AC5007 - Batch 8 - WANG HUIMIN

Rethinking Heritage Narratives in Joo Chiat: A Digital Turn in Interpretation and Engagement

WANG HUIMIN A0297520B

Supervisor：Dr. Maxime Cedric Decaudin

A Dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF ARTS IN ARCHITECTURAL CONSERVATION DEPARTMENT OF ARCHITECTURE NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF SINGAPORE i

ii

Acknowledgements I would like to thank all those who contributed to this dissertation by sharing their experiences and perspectives on Joo Chiat—residents, visitors, researchers, and passersby alike. Though this research focuses on narratives, it is your stories that give it meaning and strength.

I am especially grateful to my supervisor, Dr. Maxime Cedric Decaudin, for his patient guidance. I would also like to thank Professor Johannes Widodo for his valuable feedback and case study support, and Luk Ying Xian for her insightful suggestions on refining the initial structure.

Sincere thanks go to Dr. Nikhil Joshi for sharing his experiences in Singapore’s heritage field, and to Qin Junjie, whose reflections as both an academic and a fellow urban planner were particularly inspiring.

To my friends and classmates from the NUS Architectural Conservation program— thank you for your support and companionship throughout this journey.

Most importantly, I am forever grateful to my parents for their constant encouragement and belief in me. Your support made it possible for me to pause my career and pursue this year of study in Singapore.

i

Abstract Joo Chiat is one of Singapore’s most iconic heritage districts, known for its vibrant shophouses, Peranakan culture, and multicultural food landscape. While past studies have largely examined its architectural features and touristic value, this research shifts the focus toward how heritage is interpreted, communicated, and narrated. Through content analysis of policy texts and guide materials, visual studies of media platforms, field observations, and stakeholder interviews, the study reveals that current narratives are highly visual, symbolic, and top-down— primarily driven by state and tourism agencies. Such narratives often overlook residents’ lived experiences and daily cultural practices, resulting in a simplified and fragmented understanding of heritage. The heritage value of Joo Chiat may be seen, but it is not necessarily understood, collaboratively narrated, or meaningfully sustained.

In response, the study proposes digital storytelling as a strategy to foster more inclusive and negotiated forms of communication. By introducing participatory mapping, interactive tours, and community-based platforms, digital tools can help restore marginalised voices and deepen cultural connection. While acknowledging its limitations in scope and methodology, this research contributes to ongoing efforts to rethink heritage interpretation in urban settings and highlights the potential of digital strategies in sustaining shared cultural meaning. ii

Keywords Heritage Narrative, Digital Interpretation, Communication Engagement, Joo Chiat Conservation Area

Words Count: 13006 Including the abstract, table of contents, main body of texts, and captions Excluding acknowledgement, bibliography, and appendices Unless specified otherwise, all photos were taken by the author

iii

Table of Content Acknowledgements.................................................................................................................................. i Abstract ....................................................................................................................................................... ii Keywords .................................................................................................................................................. iii Table of Content ..................................................................................................................................... iv List of Figures ............................................................................................................................................ v List of Tables .......................................................................................................................................... viii 1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Research Background ..................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Research Question and Qbjectives............................................................................ 5 1.3 Research Scope and Methods...................................................................................... 6 2 Literature Review ........................................................................................................................ 10 2.1 Historical Value and Multicultural Development ............................................. 10 2.2 Heritage Policy and Dominant Narrative Structures ...................................... 14 2.3 Multiplicity of Narratives and Community Participation ............................. 21 2.4 Summary ............................................................................................................................ 25 3 Analysis of Joo Chiat’s Heritage Narrative ........................................................................ 27 3.1 Heritage Narratives in Official Policy Documents ............................................ 27 3.2 Heritage Representation in Tourism Media and Social Platforms............ 33 3.3 Overlooked Heritage in Everyday Scenes and Community Spaces .......... 38 3.4 Public Interviews and Community Surveys ........................................................ 42 3.5 Summary ............................................................................................................................ 47 4 Digital Strategies for Reimagining Joo Chiat’s Heritage Communication ............ 48 4.1 The Necessity of Introducing Digital Narratives into Heritage Communication............................................................................................................................ 48 4.2 Learn from Global Models of Digital Engagement in Heritage ................... 52 4.3 Strategic Approaches to Digital Narrative Design for Joo Chiat ................. 58 4.4 Summary ............................................................................................................................ 60 5 Conclusion and Further Research ......................................................................................... 62 5.1 Summary of Findings and Responses to Research Questions .................... 62 5.2 Research Limitations and Future Directions ..................................................... 65 Bibliography............................................................................................................................................ 67 Appendix .................................................................................................................................................. 71

