Typology of Urban Public Space in Singapore

Typology Typology of Urban Urban Public Space Public in Singapore Space in Singapore

By Irwan Soetikno 1

1502.415

Independent Research Project Seminar Instructor: Olivia Nicol, Assistant Professor in Sociology Advisor: Joshua Comaroff, Assistant Professor in Architecture and Sustainable Design

Typology of Urban Public Space in Singapore

By Irwan Soetikno

Master of Science in Urban Science, Policy and Planning Singapore University of Technology and Design 2019/07/05

3

4

Contents

01.

02.

03.

04.

05.

06.

Introduction Literature Review Methodology Results Discussion Limitations

06 09 18 20 47 50

Bibliography Appendix

51 55

5

Photo 01. A Sunday Afternoon at the Lawn of St. Andrew’s Cathedral, Singapore (By Author, 2018).

6

01. Introduction

Designing public space and placemaking have always been the central discussion on city planning and design. Sidewalks, neighbourhood parks and city neighbourhoods are part of public urban spaces that are significant to the life of cities, as illuminated by Jane Jacobs though her iconic work, The Death and Life of Great American Cities (1961). Later in 1980, William H. Whyte, through Project for Public Spaces, published another canonical work on public spaces, The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces. This work investigated small scale park to plazas to understand the success and failure of public space in New York City. The buzzword, placemaking that we hear today is originated from the work of Jacobs and Whyte, who introduced the ideas of “designing cities for people, not just cars and shopping centres” (Project for Public Spaces 2007).

Today, within planning practice, through academia and to government authority such as Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA), placemaking has become a critical intervention on public urban spaces. However, ironically, while pondering on the concept of placemaking, I discovered, right at the centre of Singapore urban area, a community of migrant workers celebrated their Sunday afternoon on the green lawn at the St. Andrew’s Cathedral—a piece of public urban space which was not ‘designed’ nor ‘place-made’ for them. This phenomenon raised a critical question of whether public urban space should be designed and place-made to create a vibrancy and livedexperiences. Is the design and placemaking of public urban space a universal approach, or location-based driven? Could all public spaces be designed or place-made? How could we describe the phenomena of public urban spaces in Singapore? How would the designed space influence the social life, and what are the roles of political-economy and policy in shaping the production of

7

public urban space? Although often discussed within various disciplinary environments, such as sociology, political economy, and planning, public urban space is very seldom studied under a comprehensive and multi-disciplinary perspective. Before we can answer all those questions, first of all, as the thesis of this research, it is important to establish an analytical tool, a typology—which currently does not exist and has never been studied before—which will serve a basis to understand the conceptual framework of public urban spaces in Singapore.

The purpose of this research is to explore a conceptual framework for transdisciplinary study (e.g. built environment, geography, sociology, and economy) of public urban spaces in Singapore through a typological study. It aims to produce a typology which will serve as an analytical tool for academic and practitioner to better understand public urban spaces in Singapore. It also could specifically contribute to Singapore government authority (e.g. URA and NParks) as a framework to organise, assess and manage public urban spaces. Lastly, by examining the specificity, unique types, characteristics and quality of public urban space in Singapore, this research will eventually contribute to the general theoretical study of public urban spaces within regional (Southeast Asia) and global context.

Primary research question:

What is the typology of urban public spaces in Singapore?

Secondary research questions: •

What are the categorical variables of public urban spaces in Singapore?

•

What are the distinctive types; and what are the key success factors that can be learnt from other cities in order to produce a better public urban space?

The research will start from the exploration of similar typological study in public urban spaces in another city/ country to gain a theoretical reference and methodological approach. Some of those studies were conducted based on historical-based typology (Stanley 2012), location-based typology in Canada and Japan (Sandalack 2010; Aguirre 2012), and generic urban space typology (Carmona 2008). There was no previous study of public urban space typology in Singapore.

However, there is two key literature that will be used as key references to gain conceptual understanding and critical discussion on this topic. First is the publication by notable local sociologist, Chua Beng Huat, Public space: design, use and management (1992). This work contains collections of essays which address critical issues of public space in Singapore from the angle of design, use and management. Second key literature is Public Space in Urban Asia, by William Lim, which covers four key public spaces—Hawker Centre, Bukit Brown Cemetery, Void Deck, and Rail Corridor—from a social justice perspective. Other than this two-key literature, there

8

is additional multidisciplinary literature which will be used to develop the categorical variables for typology and to analyse the production of public urban spaces in Singapore (refer to bibliography section for the complete list).

Figure 01. Bedraggled Daisy: The intersection of multiple (literature) topics which will be used as references for this research.

9

02. Literature Review This literature review focuses on current discussions that relate to the topic of the typology of urban public space in Singapore and comprises of three key themes: Public Space, Typology of Public Space, and Singapore Public Space. It begins with the introduction of public space, framing of the term ‘urban public space’ and working definition that will be specifically used for this research.

Subsequently, It discusses the definition of typology and several relevant studies on the typology of public space, and finally reviews key publications on public space in Singapore.

Public Space Public space has gained a significant discussion in the realm of the city and urban planning discourse today. However, its meaning may not be easily defined, for example, due to the extensive usage of the Information and Communications Technology (ICT) which has enabled the virtual space, such as the internet, to be included as a ‘public space’ (Lim 2014, 21; Abdel-Aziz 2016, 488). For that reason, this paper will specifically focus only on the ‘urban’ public space, which refers to spaces within the physical context of (Singapore’s) urban built environment.

Public space can be defined by several characteristics. It is generally characterised as open and accessible to everyone; a setting for civic events which would accommodate a large crowd of people for celebration, protest, and mourn (Miller 2007, ix). Public space also represents the immaterial concept of democracy, as described in Public Space by Stephen Carr et al. (1992). In this context, public space should be “accessible to all groups and provide for freedom of action” (Miller 2007, xiv-xv). In contrast to Carr’s specific and convergent definition of public space, Carmona defines public space in a broader view, which I would adopt as a working definition for this research for the following two reasons. First, Carmona’s definition covers extensive types of public space across different forms and functions. Second, this broader view definition is more appropriate to serve transdisciplinary studies as opposed to Carr’s specific definition, which only serves specific discourse such as political science.

Carmona defines public space as spaces with free public access—although not necessarily unrestricted—that are parts of the natural and built environment, which may include public and private, internal and external, urban and rural (2008, 4-5). Furthermore, Carmona’s definition covers all forms of urban space, including streets, squares and another right of way which are located within various types of land uses, such as residential, commercial or civic uses. It also includes spaces under public or private ownership, internal or external, where the public is

10

provided limited and or controlled access, such as shopping centres and bus stations. Under this definition, the interior space of public and civic buildings, such as libraries, town halls and churches are part of public space.

Typology of Public Space Typology is an organised system of ‘type’ or also known as the study of ‘type’ of certain elements which cannot be further reduced (Collier 2008, 152; Sandalack 2010, 45). Type is derived from the 18th-century Greek word, typos, which means model, matrix, the imprint of a figure in relief (Lathouri 2011, 24). Typology in the built environment, such as architecture, has been developed since 1825, through the work of Quatremère de Quincy, Encyclopedia. Typology of architecture serves a purpose to organise all the different kinds of architectural production through categorical variables such as form, function, and general principles of each building (Lathouri 2011, 24).

