Families in Flats, Revisited*

Stephen AppoldDepartment of Sociology

Belinda YuenDepartment of Real Estate

National University of Singapore10 Kent Ridge Crescent

Singapore 119260

19 May 2005

* This research was supported, in part, by grants from the NUS Urban Research Fund and from theHousing Development Board. We thank Chua Beng Huat and Tan Joo Ean for helpful comments onearlier versions.

Families in Flats, Revisited

It’s a commonplace observation from urban critics and enthusiasts alike that, for several reasons, lifein apartment blocks is not suited for families with children. Most importantly, competing attractionslure parents away from family obligations. Despite the frequent discussion, empirical research is rareand, because of strong selection effects, lacks generalizability. The high-rise flats of Singaporeprovide the opportunity for a natural experiment isolating the impact of neighborhood density fromdomestic density in that the prevalence of high rises with large flats allows us to isolate the treatmenteffects of apartment living on families from the selection effects of housing choice. On the basis ofcomparisons of adult time-use diaries across household types and societies, we conclude that thedirect effect of apartment living on families is minimal. Rather, marriage and fertility declines may bethe result of the same forces that makes apartment life attractive: increasing housing costs and anincome squeeze on the middle class.

(8101 words)

1 The title of this paper and its concerns are inspired by Riaz Hassan’s (1977) now-classicstudy of low income families in Singapore public housing.

1

Families in Flats, Revisited1

Disparate strands of social research conclude that urban life is not suited for families with

children. From Booth’s Life and Labor of the People in London (1902) to Whyte’s Street Corner

Society (1943) to Kotlowitz’ There Are No Children Here (1991), there is a clear image of multiple

family dwellings whether low- or high-rise as inappropriate for families with children. Even the more

celebratory descriptions of urban life suggest a perhaps colorful and enriching social environment that

is either too inaccessible or too threatening for families (Harvey, 1990: Ch. 1; Lofland, 1998). The

“environmental load” of urban living may be too high for children and the adults who care for them

(Mehrabian, 1976; Milgram, 1970). Therefore, even with a possible revival in high-rise living in

several large cities, the intended population segments are mainly singles, childless “professional”

couples, and empty-nesters – those adults who, without responsibilities for children, would be more

capable of adequately processing the stimuli of urban life.

Apartment living, particularly in high-rise flats, is often held to pose three inter-related threats

to a healthy family life. All three distort family activities and therefore endanger family integrity.

The first concerns the apartment itself. In general, apartments tend to be significantly smaller than

single family dwellings. The resultant crowding and lack of privacy can result in emotional stress and

an inability to perform the types of activities believed to hold families together (Chan, 1999;

Coleman, 1990; Evans, Saegert, and Harris, 2001; Littlewood and Tinker, 1981). Moreover, bustling

urban neighborhoods, full of an ever changing set of strangers and of sometimes threatening peers,

may not provide an environment that fosters a sense of security and trust (David and Weinstein, 1987)

while the overbuilt environment impairs cognitive functioning (Wells, 2000).

Another disadvantage of apartment living is the inconvenience of movement. The

transportation of babies, small children, and groceries is too troublesome. Even simple family outings

become logistical ordeals. The car, if one exists, is not in the driveway in front of the house but on

2

the street or in a parking facility distant from the housing block. The supervision of playing children

cannot be combined with other household activities (Gittus, 1967; Huttenmoser and Meierhofer.

1995; Pollowy, 1977).

Such concerns, based mainly in critiques of public housing, are complemented by the

considerations raised by urban enthusiasts extolling the attractions of a renewed urbanism. These are

perhaps more serious than the costs. Even when the problems of physical space and movement are

addressed by adequate design, the easy accessibility of public facilities provides a competing use of

time that could detract from family life. Neighborhood gathering places, the, so-called, third places –

neither work nor home – may have a positive effect on community development but that development

comes at the cost of family (Oldenburg, 1989). After years of inattention, new consideration is finally

being paid to the living situations of children (e.g., Görlitz, Harloff, Mey, and Valsiner, 1998; Phillips

and Straussner, 1997) but, so far, no attention has been given to how the urban environment affects

the performance of parental roles – roles that entail performing particular activities with particular

others and maintaining certain sentiments. We focus on adults because contemporary urban writers,

rather than discussing the effects of domestic density or logistic difficulties, tend to concentrate on the

distractions for adults: entertainment, active leisure, and the opportunity to socialize with peers (Ley,

1996; Wekerle, 1976). These days it may be an art gallery, gym, or coffee shop. In an earlier era, a

stop at the pub was part of the daily routine for many men. The result then was a strong

neighborhood community but a comparatively weak nuclear family (Bott, 1957; Young and Willmott,

1957).

Although, following the tides of policy and ideological tension, these concerns are an intrinsic

component of the rhetoric of settlement planning, actual empirical evidence is rare. Until recently, the

social stigma generally attached to apartment living helped feed a preference for single-family

dwellings. The apartments that did exist – often poorly located, low quality buildings with inadequate

facilities – were usually so family unfriendly that few families willingly chose to live in them (Power,

1997). Those that did were often an adversely selected group. It should not be surprising if “social

2 We will focus on the effects of high-rise living per se. All our results from a larger study(Yuen et al., 2003) indicate that floor level and height of building have no effects within theSingapore context.

3

pathologies” are frequent among those who are troubled independently of their place of residence.

Indeed, crime rates in public housing appear to be related to qualification rules. Such selectivity

effects may be driving our understanding of the effects of high-rise living on families.

The cities of Asia, particularly Singapore, afford urban researchers the opportunity to begin to

assess the treatment effects of apartment living on families. With approximately 86 percent of

resident households in Singapore accommodated by public housing, the selectivity effects of

apartment living on families will be minimized. With comparatively high real incomes and a rising

average level of schooling, apartment dwelling is a solidly middle class phenomenon in Singapore.

Singapore differs from many other cities, including Hong Kong and Tokyo, in that the size of the flats

allows us to investigate the effects of neighborhood density (persons or dwellings per unit of land

area) independently of the possible effects of domestic housing (persons per room or unit of floor

space). With reasonably large, well-designed flats and good access to facilities in Singapore, we will

concentrate our attention on the last risk: the competing uses of adult time offered by cities and

facilitated by residence in conveniently located, high-rise flats. These alternative activities are often

cited as a primary reason for recent renewed interest in urban living. In what follows, we outline a

conceptual framework which allows the effects of apartment living on family life to be measured by

time use diaries. Time use data have been shown to provide effective, albeit difficult to collect,

measures of behavior that have been used in several, now classic, studies of families in communities

(e.g., Chapin, 1974; Michelson, 1977; Young and Willmott, 1973). We then describe public housing

in Singapore, elaborate on our time diary data, and present our results. Our aim is to examine how

living in high-rise buildings affects daily behavior.2 Housing impacts are often hypothesized but, with

very few exceptions, not empirically investigated.

4

Theory of identity, family, and neighborhood

We use contemporary identity theory to measure the effects of high-rise living on family life

because this approach conceptually links the key components of family life. Identity theory

investigates the relationships between concepts of self, social relations, and role performance. It is the

last, in the form of the set of interdependencies and obligations implied by the term, family, that is of

most immediate interest here. Figure 1 illustrates the framework of identity theory. The elements of

social behavior, a) activity, b) interaction, and c) sentiment, are the basis for understanding identity

(Homans, 1951). Stable identities exist insofar as persons are participants in structured social

relationships (Stone, 1962). To give an everyday example, it is the common activities with colleagues

or family that leads to the social interaction which creates the feeling of “we-ness” at work or within a

family. It is the common activity that enacts the family and without that activity and interaction, an

identity as a family member would have little significance. Similarly, when a person visits a national

shrine – a museum or a site of national pride – that person can communicate the experience to others

and thereby symbolically assert membership in the nation.

