17 minute read
EXPORTING URBAN UNIFORMITY WORLDWIDE
Chua Beng Huat Professor Department of Sociology National University of Singapore
Singapore’s public housing program is by now widely known, if not always recognized as ‘successful’. Criticisms tend to focus on the ‘uniformity’ of its high-rise built form, estate planning and amenities provided. However, apart from the ease of masterplanning by repetition, the various uniformities have an important consequence; they visually reduce social differences that arise from social and income inequalities that inhere in any large housing estates, including the newtowns. The general image of a public housing estate in Singapore is that every resident is equally served and has ready access to the public goods and amenities available without discrimination. This serves well the government’s claim that Singapore is a ‘middle class’ society. After more than forty-years of such comprehensive planning and construction of large housing estates, Singaporean architects and urban planners, in both government service and private sector, have garnered enough confidence in the logic, principles and practice to ‘package’ them into marketable knowledge to be sold to developing countries around the world. Singapore architects and planners have been rather successful in getting urban planning and consultancy work for the construction of sizeable comprehensive estates of housing, industries and commercial buildings. That the logic, principles and practices have been transferred from Singapore to locations in Vietnam, Middle East and some Indian cities, such as Mumbai, is all too clear for anyone familiar with Singapore’s physical landscape. Any Singaporean who steps into Souchou Industrial Park in Shanghai will instantly recognize it as ‘like a HDB new town’. The epitomy of this duplication of Singapore is the wholesale copying of its landscape, including the statue of Stamford Raffles, with his head replaced by that of Beethoven, the great composer, in the small private ‘city’ of Citra Raya, outside Surabaya, Indonesia.
Advertisement
Such re-assemblage of elements of Singaporean planning experience in foreign locations harbors an important political irony. The public housing program in Singapore is one of the ‘socialist’ elements of the early years of the People’s Action Party, when it was a social democratic party. Under the socialist values, it was willing to nationalize land through a very draconian land acquisition policy where undeveloped land parcels were compulsorily acquired by the state with hugely under-valued compensation to the landlords, in order to provide public housing for the entire nation. This socially redistributive policy is completely lost in the current transfer of the Singapore ‘model’ to the other parts of the developing world; what is social housing for the masses in Singapore have become gated communities of the relatively wealthy in China, Vietnam, Indonesia and Mumbai. Models can travel and reassembled across geographic space but the political and social dimensions that initially motivated the model are strictly local and not transferable for historical reason.
Dr. Tim Bunnell Associate Professor Department of Geography National University of Singapore
References to Singapore abound in the developmental aspirations of local and regional governments across the Indonesian archipelago. The government of East Java province (which includes Surabaya and the Citra Raya private ‘city’ development noted by Chua Beng Huat above), for example, aims to ‘match Singapore’ (setara Singapura) in terms of investor-friendliness. In the case of Tarakan, an island municipality off the east coast of East Kalimantan, Singapore’s allure arises from being an island city that has undergone a transformation ‘from third world to first’. Initiatives ranging from heavy public investment in electric power generation, education and health care, to strict hygiene regulations and policies on waste disposal, and to provision of ‘world class services’ in general have been justified in relation to Singapore’s perceived success, leading President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono to dub Tarakan Indonesia’s ‘little Singapore’. Meanwhile, much closer to Singapore itself, a new provincial government administration centre for the recently-formed province of Island Riau (Kepulauan Riau), located outside the small city of Tanjung Pinang on Bintan island is vaunted by its proponents as, among other things, ‘the Singapore of Tanjung Pinang’ (Moser, 2012).
Singapore has long been of interest to Indonesian national planning and policy elites in Jakarta. The proliferation of Singapore-as-model among regional governments over the past decade or so must be understood in the context of processes of decentralization and regional autonomy that followed the end of President Suharto’s authoritarian – and highly centralized – regime in 1998. Part of the conventional rationale for such decentralization reforms emanating from organizations such as the World Bank is that they enable local policy and planning innovation. In practice, what was has transpired is that local government leaders search for policy models and best practices elsewhere in Indonesia and internationally. Leaving aside Singapore’s undoubted urban planning ‘successes’ and expertise, part of its appeal to local governments in Indonesia arises from a simple matter of proximity and accessibility. Officials from scores of local governments in Indonesia have visited Singapore as part of official studi banding (comparative study tours) – visits which are commonly dismissed as publicly-funded vacations or shopping trips.