Typology of architecture is also often used as an entry point—for student—to study architecture, similar to taxonomy to biology. However, unlike architecture, typology of public space—as a part of the built environment—is very seldom studied. In fact, historically, within the urban or city planning discourse, no comprehensive study of the typology of urban public space has ever been conducted.

Nevertheless, two categories of literature will be used in this research as a reference to establish the categorical variables and typology of urban public space in Singapore. The first category is the general typology of urban (open) space, which covers empirical historical references. Two publications that fall under this category are “Urban Open Space in Historical Perspective: A transdisciplinary typology and analysis” (Stanley et al. 2012), and “Public Space: The Management Dimension” (Carmona 2008). Although both pieces of literature do not specifically work on the typology of public space, they are arguably important and relevant reference, as they set a broader typology and categorisation of urban (open) space in which various types of public space are included.

The second category is country/city-specific typology of public space. Under this category, types of public space are organised based on characteristic and case studies in the specific cities which may not be replicated elsewhere. Nonetheless, the theoretical and methodological approach of such studies is useful and applicable to conduct a similar study in Singapore. Two publications of the second category are “Open Space typology as a Framework for Design of the Public Realm” (Sandalack 2010) which took Canada as a specific case study, and “Public Space in Japan: A Catalog of Typologies and Brief Discussion of the Role of Public Space” (Aguirre 2012). Both categories of literature, on general typology and specific typology, will be discussed in detail through the following sub-sections.

11

1. General Typology The work of Stanley et al. (2012) in “Urban Open Spaces in Historical Perspective: A Transdisciplinary Typology and Analysis” covers the most comprehensive categorisation of urban open spaces throughout history. Their typology represents categorical variables, a mix of form and function, including both specific and multi-purpose function categories. The outcome of this typology is seven types of open spaces which can be further multiplied across three different scales: City, Intermediate and Residence (Fig.02). The seven types of open spaces are food production; parks and gardens; recreational space; plaza; street; transport facilities; and incidental space (Stanley et al. 2012, 1093). These seven types of form are constructed in such a way that they may be applicable generally across different cities and urban geographic locations, including Singapore. Although they are relevant as a basis for a typology of urban public space in Singapore, these types need further re-examination and adjustment to the local context. First, this is because of not all of these ‘urban open spaces’ function as public space. For example, food production space, such as agricultural fields and kitchen gardens, may not be a publicly accessible space (Fig. 01). Second, the production and management of public space in Singapore context may be distinctive from generic types of spaces in other cities. Therefore, types of spaces under ‘residence’ scale may not be very appropriate and relevant for Singapore, as most Singapore populations (over 80%) are living in the public housings which are distinctively managed and operated by Housing Development Board (HDB) with unique forms and elements of public space.

In analysing their finding, Stanley et al. use an additional two categorical variables. First is the process in which the urban spaces are created: ”top-down” and “bottom-up” (2012, 1090). Topdown refers to the process whereby the state/government institution drives the planning of the public space. On the other hand, bottom-up is initiated by local communities and accommodates “grassroots” activities. Second is the differentiation between “green space” and “grey space” (2012, 1093). Green space consists of “any vegetated land or structure, water, or geological feature within urban areas,” while grey space refers to “more civic-oriented spaces such as urban squares, market place and other paved or hard landscaped areas.” These two categorical variables should be taken into consideration in analysing the Singapore public space. Although, historically, urban development in Singapore is driven by top-down and comprehensive planning under a government agency, Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA), it worth examining an emerging bottom-up trend.

Similar to Stanley et al., Carmona through his Public Space: The Management Dimension (2008) attempts to build a typology of ‘Urban Space.’ Different from Stanley et al. typology of open urban

12

space, Carmona’s categorisation is broader and include open (external) and close (internal) spaces. By employing three key categorical variables: function, ownership and perception, he builds twenty types of urban spaces which are classified into four overarching categories (Fig. 03).

Among all these twenty types of spaces, not all of them can be referenced for this research as his classification covers all spectrum of space from public to private. Furthermore, his last categorical variable, perception, is rather difficult to be applied in this research as it is highly qualitative and requires a complex methodology and tool to measure.

By interpolating both typologies from Stanley et al. and Carmona, I may gain a significant reference as a starting point to examine Singapore urban public space. It is important to highlight again that both works are general typologies with various categorical variables; thus, further investigation and analysis in (Singapore) local context are needed.

Transport Facilities

Streets

Plazas

Recreational Space

Incidental Space

Parks and Garden

Food Production

CITY

Harbours, airport and Train Station Parking

Central Boulevards

Large Formal Plazas

Stadiums, Greenbelts, Beaches

Natural features and Semi-Wild Areas

Major Formal Park and garden Space

Orchards, Agricultural Fields

INTERMEDIATE

Transit Stations and City Gate Area

Street Space

Smaller neighbourhood Plazas

Sports Facilities, Playgrounds

Empty Lots, Transit Borders

Institutional Gardens, Small Parks, Cemeteries

Grazing, Commons, Community Gardens

RESIDENCE

Driveways, Parking Areas

Pedestrian Alleys, Paths

Interior Courtyards

House yard Playspace

Marginalised Space Between Buildings

Household Gardens

Kitchen Gardens, Small horticulture

Grey Space

Grey-Green Space

Green Space

Figure 02. Urban open space transdisciplinary typology (Stanley et al. 2012; Re-drawn by author).

13

Space Type

Distinguishing Characteristics

Examples

1. Natural/semi-natural urban space

Natural and semi-natural features within urban areas, typically, under state ownership

Rivers, natural features, seafronts, canals

2. Civic space

The traditional forms of urban space, open and available to all and catering for a wide variety of functions

Streets, squares, promenades

3. Public open space

Managed open space, typically green and available and open to all, even if temporally controlled

Parks, gardens, commons, urban forests, cemeteries

4. Movement space

Space dominated by movement needs, largely for motorised transportation

Main roads, motorways, railways, underpasses

5. Service space

Space dominated by modern servicing requirements needs

Car parks, service yards

6. Left-over space

Space leftover after development, often designed without function

‘SLOAP’ (space left over after planning), modernist open space

7. Undefined space

Undeveloped space, either abandoned or awaiting redevelopment

Redevelopment space, abandoned space, transient space

8. Interchange space

Transport stops and interchanges, whether internal or external

Metros, bus interchanges, railway stations, bus/tram stops

9. Public ‘private’ space

Seemingly public external space, in fact privately owned and to greater or lesser degrees controlled

Privately-owned ‘civic’ space, business parks, church grounds

10. Conspicuous spaces

Public spaces designed to make strangers feel conspicuous and, potentially, unwelcome

Cul-de-sacs, dummy gated enclaves

11. Internalised ‘public’ space

Formally public and external uses, internalised and, often, privatised

Shopping/leisure malls, introspective mega-structures

12. Retail space

Privately owned but publicly accessible exchange spaces

Shops, covered markets, petrol stations

13. Third place spaces

Semi-public meeting and social places, public and private

Cafés, restaurants, libraries, town halls, religious buildings

14. Private ‘public’ space

Publicly owned, but functionally and user determined spaces

Institutional grounds, housing estates, university campuses

15. Visible private space

Physically private, but visually public space

Front gardens, allotments, gated squares

16. Interface spaces

Physically demarked but publicly accessible interfaces between public and private space

Street cafés, private pavement space

17. User selecting spaces

Spaces for selected groups, determined (and sometimes controlled) by age or activity

Skateparks, playgrounds, sports fields/grounds/courses

18. Private open space

Physically private open space

Urban agricultural remnants, private woodlands

19. External private space

Physically private spaces, grounds and gardens

Gated streets/enclaves, private gardens, private sports clubs, parking courts

20. Internal private space

Private or business space

Offices, houses, etc.

