role of the state in planning for and providing public housing for Singaporeans. In the second phase of HDB's development, we will show how HDB continues to extend its influence over the public housing landscape in the new designs and planning features, which it suggests are helpful for building a sense of place and community in its estates. The final section examines data on (i) the residents' ability to identify components of the estate meant to be unique to the estate; and (ii) whether the specific designs and planning concepts applied to the estate have created a sense of identity, bonding and belonging among the residents. From the data, we will show that the public does contest how community spirit develops in their living environments. We end with some recommendations on how these differences may be resolved.

I~IZOI2oK

310 Peggy Teo and Shirlena Huang

THE MEANING OF PLACE AND ITS CREATION

Place is defined by Norberg-Schulz 22 as a "focus where we experience the meaningful events of our existence". It is an active setting which is inextricably linked to the lives and activities of its inhabitants. As such, places are not abstractions or concepts but are directly experienced phenomena of the lived world. Places are full with meanings, with real objects, and with ongoing activities. Being so, a sense of place becomes an important source of individual and community identity and provides a profound centre of human existence to which people have deep emotional and psychological ties. 23 Geographers of the humanistic tradition favour this personalisation of space and distinguish depths of human experiences which may range from a visual experience (termed a public symbol) to an experience which requires close contact and long association (a field of care).24

Public symbols are recognised as places simply based on their visual prominence. Because of their visual/aesthetic quality, they have high imageability and can command attention. Public buildings, monuments, sacred places and gardens are some examples. These public symbols are distinctive enough to give a locale an identity. Fields of care refer to places which may not be distinctive, for example, a park, a wet market or a shop in a town centre, but which evoke meaning for the inhabitants. There is affection and attachment to these places because of the time spent, repeated experiences, or meaningful interaction that took place there. Both public symbols and fields of care, which need not be mutually exclusive, underlie the importance of the experiences felt by the people living in a locality which, when consolidated together, help to create a sense of belonging and rootedness for the place.

The notions of "insideness" and "outsideness ''25 are also vital to understanding place identity. Being 'inside' helps to reinforce a sense of identity and belonging to a place because of involvement in it. At the deepest level, existential insideness occurs when there is a subconscious association with a place, for example, in a field of care such as one's own home to which one has roots. In contrast, 'outsideness' invokes nothing more than a view of places as repositories for functional activities. Objective outsideness requires a self-conscious separation between people and places, such that places are analysed according to principles of logic, reason and efficiency, an approach often adopted by planners. In this instance, the place can become mundane and insignificant because of other- directedness and it becomes placeless. Manifestations of placelessness include uniformity and standardisation in the landscape, for example, instant new towns and suburbs and the adoption of international styles of design and architecture; formlessness and a lack of human scale, exemplified by tall skyscrapers or megalopoli; impermanence and place destruction; and the creation of synthetic or pseudo landscapes specifically for tourists or for entertainment (referred to as other-directedness). 26

The meaning of place or a sense of place is therefore closely linked to character and identity of a place. Lynch 27 describes identity as that which enables a person to "recognise and recall a place as being distinct from other places - - as having a vivid, or unique, or at least, a particular character of its own". In this definition, the assemblage of physical features and the meanings derived from the interaction of people with a locality are equally important components of a sense of place.

While these concepts illustrate the importance of a sense of place to individuals and to a community, they fail to take into account the influence of the role of the state or of the dominant group in shaping communities. The work of Gramsci 28 is relevant. Hegemony, in Gramsci's definition, is the power of the dominant class to persuade subordinate classes to accept its moral, political and


cultural values as the 'natural' order, without the use of coercion. In capitalist societies, hegemony is never fully achieved because it is always contested in active/open ways, and also in latent/symbolic ways by subordinate groups. The dominant group or ruling class in Singapore's case would be the state. The state's hegemony is quite prevalent in Singapore because of the island's previous successes. Since independence in 1965, the government has embarked on plans for development which have succeeded very handsomely. In 1970, Singapore's GNP was approximately US$3.2 billion. By 1982, it had risen to US$19.8 billion. The figure was US$47.6 billion in 1992. 29 The delivery of growth and wealth to the people has meant that Singaporeans have become more receptive to the policies suggested by the state and they can be easily persuaded to accept these as their own, especially since many of the policies are designed to benefit citizens as a whole. Sacrifices meant for a collective good have worked well for Singapore in the past and the stress on team effort continues today. Two policies perhaps best exemplify this - - multiculturalism/religious freedom and urban development.

