Kampong Buangkok by Lina Fong

LORONG BUANGKOK

CONSERVING THE KAMPONG 20.305 : CONSERVATION THEORIES AND APPROACHES OF BUILT HERITAGE

CONTENTS Foreword

Introduction

Background: A kampongâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s evolution

The Future of Kampong Lorong Buangkok

Current Sentiments

A Changing Society: Adaptive reuse and minor renovations

Our Stand

An Examination of Kampong-themed Projects

A Proposed Future

References

Acknowledgements

FOREWORD

The objective of our research dwells upon understanding the essence of what Kampong Buangkok is really built on. This includes the physical shell of it as well as the community and social cohesion fostered within the kampong. With a rising need for land in our economically driven country, the fact is that Kampong Buangkok would soon vanish before our eyes. However, are there any aspects of Kampong Buangkok worth conserving for our further generations? Specific objectives of the study are as follows: Understanding the People’s Sentiments Whether the people feel that kampongs are worth preserving. If so, which parts of the kampong should be preserved and why. The Kampong’s role in Today’s Society Whether the ‘kampong spirit’ – a seemingly intangible quality of heritage, is possibly able to play a vital role in imparting values, culture and history all while transforming modern Singapore into a closer-knit society. Translation for the Future To identify and translate various qualities of Kampong Buangkok, ensuring that future generations of Singaporeans are educated and enriched by it.

1975

1994

1984

2007

INTRODUCTION

KAMPONGS IN SINGAPORE & THE SIGNIFICANCE OF KAMPONG BUANGKOK

n several Southeast Asian countries such as Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore, a village is generally known as a kampong1. Kampongs are clustered human settlements often located within cool, shady environments with lots of greenery. They are usually sustained traditionally by subsistence activities like padi-growing, fishing and other agricultural practices.2 Apart from the laidback way of living people identify kampongs with, the definition of a kampong usually also comes attached with this identity of a strong sense of togetherness known as the ‘kampong spirit’ amongst its inhabitants that can hardly be found in modern human settlements.

Kids playing in the open (Source: The National Archives)

The ‘kampong spirit’ as we have come to define through our research, refers to the spirit of mutual respect and consideration towards one another.3 It is being understanding and thoughtful towards each other and the willingness to compromise. It is the culture ingrained in them, where neighbours are your friends and family you trust and can rely on for good times and in bad times. What results is tensions and conflicts avoided, allowing the community to flourish and grow as one cohesively and harmoniously. Long before Singapore’s rapid development and urbanization into the concrete jungle of today, Singapore used to be home to many kampongs all over the island. Today, only one kampong remains on mainland Singapore - Kampong Buangkok: the last standing residential kampong in Singapore. Rich in heritage and history, it was built from the 1970s, when Mr. Sng, the father of current landlady Ms Sng Mei Fong, purchased a plot of land at Lorong Buangkok. The land was then leased out to residents, many of whom still reside in it till today.4 Kampong Buangkok was well-known

for its racial mix of Malay and Chinese residents who were able to live together without much conflict. This non-segregation of people from different races was especially evident during the racial riots that happened in the 1960s. During this period of unrest, the residents living within the Kampong united as one to live peacefully without the intrusion of outsiders. It was stated that the Chinese residents approached their Malay neighbours to speak to them and assure them of the lack of animosity despite the ongoing racial riots. It was remarkable that both parties agreed to not ruin the close ties and friendship they shared in spite of the controversy that was happening outside of the village. Today, ex-residents still frequently visit Kampong Buangkok, a testimony of the pride and nostalgia they have for the kampong. The kampong currently houses 18 Chinese and 10 Malay families. However, with continuous efforts to make Singapore as upgraded and modern as possible, it seems inevitable that our last kampong, Kampong Buangkok, could very

possibly soon face its demise. The alarming reality that Singapore might soon completely lose this last piece of heritage has sparked a huge debate as to whether more conservation efforts should be put into Kampong Buangkok. Kampong Buangkok stands at the crossroads between the preservation of the last bit of the Singaporean kampong culture and the choice of pursuing our modern aspirations. It is with this that we attempt at deconstructing the issue of the conservation of Kampong Buangkok. Through our study we have realised that attempts at conserving Kampong Buangkok would prove to be futile as it would ultimately not stand against the test of time and progress. Uprooting it and placing its shell somewhere else for conservation would also not stay true to the values and meaning behind conservation. With that we ultimately hope to introduce new ideas and topologies that could be considered a modern interpretation of kampong living in the city, to conserve the spirit of Kampong Buangkok for many more years to come.