‘Positive Spaces’

‘Negative Spaces’

Ambiguous Space

Private Spaces

Figure 03. Urban Space Types (Carmona 2008, 62).

14

2. Specific Typology A specific typology study of public space refers to researches conducted in a specific geographic location (i.e. city or country), as opposed to a general typology which serves most cities. Given the nature that public space is produced and situated within the complex realm of socio-cultural, political, and built environment, a specific typology is often needed to understand particular city/country which may be distinctive and different from other location. One such study is conducted in Canada, “Open Space Typology as a framework for Design of the Public Realm,” which categorises open spaces in Canadian cities into seven types (Sandalack 2010; Fig.04). This typology, however, only examines the open space, which may cover some but not extensive types of public space. For example, the common type which is ubiquitous in Singapore, such as enclosed public space such as the shopping mall, and semi-enclosed arcade of retail space is not considered in the study.

The typological research in Canadian cities open space also recognises that public space is situated within a series of ‘layers’ within the built environment. Therefore, a conceptual framework of the built environment is needed to understand how these layers correspond with a degree of permanence (Fig. 05). From this framework, it is clear that public space is part of the public realm layer, which is directly influenced by “Built Form” (architecture) and “The Land.” It means that the form of public space is determined by the land (use) and the form and function of architecture (typology). When applying this framework to the Singapore planning context, it would mean that to investigate Singapore public space, we need to understand both: the land use plan (determined

by URA) and architectural typology. This framework is therefore valuable as a methodology to inquire the categorical variables (form and function) and inventory, which will be further described in the research methodology section.

Another typology study of public space in Japan conducted by a research team from Pratt Institute Graduate Center for Planning and the Environment revealed a unique categorisation which is centred to Japanese culture and urbanisation. In “Public Space in Japan: A Catalog of Typologies and Brief Discussion of the Role of Public Space,” public space in Japan, based on the primary observation and field trip in Tokyo, is categorised into eight types: parks, landscapes, large scale housing, transit hubs, sacred spaces, monuments, commercial corridors, and new development.

Among these types, ‘sacred spaces’ appears as an unusual finding, which has never been classified under previous general typology (such as by Stanley et al. and Carmona).

15

Types Street

Examples Residential streets Commercial streets

Square

Civic boulevards Civic square, plaza, place (Fr.), piazza (It.) Church square Market square

Park, garden, cemetery Linear systems, Green Corridor, Path

Collegiate square Gardens Ornamental parks Paths Bikeways Trails

Outdoor Sport and Recreation Facility

Right-of-way Tot lots Playgrounds Sports fields

Campground & Picnic Area

School sites Golf courses Skateboard parks Camping areas Picnic and day-use areas

Natural/Semi-Natural Green Space

Woodland Grasslands Wetlands Canals Open and running water Ecological reserve

Figure 04. Seven types of open urban space (Sandalack 2010, 45-57).

Figure 05. Sample of framework (categorical variables) used to describe built environment. Public urban space is situated within the Public Realm layer, connected to the Land and Built Form (Sandalack 2010, 40).

16

Sacred space is defined as a site used for religious and memorial purposes, which have extensively punctuated urban fabric of traditional Japanese cities (Aguirre 2012, 18). This unique discovery of types highlights the importance of specific typology research, which will contribute to the overall conceptual understanding and theoretical framework of public space. It will also inspire other designers and planners of other cities to create a better, creative and innovative type of public space. This tenet has become the underlying purpose of this research in Singapore, which has a unique urban development process, socio-cultural diversity and governance.

Compared to the typology study in Canada, the research on Japan’s public space has more indepth methods and tools which are driven by planning discourse approach. The research employed ten categorical patterns and (planning) parameters: function, scale, dimension, orientation, sound, access, paths, districts, nodes, and landmarks. It is also conducted through a series of a field trip to multiple sites in Tokyo. And finally, the findings are presented with visual representations such as photographs, maps and diagrams. This method and tool, especially the visual representation, is essential to convey the finding and result which often are difficult to trace through text. The similar visual representation will also be used in this research in presenting the final finding and result.

Singapore Public Space Public space had become an important topic of study in Singapore since 1984 when the government undertook a major in-house examination on the previous urban development—since 1960—and decided to comprehensively analyse the public space (Beng Huat 1992, 01). I have found at least three key important literature on Singapore public space, which will be used as the primary source for this research. The first literature, Public space: design, use and management, contains collections of essays which address critical issues of public space in Singapore from the angle of design, use and management. Second key literature is Public Space in Urban Asia (2014),

by William Lim, which covers four key public spaces—Hawker Centre, Bukit Brown Cemetery, Void Deck, and Rail Corridor—from a social justice perspective. And the most recent publication, Constructing Singapore Public Space (2017), by Limen Hee, attempts to build a comprehensive analysis of historical development of public space in Singapore and propose a new way of thinking on Singapore model for future public space.

Each of these three key literature showcases a detail discussion on case studies from multidisciplinary angles such as design and planning, political science, sociology, and management. Each of them also investigates public space throughout different scales. In Public space: design, use and management, the case studies are presented in multiple scales,

17

from a generic ‘street culture’ and ‘nature’, through a historical analysis of ‘backlanes’, to a micro site-specific case study at Duxton Plain. The case studies here are organised in different themes instead of types. Public Space in Urban Asia, on the contrary, only focus on two general types: Hawker Centre and Void Deck; and two specific types: Bukit Brown Cemetery and Rail Corridor.

These four case studies arguably represent the archetypal public space of Singapore, and they offer an entry point to understand the public life and spatial justice of this high-density urban environment. Lastly, Limen Hee’s work, Constructing Singapore Public Space, investigates public space from a larger scale, through site-specific case studies at Orchard Road and Little India, and general type on Public Housing Space. Selection of these three case studies is driven by Hee’s argument that these spaces represent the image of Singapore as a cosmopolitan global city (Orchard Road), with historic cultural past (Little India), and quintessential heartland modern public housing.

The three literature are subsequently published over three decades and revealed nation and public interests on the discussion and debate over public space, which changes over time. Each of them provides sporadic case studies across the different spectrum of multidisciplinary view. However, what is missing here is the conceptual framework and tool—to unify and translate all these discussion and analysis into practical knowledge, for the future production of urban public space.

Through typology study, I aim to build this conceptual framework and tool, which will consolidate and categorise sporadic studies on Singapore urban public space into a comprehensive organisation of types.

To summarise, this research will focus only on ‘urban public space’ in Singapore, which refers to spaces within the physical built urban environment. It will use existing general typology study from previous literature—by Stanley et al. and Carmona—to adopt the categorical variables and refer to specific typology study in Canada and Japan for methodological approaches. And finally, It will produce a typology of urban public space in Singapore based on precedents of the previous three key literature by Chua Beng Huat, William Lim, and Limen Hee.

18

03. Methodology

Figure 06. Workflow of the research.