iv

List of Figures Figure 1 dentification of Joo Chiat site on a satellite map. Source: “Joo Chiat,” Google Maps, 2025. .......................................................................................................................2 Figure 2 Location of Joo Chiat within Singapore’s conserved areas. Source: Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA), Conservation Guidelines, 2006, 6. ....................3 Figure 3 Cover and contents page of Our SG Heritage Plan 2.0, showing the four strategic pillars: Identity, Community, Industry, and Innovation. Source: National Heritage Board (NHB), Our SG Heritage Plan 2.0 (Singapore: National Heritage Board, 2022). ................................................................................................................5 Figure 4 The 1920s–1930s saw the development of new housing and supporting facilities in Joo Chiat, gradually shaping it into a concentrated residential area.

(From left to right: maps from 1945 and 1953.) Source: National University of Singapore Map Collection, Singapore Historical Maps. https://libmaps.nus.edu.sg .................................................................................................... 14 Figure 5. UN experts proposed conserving parts of Chinatown and “Arab Town” in 1971. Source: URA,2020. ......................................................................................................... 16 Figure 6. A copy of Singapore’s first Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew’s reply to Alan Choe regarding early conservation plans. Source: URA,2020. ................................ 16 Figure 7. The 1986 Tourism Product Development Plan shows conservation areas and historic districts concentrated in the Central Area; eastern districts such as Katong and Joo Chiat were not yet included. Source: URA,2020. ..................... 18 Figure 8. The 1985 Central Area Structure Plan, from which the 1989 Conservation Master Plan was derived, highlights six historical areas. Source: URA,2020. .. 18 Figure 9(a) and (b) . The typical built form of Joo Chiat consists of two-storey shophouses and terrace houses. Source:By Author,Feb 2025. ............................... 20 Figure 10 Joo Chiat was included in the 2003 Identity Plan. Source:NHB, 2003...... 23 Figure 12. Joo Chiat Conservation Site and Site with Conserved Building, Source:URA,2017 ........................................................................................................................ 28

v

Figure 11. URA’s classification of shophouses by architectural style and construction period. Source: USS – Conserving the Nation’s Built Heritage, Urban Redevelopment Authority. ........................................................................................ 29 Figure 13 . The conservation guidelines for Joo Chiat address only the protection of physical buildings, with no guidance for safeguarding intangible cultural heritage. .......................................................................................................................................... 30 Figure 14. Introduction and visual representation of Joo Chiat focus primarily on its architectural features.......................................................................................................... 30 Figure 15. Cover of 52 Weekends in Singapore (2020), an e-guide published by the Singapore Tourism Board (STB) to promote local exploration and lifestyle experiences. ................................................................................................................................... 31 Figure 16. An oral history interview related to Joo Chiat is available through the National Archives, but it remains difficult to discover without targeted searching. The recording is time-consuming to navigate, with limited visualisation and minimal interactive features. Source: https://www.nas.gov.sg/archivesonline/oral_history_interviews/interview/0 02057 ............................................................................................................................................... 33 Figure 18. The most iconic photo spot of Joo Chiat on social media: a row of visually striking shophouses along Koon Seng Road. Source: Nov 2024,By Author. ............................................................................................................................................. 33 Figure 19. A search engine result for “Joo Chiat” prominently features colourful shophouses as the most iconic visual representation. ............................................... 34 Figure 20. Tripadvisor page for Katong/Joo Chiat highlights keywords such as “Peranakan culture,” “good food,” and “cultural heritage.” Source: Tripadvisor – Katong/Joo Chiat, accessed April 21, 2025. ................................................................. 34 Figure 21 . Visitor reviews of Joo Chiat on Trip.com primarily highlight food experiences and architectural interest. Source: Trip.com – Joo Chiat District, accessed April 21, 2025. .......................................................................................................... 34 Figure 22. Event listings related to Joo Chiat on the local event platform Eventbrite.

