Looking up the block from where the void deck would have been.

Once, where the void deck stood as one of the primary requirements and characteristics of public housing blocks in Singapore, and part of the pillars of community bonding, today, new typologies experiment with creating a community, without the void deck.

View of Treelodge from the ground level. Staircase to the e-deck is visible here, along with pedestrian entrance to ground level carparking.

One such example is the Treelodge @ Punggol. Comprising of several blocks with 15 storeys of residential, sat atop a two to three storey high podium. The ground floor is used as a sheltered carpark, with high ceilings of up to 6m, on which an environmental deck sits. This environmental deck is punctured in certain areas, to allow daylight penetration to the carpark below. At the same time, this environmental deck acts as the ground floor of older public housing estates; it has gardens, playgrounds, community gardens, fitness corners and other such amenities that you would otherwise find between blocks of public housing in older estates. One would thus also expect there to be a  void deck on this level, beneath each block but above the carpark.

Ground level carpark, with transition spaces infiltrating the void above at the e-deck level.

Playground on the e-deck as the ‘new ground’ between blocks

Community garden on the e-deck between blocks, looking relatively under-utilised or under-maintained.

However, similar to the rest of the environmental deck (e-deck), where one would expect the void deck, it is now punctured to the point of inexistence. The remaining spaces have the resemblance of a void deck, but are discontinuous, resulting in dead-end spaces with no connection, and furthermore with no facilities, are left empty most of the day. These dead-end spaces look to be prepared for future conversions to functional use, such as kindergardens or office space uses.

Dead-ends in the remnant void deck spaces, too narrow for use, and without any facilities. The right side of the image shows puncture holes leading to the carpark below.

In place of the large expanse of space in the common void deck, this is now found instead at the precinct pavilion, between blocks, and are usually shared by 5 to 6 blocks.

Precinct Pavilion at Treelodge between blocks.

In addition, while the lack of a void deck affects mainly community use, there is also a lack of sheltered connections between blocks on the e-deck level, meaning that in times of inclement weather, no provision is made for the gathering or evacuation of residents from one block to another, except by the sheltered carpark, which, while providing shelter, does not provide safe pedestrian evacuation.

Visual connections between the carpark below, the community spaces on the e-deck as extension of the void deck, and then the public housing blocks above.

All these raise questions, where the void deck was seen as part of the facilitator of community, it is now devoid of any, and also having been broken into smaller, disconnected spaces, are they still necessary or relevant to community bonding? Does the extension of the void deck onto the e-deck in this case, the ‘new ground’, help perpetuate the void deck into open areas such that community is expected to be drawn out into the open, away from the confines of the conventional void deck? Given also that the carpark now provides the convenience of bypassing the void/e-deck by way of the elevator to motorists, does this mean that the void/e-deck may also become irrelevant in due course?

—————–

All photos and views expressed are the authors own.

Today, the Tiong Bahru estate still retains its close-knit kampung spirit from olden days and has the feel of a bustling and lively little town where everyone knows and looks out for each other. This kind of spirit a spirit is also evident in the interactions between vendors and customers at Tiong Bahru Wet Market.

Rows of bright and vibrant colored clothing greeted me as I cross the road over the Tiong Bahru Wet Market. As I walk into the building, fresh sweet smell of the fruits overwhelmed me. These immediately lit up my mood, as I walk further in, the noises of the vendors chopping and customers chatting together with the smell of the fish and meat came next. What made this pleasant was the well-ventilated and well-lit space due to the big central void in the middle of the market building where these wettest stalls flank it. Some distance away from these stalls right next to the greens in the central void space, some stools of different heights and designs stood there.

“Do you know that singer just released a new CD album, you buy already?” a male in smart office wear was conversing with the fish cake vendor. The vendor replied him that he has not, and then the conversation went on about the latest news on that particular singer that they both liked. I was surprised when I heard such conversation going on, this is beyond basic greetings and chatting about everyday life. This is not the usual conversation between female customers and female vendors, this is between male customers and male vendor. This proves that wet market is not just a place for purchasing of fresh produce, and not just a place where only a certain gender frequents, the females who are associated with household chores and purchasing of food for cooking. This is beyond phatic communion, and allows us to discover another relationship in this wet market community.

However, there are some features that are deterring interactions to happen between vendors. As Tiong Bahru market undergoes total revamp in the early 2000s, it has many new features of the newer wet markets such as the availability of service corridors between the back of stalls. These are not present in the older wet markets, which allows for more interaction especially when the dividing wall is only around 1.2-1.4m high. These service corridors are in place for higher efficiency and cleanliness as it separates the path the fresh produces move and the human traffic. However, what was observed on site was that some of these service corridors are cluttered with goods, it becomes like a “storage” area for the vendors instead. This question then the efficiency of this service corridor. And this indirectly surfaces another problem, which is the inadequate and inappropriate storage space.