As illustrated in the diagram above, this research—the typological study of public urban space in Singapore—will be conducted through three key stages. The first two stages, creating categorical variables and building an inventory of public urban spaces, can be done in parallel. The last stage would be a conclusion which will form the final finding: a typology of public urban space in Singapore. The process, method and detail of the three key steps are as follow:

19

1. Creating categorical variables.

The purpose of this stage is to create categorical variables which will define all types of public urban spaces in Singapore. The data of these variables will be mainly collected through literature study—of similar typological studies conducted in other cities or countries. Such data and their typological categorisation will be analysed as (theoretical) references and tools to describe the types of public urban spaces in Singapore. Furthermore, the analysis will determine the relevant categorical variables which are relevant to be adopted; and it will introduce new variables which are unique and suitable for Singapore context.

2. Build an inventory of public urban spaces.

The purpose of the inventory is to build a comprehensive list of types of public urban spaces in Singapore. This is by no means to create an exhaustive list of spaces, but rather to identify wide spectrum (of types) of public urban spaces that are discussed in the literature, highlighted by government authorities (e.g. URA and Nparks) through their websites, and popular urban spaces published in news and other media (e.g. blog and Instagram). The list of public urban spaces will be furthered analysed and categorised into ‘generic type’—can be defined by existing typology, and ‘unique type’—unique within the Singapore context.

3. Typology of public urban space in Singapore.

As a conclusion, this part will consolidate and organise typology of public urban space in Singapore into at least two final outcomes: •

Chart and (planning) diagrams which will illustrate types of public urban spaces;

•

Series of Photograph representing each type, as a descriptive tool to visualise the spaces.

20

04. Results The Framework and Categorical Variables Singapore has a distinctive modern urban planning development, which is known as comprehensive planning. Through this process, the top-down direction of government authorities such as URA, HDB, and NParks lay the spatial planning, design and execution to the entire island’s development. This unique condition has eventually determined the production of urban public space in such a way that every space are created as a result of conscious control of actions. For example, park and greenery are taken care and maintained by Nparks in such a way that every branch of trees and grass would be trimmed regularly to preserve the Singapore image as a ‘City in the Garden.’ It is therefore important, through this research, to investigate and frame the definition and meaning of urban public space in Singapore through a typology study.

By using a framework introduced by Sandalack (Figure 05), the result of the typology of urban public space in Singapore presented here, are defined by two important factors: The Land and Built Form. Both factors are explicitly outlined through URA Land Use Masterplan 2019 (refer to appendix P. 56-57) and type of development (architectural typologies, refer to appendix P. 58-69, see ‘examples of development’). Typology of urban public space is located within the layers of Land Use (The Land) and Architectural Typologies (Built Form)—Figure 07. By interpolating these two layers, I establish the types of urban public space in Singapore. Furthermore, these types are reclassified and re-organised to the typologies developed by Carmona (2008), Sandalack (2010) and Stanley et al. (2012). This effort is made with the purpose to maintain consistency of terminology of urban public space used widely in academia while introducing new types and variations that are discovered within the Singapore context. These types are also organised based on the derivatives typologies (i.e. of Carmona, Sandalack and Stanley et al.) which used form and function as the main categorical variables. Both variables remain significant and fundamental to organise types of urban public space, which is essential, as a part of built-environment, strongly recognised and characterised by the physical attributes—form and function. Besides, these both variables are also used by URA in determining the Land Use and Architectural typologies of Singapore Master plan.

As a result, this research introduces nine types of urban public spaces in Singapore (Figure 08).

These nine types are comprised of various examples of spaces which could either open, semi or fully enclose; privately or publicly owned; and located within different architectural typologies such as commercial building, residential (HDB), educational building, public building and others.

21

To illustrate the specific outlook and condition of these spaces, specific examples are included under the ‘Site-specific examples in Singapore’ (Figure 06, column 3). Each type is also further described in detail with photographs and diagrams to delineate the specific meaning, condition, and physical attributes of the spaces.

Figure 07. Framework: layers of built environment that constitutes public space. Land Use and Architectural typologies are used as two key layers, determined by URA Master plan (2019).

22

Typology of Urban Public Space in Singapore Types of Urban Public Space 01. Linear System: Movement and Circulation Space

02. Square / Plaza (including spaces located within the commercial building—such as shopping mall—and public building)

03. Park/garden

Examples of Space

Site-specific Examples in Singapore

Street Sidewalk Backlanes

Car Free zone Bussorah Street Sidewalk at Orchard Road Backlane at Chinatown

Footpath Cycling path

Telok Blangah Street Footpath Cycling path at Bedok

Pedestrian overhead bridge/underpass

Henderson Waves, Helix bridge at Marina Bay, Underground pass at Citylink Mall

Covered Linkway

Red Hill Close Covered Linkway

Square, plaza, place (Fr.), piazza (It)

Plaza at Plaza Singapura, Plaza at Singapore National Library, Plaza at Lasalle College of the Arts, Square at Asia Square, The float at Marina Bay

Amphitheatre Church square (lawn) Market square

Amphitheatre—steps—at SOTA St.Andrew’s Cathedral lawn Telok Blangah Market Square

Mall/Promenade through Block Link

Marina Bay promenade

Arcade Atrium

Bugis Junction Arcade Funan Atrium

Park

Hong Lim Park, War Memorial park

Marine Park

Sister’s Islands Marine Park

National Park

Singapore Botanic Garden, Fort Canning Park

Community Garden Park Connector/Linear park

Labrador Park

Landscaped rooftop

Landscaped rooftop at Marina Barrage, Rooftop at Pinnacle @ Duxton

Indoor Garden

Indoor garden at Jewel Changi Airport

Sky terrace Stadium Playfield

One North Galaxis sky terrace Bukit Timah turf club The Padang

05. Transport Facilities

Carpark MRT/LRT Station Bus Station / Interchange

Telok Blangah HDB Carpark Dhoby Ghaut MRT Station Harbourfront bus terminal

06. Natural / Semi Natural space

Nature Reserve Nature Area Marine Nature Area Waterbody

04. Outdoor Sport/Recreational facility

07. Void deck 08. Hawker Centre / Coffeeshops and Wet Market 09. Cemeteries

Bedok Reservoir The void deck at Telok Blangah Drive HDB Telok Blangah Hawker Centre Bukit Brown Cemetery

Figure 08. Nine typologies of urban public space in Singapore.

23

01. Linear System: Movement and Circulation Space Public space under linear system type covers a wide array of spaces that are mainly designed for movement and circulation purposes. It includes general type such as commonly known street and sidewalk to unique Singapore backlanes which are created as a part of government policy within the old shophouses area. Furthermore, LTA also defines other types of the linear system—as shown in the URA masterplan; refer to the appendix, 18—such as footpath, cycling path, pedestrian overhead bridge/underpass, and covered linkway.

Photo 02. Rail Corridor Run 2013. (Source: TGH Photography Portal / Blog)

28

Street The initiative to convert the street as a public space for people and not just for the vehicle has been introduced and implemented through ‘Car-Free Zones’ and ‘Car-Free Sunday SG’ programs. Car-Free Zones are a regular road closure in certain segments of the street through a certain period, which is initiated by a local stakeholder to diverse (commercial) activities for the wide public (URA 2019). (See Appendix P.70 for list of Car-Free Zones areas).

Car Free Sunday SG was started in February 2016 as a part of a trial to promote Car-Lite initiative. Today it has become a regular event on the last Sunday of every month. Initiated by URA and with the support from networks of partners (e.g. JTC Corporation), this events has aimed to bring series of interesting programs to transform the street into a vibrant activity hub (Abdullah 2018).