Kampong Buangkok sitting amongst new establishments 11

BACKGROUND

A KAMPONG’S EVOLUTION The Eradication and its reasons The movement for the eradication of Kampongs began in 1959 when the ruling government observed that housing is slowly becoming an issue as more migrants is coming to live in Singapore. Below are some reasons which contributed to the movement.

from day to day and it was difficult to control over time.5 • The 1947 Housing Committee warned that uncontrolled housing development was detrimental to their health and they believed that the kampongs were used to train youth for crimes.6 Safety The common impression of kampong villages as a dangerous place to live in is a debatable one.

As more huts and make-do dwellings were erected by incoming migrants, the situation became chaotic and it was difficult to administer the livelihood of people who were living in the kampong villages.

On one hand, the 1947 Housing Committee notes that the uncontrollable sprouting of dwellings presents health and social problems as the kampongs were ideal in its environment for crime and lacked of sanitary systems. In addition, there were numerous residential secret societies in the villages which extorted “kua tau lui” (protection money) from the residents and fought for turf ownership.

• Huts were erected with astonishing speed and it was difficult to get them demolished. The situation changed

However, on the other hand, local resident Tay Ah Chuan, born in 1939, recalls that extortion was an inappropriate de-

c. 1960s. (Source: The National Archives)

Raising people’s living standards

scription as the “pai kia” (gangster) just needed to ask for money as the other person in exchange was most likely people in their social network. In addition, the secret societies were often not feared by the community but rather accepted as a positive element as they “were very righteous and good-natured” people who protected the kampong from strangers or ill-intentioned visitors. • To the authorities, another source of social danger in the kampongs was the resident secret societies which were proliferating in post-war Singapore. Secret societies could easily recruit youths and young adults living in kampongs by collecting kua tau lui (protection money). Moreover, kampong residents frequently fight with one another for control of their turfs.

were strangers or people with bad intentions who came into our kampong, they would protect us”.

Social-political influence In order to bring Singapore to the status of a high modernist nation with model citizens, kampong clearances became a method that proved to be difficult to administer everyone living in the kampong. In other words, they had to be put in place with some form of system for the overall functioning of the society. This is especially so as many urban kampong breadwinners engaged in irregular, parttime or daily-rated employment in the informal economy. This would help to supplement their livelihood by means of their own produce from poultry or vegetable-growing. There was little notions of a full-time job with regular working hours as most people did not care about the overall social discipline. • The aim was to mould the semi-autonomous residents into model citizens of the high modernist nation-state.7

1953. (Source: The National Archives)

• This is however debated by the local residents in interviews where “they didn’t even have to extort money. They just had to come to my father and say they needed money. It was not extortion in any way because it could be your neighbour’s son”. • Secret Societies were often not feared by the community but accepted as a positive element. The ‘Pai Kia’ (Hokkien word for delinquent youth) “were very righteous and good-natured. If there

• Squatter clearance in Asia was also an attempt to mobilise the previously semi-autonomous populations of colonies and pseudo-colonies into becoming the citizenry of new or rejuvenated nation-states. Socialist regimes have been no less enthusiastic than others in clearing urban squatters in pursuit of developmental goals. • Many urban kampong breadwinners engaged in irregular, part-time or daily-rated employment in the informal economy. They were paid daily and 13

move at frequent intervals from one job, and one employer, to another. Such work was frequently supplemented by vegetable-growing or pig- and poultry-rearing outside oneâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s wooden dwelling. This combination of irregular employment and semi-rural economic activity was sometimes plainly illegal. It means that a large portion of the urban population was living beyond the social discipline imposed by full-time, regular work in the formal economy.

c. 1960s. (Source: The National Archives)

â&#x20AC;˘ This uncontrolled housing development was thus perceived to be detrimental to health and morals and need-

ing to be resolved through demolition and rehousing policies. A lack of precedents There was no precedent in the conflict between the historical treatment of the kampong clearances and the development of the state. Instead, what have been heavily researched were the positive effects of public housing on the political and economic development of Singapore. Public housing thus became the chief instrument in bringing about the social change in Singapore. â&#x20AC;˘ While sociologists, political scientists and geographers have done good work in exploring the link between public housing and the political and economic development of Singapore, the subject still lacked a historical treatment of the concurrent kampong clearance campaign and the social conflict that marked the making of modern Singapore.

Housing estate in Bukit Ho Swee 1962 (Source: Teoalida)

Kampong at Sungei Kallang with Toa Payoh HDB Flats in Background. (Source: National Heritage Board)

The Consequences Resistance was common in response to the demolishment of the kampong houses. For example, on July 1953 in Geylang Lorong 27, a Chinese family who refused to leave their homes as informed by Land Inspectors from the SIT required the activation of a riot squad. The demolition team was confronted by a hostile crowd of forty people. Such encounters were numerous during the clearance of the kampong houses as it meant to be a change in the residents’ lifestyle and authority of his dwelling. Moving into public housing meant the loss of a garden for produce and whatever modifications to their dwelling had to be permitted by a the local authority instead.

