Sam Yan

The Whole and the Parts, Mutual Intelligence

In the urban context, the concept of ‘the whole and the parts’ isn’t the scientific notion inherited from Galileo, Bacon or Descartes that reduces the whole to the addition of the parts, but rather the interrelation of parts that creates a whole.

‘The variables are many, but they are not helter skelter; they are interrelated into an organic whole.’

Jane Jacobs 1

In this sense, questioning the city fosters the understanding of combined dynamics and systems: city forms, territorial relations, urban development policies, governance and social and environmental impacts.

Consequently, a city can be considered as a system and its elements, an internally organised set in which elements are strongly linked and function as one in relation to external conditions and other systems.

Ecology refers to the question of the whole and the parts and their interactions, the impact of urban activities on wider ecological systems, and the social and biological aspects of urban issues. Megalopolises are suffering the deterioration of their social climate and ecological conditions in the context of an increasingly globalised economy with the imperatives and intrusions this involves. Globalisation-driven growth has produced new circumstances that impact environmental transition, creating unique and unprecedented conditions. Asian Pacific megalopolises are struggling between local and global. What forms of mutual intelligence could be established to rebalance this opposition? The environmental and social challenges of Asian megacities can only be met if each city, from its own culture, reconciles itself with the logics of the whole and the parts like that of the local to the global. Understanding mutual intelligence in Asian megalopolises as a specific spatial and contextual model fosters the identification of urban environmental challenges and potential actions to be taken. The case studies of Bangkok, Hong Kong and Shanghai Baoshan raise three fundamental issues that can be extrapolated to other global cities: —In the most populated cities, official systems are usually complemented by informal systems.

To what extent are these off-systems the expression of exclusion or inclusion, segmentation or cementation? —The private sector has increasing dominance in the development and governance of Asian

Pacific megacities.

How can this all-powerful unilateralism be compensated in order to preserve the virtuous dynamics of the whole and the parts? —The relations between globalisation and territories seem contradictory.

How can megalopolises reconcile their territories and identities in the face of international pressures to provide more sustainable and liveable urban conditions?

Bangkok: Off-system, Segmentation or Cementation?

Bangkok presents one of the most rapidly degraded and severely deteriorated urban environments in the world, where social inequality and slums represent almost 15% of the total population of the Bangkok Metropolitan Area. The majority of slum communities exist in areas of continuous flooding. While for most citizens, environmental changes or global warming are not relevant to their immediate concerns, for local communities to defend their local space, environmental issues are immediate. In the urban-rural polarisation of Bangkok caused by urban expansion and destructuration (the decoupling of mobility and water management systems, over-densification, gentrification and globalisation to the detriment of social systems and ecosystems), the rearrangement of the formal and the informal seems an absolute necessity. In terms of planning and urban management, the Thai state has shown a limited ability to work with slum settlements and to act immediately on natural disasters. Although electrification, flood control and pipe water have improved over recent decades,

environmental infrastructure, social housing and services still remain low. Which specific urban political economy is able to identify liveability agents in order to assess the conditions required for their successful implementation? In Thailand, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) have succeeded in assuming positive mediation roles between the State and its citizens. In this critical context, social cleavage and collective action must be reconciled anew.

Civil society cannot manage social and climatic disorders on its own but, over time, the possibility of a virtuous synergy between the State and civil society may generate a cumulative strengthening of society’s ability to solve common problems. Furthermore, considering liveability and social equity as a combination of livelihood and sustainability means applying political ecology to the sociopolitical dimension.

Hong Kong: Transnationalism and Unilateralism in a Global Market-driven City

Contemporary urbanisation processes and their human consequences in East Asian megalopolises can be considered the result of interaction between each social form and the global capitalist system. Hong Kong as a world city is under competitive pressure to create urban conditions that will facilitate the global flow of capital and investment thanks to spatial commodification, the shift from public to private ownership and the depletion of community, social and cultural spaces in favour of commercial and global services. World cities are key determinants in the financial and productive process of the global economy, yet they compromise equity, livelihood and public health. Unilateralism can be identified in the way cities are built following exclusive decision-making processes in which the collusion between government, officials and developers emphasises the inequality of economic gains over the liveable city. In global cities, public policies for national development have mostly focused on relations between the State and the business economy, without taking into serious consideration the role played by civil society or social institutions in laying the foundations for economic growth.2

In those cities undergoing the greatest development, the challenge is to link growth to liveability. The connection between market logics and livelihood is not obvious, yet it seems crucial that those cities that benefit from economic opportunities dependent on global markets should combine these with efforts to create livelihood for their inhabitants.