Tiong Bahru market proves itself to be a successful new wet market typology, with the many different levels of bonded-ness between the vendors and the customers, together with the architectural features retain the wet market friendly and lively atmosphere. If more seating could be available at the wet market open areas, it would probably enhance or bring about more interactions between the vendors, vendors and customers, and customers themselves. By putting seating there, will then encourage prolong stay in the wet market vicinity and then provide the space for people to slow down their pace and initiate contact. This is probably the most architecture could do, which is to provide the space for an envisioned activity to take place.

from left:  Rocinha Favela[1] in Brazil and 95 Old Airport Rd, Singapore

in the previous chapter, we discover that multiple theorists and advocates of the social-communal space, all concede that while architecture is able to facilitate the creation of communal bonding, it is hard, if not impossible to replicate the social bonds, which are the hallmark of a community. The research in the previous article touched on how duration of tenancy is the primary driving force for communal space in singapore’s public housing. we also saw that in Singapore’s context, it is become hard for such communal bonds to form naturally in the midst our governmental policy on public housing and societal-perception which seems to advocate mobility.

Extrapolating from the preliminary research shown in the previous chapter of this discussion, we see an obvious relationship between the amount of personal investment over time in the contribution towards immobility the creation of communal identity, and the use of communal space. this is where it is possible to introduce the concept we shall term as ‘incrementality’ into this disccusion. increment, by popular definition:

in·cre·ment  (nkr-mnt, ng-) n.

1. The process of increasing in number, size, quantity, or extent.

2. Something added or gained: a force swelled by increments from allied armies.

3. A slight, often barely perceptible augmentation.

4. One of a series of regular additions or contributions: accumulating a fund by increments.

Incrementality in this discussion, which is taken into the context of housing, can thus be defined then as the gradual process of personal investment by an inhabitant or resident puts into their direct living environment or immediate community. This however, does not make it time-specific. It is a principle that resolves to adapt the built environment to its inhabitant instead of the administered initiatives we are so familiar with, and thus is an extremely vital concept or direction in the development of future housing schemes that could, possibly be applicable in any given situation at any point in time. Planning for Incrementality is designing with tolerances for resident intervention, making the dwelling or community only as important as the people living in it.

In an account of Homes with above average tenancy, entitled Homes with history published in the Straits times, 23 January 2013, multiple homes were interviewed about their homes and what kept them from leaving. Incrementality in these cases, incrementality here seems to play a pivotal role in their unwillingness to move to new accommodation. The accounts consistently show that the families interviewed have either

1)      Invested own immediate homes, which have made it harder to buy another home of the same specificity to their unique family environment.

2)      Made changes to their vicinity, participating in neighbourhood activities or been shown concern by their neighbours, or have established some kind of familiarity with their surroundings that cannot be replicated elsewhere.[2]

This correlation between Incrementality and immobility cannot be said to be an isolated case, or specific only in local contexts, with the same symptoms being shown not only in the examples above, but in places such as Slums and Favelas in various countries across the globe.

In countries such as India,  informal settlements not only have been the target of corporations, who forcibly evict these inhabitants, but also prompt much action from both Government bodies and NGOs in a bid to upgrade, relocate or rehabilitate these areas of substandard living, into newer, more humane conditions. These actions, though usually carried out with good intent, have a severe failing, highlighted aptly in the following quote:

“… this scheme considers only a particular kind of model of housing for rehabilitation— the vertical housing. It does not take into consideration the fact that the home space also doubles up as a workspace for the slum dwellers and that living in an apartment does not facilitate their livelihood to a large extent.” [3]

-Vasudevan, Dr. Gayathri.

Spaces thus provided are unable to appropriately provide for its inhabitants as well as the places they create themselves over the course of their stay in the place. In the previous chapter, we have raised the idea that spaces are in fact, moulded after their inhabitants and thus virtually impossible to surpass in specificity.

We ended the previous chapter by questioning if it would be possible to advocate immobility. But this chapter’s discourse provides another possible solution to the situation of failing communities and the loss of communal identity.   Could we possibly, through the idea of Incrementality, create spaces that could expedite the process of personal investment and subsequently immobility?

[1] chensiyuan. inside rocinha favela rio de janeiro brazil 2010.

[2] ”Homes with history.” The Straits Times 23 January 2013.

[3] Vasudevan, Dr. Gayathri. “ISSUE 05 : A Place Called Home.” PRAYAS: TOWARDS IMPROVED SOCIAL PROTECTION IN INDIA November, 2011.

An important factor in the government’s plan to provide mass housing for all of its residents was land acquisition. Various actions to establish favorable conditions to generate investments and stimulate economic growth were initiated. It became obvious that the need to acquire land at an affordable cost was essential for sustainable long term growth with the government introducing tough legislation to acquire land and properties for public purpose (Lim 1988). Large numbers of reasonably-priced housing were built and before long, most of the poor were relocated and were now living in much improved conditions. The housing situation showed encouraging signs of improvement and the creditability of the government was very much enhanced both locally and internationally. It had set out on an incredibly ambitious task and had accomplished it.