Although Singapore's cultural composition is predominantly Chinese, the national language is Malay and the language of work is English. The state has always been committed to all cultural groups and it is written into the Constitution (Article 12) that there should be no discrimination by race, language or religion. The state has a secular policy that clearly separates religion from politics so that the former may not be used to further the interests of one group. The right to religious freedom takes tangible form in Singapore's physical landscape. The state sets aside parcels of land for the establishment of new religious buildings, for which religious groups have to tender. Sometimes the tender reaches millions of dollars. Unable to afford the high cost of land, some churches have come together in ecumenical co-operation to bid jointly and share premises. This may be a less than ideal position for some churches, but represents a constraint they cannot overcome. Chinese temples which have been evicted from land set aside for urban development have had to engage the same measures. For example, one temple in a new public housing estate comprises eight temples housed under one roof. Yet in spite of all these constraints, every religious group can be assured by the state that each public housing estate will at least have a mosque, a church and a temple for worship. 3°

In the arena of urban renewal, the state's hegemony is also apparent. Singapore's Concept Plan of 1971 modelled the island's physical growth. It included the long-range land use and transportation plan which delimited areas of commercial, residential and industrial development. Singapore's public housing, central business district, shopping areas, airport, harbour, expressways, main roads and Mass Rapid Transit system were all shaped by the Concept Plan. For the sake of orderly development and a comprehensive use of scarce land, many old buildings in Singapore's city centre were torn down. Villages in the more rural areas were not spared. Recently, the public has become more critical of such demolition and has voiced dissatisfaction over some of the conservation projects in Singapore. Quintessentially, Singaporeans think that the URA has been 'heavy-handed' and has not sought public opinion before tearing down old buildings or reallocating landuse. 31

This study focuses on the role of HDB in the planning and design of public housing landscape. HDB decides which designs/themes it wants for each housing estate and by doing so, HDB forms the image that it desires to project for each estate. As Singapore becomes more and more affluent, there has been rising competition to HDB from private housing, particularly from condominium developers. The reaction of HDB is therefore to beautify its estates and to make HDB living more appealing to Singaporeans. Better designs and better living environments are some of the ways to achieve this. Although this is so, a caveat should be entered that this group of upgraders is comparatively small. The


majority of upgraders are from HDB three-room to HDB four- or five-room flats. Nevertheless, it is the desire of HDB to make public housing estates comparable to private housing in the quality of materials used, in the designs and in the overall living ambience. In improving the estates, HDB hopes that its residents will feel bonded to their estate because they are proud of it or they are happy with their living environment. How residents in Pasir Ris are reacting to the new designs and other physical planning will indicate whether they are receptive to the state's version of community building and development.

METHODOLOGY

A door-to-door survey was conducted in 1993 on 199 residents of Pasir Ris, an estate in which the new planning principles of HDB have been put into practise. Older estates with their slab blocks are not included in this study, as there already exists literature on the sense of community in these estates. 32 The conclusion arrived at in these studies is that a sense of community has taken root in the older estates because of the length of residence of its denizens (most exceeded 10 years). This study attempts to throw light on the pressing research question raised in the literature - - namely, that as HDB constantly tries to refine its planning and design features as well as its facilities and services, would a sense of community and community participation increase? The public authority's intimation of furthering planning efforts to reduce the scale of user catchments into more socially meaningful levels needs to be explored in the new estates where these efforts are now in concrete form.

In our structured questionnaire, closed-ended questions were used to ascertain whether the residents could identify unique elements of the estate, while open- ended questions solicited answers/responses which allowed an assessment of the degree to which residents had achieved a bonding with Pasir Ris. Proportional random sampling was used to select a sample that closely reflected Singapore's demographic profile (Table 1).

Before the findings are presented, a brief review of the HDB's changing policies is discussed to appreciate the context of the state-public dyad.

Table I. Demographic characteristics of survey respondents

Pasir Ris Singapore Characteristics (%) (%)

Ethnicity Chinese 74.4 77.7 Malay 18.1 14.1 Indian 4.0 7. I Others ' ~ 1.1

Age (years) <2(] 8.5 10.7 2(}--29 29.1 27.6 30-39 29.1 26.2 40--49 19.6 15.2 51)-59 5.5 9.6 60 & above 8.2 111.7

Sources: For Singapore: Department of Statistics (1992);-"~ for Pasir Ris: survey data.

A Sense o f Place in Public Housing

EVOLVING NEW DIRECTIONS IN HDB

313

Meeting the housing shortage

Singapore experienced massive population growth between 1901 and 1921, when the annual rate of increase was 3%. As a result, the city area (in which over 70% of the population resided) 33 rapidly deteriorated into a slum with very unsanitary conditions. Although the SIT was set up to address this issue, it did not carry out large-scale housing construction. It merely planned the city area in terms of roads, green spaces, the opening up of back lanes and the demolition of buildings. In the way of actual provision of homes, SIT limited its impact to people who were made homeless by these improvement schemes. In effect, SIT built only 558 artisans quarters in the outskirts of the city area and between 1932 and 1940, the first of Singapore's public housing estates at Tiong Bharu (approximately 2 km from the city centre), comprising 784 flats, 54 tenements and 33 shops. 34

After the Japanese Occupation (1942-1945), the demand for low-rental housing accelerated. By then, Singapore's population had taken on a permanency, with no further immigration from abroad. The average population growth rate in the baby boom years between 1948 and 1959 was 4.4% .35 To tackle the demand, HDB's first 5-year programme saw a target of 53,777 dwelling units being constructed (Fig. 2). This steadily increased in subsequent 5-year programmes (Fig. 3). Although the rate of construction was very rapid, at one new fiat per year per nine families, 36 the number of applicants also rose quickly (Fig. 4). The initial demand was for rental units, but this tapered off quickly to a preference for home ownership. The increase in demand was caused by the affordability of such homes, steadily increasing property prices in Singapore and the ability to use money from social security, i.e. Central Provident Funds (CPF), to buy homes. 37 In addition to building the flats, the principle of self-containment was applied by HDB to every housing estate. This required the building of basic

Fig. 2. Ang Mo Kio: an old generation HDB public housing estate. Note the monotonous skyline.