Photo 03. Yoga at Keong Saik Road organised by Urban Ventures, 2016 (top). (Source: The Straits Times); 04.

Doodling activity in Telok Ayer Road during Car Free Sunday SG 2018 (bottom). (Source: The Straits Times).

29

Sidewalk The sidewalk is a pathway for pedestrian which typically located next to the street. Sidewalk appears in various dimension and situated within a different land-use area to serve different building typologies. Common sidewalks which are utilised as public space, where people would gather, meet and interact are usually sidewalks found in the commercial, residential and office area.

One of the popular sidewalk in Singapore, which is used for vibrant public activities is sidewalk at Orchard Road.

Photo 05 & 06. Sidewalk at Orchard Road. (Source: The Jakarta Post; Thai Residents)

30

Backlanes Backlanes, as a distinctive type of urban public space specifically refers to back alleys that were originally constructed at the back of shophouses. Due to the congestion and sanitation at the central urban area—occupied by the shophouses—the 1918 Housing Commission suggested the construction of the backlanes which would cut part of the back area of every shophouse to provide light, air and municipal services (Chua 1992, 42). Backlanes today become a public circulation space which is mainly used for services. In 2015, through Reclaiming Backlanes research project, FCL proposed a design vision to transform backlanes as a public space which is commercially attractive and visually pleasing (Bruelisauer 2016).

Photo 07. Backlane at Keong Saik Road Chinatown (top). By author; 08. Reclaiming Backlanes, a conceptual design intervention by FCL Singapore (bottom). (Source: Future Cities Laboratory)

31

Footpath and Cycling Path The footpath and cycling path are part of the public space that caters to mobility. To promote cycling as an inclusive part of the transport system, LTA introduced the special red cycling path started in 2017 in Bedok (Lim 2017).

Photo 09. Red Cycling Path at Bedok (top). (Source: The Straits Times); 10. Cycling and Foot Path (right). (Source: Ministry of Communications and Information)

32

Pedestrian overhead bridge/underpass Other than serving as a circulation space, several cases of the overhead bridge and underpass also function as an effective public space for people to gather and interact for a specific activity. Henderson Waves and Helix Bridge at Marina Bay, for example, are two iconic bridges which have become an important space for public users. Underpass tunnel at the Esplanade, with a spacious setting, has become a public space—especially for the youth to express themselves through performance, training and sports (photo 13). In another case such as Coleman Bridge Underpass, the public circulation space has also been utilised for ‘art exhibition’ though mural (photo 14).

Photo 11. Henderson Waves (top-left). (Source: Passions and Places); 12. Helix Bridge at Marina Bay (topright). (Source: COX Architecture); 13. Underpass tunnel at the Esplanade (bottom-left). (Source: The Heartlander Tourist); 14. Coleman Bridge Underpass (right). (Source: SG Magazine)

33

Covered Linkway Due to tropical climatic condition with a high frequency of rain, many public circulation spaces—especially those connect the nodes of transportation such as bus stop and MTR entrance—are covered. Covered linkway with unique design features could potentially become a place, with shared memories and living experiences, such as one at old HDB estate, the Redhill Close.

Photo 15. Covered linkway at Pinnacle at Duxton (left). (Source: Archnet); 16. The iconic covered linkway with red post as Redhill Close HDB (right). By author.

34

02. Square / Plaza Square and plaza here refer to general space that is shaped by edges—of walls, buildings or other physical perimeters. This type also includes square and plaza that are located within the commercial building, such as shopping mall and public building. Similar to the street, the characteristic of a square is defined by the built form at its surrounding perimeter/edge, which could be public or private elements—usually buildings (Sandalack 2010, 51). Square is also known with a different name in a different country, such place in France, and piazza in Italy (ibid). In Singapore, square and plaza appears in multiple variations such as plaza with seating-amphitheatre, church square (lawn), market square, and mall/promenade through block link (as defined by URA). They also have a different degree of openness/enclosure, such as open plaza, semi-covered and fully covered plaza at ground floor, and fully enclosed-indoor square—which is also known as ‘atrium’ such as shopping mall atrium.

Photo 17. The plaza at the atrium of the Funan mall, a new public space within the commercial development.

(Source: The Finder)

35

Photo 18. Placemaking event, READ! FEST 2018, at the covered ground plaza at National Library (top). (By Author); 19. The covered public square at the Asia Square Tower (middle). (By author); 20. The Float at Marina Bay functions as a new civic square that serves as an arena for National Day Parade 2017 (bottom). (Source: Dollars and Sense)

36

Photo 21. Open public space at Plaza Singapura (top). (Source: Channel News Asia); 22. Plaza with amphitheatre seating at School of The Arts (SOTA). (Source: Architectural Review)

37

03. Park/garden Park and garden cover a wide range of green spaces with various scale. It includes the UNESCO world heritage Singapore Botanic Garden to the community garden, park connector and landscaped rooftop.

Photo 23. Labrador Park (top). (By author); 24.

Landscaped rooftop at Pinnacle at Duxton (bottom).

(By author)

38

04. Outdoor Sport/Recreational facility Outdoor sport/recreational facility range from national scale sports facilities such as stadium to local neighbourhood recreational facility such as the playground at HDB estate.

Photo 25. Children playground at Tiong Bahru neighborhood. (By author)

39

05. Transport Facilities Transport facilities cover all type of spaces that are used for transportation purposes as indicated under URA land-use master plan. However, most of the land use for transport facilities are accessible only by vehicle/train and not public users. Therefore, there are only a few categories of spaces that are classified as urban public space such as carparks—usually open carparks at HDB estate which are also functioned to accommodate public events and ceremonies--, bus station, and MRT station.

Photo 26. Bus Terminal at Harbourfront (top). (By author); 27. Car park at Telok Blangah Drive neighbourhood was converted to event space (bottom). (By author)

40

06. Natural / Semi Natural space Natural/ semi-natural space refers to spaces that are indicated under the URA land-use master plan as either nature are, nature reserve, marine nature area, and waterbody. Some of these areas are publicly accessible and used for recreational purposes such as reservoir area.

Photo 28. Bedok Reservoir. (By author)

41

07. Void deck Void deck is the most commonly known public space in Singapore as they are situated at the (open) ground floor at every public housing (HDB)—which accommodate more than 80% of Singapore population. This open concept ground floor is rooted in the modernism housing design of modernist architect, Le’Corbusier, who envisioned this open space as an expression of a democratic society. In the Singapore context, this open space is managed

by HDB and used for a multipurpose activity to serve the local residents such as funeral and wedding ceremony.

In principle, a void deck can also be categorised as ‘plaza’ at the ground floor of the HDB. However, due to its unique and specific significance and meaning within Singapore society, the void deck is categorised as an independent type, separated from the square/plaza category.

Photo 29. Void deck connected to the covered walkway at Bedok HDB neighbourhood. By author.

42

The term void decks appeared for the first time in the local newspaper in Singapore during 1970 (NHB, 2013) ever since it has become an important public space that shapes the social life of the community from the everyday life activities to the celebration and funeral rites.

Photo 30. Malay wedding (top). (Source: NHB); 31.

Chinese funeral (bottom).

(Source: NHB)

43

08. Hawker Centre / Coffeeshops and Wet Market Hawker centre/coffee shops and the wet market usually come as an integral part of HDB/residential estate to provide the daily food service and supply for the local community. Hawker centre later evolves as a unique identity of Singapore public space in everyday life.