Baoshan: Deterritorialisation and Identity

In the context of modernisation, open markets and globalisation, the suburbanisation of Shanghai is characterised by extensive and standardised urban renewal operations, the verticalisation of the urban landscape and metropolitan polycentric patterns, influenced by the circulation of models of globalised urban development. In a phase of urban transition, Baoshan is undergoing radical mutations of its territory and identity through the transformation of urban organisation, landscape, culture and social sphere with the development of deterritorialised models: urban villages are replaced by monofunctional enclaves of generic towers, new thematised gated-towns transform natural territories and industrial heritage is redeveloped into a pole of cultural excellence for start-ups and foreign investors. If a society develops itself in urban forms inherited from its past, which it appropriates according to its uses and which it modifies with the evolution of its lifestyles, Baoshan looks more like a decor and showcase of globalisation, creating a segregated and unequal society to meet the demands of the economic and political elites, who seem to neglect certain aspects of their local environment while those left-behind from development do not have access to merging culture. The urban divide is the expression of the social divide. Wouldn’t it be sustainable in social and ecological terms to establish links between local and global culture, which today seem to form two contradictory urban and social realities?

The respective assimilation of the global city and the local culture, the re-territorialisation of developments by the strength of the diversion of local culture to reclaim the global one by integrating new elements seems indispensable for socially equitable and sustainable development.

If we consider a city as a system and as parts internally organised as a set where elements and functions are strongly linked as ONE in relation to external conditions, mutual intelligence could be addressed through different actions for more liveable and sustainable urban contexts; a more participatory and political active society, synergies of actions at the appropriate scale for each issue, and the ecosystem approach applied to urban context could be the basis for a holistic and synergetic future.

A PostAnthropocentric Perspective

As a proposition, sustainability has not successfully challenged the myth of limitless growth. This may be because the case for sustainable design has never quite freed itself from its anthropocentric roots. Instead, the green building movement, as proxy for sustainable development, made it easy for practitioners, developers and policy-makers to continue as before. The change that is needed remains elusive, even as the scale and urgency of the challenge become self-evident. In the design exercises for Hong Kong, Bangkok and Shanghai, sustainability was an upfront goal. It was initially conceptual (what are the frameworks?) and later articulated as targets and outcomes (how many UN Sustainable Development Goals have been met?). It generated parameters and layers that contributed to the understanding of urban context. In the act of recombining these layers, however, there was no rethink of urban structure and form. This was, at best, a case study in aggregation, where the one-plus-one of, say, energy systems, is two; no more, no less. What emerged, however, was a retrospective of change, i.e., how each of the three cities lost systemic coherence in the decades that saw rapid growth. Here are four observations on what this expansion cost.

The loss or degradation of natural systems. There is shrinkage of blue-green networks; deterioration of water quality; destruction or fragmentation of habitats; loss of green cover and agricultural land; weakening of ecosystem services; and expansion of ecological and carbon footprints.

The loss or degradation of human-made systems. There is significant loss of urban quality, specifically public spaces and social networks, that is due, in part, to the prioritisation of cars over pedestrians, of privately-owned real estate over the commons. On the surface, this appears offset by wealth (more cars, disposable income, etc.) and well-being (life expectancy, health, etc.). However, the positives do not cancel the negatives, such as widening social inequality; nor do they factor externalities, such as climate change and ecological loss. A weakened urban immune system. There are health and safety risks relating to soil, water and air quality. City dwellers have limited access to nature and scant open green spaces. There are pressures on the informal economy, which is a lifeline to millions. Stress levels are elevated, attributable in part to crowding and distortions of spatial scales.

An inability of the whole to self-regulate. The city struggles to adapt and self-heal; its wholeness is compromised. There are fewer interfaces and overlaps, which diminishes reciprocity of positive exchanges.

It is clear from these that the city has become too dependent on the countryside for what it needs, which causes the depletion of planetary systems. There is a compelling case now to decouple cities from natural systems, with the goal of reducing ecological and carbon footprints. There must also be efforts to conserve and construct nature within the city, i.e., ecosystems and ecosystem services that make room for all life.

