A Brief History of Filth

The notion of architecture and filth has never been tied so closely before the late 18th century. Architects never had to deal with a sudden increase in population, many times more than what the city was meant to withhold. Filth and architecture thus arose from the fact that city development cannot keep up with the increment.

During the late 18th century, there were several advancements in technology, such as, increased efficiency from cast to wrought iron production, development in agricultural system leading to increase food production, better food nutrition leading to lower mortality. Improvement in infrastructure such as the railway gave vast numbers of migrants the mobility much needed to travel to cities. This augmented the ever burgeoning population, leading to an unprecedented high concentration of people in the city.1

In order to accommodate the increased population, older neighborhoods of the city turned into slums. Moreover, newer developments built within walking distances to manufacturing plants for migrant workers were meant to provide only basic shelter.

“Naturally such congested developments had inadequate standards of light, ventilation and open space and poor sanitary facilities, such as communal outside lavatories, wash-houses, and refuse storage. With primitive drainage and inadequate maintenance, this pattern could lead to the piling up of excrement and garbage and to flooding, and these condition naturally provoked a high incidence of disease – first tuberculosis and then, more alarmingly for the authorities, a number of outbreaks of cholera in both England and Continental Europe in the 1830s and 1840s” 2

Therefore, to a large degree, congested spaces, that is, spaces devoid of light, air and proper sanitation became responsible for filth related diseases. Architecture, or rather the lack of architectural planning, was charged with the crime of proliferating filthdiseases. Our modernist fathers, then, had to take up the task of cleansing the city.

For Tony Garnier, the solution was to segregate and distance. In his 1904 proposal Cite Industrialle proposal, whereby the concept of zoning was amplified, housing and manufacturing plants are set apart from each other. (Illustration 1) Within each zone, buildings are not only interspersed with open spaces, they are also separated by wide pedestrian walkways, thus providing abundantly, light and air.

Therefore, if seen under such a context, we can conclude that the methods of modernist architects were largely a form of hygienic practice. The following modernist process is illustrated hereby: Firstly, architectural mass has to be discerned and identified into

1 Frampton, Kenneth. Modern architecture: a critical history. London: Thames and Hudson, 1981. p.20

2 Ibid p.21 its respective function and form, after which, a dividing line is to be created between their classification, in addition, as if the division was not enough, as aforementioned, the modernist solution was to distance them and finally, ascribe a hierarchy between them. (Illustration 2)

Conclusively, Architecture has never placed so much emphasis on eradicating filth until modernism, moreover, it takes on the burden of the utopian vows promised by our modernist fathers.

Filth and Singapore

Now, the question begging in our minds is, what has this to do with Singapore? Hygiene has always been used as a political tool, even prior to Singapore’s independence. It is used as a metaphor for social progress in Singapore and particularly so, for PAP, (People’s Action Party) Singapore’s dominating political party, it is a sign of incorruptibility.

In 1958, when Singapore was still a British colony, an operation Big Sweep, led by PAP member Ong Eng Guan, accused their colonial masters for neglecting the city’s sanitation and not educating the people in matters of health and hygiene.

(Illustration 3)

In 1968, the first keep Singapore clean campaign started. It was deemed as a step taken towards a world class city and thus social progress. (Illustration 4)

Upon returning from a visit to China in 1976, Lee Kuan Yew, Singapore’s prime minister at that time, commented on how Singaporean Chinese, unlike the Chinese in China, do not spit in public anymore. (Illustration 5) Therefore, Singaporeans have been “educated” and thus this could be interpreted as placing public interest above one’s individual’s interest. In other words, the needs of the body, which is to expel phlegm is subordinated to the public domain’s need to be hygienic, if not, the public domain’s need to be a highly sterile, viral-free environment. This can be exemplified by Singapore’s adoption of Tony Garnier’s planning principles. For example, the segregation of the residential zones from the manufacturing zones which are mostly concentrated in the west of Singapore. (Illustration 6)

Earlier on, we have seen an influx of migrant workers turn old neighborhoods into slums. Likewise, in Singapore there are areas which are filled with squatter settlements, consisting of Atap-housing constructed out of metal and timber.

As most of these buildings are illegal, they do not have a clear boundary between each other. Thus, in between the buildings are occupied by makeshift shelter, the occupier’s belongings and waste. Naturally, these things become a fire hazard and also aid in the spreading of fire from one building to another. (Illustration 7)

One of the such squatter settlement area is Bukit Ho Swee, which suffered from two fires incidents and more notably is the fire that occurred in 1961, which took down more than 2000 Atap-housing. Therefore the notion of filth is not only tied to diseases, but also to fire hazard.

As such, Singapore, or rather, PAP and her propensity for being such an extremely hygienic government, has zero tolerance for these squatter filth. Besides, the land being occupied are state-owned and thus have an intrinsic commercial value to them. However, massive resettlement plans to remove the people from their illegally occupied land would lead to much discontent. This could be evidently seen from the sharp decline in number of PAP members voted into the parliament whenever there were major resettlement. (Illustration 8)

An opportunity arose from the two fire that broke out in Bukit Ho swee, between 1960s to 1980s, the first was the great fire aforementioned in 1961, the second was in 1968, gave the much needed rational for the government in her explanation to the people, as to why there is an urgency for resettlement.

Therefore, over the years massive resettlement plans have been undertaken to remove the people out of the area into flats built by the Housing Development Board, and thus the flats are commonly know as HDBs. These HDBs are deemed to be very successful when compared to the social housing efforts by other countries, which usually falls into disrepair due to negligence.

However, the author feels strongly that the landscapes of HDBs produces an extremely sterile and hygienic environment - lifeless. In other words, the people have not only been educated into putting the countries’ interest before theirs, to a larger extent, this subliminal social control is manifested physically as landscapes, as architectural planning strategies and more so, as architectural objects.(Illustration 9)

Nonetheless, it is granted that HDBs do indeed provide better housing conditions, such as proper sanitation, systematic waste removal and fire protection when compared against the Atap-housing.

Finally, in the year 2009 is it true to say that all the architectural filth have been removed? We have seen that in illustration 9 the gradual removal, or rather, resettlement of the squatter settlements into HDBs,presently, what other filth resides in Singapore?