YEARS 1960--1985

1986- -1970

1971 - - 1975

1976 - - 1980

1981 - - 1 9 8 5

1 9 8 8 - 1 9 9 0

UNITS

I I I I 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000

Fig. 3. Building statistics of HDB (1960-1990).

Tet=l I~1~1,

54,430 83,777 853

88.239 83,448 2,791

113.819 110,382 3,457

137,670 130,981 5,889

200,377 189,299 11.078

121,400 119,708 1,692

250,000

1980

1970

1975

1990

~e27

1,516

11,400

12,324

15,677

New al0OItcation8 to rent flats

m Al~Olic41tiona to gurch~e flair

2o,r.:e6

45,905

0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 Applications

Fig. 4. Demand for HDB flats (1960-1990).

ancillary services in each town centre, such as a wet market, shops, recreation facilities (e.g. cinema), bus terminus and estate administrative offices. 38

The real turning point for HDB occurred in the mid-1970s, when the demand for fiats dropped from approximately 45,000 in 1973 to an average of 15,000 by 1977. 39 This was taken to indicate that the housing shortage problem had been resolved. From there, HDB moved from its 'affordable housing' phase to its 'quality housing' phase. HDB fiats were re-designed into bigger units with improved features such as attached bathrooms, a storeroom and a balcony. The fiats were also given better fixtures and finishes. A more comprehensive range of facilities was also added to each estate. Supermarkets, emporiums, mini-markets, sports complexes, parks and gardens, jogging tracks and childrens' playgrounds were some of the improvements added. Following suit in the 1980s were parking garages, education centres, child-care centres, senior citizens' clubs, community sub-centres, neighbourb,0od police posts and community halls. Maintenance was another aspect that was upgraded. Specific attention was paid to the cleaning of the estates and to landscaping works. The idea was to create a conducive living environment for each new town.

Refining HDB estates

The current emphasis of HDB is to build communities in its estates. It aims to do this by using design concepts and physical planning to create imageabilty and


identity for each estate. In terms of design, HDB has moved from monotonous slab blocks to blocks accentuated by colour, the use of different types of building materials, facade designs such as the addition of motifs, and roof treatment, for example, in the use of pitched roofs or roofs with chamfered openings. Strategically located blocks, especially those along main thoroughfares, are looped or curved so that they add variety to the landscape and can become landmarks. Street architecture, particularly bus-stop and street-light designs, also aid in creating imageability in the estate. The total effect is a unique signature for every estate. Such public symbols, whether landmark blocks or unique motif designs, have strong visual impact so that there is easy identification of each estate, both for the dwellers and non-residents of the estate.

Physical planning of the estates aims mainly to create a more human scale to public housing estates. In reducing the net residential density from 500 to 200 dwelling units per hectare, HDB hopes to remove the cramped conditions found in the older housing estates so that the environment is friendlier for the residents. To further create a human scale, low-rise blocks linked by small structures such as gateways and shelters are placed along pedestrian pathways. Precincts (areal units comprising 750 fiats or approximately four to six blocks of flats) are delimited by an activity focus. By providing places where residents can interact, HDB aims to create fields of care in the precincts. Some activity foci include hardcourts built for basketball, volleyball or badminton, landscaped courtyards, covered walkways, pavilions, playgrounds and small convenience shops. Through repeated usage and social interaction, the precinct is targeted to become a meaningful place for residents, because it is the place where they play out their daily rhythms of life. Pre-arranged or accidental meetings between neighbours as they go about their daily routines will help to create a sense of familiarity, strengthening community ties and hence a sense of belonging for the community. 40

Also seen as important to the development of community in public housing estates is the role of ethnic integration. Since 1989, Singapore's ethnic-integration policy dictates very clearly that there must be, within public housing estates, a mix of the three main ethnic groups closely matching the national average composition of 14.1% Malays, 77.7% Chinese and 8.2% Indians. 41 In all large public housing estates, the ethnic quota is enforced down to the block unit. The integration policy was introduced to address a trend of ethnic regrouping in these housing estates which was noted in the 1980s. 42 To the policymakers, if unchecked, this trend would have led to the re-emergence of ethnic pockets reminiscent of the late 1950s and early 1960s whereby

each [ethnic] group was fiercely proud of its own identity and defended its narrow interests stoutly. Each clung to its own clan or dialect community for security. There was no social cohesion. We were a divided society. 43

The policy was also seen as forcing "MPs and grassroots leaders to kno~ the problems of every ethnic and social group in Singapore". 44 Thus the official view is that a balanced racial and social mix in each housing estate will be more conducive to harmonious living and the development of community, since each is a microcosm of Singapore.

Given these aspirations and perceptions of the state, the next task is to assess if HDB's efforts are yielding results.