(Figure 1 here)

Focused activity leads to social interaction and the development of sentiment (Feld, 1981).

Commitment to an identity implies interactional commitment (relationships) and affective

commitment (Becker, 1960). The linkages between activity, interaction, and sentiment imply that

describing activities – particularly those undertaken with other people – is a route to understanding

enacted identities and thus the relative strength of family relationships. Our measurement strategy is

to equate the amount of time spent on particular activities and relationships to their significance for

the individuals involved. The amount of time devoted to each activity is measured via a structured,

self-reported time use diary. This methodology does not allow us to isolate peak experiences (Camus,

1955; Csikszentmihalyi, 1991) but it does allow us to assess the relative salience of the various

identities and relationships. Our effort differs from previous attempts at measuring meaning by

recording actual day-to-day behaviors that are linked to relationships and sentiment rather by

5

recording responses to direct structured (Bonaiuto, Aiello, Perugini, Bonnes, and Ercolani, 1999) or

unstructured (Marcus, 1995) questions.

Leisure activities are central to the maintenance of family unity because they provide a social

space for the development of intimacy (Gershuny, 2000; Kelly, 1983). Leisure is the social space of

friendship, of much parenting, of relations with neighbors, and workmates. It provides a crucial life

space for the expression and development of selfhood, for the working out of identities that are

important to the individual. Just as the social function of the division of labor is to create groups that

would otherwise not exist (Durkheim, 1984), the function of the division of leisure is to produce

groups which would not exist without it. That is one reason for the social importance of the arts and

culture. Mass events, such as festivals (Warner, 1963), or even Beethoven’s music in the nineteenth

century (Bonds, 1997), are ways to symbolically demonstrate group membership. We may not all be

cultivated – in the sense that we appreciate the more esoteric forms of expression – but we all develop

“selves” and we all express those selves.

Kluckhohn and Murray’s (1948) formulation that “Every man is in certain respects, a) like all

other men, b) like some other men, and c) like no other man” implies a multiplicity of identities.

Multiple identities – each linked with different sets of individuals who are not all tied to each other –

create the individual in the modern sense (Simmel, 1971). Historically, differentiated individuals

emerged as personal social relations became progressively less immersed in a single set of people.

The existence of multiple identities implies the possibility of conflict among the groups represented.

Many times the activities and interactions tied to specific identities are physically separated from each

other to avoid tension. Adolescents, for example, frequently try to separate friends from family

because the activities that result in improved status in one arena, diminish it in another. The

opportunity to develop esoteric interests and differentiated circles of friends is often held to be one of

the key features of urban living (Fischer, 1982).

The greater the commitment premised on an identity, the more extensive and/or intensive the

network of relationships into which one enters by virtue of a given identity will be (Stryker, 1994).

6

Since identities are supported by interaction and mutual activities, a salient identity implies a high

level of both. A less salient identity would imply less interaction. Maintaining an identity entails

costs, in terms of time commitment and effort and yields benefits, including, but not limited to, social

esteem. The relative cost-benefit ratios of each determine our participation in each and, in the

extreme, the survival of each potential group as a socially-recognized entity (Nielsen, 1985). Thus

identities which deliver much reward but require divergent activity are the most likely to conflict.

Others might recede into the background or whither away.

If leisure activities create the social space that allows for the establishment of family

identities, that social space is affected by factors outside the family. First of all, obligations outside

the family reduce the time available for family. Paid work, of course, both takes away from family

time and provides the resources to make leisure activities possible. Much research investigates the

complex interplay between employment and family (Parcel and Cornfield, 2000). More centrally for

a consideration of apartment living, the proximity of alternative leisure social activities can detract

from investments in family. This is a key concern because the discussion of the revival of urban

living centers around the ready availability of amenities, whether the arts, coffee shops, or restaurants.

The ready availability of such amenities implies that out-of-home activities that could potentially

detract from family activities. Family and community are competing loyalties for adults, much as

family and peers are for adolescents.

Physical surroundings can affect the mix of activities performed because, although

individuals may choose settings to maximize certain behavior and activity patterns, unanticipated,

behaviors may emerge (Michelson, 1977: 222). Apartment life in dense urban clusters may privilege

some behaviors, such as common activity with neighbors, and discourage others, such as activities

with family members, simply because the physical environment affords more opportunity for one

activity, and thus relationship, and relatively less for another. Contemporary suburban families in

single-family dwellings are often held to be cut off from public life (Duany, Plater-Zyberk, and

Speck. 2000). The “third place” and other neighborhood attractions may shift the balance of rewards

7

away from families, simply because they are easily accessible in urban areas. (Apartment life may

also privilege out of the neighborhood activities and decrease time spent in transit because the higher

population density and location allows easier access to some places.)

Even if the rewards to public life do not dominate family life, cross-cutting rewards, those

tied to competing groups, such as family on the one hand and neighbors on the other, tend to create

ambiguity and diminish activity (Lazarsfeld, Berelson, and Gaudet, 1948). The symbolic

interactionist dictum that the “self is a mirror of society” implies that the existence of multiple

identities could lead to tensions within individuals that are rooted in the need to satisfy two different

groups, creating a feeling of malaise or confusion. Potentially, that condition can be elicited by a

housing choice.

Public Housing in Singapore

Singapore seems to be everyone’s favorite urban laboratory – with Dutch architect Rem

Koolhaas terming Singapore a “petri dish” and the Singaporean architect, Tay Keng Soon, possibly

somewhat hopefully, claiming that the city was at the vanguard of 21st- century social trends (both

quoted in Turnbull (1997)). The assessments of Singaporean life in public housing vary from the dark

dystopia portrayed in Eric Khoo’s film, Twelve Storeys, which could be described as Ingmar Bergman

spends 24 hours in the tropics to Darren Shiau’s (1999) novel, Heartland, which looks very lovingly

at public housing estate architecture and ends with the protagonist looking down from the roof of a

20-storey point block to view his neighborhood “moving at the speed of life.”

Public housing in Singapore began under British colonial rule in the 1920s (Wong and Yeh,

1985). Some of the early four-storey Art Deco walk up flats in a garden-like setting, though small

and basic, are still desired as housing. Public housing has evolved from its original aim of housing

mid-level local colonial administrators to providing homes for a broad swath of Singapore society.

As of 31 March 2002, the Housing Development Board (the main public housing agency in

Singapore) managed 862,918 housing units that provided shelter to 86 percent of the resident

3 Singapore has a substantial non-resident population. In 2000 approximately 80 percent ofthe total population lived in HDB houses, 8 percent in private condominiums, 6 percent landedproperty, and 7 percent in other places. The other places include approximately 5,000 Jurong TownCorporation (JTC) flats, 350 JTC houses, and 1,233 worker dormitory units that can contain 6-14occupants each meant for foreign workers. There are other worker and student dormitories and someworkers live on construction sites.

4 Approximately one-third of one percent of the HDB dwellers live in terrace houses.

8

population of Singapore.3 The percentage housed rose from approximately 9 percent in 1960 and has

remained steady since around 1990. During this time, Singaporean population increased from

approximately 1.5 million in 1960 to 3 million in 1990 and to 4 million in 2000 (3.3 million of whom

were “residents”). The average Singaporean is now likely to be born, live his or her whole life, and

die in public housing. Many Malay weddings and Chinese funerals are held in the common areas, for

example. High-rise living is the norm in Singapore.4

Public housing has been a central feature of Singaporean public life since independence.