Source: Eventbrite – Joo Chiat Events in Singapore, accessed April 21, 2025. 35

vi

Figure 23. Tours of Joo Chiat listed on Klook require advance booking through the platform, with relatively high participation fees.Source: Klook – Joo Chiat Tours, accessed April 21, 2025. ............................................................................................ 37 Figure 24. Representative image of Joo Chiat used in a guided tour listing, featuring pastel Peranakan shophouses and rainbow-hued tiles. Source: Jane’s Tours – Joo Chiat: The Peranakans, Pastel Shophouses & Rainbow Tiles, accessed April 21, 2025. ......................................................................................................................................... 38 Figure 25. The announcement of Hotel Indigo at Joo Chiat reflects how the area is often associated with heritage-themed accommodations. Source: IHG Newsroom – First Hotel Indigo in Singapore Inked for Prime Heritage Site, accessed April 21, 2025. .......................................................................................................... 38 Figure 26. The Eurasian Heritage Gallery, which documents the history of the Eurasian community, is located away from main thoroughfares and is difficult for visitors to find. Source: https://cn.tripadvisor.com/Attraction_Reviewg294265-d3459646-Reviews-Eurasian_Heritage_Gallery-Singapore.html ...... 39 Figure 27(a)-(f). Roadside altars, local product shops, and temples along Joo Chiat Road are rich in cultural meaning, but their stories are often overshadowed by the more photogenic shophouses. Source: Feb 2025,By Author. ......................... 40 Figure 28. The Joo Chiat Heritage Activation event and “mini museum” counter were located inside the community centre, with heritage trail maps placed out of sight from major visitor routes. As a result, the trail remained difficult to notice. Source: Feb 2025,By Author. ................................................................................. 41 Figure 29 . The heritage signboard on Joo Chiat Road is small and placed inconspicuously on the building façade, making it difficult for passersby to notice or learn about the street’s history. Source: Feb 2025,By Author. .......... 43 Figure 30(a) and (b). Heritage trail maps provided by official agencies prominently highlight various houses as key sites of interest. However, many of these buildings are inaccessible to the general public.

Sources:https://www.theadmin.sg/katong-joochiat-art-circuit; https://www.roots.gov.sg/han/Neighborhoods/Katong-Joo-Chiat .................... 45 Figure 31. Listing of a co-living rental unit on Joo Chiat Road, featured on a property platform. A single bedroom is priced comparably to a full HDB flat, with interiors entirely renovated. As one interviewee noted, the house colours

vii

may no longer reflect their original appearance. Source: https://www.figment.live/rooms-studios-listing/ ..................................................... 46 Figure 32 . Virtual time-space navigation in Kyoto and digital reconstruction of Kabuki performance. Source: Virtual Kyoto Project.................................................... 54 Figure 33 . A virtual tour of Hanamikoji Street Source: https://gionminami.jp/vrtour/............................................................................................ 54 Figure 34 . The virtual communication interface of De Digitale Stad Source: DDS, https://waag.org/en/article/unesco-names-de-digitale-stad-memory-world/ ............................................................................................................................................................. 55 Figure 35 . The Memory of the World entry for De Digitale Stad on the UNESCO platform Source: UNESCO, https://www.unesco.org/en/memory-world/ddsde-digitale-stad/digital-city ................................................................................................... 56 Figure 36 . Future Heritage Lab’s digital heritage project: guided routes with mobile AR interaction Source: Future Heritage Lab .................................................... 56 Figure 37. Self-guided digital tour map of Melaka.Source: ................................................. 57 Figure 38 . Interface view of the software’s Time Warp feature, allowing users to jump to different destinations within the ancient city Source: Ancient Rome Reborn Through Virtual Reality ........................................................................................... 58 Figure 39(a) and (b). Virtual reconstruction of the ancient city and lost architectural structures Source: Ancient Rome Reborn Through Virtual Reality ............................................................................................................................................................. 58

List of Tables Table 1 Summary of Overlooked Cultural Elements in Joo Chiat .................................... 40

viii

1 Introduction 1.1 Research Background In Singapore’s official cultural discourse and heritage storytelling, Joo Chiat Road is not only a well-preserved historic neighborhood but also serves as a symbolic site for representing the national narrative of multiculturalism. The area retains a significant number of Straits Chinese shophouses built between the 1920s and 1930s, and it has long been closely associated with both the Eurasian and Peranakan communities. As such, Joo Chiat plays an important role in preserving the architectural style, historical legacy, and cultural identity linked to Singapore’s Peranakan heritage. 1

1 Urban

Redevelopment Authority (URA), “History of Joo Chiat,” URA Conservation Portal, accessed April 21, 2025, https://www.ura.gov.sg/Conservation-Portal/Explore/History.aspx?bl dgid=JOOCH.

1

Figure 1 dentification of Joo Chiat site on a satellite map. Source: “Joo Chiat,” Google Maps, 2025.