• Contest against the movement: »» Official attempts to clear the urban kampongs were deeply contested and frequently resulted in social and political conflict. • Change of residents’ lifestyles: »»The threat of eviction to these people is a serious matter. If they move into segregated rooms in a permanent house, they lose the ability to produce fresh produce in their gardens. If they erect their house elsewhere, they must obtain permission of the landowner, the local authority and the SIT. If not, they would face a further eviction.

THE FUTURE OF KAMPONG LORONG BUANGKOK Plans on Development Attention was brought to Kampong Buangkok as news of its possible extinction was released in a news article by The New Paper on 14 January 2009 citing that it will be developed into a place with “housing, school, and other neighbourhood facilities supported by a road network”. The news was substantiated by Ms Serene Tng of the Urban Redevelopment Authority, who stated that Kampong Buangkok will be “comprehensively developed to provide future housing, schools and other neighbourhood facilities”. While there have been no official serving of a notice of eviction as of yet, it is important to note that the Singapore government holds full authority to acquire the land for specified purposes through a compensation to the owner of the property under the Land Acquisition Act.

in interest towards Kampong Buangkok, with multiple academic research dedicated towards it and a spike in individual tours of the area. Online petitions have even been started against the possible demolition of Kampong Buangkok.8

Resistance Kampong Buangkok’s impending destruction for reconstruction has been met with various reactions from the masses. Amidst debates, there has been a significant increase 16

Walkway between two kampong houses.

CURRENT SENTIMENTS Study Methodology To fully understand the peopleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s views - how similar or contrasting, on the importance and value of conservation in Singapore and particularly towards the conservation of Kampong Buangkok, quantitative and qualitative methods of research was used. It was done so by questionnaire surveys, personal interviews and a group ethnographic study. Understanding the issue from different perspectives is vital towards a better judgement and opinion in this study. Targeted at understanding the intangible value (if any) of Kampong Buangkok to Singapore, our quantitative study was via various stakeholders; the residents of Kampong Buangkok, their neighbours, URA, National Heritage Board, educators and students that are perhaps in the conservation field and humanities field and

finally the general public who may or may not have experienced the kampong life before. Within these groups of people, it was also ensured that there was a varied spread, with the sample comprising of people from different age groups, gender, religion, ethnicities, income levels, occupations and education levels, for a fairer representation of the Singapore population. Our ethnographic study was done by means of a site visit, to understand all of Kampong Buangkok - its history, significance as the last surviving kampong in Singapore, current living conditions, its residentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; way of life, challenges faced in todayâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s modern and technologically advanced society and finally, the views of the future (or possible future) of the kampong.

Findings and discussions To simplify our findings, we categorized the majority of our sample into 3 main groups. Current residents of Kampong Buangkok, people who have experienced Kampong living (whether a former resident of a kampong or have lived there for 18

a period of time) and people who have had no prior kampong living experience. Our sample was categorized this way to have a more targeted set of data, aimed to understand the basis in which people agree or disagree upon the conservation

Flood level marker 19

of Kampong Buangkok and why they value or place little value on it. The data would be represented in percentages of the sample size n of each group that are in agreement with the said questions in the following tables. Table 1 was drawn up in attempt to understand the different impressions of Kampongs and the 3 groups allowed for us to understand it from various perspectives.

What does the word "Kampong" mean? Physically Unhygienic Cluttered Backward Close to nature Beautiful' & unique architecture Land space & space for interaction Unsafe structures Emotionally Friendly neighbours Relaxing and carefree Simple way of life Self-sustainable Trusting of one another

never experienced kampong living are as such because having lived in comfort all their lives, they simply cannot phantom living like how people did in the past in kampongs. The group that has experienced kampong living fared rather highly on the negative index for some of the points like “backward” and “cluttered”. We think this is because while they agree that the kampong enriches one socially and emotionally, having experienced the comfort of modernity, it makes for a stark

Current residents of Kampong Buangkok (n=9)

Have experienced Kampong life (n=15)

No Kampong experience (n=22)