When Singapore gained independence, it did so in a period of extreme uncertainty and turmoil. There was a struggle for a new future, a better future. In the strife for its goal to provide a better life for its citizens, the Singapore government put an emphasis onto economic growth. As an island-state of extremely limited resources, its only asset and resource was its people.  Thus it became apparent that the only way for the country to progress economically was the transformation of its people, conceptually and substantially, into ‘human resource’ (Chua 1997). By establishing the mindset that in order to survive, its citizens have to be industrialized to an extent whereby everyone has to be productive and bring active contributions to the table, a mindset whereby a constant need for collective consumption was created. This transformation was readily accepted by the people for the government had already established a form of political legitimacy when providing mass housing for its entire population (Chua 1997).

With the rapid industrialization and modernization of Singapore, the vernacular kampong that was ubiquitous with Singapore in the 1950s were cleared out to make way for HDB’s modernist high rise public housing. As discussed earlier, a material culture of constant collective consumption was also manifested within the society. The high-rise environment became a vehicle for the creation and continuity of such a culture. However, some qualities of the kampong were intentionally kept by the HDB in order to maintain a part of the way of life associated with our heritage. These qualities are the ubiquity of HDB, a culture and common value system intrinsic to HDB high-rises, standard typology of housing and acceptance and identification of high rise housing and new towns by Singaporean society (Chang 2000). However, having said that, such efforts by the HDB proved to be ineffectual in combating the system of continual material betterment advocated by the state, a system which is also reinforced by the social norms of Singaporeans themselves. When comparing their present housing situation in the clean, spacious high-rise environment of today, residents would draw a distinct advantage over the cramped housing situation the older generation was subject to living in the past. This, together with the creation of different unit sizes and pricings further drive home the recognition that money plays an extremely important role in our society now. These larger flats have even come to represent social status among Singaporeans.

What is the role of architecture and architects in all of this?

Architects have to find a way to break through and effect change with their work. Architecture exists in a unique position capable of effecting social change by creating spaces which allow for a way of life. How one designs for the usage of space is crucial to how a certain form of everyday life could be allowed to manifest itself in the lives of its residents. The high-rise environment, while being criticized as a place which does not allow for social interaction, has in fact not been that big a culprit that many have put it out to be. While true that it encourages the form of material culture that has come to affect the mindset of Singaporeans, it only does so to a certain extent. Providing a modern and comfortable living for all Singaporeans has to be seen as a blessing and a demonstration of the will of the state. However, where these designs for public housing have struggled to convince is the lack of character and identity of the buildings. Perhaps, the sheer quantity of public housing in Singapore should necessitate deliberate attempts to provide more varied design solutions (Lim 1988). That, together with the further commercialization of its public spaces, has led to the identity crisis as experienced by Singaporeans now. What more could be done is that housing estates have to be designed with our culture and heritage in mind. In establishing a new vertical vernacular, the original vernacular which was Singapore’s past and heritage cannot be forgotten and neglected. The importance of our environmental heritage and its potential influence towards the development of our own architecture must be given more serious consideration (Lim 1988). Steps have been taken to cool the property market and as the Pinnacle at Duxton has demonstrated, the HDB is not averse to accepting new and innovative ideas. This has opened up the public housing sector to many new possibilities as architects are encouraged to innovate and push new boundaries on high-rise housing. By keeping an eye firmly on our vernacular roots, architects may now finally be able to freely express our heritage.

______________________________________

References:

Chang, Sishir. “A High-Rise Vernacular in Singapore’s Housing Development Board Housing.” Berkeley Planning Journal, 2000.

Chua, Beng-Huat. Political Legitimacy and Housing. London: Routledge, 1997.

Lim, William S.W. “A Tale of the Unexpected, The Singapore Housing Experience.” Habitat Intl, 1988: 27-34.

In recent years however, there has been much talk among residents and citizens of Singapore about the past, more specifically, the kampong. There has been an overwhelming sense of nostalgia for the way of life of the past, when Singaporeans lived in kampongs, the “good ol’ days”. It is logical and perhaps, inevitable that most of the talk were generated by the older generation, Singaporeans who have been through that period of Singapore’s history and thus have memories and fond recollections of days past.

