Kampong Paradox - Social Resilience in Modern Cities

KAMPONG PARADOX SOCIAL RESILIENCE IN MODERN CITIES

EUGENE LIM SAM JOYCE

AUTHOR EUGENE LIM

ADVISOR SAM JOYCE

THESIS GROUP FUTURE ASSEMBLIES AND MATERIALS

SCHOOL SINGAPORE UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY AND DESIGN

FACULTY ARCHITECTURE AND SUSTAINABLE DESIGN [ASD]

CONTENT PAGE CHAPTER 1 : AN IDEA

2

CHAPTER 2 : HOUSING INSIGHTS

4

CHAPTER 3 : LOOKING UP

20

CHAPTER 4 : CONCEPT

28

CHAPTER 5 : CONTEXT

32

CHAPTER 6 : DESIGN MASSING

36

CHAPTER 7 : ADAPTIVE STRUCTURE

44

CHAPTER 8 : PRODUCTION

54

CHAPTER 9 : KEY DRAWINGS

58

CHAPTER 10 : CONCLUSION

62

2

1

AN IDEA

3

Kampong Paradox Singapore went from developing to developed country in a short span of 50 years. Kampong dwelling has made way for high density slab blocks . Shophouses has made way for mega shopping centers. With development comes new set of social challenges with opposing natures. The key issue is the seemingly complex relationship between increasing developed cities needs and community integration.

Sociologist Chua Beng Huat explains that nostalgia of kampongs especially borrowed ones from generations that did not actually live in one is not equivalent to the desire to go back to the times of material inconvenience.

Instead it is a response to stresses involve in living in a modern city. This author believe that there is an intricate link between kampong nostalgia and city development.

This project then is not about whether development is good or not. Neither is it about bringing the Kampong back.

The project is a response to current context, bringing social resilience to modern cities through new housing typology thinking.

Reference: Humans of Singapore Facebook Post (10 May 2016) Nostalgia for Kampungs, Chua Beng Huat

The paragraph below quotes a grassroots community that provides a snapshot of the current landscape:

“I think problem is that we always make something new every year. New HDB, new hotel, new museum. But in making something new we remove everything old. We forget our kampong spirit. Imagine, I have been in same building for five years - never say hi to my neighbor once, never! Crazy. I mean it is okay, we are changing fast to adapt because the world is changing. But perhaps we have changed too fast in last fifty years, because we don’t really know who we are anymore. Don’t misunderstand. I love my country, I love Singapore. I am just not sure what it means to be Singaporean anymore.”

People remember and want community spirit or Gotong Royong of the Kampong days. However, the same group also desires the convenience of modern living including individual privacy.

Hence, the Kampong Paradox, the center issue to be address in this project.

4

2

HOUSING INSIGHTS

5

Past to Present The methodology used to explore the link between kampong nostalgia and modern cities need would be based on historical studies. Specifically, housing evolution in Singapore in the period of 1960s to present times.

This methodology makes sense on a few levels: 1) The housing development in Singapore is closely tied with the development of Singapore.

2) The relatively short time development makes it easy compare and draw insights.

of to

3) There are available resources on the subject matter.

4) Not limited to just kampongs, it allows for a broader perspective.

While this projects seeks to create a new housing typology with better community infrastructure, this author also acknowledge that Singapore has arguably one of the most successful public housing in the world. In recent years, there even have been great efforts to improve community

infrastructure. Not to reinvent the wheel, lessons learnt from existing and previous typologies will be studied and adapted.

The 3 main typologies that will be studied are the kampong, shophouse and the HDB. In the different era throughout Singapore history, each of these typologies have been once the prevalent housing infrastructure.

Drawings of each typologies will be extracted and simplified to understand the programming, density and transport system.

A summarized timeline will also be researched to find out the different needs each typology seeks to address at the time of development.

The key lessons hope to be achieve in the research is how the Kampongs have been so successful in capturing this nostalgia. Why do the shophouse exist in the first place and why was it replaced. Finally, to present times, what makes the HDB so relevant now.

These insights serves to provide the various pieces of deigning the next housing typology.