Photo 32. Lau Pa Sat Hawker Centre (top). (Source: Marina Bay Sands); 33. Tiong Bahru Wet Market (bottom). (By author)

44

09. Cemeteries It is very unusual to include cemeteries as part of urban public space. First, because it serves the death, instead of the living population. Second, it is not common for people to gather and interact at cemeteries, except for occasional burial processing and ceremonies. However, within Singapore context, cemeteries are often part of the urban environment (scattered within the urban area) and have evolved within social science discourse as a contested urban space, as shown in the case of the Bukit Brown cemetery (Lim 2014, 26-55).

Photo 34. Bukit Brown cemetery from Lorong Halwa. (Source: State of Buildings)

45

Photo 35. Public visitors at Bukit Brown cemetery (top). (Source: All Things Bukit Brown); 36. Statue of Sikh guards at Bukit Brown cemetery (right).(Source: South China Morning Post)

46

Unique types and special cases Among all the nine types of public spaces, there are at least two unique types that are identical to Singapore urban planning, social life and communities. First is the hawker centre, which serves as an eating place in everyday life to local residents within HDB communities. Differ from the traditional definition of hawker as an informal street vendor, as in the history of Singapore or Malaysia, the current meaning of hawker centre in Singapore context is specifically tied to the public eating spaces which sit on “commercial and residential” land use which ownership, operation and maintenance is undertaken by government agencies (HDB, NEA, and MEWR).

The second unique type is the void deck. Originally designed by HDB to provide a “sense of locality and community identity” (Lim 2014, 81), this space today has become identical to the public life within HDB residential community. It functions in various form of activities from playground, commercial and mama shops, Civil Defence shelter, Resident Committee centre, to a special event such as wedding ceremonies and funeral rites.

These two unique types of urban public space have certainly brought a tremendous positive impact on the social life of the people in the modern urban planning discourse. However, it is important to highlight that its success is significantly tied to the distinctive, comprehensive urban planning process, urban governance and policies. Therefore, to emulate these types of urban public space in the urbanised Southeast Asia region, there are many social and political dimensions beyond planning alone that must be paid attention to.

Other than unique types, this research also recognises a special case that arises from Singapore: Bukit Brown cemeteries. Although several typologies define cemeteries as ‘open space’ (e.g.

Stanley et al.), the case of Bukit Brown is registered as public space (Lim 2014) and heritage— included as the World Monuments Watch List for 2014. It is also equated as living museum, due to its significance as a site for many national souls with names many Singaporean today can identify with, such as Gan Eng Seng (school), Joo Chiat (eating place), Boon Lay, and Boon Keng (MRT station) (Lim 2014, 36).

Both, the unique types and special case showcase that the production of the urban public spaces are distinctive to a specific geographic location (city or country). More specific typology studies are required in more cities, especially within the urbanised and developing Southeast Asia region. The collective typological tool, data and conceptual frameworks would be very useful for the future practitioner and academia to understand and analyse the complexity of urban public space and to contribute to the production of the future public space for the future cities.

47

05. Discussion Methodology for Typological Study The unique organisation of types of urban public space in Singapore could be achieved partly because of the specific methodology used for this research. Unlike typical previous typological research, such as Stanley et al. typology of urban open spaces, Carmona’s typology of urban spaces, and Sandalack’s typology of open urban spaces, this research offers a more rigorous and more tangible methodology to define, select and organise the types. As mentioned in the literature review, the previous three typological research categorised spaces based on mainly two categorical variables, form and function, and based on author’s general observation (e.g. through historical reading or common understanding on urban condition). Therefore, there is no assurance that the proposed typology represents the overall types that exist within (the specific) cities or countries. It means that there is a high possibility categorisation could be either open-ended or incomplete; or the system of categorisation itself could be subjective and open-ended.

This research, however, is set with a more specific measure and system of categorisation to ensure the accuracy and ‘completeness’ of types. In other words, the typology presented here over the more comprehensive organisation which would cover the complete spectrum of types of urban public space in Singapore. I can confidently acknowledge this because the method to ‘filter’ the types are based on land use and architectural typologies as presented under URA’s masterplan.

This two layers of ‘filter’ literally cover physical planning space of the entire Singapore island.

Therefore, the observation of the urban public space in this research is more detailed and specific than previous typological studies.

The specific method that is applied here based on two layers is, however, unique to Singapore comprehensive planning system. It means that this method may not be replicated elsewhere unless that particular city/country has a comprehensive masterplan which control, regulate and manage the land use and development type in such a way that Singapore does.

General Typology vs Specific Typology The result of the typology of urban public space in Singapore contributes to the general typological studies within academic context and practice. It also adds a new way of thinking to define and organise urban public space. The contribution of this research can be justified through at least the following three points.

48

First, the finding contributes to the current organisation of ‘general typology.’ Other than offering the new way of organising (i.e. methodology as discussed in the previous section), this research also proposes a new unique type which should be considered for inclusion within the current established organisation of general typology. Singapore urban public space such as void deck and hawker centre are some of those unique types which have not been discussed previously under the general typology. The void deck can indeed be categorised as enclosed/covered ‘plaza’ under Stanley et al. typology, or hawker centre can be viewed as a part of the covered market under Carmona’s categorisation. However, there will be a lot of deviation in meaning and purpose if we put the unique type of Singapore urban public space under that general typology. My suggestion is to reconsider the new way to reorganise the general typology and even consider re-introducing new category to accommodate the specificity of Singapore urban public space.

Second, this research strongly supports and highlight the importance of the study on ‘specific typology.’ It recognises that although modern global cities are generally planned, built and developed with the modernism planning approach which shares a generic characteristic, however, each city is unique and may exhibit a distinctive public space. Similar to the previous specific typology of Japan public space (Aguirre 2012) which discover a unique type such as ‘sacred place’ due to the condition of its religious society, this research also discovers the unique types of Singapore urban public space which are mainly driven by its modern comprehensive urban planning.

Third, the result of the proposed typology in this research contributes to the specific study of urban public space in Singapore. With this tool, we now have a comprehensive way to look at the complete spectrum of urban public space in Singapore. With the conceptual understanding of the complete spectrum of public space, we can further analyse, identify, and even explore the potential development of some of the under-developed of type of public space. For example, the street type that often place-made into a ‘community space’ is usually street located within the commercial and conserved area. However, what about other neighbourhood streets with less commercial vibrancy? Could these streets be place-made to serve the local community for their specific needs genuinely?

Typology as a conceptual tool will also help academia and practitioner to have an in-depth analysis on the dynamic issues and complex factors that shape the design, function, operation and maintenance and even the production of public space. For example, with this comprehensive tool, we now can objectively justify ‘social justice’ of public space throughout the multiple types such as cemeteries, void deck, street, plaza, sidewalks, etc. By having this wider-angle analysis, we can

49

withdraw a more objective conclusion on social justice condition in Singapore, instead of being framed by a singular case such as the Bukit Brown as a contested public space. Another example would be how this tool can help the practitioner in analysing the design and planning of the public space. Taking the St Andrew’s Cathedral lawn which is occupied by migrant workers on Sunday as a case study, we should take the fact that the ‘vibrancy and lived experiences’ is sometimes built from bottom-up and driven by the community instead of being shaped by physical planning and design. The Lawn is a significant example of a genuine place-making, whereby migrant worker population organise themselves and form a regular activity in a public space, which further becomes a meaningful ‘place’ for their community.