Photo credit: http://remembersingapore.wordpress.com/2012/04/04/from-villages-to-flats-part-1/

Vernacular architecture consists of buildings that represent the folk tradition of a culture and relate directly to the daily lives of members of the culture that created them. It is the direct and unselfconscious translation into physical form of a culture, its needs and values-as well as the desires, dreams and passions of a people (Rapoport 1969). Relationships between built form and the daily lives of members of a respective culture are very important in vernacular architecture. These are expressed by traditions that act through the architecture as systems of collective control on the society. Vernacular architecture both facilitates and creates social norms of behavior by the members of that society (Rapoport 1969). While kampongs were once the vernacular that was associated with Singapore, that is no longer the case. In the past, kampongs incorporated features which encouraged social interaction and communal bonding. Open spaces and in and around the house encouraged neighbors to interact with one another on a daily basis. Women would sit around and talk while children played (Chua 1997). This unplanned form of architecture allowed for a way of life which was idyllic and relaxing, an atmosphere which was carefree and enjoyable.

Places that originated from the kampong setting, the coffee shop, or locally known as the “kopitiam”, has also been commercialized to such an extent that it no longer resembles the place that Singaporeans recall fondly. Kopitiams used to be gathering places whereby informal activities could happen throughout the day. People would sit and idle and exchange stories, sometimes spending the whole day there even. Now, coffee shops have become commercialized food courts, with vendors setting up shop in malls and shopping centers. It is now merely a place where people come to grab a quick lunch and head on in their day. It is no longer part of a routine in our everyday lives. Because of the high rent environment, the first priority to vendors is now to make a profit. Interpersonal relationships that used to happen between the vendor and his customer are now lost. Many of these stalls also become part of a chain, using a familiar brand that has been around for decades and profiting from it. This mechanized version of the coffee shop even calls itself the “kopitiam” in order to illicit a sense of nostalgia from customers. One of the fundamental component of the kampong, responsible for the fostering of many interpersonal and community ties, has now being reduced to a buy and sell relationship between the consumer and the service provider.

Photo credit: http://remembersingapore.wordpress.com/2012/08/24/seletar-kampong-kopitiam/

The gentrification of Singapore’s heartland is another problem which has further compounded this loss of the kampong spirit. Old estates are constantly being restructured by the collective sale of the entire plot of land in order for it to be redeveloped. The rise of en-bloc sales, while offering opportunities for wealth creation and urban regeneration, also exposes the social restructuring associated with residential displacement; in particular, the fragmentation and destruction of familiar places and neighborhoods, community networks, solidarities and the sense of belonging that have taken time to build up, all of which can cause hardship for vulnerable groups (Soh and Yuen 2011). Older residents are now extremely vulnerable to displacement from their homes and places where they grew up. Many have also sought to profit from this by buying into old estates with the aim of making a profit through its en-bloc sale. This further dilutes the community present in these estates, resulting in its eventual identity loss. High resale prices of HDB flats are also creating the syndrome of residents always on the lookout to cash in on their property. Flats are no longer view as homes but rather as assets and investments, commodities which could be sacrificed in order to propel one onto his material dream. The meaning of home is no longer understood by Singaporeans. The place where one grew up could be forsaken in the blink of an eye, with not a second thought put on the memories that it holds.

In the midst all these cries, is it too late for Singapore to complete a turnaround and rediscover the spirit of the past? Could a new kind of vertical vernacular be used as a medium to reconnect with our heritage and the community ties that have come to define Singaporeans?

______________________________________

References:

Chang, Sishir. “A High-Rise Vernacular in Singapore’s Housing Development Board Housing.” Berkeley Planning Journal, 2000.

Chua, Beng-Huat. Political Legitimacy and Housing. London: Routledge, 1997.

Lim, William S.W. “A Tale of the Unexpected, The Singapore Housing Experience.” Habitat Intl, 1988: 27-34.

Rapoport, Amos. House, Form and Culture. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc, 1969.

Soh, Emily Y.X., and Belinda Yuen. “Singapore’s changing spaces.” Cities, 2011: 3-10.

Bras Basah Complex was built in 1980s, attempting to bring back night life into the core city area. During the late 1970s and the beginning of 1980s, the decentralization of the population from the city centre to the new towns saw a sharp decline in night life in the city center when offices and shops ceased operations (Heng & Low, 2009). To solve this problem, low cost, high rise housing was re-introduced in the Central Area during this period.

These residential developments and communities also introduced a new genre of public space to the city centre (Heng & Low, 2009). Such spaces include elevated green spaces (Roof Garden) and can be found in Bras Basah Complex (Figure 1) as well as many other public residential complexes around the city area (Figure 2).

Figure 1: New Elevated Green Space of Bras Basah Complex in 1980s (National Archives of Singapore, 1980)

Figure 2: Public spaces related to residential community (Heng & Low, 2009)

Over the years, the community at Bras Basah Complex have changed. The elevated green Space still look pretty much the same, with some additions of functions. The space today also attract many other nearby community for mass activities, and are often used by city dwellers who wish for some silent moments within the busy city.

Figure 3: Bras Basah Complex Today (2013)

The large elevated green space for communal activities (Figure 4) built in the early 1980s with concrete flooring and some circular planters still exist today. From the conversation with residents residing there, these spaces are sometimes used in the evenings for mass dancing. These spaces are also frequent not only by the residents, but also many other residents nearby due to the lack of open green spaces in the nearby vicinity. It is mostly used in evenings due to the heat in the afternoons.