IDENTITY AND CHARACTER IN PASIR RIS

in Pasir Ris, HDB has attempted to create a more picturesque housing estate. Instead of neutral coloured, rectangular columns of concrete, there is liberal


Fig. 5. Multi-coloured pitched roofs of Pasir Ris estate.

usage of colour and texture. The skyline of Pasir Ris is characterised by multi- coloured pitched roofs and dormers (Fig. 5). The different combinations of red, blue, yellow, black and green roof tops are distinct to Pasir Ris.45 Where pastel colours are painted on blocks, motifs that reflect indigenous influences are used to give it distinctiveness. One prominent motif, the orchid (Fig. 6), is used generously at strategic positions in and around the town centre, for example, near the top of pitched roof tops, as well as along walls, in elevator lobbies,

Fig. 6. The orchid motif of Pasir Ris estate.

A Sense o f Place in Public Housing 317

Fig. 7. Pasir Ris neighbourhood centre is made distinguishable by the pitched roofs and the liberal use o f the orchid motif. One of the estate's bus stops can be seen in the bottom left corner.

along covered walkways and to grace balconies (Fig. 7). The Asian influence (for example, the Chinese lattice design) is also evident in cornices along corridors and on parapets. 46 As in other new housing estates, Pasir Ris also has distinct street architecture as exemplified by its own unique bus-stop design with its distinct blue and white roof (see Fig. 7). This piece of street architecture is meant to create territoriality by helping residents and non-residents realise when they have crossed the boundary of the estate. The distinctive and unique designs of each of these elements are meant to give prominence to Pasir Ris by creating memorable landscapes and, as a consequence, yielding meaning to the eye.

Residents in the survey were asked to identify the various elements discussed above to ascertain if they could identify these 'public symbols' meant to command attention because of their high imageability. Overall, the response was very good (Table 2). Between 70 and 80% of the respondents could identify Pasir Ris' public symbols. There was also a correlation between length of residence and ability to recognise. Of all these elements, the skyline (82.9%), the town-centres (81.9%) and the painted blocks (78.9%) were the most distinct as public symbols.

So high was the imageability of the town centre that 81.9% of the respondents could identify the exact location of the photograph they were shown (Table 3a).

Table 2. Estate characteristics correctly identified by respondents as belonging to Pasir Ris

No. of years resident in Pasir Ris

Block Town Skyline design Bus stop centre Motif

n No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %

1 23 18 78.3 17 73.9 16 69.6 16 69.6 19 82.6 1-2 77 61 79.2 58 75.3 50 64.9 58 75.3 50 64.9 3-4 82 72 87.8 68 82.9 69 84.2 73 89.0 58 70.7 5 17 14 82.4 14 82.4 13 76.5 16 94.1 12 70.6

Total 199 165 82.9 157 78.9 148 74.4 163 81.9 139 69.9

Source: Survey data.


Table 3a. Respondents' ability to locate town centre

No. of years resident in Total Pasir Ris No.

Town centre Exact general

location vicinity No. % No. % No.

Other location

,%

1 23 16 69.6 3 13.0 4 17.4 1-2 77 65 84.4 7 9.1 5 6.5 3-4 82 67 81.7 8 9.7 7 8.6 5 17 15 88.2 2 11.8 - - - -

Total 199 163 81.9 20 I0.1 16 8.0


Table 3b. Respondents' ability to locate estate's motif

No. of Motif years Exact general Other resident in Total location vicinity location Pasir Ris No. No. % No. % No. %

1 19 12 63.2 2 10.5 5 26.3 1-2 50 23 46.0 16 32.(} 11 22.0 3-4 58 25 43. ! 13 22.4 2(1 34.5 5 12 6 50.0 3 25.0 3 25.0

Total 139 66 47.5 34 24.5 39 28.(}


Part of this ability is due to the high usage of the town centre for most residents in any estate. However, nearly half (47.5%) of the respondents were also able to give the exact location of the picture of the motif used in the estate (Table 3b).

Approximately 65% of the respondents agreed that the Pasir Ris skyline is different and unique. When asked what made it imageable, the variable roof-lines (36.2%) and the multi-coiours (18.3%) were mentioned (Table 4). One respondent described the skyline as 'Lego-like'. In addition, 82.9% of the respondents felt that HDB should continue with the policy of using coiours to distinguish the estates. When asked why, they suggested that it would make the estate "striking" or "attractive" (43.6%) and that it is "unique" and gives the estate a "sense of identity" (44.7%) (Table 5).

Table 4. Characteristics of the skyline regarded by respondents as tmiqtw to Pasir Ris

Characteristic cited No. %

Variable/staggered roofline 77 36.2 Colourful skyline 39 18.3 Modern and new appearance 20 9.4 Scenic skyline 7 3.2 No response 70 32.9

Total* 213 100.0

Source: Survey data. *Total exceeds 199 because some respondents gave more than one

answer.

A Sense of Place in Public Housing

Table 5. Reasons why HDB should use unique paintwork to distinguish estates

319

Reason No. %

Unique paintwork contributes to a sense of belonging Attractive, striking and refreshing Lowers maintenance costs No reason given

80 44.7 78 43.6 11 6.2 10 5.5

Total* 179 100.0

Source: Survey data. *Of the 199 respondents, 165 (82.9%) agreed that H D B should continue to use paintwork

to distinguish estates. However , totals exceed 165 because some respondents gave more than one answer.