How do the Indonesian parts of Singapore Metropolitan Region relate to Singapore-as-model? For some Indonesian policy tourists, Batam has served as a gateway to Singapore, with domestic flights to Batam’s Hang Nadim airport, followed by a ferry ride to HarbourFront in Singapore, costing less than a direct international fight into Singapore’s Changi Airport. In addition, however, Singapore administrative innovations and standards have been imported into neighbouring Indonesian territories. Invocation of Singapore as a model for Island Riau’s new administrative centre on Bintan island has been noted already. In the case of Batam island, a rather different example concerns the uptake of Singapore’s social security identity card system. Significantly, Batam’s Singapore-inspired system has, in turn, been adopted by other local governments in Indonesia, including the city of Balikpapan in East Kalimantan. Despite the geopolitical uniqueness of the city-state, Singapore – in some cases via Batam –continues to feature prominently in Indonesian policy discourse and practice well beyond SMR.
Reference
Moser, S. (2012) ‘Circulating visions of “High Islam”: The adoption of fantasy Middle Eastern architecture in constructing Malaysian national identity’, Urban Studies 49(13): 2913-2936.
1920s
Florida started the to be exported model of waterfront real estate which is to be translated and duplicated worldwide
Incisions ProtrusionsInland water body
New islands for Connection
Artificial Interventions
1920s
California
1940s
New York
1950s
Gold Coast | Sunshine Coast Sydney
San Francisco
+ FORM driven ( satellite images approach )
1990s Dubai | Abu Dhabi Bahrain
South East Asian Countries eg: Batam | Singapore | Philippines
2000s
Bintan’s Treasure Island
Danga Johore
François Decoster
I’AUC Architects & Urbanists
“Instead of concentration – simultaneous presence – in Generic City individual “moments” are spaced apart to create a trance of almost unnoticeable experiences. There are three elements: road, buildings and nature; they coexist in flexible relationships, seemingly without reason, in spectacular organizational diversity. The towers no longer stand together; they are spaced so that they don’t interact. Density in isolation is the ideal. The serenity of the Generic City is achieved by the evacuation of the public realm. The urban plane now only accommodates necessary movement, fundamentally the car; highways are a superior version of boulevards and plazas, taking more and more space... Instead of network and organism, the new infrastructure creates enclave and impasse... The apparently solid substance of the Generic City is misleading. 51% of its volume consists of atrium.”
“The death of urbanism - our refuge in the parasitic security of architecture - creates an immanent disaster: more and more substance is grafted on starving roots.”
Rem Koolhaas, “The Generic City” and “Whatever Happened to Urbanism”, 1994 / in SMLXL, 010 Publishers, Rotterdam 1995.
In 1994, “The Generic City” was pretty much how Singapore looked like to an outsider’s eyes: everything happening inside, nothing noticeable outside. It has changed a lot since. Great efforts have been made by the authorities to develop public space (Esplanade and Theatre by the Bay) or by shopping mall promoters to activate street life in the city centre by turning atrium shops onto the street (Ion, Orchard Central, Iluma). URA and real estate developers have worked hard to fill in some strategic holes that made walking around the centre under the sun a boring and painful experience. Concrete drains have been restored into biodiversity corridors (Bishan Ang Mo Kio Park).
New Towns have become friendly (Punggol Waterway Park). The active blue and green city is everywhere and not only can you see it, you can experience it, feel it. Singapore is well on its way to become the most liveable, enjoyable, sustainable, compact, green and safe city ever.
Somehow though, neither are recently opened and world widely mediatised Gardens by the Bay nor is the 191 metres perched / 146 metres cantilevered Skypark and Infinity Pool green or experiential enough to camouflage the selfish fatness of latest high-rise developments hiding behind Ray Ban façades in Marina South CBD extension. Compared with their slim elder sisters that shaped the iconic Downtown Core skyline at the mouth of Singapore River, the new monuments to hyper-real-estate coldly state Singapore’s essential issue with density: is it possible to further develop the island and comply with contemporary real estate’s merciless standards of optimisation without compromising the essential qualities that make Singapore an attractive and original city? In other words, beyond quantities, is Singapore still able to invent and implement new urban and architectural solutions for an interesting, qualitative, non-generic density?