Joo Chiat has been widely presented as a representative image of local heritage in Singapore’s official communication. The Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) 2, the statutory board responsible for urban planning and conservation, included 518 buildings in the area under the conservation list in 1991 and officially designated Joo Chiat as a conservation area in 1993. In the 2017 Conservation Guidelines3, it was further identified as one of the nine “second settlements” of national significance.

The National Heritage Board (NHB) 4 , which oversees national museums and

Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA), “What We Do,” URA, accessed April 21, 2025, https://www.ura.gov.sg/Corporate/About-Us/What-We-Do. 2

Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA), Conservation Guidelines, December 2017, https:/ /www.ura.gov.sg/-/media/User-Defined/URA-Online/Guidelines/Conservation/Cons-GuidelinesD ec2017.pdf.

3

4 National

Heritage Board (NHB), “About Us,” National Heritage Board, accessed April 21, 2025, https://www.nhb.gov.sg/who-we-are/about-us.

2

heritage initiatives, recognised Joo Chiat as Singapore’s first Heritage Town 5 in 2011 and later selected it as one of the first two Heritage Activation Nodes6 in 2024.

On the surface, Joo Chiat appears to possess a well-established conservation framework and a prominent heritage status—serving as a key site through which Singapore communicates its heritage values to international visitors.

Figure 2 Location of Joo Chiat within Singapore’s conserved areas. Source: Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA), Conservation Guidelines, 2006, 6.

5 National

Library Board (NLB), “Building History: Conservation in Singapore,” National Li brary Board, accessed April 21, 2025, https://www.nlb.gov.sg/main/article-detail?cmsuuid=e 84d96e6-53d3-4cb6-a0fc-63d9e0f1dca5.

National Heritage Board (NHB), “About Heritage Activation Nodes,” National Heritage B oard, accessed April 21, 2025, https://www.nhb.gov.sg/what-we-do/our-work/community-en gagement/han-heritage-champions/about-heritage-activation-nodes.

6

3

However, in tourism narratives and heritage-related promotional texts, the value of Joo Chiat’s heritage is often reduced to visually appealing shophouses and commodified symbols associated with food, fashion, and lifestyle. Such representations tend to lack diversity and interactivity, with limited involvement from the local community. This absence of co-created and resonant storytelling weakens residents’ sense of belonging and discourages active participation, thereby undermining the social foundations of heritage. When communities are excluded from narrative construction, heritage expression risks becoming standardized and homogenized, losing its capacity to reflect evolving identities and respond to contemporary societal changes. This ultimately affects the younger generation’s identification with and continuity of heritage.

In recent years, Singapore has launched a new phase of its national master plan for the heritage sector—Our SG Heritage Plan 2.07—which places greater emphasis on identity, community connection, and the strategic use of technology. It explores new approaches to engage the public and enhance their involvement in heritage preservation. Against this backdrop, revisiting the current narrative structures surrounding Joo Chiat and examining the potential of digital media in shaping future

National Heritage Board (NHB), Our SG Heritage Plan 2.0 (Singapore: National Heritage Board, 2022), https://www.nhb.gov.sg/-/media/nhb/files/resources/our-sg-heritage-plan-2/nh b-hp2-publication.pdf.

7

4

heritage communication is not only of theoretical interest but also responds to urgent practical needs for more inclusive public engagement in heritage practices.

Figure 3 Cover and contents page of Our SG Heritage Plan 2.0, showing the four strategic pillars: Identity, Community, Industry, and Innovation. Source: National Heritage Board (NHB), Our SG Heritage Plan 2.0 (Singapore: National Heritage Board, 2022).

1.2 Research Question and Qbjectives The central research question of this study is: In the context of a heritage site that has already been extensively represented through national-level narratives, do current mainstream approaches to heritage communication genuinely reflect the cultural complexity and community experiences of Joo Chiat? Building on this, the study further asks whether it remains necessary to re-narrate the heritage of Joo Chiat through digital means.

To address this core question, the research develops three logically connected subquestions, each accompanied by a corresponding hypothesis.

Research Question 1: How are the heritage stories of Joo Chiat being told?

Hypothesis 1: These stories are largely shaped by official platforms such as guided 5

tours, tourism media, and cultural events. Dominant narratives tend to rely on visual symbols and consumer-oriented imagery, which diminish historical depth and overlook community-based experiences.

Research Question 2: How do different stakeholders understand and engage with Joo Chiat’s heritage narratives?