6

At a Glance The diagram on the right shows the aerial view of each of the 3 typologies to be explored in a 300m radius. This gives a good grasp of the size and the density differences of the 3 typologies.

Two HDB flats in queens close were set aside in Queen’s Close were set aside for resettled residents. Below are observations recorded in 1973 Berita Harian interview.

Kampong Radin Mas represents the Kampong typology chosen as it is one of the more well documented kampongs in Singapore. The Kampong consist of low laying attap houses.

Each of which is 2 to 3 stores high. It is least dense in both footprint and volume of space.

“Although we all now live in one building; I feel we are so far apart. Not like in Kampong Radin Mas where our houses were placed far apart, but we were a lot closer.”

Little India represents the shophouse typology chosen as it is a Singapore heritage site. Each shophouse is 2 to 3 floor high. The shop usually occupies the first floor of each unit. It is the most dense in terms of footprint but it ranks middle in terms of the volume of space it occupies.

Jalan Kukoh represents the hdb chosen as it has the original elements of HDB of the 60s but has continuously adapt over time Each blocks are about 20 to 30 floors. It ranks middle of footprint density, but it is by far the most dense in terms of volume and overall density.

~ Ali Yunos, 57

“I always seem to get lost here because all the homes look the same.

In the Kampong, all the houses are different.”

~Dara bte Mohd Taib, 80 “In my free time I don’t know what to do. In the Kampong I could feed the chickens and ducks, water the plants or sweep the compound. But in this flat, I feel like I am just sitting here. I am not free to walk around. And the neighbors don’t visit anymore.

~Sippet bte Mohd Taib, 79

Reference: Two HDB flats in queens close were set aside in Queen’s Close were set aside for resettled residents. Feb 1972 – 1973 is the relocation time frame. Above are some observations recorded in 1973 Berita Harian interview reflecting the perception of the resident’s adjustments. (Pg 47, A village remembered)

7

Kampong Radin Mas (500m)

Little India (500m)

Jalan Kukoh (500m)

8

Kampong Timeline The Kampong has many attractive qualities. One of the key feature of the Kampong is the ability for it to grow organically. The housing are provided only as required/ needed.

This is enabled by the simplicity of the project and its usage of vernacular material.

Period Highlights: 1823 to 2001 Organic growth.

Adaptation: Palace to School.

Religious place is a key mention.

Moving out in phases.

The planning is very utilitarian. The ground is raised to deal with flooding.

There are 2 ingress/ egress which suggest a front door and back door.

The front door connects to the porch and leads to the verandah. Through the verandah there is a passage that leads into the bedrooms at either side.

At the end of the passage, one goes to a living room going out through the back door, theres an external toilet.

Throughout the timeline, it also reflects the adaptability of the infrastructure.

In one case, A palace was adapted to a school to military camp and back to a school.

Vernacular material contrast with todays material like concrete in that is a very non invasive procedure that allows for minimal sound and air pollution.

Complete relocation of Kampong.

Drawings Suggestion of front and back door.

Outside Sanitation.

Raise about ground to deal with wet lands.

Points of note Non intrusive material for seamless adaptability.

9

1918 Attap House Plan

Key Timeline 1823 Temenggong Abdul Rahman, his family and followers move from Kampong Temenggong to Kampong Telok Blangah.

1911 Radin Mas is identified by the colonial government as prime breeding ground of malaria mosquitos.

Anti-Malaria committee is set up.

Surau Radin Mas is built for 70 – 80 worshippers

1926 Istana of Ungku is adapted to Radin Mas School, an English primary boy’s school.

1942-1945 Japanese Occupation.

Military camp at Mt Faber.

Radin Mas converted to Japanese school but goes back to English school as war end.

Front Elevation

1953 Radin Mas Community and Youth Centre is formed.

1958 Major fire breaks out behind Radin Mas School servants’ quarters.

41 people left homeless.

1961 People’s Association Radin Mas Community Centre opens on 4 Mar.

Bed Room

Passage

Bed Room

1964 1968 Government takes possession of land.

Status of Surau Radin Mas elevated to that of mosque, Masjid Radin Mas and can hold 500.