11.10% 16.60% 11.10% 55.50% 55.50% 88.80% 22.20%

40% 53.30% 66.60% 66.60% 53.30% 80% 40%

60% 50% 75% 95% 55% 80% 60%

88.80% 55.50% 77.70% 22% 83.30%

93.30% 86.60% 86.60% 60% 73.30%

90% 90% 90% 75% 80% Table 1

We realised that there was a common consensus, even from those who has never experienced the Kampong life, that kampong living is positive socially and emotionally. The similarity could be due to the positive and nostalgic stories of what some might call the good old kampong days that have been passed down for generations. In terms of the negative impressions of the kampong, we can infer that the results from those who has 20

comparison. Table 2 was next drawn up to gain a more explicit understanding of what people found advantageous of kampong living and what they found was a constraint. The data could then allow us to understand the people’s sentiments towards the preservation of Kampong Buangkok. We also hoped to get better insight as to which parts of the kampong we should

Advantages & Constraints of Kampong living Advantages Kampong spirit of togetherness Close to natural environment Laid back lifestyle Rich history, heritage & culture Lower cost of living More environmentally friendly Constraints Discomfort Backwards in technology Pests & wild animals

Current residents of Kampong Buangkok (n=9)

preserve and why. The data from Table 2 proved to be in line with insights from Table 1 – that people valued the emotional and social enrichment kampong living provides. To understand more on a personal experience living in a Kampong, the team spoke to a resident who used to stay in a kampong back in the 1970s. Mr Raman (name changed to shield his real identity) is currently a resident who lives in Siglap. He told us about what it

Have experienced Kampong life (n=15)

No Kampong experience (n=22)

77.70% 66.60% 77.70% 88.80% 88.80% 66.60%

80% 66.60% 86.60% 93.30% 93.30% 86.60%

90% 95% 90% 95% 95% 90%

22% 33.30% 66.60%

53.30% 66.60% 73.30%

75% 80% 85%

Table 2

was like back in his kampong days. He shared that activities which happened in the past brought about communal bonding and social interaction. One of such activities were house parties amongst the younger people as clubs weren’t in existent in the past. Thus, residents would invite their friends over in the evening with food and drinks for everyone to share. There were little restrictions to what they could or couldn’t do. Family members wouldn’t mind if their children’s friends stayed over the night when it got too late.

Looking into one of the houses of Kampong Buangkok 21

Recently refurbished kampong house 22

Would you be willing to live in Kampongs permanently? Yes No

Have Current residents experienced No Kampong of Kampong Kampong life experience Buangkok (n=9) (n=15) (n=22) 66.60% 26% 10% 33.40% 74% 90% Table 3

Moreover, he also explained that during his dating days, there was an open-air cinema near his village that was screened for free. He would go with his girlfriend to watch together with his other friends for an evening night out. This is usually the place that he meets other friends that they were able to bond with easily. However, he said that such places are extinct due to many modern developments happening in Singapore and around Siglap and Katong area especially. Moreover, he did emphasize that there’s this idea of ‘gotong-royong’ – which means “cooperation in a community” or “communal helping of one another”. Gotong royong involves the spirit of volunteerism, and working together for the benefits of the residents living in the same community. It promoted a selfless approach that proved beneficial to the building up of cultural identity among the people.9 Even when his neighbour was getting married, everyone in the kampong is involved in being a part of the wedding. Such would be to prepare the gifts for the guests as well as preparing food for the Would you be willing to visit Kampong Buangkok as an exhibit or tourist attraction? Yes No

banquet. These aspects of ‘gotong-royong’ seem to be lost when the next door neighbour is caged up in their own apartment instead of going out to interact with each other. Hearing a few warm hearted stories of kampong life, we then asked if people were willing to live in Kampongs permanently. Table 3 above shows the collected response. While the low figures were unsurprising, it was rather surprising considering most of the people we interviewed leaned towards conserving Kampong Buangkok. We also asked if people were willing to visit Kampong Buangkok if it is subsequently conserved as an exhibit or tourist attraction. Table 4 below shows that whilst the majority were for the conservation of Kampong Buangkok, they were unwilling to visit it as an exhibition or tourist attraction after its conservation. Some cited that it was due to the lack of authenticity of the conserved ‘kampong’ and that the charm of the Kampong would be inevitably lost. From this we can tell that it is the Kampong spirit and not its physical shell that people valued.

Have Current residents experienced No Kampong of Kampong Kampong life experience Buangkok (n=9) (n=15) (n=22) 25% 45% 55% 75% 55% 45% Table 4 23