Figure 4: Elevated Green Space (a.k.a Roof Garden) at Bras Basah Complex (2013)

More plants could be observed to have been planted over the years. Residents could also be seen to personalise these green spaces by having their own plants along the void deck areas next to the elevated green space outside the Resident Committee Area (Figure 5).

Figure 5: Residents plantings at Communal Green Area

Seats could also be observed in the area (Figure 6). But the lack of shade discourages people from hanging out in the open during the afternoon and on hot sunny days. Most residents prefer to dwell at the void deck areas.

Figure 6: Seating Areas in the Elevated Green Space

As per typical HDB Estates, Pets are not allowed in this open space. However, from the short site observation, there are still residents who bring their pets down to take a walk. This question the necessity of these rules, if they are still relevant or necessary in communal spaces.

Figure 7: Rules & Regulations on the Elevated Green Space

To better serve the residents, more facilities and functions are added on to the roof space in 2006. In figure 8, we can see the addition of new facilities, namely the fitness corner and playgrounds.

Figure 8: New Facilities Added on in 2006

However, there are some undesirable “aesthetics” that one can observe within the premises  The green space facing the drying area of the HDB units created a rather unsightly spatial quality (Figure 9) that deter people from hanging around the area. As observed, although the area provided quite adequate shade, residents prefer to hangout within the void decks or other parts of the green space. One of the reasons quoted from them is the “unsightly and dirty environment in that particular area”

Figure 9: The Undesirable Green Space

Last but not least, it is interesting to mention that the elevated green space provided such a quiet and conducive environment that many youths enjoy hanging out during the weekends (Figure 10). This group of teenagers are playing guitar and doing craftwork in the void deck on a weekend during my visit. Although they aren’t the residents from the estate, such quality of elevated green space have  no doubt managed to attract youths. Quoted from them, this is the only quiet place within the bustling city that they could retreat.

 FIgure 10: Youths hanging out in the vicinity during weekends

From the initial site visit and research, it is interesting to discover that elevated green space is not a new concept. It had long existed starting from the late 1970s. It is also interesting to rediscover this space after so many years upon completion,  how the space have evolved and is so unique that it manage to not only attract residents but also people around them to use the space.

In Bras Basah Conplex’s case, the lack of green open space in the proximity have led to residents and commuters around the city area using this elevated green space more often and more intensively.Perhaps the key to creating successful elevated green spaces does not lie only in spatial design afterall, but site context.

References:

• Wong, N, Tay, S, Wong, R, Ong, C, & Sia, A. (2003). Life cycle cost analysis of rooftop gardens in Singapore.Building and Environment, 38 (3). Retrieved May 18, 2012, from ScienceDirect database.
• Heng, Chye Kiang, and Low Boon Liang. “New Asian public space: Layered Singapore.” Urban Design International 14, no. 4 (2009): 231-246.
• Fig 1: Source from National Archive Board of Singapore (1980)
• Fig 2: Source from New Asian Public Space: Layered Singapore by Heng C.K. and Low B.L. (2009)
• Fig 3 to 10: Photography by Larry Yeung (2013)

Context

The speed at which urbanization and development has taken place in Singapore has had largely positive impact on the economy and quality of living on the whole. With these rapid developments, the government rushed to provide adequate high-density housing for its citizens, and in so doing, free up space for further intensification of industry and more housing.

In the 1960s, with the first high-rise HDB flats up, the Housing Development Board included with its design, areas where informal community activities could take place within each block, areas such as the void deck. These were largely successful at the time, with many existing communities of residents relocated from their kampongs to these flats together, and hence meeting up in such transition spaces within their blocks made common sense.

However, with the changes in time, the disintegration of the “kampong spirit”, people changing homes and relocating elsewhere, a changing population demographic, and a new generation of homeowners who did not belong to an existing kampong community, these urban dwellers start off without an original community to base their social relations upon. Furthermore, with changes in the quality of living, tastes and expectations with increasing incomes, effectiveness of the ‘traditional’ void deck in acting as a motivator of community bonding is questionable.

Understanding the Void Deck

Void decks are an everyday transition space for some 83% of Singapore’s population. With that in mind, and that pre-arranged and accidental meetings between neighbours whilst on daily routines helps foster a sense of community and belonging, the void deck becomes a focal point of community bonding, considering that any changes in the provision and design of such a space will have a substantial impact on the population.

Understanding the void deck entails a wider understanding of the daily life of residents, how the space is used as a transition space, a gathering space, an event space. The void deck is used on a daily basis as part of a route from the realm of the private home, to the domain of the public spaces within the town, and then to the wider arena of the city centre and workplace. It is also a place of gathering for residents,  and also an event place of celebration of weddings, as well as for mourning at funerals. The void deck acts as a physical transition space, but also as a space in transition that is supposed to act as a gathering space, and thus should morph with time to suit the changing needs of a growing population. 