Verandah

PM Lee Kuan Yew visits Radin Mas in the wake of communal riot on 6 Aug.

1972 Twenty families move out of Radin Mas in first phase of resettlement.

Residents allocated flats at Queen's Close.

Porch 1973 The remaining families move out.

Key Plan

2001 Masjid Radin Mas officially closed.

10

Kampong Radin Mas The plan shows a relatively sparse distribution. The transport system is quite straightforward. The roads are constructed along the river and programs are placed beside the roads at either side.

Key Data Housing: 108 + 57 = 165 Shop: 13 School: 9

However, the main community programs such as the field and school are located at the main intersections and at the wider roads.

The density also reduces as the site get steeper.

The ratio between programs also gives us a way to quantitatively compare the kampong to the other typologies.

Housing to shop - 12 : 1 Housing to school - 15 : 1 Housing to community facility - 55 : 1 Beyond the number of programs, we can see from the plan that the community spaces highlighted by the huge green patch containing the field and school is much greater than 1: 5.

Its approximately 20 percent of the site area. Its the heart of the entire kampong.

Community Center: 3 Place of Worship: 2 Cemetery: 1

Circulation and transport Continuous along the river and main road.

Small divergent streams that widen the site.

Less programs in the steep area.

Schools and community center along main intersection.

11

LEGEND House Food/ Retail School Place of Worship Community Space Cemetery

N

12

Shophouse Timeline Generally the shophouse contains building that are 2 - 3 floors high. As the name suggests, Each unit normally comprise of a shop and a house.

Little India is unique even among other historic district as it was never designated as an ethnic enclave.

Little India came about from the early concentrated Indian population and grew reacting with changing social, political and economic needs.

Period Highlights: 1940 to 1960 Norm is 2 floors, but can go to 4 floors.

Changing needs reflected in the design.

Religion/ belief of builders reflected in the style.

Ornamentation goes from simple to complex to simple.

The district therefore contains shophouses that belong to various styles. Its interesting to note that the styles are not developed from the residents but its a reflection of the religion/ belief of the builders that built in.

Later design have more emphasis on proportion.

Ornamentation level and details inform observers the era which the shophouse was built. Across time, it went from utilitarian to highly ornamented to modern utilitarian.

Drawings

The shophouse was phase out as it lead to slums due to its inability to cope with increasing population.

Phase out as it become slum-like with increased density.

Elevation become more porous over time to bring in more light.

Light well to bring in more light into the narrow space.

A balanced negotiation privacy and community.

Reference: Little India Historic District, January 1995, Urban Redevelopment Authority

between

13

Shophouse Diagrams

Key Timeline 1840 – 1900 Early ShopHouse Singapore “first generation” Shophouses.

Short double level with one or two windows on upper floor façade.

Ornamentation minimal.

Built in the time where cattle trade is the key driving force of economy.

This suggest the the wider doors for such an economy.

Early 1900s First Transitional Shophouse Early Shophouse Nos. 127 and 159 Dunlop Street

Restrained ornamentation.

Solid to void ratio approx equilibrium 1:1. Elevation features two windows on upper storey. Vents employed with simplicity in the architecture composition as squares or diamonds between windows.

1900 – 1940 Late Shophouse More recognized presently because of heavy ornamentation. Tripartite façade arrangement on upper floors reduces wall space to a minimum even column size. When all windows are opened, façade ‘wall’ disappear to achieve maximum ventilation.

First Transitional Shophouse No. 39 Campbell Lane

Late Shophouse Style Nos. 109 - 117 Jalan Besar

Late 1930s Second Transitional Shophouse Defined by a simplified and streamlined design that could be due to economic reasons. The design reflects architectural trend in Europe where Art Deco had by 1910 – 1920 replaced the Art Nouveau movement.

1930 – 1960 Art Deco Shophouse

Second Transitional Shophouse No. 15 Cuff Road

Art Deco Shophouse No. 22 Campbell Lane

Further simplified, column orders, arches, keystones and pediments are of geometric design.

Ornamentation minimal.

Concentration on proportion and elevation composition with emphasis on street corners. Date bearing plates show building age.