Chinese house at Kampong Buangkok

‘Dilemma’ Despite acknowledging the importance of heritage preservation towards the nation’s cultural wealth and diversity, the dilemma the Singapore government faces is the economic trade-offs that comes with preservation and conservation. The problem of land scarcity in Singapore is pressing and real. There is a need to balance the desire to conserve kampongs with the need to optimize the use of our very limited land area. Nevertheless, the Singapore government holds the task of preservation and conservation of our heritage in high regard. The Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) is dedicated in doing just so and for a small city state like Singapore, we ought to be proud of our conservation efforts. However, we are presented by yet another dilemma. The balance between the economic goals of using conserved sites to sell Singapore as a tourist destination and the social goal of enriching locals with Singapore’s history. This has led to 24

the questioning of authenticity of our conserved sites. The famed Chinatown is one good example. Only the empty shells of buildings of specific architectural styles and ornamentation has been restored, with the historical ambience, traditional trades and activities long diminished from the site. What lines the rows of shop houses now are modern commercial businesses and tourist souvenir shops. The kampong especially, is defined beyond its traditional, non-fanciful materials and ornamentations used for is construction. Without the kampong spirit and its way of life, is there still value in its conservation then? The many differing views and opinions on the best way to conserve Singapore’s last surviving kampong indeed poses a huge dilemma. There is a struggle to find compromise between the general public’s opinions, respecting the wishes of the current residents of Kampong Buangkok and meeting the needs of the city state.

A Changing Society

ADAPTIVE REUSE AND MINOR RENOVATIONS

n addition to the debate towards the conservation of Kampong Buangkok, we are already beginning to see kampong Buangkok’s resistance to the test of time and technological progress cracking. This further goes in line with our stand that it is inevitable that Kampong Buangkok will one day too be modernized. Its physical shell is one that is temporary and it is its spirit and values that is something that can last for generations to come. In today’s context, Kampong Buangkok still consist of about 26 families living harmoniously amongst themselves. In

the hopes of maintaining their homes to be more liveable, the current residents in Kampong Buangkok do carry out simple restoration works. Renovations done are by tearing down its wooden roof and walls and replacing them with metal and brick. As of March 2015, it will be the fourth such modified kampong house out of a total of 26 homes there. One resident in particular, Mr Seah Y.K., 57, spent $30,000 to renovate the kampong house, told The Sunday Times that the roof was termite-infested and that he had no choice but to replace it.

The possibility of a Conservation As a continuation of the various dilemmas faced on the matter, the team has arrived at some possible conservation methods below. Firstly, while preserving the current state of Kampong Buangkok is highly unlikely, it is vital to extract the important traits that have value. These are listed as below and should serve as a recommendation to future conservation efforts: 1. Maintaining our relation to history: Conserving the physical forms and

materiality of the houses will serve to represent the innovative efforts of our ancestors contributing to the vernacular forms of the existing houses 2. Preserving the Relationship with Nature: Moving away from the buildings, it is equally important too to consider the building’s surrounding plants. These include the different owners’ crops and plants, which are often what the 25

owners are identified for and therefore make up the cultural richness of Kampong Buangkok.

Growing of on crops on the fences

3. Preserving the Inter-personal relationships: Above it all, the most important characteristic of Kampong Lorong Buangkok is perhaps the inter-personal relationships which is built with time as the residents face floods and riots of

the past together. These relationships, for example how families are inter-dependent for their crops, is therefore retained as a continuation of the sociology of the place. In conclusion, while understanding that an in situ conservation of the site is highly unlikely, and an ex situ conservation may not entirely serve its purpose unless catering to the above points too. Perhaps then, that there could be no solution to the physical conservation of Kampong Lorong Buangkok. However, efforts can still be put in conserving the soft aspects of the place, through a recording of the existing condition as part of a national archive to serve the future generations, or to implement design decisions for future housing in order to foster such relationships to occur.

Large walkways and front porches

OUR STAND

he team understands this dilemma and feels that whatever the decision made ultimately, it is of utmost importance that there should be benefits derived out of it. If the kampong is eventually conserved, it should be done so optimally with some financial benefits but mostly social benefits - bearing in mind the true meaning behind conservation. And if the kampong is decided against conservation, there should be great efforts to save the spirit and legacy of kampongs whilst putting to good use the land once riddled with rich and precious history. It is from the research that the team realised that whilst kampong living brought many advantages emotionally and socially, its physical shell is seemingly a liability in this modern era. This is supported by the negative figures on the physical environment of the kampong (from Table 1 and 2) and the unwillingness of the modern society from living in this comparatively harsher environment for long periods of time (from Table 3). This gave the team a starting point towards the attempt at an intervention in a bid to save kampong Buangkok. It is brought to our realization that it might be worth design-

ing a way to fuel the ‘kampong spirit’ in a modern and comfortable setting that’s fitting for this era instead of traditionally conserving Kampong Buangkok and physical entirety (as supported from Table 4). Perhaps it’s time to redefine what a 21st century kampong culture could become.

