Advertisement

Public Housing in Singapore: A Sustainable Housing Form and Development

  • Tony Tan Keng Joo
  • Tai-Chee Wong

Singapore’s monumental achievements in public housing have dumbfounded supporters and critics alike. Many praise the Singapore government for transforming a tiny, overcrowded, poor and slum-ridden, Third World island into a spotless haven for foreign investors within a space of 25 years (see Dale 1999; Wong and Guillot 2005). Today, 85 percent of Singapore’s population reside in high-rise flats designed and built by the Housing and Development Board (HDB). Some 92 percent of HDB’s residents own their apartment units, leaving only eight percent as renters. Having virtually achieved a “roof over every head” (see Wong and Guillot 2005), Singapore’s public housing programme is impressive in ownership access in a citystate with a high population density of 6,220 per square kilometre. Right from the early 1960s, high-rise, high-density public housing model has been adopted in order to satisfy the housing demand. This model is expected to continue in a sustainable way, and would be the principal housing form to meet future needs.

However, how and why high-density living has started out as the provision of basic housing needs and has, over time, evolved into a sophisticated political and social engineering process associated with a model of sustainable housing merits further investigation. From land-saving initiatives, Singapore’s high-rise and highdensity public housing has captured a greater concern and debate about its sustainability since the energy crisis of the 1970s. There is an evolutionary process in terms of the form of sustainable housing. The present chapter is organised in three dimensions of analysis about sustainability. Firstly, it is the social sustainability that was imprinted in the origin of the public housing of affordability, through the central provident fund’s self-financing mechanism. Public housing has been made operational and as a function of social infrastructure to act as a social stabilizing agency. Secondly, public housing has been built into the frame of economic sustainability in which Singapore’s nation-building and growth-driven economic system has been strongly associated with its industrialization and urbanization processes. Public housing has also acted as a generator for domestic demand of building materials, professional and sub-professional services and other contractual works. In so doing, HDB as the public provider at moderate and affordable costs for the populace has made the statutory board a sizeable agency of employment (see Phang 2001). Environmental sustainability is the third issue. As a useful instrument in countering urban sprawls (see Simmonds and Coombe 2000; Ravetz 2000), the Singapore highdensity and high-rise model has been equipped with ample open space and greenery at ground level and it has become a compromised form of land use intensification and artificial greenery provision in a Western-modelled landscaped living space.

Keywords

Public Housing Social Housing Housing Policy Social Sustainability Oily Sludge 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Chua BH (1991) Not depoliticized but ideologically successful: The public housing programme in Singapore. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 15(1): 24–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Chua BH (2000) Public housing residents as clients of the state. Housing Studies 15(1): 45–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Dale JD (1999) Urban planning in Singapore: The transformation of a city. Oxford University Press, Shah Alam (Malaysia)Google Scholar
  4. Goldblum C (1986) Singapour: Une cité-état moderne à l’épreuve de la fondation urbaine. Unpublished doctoral thesis submitted to the Institut d’Urbanisme de l’Académie de Paris, ParisGoogle Scholar
  5. Hui SCM (2001) Low energy building design in high density urban cities. Renewable Energy 24: 627–640CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Liu TK (1975) Design for better living conditions. In: Yeh SHK (ed) Public housing in Singapore: a multi-disciplinary study. Housing and Development Board, Singapore, pp 117–184Google Scholar
  7. Ministry of National Development (1970) Annual report. Planning Department, SingaporeGoogle Scholar
  8. Ministry of National Development (2006) Special housing assistance programme. http://www.mnd.gov.sg/handbook/building/build_main.htm accessed 24 March 2007
  9. Natsteel Ltd (2006) History & Industrial Division. http://www.nsl.com.sg/history.htm & http://www.nsl.com.sg/industrial.htm accessed 07 April 2007
  10. Natsteel Ltd (2007) Annual report 2006. SingaporeGoogle Scholar
  11. Newman P, Kenworthy J (2000) Sustainable urban form: The big picture. In: William K, Burton E, Jenks M (eds) Achieving sustainable urban form. E & FN Spon, London, pp 109–120Google Scholar
  12. Ong SC (2006) The two paradoxes in public housing. The Straits Times, March 25, p S17Google Scholar
  13. Phang SY (2001) Housing policy, wealth formation and the Singapore economy. Housing Studies 16(4): 443–459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ravetz J (2000) Urban form and the sustainability of urban systems: Theory and practice in a northern conurbation. In: William K, Burton E, Jenks M (eds) Achieving sustainable urban form. E & FN Spon, London, pp 215–228Google Scholar
  15. Simmonds D, Coombe D (2000) The transport implications of alternative urban forms. In: William K, Burton E, Jenks M (eds) Achieving sustainable urban form. E & FN Spon, London, pp 121–130Google Scholar
  16. Tan AHH, Phang SY (1991) The Singapore experience in public housing. Times Academic Press, SingaporeGoogle Scholar
  17. Tan HY (2007) Contractors act to protect bottom line. The Straits Times (local Singapore newspaper), 7 April 2007Google Scholar
  18. Tan SY (1998) Private ownership of public housing in Singapore. Times Academic Press, SingaporeGoogle Scholar
  19. Towerblocks (2006) Tower blocks and social housing–the key issues. http://www.towernlocks.org.uk/html_report/2.htm accessed 18 January 2007
  20. Van U-P, Senior M (2000) The contribution of mixed land uses to sustainable travel in cities. In: William K, Burton E, Jenks M (eds) Achieving sustainable urban form. E & FN Spon, London, pp 139–148Google Scholar
  21. Wheeler SM (2004) Planning for sustainability: Creating livable, equitable, and ecological communities. Routledge, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Wong T-C (2006) The role of compact new towns in search of economic and environmental sustainability in Singapore. Journal of Sustainable Development 2(1): 47–62Google Scholar
  23. Wong T-C, Yap ALH (2004) Four decades of transformation: Land use in Singapore 1960–2000. Eastern University Press, SingaporeGoogle Scholar
  24. Wong T-C, Guillot X (2005) A roof over every head: Singapore housing policy between state monopoly and privatization. Sampark, CalcuttaGoogle Scholar
  25. Wong AK, Yeh SHK (1985 eds) Housing a nation: 25 years of public housing in Singapore. Maruzen Asia, SingaporeGoogle Scholar
  26. Yeh SHK (1975 ed) Public housing in Singapore: A multi-disciplinary study. Housing and Development Board, SingaporeGoogle Scholar
  27. Yuen B (2005) Romancing the high-rise in Singapore. Cities 22(1): 3–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media B.V 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tony Tan Keng Joo
    • 1
  • Tai-Chee Wong
    1. 1.Surbana Intl Consultants Pte Ltd.Singapore

    Personalised recommendations