14

Little India Although phase out due to increasing density. It remains a typology that works during the earlier periods especially in how it mediate between community and individual privacy.

Key Data

While the ground floor serves the street as shops, it has a private access in the unit itself that serve the residence. This give the privacy desired by the residents yet also the sense of community and belonging.

Place of Worship: 2

Housing to shop - 1 : 1 Housing to school - 800 : 1 Housing to community facility - 800 : 1

Housing: 800 Shop: 800

School: 1 Community Center: 1

Circulation and transport Grid like road network.

The shophouse is interesting in the sense that the houses to shop are at 1:1.

A note that although the ratio of house to school seem disproportionation, there are certain shops within the shophouse that are also educational features.

Because of the unique composition of the units, the roads / street scape serving the shophouse are community features. This takes up 20 % of the total area, a more accurate a representation of the communal feature than the ratio of community programs.

High density housing in terms of proximity.

Rigid grid, diverse programming.

Points of note Non in intrusive material for seamless adaptability.

15

LEGEND ShopHouse School Place of Worship Community Space

N

16

HDB Timeline HDB is the prevalent housing of the current landscape. It is also one of the most longer lasting. Across time it has also constantly evolved.

Jalan Kukoh has captured many of this aspect. It has high density rental slab blocks of the 1960s for rental.

Accommodating housing shortage of those time required no frills design for quick construction. Interlocking plans and double loaded corridors are also strategies to increase density.

There are also ownership blocks in the precinct that was built later. These were built to bring in a little more diversity to cope with changing needs.

In 1980, the strong focus on community programs brought about a range of improvements. There are additions of community facilities like basketball courts and community centers.

These are inserted within the existing community.

Present times, to cope with the ageing population, there are lift upgrading programs for lift to stop at every floor.

Also ramps and no barrier entry are implemented.

Period Highlights: 1960 to present 1960s: Started out as an emergency housing. No frills design for quick construction.

1 room rental flats to cope with density.

1970s: Diversity of plans to cope with changing needs.

1980s: Building Identity and precinct focus.

1990s: Ageing population. Barrier free and UD. Point block demand over took slab block (privacy needs) .

2000s: Ageing in place, Multi family houses.

Drawings Interlocking plans to create diversity while keeping density.

Additions of car parks and community facilities.

Lift upgrading programs to improve accessibility.

17

HDB Estate Diagrams

Key Timeline Early 1960 300 000 Lived in squatters 250 000 Lived in squalid shophouse Housing Shortage No Frills Architecture Slab Blocks Small flats build fast to keep cost low Double Loaded Corridor Focus on increasing density.

Legend Rental Ownership

Jalan Kukoh Precinct

Late 1960 Interlocking Plans Help save dpace while increasing density.

1971 Ownership Blocks Early 1960, Rental Blocks

Mixed 2 & 3 rooms Goal was to have greater variety for different needs.

1982 It was a time of building identity.

Precinct focus, focus on urban design.

Late 1960, Rental Blocks

Great emphasis on improving quality Additions of Multi Storey Carpark.

1994 Ageing population 1971, Ownership Blocks

Lift Upgrading Programmes (LUP) Main Upgrading Progrrammes (MUP) Barrier Free and UD

2000s First 40 Storey Block First 50 storey block Focus on ageing Carparks, 1982

Upgrading programmes, 1994

Focus on sustainability

18

Jalan Kukoh The planning of HDB differs to a large extent from precinct to precinct.

However there still a few general similarities. Each of the block are accessible by the road. The roads are the main transportation system.

Key Data

Housing to shop - 93 : 1 Housing to school - 1674 : 1 Housing to community facility - 1674 : 1

Condo: 6 blocks

Compared to the previous typologies, one could see the clear differences between the ratios numbers of housing to other programs. It seems that the HDB has much lesser community infrastructure compared to the rest.

Shop: 18 blocks

One reason could be that there are now mega shopping centers. Programs are becoming more zone like, an area for housing, orchard area for shopping, city hall for working. Due to better transportation, people are becoming more mobile now.

While this is great for increasing density, the community factor both from the ratios and assessments of the plans are not as robust as previous typologies.