In light of these goals, present-day forms and morphologies are not enough. The city needs a new spatial logic that can redistribute density, accommodate diversity and spread resources. These ideas are integrated into four prisms to guide future design thinking.

Circularity

Circularity entails the reorganisation of resource flows, which are managed as loops so that waste is eliminated. The goal is to bring the city as close as possible to self-sufficiency. And this will fundamentally alter urban structure. Metropolises will need systems that can generate, capture, process, recycle, upcycle, distribute and store resources such as energy, water, biotic and abiotic materials.

They will depend on new infrastructure (say, energy farms or micro grids), new roles (parks that retain or detain water, for example) and new programmes (such as community farms). A building, for instance, might capture rain and recycle grey water on site, aided by mechanical systems. Excess from buildings is diverted to neighbourhood systems with landscapes that hold water. At the city scale, this system of systems connects to larger elements – e.g., a waste water recycling plant. Natural areas, such as wetlands, are coopted to clean and store water. Urban form, shaped by circularity, will appear distributed or polycentric (leaf-like), which is altogether different from the hierarchical and centralised (tree-like) structures seen today. In the latter, the failure of a part – for instance, a power plant – can cripple the whole; in the former, one part compensates for the loss of another and the whole recovers quickly. Each element connects to others to form multi-scalar networks.

Partnership with Nature

When cities partner with nature, natural systems are valued in their own right. The design process starts with a mapping of habitats and waterways, their boundaries and edge conditions, flows and processes. Where these function well, the goal is preservation; where they are fragmented or degraded, the aim is restoration.

In urban centres that are constrained by density, hybrid human-nature solutions can be created. These constructed ecosystems are not just for the enjoyment of humans, they are also biocentric, i.e., serving all life. This shift from human-centric to biocentric begins with the replication of processes and patterns found in nature (biomimicry). In systems that have been fragmented or polluted, contiguity and quality are restored. Surface flows of storm-water are slowed to increase groundwater recharge. Edges of waterways are altered to accommodate floods. A biocentric approach also creates room for diversity. It may insert new green patches large enough for small mammals and birds and are set apart no more than, say, the swimming distance of an otter or the flying range of foraging insects. These nodes and networks contribute to wider patterns of dispersal and movement, such as the seasonal migration of birds.

Three-dimensional Planning

The scale and pace of urbanisation in Asia demands a new planning perspective. Master plans today are conceived two-dimensionally. When metropolitan cores grow, peri-urban and natural areas are simply converted into homes, industries and farms. A three-dimensional strategy would extend growth vertically, leading to new typologies. This is not simply a question of taller buildings; it is that systems are stacked so that each parcel of land does more for the collective good. Roofs and façades, for instance, become farms, gardens or solar canopies. Buildings are elevated to prioritise public space and blue-green networks on the ground. Mobility systems, such as roads and railways, are colocated below ground. Every plot of land is accessible and optimised. Monofunctional developments and gated communities become a thing of the past.

Regenerative Design

Ecosystems in Asian cities have been so compromised that planners must now focus on restoration. This starts with the recovery of brownfield sites where soil and water systems are degraded. There is a need to correct fragmentation of systems with new connections and interfaces that restore the coherence of the whole.

This may include the renaturation of engineered elements – say, concretised canals turned back into streams – or the adaptive reuse of existing structures, giving new life to decaying neighbourhoods. It was pointed out in the Prologue that a postanthropocentric perspective is contingent on an ecological new worldview. But worldviews are not decided by designers and planners; we can, at best, speculate on the shape of the future. These acts of imagination, not unlike the redesign of three cities seen in this book, can unpack complexity, formulate questions and postulate frameworks. The propositions that emerge can be useful in guiding the discourse, challenging policy and highlighting the potency of a new worldview.