Quantitatively, Singapore’s density has raised from roughly 3,000 inhab./sq.km in the early 1960’s to more than 7,400 currently. Massive land reclamation has allowed to enlarge the 580 sq.km. island to its present 715 sq.km size and provide space for demographic, economic and industrial development whilst maintaining acceptable densities and preserving the island’s vital open spaces and water resources.
Dense urbanism, with the early Complexes of the 1970’s (Golden Mile, People’s Park, China Town Complex...) or 1980’s (City Hall...), successive generations of new towns (from Queenstown to Tampines and Punggol) and the condo corridors (River Valley, East Coast...) has allowed to rationalise land use, build housing for all and massively develop liveable residential environments under far much better standards than in most eastern or western cities, making Singapore a globally acknowledged and praised model for qualitative development and efficient urban policies.
Since the past ten years, the infill of remaining land opportunities and redevelopment of underused spaces has progressively enhanced cohesiveness within Singapore’s urban texture. As a result, we discover that we can walk from one place to another without being completely bored by spatial emptiness.
Most recently this redevelopment and densification process has led to heroic attempts at organising hyper density under all architecturally possible, socially acceptable and marketable forms, from The Pinnacle at Duxton (completed in 2009, a creative reinterpreta- tion of Hong Kong’s involutive superblocks) to The Interlace (expected 2015, a super clever stack of concrete containers bridging a tropical valley, a milestone amongst the rare collection of high-rise residential developments that do not resemble a tower).
So far, Singapore has managed its own density upon itself, on its own territory. Continuity of urban growth has been preserved and so has the green and blue heart on which relies the island’s ecological survival. So far, Singapore has achieved one of the world’s highest urban density without compromising the qualities of the Tropical Garden City. Without it even really showing.
What’s next? When close to every usable square inch of the island has been used and exhausted for building. When technical and cost factors exclude more reclamation as adequate solution for further urban development. When every feasible architectural solution has been exploited to the maximum. When beyond our architect’s fascination, fantasies or nostalgia for hyperdense urban solutions we are faced with the fact that the new paradigm of a compact city soon turns into a simplistic optimisation process: making the maximum with the minimum. Or Reduce to the Max, as they said in the Smart adds, when it still was a project for an alternative individual mobility, before it became yet another even if smaller pre-post-carbon car.
Most likely, Singapore’s urban future depends on it’s expansion (not as a country, nation or state, but as a city) on neighbouring lands across the water, like Bintan Island (Indonesia) where holiday housing tract resorts recently developed around golf courses on Singapore-owned land may soon become commuter suburbs serving Marina Bay new CBD and might later provide space for the next new towns or subcentres.
This raises the issue of density far above a question of quantity and calculation. If Singapore once was a remote spot on the edge of a colonial empire, it now has reached a point where it has to organise its own metropolitan system. Singapore needs a hinterland, an extended field of connexions on which variable densities, polarities and open spaces could be envisioned and organised at the scale of a macro-region.
In that perspective, density in Singapore becomes one of many terms in a broader equation. An equation in which density meets with mobility, connectivity, urban intensity, multiple choice and openness on a much wider scale. An equation in which the diversity of urban situations, populations and cultures will merge into a fully integrated and hybrid urban substance.
Density in Singapore will become meaningful again when it acquires the essential quality of being able to escape from it. When it will become a choice amongst a wider range of possibilities and cease to be the exclusive option imposed on everyone for rational optimisation reasons. When it will be conceived as part of a comprehensive system that will open diversified possibilities for people, businesses, real estate markets, multiple choices for new lifestyles in a metropolitan Singapore.
Becoming metropolitan is Singapore’s next challenge: from the Tropical City to the Tropical Metropolis. A challenge that reopens a vast field for research on density with diversified solutions - not only hyper-density - and most of all research on specific qualities of the metropolitan space that density and variation on density will make possible once integrated into a vaster network of opportunities and situations.
Tuan Hj Mohammed Hairuddin Abd Hamid
* Weighted Density Index is inversely proportionate with the percentage of total open space.
Weighted density index illustration
FAR 1.50
3-storey Detached House
Total Floor Area: 1,492,800 m2
Total Building Footprint: 828,000 m2 (83%)
Total Open Space: 172,000 m2 (17%)
Weighted Density Ratio = 1,492,800 m2 × 83% 1,000,000 m2 = 1.24
FAR 1.50
Courtyard Block
Total Floor Area: 1,437,696 m2
Total Building Footprint: 359,424 m2 (36%)
Total Open Space: 640,576 m2 (64%)
Weighted Density Ratio = 1,437,696 m2 × 36% 1,000,000 m2 = 0.52
FAR 1.50
Slab Block
Total Floor Area: 1,512,000 m2
Total Building Footprint: 107,520 m2 (11%)
Total Open Space: 892,480 m2 (89%)
Weighted Density Ratio = 1,512,000 m2 × 11% 1,000,000 m2 = 0.17
* The greater the Weighted Density Index, the more “cramp” (less open space) a place will be perceived.