Housing: 84 + 264 + 264 + 156 + 156 + 156 + 198 + 198 + 198 = 1674 units Rental: 138 + 110 + 138 = 386 units

Hotel: 7 Blocks

School: 1 Community Space: 1

Circulation and transport This particular district is more isolated by major roads.

No connected directly transport system.

to

public

Unconnected within and between other programs.

19

LEGEND House Food/ Retail School Community Space Hotel Condo

N

20

3

LOOKING UP

21

Tall Buildings?

Tall buildings have always been the staple of modern cities. In Singapore especially, it makes sense due to the small land area of the city state.

The goal of this study is to study new ways of integrating programs into a vertical typology, the structural and elevator system. In addition, we can also speculate what are possible enhancement to the project.

Four tall buildings will be studied from different angles. The 4 buildings are 1) Shanghai Tower, 2) HSBC Main Building, 3) Oasia Hotel and 4) 111 West 57 street Shanghai tower - Multiple functions are integrated.

HSBC Main Building - The structure is effective to achieve open floor plan.

Oasia Hotel - Although relatively not as tall, it has good balance of community spaces and primary programs.

111 West 57th Street - A modern residential with high demand with a world class structural system for slim tall building.

Precedent 1: Shanghai Tower Type: Mixed-use Location: China Height: 632m Floor Area: 380,000 m^2 Floor Count: 137 Precedent 2: HSBC Main Building Type: Office Building Location: Hongkong Height: 178.8m Floor Area: 99,000 m^2 Floor Count: 44 Precedent 3: Oasia Hotel Type: Mixed-use Location: Singapore Height: 130m Floor Count: 27 Precedent 4: 111 West 57 Street Type: Residential Location: New York Height: 438m Floor Count: 82

22

Observation Deck Observartion Deck Exclusive Club Lounge Members Club Conference Facilities Restaruant

Community Hub Hotel Services Entertainment Private Cinema Bar and Spa Ballroom

Hotel Lobby Transport Food Floor Public Entertainment Cinema Game Lounges

Sky Lobby 2 Zen Relaxation Specialist Retail High End Restaurant Garden Precinct Jogging Track

Community Hub Transport Food Floor Recreation Retail

Sky Lobby 1 Child Care Health Services Maternity Clinic Fitness Gym

Community Hub Market Shopping Retail Link

Community Hub

23

Lv119

Lv84

Precedent 1: Shanghai Tower Comprehensive/ community like programming Lift systems for tall buildings Integrated insulation and community space

Lv8

24

25

Precedent 2: HSBC Main Building Tensional structural system allowing open plan Modular columns hints at flexibility

26

N

L27 Roof Sky Garden L25 Hotel Club L22 Hotel Club L21 Roof Sky Garden L20 Hotel

Precedent 3: Oasia Hotel Integration of parks to building Many large communal area Outrigger structural system

L13 Hotel L12 Roof Sky Garden L11 Soho

L7 Soho L7 Soho Sky Garden

27

18m Steel Truss Tower Cap

Tuned Mass Damper

Dining Room

Living Room

24m

Kitchen

W.R

Rm 1 W.R

W.R

Concrete Belt Wall Bedroom

Media

Rm 2

Master

Shear Wall Core Outrigger Mechanical Wall

400m (Approx)

Wind Break Concrete Shear Wall with Punched Opening

Precedent 4: 111 West 57th Street Slenderness and advanced structural system

Outrigger Mechanical Wall Wind Break

Shear wall system 18m by 400m elevations Base to height ratio 1 : 22

Outrigger Mechanical Wall

Cassion And Spread/ Strip Footing

28

4 CONCEPT

29

Flipping the Kampong from plan to elevation.

A transition from horizontal to vertical arrangement.

30

Design Strategy Lessons from previous typology and tall building precedents inform strategies to address the Kampong Paradox.

Diagrams on the right illustrates how it will be implemented.

Strategy 1: Thematic Circulation Kampong circulation follows the river - public wider path, and its tributaries private narrower path. Kampong attap houses respond to street with a more open first floor and private second, third floors. Flipping the Kampong plan, the idea is abstracted into the Skyscraper. Individual units are 2 to 3-storey shophouses connected via double volume spiraling ramps.