A neighbour’s garden 27

AN EXAMINATION OF KAMPONG THEMED PROJECTS

s the team aims to redefine what a 21st century kampong culture should be like in Singapore, we looked at mainly 3 case studies that had certain aspects of a kampong embedded in tangible aspects (physical qualities) as well as intangible aspects (cultural, social and historical qualities). These 3 case studies were se-

lected based on its design concepts embedded in accordance to its relevant time period – the past, present and future. As such, the team hopes to understand how these case studies could help to guide them in generating a set of design guidelines to realise a 21st century kampong culture.

Past: Tiong Bahru’s old estates

What characteristics of a kampong does it possess? Looking at its planning of the various blocks in its self-contained town, Tiong Bahru’s old estates were clustered around open public spaces to form a small and cosy neighbourhood. Built using simple materials from little resources they had in the past, there was still a distinctive 28

architectural language with attractive details that was seen on its outer shell. This aspect of the estate gave an identity to Tiong Bahru. Public amenities are also made available to the residents in close proximity to their apartments. The well-known Tiong Bahru Wet Market and Food Centre has an extensive variety of fresh goods and local delights that serves as a convenience

for Tiong Bahru residents. Being termed as the ‘heart of the estate’, the wet market and food centre also creates a small world for people to socialize and interact amongst their neighbours over food and buying of necessities in the provisional shops. Dwelling into the apartment’s layout, it followed a Malaysian terrace-house pattern integrated with an internal stairwell. Ranging from 3 to 5-room apartments, residents lived in a close-knitted environ-

ment with about 30 apartment blocks within their Tiong Bahru community.10 Tiong Bahru’s old estate brought about convenience and familiarity for the residents early in the day. This trust and comradery allowed for older businesses in the estate to be run by familiar members of the community. Thus, this reflects the estate’s good sense of community and social cohesion which are also aspects of the kampong spirit.

Illustration of Tiong Bahru Estate

Present: SkyVille @ Dawson and SkyTerrace @ Dawson What characteristics of a kampong does it possess? This new development by WOHA focused on 3 themes as its design concept – community, variety and sustainability. Concentrating on its community aspect in this case study, multi-generational families and close friends are encouraged to live together. Within the apartments, there’s a combination of studio apartments together with 4 and 5-room units. This was

Rendering of Dawson 29

designed to encourage children to look after their parents who could be staying in the studio apartments.11 Moreover, this project brings about a conducive family living environment with its flexibility of layouts within each floor. For example, a young couple may need to have bigger rooms when the children comes, and they can partition their flats to have more bedrooms for the children. Looking towards the public areas, the concept of building ‘Sky Villages’ are seen to encourage community bonding

amongst their neighbours. This could be done on their daily routes to and from their own apartments. Not only are the design of the wayfinding on the first floor, but there’s a network of link ways and link bridges on multi levels. This offer residents a seamless connection from all blocks to the various amenities in the development. Pockets of activities are also crafted into different levels. Such would be gathering spaces, study areas, play equipment, fitness facilities. These facilities are housed on different levels termed as the ‘Sky Garden’.

Illustration of Dawson Estate

Future: SPARK’s Conceptual Vertical Farming Hybrid for Singapore

What characteristics of a kampong does it possess? 30

SPARK’s conceptual vertical farming is a proposal for Singapore’s future. Although it is set as a utopian project, it contains

aspects of what Singapore could implement for our modern society in Singapore. Concentrating on its concept of being self-contained and self-sustainable, this project uses the idea of farming and having these products sold to others as an economic return.The producing, buying and selling of fresh produce creates a self-containment village as well as a mutual dependency amongst residents in this vertical farming hybrid scheme. 12

Looking into the planning of the units, a slab block typology was proposed that resulted in a physical connection across the levels and forms a community along its corridors. These corridors not only act as a circulation pathway and interaction zone, but also transforms itself into farming corridors where residents can plant and grow produce right outside their doorstep. This is designed such that it promotes visual connection across different parts of the blockâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s perimeter.

Illustration of SPARK

Evaluation of case studies against Kampong qualities From the above case studies, a table was done to compare each project against qualities of a kampong in terms of tangible and intangible aspects. This comparison would allow the team to distil key aspects of how it measures up to qualities of the kampong life in the yesteryears. As seen in the table on the following

page, all 3 case studies still carry on aspects such as being self-contained, providing general communal spaces as well as showing some degree of community living. These aspects could be classified as the basis of what Kampong Buangkok possess. 31

Past

Present

Future

Tiong Bahru Old Estate

SkyVille and SkyTerrace @ Dawson

SPARK's vertical farming hybrid 'Home Farm' proposal

Self-contained

Yes

Fully aware of their surroundings

Yes

Houses have a large area that are spread out from each other

Yes

Aspects of Kampong Buangkok

Physical Qualities (Tangible)