Hypothesis 2: Official narratives have not effectively integrated diverse voices, resulting in an imbalance in representational power and limited public participation in heritage expression.

Research Question 3: Can digital heritage storytelling enhance or even reshape the ways in which Joo Chiat’s heritage is communicated and experienced?

Hypothesis 3: Digital storytelling has the potential to overcome structural limitations of current heritage communication by fostering more participatory and inclusive forms of cultural engagement.

This study seeks to uncover how Joo Chiat has been narrated within Singapore’s broader heritage discourse, and considers whether it can continue to function as a heritage space that embodies both multicultural depth and contemporary relevance.

1.3 Research Scope and Methods This study centres on how heritage is narrated, and explores whether digital media can serve as an effective tool for promoting more inclusive cultural expression and 6

deeper public participation, especially as Singapore’s heritage agenda enters a new phase focused on “Getting Smart With Technology.” Rather than focusing solely on heritage space as a physical entity, the research addresses three key aspects:

 The narrative construction of Joo Chiat’s heritage: This involves identifying how cultural values are selected and represented in mainstream communication materials.  Differences in perception and narrative roles among diverse actors: The study investigates how various groups—including government agencies, community residents, local business owners, tourists, cultural practitioners, and heritage professionals—understand Joo Chiat’s heritage, interact with its spaces, and participate (or are excluded) in the communication process.  The adaptability and expressive potential of digital media in heritage communication: It examines how interactive digital tools can support meaningful storytelling connected to the deeper cultural context of the area.

To explore the mechanisms of heritage narrative construction and the potential shift toward digital interpretation in Joo Chiat, the study employs the following research methods:

 Literature and textual review: This includes a systematic review of academic works related to heritage narrative, visual culture, symbolic

7

landscapes, and digital communication, alongside an analysis of policy documents, official tour materials, and media coverage concerning Joo Chiat.  Cultural mapping 8 and spatial analysis: Fieldwork is conducted to document key heritage sites, community events, and everyday practices.

The aim is to identify which cultural elements are frequently highlighted in mainstream narratives and which are overlooked or marginalized, thereby revealing the gap between actual cultural life and public storytelling.  Semi-structured interviews and surveys: Stakeholders from diverse backgrounds are invited to share their views on Joo Chiat’s cultural value and reflect on whether they are engaged in or excluded from current heritage communication practices.  Comparative analysis of digital storytelling case studies: The study references digital initiatives in heritage districts such as Melaka, Kyoto, and Amsterdam to assess how technologies have been used to tell cultural stories and involve local communities. These comparisons help to identify adaptable strategies for digital narrative development in Joo Chiat and reflect on how technology can better support place-based cultural expression.

Duxbury, Nancy, William Garrett-Petts, David MacLennan, Graeme Evans, Leonardo Chie si, Paolo Costa, Eleonora Redaelli, et al. Cultural Mapping as Cultural Inquiry, 2015.

8

8

9

2 Literature Review A review of existing literature reveals that Joo Chiat is not simply a display of built heritage, but a site through which national heritage narratives are projected. The way this narrative platform is structured—along with its representational biases and potential for reinterpretation—provides the starting point for this study. It also offers a foundation for exploring the relevance and necessity of digital approaches in rethinking heritage communication.

2.1 Historical Value and Multicultural Development As one of the earliest suburban areas to develop in eastern Singapore, Joo Chiat has long attracted scholarly attention in the fields of architectural and urban conservation. Kong et al.9 have documented the area’s historical formation and the presence of multiple ethnic groups. In the 1820s, the land was part of early European plantations cultivating coconut and cotton. In 1917, it was named after Chew Joo Chiat10, a prominent landowner and philanthropist. As urban development

Kong and Tou Chuang Chang, Joo Chiat: A Living Legacy, Book, Whole (Singapore: Joo Chiat Citizens’ Consultative Committee, 2001) 9

10 National

Library Board (NLB), “Chew Joo Chiat,” Singapore Infopedia, accessed April 2 1, 2025, https://reference.nlb.gov.sg/guides/singapore/people/chew-joo-chiat/.

10

progressed, the Chew family gradually sold parcels of land for residential and commercial use.