Presumption:
50 sqm Internal Space
50 sqm Open Space
Open Space per Shophouse: 3,000 sqm
Number of Shophouses: 208
Total Footprint of Building: 312,000 sqm (31%)
Total Open Space: 688,000 sqm (69%)
Total Floor Area: 624,000 sqm (62%)
Population: 12,480
FAR: 0.62
City Ratio: 1.31
Percentage of Open Space per capita: 55%
Open Space per Rowhouse: 4,300 sqm
Number of Rowhouses: 152
Total Footprint of Building: 291,840 sqm (29%)
Total Open Space: 708,160 sqm (71%)
Total Floor Area: 656,640 sqm (66%)
Population: 13,072
FAR: 0.66
City Ratio: 1.36
Percentage of Open Space per capita: 54%
Presumption:
50 sqm Internal Space
50 sqm Open Space
Open Space per House: 1,200 sqm
Number of Shophouses: 529
Total Footprint of Building: 365,010 sqm (37%)
Total Open Space: 634,990 sqm (63%)
Total Floor Area: 658,076 sqm (72%)
Population: 12,696
FAR: 0.66
City Ratio: 1.29
Percentage of Open Space per capita: 50%
Open Space per Block: 2,200 sqm
Number of Blocks: 348
Total Footprint of Building: 191,400 sqm (19%)
Total Open Space: 808,600 sqm (81%)
Total Floor Area: 765,600 sqm (77%)
Population: 15,312
FAR: 0.77
City Ratio: 1.57
Percentage of Open Space per capita: 53%
Presumption:
50 sqm Internal Space
50 sqm Open Space
Open Space per Block: 27,000 sqm
Number of Blocks: 32
Total Footprint of Building: 61,440 sqm (6%)
Total Open Space: 938,560 sqm (94%)
Total Floor Area: 864,000 sqm (86%)
Population: 17,280
FAR: 0.86
City Ratio: 1.57
Percentage of Open Space per capita: 54%
Open Space per Block: 39 sqm
Number of Blocks: 25
Total Footprint of Building: 32,500 sqm (3%)
Total Open Space: 967,500 sqm (97%)
Total Floor Area: 975,000 sqm (98%)
Population: 19,500
FAR: 0.98
City Ratio: 1.80
Percentage of Open Space per capita: 50%
Presumption:
50 sqm Internal Space
50 sqm Open Space
Open Space per Block: 20,300 sqm
Number of Blocks: 25
Total Footprint of Building: 230,750 sqm (23%)
Total Open Space: 769,250 sqm (77%)
Total Floor Area: 507,500 sqm (57%)
Population: 10,150
FAR: 0.51
City Ratio: 1.28
Percentage of Open Space per capita: 76%
Open Space per Block: 13,800 sqm
Number of Blocks: 49
Total Footprint of Building: 169,344 sqm (17%)
Total Open Space: 830,656 sqm (83%)
Total Floor Area: 677,376 sqm (68%)
Population: 13,524
FAR: 0.68
City Ratio: 1.51
Percentage of Open Space per capita: 61%
Shophouse FAR 0.5
Weighted Density Index: 0.12
Total Footprint of Building: 247,500 sqm (25%)
Total Open Space: 752,500 sqm (75%)
Total Floor Area: 495,000 sqm (50%)
Population: 9,900
Percentage of Open Space per capita: 76%
Rowhouse FAR 0.5
Weighted Density Index: 0.11
Total Footprint of Building: 224,640 sqm (22%)
Total Open Space: 775,360 sqm (76%)
Total Floor Area: 505,440 sqm (51%)
Population: 10,109
Percentage of Open Space per capita: 77%
Detached House
FAR 0.5
Weighted Density Index: 0.14
Total Footprint of Building: 276,000 sqm (28%)
Total Open Space: 724,000 sqm (72%)
Total Floor Area: 497,600 sqm (50%)
Population: 9,952
Percentage of Open Space per capita: 73%
Low-rise Slab Block FAR 0.5
Weighted Density Index: 0.06
Total Footprint of Building: 123,750 sqm (12%)
Total Open Space: 876,250 sqm (88%)
Total Floor Area: 495,000 sqm (50%)
Population: 9,900
Percentage of Open Space per capita: 89%
Slab Block
FAR 0.5
Weighted Density Index: 0.02
Total Footprint of Building: 38,400 sqm (4%)
Total Open Space: 961,600 sqm (96%)
Total Floor Area: 540,000 sqm (54%)
Population: 10,800
Percentage of Open Space per capita: 89%
Point Block FAR 0.5
Weighted Density Index: 0.01
Total Footprint of Building: 15,600 sqm (2%)
Total Open Space: 984,400 sqm (98%)