This function as a street connection both vertically and horizontally. The private floor of each unit is served by a separate residents’ corridor connected to the lift using an access card system.

This helps to create a balance tripod of individuals’ privacy, convenience and a communal living experience.

Strategy 2: Adaptive Structure Inspired by the organic growth of the Kampong that continuously adapts to meet needs across time, an adaptive

structure is developed. The system consists of computationally optimized steel structures that maximize column free spaces and integrated craning infrastructure. Zones are created in the building segmented by two raised artificial bridging floors containing community spaces and parks. These dual purpose as noise and visual barriers during construction. While a zone is in construction, the double volume streets are converted to a track that brings materials and workers around. The shophouses’ key materials are Cross Laminated Timber panels and Gulam beams. These are chosen for their capability for on-site construction due to their minimal pollution, carbon sequestering and recyclable properties. At any time, 40% could be under construction with 60% occupied. This creates a flexible yet sustainable development.

With these 2 strategies, we can have a not “either or” solution but strive to have “both and”. To achieve organic growth with well planned infrastructure. To meet high density demand & within building self sustenance. To have privacy in the home while living in a community.

31

40% Platform: Open Plan Structure + Zoning System

Legend House

School

Community Space

Food/ Retail

Place of Worship

Cemetery

M A

R IN

A

B

LV D

32

5 CONTEXT

33

Key requirements 1) In a local context.

2) A place for tall buildings.

3) Possible integration with public transport.

4) Allow parks, housing integration.

Country: Singapore Address: The Lawn @ Marina Bay Current Use: Park/ Substation

5) Flexible programming.

The Sail @ Marina Bay

Marina Bay Finacial Center

245m 66 Floors 227m 49 Floors

192m 32 Floors 222m 46 Floors

One Raffles Quay

245m 50 Floors 245m 70 Floors

34

35

75m

180m

DOWNTOWN STN

N

1:1000

36

6

DESIGN MASSING

37

38

39

40

41

42

Iteration 1 Exposed Area: 12% Possible Open Shaded Area: 5%

Iteration 2 Exposed Area: 6% Possible Open Shaded Area: 15%

Iteration 3 Exposed Area: 12% Possible Open Shaded Area: 20%

Iteration 4 Exposed Area: 12% Possible Open Shaded Area: 30%

43

Preliminary Programming Housing: 456 + 304 = 760 units Shops: 456 + 304 = 760 units Community Space: 4 Religious place: 2 Circulation and transport Directly connected to the public transport Continuous from ground to top of building

44

7

ADAPTIVE STRUCTURE

45

Structural Implementation While the first strategy, thematic circulation is a space arrangement exercise. The second strategy, adaptive structure requires some analysis driven iterations.

Adaptive structure is thought of as a platform. The in-between of the concept and implementation.

There are a few key driving force in the design of such a platform. 1) It has to enable the slim massing. 2) It has to maximize an open flexible plan. 3) It have to contain an internal craning system. 4) It has to be in zones to separate construction and live in.

The overall structural design is an exoskeleton shell. It will contain 2 cores per tower. Alternate cores will hold an internal crane. These will bring materials up. The cores will have multiple lifts for people circulation. The cores act as the primary compression structure that supports the building and connect to the foundation.

It will also have 2 basement. One as a loading bay and the other serves as a connection to the existing train station, It double as a structural buoy.

Step 1: Structural Precedents Done in Chapter 3: Looking up, looking at previous iterations help to see what has already be done.

Step 2: Single Block Studies A simplified diagram of the precedents is abstracted and analyzed. Different height requires different system.

Step 3: Wind Load Slenderness of the massing blocks require the study of wind load analysis in the short elevation.

Step 4: Horizontal Optimization Critical to the concept of achieving flexibility, simplified diagrams are used to test the system to be implemented in the long elevation.

Step 5: Overall Optimization Putting the analysis together, another round of optimization is done.

Previously it is done to select a system.

But this round is to optimize the material and weight distribution.

46

Single Block Studies Method

Results

Karamba in grasshopper is used as the analysis software.