Chew D.11 and Chew12 have traced the relocation patterns of Singapore’s Chinese Peranakan community 13 from the 19th to the early 20th century. Originally concentrated in inner-city areas such as Neil Road, Tanjong Pagar, and Emerald Hill, many Peranakans moved out to the Katong–Joo Chiat area in response to overcrowding in the city center. By the 1920s and 1930s, Joo Chiat and Katong had become closely associated with the Peranakan population. During the same period, the construction of Catholic churches and schools attracted a significant number of Eurasian residents. Both groups held distinct social positions within the colonial structure.14 Together with the local Chinese, Malay, and Indian communities, they contributed to the area’s growing multicultural character. Joo Chiat thus emerged as a significant case for examining the social dynamics of Singapore’s “non-core” ethnic

11 Daniel

Chew, “Towards a Social History of Tanjong Pagar, 1900–1940,” in Tanjong Pa gar: Singapore’s Cradle of Development, ed. Tanjong Pagar Citizens’ Consultative Committ ee (Singapore: Tanjong Pagar Citizens’ Consultative Committee, 1989).

Singapore Ministry of Communications and Information, Tanjong Pagar: Singapore’s Cra dle of Development, exhibition brochure, 1989, National Archives of Singapore.

12

13 National

Library Board (NLB), “History of Joo Chiat,” National Library Board, accessed April 21, 2025, https://www.nlb.gov.sg/main/article-detail?cmsuuid=1138ea9d-9dbe-4f09-9fef -ba2c7105eb91.

14 Brian

J. Shaw and Rahil Ismail, ‘Ethnoscapes, Entertainment and ’eritage in the Global City: Segmented Spaces in Singapore’s Joo Chiat Road’, GeoJournal 66, no. 3 (2006): 187 –98, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-006-9029-9.

11

groups. Phua and Kong 15 described the district during the colonial period as an “intimate community that transcended racial and ethnic boundaries,” highlighting its unique role in the development of Singapore’s multicultural society.

Kong and Chang 16 , Shaw and Ismail 17 , as well as Ho 18 have examined the development of Joo Chiat in the later half of the twentieth century. The area’s vibrant cultural atmosphere, which had existed before World War II, gradually faded. By the 1970s, shopping centres, cinemas, and other entertainment venues began to appear.

Following the completion of the East Coast land reclamation project (1966–1985), traditional kampong settlements, stilt houses, and holiday bungalows were progressively removed, replaced by newly built residential areas.

In the early 2000s, Joo Chiat experienced a controversial period due to its proximity to Geylang. Certain entertainment-related activities, deemed inappropriate by the authorities, were gradually phased out. However, this phase left behind traces of

Y. K. R. Phua and L. Kong, “Exploring Local Cultures: The Construction and Evolution of Meaning and Identity in Katong,” in Portraits of Places: History, Community and Iden tity in Singapore, ed. B. S. A. Yeoh and L. Kong (Singapore: Times Editions, 1995).

15

16 Lily

Kong and T. C. Chang, Joo Chiat: A Living Legacy (Singapore: National Heritage B oard, 2001), 112–113.

Shaw and Ismail, “Ethnoscapes, Entertainment and ‘Heritage’ in the Global City,” 196; Carl Skadian, “It’s a Battle to Bring the Old Joo Chiat Back,” Straits Times, April 1, 200 5, 1; Tay Suan Chiang, “Come to Joo Chiat for the Art,” Straits Times, August 24, 2008, 43; Tay Suan Chiang, “Joo Chiat Facelift,” Straits Times, October 17, 2010, 2.

17

18 Chua

Kong Ho, “No More New Pubs, Massage Joints in Joo Chiat,” Straits Times, Febr uary 13, 2005, 8; Joyce Teo, “Joo Chiat Exudes Laid-Back Charms,” Straits Times, Septem ber 21, 2008, 25; Tay, “Joo Chiat Facelift.”

12

Vietnamese influence, such as cafés and restaurants, leading to Joo Chiat’s informal nickname “Little Vietnam.” In the years that followed, the neighbourhood underwent revitalisation, attracting new businesses such as art galleries, design studios, boutique hotels, and upscale retail shops.19 James and Walsh20 argue that the restored Peranakan shophouses came to symbolize a form of gentrified urban prosperity that conceals the district’s more complex and colourful past.

In the field of architectural heritage, Joo Chiat was designated a conservation area in the 1990s, largely due to the architectural significance of its Straits Chinese shophouses. The area contains one of the few remaining clusters of traditional shophouses in Singapore that still retain an intact urban fabric, offering both historical and aesthetic value21. The shophouses are more than just built forms— they reflect patterns of family life, commerce, and religious practices, serving as cultural nodes where architecture and everyday life intersect22.