One distinct feature of the void deck is how residents often set the stage for others to perceive their community. It is upon the daily spatial practices of people who loiter in the void deck, upon which the local community builds their impression, and activates the local community to gather in the void deck. Hence it is the ordinary acts of ordinary residents, on an ordinary day that makes up the community.  [1] For example, there are always the local housewives and elderly folk who loiter in the void deck to keep an eye on their children and grandchildren playing soccer in the surrounding green spaces, and this encourages neighbours with children to bring their children down to play as well. The void deck then acts as a facilitator, not of community bonding, but of providing shelter to these awaiting parents. Of course, understanding that these meetings may take place increasingly often, it may help with the facilitating conversation and hence to some extent, community bonding within the void deck; but the generator of this community bonding still is not the actual void deck itself.

Generally, in today’s context, with the common “No Rollerblading, No Ball Games/Soccer, No Littering, No Motorbikes” sign in the void deck, often, the void deck becomes akin to a road junction, where people walk past one another, collect mail, park their bicycle, or take the lift, without actual activity taking place. Hence the void deck does not seem to act as a motivator of community bonding.

Changing Spatial Practices in the Void Deck

Over time, and with urbanization, changes in the uses of the void deck have also taken place. In terms of users, certain areas have experienced large numbers of foreign construction workers who loiter and take shelter in the void deck, sometimes even late into the night.

The effects of an aging population have also been observed in the void deck, with the falling numbers of usage of the standard round table in void decks, often used by the older generations for chinese chess, and how these community spaces have been upgraded over time to accommodate the change in focus for universal access.

However, actual physical design changes in the void deck seem rather limited in terms of catering to changes in population tastes and preferences.

Future Considerations for the Void Deck

Community spirit is expected to be forged at centralized and planned facilities and spaces, such as void decks, but do such spaces actively and successfully encourage the development of such community spirit? Is this really capable of re-creating the community spirit that once existed on the ground and in the streets? Is there still a propensity to interweave social interactions? How will community spaces in public housing estates of the  future seek to encompass such spontaneous and informal community bonding spaces, that fulfill multiple uses within a city design; by designing for it, or allowing for the opportunity for it to be created by the community on its own through colonization of intentionally-crafted remnant spaces in new high-density modern cities?

Singapore’s competitive society, coupled with its housing policies, have given the increasingly affluent majority of Singaporeans greater opportunity and desire to upgrade to bigger flats or private housing.

The direction of Singapore’s public housing under the Housing Development Board has shifted multiple times to address the concerns at their respective times, from the 1960 flats centered around congenial living environments, 1970s “uniqueness and exclusivity” in imageability, and in 1978, planning was aimed towards social interaction. With a social and communal-centric mode of planning that is prevalent today, nucleated settlements are aimed at providing the necessary amenities needed within a reasonable distance. Ample social spaces are provided at block, precinct and neighborhood levels in a bid to increase the interaction between its residents.

However, studies conducted have shown that at a precinct and flat level, few felt the sense of identity, and when surveyed about the rate of use, the facilities of the precincts which were meant as a catalyst to community development were hardly used by the residents and when used, only irregularly. [1]  This phenomenon is not an unfamiliar one. We are now richer, safer, and more comfortable than we have ever been, but strangers in our very homes.

In his book Public and Private Spaces of the City, Professor Ali Madanipour states the problem in very clearly. Planning by neighborhood  a recurring theme explored by multiple theorists (lewis mumford, Raymond Unwin, Clarence Perry to name a few) and the belief that it is possible to “create communities” through a “new organization of space” is no more than physical determinism”. While it is possible to create physical proximity between people, he states that it is impossible to create the social bonds which are the hallmark of a community; and he is not alone – Jan Gehl  in his compilation of spaces that are conducive for community bonding also concedes that whilst these measure facilitate social interaction, a city functions as a tool formed by use. This was present in ancient cities where architecture was not dictated by planners – for example the Greek and Roman cities from AD500 to AD1500 that were not “planned”, but developed “where there was a need for them, shaped by the residents of the city in a direct city building process”, a “slow process that permitted continual adjustment and adaptation of the physical environment to the city functions”

We see in these two examples while intent might be good, the direction of creating social cohesion and communal identity is not something that we can divorce from the element of time. Communities are, after all constructs created, streamlined and honed by interactions and infractions of daily living.

what then can we make of the condition in Singapore?