Iteration 1: Pure rectilinear grid - Taken as the control - Displacement: x - Mass: y

Utility Digram: - Red is compression, Blue is tension - White part is relatively less utilized - Using of point load at the side of building - 25 floors, 3 bay

Iteration 2: Core added - Displacement: 3.5x *Perform worst at higher floors - Mass: 1.2y Iteration 3: Core and Outrigger added - Displacement: 0.5x - Mass: 1.4y Iteration 4: Super Structure - Displacement: 0.4x - Mass: 1.4y

Key Takeaway Overall the superstructure works the best with minimal displacement using least weight. Outrigger + core system are not too far behind and it makes sense as a zoning measure. A possible combination of these 2 system might be necessary.

47

Iteration 1

Iteration 2

Iteration 3

Iteration 4

48

Wind Load Method

Iteration 1: Initial intention

Single tower analysis gives a good sense of which structural system work. However above 50 floors, the system will fail at greater magnitude.

Combining with the systems above, creating a bridge between two slender tower will exponentially increase the performance. Essentially becoming 1 structurally.

- Taken as control - Displacement: x Iteration 2: Three bridges Displacement: 0.77x Iteration 3: Two bridges, more trusses Displacement: 0.80x

Key Takeaway In this analysis, both outrigger and supper structure are used together. However more than the systems being used, positions and quantity matter too. While 3 bridges works better, it does not work as well aesthetically. To achieve 2 bridge, we adjust the position instead of the bridges to get a better result. Overall, we have a 20% better improvement over the control .

49

Iteration 1

Iteration 2

Iteration 3

50

Horizontal Load Optimization Method

Results

While the short elevation is analyzed through using wind load the long elevation would be analyzed using horizontal loading which will be the key stress faced by the component.

Iteration 1: Pure rectilinear grid - Displacement: x - Optimal Max Span: 42.5% total width

The goal here is to create maximize open space as possible while minimizing the deflection.

Galapagos is use in conjunction with Karamba to optimize the parameters.

Iteration 2: Side Truss - Displacement: x - Span: 46.4% total width Iteration 3: Core and Outrigger added - Displacement: x - Span: 46.4% total width

Max open space a Min deflection b Therefore the problem statement is : max (a - b)

Key Takeaway While it is found that approximately 50% of total span is the most ideal open span value in terms of optimizing both deflection and span. This is done with equal weightage to both parameters. So with more emphasis on span, the decision to go with 60% open span is made.

51

Iteration 1

Iteration 2

Iteration 3

52

Structural Optimization Method

Short Elevation

The next stage of optimization was more straight forward, Given a fixed amount of material and weight, the goal was to find the approximate ratio of thickness between the primary(Red), secondary (Blue), Tertiary (White) and cross (Cyan) section of the trusses.

Weight & Material Distribution Primary : Secondary : Cross 5 : 2 : 3 Long Elevation Weight & Material Distribution

Similar methodology is use as the ones to find for optimizing horizontal loading.

Primary : Secondary : Tertiary : Cross 4 : 1 : 3 : 2

Key Takeaway It is clear from the analysis that the primary structure requires the greater investment in material and weight. This is followed by the outriggers. And finally the cross beam while not the highest priority, without which the structure will not be as efficient.

53

54

8 PRODUCTION

55

56

Top To Bottom 1:1000 Site Model 1:250 Circulation Model 1:50 Unit Model

57

Key Model 1:500 Structural Model

58

9

KEY DRAWINGS

59

M A

R IN

A

B

LV D

TR N

CE L A LV B D

D

O N W TO W N N ST

CO

M

M ER CE

ST R EE T

Site Plan (NTS)

M A

R IN

A

B

LV D

Residential Plan [Scale 1:1500]

Community Area Plan [Scale 1:1500]

60

N

ail

ty Space

Zone 6 Level 68 to Level 75: Observation Deck Community Spaces Club Lounge Restaurant

Zone 5 Level 51 to Level 67: Transport Residential Zone

Diagrams

Key Timeline Early 1960 300 000 Lived in squatters 250 000 Lived in squalid shophouse

Completed housing.

Platform filled to capacity.