From the first emergency flats built for those left homeless by a squatter settlement fire in 1961 to the

present, housing has been a primary manifestation of the power and efficacy of the People’s Action

Party-controlled Singapore state. Housing is therefore a primary mechanism of social control.

Approximately 93 percent of the units are owned by their occupants so that 82 percent of the resident

population lives in a public housing unit owned by the household. Most Singaporeans have little

choice but to buy public housing. The state claimed much of the available land soon after

independence and tightly controls the land market. Moreover, up to 40 percent of formal sector

earnings are collected by the state as part of an enforced savings scheme. Ostensibly to provide for

retirement income, the plan offers negative real interest but the funds, which would otherwise

depreciate, can be used to purchase public housing units. Until recently the public housing mortgage

market was controlled entirely by the state so that the overwhelming majority of Singaporean

households were indebted to the state.

Much of the literature discussing Singapore’s public housing project focuses on its role in

social control (Castells, Goh, and Kwok, 1990; Chua, 1995; Tremewan, 1994), rather than on the

physical surroundings per se. In most countries, public housing provision, like other rights, may be a

5 “One of the features of this new orthodoxy is that no institutional order is permitted todevelop prestigeful roles on its own ground. For all loyalties, and thus for all prestige and for allauthority, there must be one fountainhead. Success in any field may thus be ascribed to the head of thestate, who in turn distributes all honor. So there are medals for warriors and for workers, for artistsand for the mothers who bear many children. All achievement is pre-conditioned by the correct courseof the ... leadership, and hence all achievement is credited to its wise and infallible course. Criticismmay be made only of its inadequate means, not – once they are officially promulgated – of its ends.And no one can deviate from whatever 'line" has been defined for each field of endeavor.

The modem ... leader thus resurrects the image of ancient patriarch who was supreme judge,chief provider, military leader, and head religious functionary, all in one. The individual member ofhis family had no alternative orientation, and functionally specialized motives met on the commonbasis of all obligation, defined in terms of filial piety (Gerth and Mills, 1953: 176-177).”

9

result of contentious bargaining between a government and its citizens (Tilly, 1998). Public housing

in Singapore is different from that in some other countries in that the contention was possibly

anticipated by a pro-active government eager to gain legitimacy. Although publicly-managed, it is

not de-commodified in that only a small proportion of the housing stock is rented (Harloe, 1995).

Ownership of flats is meant to give residents a feeling of citizenship and shared wealth. Nor, despite

housing a large majority of the population is it “mass” – in the sense of being all the same. The

number of rooms in the flat, from one-room flats to five-room flats, executive flats, and maisonettes,

are frequently invoked indicators of social differentiation. Housing is a primary instrument in an

attempt by the Singapore state to establish a system of “bureaucratic patrimonialsm” (Jackal, 1988) by

becoming a monopoly provider of premiums on desired traits and taboos on undesired traits.5

The physical control of the built environment and economic control of residents is, therefore,

complemented by attempts at social engineering. Most notably, ethnic integration is mandated by

housing quotas. Marriage is (not very successfully) encouraged by restrictions on the purchase of

flats by unmarried people. (Although some public housing can be rented, income limits are imposed.)

Extended families are supported by grants to those who purchase resale flats in the same estate as

their parents’ home and the Housing Development Board has experimented with three-generation

housing.

(Table 1 about here)

Singapore’s built-up area is one continuous connurbation divided by administrative district.

Much of Singapore’s public housing is in planned “new towns,” inspired, at least in part, by the

10

British planning movement (Ravetz, 2001). The new towns policy, in fact, began with the colonial

administration. Table 1 shows the functional make-up of a typical new town. Contemporary new

towns are walking environments. Social and commercial services are near residences. A small

provision shop and an open air coffee shop (some open 24 hours per day) are likely to be within a

minute or two by walkways which are often covered to protect against the rain and mid-day sun.

Neighborhood shopping districts with open air food markets, food courts, medical and dental

practices, a range of small shops, and community centers are often within a five-minute walk.

Primary and secondary schools are sprinkled throughout the new towns. Town centers offer a wider

range of shops, including supermarkets and small department and clothing stores, more extensive

sports facilities, such as indoor halls for volleyball and badminton, swimming pools, and football

stadia, and, more recently, air conditioned shopping malls. Town centers are also transportation hubs

served by the rail rapid transport system and an extensive network of busses. For many residents, the

town center might be a 20-minute walk or a ride on a feeder bus or light rail system away. The

limited access highways tend to bypass, rather than bisect, new towns. Automobile use is kept

expensive. Light industrial employment is often immediately outside new towns. Commercial and

office employment can be more closely spatially integrated. Nevertheless, spatial distribution is not

social linkage. Only 6 percent of public housing residents walk to work. Although half of all public

housing residents use public transportation to get to work, over one-fourth use private personal

transportation and many commute quite a long distance to work or school.

The architecture of Singapore public housing may be a bit of a shock for those used to

European and North American apartment blocks. The flats themselves are relatively large by

international standards – 85 square meters (900 square feet) for a new four-room (three bedroom) flat

and 110 square meters (1200 square feet) for a new five-room (four bedroom) flat, accommodating

households that averaged 3.7 members in 2000. The mix of flats has continued to shift towards the

flats with a larger number of rooms, resulting in only 89 percent of the flats housing no more than one

more person than the number of bedrooms. As a point of comparison, the median size of U.S.

11

detached and mobile homes was approximately 160 square meters (1,685 square feet) in 1999 (U.S.

Census Bureau, 2001: Table 954). Some of the flats are fairly basic but through time the quality and

finish of the buildings has improved. In addition, residents make sometimes substantial renovations

to the interior of their flats. Both flat interiors and block exteriors can be striking and each housing

estate seems to have its own visual character.

The common areas are generally open. Blocks typically contain ground-level “void decks”

equipped with benches and tables. There are also bicycle racks. Parking for cars is located nearby.

Increasingly, this is in the form of multi-story car parks. Sometimes the provision shops and coffee

shops mentioned above are located directly under the flats. In other cases, child or elder care facilities

can be found. Over the past forty years, a tremendous variety of arrangements have been tried –

including placing a small supermarket inside an enclosed courtyard formed by a residential building.

Flats are linked by common public stairwells, by exterior corridors (galleries) in “slab” blocks, and

increasingly, by spacious, open lift lobbies in the newer point blocks. These are all open to the air

and anyone who cares to wander in, even at 30 storeys above the ground. The parapets enclosing the

common spaces above the ground floor are high. There is little danger of children or adults

accidentally falling off. Crime rates compare very favorably to most European and North American

cities. At approximately 800 crimes per 100,000, crime may be under-reported but with an average of

less than 20 murders per year in a population of over 4 million, Singapore enjoys a generally safe

public environment where physical safety is not a serious worry. It is common to see women and men

walking alone with no apparent concern for their well-being until late into the evening.

Our data collection centered on the residents of four public housing blocks located lin two

new towns: Toa Payoh and Bukit Panjang, located 8 km and 14 km, respectively, from the city center.

Our observation blocks are favorably situated near the respective town centers. The blocks are

conveniently located to transportation and other facilities. Air conditioned shopping malls are within

two or three minutes walk from some of the blocks and perhaps slightly further for the adjacent

blocks. Playgrounds are located within a maximum of a three minute walk from the lift lobbies. The

6 When there is a large possibility of social desirability bias and respondents see answeringquestions (whether survey or in-depth interview) as a public performance, the validity of responses isquestionable. Moreover, voiced attitudes frequently have low correlations with behavior. Someresearchers attempt to measure identities by tracing public discourse. Ironically, the weaker acommon identity is, the easier it may be to create or dominate a discourse about it. The strategychosen here is to examine the activities performed and the people they are performed with. Thisapproach has the advantage of measuring the time investment and thus has greater validity.