Singapore in a rather uneasy situation where governmental policy and societal perception seem to encourage mobility and relentless upgrading – young people buying flats in new towns due to subsidies, then proceeding to moving into more centralized or prime locations as they get richer, or on towards private housing – a trend seen in many newer established neighbourhoods. Research has shown that between 1995-2005, 50% of all household heads shifted homes, of which 6 in 10 households shifted to bigger houses or private residences, ^[2] within this research, it was also observed that younger households have a higher propensity for change in residence, while in a separate study, “older estates, because length of residence of its denizens”^[3] were documented to have a higher level of communal participation and communal identity. It thus becomes clear that there is some form of correlation between the length of tenancy and the establishment of a communal identity.

This is extremely crucial in the design of HDB flats. For on the one hand, it could mean that despite all our provisions for social space, social wiring has created a situation where public housing can be seen as short term, in the search for greener pastures. This situation is echoed in Bauman Zygmunt’s Liquid times: Living in an Age of Uncertainty, where the globally connected elite (Singapore has by many standards ranked one of the richest countries based on GDP^[4])are characterized by their mobility. He says, “their interest in, and their commitment to ‘putting the city’s affairs in order’ tend to be considerably less comprehensive and unconditional than in the case of those who have less freedom unilaterally to break the local bond”

So on the one hand Singapore has the Housing Development Board struggling in the establishment of communities and social interaction, and the other, policies which unintentionally hinder its formation. Should we then rethink the system to encourage immobility instead of an overemphasis on the physical approach towards the situation? could the usual suspects: the modern utilitarian building, the cookie cutter solution, the high-rise high density typology, be somewhat wrongly attributed for the failure of communities, when it is a probably a societal problem that needs to be addressed should we want communities to form?

Introduction

In recent years, there has been much hype over keeping the traditional wet markets by bringing in more activities and function to make it a less time dictated communal space.

Rapid process of urban redevelopment is transforming the way people are interacting with the spaces around them, particular in the up and coming high-density cities. This together with the McDonaldization of Society (Ritzer, George. 2004)  also reflects the changing demands that the society is gearing towards.

Singapore government’s vision for traditional wet market since the day it was implemented was for multiculturalism. Traditional wet market serve as a microcosm of Singapore’s multi-cultural society since independence. It brings residents of different social and cultural backgrounds together and initiate community bonding in an estate. Yet, this is ironic that many traditional wet markets have been vanishing over the years. There is currently a lack of studies being done on investigating this phenomenon that’s happening in Singapore.

What makes the traditional wet market such a important public communal space that many celebrate rapid modernization in the supermarket industry yet expressed anxieties with a break from these traditional wet markets?

Understanding the Relevance of Traditional Wet Market from a Social Aspect

In modern context, every individual is always occupied with many things; hence there is a need to look to rebuild loose ties between family members, between members of the community. Lui (2008) referenced from Easterbrook (2003) to back up the importance of building ties through shopping, “human beings are happiest around other people. They need close connections to other people and are happy in a friends-or-family social setting than when alone. (P.179)” shopping offers comfort at a social level.

In terms of friendship and neighbourhood, Lui (2008) brought up that many of us are marginally aware of the additional motive for shopping together. This is crucial to the maintenance of relationship between friends and neighbours. Conversation and phatic communion may seem mundane and may have had been taken for granted as a normal part of ordinary social life, but they are the very essence of community bonding. And these kinds of communications and bonding best take place in the traditional wet market environment. These thus shows that traditional wet market is an easy place to initiate conversations even with strangers, hence showing relevance to initiating community bonding between individuals of different social and cultural backgrounds.

New Kind of Relationships are Forming in the Traditional Wet Market Environment

Only those who participate in the buying will be most of the time those who maintain the social ties with vendors and neighbors in this traditional wet market setting.

Interesting trend that is happening in modern context is with the rise of employment of household domestic workers, the maids are the one doing the purchasing for food. A new kind of relationship is form in the traditional wet market community, between the maids, and the maids and the vendors. The traditional wet market now offers a space for these foreigners to interact and integrate into the larger community. This also extends out to the influx of the new immigrant population in Singapore.

At the beginning there is always a sense of uncertainties of interacting with the vendors due to a different mode of purchase. From foreigner’s point of view, this will deter them from shopping there, and now perhaps with more immigrants and foreigners in our society, that’s probably one of the reason for the decline in shopping in wet market. However it is important that we should try and integrate this group of people into the community to initiate community bonding and on a larger scale, social cohesion for a better nation. Hence showing again the relevance of keeping and promoting traditional wet market in future public housing estates as a good communal place for community bonding.

Challenges of the modernized market place, the supermarket

Wet markets are shown to have a greater potential for phatic communion to initiate, regardless of consumer response. (Malinowski 1999: 303)  In terms of seller-buyer relationships, Lui (2008) compared the ability to initiate and engage in phatic communion between wet market and supermarket atmosphere. Due to a more centralized management system in the supermarket, supermarkets employ a pragmatic strategy in presenting a friendly retailing environment to customers hence it is not appropriate for the supermarket staffs to initiate phatic communion, let alone deeper interaction. There is no room for informal kind of phatic communion that exists in wet market. This provides insights that wet market environment have a greater potential for phatic communion to take place, which then will lead to more interaction and thus community bonding and identity and rootedness.