By screening through the overall spectrum of types of urban public space in Singapore, this research offers a starting point for further investigation into a specific, unique or even peculiar condition of public space, such as The Lawn and the meaning of ‘placemaking’ in Singapore urban society.

Future Production of Urban Public Space Finally, the finding of this research is contributing towards the general study of public space regionally (especially within the developing and urbanised Southeast Asia) and specific study locally in the effort to produce the future public space. Some of the unique types for Singapore public space such as Hawker Centre, Void Deck, and safe and well-connected street and sidewalks are useful as a reference for design and planning of public housing and residential neighbourhood in congested Southeast Asia megacities such as Jakarta and Manila. Of course, the success of these types is driven by complex factors such as Singapore social condition and urban governance, which will be a different condition with Jakarta and Manila. Nevertheless, this lesson learnt will stimulate a new approach to produce public space and even inspire the neighbouring cities to develop their unique solution to serve the needs of its population.

50

06. Limitations A typology of urban public space has multidimensional variables. This research focuses particularly with variables that are set within the layer of ‘land and built form’, according to the framework of the built environment by Sandalack (2010, 40) and categories by Stanley (2012). In the Singapore context, whereby urban planning is set in a very clear direction through comprehensive planning by government authorities, we can specifically identify and measure the categorical variables.

Those variables are primarily based on form and function which are extracted from URA masterplan as Land Use and Architectural Typologies. However, I also recognise that there are many other ways of categorising and selecting the variables (of different multidisciplinary backgrounds).

Therefore, as a basic conceptual framework to understand the urban public space in Singapore, the typology presented here is open for reorganisation and reinterpretation depending on the multidisciplinary angle and purposes.

I also recognise that the categorisation of urban public space is sometimes hierarchical. It means that certain space could fall under more than a single category, and certain space may consist of several types. For example, Singapore Botanic Garden can be easily categorised as under Park and Garden typology. However, upon closer examination, Singapore Botanical Garden is also home to many types of public space such as recreational area, street, plaza, waterbody, and various type of gardens.

Finally, as our city and urban environment are designed and planned to be more integrated and interconnected, it becomes more and more difficult to distinguish the boundary of public and private space. In Singapore, for example, the moment I step out from the door of my HDB flat and enter into the common corridor, I am already within the public space. With the interconnected urban spaces of the island, Singapore, as a city, is almost entirely a public space. Therefore, typology and categorisation could become more challenging. Although on the other hand, the organisation of urban public space will also give us a better understanding of how to design, placemaking, and produce the future urban public space.

51

Bibliography Typology Collier, David, Jody LaPorte, and Jason Seawright. “Chapter 7: Typologies: Forming Concepts and Creating Categorical Variables.” in The Oxford Handbook of Political Methodology, edited by Box-Steffensmeier, Janet M., Henry E. Brady, and David Collier. New York: Oxford University Press. 2008.

Crowe, Norman. “Studies in Typology.” Journal of Architectural Education (1984-), Vol. 38, No. 1 (Autumn, 1984), pp.

10-13. Taylor & Francis, Ltd. Lee, CM Christoper, Sam Jacoby. “Typological Urbanism: Projective Cities”. Architectural Design, January February 2011, Vol. 81, No. 1. Wiley.

Aguirre, Isabel, et al. Public Space in Japan: A Catalog of Typologies and Brief Discussion of the Role of Public Space.

Pratt Institute's Graduate Center for Planning and the Environment. 2012. Accessed June 06, 2019. https://www.scribd.com/doc/114794881/Public-Space-in-Japan-A-Catalog-of-Typologies-and-Brief-Discussion-ofthe-Role-of-Public-Space Stanley, Benjamin W., Barbara L. Stark, Katrina L. Johnston, Michael E. Smith. “Urban Open Spaces in Historical Perspective: A Transdisciplinary Typology and Analysis.” Urban Geography, Volume 33, Issue 8, 2012: 10891117. Accessed May 24, 2019. https://doi.org/10.2747/0272-3638.33.8.1089 Sandalack, Beverly A., Francisco G. Alaniz Uribe. “Open Space Typology as a Framework for Design of the Public Realm.” Architectural Volumes, The Faces of Urbanized Space, Issue 1, 2010. Accessed May 24, 2019. https://www.ucalgary.ca/urbanlab/files/urbanlab/Typology%20of%20Public%20Space_Sandalack-Uribe.pdf

Public Space Abdel-Aziz, Ayat Ayman, Hassan Abdel-Salam, Zeyad El-Sayad, The role of ICTs in creating the new social public place of the digital era, Alexandria Engineering Journal, Volume 55, Issue 1. 2016, 487-493, Carmona, Matthew, Claudio de Magalhães, Leo Hammond. Public Space: The Management Dimension. Routledge.

2008.

Boros, Diana and James M. Glass. Re-Imagining Public Space: The Frankfurt School in the 21st Century. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. 2014.

Carmona, Matthew, Tim Heath, Taner Oc, Steve Tiesdell. Public Places Urban Spaces: The Dimensions of Urban Design. Second edition. Architectural Press. 2010.

Chattopadhyay, Swati, and Jeremy White. City Halls and Civic Materialism: Towards a Global History of Urban Public Space. Oxon: Routledge. 2014.

Cho, Im Sik, Chye Kiang Heng and Zdravko Trivic. Re-Framing Urban Space: Urban Design for Emerging Hybrid and High-Density Conditions. New York: Routledge. 2016.

Dovey, Kim. Becoming Places: Urbanism/Architecture/Identity/Power. Oxon: Routledge. 2010.

Dovey, Kim. Framing Places: Mediating power in built form. Second edition. New York: Routledge. 2008.

Gehl, Jan. Life Between Buildings: Using Public Space. Island Press. 2011.

Friedmann, J. “Reflections on Place and Place-Making in the Cities of China”. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 31 (2), 257-79. 2007.

Hou, Jeffrey. Insurgent Public Space: Guerrilla Urbanism and the Remaking of Contemporary Cities. Oxon: Routledge.

2010.

52

Manadipour, Ali. Public and Private Spaces of the City. London: Routledge. 2003.

Miller, Kristine F. Designs on the Public: The Private Lives of New York’s Public Spaces. University of Minnesota Press.

2007.

Milun, Kathryn. Pathologies of modern space: Empty Space, Urban Anxiety and the Recovery of the Public Self. New York: Routledge. 2007.

Low, Setha. “Public Space and the Public Sphere: The Legacy of Neil Smith.” Antipode, Volume 49, Issue S1, January 2017: 153-170. Accessed May 24, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1111/anti.12189 Whyte, William H. The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces. Project for Public Spaces. 1980.

Singapore Public Space Abdullah, Zhaki. “Car-Free Sunday to stretch over 3 days”. The Straits Times, October 23, 2018. Accessed July 21, 2019. https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/transport/car-free-sunday-to-stretch-over-3-days Chua, Beng Huat, and Norman Edwards. Public space: design, use and management. Singapore: Singapore University Press, National University of Singapore.1992.

Lim, Adrian. “New red cycling paths open in Bedok; 13km bike network to fully open in January”. The Straits Times, December 21, 2017. Accessed July 23, 2019. https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/transport/new-redcycling-paths-open-in-bedok-13km-bike-network-to-open-fully-in-january Lim, William Siew Wai. Public space in urban Asia. Singapore: World Scientific. 2014.