12

average first quarter 2003 valuation for a four-room (three bedroom) resale flat in Bukit Panjang was

S$187,400 (US$107,100) and for a five-room (four bedroom) resale flat, S$278,600 (US$159,200).

Being closer to the city center, Toa Payoh resale flats were valued at S$263,000 (US$150,300) and

S$398,500 (US$227,700) for four and five-room flats, respectively. Median household income in

2000 was approximately S$43,284 (US$24,739) (Department of Statistics, 2001: 79). Public housing

in Singapore is expensive and, although the financial data are not released, in all likelihood, a revenue

source for the government through original sales.

Households and Time Use

Table 2 shows the household and family composition of resident Singaporeans by housing

supplier. Not only is a large proportion of Singaporeans housed in public housing flats, an almost

equally large proportion of families with children reside in such flats also. Over half of the remaining

households also live in apartment buildings – either other types of publicly-managed flats or private

condominiums – and the bulk of the remaining households live in terrace houses and semi-detached

bungalows. Fewer than one percent of resident Singaporean households live in freestanding single

family homes. The context provides us with a natural laboratory to isolate the treatment effects of

apartment living on families from the selection effects.

(Table 2 about here)

We use time diaries – social microscopes that provide step-by-step accounts of the structure

of daily life – to understand key aspects of high-rise living. The strategy chosen here is to examine

the activities performed and the people they are performed with. This approach has the advantage of

measuring the time investment and thus has greater validity.6 We collected 24-hour time use diaries

7 A portion, 74, of the 285 members enumerated in our selected 82 households did notcomplete time use diaries. Thirty-two of the household members were too young too complete theinstrument (we had set a cut-off age of 12). Thirty-eight completed the diary but were too young tobe included here. A small number (3 to 5) were perhaps too infirm; one worked overseas. For somecompleting the dairy was simply too troublesome. Those not responding were disproportionatelymale but not more likely than the respondents to be employed or busy at work.

13

(midnight to midnight) from 173 adult (aged 16 and above) respondents. They were approximately

evenly distributed with respect to sex and they ranged in age from 16 to 76 with a mean age of 40.4.

Approximately two-thirds of the respondents worked outside their homes. The monthly incomes of

the employed varied from $220 (a part-time income) to $9,800 with a mean of $2,109 (US$1,205).

As could be expected, given the reported income range, the range of occupations was quite diverse

and no particular occupation dominated. Twenty six respondents reported being housewives and 32

reported being students.7 A complete account of our methodology and responses is contained in Yuen

et al. (2003).

Each diary entry was recorded in the respondent’s own brief words and later coded into a

standard classification of approximately 100 categories. The activities were then aggregated into the

general categories 1) Contracted (employment) time, 2) Committed (housework, child care and

shopping) time, 3) Maintenance (personal needs) time, 4) Free (leisure and self-actualization) time,

and 5) Travel time shown in Figure 2 (Robinson and Godbey, 1997). Contracted time and committed

time include socially useful activities. Time use diaries have become popular, in part, because they

provide accurate measures of unpaid work (committed time). Maintenance activities address personal

physiological needs, such as eating and sleeping. Free time implies discretionary activities that are

not mandated by social obligation – even if much of it is spent in re-creation for the other uses. It is

increasingly to this time that people look in establishing their salient identities.

(Figure 2 about here)

Table 3: Panel A shows the distribution of time use of all adults among selected categories of

tasks and for adults in each of three household types: those with small children (under six years old),

those with school aged children (6 to 15 years old), and those with no children under 16. The last

category contains both households with children who are older and those that have not yet had

14

children. The reason for combining those two subtypes is that without young children, their activities

are less constrained and it is both the younger childless and older empty-nesters that are seen as fitting

into apartment life. This categorization also allows the international comparisons discussed below.

(Table 3 about here)

Somewhat more than a quarter of the time of the adults was productive time. This was split

almost evenly between paid and unpaid work. Personal maintenance required the largest proportion

of time with sleeping being the primary activity. Expression accounted for approximately one quarter

of time use with television viewing being by far the predominant mode of expression. Transport

accounted for approximately five percent of time use. At first glance, the proportion of time spent in

some categories, such as employment, may seem low but some of our respondents were retired and

others were housewives (house husbands are rare in Singapore) or had a free day.

The table shows both broad similarities, as would be expected, and subtle differences among

household types. Our aim here and in the next several tables is to describe the overall composition of

activities and relationships in the several types of household. Households with children spend more

time in productive activities than did those without children. Much of that was committed to

childcare and household maintenance activities. Families with children spent less time sleeping. We

will not discuss individual contributions in detail but, in Singapore, as elsewhere, the homemaking

tasks were disproportionately shouldered by women. (As noted above, the details are in a separate

report.)

Because much time use was committed or spent in solitude, in order to highlight social

activities, Table 3: Panel B shows the same information as the previous panel but with employment-

related activities and sleep removed. Committed time and personal maintenance still accounted for

approximately one-fourth of non-employment, non-sleeping time. Leisure activities took up about 40

percent of such time. Looking across household types, there was a clear decrease in committed time

from households with small children to those with older school age children to those with no children

below 16 years old. The time devoted to child care, in particular, showed a clear decrease across

15

household types. There was a corresponding clear increase in expressive activities across the

household types with television viewing capturing a large proportion of the freed time. Time spent

eating, an important social activity in Singapore, increased as childcare commitments decreased.

We asked respondents to name those present when the various activities were performed.

Table 3: Panel C shows the time spent with each category of person by adults once employment and

sleeping time was removed from the total. Immediate family accounted for the largest block of social

time – about one-fourth of all available time. Friends accounted for the next largest block of social

time – somewhat less then one-tenth of the available time. Extended family members and others

garnered only a small proportion of available time. Using the proportion of waking, non-employment

time devoted to the members as a guide, immediate families are strong. In households with children,

adults spent more time in the company of immediate family than adults in households without

children. In households with pre-school children, adults spent less time with friends than in the other

household types. These findings are corroborated by studies of social networks in Singapore (Chua,

2003) and elsewhere (Hollinger and Haller, 1990).

(Table 4 about here)

Table 4 shows the character of activities undertaken with immediate family and friends,

respectively. We are interested in these activities because they show the activity foci of the

respective types of relationships. Panel A shows the activities undertaken with (or at least in the co-

presence of) immediate family members. Paid employment and sleeping time have been removed

from the totals. The largest block of family time was expressive time and the primary activity was

watching television. The next largest block of family time was personal maintenance time and the

primary activity here was eating meals together. The third largest block was committed time with the

primary relevant activity being caring directly for children. Across household types, the time spent

with immediate family in childcare dropped while the time spent in expressive activities, particularly

television watching increased. It seems fair to say that when small children are present, family

activities are centered around the active process of raising them. Once children become a bit older

16

(roughly school age and above), television watching becomes the primary collective family activity.