National Library Board (NLB), “Building History: Conservation in Singapore,” National Library Board, accessed April 21, 2025, https://www.nlb.gov.sg/main/article-detail?cmsuuid =e84d96e6-53d3-4cb6-a0fc-63d9e0f1dca5.

19

K. E. James and R. J. Walsh, “On the Moral Geography of Cities: A Case Study of Th ree Singapore Hostess Pubs in a Suburban ‘High Street’ Setting,” Advances in Applied Soc iology 13 (2023): 139–158.

20

Jean Duruz, ‘The Taste of Retro: Nostalgia, Sensory Landscapes and Cosmopolitanism i n Singapore’, in Food, Foodways and Foodscapes, 0 vols, World Scientific Series on Singa pore’s 50 Years of Nation-Building (WORLD SCIENTIFIC, 2014), 133–58, https://doi.org/1 0.1142/9789814641234_0007.

21

Graham Byfield and Gretchen Liu, Singapore Sketchbook (Singapore: Editions Didier Mil let, 2001).

22

13

Figure 4 The 1920s–1930s saw the development of new housing and supporting facilities in Joo Chiat, gradually shaping it into a concentrated residential area. (From left to right: maps from 1945 and 1953.) Source: National University of Singapore Map Collection, Singapore Historical Maps. https://libmaps.nus.edu.sg

2.2 Heritage Policy and Dominant Narrative Structures Joo Chiat’s recognition as a nationally significant heritage site is closely tied to longterm policy interventions and institutional labelling. As noted by Kong and Yeoh23, heritage in Singapore serves not only cultural but also social, economic, and political purposes. The image of a multi-ethnic, multicultural, and exotic Singapore has become a key symbol promoted internationally, especially within tourism narratives.

Although urban conservation efforts began to emerge in Singapore before the 1980s, they were largely embedded within a broader urban redevelopment framework. At that time, the national priority remained focused on solving the severe housing

B. Yeoh and L. Kong, ‘The Notion of Place in the Construction of History, Nostalgia and Heritage in Singapore’, no. Journal Article (1996).

23

14

shortage, and heritage had not yet become a central consideration in urban form and planning strategies. After gaining self-government in the 1950s, Singapore concentrated on slum clearance and public housing development as part of its reconstruction agenda.

In the 1960s, the Singapore government began working with United Nations experts to prepare comprehensive urban plans. This collaboration led to the establishment of the Urban Renewal Unit (URN)24—the precursor to the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA), formally created in 1974. In their planning reports, UN advisors such as Otto Koenigsberger proposed conserving parts of Chinatown and “Arab Town.” URN’s first General Manager, Alan Choe, later initiated draft proposals for the conservation of areas including Chinatown, Little India, and Serangoon Road.

However, during this period, redevelopment efforts remained concentrated on the Central Area. Apart from limited actions by the Preservation of Monuments Board (PMB) 25 —which in the 1970s identified Singapore’s first eight national

National Library Board (NLB), “Singapore’s Conservation Journey,” National Library Boa rd, accessed April 21, 2025, https://www.nlb.gov.sg/main/article-detail?cmsuuid=7a64797c-e 86c-44ac-ab2f-6c82a5e213b5.

24

25 Marketing.sg,

“Preservation of Monuments Board,” Marketing.sg, accessed April 21, 202 5, https://marketing.sg/preservation-of-monuments-board.

15

monuments 26 —no large-scale conservation measures were implemented. 27 The broader institutional commitment to heritage protection had yet to take root.

Figure 5. UN experts proposed conserving parts of Chinatown and “Arab Town” in 1971. Source: URA,2020.

Figure 6. A copy of Singapore’s first Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew’s reply to Alan Choe regarding early conservation plans. Source: URA,2020.

After the 1980s, two main forces contributed to a new phase of heritage conservation in Singapore. On one hand, cultural heritage was positioned as a way to reclaim Asian values; on the other, it became part of the national image projected through international tourism promotion. As the nation underwent rapid social and economic

changes,

political

elites

grew

increasingly

concerned

about

Westernisation and the perceived erosion of traditional values. They argued that Singapore should position itself as a distinct, multi-ethnic Asian society in which

Brenda SA Yeoh and Shirlena Huang, ‘The Conservation-Redevelopment Dilemma in Si ngapore: The Case of the Kampong Glam Historic District’, Cities 13, no. 6 (1996): 411– 22.

26

First eight national monuments：Thong Chai Medical Institution, Armenian Church, St Andrew’s Cathedral, Telok Ayer Market, Thian Hock Keng Temple, Sri Mariamman Templ e, Hajiah Fatimah Mosque and the Cathed.ral of the Good Shepherd.