Part of Pasir Ris' uniqueness is its location close to the sea. Three rivers run through the estate - - Sungei Tampines, Sungei Loyang and Sungei Api Api. HDB has attempted to create a "total resort ambience ''47 by planning the housing estate around these natural features (Fig. 8). For example, pedestrian boulevards have been built along the rivers, together with bridges and lookout spots for scenic views. Trees also line these walkways. Large open spaces such as parks follow the course of the rivers or around an existing 3-ha fishing pond. The walkways also give access to resort facilities in the north of the estate (i.e. the coastal Pasir Ris Park which is 80 ha in size and Pasir Ris Resort). 48 The estate is also spotted with tropical gardens, jogging tracks and pavilions. In future, neighbourhood parks will also stress the sea theme, with fitness centres built on concrete imprints of shells. One of the parks will have an amphitheatre shaped like a shell. 49 The resort concept is even replicated in the lift lobbies. Framing the lifts of two blocks are numerous glossy blue and red tiles arranged to form a picture of towering skyscrapers soaring above the sea (the latter is symbolised by the light blue formica lining the lifts). 5°

Fig. 8. An illustration o f Pasir Ris' 'total resort ambience' captured by a combination of a 3-ha fishing pond, walkways, greenery and pavilions.


The HDB's success in using the resort theme to characterise Pasir Ris is reflected in the responses in the survey. When asked about the first thing that came to their minds when 'Pasir Ris' was mentioned, an overwhelming proportion of the responses (44.7%) referred to the relaxed ambience, away from the hustle bustle of city life, the green and clean environment, its open feeling and the prominence of the resort facilities in the estate (Table 6). A small proportion mentioned the unique character of the housing estate (7%), such as the unusual architecture and block designs. Negative perceptions of the estate were also present, such as the idea that it is an 'ulu' estate (16.6%), a colloquial term equivalent to 'far away' and 'village-like'. Although negative, the responses reinforce the "sun, sea, sand and surf ''5~ image of Pasir Ris.

Table 6. First characteristic identified with the name 'Pasir Ris'

Feature named No. %

Resort ambience 89 44.7 'Ulu' character 33 16.6 Good and convenient facilities 22 I 1.1 Unique design and architecture 14 7.0 Sense of community 2 1.0 Inconvenient location and poor facilities 6 3.0 High cost of living I 0.5 No response 32 16.1

Total 199 100.0


A SENSE OF BELONGING

Precincts in Pasir Ris are often semi-enclosed spaces with a focal point for activity (Fig. 9). The courtyards, playgrounds and hardcour.ts are meant as gathering places for residents. However, in this survey, covered walkways (38.7%), courtyards (22.1%) and playgrounds (25.6%) were used only irregularly (Table 7). Very few of the respondents found them helpful for meeting neighbours (Table 7). Although there was a positive correlation between length of residence and the depth of relationships with neighbours, the interaction was of a more superficial level, with 45.2% of the respondents exchanging greetings only and 40.2% talking occasionally. Nearly 8% did not know their neighbours at all. In sum, the precinct seems to have had limited success in bonding the community. Part of the reason may be that Pasir Ris is a fairly new estate, less than 10 years old. Moreover, the majority of the respondents in this sample (58.3%) were couples between the ages of 20 and 39, who are likely to have young children or who are too busy with career development. Only 34.2% of the sample were housewives/retirees and another 8% students.

A sense of belonging to the estate can also result through active participation in the estate, for example, through activities organised by the community centre which serves the estate. Shamai, 52 in his work on Toronto, suggested a scale to measure sense of place. At the lowest level is the ability to recognise symbols of the place (already alluded to in this study), followed by a sense of togetherness and attachment for the place. Once the individual identifies with the place goals, involvement which requires commitment and investment of resources in place-oriented activities and organisations takes place. At the ultimate level of sacrifice, the individual is willing to give up personal interests for the sake


Fig. 9. A precinct enclosing a playground and two pavilions. The low-level covered walkways also help to create a more human scale compared to the high-rise blocks they serve.

Table 7. Frequency of use of precinct and other facilities in the estate

Neighbourhood Community Walkways Courtyards Playgrounds parks centre

Frequency No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %

At least a few times a week 54 27.1 15 7.5 29 14.6 15 7.5 5 2.5

At least a few times a month 12 6.0 4 2.0 22 11.1 48 24.1 2 1.0

Irregularly 77 38.7 44 22. I 51 25.6 68 34.2 21 10.6 Never before 56 28.2 136 68.4 97 48.7 68 34.2 171 85.9

Total 199 100.0 199 100.0 199 100.0 199 100.0 199 100.0 (Per cent)* (21.1) (10.1) (28.6) (28.1) (3.5)

Source: Survey data. *Figures in parentheses indicate the percentage of respondents who claim that the respective facilities

have helped them to meet their neighbours.

of the larger interest of the place. In this study, the respondents were asked for their involvement in their community via the community centre. Only two respondents ever helped in the community centre, although 23 participated in activities offered by the community centre such as baking classes, art classes and the like. A hypothetical situation soliciting their contributions of time and money for Pasir Ris yielded positive responses, although a higher proportion (34.7%) preferred the easier option of cash contributions to contributing their time (22%). About half, 45.2% and 49.3% (respectively to time and cash contributions) gave "depending on" answers, with the reasons varying from availability of time from work or child-care and family to the type of project and whether the projects would affect them.