Table 4: Panel B shows the activities undertaken with (or at least in the co-presence of)

friends. Paid employment and sleeping time have been removed from the totals here also. Our

respondents spent considerably less time with friends than with immediate family. Expressive

activities took up the largest block of time with friends. In contrast to family time, however,

television viewing figured less prominently. Personal maintenance time accounted for a large block

of the activities with friends. Again, eating was the primary common activity supporting friendship

relationships. The presence of small children also changed the character of friendship. Almost half

the time spent with friends among those with pre-school age children was spent committed time,

primarily shopping. The locus of social connection and meaning revolved around committed time for

such households. For those with no or older children, expressive activities become more important.

These are spread across variety of types of activities, but are mostly passive leisure.

(Table 5 about here)

The previous three tables and the brief discussion begin to describe the pattern of life for

Singaporeans living in high-rises. Children appear to successfully compete with urban attractions –

although possibly not to the ideal degree. A cross-national comparison provides additional evidence

on the relationship between high-rise living and family life. Table 5 provides a first basis of

comparison with the activity patterns of a large sample of residents of the United States. The data are

from an ongoing study of the time use of approximately 21,000 respondents in 2003 undertaken by

the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2005). Although all the respondents in the Singapore dataset live

in high-rise flats, the housing type of those in the U.S. dataset was not revealed. Only a small

proportion of families in the U.S. live in apartments, however. The two countries make an apt

comparison for discerning the impact of apartment living on family life because of the extreme

differences in the composition of housing stock. Household type affects the nature of relationships

with both family members and friends.

Comparing Table 5 with Table 3 shows that the distribution of time use in Singapore and the

17

United States is broadly comparable. Singaporeans spent their time where Americans spent their time

and they didn’t devote time where Americans didn’t devote time. For example, although

Singaporeans are sometimes held to be notoriously reluctant to become involved in civic affairs, the

amount of time devoted to such affairs was about the same as in America. Correspondingly, the easy

accessibility of others in the urban environment did not pull Singaporeans out of their nuclearized

families. In Singapore and in America, the proportion of time devoted to particular activities varied

across household types in generally similar ways. Time devoted to caring for household members

decreased in the U.S. as children age. The time devoted to eating was higher for households without

children in the U.S. also. Similar activities imply a similar consciousness – at least within the bounds

that can be measured with these sorts of data.

Although the broad comparison reveals many close parallels, there are differences as well.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports do not reveal the company kept when performing activities.

An examination of the reports in Robinson and Godfrey (1997) suggests that Singaporeans engage in

fewer collective social activities in other people’s homes, such as visiting, and in activities outside

their own home, such as visiting museums, than do Americans, however. Some of that difference

may be accounted for by the very ready availability of public eating places in almost every

Singaporean neighborhood. It would be tempting to conclude that the widespread availability of

public facilities make family activities less private in Singapore than in the U.S. but the behaviors

may be more affected by the relative cost of eating out in Singapore, which is significantly less

expensive in neighborhood eateries, than in the U.S.

Singaporeans appear to engage in passive leisure to a similar degree as the television-addicted

Americans. The pattern of television watching may differ across household types in the U.S. and

Singapore, however. In Singapore, television watching increased with the age of children. In the

U.S. it was the opposite. Americans took part in active leisure to a greater degree than Singaporeans.

This was not for want of facilities which are available near our research sites but may be affected by

the warm, humid climate.

18

Discussion

Our interest is in the nature and quality of the lives of high-rise apartment dwellers. Quality

of life is dependent upon active engagement in projects of worth (Wolf, 1997). For many people,

raising a family is one such project. Family life, in turn, is closely tied to relationships, roles and

identity. Concerns have been voiced both by critics of high-rise housing and supporters of new forms

of urbanism about the fit between housing and family life. According to many studies (mostly of

public housing residents) performed mainly in the 1970s and 1980s, apartment living may clash with

family activities. Related issues are raised in contemporary discussions of urbanism stressing the

stimulation of city living. Even if a firm basis for evaluation is lacking, some may, therefore, avoid

apartments as a housing choice. Commonly used to study the collective production of meaning, ours

may be the first application of a symbolic interactionist approach to the study the relationship between

high-rise living and family role performance. Supported by an analysis of original and secondary

data, we have argued that much of the supposed inappropriateness of high-rise flats for family living

is due to the two-pronged sample selection effects of disadvantaged families concentrated into poor

quality housing and childless adults into particular neighborhoods.

We base our assessment on two comparisons of time allocation. Time allocation is perhaps

the best method for assessing commitment to a role. First, among Singaporean flat dwellers, the

allocation of time is affected by household type. That finding suggests that the attractions of the city

do not cause adults to overlook family roles. Ironically, those without children are, if anything, more

home-bound than those with children. Since almost all Singaporeans live in flats, the dangers of

selectivity bias are minimal. Second, the allocation of time in the U.S. – with its predominately

single-family housing stock, greater distances, and reliance on automobile transport – is quite similar

to that of corresponding types of households in Singapore. We cannot categorically state that the

attractions of the city do not affect families but we have demonstrated that such impacts must be

small.

Although they may be residual claimants on an individual’s time (Moore, 1963), nuclear

19

families have also been “greedy institutions” (Coser, 1974) that are successful in demanding large

portions of participants’ time and energy. As such, they appear to be resilient against the competing

attractions made so accessible by the high-density living afforded by centrally-located, high-rise

apartment blocks. Our results suggest that social relationships have a stronger effect on the use of

space than do spatial arrangements on social relations. Indeed, over 95 percent of public housing

residents in Singapore consistently report satisfaction with the family life they are able to maintain.

But if high-rise living does not interfere with family life, it does not necessarily build community

either. Only a small minority (approximately 15 percent) report taking part in any neighborhood

activities even once in any given year. Neighborly relations appear to be cordial but distant. Despite

sometimes years of proximate living, only a minority have relationships with neighbors that go

beyond the occasional chit chat (Housing and Development Board, 2000b). Many of the relationships

that go deeper than that may be with extended family that are accidental neighbors (Chua, 2003;

Logan and Spitze, 1994).

Singaporeans have been apartment dwellers for at least a generation. Although there are no

earlier surveys of time use and activities in Singapore, evidence suggests that the nature of community

life, family, and childhood has dramatically changed over the past several decades (Kuo and Wong,

1979). Some of those changes can be attributed to the movement to high-rise living. But much of the

change may not be due to the physical arrangements of the high-rise living but to broader social

trends. The bureaucratization of labor markets may have reduced the need for adults to maintain the

social ties necessary to ensure employment in informal labor markets, while sectoral restructuring of

the economy has brought about occupational specialization, reducing the efficacy of neighborhood-

based social ties to address such needs even when salient. The rise of material living standards

encourages the substitution of self-insurance for the social insurance possibly provided by neighbors

and kin for an earlier generation (Stack, 1974). At the same time, the self-provisioning of

entertainment increased the attractions of home (Gershuny, 1983; Young and Wilmott, 1973). The

formalization of housing allocation and increased rates of housing mobility resulted in the reduced

8 We have not yet been able to complete a systematic study of the use of time and space bychildren complementing our study of adults.

20

proximity of extended family in the transition from private to public housing, decreasing their mutual

accessibility (Chua, Sim, and Low, 1985). The increased importance of schooling as a determinant of

life chances combined with inadequate schools probably reduces unsupervised outdoor play more

than the exigencies of flat living even as it creates a brisk business for after-school tuition centers.8

These social changes can be observed in many developed countries.

Clearly, there are many issues of urban life and identity that have not been considered here.

Our comparison of the time use of Singapore and U.S. residents reveals little difference between them

but did not fully address issues of the effects of cross-cutting identities. Perhaps urban high-rise

residents and suburban single-family home dwellers alike face conflicts among work, family, and

community. We have not addressed issues surrounding small dwellings. Living in cramped housing

may lead to a more intensive use of public space but not necessarily higher levels of interaction

among neighbors, even if the daily choreography of allowing each other domestic space might lead to

family strains (Rooney, 2003). Replicating our study in Hong Kong would help address such issues

in more detail.