Vulnerability of space Open Door Policy' amongst neighbours Environment is essential for their survival Sense of being safe

Yes Yes

Flexibility of arranging spaces in the house

Yes

Laundry and water points located at an outdoor common area Communal area for entertainment

Yes

Amenities in the neighbourhood

Cultural, Historical, Social Qualities (Intangible) Diversity in ethnic groups

Yes

No overarching authorities ďŹ gure Community Living

Yes

Trust in their neighbours Sense of ownership (i.e. build & design their own living environment) VERDICT

Yes 7 / 16

6 / 16

Table 5

Illustration of back alley in present day Tiong Bahru. (Source: Paul Wang)

It can be seen that Tiong Bahru Old Estate scored the highest in terms of comparing itself to Kampong Buangkok. It could be because of the ‘mini city’ that Tiong Bahru has cultivated itself to be over the past few years. Moreover, it is continuously evolving with the estate, transforming

itself into the now emerging café culture for the young people. Despite the original culture being diluted, it could be seen as a shift towards a different era, where there is a redefining of the 21st century kampong. 33

A PROPOSED FUTURE

ur team believes that there are noteworthy aspects of Kampong Buangkok that could be implemented in the future of Singapore in order to continue this intangible kampong culture that everyone reminisces about. The purpose of this section is to provide readers with an understanding on how the essential as-

pects of the Kampong in the past could be integrated into a new conceptual 21st century kampong culture in Singapore. Below are a set of design guidelines and suggestions that could be proposed to authorities in Singapore, government officials as well as fellow residents in Singapore.

Architectural Guidelines to cultivate the â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;kampong spiritâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; Tangible: Physical Aspects Macro Master planning 1. Community village to be represented as a distinct cluster unique from others. This could be in terms of both its physical outlook and its identity tied to it.

tained and self-sustainable as possible â&#x20AC;&#x201C; consisting of amenities that could include the following: Food court, food market, clinic, childcare centre and small-scaled provisional shops. 3. Community village could consist of multi-generational households living together. Families are encouraged to live together in adjacent units. 4. Outdoor sports and leisure facilities are aimed to knit multi-generational families together outside their private homes.

Unique and colourful kampong house

2. Community village could be as self-con34

5. Indoor sports facilities to be implemented on multi levels that are located near to the units. (I.e. billiard, gym, KTV, movie screening etc.)

Accessibility and Location 6. Mobility to all users: The pedestrian network should be accessible to all residents. 7. The pedestrian environment should be safe for all age groups.

10. Each unit should be designed such that it connects to 2 other units or more. 11. At every junction where units connect â&#x20AC;&#x201C; there should be a meaningful activity space designed to encourage residents to fully utilize the space.

Communal spaces amongst houses Safe connecting walkways

8. Wayfinding within a building complex should be connected via pathways that are between 2.5m to 3.0m wide to accommodate sufficient space for interaction amongst residents. It could also encourage gatherings along corridor spaces

12. There should be adequate access points tied to a gathering space, bringing you to other floors whether by lifts, staircases or other means of circulatory design. 13. When applicable, the boundary of spaces should maintain at least 40-50% transparency with the intention of blurring the boundary between a personâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s ownership of space and a public area. This transparency opens up the space for residents to communicate with each other. Flexibility and multi-functional usage of space

Communal activity space

9. The pedestrian network should connect social places and intersect living spaces to encourage social interaction between residents.

14. Public community grounds should cater to at least 2 usage of activities within the same footprint. This provides the flexibility of various activities that could be used with the same built facilities. 15. Bicycle parks should be provided at 35

every community town. As such, home dwellers should be given at least a bicycle as an alternative mode of transportation around their neighbourhood. ownership of space and a public area. This transparency opens up the space for residents to communicate with each other. 16. Homeowners are to be given an indoor designated area where they, as a community, can decide what staple activity is to be present within. (I.e. movie screening room, interactive gaming room, internet workshops etc.) 17. Home owners and residents would be given some sort of incentives (whether monetary or daily essentials) for practicing a clean, green and communal living such as the use of bicycles, engaging activities with their neighbours as well as a spirit of ‘gotong royong’.

Interior space planning

Personal gardens

18. Communal Kitchen: A conjoined communal kitchen would be shared by 2 or more units. This enables a bigger kitchen area to be shared amongst the residents and allows interactions during mealtimes. 19. Communal food stall: Residents are given incentive to buy from their local provisional shop located at their community village. From this initiative, residents are encouraged to be aware of their facilities around them and purchase from their fellow neighbours.