Total Floor Area: 468,000 sqm (47%)
Population: 9,360
Percentage of Open Space per capita: 105%
Low-rise Courtyard Block FAR 0.5
Total Footprint of Building: 230,750 sqm (23%)
Total Open Space: 769,250 sqm (77%)
Total Floor Area: 507,500 sqm (51%)
Population: 10,150
Percentage of Open Space per capita: 76%
Shophouse FAR 1.0
Weighted Density Index: 0.48
Total Footprint of Building: 486,000 sqm (49%)
Total Open Space: 514,000 sqm (51%)
Total Floor Area: 972,000 sqm (97%)
Population: 19,440
Percentage of Open Space per capita: 26%
Rowhouse FAR 1.0
Weighted Density Index: 0.48
Total Footprint of Building: 460,800 sqm (46%)
Total Open Space: 539,200 sqm (54%)
Total Floor Area: 1,036,800 sqm (104%)
Population: 20,736
Percentage of Open Space per capita: 26%
Detached House FAR 1.0
Weighted Density Index: 0.55
Total Footprint of Building: 552,000 sqm (55%)
Total Open Space: 448,000 sqm (45%)
Total Floor Area: 995,200 sqm (100%)
Population: 19,904
Percentage of Open Space per capita: 23%
Low-rise Slab Block FAR 1.0
Weighted Density Index: 0.25
Total Footprint of Building: 247,500 sqm (25%)
Total Open Space: 752,500 sqm (75%)
Total Floor Area: 990,000 sqm (99%)
Population: 19800
Percentage of Open Space per capita: 38%
Slab Block FAR 1.0
Weighted Density Index: 0.67
Total Footprint of Building: 69,120 sqm (69%)
Total Open Space: 930,880 sqm (93%)
Total Floor Area: 972,000 sqm (97%)
Population: 19,440
Percentage of Open Space per capita: 48%
Point Block FAR 1.0
Weighted Density Index: 0.03
Total Footprint of Building: 32,500 sqm (3%)
Total Open Space: 967,500 sqm (97%)
Total Floor Area: 975,000 sqm (98%)
Population: 19,500
Percentage of Open Space per capita: 50%
Shophouse FAR 1.5
Weighted Density Index: 1.15
Total Footprint of Building: 756,000 sqm (76%)
Total Open Space: 244,000 sqm (24%)
Total Floor Area: 1,512,000 sqm (151%)
Population: 30,240
Percentage of Open Space per capita: 8%
Rowhouse FAR 1.5
Weighted Density Index: 1.07
Total Footprint of Building: 691,200 sqm (69%)
Total Open Space: 308,800 sqm (31%)
Total Floor Area: 1,555,200 sqm (156%)
Population: 31,104
Percentage of Open Space per capita: 10%
Low-rise Slab Block FAR 1.5
Weighted Density Index: 0.58
Total Footprint of Building: 379,500 sqm (38%)
Total Open Space: 620,500 sqm (62%)
Total Floor Area: 1,518,000 sqm (152%)
Population: 30,360
Percentage of Open Space per capita: 20%
Detached House FAR 1.5
Weighted Density Index: 1.24
Total Footprint of Building: 828,000 sqm (83%)
Total Open Space: 172,000 sqm (17%)
Total Floor Area: 1,492,800 sqm (150%)
Population: 29,856
Percentage of Open Space per capita: 6%
Slab Block FAR 1.5
Weighted Density Index: 0.17
Total Footprint of Building: 107,520 sqm (11%)
Total Open Space: 892,480 sqm (89%)
Total Floor Area: 1,512,000 sqm (151%)
Population: 30,240
Percentage of Open Space per capita: 30%
Point Block FAR 1.5
Weighted Density Index: 0.07
Total Footprint of Building: 46,800 sqm (5%)
Total Open Space: 953,200 sqm (95%)
Total Floor Area: 1,404,000 sqm (140%)
Population: 28,080
Percentage of Open Space per capita: 34%
Slab Block FAR 2.0
Weighted Density Index: 0.32
Total Footprint of Building: 153,600 sqm (15%)
Total Open Space: 846,400 sqm (85%)
Total Floor Area: 2,160,000 sqm (216%)
Population: 43,200
Percentage of Open Space per capita: 20%
Point Block FAR 2.0
Weighted Density Index: 0.15
Total Footprint of Building: 72,800 sqm (7%)
Total Open Space: 927,200 sqm (93%)
Total Floor Area: 2,184,000 sqm (218%)
Population: 43,680
Percentage of Open Space per capita: 21%
Courtyard Block FAR 2.0