Understanding housing choices

Even if we found no direct effect of apartment living on family life, we do not expect a

movement of families into flats. Other factors may be important. Although crime rates are now

decreasing in many cities, they are still substantially higher than in Singapore. The low incidence of

personal crime in Singapore may translate into a minimal reluctance to walk in unsecured common

spaces. As noted, domestic space issues may have greater salience in other countries. Given the

limited space in Singapore and the close government control over the land market and housing policy,

Singaporeans have little choice but to live in flats. In other countries, it is an open question whether

apartment living with potentially cramped domestic space and less secure public areas can ever be

made sufficiently attractive relative to available options for many families. There are issues of high-

9 Government funding of neighborhood and flat upgrading projects was made contingentupon strong electoral support (Straits Times, 1997). An “asset enhancement program” intended toshare the wealth of the expanding economy may have put undue strain on those wishing to form ahousehold and start a family even as it provided a paper benefits to those who already owned housing(Straits Times, 1996). Housing prices have been held artificially high and whole sets of blocks havebeen fenced off and remained unoccupied for as long as five years in effort to protect the equity ofthose who bought over-priced housing and of those who purchased condominiums to lease to foreignexecutives.

21

rise living, such as access to transportation, that will never be sufficiently addressed. In contemporary

cities, travel by public transportation is significantly more time consuming than by automobile. Even

with the highest operating expenses in the world, one-third of Singaporean households own cars.

Apartment living, no matter how luxurious, is likely to be always ranked lower than living in

comparable single-family homes but, as Glendinning and Muthesius (1994) point out, a lower ranking

in no way implies a negative evaluation. Apartment living has advantages and the disadvantages can

be balanced by price differentials.

Across cultures, single-family dwellings appear to be the most desired housing type.

Accordingly, housing cost appears to have been a primary factor leading to renewed interest in

apartment living in many countries. As housing prices, a major component of the cost of living, rise,

individuals may be forced into lowering both their housing and family aspirations leading to an

apparent relationship between apartment living and childlessness. Potential parents delay child-

bearing and may even postpone marriage under economic stress (Davis, 1963; Easterlin, 1987).

Perhaps some potential parents may even begin to see family life as “sour grapes” – something they

never really wanted anyway (Elster, 1983). New patterns of urbanism are arguably linked not only to

sectoral restructuring but to a broad middle class squeeze on income that has disproportionately

affected service industries (Baumal, Blackman, and Wolff, 1989). Such relationships are certainly

visible in Singapore where prices for publicly-managed housing units have risen significantly more

quickly than incomes for over a decade.9 Consequently, average age at marriage for brides rose from

23.8 to 26.8 between 1980 and 2000 with housing being one of the main causes of the increase (Saw,

1999). The total fertility rate in family-oriented Singapore has dropped to 1.04 children per woman –

one of the lowest levels of fertility in the world. In Singapore, despite having successfully addressed

22

many of the requisite design and quality issues to make high-rise living amenable to family life,

public housing may have faltered on the social and economic goals it was intended to achieve. Public

housing, meant to support and facilitate family life while it sustained economic competitiveness, has

been priced out of the reach of the average Singaporeans. Outside Singapore, the countries that show

the most policy concern about fertility decline appear to be those with the highest increase in real

housing costs (Economist, 2005) and the most visible revivals of interest in urban apartment living.

23

Bibliography

Baumol, William J., Sue Anne Batey Blackman, and Edward N. Wolff. 1989. Productivity andAmerican Leadership: The long view. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Becker, Howard S. 1960. “Notes on the Concept of Commitment.” American Journal of Sociology66: 32-40.

Bonaiuto, Marino, Antonio Aiello, Marco Perugini, Mirilla Bonnes, and Anna P. Ercolani. 1999. “Multidimensional perception of residential environment quality and neighborhoodattachment in the urban environment.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 19 331-352.

Bonds, Mark Evan. 1997. “Idealism and the Aesthetics of Instrumental Music at the Turn of theNineteenth Century.” Journal of the American Musicological Society 50: 387-420.

Booth, Charles. 1902. Life and Labor of the People in London. London: Macmillan.

Bott, Elizabeth. 1957. Family and Social Network: Roles, Norms, and External Relationships inOrdinary Urban Families. London: Tavistock Publications.

Camus, Albert. 1955. The Myth of Sisyphus. London: H. Hamilton.

Castells, Manuel, L. Goh, and R. Y.-W. Kwok. 1990. The Shek Kip Mei Syndrome: EconomicDevelopment and Public Housing in Hong Kong and Singapore. London: Pion.

Chan Ying-Keung. 1999. “Density, Crowding, and Factors Intervening in their Relationship:Evidence from a Hyper-Dense Metropolis.” Social Indicators Research 48: 103-124.

Chapin, F. Stuart. 1974. Human Activity Patterns in the City: Things People Do in Time and inSpace. New York: Wiley.

Chua Beng Huat. 1995. Communitarian Ideology and Democracy in Singapore. London:Routledge.

Chua Beng Huat, Julie Sim, and Low Chay Wan. 1985. “Resettling Soon Hock Village: ALongitudinal Study.” Pages 335-374 in Aline K. Wong and Stephen H.K. Yeh, eds., Housing a Nation: 25 Years of Public Housing in Singapore. Singapore: Maruzen Asia forHousing and Development Board.

Chua Kynn Hong, Vincent. 2003. “Social Integration in Singapore: A Study of Personal CommunityNetworks and Inter-Ethnic Ties.” National University of Singapore, Department ofSociology, Masters thesis.

Coleman, Alice. 1990. Utopia on Trial: Vision and Reality in Planned Housing. London: H.Shipman, 2nd ed.

Coser, Lewis A. 1974. Greedy Institutions: Patterns of Undivided Commitment. New York: FreePress.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. 1991. Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience. New York:HarperCollins.

24

David, Thomas G. and Carol S. Weinstein. 1987. “The Built Environment and Children’sDevelopment.” Pages 3-18 in Carol S. Weinstein and Thomas G. David, eds., Spaces forChildren: The Built Environment and Child Development. New York: Plenum Press.

Davis, Kingsley. 1963. “The Theory of Change and Response in Modern Demographic History.” Population Index 29: 345-366.

Department of Statistics. 2001. Census of Population 2000: Advanced Data Release. Singapore:Department of Statistics.

Duany, Andres, Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk, and Jeff Speck. 2000. Suburban Nation: The Rise ofSprawl and the Decline of the American Dream. New York: North Point Press.

Durkheim, Emile. 1984. The Division of Labor in Society. Basingstoke: Macmillan.

Easterlin, Richard A. 1987. Birth and Fortune: The Impact of Numbers on Personal Welfare. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Economist. 2005 “Global House Prices: Still Want to Buy?” 5-11 March.

Elster, Jon. 1983. Sour Grapes: Studies in the Subversion of Rationality. New York: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Evans, Gary W., Susan Saegert, and Rebecca Harris. 2002. “Residential Density and PsychologicalHealth among Children of Low-Income Families.” Environment and Behavior 33: 165-180.

Feld, Scott L. 1981. “The focused organization of social ties.” American Journal of Sociology 86:1015-1035.

Fischer, Claude S. 1982. To Dwell among Friends: Personal Networks in Town and City. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.

Gershuny, Jonathan I. 2000. Changing Times: Work and Leisure in Post-Industrial Society. Oxford:Oxford University Press.