Knowledge about who maintains their housing estate or the Members of Parliament (MPs) who represent them is an indirect measure of the extent of concern the residents feel for their estate. Of the 199, 26.6% could name at least one of the four MPs representing Pasir Ris, 11.1% two of the MPs and 5% three of the MPs. 53 Only 1% could name all the MPs representing their GRC (Group Representation Constituencies). Cumulatively they represent 43.7% of the respondents. Most residents were also aware of which Town Council 54 manages their estate - - 64.8% correctly identified the Town Council. Knowledge of such essential information is necessary if residents want improvements for the estate. The Town Council and the MPs are the conduits for verbalising their concerns for things happening in and around Pasir Ris.

C O N C L U S I O N S A N D I M P L I C A T I O N S

HDB's track record since the 1960s has shown that as the national policy-making body on public housing in Singapore, it has consistently adopted a macro perspective and acted rationally in its decisions to successfully achieve specific goals in each phase of public housing development in Singapore. This success must be set in the wider context of the political and economic developments in Singapore. Since 1965 when Singapore became independent, the state has propagated economic, social and political policies on the basis of public gain. By placing the emphasis on economic development and delivering a strong infrastructure for business and the creation of jobs, the state easily persuaded the people that its values were good and that its programmes would benefit all.

In its earlier phases, HDB stressed a homeowning society and duly delivered this goal. Today, 87.5% of Singaporeans own their homes. 55 In contrast, the current policy of creating a bonding of the community to the place in which they live has mixed results. In our study, residents of Pasir Ris easily identified the estate's distinct skyline, block designs and town centre, down to specific details like its orchid motif. The assemblage of physical features/public symbols meant to create imageability is certainly imprinted in the minds of the residents. The affective bonds/fields of care among residents, are however, another matter. It was found that community participation was very low and most of it was in activities which served the individual's own interests. The facilities of the precincts which were meant as catalysts to community development were hardly used by the residents and then only irregularly.

The partial success of HDB's policy can be interpreted as a response from Singaporeans to the hegemonic influence of the state. Where once the government could persuade the people to accept its policies without question or resistance, with rising levels of affluence, Singaporeans are increasingly desiring a greater voice in public planning and are more critical of a 'top down' approach. From the survey, state and public views converge when it comes to the design of HDB estates. Both the HDB and the public agree that public housing estates should have more variety in design and move away from the uniform slab blocks characteristic of the older estates. The incorporation of local design into the motifs is also appreciated by the public and these have become public symbols. However, where fields of care are concerned, the public seems more reticent and less optimistic than HDB that physical planning, for example in the creation of precincts and its facilities, can be a major force in community building. The facilities in precincts were incidental to forming lasting friendships with neighbours. Residents may have their own means of developing a social cohesiveness, an issue which requires further study. One possible way of developing gemeinschaft is to use ethnicity as a gathering point - - ethnicity has been found to be influential in place formation and a sense of


belonging in many places 56 - - but in the context of Singapore, ethnic ties are not an option to aid the development of community spirit because the state sees areas of ethnic distinctiveness within the larger society as threatening to the development of national cohesion.

While HDB's goals of achieving character and identity for public housing are laudable, because the public has not been actively involved in the decision making process concerning community building, there is not a clear sense of place and belonging in Pasir Ris. HDB can be said to have taken an 'outsider's' view of place and has not been sufficiently sensitive to the 'insider's' perspective. Yet, despite the recourse for public appeal against the ethnic quota or any other grievance that residents might have (they can complain either to HDB or to their MPs; grassroot organisations such as Town Councils, Citizens' Consultative Committees and Residents' Committees also hear complaints and feed these back to the state or relevant authorities), there has not emerged any outright objection to the overall planning concepts applied to public housing estates in Singapore. The lack of a collective view may be because of the amorphous nature of the concept of a sense of place, but it could also be because grassroots organisations in Singapore have been perceived as "top-down", "stage-managed" and "over organised ''57 and, therefore, unlikely to be effective conduits by which the public's dissatisfactions may be redressed. With time, perhaps this may change, especially in view of the more receptive nature of statutory boards to public opinion. In accordance with Agnew and Duncan's 58 argument that places ultimately reflect the negotiations between people and institutions, this paper suggests that there can there be more intersection between state policy and public opinion by consulting residents, particularly on developing a sense of belonging in a public housing estate. It is clear that a sense of place and belonging does not involve only the physical imageability of a locality, but also the experiential relevance of the place which develops out of social interactions among the community. Although Singapore's success in public housing is indeed an accolade, HDB's appraisal of its own efforts have been sufficiently self- critical. As with other parts of the world, HDB has come to realise that public housing needs to follow "logic more than politics". 59 This perhaps is the lesson that Singapore's experiment has to offer - - should planning from above fail, greater incorporation of the views of the people would help to make public housing an even bigger success.

Acknowledgements - - The authors would like to thank HDB for the use of Figs 8 and 9. The views represented in this article are entirely those of the authors'.