Weighted Density Index: 1.0
Total Footprint of Building: 497,664 sqm (50%)
Total Open Space: 502,336 sqm (50%)
Total Floor Area: 1,990,656 sqm (200%)
Population: 39,813
Percentage of Open Space per capita: 13%
Slab Block FAR 2.5
Weighted Density Index: 0.47
Total Footprint of Building: 184,320 sqm (18%)
Total Open Space: 815,680 sqm (82%)
Total Floor Area: 2,592,000 sqm (259%)
Population: 51,840
Percentage of Open Space per capita: 16%
Point Block FAR 2.5
Weighted Density Index: 0.20
Total Footprint of Building: 83.200 sqm (8%)
Total Open Space: 916,800 sqm (82%)
Total Floor Area: 2,496,000 sqm (250%)
Population: 49,920
Percentage of Open Space per capita: 18%
Slab Block FAR 3.03
Weighted Density Index: 0.67
Total Footprint of Building: 215,040 sqm (22%)
Total Open Space: 784,960 sqm (78%)
Total Floor Area: 3,024,000 sqm (302%)
Population: 60,480
Percentage of Open Space per capita: 13%
Point Block FAR 3.0
Weighted Density Index: 0.35
Total Footprint of Building: 105,300 sqm (11%)
Total Open Space: 894,700 sqm (89%)
Total Floor Area: 3,159,000 sqm (316%)
Population: 63,180
Percentage of Open Space per capita: 14%
Complex Building System: Aluminium
Semi-complex Building System:
Simple Building System:
Regional Propositions
Yap Shan Ming Masters in Architecture (Design) National University of Singapore
Rooted in the legacy of Peter and Alison Smithson’s Golden Lane and Contants’ New Babylon, an urban prototype of low-rise mid-density development is proposed as a counter-vision, and acts as resistance to high-rise high-density development models currently being deployed throughout Southeast Asia and particularly in Singapore.e
Sited in the Iskandar development of Johor Bahru, Malaysia, this thesis constructs a co-operative ownership development model – a Perbandaran Sawit – at once replacing and preserving vast depleted oil palm plantations as sites for inhabitation. A series of housing units, interwoven into the existing nine-metre, triangulated grid between palm oil trees, sets the basis for the project’s geometry. Lifted above the land at heights varying between 1.5 metres and 5 meters, the units treat land as sanctity available to all. Land is rendered as the basis for community rather than individual or developer consumption – a model intrinsically rooted in the traditional kampong organisational model.
Constructed of palm oil timber, the housing units are easily expandable in an additive manner, ensuring the ability of locals to form their own architecture. Land is preserved for small-scale agricultural use that is specific to the community, and transportation is purposefully pedestrian, where cars and bus transportations are kept at a two hundred-metre maximum walking distance. This ensures adequate spatial proximity between housing units and human proportionality based on community, not transportation alone.
In Johor Bahru, where land is plentiful, a model of site-specific development is critically lacking; visions of “modernity” and “progress” are imported from across the causeway (Singapore), with dreams of tower-living in objects gated from one another, concrete condominium speculations, and business sheathed in glass crystals. All are transplanted without regard to
Johor Bahru’s unique and specific history, geography, or tropical climate.
As an extension of Golden Lane and New Babylon, this low-rise mid-density vision is localised to the tropical climate and unique topographical availability of the site. It constructs an alternative model founded on community rather than consumption.