Prologue

The Condition of Asian Megalopolises and their Paradigms

Asma Khawatmi

1. United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, 2014. 2. Richard O’Connor, A Theory of Indigenous Southeast Asian Urbanism, ISEAS, Singapore, 1983. 3. H. W. Dick and P. J. Rimmer, ‘Beyond the Third World City: The New Urban Geography of South-east Asia’, 1998. 4. Physical Elements of Krung Rattanakosin, Chulalongkorn University Press, Bangkok, 1991. 5. Christian Henriot, ‘Les divisions de la ville à Shanghai : les mots de la croissance métropolitaine’, Géoconfluences, 2003. 6. Sir Henry Pottinger, maps and research, 1842. 7. Sir David J. Owen, ‘Future control and development of the port of Hong Kong’, Report, 24 February, 1941. 8. Saskia Sassen, The Global City, Princeton University Press, New York, London and Tokyo, 1991. 9. ‘Thailand: Bangkok Metropolitan Region/City Population’. (Accessed 27 November 2015). 10. Government of Hong Kong Website: http://www.gov.hk. Civil Engineering and Development Department. 11. Mike Douglass, ‘East Asian Urbanization: Patterns, Problems and Prospects’. Discussion paper, Asia/ Pacific Research Center, Stanford University 1998. 12. Henri Lefebvre, The Production of Space, Donald Nicholson-Smith (transl.), Blackwell, Oxford and Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1991. 13. Badie, Bertrand, La Fin des territoires. Essai sur le désordre internationale et l’utilité sociale du respect, Fayard, Paris, 1995.