NOTES 1. Housing and Development Board (HDB), Annual Report, 1991/92, p. 75. 2. For the history and performance of this programme, see S.H.K. Yeh (ed.), Pub6e Housing in

Singapore: a Multi-disciplinary Study (Singapore University Press, Singapore, 1975): A. Wong and S.H.K. Yeh (eds), Housing a Nation: 25 Years of Pub6c Housing in Singapore (Maruzen Asia, Singapore, 1985): and C. Pugh, "The Political Economy of Public Housing", in S. Sandhu and P. Wheatley (eds), Munagement of Success: the Moulding of Modern Singapore (Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, Singapore, 1989), pp. 833--859.

3. T.K. Liu, "Overview", in Wong and Yeh (eds), (1985), see note 2, p. 13. 4. Public housing occupies 27% of the island's land surface (thmsing and Development Board (HDB)

Annual Report, 1988/89, p. 28). 5. W.S.W. Lira, "'A Tale of the Unexpected: the Singapore Housing Experience", Habitat International

12, 2 (1988), pp. 27-34. 6. C.L. Khoo, "'Conservation Moves into Top Gear", Mirror 25 (1989), p. 10. 7. P. Keys, "Conservation as an Integral Part of Urban Renewal", Phmews 8 (1981), pp. 39--49; and

Business Times ( 19 July 1986). 8. Y.F. Tuan, "'Geography. Phenomenology and the Study of Human Nature", Canadiun Geographer

15 (1971). pp. 181-192. 9. E. Relph, Phwe and Plucelessness (Pion, London, 1976).


10. D. Ley and M. Samuels (eds), Humanistic Geography: Prospects and Problems (Croom Helm, London, 1978).

11. C. Philo and G. Kearns (eds), Selling Places: the City as Cnltural Capital, Past and Present (Pergamon Press, New York, 1993) and S.J. Squire, "'Accounting for Cultural Meanings: the Interface between Geography and Tourism Studies Re-examined", Progress in Human Geography 18, 1, (1994), pp. 1-16.

12. D. Massey, "'Questions of Locality", Geography 78, 2 (1993), pp. 142-149. 13. For example, see D. Harvey, The Urban Experience (Basil Blackwell, Oxford, 1989). 14. J.A. Agnew, Place and Politics: the Geographical Mediation of State and Society (Allen & Unwin,

Boston, 1987). 15. P. Jackson, Maps of Meaning: an Introduction to Cultural Geography (Unwin Hyman, Boston,

1989). 16. P. Jackson and J. Penrose (eds), Constructions of Race, Place and Nation (University of Minnesota

Press, Minneapolis, 1993). 17. See, for example, J. Jacobs, The Death and Life of Great American Cities (Vintage Books, New

York, 1961); Y.F. Tuan, "'Space and Place: Humanistic Perspective", Progress in Geography 6 (1974), pp. 211-225; Relph (1976), see note 9; C. Jencks, The Language of Post-modern Architecture (Rizzoli, New York, 1981); and D. Ley, "Modernism, Post-modernism and the Struggle for Place", in J.A. Agnew and J.S. Duncan (eds), The Power of Place: Bringing Together Geographical and Sociological Imaginations (Unwin Hyman, Boston, 1989), pp. 44-65.

18. Jacobs (1961), see note 17. 19. R.E. Datei and D.J. Dingemans, "Environmental Perception, Historic Preservation and Sense of

Place", in T.F. Saarinen, D. Seamon and J.L. Sell (eds), Environmental Perception and Behaviour: an Inventory and Prospect, Department of Geography Research Paper No. 209 (University of Chicago, Chicago, 1984), p. 135. Cox (1968), as cited in Relph (1976) see note 9, p. 143. Philo and Kearns (1993), see note I1, p. 22. For a Singapore context, see, for example, R.A. Smith, "The Role of Tourism in Urban Conservation: the Case of Singapore", Cities 5, 3, (1988), pp. 245-259; E.S. Tay, "Heritage Conservation - - Political and Social Implications: the Case of Singapore", Singapore Institute of Architects Journal (SIAJ) (March/April, 1991), pp. 37-41; R. Powell, "Urban Renewal and Conservation in a Rapidly Developing Country", SIAJ (November/December 1992), pp. 40-47; L. Kong and B.S.A. Yeoh. "'Urban Conservation in Singapore: a Survey of State Policies and Popular Attitudes", Urban Studies 31, 2, (1994), pp. 247-265; and P. Teo and S. Huang, "'Tourism and Heritage Conservation in Singapore", Annals of Tourism Research 22, 3 (1995), pp. 589-615. C. Norberg-Schulz, Existence, Space and Architecture (Praeger, New York, 1971), p. 19. Relph (1976), see note 9, p. 141. Tuan (1974), see note 17, pp. 236-245. Relph (1976), see note 9, pp. 49-55. Relph (1976), see note 9, pp. 118-119. K. Lynch, A Theory of Good City Form (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1981), p. 131. As cited in Jackson (1989), see note 15, pp. 52-53. Department of Statistics (DOS), Economic and Social Statistics of Singapore 1960-1982 (DOS, Singapore, 1983), p. 55; DOS, Yearbook of Statistics, 1992 (DOS, Singapore, 1992), pp. 2, 5, 21. L. Kong, "Ideological Hegemony and the Political Symbolism of Religious Buildings in Singapore", Environment and Planning D 11 (1993), pp. 23-45.