Supermarkets are associated with modernization of our society and seen as a present and future form of traditional wet market. There is always a difference in preference between the different generations. In the modern context, the younger generations are more educated and able to make choices based on the product information. The spatial arrangement of the products on the shelves encourage a more hands-on style and independent decision makers making their preferences known in public and to exercise “increasing influence over the spending habits of their parents” (Watson ed. 1997: 100; 199). In contrast to wet markets, decisions made to purchase are based on advice seeking from the vendors. This actually proves that there is more interaction happening in the wet market than supermarket, one encourages interaction while the other encourages self-judgment.

This shows the relevance of traditional wet market and how it is a better place for interactions and bonding to take place over the immediate rival, the supermarket. The fact that supermarket has its competitive edges are recognized, they should co-exist for greater variety to suit modern demands yet enable community bonding.

Importance of Traditional Wet Market as a Good Public Communal Space in Today’s Modern Context

Traditional wet market plays an important and relevant role in bonding people together unconsciously and involuntarily. In a society now where we tend to lose the kind of neighbor connections we used to have, this space is very important to us. No matter how the society advances, interaction is still needed, only with bonded communities, will one get a better and harmonious nation. Hence as population rapidly increases and with limited land resources, it is necessary to investigate if the current public communal facilities are indeed doing the job of providing for quality living, and enhancing community bonding as the main purpose in these communal shared spaces.

Challenges of the Future of the Traditional Wet Market

How relevant is traditional wet market to the community in today’s modern society then?

Should the traditional wet market, as a communal space for active community bonding, continue to be relevant in future public housing estates?

And if so, should future wet market’s development be left to a top down initiative, leaving development to the hands of the developers, contractors and government authorities, or is there a more integrative way of combining top down and bottom up initiatives to enable the success of it, in terms of community bonding?

Introduction

Design & planning of communal spaces in public housing estates are getting more attention in recent years. This is especially so in Singapore, where strong community bonds among residents of various races and nationalities are important in maintaining social security in our metropolitan city with high influx of global citizens. Furthermore, 80% of Singapore’s population stay in Public Housing Estates[1]. This further justifies the need for effective utilization and planning of these communal spaces.

Consistent with the study done by Dempsey, Brown, & Bramley, communal spaces in residential estates play an important role in fostering social cohesion and creating strong social bonding (Dempsey, Brown, & Bramley, 2012). However, although such spaces are used by the community at large, design and planning of such spaces in Singapore public housing estates at present are ironically much heavily influenced by capitalism and political agendas rather than the community themselves. Such a planning process sparked off much debates and issues in regards to spatial justice and also created problems such as a diminishing community identity.

The Reality of Design & Planning of Communal Spaces

The Housing Development Board of Singapore (HDB) had been designing and planning communal spaces in public housing estates through emphasis on developing distinctive identity & character as well as developing community centric public spaces (Lee, 2012). However, such design and planning strategy still see a much top down and capitalism centric approach as adopted by the HDB. Such strategy not only poses various problems to the community but also resulted in an adverse spatial quality of communal spaces.

Understanding Impact of Capitalism on Public Spaces

To first understand how capitalism is a driving force in design and planning of communal spaces in Singapore Public Housing Estates, there needs to be an understanding of how capitalism has the power of shaping public spaces.   Harvey in ‘The Enigma of Capitalism and the Crises of Capitalism’ recognised that capitalism created wealth but at the price of exploiting our natural environment as well as humans in the form of labour. It is a system that must keep growing (at least 3% annually) and this created uneven geographical development (Harvey, 2010). Such an emphasis on growth and profits put economic emphasis above society interest in our urban planning in major cities.

Public spaces inevitably could not escape from such ill fate as well. Social value of public spaces needs to be quantified and justified with economic value before it could be brought to reality. Therefore, the challenge today in designing public communal spaces is no longer just merely designing a socially viable space, but to design a space which connect aesthetics with the social, political and economic discourse (Jones, 2011). Such complications are the result of capitalism.

Capitalism as key driving force for Design & Planning in Singapore Context

Such complications and challenge are evident in our Singapore Context. This is especially so, in our design and planning of communal spaces in public housing estates. To bring this discussion further, it is necessary to first understand how HDB plan their communal and public spaces in public housing estates.

When planning of communal spaces are concerned, a central communal space is first identified. Following which a school is usually placed next to it, before placing in the residential blocks. Often, a commercial complex will also be placed in selective precinct to attend to daily needs of the residents.  These are the basic strategy that HDB had adopted in planning new towns.   This strategy is seen to be happening in Coral Edge Precinct in Punggol (Fig. 1). Of note, concentration of economic and social activities into the Commercial Plaza (In Blue) and Community Center (In Red) can be seen demonstrated in this particular case study estate.