Housing Shortage No Frills Architecture Slab Blocks Small flats build fast to keep cost low

Buffer Zone Programmatic Purposes: Religious Space Primary School Secondary School Public Entertainment Hawker Center Jogging Track Garden Precinct Technical Purposes: Noise Barrier between Construction and livable Zones. Also double as a intermediary transport hub.

Double Loaded Corridor Focus on increasing density.

Late 1960

Jalan Kukoh Precinct

Interlocking Plans Help save dpace while increasing density.

1971 Ownership Blocks Early 1960, Rental Blocks

Mixed 2 & 3 rooms Goal was to have greater variety for different needs.

1982 It was a time of building identity.

Precinct focus, focus on urban design.

Late 1960, Rental Blocks

Zone 4

Great emphasis on improving quality Additions of Multi Storey Carpark.

Level 51 to Level 55:

1994 Ageing population Lift Upgrading Programmes (LUP)

1971, Ownership Blocks

Main Upgrading Progrrammes (MUP) Barrier Free and UD

2000s

Observation Deck Community Spaces Club Lounge Restaurant

Possible Shophouse Retail

First 40 Storey Block First 50 storey block Focus on ageing

arparks, 1982

Focus on sustainability

Upgrading programmes, 1994

Zone 3 Level 33 to Level 50: Transport Residential Zone 18m

Dining Room

W.R

W.R

Living Room

24m

Kitchen

Under construction.

Houses are being built on site.

W.R

Rm 1

Bedroom

Media

Rm 2

Concrete Belt Wall Shear Wall Core Outrigger Mechanical Wall Wind Break Concrete Shear Wall with Punched Opening

[Adults] Optics Center Architectural Consultancy Specialist Retail Gift Shops Incubation Lab Craft Shop Fashion Boutique Gourmet Cafe Tea Shop Jewellery Bag Shop [Elderlies] Spa & Relaxation Community Clubs Clinics Karaoke Old Folks Home Learning Center Palliative Care

Master

Steel Truss Tower Cap

Tuned Mass Damper

[Children] Gaming Center Tuition Center Toy Shop Ice Cream Child Care

Zone 2

[Utility] Laundromat DIY Shop Florist Electronics Hostel Tailor Shoemaker Keymaker

Level 17 to Level 32: Transport Residential Zone Upgrading process.

Presence of both complete and incomplete housing.

Outrigger Mechanical Wall Wind Break

Outrigger Mechanical Wall

Zone 1 Level 1 to Level 16: Cassion And Spread/ Strip Footing

First Atrium Space Access to busstop Completed housing.

Platform filled to capacity.

Basement 1 Acts as loading bay where trucks can go in to unload materials to be transported up the internal crane.

Basement 2 Underground connection to downtown MRT station.

System Drawing (NTS)

Sectional Perspective: Construction Zone Highlighted inbuilt crane core. CLT Panels & Gulam Beams are transferred on crane and track system along ramps.

61

62

10 CONCLUSION

63

Thank You To end this project, I would just like to share some thoughts on both the project and process.

Of the many things I am grateful for, the highlight would the space to explore broad amount of things in the Thesis Prep. The key insights that I gain is the kind of architecture that I would like to do, what kind of architect I want to be. That is my singular most valuable takeaway in the whole exercise.

In hindsight, one of the things that could have been done better is to study social resilience from a broader perspective as it will help synthesize specific needs of modern city.

This project would be the beginning of many things. The Kampong Paradox has yet to be solve but I sincerely hope it has raised the right questions. How can housing of the future add true values to the its inhabitants?

Building social resilience has never been easy. And with the context of modern cities, its even less straight forward. I hope that this project would serve as a next step in solving the Kampong Paradox. [End]

These are the people that makes this project possible.

Faculty Advisor: Sam Joyce Thank you for being patient even though at times it could not have been easy. Yet you are always encouraging, willing to listen and teach.

Friends: Leon, Yi Qian, Song Pei You all know what you did. Without the constructive feedback you all gave, the project would not have been able to progress this far.

Family: Thank you for providing me with everything I need to be successful.

Faith: Most importantly, thank you God for your grace in every part of this project.

All glory and honor goes to you.