Gershuny, Jonathan I. 1983. Social Innovation and the Division of Labor. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.

Gerth, Hans H. and C. Wright Mills. 1953. Character and Social Structure: The Psychology ofSocial Institutions. New York: Harcourt, Brace.

Gittus, Elizabeth. 1967. Flats, Families and the Under-Fives. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Glendinning, Miles and Stefan Muthesius. 1994. Tower Block: Modern Public Housing in England,Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireleand. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Görlitz, Dietmar, Hans Joachim Harloff, Günter Mey, and Jaan Valsiner. 1998. Children, Cities, andPsychological Theories. Berlin: de Gruyter.

Harloe, Michael. 1995. The People's Home?: Social Rented Housing in Europe and America. Oxford: Blackwell.

25

Harvey, David. 1990. The Condition of Post-Modernity. Oxford: Blackwell.

Hassan, Riaz. 1977. Families in Flats: A Study of Low Income Families in Public Housing. Singapore: Singapore University Press.

Hollinger, Franz and Max Haller. 1990. “Kinship and Social Networks in Modern Societies: ACross-Cultural Comparison among Seven Nations.” European Sociological Review 6:103-124.

Homans, George Caspar. 1951. The Human Group. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Housing and Development Board. 2000a. Facts On Public Housing In Singapore. Singapore:Housing and Development Board.

Housing and Development Board. 2000b. Social Aspects of Public Housing in Singapore, KinshipTies and Neighborly Relations. Singapore: Research and Planning Department.

Huttenmoser, Marco and Marie Meierhofer. 1995. “Children and Their Living Surroundings:Empirical Investigations into the Significance of Living Surroundings for the Everyday Lifeand Development of Children.” Children’s Environments 12: 1-17.

Jackall, Robert.. 1988. Moral Mazes: The World of Corporate Managers. New York: OxfordUniversity Press.

Kelly, John R. 1983. Leisure Identities and Interactions. London: Allen and Unwin.

Kluckhohn, Clyde and Henry A. Murray. 1948. Personality in Nature, Society, and Culture. NewYork: A.A. Knopf.

Kotlowitz, Alex. 1991. There Are No Children Here: The Story of Two Boys Growing up in theOther America. New York: Doubleday.

Kuo C.Y., Eddie C.Y. and Aline K. Wong. 1979. The Contemporary Family in Singapore. Singapore: Singapore University Press.

Lazarsfeld, Paul F., Bernard Berelson, and Hazel Gaudet. 1948. The People’s Choice: How the VoterMakes Up His Mind in a Presidential Campaign. New York: Columbia University Press.

Ley, David. 1996. The New Middle Class and the Remaking of the Central City. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.

Littlewood, Judith and Anthea Tinker. 1981. Families in Flats. London: H.M.S.O.

Lofland, Lyn H. 1998. The Public Realm: Exploring the City's Quintessential Social Territory. Hawthorne: Aldine de Gruyter.

Logan, John R. and Glenna D. Spitze. 1994. “Family Neighbors.” American Journal of Sociology100: 453-476.

Marcus, Clare Cooper. 1995. House as a Mirror of Self: Exploring the Deeper Meaning of Home. Berkeley: Conari Press.

26

Mehrabian, Albert. 1976. Public Places and Private Spaces. New York: Basic Books.

Michelson, William. 1977. Environmental Choice, Human Behavior, and Residential Satisfaction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Milgram, Stanley. 1970. “The Experience of Living in Cities.” Science 167 (3924): 1461.

Moore, Wilbert E. 1963. Man, Time, and Society. New York: Wiley.

Nielsen, Francois. 1985. “Toward a Theory of Ethnic Solidarity in Modern Societies.” AmericanSociological Review 50: 133-149.

Oldenburg, Ray. 1989. The Great Good Place: Cafes, Coffee Shops, Community Centers, BeautyParlors, General Stores, Bars, Hangouts, and How They Get You Through the Day. NewYork: Paragon House.

Parcel, Toby L. and Daniel B. Cornfield. 2000. Work and Family: Research Informing Policy. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Phillips, Norma Kolko and Shulamith Lala Ashenberg Straussner. 1997. Children in the UrbanEnvironment: Linking Social Policy and Clinical Practice. Springfield: Charles C. Thomas.

Pollowy, Anne-Marie. 1977. The Urban Nest. Stroudsburg: Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross.

Power, Anne. 1997. Estates on the Edge: The Social Consequences of Mass Housing in NorthernEurope. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

Ravitz, Alison. 2001. Council Housing and Culture: The History of a Social Experiment. London:Routledge.

Robinson, John P, and Geoffrey Godbey. 1997. Time for Life: The Surprising Ways Americans Usetheir Time. University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press.

Rooney, Nuala. 2003. At Home with Density. Hong kong: Hong Kong University Press.

Saw Swee Hock. 1999. The Population of Singapore. Singapore: Institute of Southeast AsianStudies.

Shiau, Darren V.L. 1999. Heartland. Singapore: SNP Ed.

Simmel, Georg. 1971. “Group expansion and the development of individuality.” Pages 251-293 inDonald Levine, ed., On Individuality and Social Forms. Chicago: University of ChicagoPress.

Stone, Gregory P. 1962. “Appearance and the self.” Pages 93-94 in Arnold M. Rose, ed., HumanBehavior and Social Processes. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Straits Times. 1997. “PM – Why we Link Votes to Upgrading.” 1 January.

Straits Times. 1996. “NSP Defends Its Position on HDB Upgrading.” 19 December.

Stryker, Sheldon. 1994. “Identity theory: Its development, research base, and prospects.” Studies in

27

Symbolic Interaction 16:9-20.

Tilly, Charles. 1998. “Where Do Rights Come From?’ Pages 55-72 in Theda Skocpol, ed.,Democracy, Revolution, and History. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Tremewan, Chris. 1994. The Political Economy of Social Control in Singapore. New York: St.Martin's Press.

Turnbull, David. 1997. “Soc. Culture; Singapore.” Pages 227-239 in Nan Ellin, ed., Architecture ofFear. New York: Princeton Architectural Press.

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2005. “Time-Use Survey – First Results Announced by BLS.” News, United States Department of Labor. Washington D.C., January 12..

U.S. Census Bureau. 2001. Statistical Abstract of the United States. Washington: GovernmentPrinting Office.

Warner, W. Lloyd. 1963. Yankee City. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Wekerle, Gerda R. 1976. Vertical Village: Social Contacts in a Singles Highrise Complex. Sociological Focus 9: 229-315.

Wells, Nancy M. 2000. “At Home with Nature: Effects of “Greenness” on Children’s CognitiveFunctioning.” Environment and Behavior 32: 775-795.

Whyte, William F. 1943. Street Corner Society: The Social Structure of an Italian Slum. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.

Wolf, Susan. 1997. “Happiness and Meaning: Two Aspects of the Good Life.” Social Philosophyand Policy. 14: 207-225

Wong, Aline K. and Stephen H.K. Yeh. 1985. Housing a Nation: 25 Years of Public Housing in

Singapore. Singapore: Maruzen Asia for Housing and Development Board.

Young, Michael D. and Peter Willmott. 1973. The Symmetrical Family: A Study of Work andLeisure in the London Region. London: Routledge and Kegan

Young, Michael D. and Peter Willmott. 1957. Family and Kinship in East London. London:Routledge and Kegan

Yuen, Belinda, Stephen J. Appold, Anthony Yeh, George Earl, John Ting, William Lim, and KweeLanny Kurnianingrum. 2003. Living Experience in Super Tall Residential Buildings. Department of Real Estate, National University of Singapore, manuscript, August.