31. Kong and Yeoh (1994), see note 21, p. 263. 32. See, for example, A. Wong, G.L. Ooi and R.S. Ponniah, "Dimensions of Community" in Wong and

Yeh (eds), (1985), see note 2, pp. 455-495; T.K. Liu, "'Appraisal", in Wong and Yeh (eds), (1985), see note 2, pp. 496-526; T.T.W. Tan and K. Kwok, "An Update of Neighbourhood Planning and Design with Reference to Singapore Public Housing", Planews 11, 1 (1986), pp. 23-31.

33. The percentage is a statistic for 1947 [taken from N. Warwick, "The Distribution of Population in the Post-war Period", in J.B. Ooi and H.D. Chiang (eds), Modern Singapore (University of Singapore, Singapore, 1969), p. 56]. Earlier statistics are not available, but the figure more or less reflects the situation in the city area. C.W. Teh, "'Public Housing in Singapore: an Overview", in S.H.K. Yeh (ed.), Public Housing in Singapore: a Multi-disciplinary Study (Singapore University Press, Singapore, 1975), p. 4. Department of Statistics (DOS), Economic and Social Statistics of Singapore 1960--1982 (DOS, Singapore, 1983), p. 12. Liu (1985), see note 3, pp. 10--I1. Liu (1985), see note 3, pp. 11-12. HDB not only builds dwelling units, it also builds industrial estates so that jobs are available nearby. HDB estates are incorporated in Singapore's Master Concept Plan, together with other major land-uses like private housing estates, large industrial parks, commercial land-use, leisure and recreational areas and transportation land-uses.

39. Housing and Development Board (HDB) Annual Report, 1990/91, p. 59. 41). G.L. Ooi and T.T.W. Tan, "The Social Significance of Public Places in Public Housing Estates", in

B.H. Chua and N. Edwards (eds), Public Space: Design, Use and Management (Centre for Advanced Studies/Singapore University Press, Singapore, 1992), p. 81).

41. DOS, Singapore Census of Population 1990 Statistical Release No. 1: Demographic Characteristics (DOS, Singapore, 1992), p. 5.

42. G.L. Ooi, "The Housing and Development Board's Ethnic Integration Policy", in G.L. Ooi, S. Siddique and K.C. Soh (eds), The Management of Ethnic Relations in Public Housing Estates (Institute of Policy Studies and Times Academic Press, Singapore, 1993). p. 7.

20. 21.

22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29.

30.

34.

35.

36. 37. 38.

A Sense o f Place in Public Housing 325

43. Speech by S. Dhanabalan, then Minister of National Development, in Ooi (1993), see note 42, pp. 10-11.

44. Ooi (1993), see note 42, p. I1. 45. The Straits Times (6 February 1988); The Straits Times" (27 December 1988); Houseword (February

1990), p. 5. 46. Housing and Development Board Annual Report, 1990/91, p. 14-15; Houseword (February 1990),

p. 5. 47. The Straits Times (4 June 1988). 48. The Straits" Times (28 October 1985); The Straits Times (4 June 1988); The Straits Times (8 October 1988). 49. Houseword (February 1993), p. 7. 50. The Straits Times (6 December 1988). 51. The Straits Times (4 June 1988). 52. S. Shamai, "Sense of Place: an Empirical Measurement", Geoforum 22, 3 (1991), pp. 349-350. 53. Singapore is divided into electoral constituencies, most of which are represented by a single Member of

Parliament (MP). There are, however, some constituencies which have at least three MPs and they are termed Group Representation Constituencies (GRCs). Pasir Ris is under a GRC with four MPs.

54. Before the introduction of Town Councils, Singapore's public housing estates were managed by HDB. The management functions included the maintenance and repair of common areas such as car parks, lifts, water and electrical supplies and the removal of refuse. Since late 1988, many of these functions have been taken over by Town Councils of individual estates. Town Councils were introduced as a means by which residents may directly participate in the day-to-day running of their estates. MPs manage the Town councils with the help and support of constituency members, some of whom serve as Town Councillors on a voluntary basis. Such participation is expected to translate, in the long run, into a greater commitment to community and nation [G.L. Ooi, Town Councils in Singapore: Self-determination for Public Housing Estates, Institute of Policy Studies Occasional Paper No. 4 (Times Academic Press, Singapore, 1990)].

55. DOS, Singapore Census of Population 1990 Statistical Release No. 2: Households and Housing (DOS, Singapore, 1992), p. xiv.

56. C. Peach, "~The Force of West Indian Island Identity in Britain", in C. Clarke, D. Ley and C. Peach (cds), Geography and Ethnic Pluralism (George Allen & Unwin, London, 1984), pp. 214-230.

57. S. Siddique, "Ethnic Relations and Grassroots Organizations". in G.L. Ooi, S. Siddique and K.C. Soh (eds), The Management o f Ethnic Relations in Public Housing Estates (The Institute of Policy Studies/Times Academic Press, Singapore, 1993), pp. 50-51.

58. Agnew and Duncan (1989), see note 17, p. 7. 59. Liu (1985), see note 32, p. 526.

HAD 20.'2 -L

a sense of place in public housing

Documents

sense of place

public housing programme

housing policy

quality of housing

introduction singapore

sense of identity

sense of belonging

sense of bonding