Hee, Limin. Constructing Singapore Public Space. Springer Singapore. 2017.

Hee, Limin, with Davis Boontharm and Erwin Viray. Future Asian Space: Projecting the Urban Space of New East Asia.

Singapore: NUS Press. 2012.

National Heritage Board. Community Heritage Series III: Void Decks. 2013. Accessed August 16, 2019. https://www.nhb.gov.sg/~/media/nhb/files/resources/publications/ebooks/nhb_ebook_void_decks.pdf Rowe, Peter G. “Finding Meaning In Public Spaces.” Urban Solutions: Public Spaces, Issue 10, January 2017.

Singapore: Centre for Liveable Cities. Accessed May 24, 2019. https://www.clc.gov.sg/docs/defaultsource/urban-solutions/urban-solutions-11-full.pdf Sevtsuk, A., Ekmekci, O, Nixon, F., Amindarbari, R., 2013, "Capturing Urban Intensity" presented at the Urban Affairs Association annual conference in San Francisco. City Form Lab. Accessed May 24, 2019. http://cityform.mit.edu/files/Capturing_urban_intensity.pdf Sevtsuk, A., 2014, "Mapping the Elastic Public Realm". Presentation at the ACSA International Conference in Seoul, Korea. June 2014. City Form Lab. Accessed May 24, 2019. http://cityform.mit.edu/files/20140429_Mapping%20the%20elastic%20public%20realm_WEB.pdf

Other Benjamin, Walter. “Louis Philippe, or the Interior.” (1934 and 1939 versions) The Arcades Project. Cambridge, MA: Belnap Press, Harvard University. 2002.

Ellin, Nan. Postmodern Urbanism. Princeton Architectural Press, 1999.

Lefebvre, Henri. The Production of Space. Oxford: UK Blackwell. 1991.

Nesbitt, Kate. Theorizing a New Agenda for Architecture, an Anthology of Architectural Theory 1965–1995. Princeton Architectural Press, 1996.

Rice, Charles. “Irrecoverable Inhabitations: Walter Benjamin and Histories of the Interior” in The Emergence of the Interior: Architecture, Modernity, Domesticity. Routledge. 2006.

53

Photo References 02.

TGH Photography Portal / Blog. Accessed August 15, 2019, https://i2.wp.com/blog.photojournalist-tgh.tv/wpcontent/uploads/2013/01/2T2J3906.jpg

03.

The Straits Times. Accessed July 18, 2019, https://www.straitstimes.com/sites/default/files/styles/xxx_large/public/articles/2016/05/20/ST_20160520 _STREET_2302993.jpg?itok=TDN1ZNuN&timestamp=1463678172

04.

The Straits Times. Accessed July 18, 2019, https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/transport/car-free-sundayto-stretch-over-3-days

05.

The Jakarta Post. Accessed July 21, 2019, https://www.thejakartapost.com/travel/2019/01/01/no-smokingban-for-orchard-road-kicks-in.html

06.

Thai Residents. Accessed July 21, 2019, http://thairesidents.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/OrchardRoad-Singapore.jpg

08.

Future Cities Laboratory. Accessed July 21, 2019, https://fcl.ethz.ch/research/research-toapplication/reclaiming-backlanes.html

09.

The Straits Times. Accessed July 21, 2019, https://www.straitstimes.com/sites/default/files/articles/2017/12/21/dt-cycling_2.jpg;

10.

Ministry of Communications and Information. Accessed July 21, 2019, https://www.gov.sg/~/media/gov/factually/thumbnail/transport%20and%20motoring/cycling%20800.jpg

11.

Passions and Places. Accessed July 25, 2019, https://passionsandplaces.com/wpcontent/uploads/2018/05/henderson-waves-singapore.jpg

12.

COX Architecture. Accessed July 25, 2019, https://www.coxarchitecture.com.au/project/the-helix-bridge/

13.

The Heartlander Tourist. Accessed July 25, 2019, https://heartlandertourist.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/20160117_181536.jpg

14.

SG Magazine. Accessed July 25, 2019, https://sgmagazine.com/city-living/blog/i-spy/singapore-river-oneunderpass-art-project-every-night-date-night

15.

Archnet. Accessed August 13, 2019, https://archnet.org/sites/7106/media_contents/83827

17.

The Finder. Accessed August 15, 2019, https://media.thefinder.com.sg/2019/07/Funan_Tree_Of_Life-Official750x500.jpg

20.

Dollars and Sense. Accessed August 13, 2019, https://dollarsandsense.sg/wpcontent/uploads/2017/08/National-Day-Parade.jpg

21.

Channel News Asia. Accessed August 13, 2019, https://www.channelnewsasia.com/blueprint/servlet/image/10679304/16x9/1400/922/82e2ae3f57174f74 5f0cfba05906ba28/Mb/hdb-town-design-guides-5.jpg

22.

Architectural Review. Accessed August 13, 2019, https://www.architectural-review.com/today/school-of-thearts-by-woha-singapore/8615206.article

31.

National Heritage Board. Accessed August 16, 2019, https://www.nhb.gov.sg/~/media/nhb/files/resources/publications/ebooks/nhb_ebook_void_decks.pdf

32.

National Heritage Board. Accessed August 16, 2019, https://www.nhb.gov.sg/~/media/nhb/files/resources/publications/ebooks/nhb_ebook_void_decks.pdf

33.

Marina Bay Sands. Accessed August 13, 2019, https://www.marinabaysands.com/singapore-visitorsguide/foodie-guide/best-hawker-centres-sg.htmlhttps://stateofbuildings.sg/places/bukit-brown-cemetery

54

34.

State of Buildings. Accessed August 10, 2019, https://stateofbuildings.sg/places/bukit-brown-cemetery

35.

All Things Bukit Brown. Accessed August 10, 2019, http://bukitbrown.com/main/?page_id=638.

36.

South China Morning Post. Accessed August 10, 2019, https://www.scmp.com/news/asia/southeastasia/article/2180501/singapore-digs-graves-build-new-motorways-including-bukit

55

Appendix Land Use Plan (URA Draft Master Plan 2019).

Parks, Waterbodies, and Public Spaces (URA Draft Master Plan, 2019).

56

57

THE PLANNING ACT DRAFT MASTER PLAN WRITTEN STATEMENT (https://www.ura.gov.sg/dmp19/maps/media/writtenstatement/Draft%20Master%20Plan%20 Written%20Statement%202019.pdf)

58

2019

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

Car-Free Zones (https://www.ura.gov.sg/Corporate/Get-Involved/Go-Car-Lite/Car-free-zones) Where

Time

Club Street/Ann Siang Hill

Closed for outdoor dining every Friday and Saturday (7 pm to 2 am)

Circular Road

Closed for outdoor dining every Friday and Saturday (6 pm to 1 am)

Bali Lane Haji Lane

Monday to Friday: 3 pm to 1 am the next day Saturday, Sunday, Eve of Public Holidays and Public Holidays: 12 noon to 1am next day

Baghdad Street Bussorah Street

Friday: 3pm to 1am next day Saturday, Sunday, eve of Public Holidays and Public Holidays: 12 noon to 1am next day

Liang Seah Street

Closed for outdoor dining every Friday, Saturday and Sunday (7pm to midnight)

Little India Dunlop Street Lembu Road Kerbau Road Chander Road

Closed for pedestrians every Sunday (12pm to midnight)

70

71