Intangible: Social & Cultural Bonding with activity interests 20. A social media platform is to be set up within each community village. This platform allows a virtual update on what’s happening within the community and individual households collectively. This could be screened in the lift, a place that connects every floor and facilitates the movement of resident flow. The Gotong royong spirit could be exemplified if the platform could act as a bulletin board that perhaps has a sharing platform for household items. 21. Every resident should understand and 36

note down their neighbour’s preferences of bonding activities and their need for privacy. This is to ensure that minimal tension is brought into the picture. 22. Within each housing estate, residents could unanimously decide activity(s) that interest them and be implemented as part of their bonding activity with each other every weekend. (I.e. gardening, keeping pets, food fare, etc.) 23. Residents could celebrate special occasions and public holidays together by organizing potluck celebrations at the community spaces provided.

other. 24. Community gardens to be implemented as a social, economic and educational solution for all residents. 25. “Plant a tree per household” concept: Greening up the community’s environment takes commitment and patience. Through this scheme, families could be given a plot of land to grow plants and trees that would later bear fruits and vegetables for their consumption. 26. Different household experience: On certain occasions, community towns could organize ‘stayovers’ in their neighbour’s apartments to build trust and a personal relationship with each

27. Annually, a ‘sports day’ friendly competition could be organized to allow community towns to challenge each other in several sport matches of their choices. This competition would allow towns to interact and work among themselves to win the competition. 28. Pop-up stalls, Fun fair and charity fairs could also be organized biannually or annually in order to engage the residents to be involved in team spirited and community bonding programs. This could even be part of raising funds for a particular neighbour that would require some assistance.

Conceptual Design Proposal of 21st century Kampong The proposed guidelines are the team’s first attempt at a set of design interventions to redefine the 21st century modern kampong spirit and culture. Whilst it needs further evaluation and more development, these guidelines act as a starting point in which we hope would help achieve a greater sense of ‘Kampong spirit’ if it is brought into more developments in Singapore. The team also hopes that with this design proposal, current residents may see the relevance of the kampongs on the past to their now living estates, be it the common corridor or seatings placed at the void deck. These design decisions, although minimal and only physical, is put in place to encourage communal activities. Coupled with the passing of time where residents find familiarity in their surroundings and neighbours, a community spirit may then be developed. 37

REFERENCES 1. “Village.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 26 May 2002. Web 2. “The Traditional Malay House.” Jee Yuan, Lim., United Nations Office for SouthSouth Cooperation. 25 Apr. 2002. Web. 3. “The Kampung Spirit.” Singapore Kindness Movement. 2015. Web. 4. “Conserving Kampong Heritage in Urban Singapore: A Case Study of Kampong Buangkok.” Ong Shu Xian, Caroline, Rebecca Heng Zer Lyn, and Ho Qi Xin. Habitatnews. Raffles Museum of Biodiversity Research, 14 Jan. 2006. Web. 5. “Dangerous Migrants: The Representations and Relocation of Urban Kampon Dwellers in Postwar Singapore.” Kah Seng, Loh. Murdoch University. Asia Research Centre. 1 Feb. 2007. Web. 6. “History, Memory, and Identity in Modern Singapore: Testimonies from the Urban Margins” Kah Seng, Loh. The Oral History Review. 19 Mar. 2009. Web. 7. “Conflict and Change at the Margins: Emergency Kampong Clearance and the Making of Modern Singapore” Kah Seng, Loh. Asian Studies Review. Jun. 2009. Web. 8. “Conserve Kampong Lorong Buangkok!” Ipetitions. 2009. Web. 9. “Kampong Spirit and Gotong Royong.” Remember Singapore. 17 Sept. 2013. Web. 10. “Identity of a Conserved Housing Estate in Transition: The Case of Tiong Bahru, Singapore” Kien To, Zhuo Wen Chong and Keng Hua Chong. Singapore University of Technology and Design. 2014. Thesis. 11. “SkyVille @ Dawson.” Memories in Lalaland. 15 Dec. 2009. Web. 12. “SPARK Proposes Vertical Farming Hybrid to House Singapore’s Aging Population.” ArchDaily. 30 Nov. 2014. Web.

“Lorong Buangkok: Conserving The Kampong” is part of our team’s efforts to document the history and conservation efforts of Kampongs - particularly Lorong Buangkok, as part of our Conservation Theories & Approaches of Built Heritage module at the Singapore University of Technology and Design. With this thesis and design proposal, we aim to educate Singaporeans and non-Singaporeans alike, what the word ‘Kampong’ means to us and how we can redefine it for the 21st century. We also hope that this serves as a useful source of information for readers, as we attempt at raising awareness in the the value and importance of conservation of built heritage in Singapore.

The team comprises of Nowelle Tan, Cheryl Leung, Lina Fong & Timothy Lum (left to right). 39