Reclaiming Sustainability for an Ecological Age

Nirmal Kishnani

14. Rachel Carson, Silent Spring, Houghton Mifflin, Boston, Massachusetts, 1962; Donella H. Meadows, et al., The Limits to Growth, Universe, New York, 1972. 15. Chrisna du Plessis, ‘Towards a Regenerative Paradigm for the Built Environment’, Building Research & Information, Vol. 40, No. 1 (2012), pp. 7-22. 16. Ibid., p.11. 17. Zhongjie Lin, ‘When Green was the New Black: What Went Wrong with China’s Eco-City Movement?’, in Letters to the Leaders of China: Kongjian Yu and the Future of the Chinese City, Terreform, Inc., New York, 2017, pp. 191-192. 18. Analysis of data downloaded from ‘The City as a Unit of Analysis and the Universe of Cities’, Atlas of Urban Expansion. (Accessed 13 April, 2018). http://www.atlasofurbanexpansion. org/data 19. Niall McCarthy, ‘China Used More Concrete in Three Years than the U.S. Used in the Entire 20th Century’, Forbes, 5 December 2014. https://www.forbes.com/sites/ niallmccarthy/2014/12/05/china-usedmore-concrete-in-3-years-than-theu-s-used-in-the-entire-20th-centuryinfographic/#6708c2d14131 20. ‘Seventy Percent of World Population to Be in Cities by 2050: UN Study’, The Jakarta Post, 19 October 2015. http://www .thejakartapost.com/ news/2015/10/19/70-world-populationbe-cities-2050-un-study.html 21. ‘Largest Cities in the World,’ City Mayors Statistics, last modified March 2018, http://www.citymayors.com/ statistics/largest-cities-population-125. html 22. Setiawan Wangsaatmaja, Arief D. Sutadian, and Maria A. N. Prasetiati, ‘A Review of Groundwater Issues in the Bandung Basin, Indonesia: Management and Recommendations’, International Review for Environmental Strategies, Vol. 6, No. 2 (2006), pp. 425-442. 23. Simon Sembiring, ‘Water Quality in Three Reservoirs on the Citarum River, Indonesia’ (Accessed 24 May 2019). http: //hydrologie.org/ACT/Marseille/ works-pdf/wchp3poster4.pdf 24. ‘Downstream Impacts of Water Pollution in the Upper Citarum River, West Java, Indonesia,’ Technical paper by the Asian Development Bank and The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/ The World Bank, October 2013, https:// www.adb.org/sites/default/files/ publication/154493/citarum-riverdownstream-impacts-water-pollution. pdf 25. K. Oginawati and Adhiraga Pratama, ‘Identification and Level of Organochlorine Insecticide Contamination in Groundwater and Iridology Analysis for People in Upper Citarum Cascade’, Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 694 (2016) 012078, doi:10.1088/1742-6596/694/1/012078. 26. R. Swaminathan and Jaya Goyal (Eds.), Mumbai Vision 2015: Agenda for Urban Renewal, Macmillan India in association with the Observer Research Foundation, New Delhi, 2006. 27. Ram B. Bhagat and Gavin W. Jones, ‘Population Change and Migration in Mumbai Metropolitan Region: Implications on Planning and Governance’, Working Paper Series No. 201, Asia Research Institute, Singapore; ‘Mumbai Population 2018’, World Population Review. (Accessed 24 May 2019). http://worldpopulationreview. com/world-cities/mumbai-population/ 28. Neelima Risbud, ‘The Case of Mumbai’, in Understanding Slums: Case Studies for the Global Report on Human Settlements 2003, Development Planning Unit, University College London, London; Bhavika Jain, ‘Sixty-Two Percent of Mumbai Lives in Slums: Census’, Hindustan Times, 17 October 2010. https://www. hindustantimes.com/mumbai/62-ofmumbai-lives-in-slums-census/storyI3bUsll9w5f6ePEfuXJEbM.html 29. Hossein Shafizadeh Moghadam and Marco Helbich, ‘Spatiotemporal Urbanization Processes in the Megacity of Mumbai, India: A Markov ChainsCellular Automata Urban Growth Model’, Applied Geography, Vol. 40 (June 2013), pp. 140-149. 30. ‘Mumbai Floods: What Happens When Cities Sacrifice Ecology for Development’, The Conversation, 2 September 2017. http:// theconversation.com/mumbai-floodswhat-happens-when-cities-sacrificeecology-for-development-83328 31. Sonia Minz, ‘With 753 Green Buildings, Mumbai Tops the Chart, Delhi Follows’, MakaanIQ, 8 November 2016. https://www.makaan.com/iq/living/ with-753-green-buildings-mumbaitops-the-chart-delhi-follows 32. Jane Jacobs, The Death and Life of Great American Cities, Vintage Books, New York, 1992, p. 428. 33. Ibid. 34. Donella H. Meadows, et al., The Limits to Growth, Universe, New York, 1972. 35. Donella H. Meadows, Thinking in Systems: A Primer, Earthscan, London, 2009, pp. 2, 11. 36. Jeremy Lent, The Patterning Instinct: A Cultural History of Humanity’s Search for Meaning, Prometheus Books, New York, 2017, p. 368. 37. Christopher Alexander, et al., A Pattern Language: Towns, Buildings, Construction, Oxford University Press, New York, 1977. 38. Serge Salat, Cities and Forms: On Sustainable Urbanism (Urban Morphology Laboratory, Centre Scientifique et Technique du Bâtiment [CSTB], Paris, 2011); Christopher Alexander, ‘A City is Not a Tree,’ Architectural Forum, Vol. 122, No. 1 (1965): 58–61 and No. 2 (1965): 58–62. Reprinted in Design After Modernism, John Thackara (Ed.), Thames & Hudson, London, 1988; Nikos A. Salingaros, Principles of Urban Structure, Vajra Books, Kathmandu, 2014. 39. ‘Le Corbusier’s “Contemporary City”’, 1925. https://worldarchitecture. org/authors-links/pnfhh/lecorbusiers-contemporary-city-1925-. html; ‘Haussmann’s Paris’, The Art History Archive – Architecture. (Accessed 24 May 2019). http:// www.arthistoryarchive.com/ arthistory/architecture/HaussmannsArchitectural-Paris.html 40. Meera Senthilingam, ‘How Did Singapore Become Such a Green City?’, CNN, 21 July 2016. https://edition.cnn. com/travel/article/singapore-greenestcity/index.html. As Singapore’s population and economy grew, so did its green cover: in the nineteen eighties it was about 36%, and now stands at 47% according to the Center for Liveable cities. 41. Nature Conservation Masterplan, National Parks Board, Singapore, 2017. https://www.nparks.gov.sg/~/media/ nparks-real-content/news/2017/fob/ factsheet-e-nature-conservationmasterplan.pdf 42. Stephanie Yeow, ‘A Garden City’s Green Veins’, The Straits Times, 27 November 2017. http://www. straitstimes.com/singapore/a-gardencitys-green-veins 43. ‘Greening Singapore So Wildlife Can Return’, The Straits Times, 7 June 2018. www.straitstimes.com/sites/ default/files/attachments/2018/06/07/ st_20180607_nature07_4041868.pdf 44. Sustainable Singapore Blueprint, Ministry of Environment and Water Resources, Ministry of National Development and the Centre for Liveable Cities, Singapore, 2014. https://www.mewr.gov.sg/docs/ default-source/module/ssbpublications/41f1d882-73f6-4a4a964b-6c67091a0fe2.pdf 45. Design Guides to Promote Biodiversity on Roof Gardens, CS E12, Singapore, 2017, Centre for Urban Greenery and Ecology, National Parks Board, Singapore, 2017. https://www. nparks.gov.sg/skyrisegreenery/newsand-resources/guidelines 46. John Asafu-Adjaye, et al., An Ecomodernist Manifesto, 2015. (Accessed 24 May 2019). www. ecomodernism.org 47. Edward O. Wilson, Half-Earth: Our Planet’s Fight for Life, Liveright Publishing Corporation, New York, 2016. 48. The present situation is similar (though more urgent) than that of the end of the first Industrial Revolution at the onset of the twentieth century, when naturalist John Muir (1838-1914) argued for the protection of natural assets from the expanding urbanindustrial economy. Patrick Geddes (1854-1932), a biologist, saw cities as living organisms and argued that the design of settlements should begin with an inventory of natural features, processes and resources. Urban planner Ebenezer Howard (1850-1928) proposed a new model for townships in which nature, albeit human-made, would be a central feature. John Muir, ‘Features of the Proposed Yosemite National Park’, The Century Magazine, Vol. XL, No 5. (September 1890); Patrick Geddes, Cities in Evolution, Williams and Norgate, London, 1915. https:// vault.sierraclub.org/john_muir_exhibit/ writings/features_of_the_proposed_ yosemite_national_park/; Ebenezer Howard, Garden Cities of Tomorrow, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1965.