Figure 1 A conceptual framework

Activity

Interaction Sentiment

Figure 2 Broad categories of time use

Source: Robinson and Godbey (1997)

Table 1: Land use distribution and gross density of a prototype new town with 60,000 dwelling units

Land use Land area (ha) Percentage

Town center and neighborhood centers (including commercial, civic, cultural, recreational uses and incidental developments in the centers) 30 4.6Residential (public and private housing) 347 53.4Schools 62 9.5Open space 26 4Sports complex 7 1.1Institutions 15 2.3Industry 44 6.8Major roads 89 13.7Utilities and other uses 30 4.6Total 650 100

Gross new town density 92 dwelling units per hectare; 37 per acre

Source: HDB (2000a)

Table 2: Resident Private Households by Household Structure, Living Arrangement and Type of Dwelling

Household Structure Total Public Housing Private and Other Housing

(percent) (percent)Total 923,325 812,072 88 111,259 12 (percent) 100 100 100

Family-based Households 809,596 713,744 88 95,857 12 (percent) 88 88 86 One Generation Family 96,986 86,426 89 10,563 11 (percent) 11 11 9 Two Generation Family 615,058 544,649 89 70,409 11 (percent) 67 67 63 Three or More Generation Family 97,552 82,669 85 14,885 15 (percent) 11 10 13

Couple-Based Households 684,847 599,053 87 85,795 13 (percent) 74 74 77 No Children in Household 109,170 97,457 89 11,715 11 (percent) 12 12 11 With Youngest Child Below 12 Years 315,525 277,379 88 38,148 12 (percent) 34 34 34 With Youngest Child Aged 12-15 Years 61,223 52,978 87 8,247 13 (percent) 7 7 7 With Youngest Child Aged 16 Years 193,520 167,956 87 25,564 13 (percent) 21 21 23 Others 5,409 3,287 61 2,125 39 (percent) 1 0 2Other Family-Based Households 124,748 114,688 92 10,060 8 (percent) 14 14 9

Non-Family-Based Households 113,729 98,328 86 15,401 14 (percent) 12 12 14 One Person 75,577 65,059 86 10,519 14 (percent) 8 8 9 Two or More Unrelated Persons 38,152 33,269 87 4,883 13 (percent) 4 4 4

Source: Department of Statistics (2001)

Table 3: Time Use by Adults (aged 16 and above) and Household Type

All households

Households with pre-school children

Households with school age children

Households with no children under age 16

Panel A: Total timeMinutes Percent Minutes Percent Minutes Percent Minutes Percent

Productive Time 400 27.78 442 30.7 430 29.86 381 26.45 Contracted Time (employment) 208 14.46 137 9.53 222 15.41 219 15.19 Committed Time 192 13.32 305 21.17 208 14.45 162 11.26Personal Maintenance Time 624 43.36 587 40.76 588 40.81 644 44.7 Eating 111 7.71 86 5.98 110 7.64 117 8.11 Sleep 416 28.89 386 26.83 383 26.61 433 30.06Expressive Time 336 23.34 322 22.39 323 22.4 344 23.91 Television viewing 153 10.62 131 9.09 123 8.57 166 11.52Transport 79 5.51 89 6.16 100 6.93 71 4.94

Panel B: Employment and sleep removedMinutes Percent Minutes Percent Minutes Percent Minutes Percent

Productive Time Committed Time 192 24.03 305 33.82 208 25.43 162 21.05Personal Maintenance Time 208 26.11 201 22.26 204 24.98 211 27.37 Eating 111 13.91 86 9.55 110 13.45 117 15.16Expressive Time 336 42.1 322 35.77 323 39.42 344 44.7 Television viewing 153 19.15 131 14.52 123 15.09 166 21.54Transport 79 7.75 89 8.15 100 10.17 71 6.88

Panel C: Time spent with Others, Employment and Sleep removedMinutes Percent Minutes Percent Minutes Percent Minutes Percent

Immediate Family 204 24.95 322 35.18 274 32.8 156 19.8Extended Family 16 2.01 32 3.54 8 0.95 15 1.91Friends 73 8.94 48 5.23 88 10.49 74 9.44Others 18 2.16 63 6.86 23 2.76 6 0.74

Table 4: Time Spent in the Company of Others by Adults (aged 16 and above) -- Employment and Sleep removed

All households

Households with pre-school children

Households with school age children

Households with no children under age 16

Panel A: Time spent with immediate familyMinutes Percent Minutes Percent Minutes Percent Minutes Percent

Productive Time Committed Time 46 22.75 110 34.07 48 17.7 31 19.92Personal Maintenance Time 53 26.25 78 24.16 60 21.76 46 29.37 Eating 41 19.95 51 15.76 40 14.65 38 24.45Expressive Time 88 43.12 103 31.97 122 44.68 74 47.55 Television viewing 54 26.75 53 16.51 64 23.36 52 33.14Transport 16 7.89 32 9.8 43 15.86 5 3.16

Total 204 322 274 156

Panel B: Time spent with friendsMinutes Percent Minutes Percent Minutes Percent Minutes Percent

Productive Time Committed Time 12 15.81 22 45.45 2 2.27 12 15.79Personal Maintenance Time 17 23.32 10 21.21 23 25.87 17 22.66 Eating 14 19.11 7 14.14 22 25.42 13 17.69Expressive Time 39 53.44 11 22.22 54 61.27 41 55.7 Television viewing 6 7.71 6 6.35 7 9.21Transport 5 7.44 5 11.11 9 10.59 4 5.85

Total 73 48 88 74

Table 5: Allocation of Time Use for Adults by Household Structure, U.S. sample

Panel A: Percent of time per day spent in primary activities

CharacteristicPersonal care activities

Eating and drinking

Household activities

Purchasing goods and services

Caring for and helping household members

Caring for and helping non-household members

Working and work-related activities

Educational activities

Organizational, civic, and religious activites

Leisure and sports

Telephone calls, mail, and e-mail

Other activities, not classified elsewhere

Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent

Total, 18 years and over 38.7 5.1 8.0 3.5 2.4 1.2 16.1 1.1 1.3 21.1 0.8 0.8No household children under 18 39.0 5.5 7.9 3.5 0.3 1.5 15.0 1.0 1.3 23.3 0.9 0.8Household children under 18 38.2 4.6 8.2 3.5 5.7 0.8 17.8 1.2 1.4 17.4 0.5 0.7 Household children 6-17, none younger 38.3 4.6 8.1 3.5 3.4 0.9 18.4 1.5 1.7 18.3 0.6 0.7 Household children under 6 38.1 4.6 8.3 3.4 8.7 0.7 17.0 0.8 1.1 16.3 0.5 0.7

Panel B: Allocation of leisure time

Total, all leisure and sports activities

Participating in sports, exercise, and recreation

Socializing and communicating Watching TV Reading

Relaxing /thinking

Playing games and computer use for leisure

Other leisure and sports activities including travel

Hours per day Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent

No household children under 18 5.6 5.3 13.8 51.3 8.4 6.8 5.5 8.8Household children under 18 4.4 6.8 17.8 48.4 4.7 5.8 6.4 10.1 Children 13 to 17 years, none younger 4.8 7.2 16.9 46.3 5.9 5.8 8.0 9.7 Children 6 to 12 years, none younger 4.5 7.6 17.4 47.9 4.7 5.5 6.0 10.8 Youngest child under 6 years 4.0 5.7 19.0 50.4 3.6 6.2 5.6 9.7