Context and Pedagogy

Asma Khawatmi

49. The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

City Identities: Hong Kong

1. Adam Frampton, Jonathan D. Solomon and Clara Wong, Cities Without Ground: A Hong Kong Guidebook, ORO Editions, San Francisco, 2012.

Part 1. Understanding Situations

1. Ms Pranee Nantasenamat, Department of Town and Country Planning, Ministry of the Interior. 2. Yona Friedman, Manuels, Vol. I, CNEAI, Chatou, France, 2007. 3. ‘Hong Kong: The Facts. Country Parks and Conservation,’ Hong Kong Government, Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department, April 2019. 4. McKinsey & Company, ‘Elements of Success: Urban Transportation Systems of 24 Global Cities’, June 2018.

City Challenges: Bangkok

1. ‘100 Resilient cities, resilient Bangkok’. Pioneered by The Rockefeller Foundation. Available at https://www. 100resilientcities.org/strategies/ bangkok/ Robert Barker & Richard Coutts, 2016, Aquatecture.

Part 2. Concept, Strategies, Urban Design Guidelines, Master Plan and Outcomes

1. Carol Willis, Form Follows Finance: Skyscrapers and Skylines in New York and Chicago, Princeton Architectural Press, New York, 1995. 2. Kamolsak Promprayoon, Director General of the Port Authority of Thailand. 3. ‘The Study on Implementation of the BMA Subcenter Program in the Kingdom of Thailand (Case of Lat Krabang)’, Final Report, August 2006. 4. Hong Kong: New Towns, New Development Areas and Urban Developments, Hong Kong Government, Civil Engineering and Development Department, May 2016. 5. Carl T. Smith (Ed.), A Sense of History: Studies in the Social and Urban History of Hong Kong, Hong Kong Educational Publishing Company, 1995. 6. Data from the latest population census elaborated by the Hong Kong Census and Statistics Department.

Epilogue

The Whole and the Parts, Mutual Intelligence

Asma Khawatmi

1. Jane Jacobs, The Death and Life of Great American Cities, Vintage, New York, 1961. 2. Douglass North, Understanding the Process of Economic Change, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, 2004.

Hong Kong Studio

Pedagogical Team

School of Design and Environment, National University of Singapore

Associate Professor Dr. Nirmal Kishnani Module Coordinator and Studio Master Visiting Associate Professor Asma Khawatmi Studio Master Associate Professor Dr. Tan Puay Yok Studio Tutor Senior Lecturer Dr. Siu-Kit Lau Studio Tutor Ayu Sukma Adelia Studio Manager

Chinese University of Hong Kong

Associate Professor Dr. Hendrik Tieben Guest Juror

EDF Lab Singapore

Pablo Viejo Managing Director EDF Asian Centre for Sustainable Cities-Singapore Lab Benjamin Mousseau Deputy Manager Vincent Soh Project Manager, Sustainable Citie

Students

Tai Po

Abhimanyu Goel Srilakshmi Jayasankar Menon Unni Mathew Xiao Xinbin

Sham Shui Po

Aakanksha Jain Anuja Karve Jin Ling Vaishali Parmar

Stanley

Devi Ilamathy Mohan Kumar Farah Naaz Pooja Purushottam Nikhar Sonam Khan Vinasithamby Sukanya

Central

Pradeep Attavar Alva Shruthi Srinivas Shuchi Jhalani Winny Irwanto

Wan Chai

Ericko Setijobudi Limartha Marianne T. Caballero Amores Nandini Ravisundar Suresh Keerthana Tapeesh Sood

Bangkok Studio

Pedagogical Team

School of Design and Environment, National University of Singapore

Visiting Associate Professor Asma Khawatmi Module Coordinator and Studio Master Associate Professor Dr. Nirmal Kishnani Studio Master Senior Lecturer Dr. Siu-Kit Lau Studio Tutor Associate Professor Dr. Tan Puay Yok Studio Tutor Tapeesh Sood Studio Manager

Chulalongkorn University

Associate Professor Niramon Kulsrisombat Department of Urban and Regional Planning, Faculty of Architecture Director of Urban Design and Development Center (UddC)

EDF Lab Singapore

Benjamin Mousseau Managing Director EDF Asian Centre for Sustainable Cities-Singapore Lab Vincent Soh Project Manager, Sustainable Cities Ram Kumar Research Fellow, Architecture and Urban Planning Hansika Gamage Research Fellow, Energy and Urban Infrastructure

Students

Pak Klong Talat

Jessyca Felany Harifin Aditi Gupta Zhao Yanming Wang Ming

Sam Yan

Tan Ruixiang William Ying Zhen Liu Jia Yi Ian Matthew Yu Go Hilman Bin Ya’akop

Sukhumvit

Drishya Vilasa Chandran Pillai Huang Ranyi Heather Marshall Banerd Lin Zichuan Zhang Wei

Khlong Toei Port

Aditi Bisen Praneeta Moorthy Rochelle Abanes Moreno Zhuo Ruoxuan

Lat Krabang

Arunima Dasgupta Prasanjeet Biswas Yang Liangjun Ten Swee Kien

Shanghai Studio

Pedagogical Team

School of Design and Environment, National University of Singapore

Visiting Associate Professor Asma Khawatmi Module Coordinator and Studio Master Associate Professor Hwang Yun Hye Studio Master (Master of Landscape Architecture) Associate Professor Dr. Tan Puay Yok Studio Tutor Senior Lecturer Dr. Siu-Kit Lau Studio Tutor Dr. Anuj Jain Studio Advisor (Ecosystems)

Tongji University College of Architecture and Urban Planning

Department of Architecture Associate Professor Dr. Wang Zhendong Associate Professor Xie Zhenyu

Department of Landscape Studies Associate Professor Dr.-Ing. Dong Nannan

EDF Lab Singapore

Maxime Cassat Managing Director EDF Asian Centre for Sustainable Cities-Singapore Lab Ram Kumar Project Manager, Architecture and Urban Planning Jason Yip Project Manager, Energy and Urban Infrastructure Hansika Gamage Research Fellow, Energy and Urban Infrastructure

Students

Gucun Park

Nikita Sharma Janaki Ramasamy Trinh Phuong Quan

Qilian

Renu Singh Shuwana Tarannum Gajender Kumar Sharma

First Steel Plant

Li Yihui Krithika Prakash Nimmy Namrata Wang Yulin

Youyi Road

Shefali Lal He Peixi Huang Hongbo Tuhina Ashvin Dedakia

Lake Meilan

Noopur Vinayak Joshi Sadique Qaiyum Tang Ziyi Wang Jian Honardy Rayawang

Participants from the Master of Landscape Architecture programme

Amanda Jennifer Chandra Bai Zhuhui Dai Junwei Sun Hao Jen Ashley Wu Yitong Yan Ran