27

16

every community takes pride in its own cultural heritage. 28 To support this vision, the idea of developing a set of “core values” was introduced as a moral safeguard against the loss of Asian identity.29 In this context, "history" and "heritage" became key slogans for balancing traditional Asian values with growing Western influences.

The state sought to construct a sense of historical continuity and local cultural identity as a counterweight to foreign value systems in a rapidly modernising society. During this period, as Singapore moved towards becoming a global business and service hub, the 1986 Tourism Product Development Plan 30 formally incorporated the conservation of cultural districts and historical sites into its strategy, recognising the potential of heritage areas as curated spaces for tourism.

Brenda Yeoh and Lily Kong, ‘THE NOTION OF PLACE IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF HI STORY, NOSTALGIA AND HERITAGE IN SINGAPORE’, Singapore Journal of Tropical Geograp hy 17, no. 1 (1996): 52–65.

28

Hamzah Muzaini, ‘Producing/Consuming Memoryscapes: The Genesis/Politics of Second World War Commemoration in Singapore’, GeoJournal 66, no. 3 (2006): 211–22.

29

Lily Kong, Conserving the Past, Creating the Future: Urban Heritage in Singapore (Singa pore: Urban Redevelopment Authority, 2011), 41–44;Singapore Ministry of Trade and Ind ustry and Singapore Tourist Promotion Board, Tourism Product Development Plan (Singapo re: Ministry of Trade and Industry and Singapore Tourist Promotion Board, 1986).

30

17

Figure 7. The 1986 Tourism Product Development Plan shows conservation areas and historic districts concentrated in the Central Area; eastern districts such as Katong and Joo Chiat were not yet included. Source: URA,2020.

Figure 8. The 1985 Central Area Structure Plan, from which the 1989 Conservation Master Plan was derived, highlights six historical areas. Source: URA,2020.

It was during this time that two key institutions—URA and the National Heritage Board (then the Preservation of Monuments Board)—began shaping heritage narratives at the national level. In 1986, the URA announced its intention to develop a conservation strategy, which led to the official launch of Singapore’s first Conservation Master Plan 31 in 1989. The plan identified six historical areas— Chinatown, Kampong Glam, Little India, the Singapore River, Emerald Hill, and the Heritage Link—as conservation zones, marking the beginning of a more comprehensive approach to urban heritage preservation.

The Straits Times, 27 Dec 1986, p. 1; Urban Redevelopment Authority. (2014). A brief history of conservation. Retrieved August 4, 2014, from URA website: http://www.ura.gov. sg/uol/conservation/vision-and-principles/brief-history.aspx; Urban Redevelopment Authority.

(2006). Key milestones in Singapore’s conservation programme. Retrieved August 4, 2014, fr om URA website: http://www.ura.gov.sg/skyline/skyline06/skyline06-04/text/pg4.html 31

18

Since the 1990s, conservation efforts in Singapore expanded beyond the earlier designated conservation areas to include bungalows and areas known as secondary settlements which refer to phases of urban development that took place between the 1900s and 1960s, outside the city centre—often shaped by early suburban expansion and low-density residential growth. It was during this phase that Joo Chiat, located in the eastern Katong region, was officially recognised as part of the secondary settlements framework. This marked the first time Joo Chiat was formally interpreted within the national conservation agenda. In 1991, the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) gazetted a series of conservation buildings, including Joo Chiat’s two-storey shophouses and terrace houses. These buildings were selected for their distinctive architectural character and historical significance.

The original function of these structures combined commercial use on the ground floor with residential space above. The buildings reflected a broad spectrum of architectural styles, including early (pre-1900), transitional, late (1900–1940), and Art Deco forms (1930–1960). 32 Conservation planning in Joo Chiat at this time focused on enhancing the architectural form and streetscape, with the aim of strengthening the visual and cultural connection between built form and Peranakan heritage traditions.

Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA), “Remembering 30 Years,” Skyline, Issue 12, ac cessed April 21, 2025, https://www.ura.gov.sg/Corporate/Resources/Publications/Skyline/Sk yline-issue12/Remembering-30-years.

32

19

In 1993, URA officially designated Joo Chiat as one of Singapore’s conservation areas.

According to Kong et al., while the state continued to play a dominant role in directing conservation efforts, there was relatively little public consultation— particularly with those directly affected by conservation policies, whether included or excluded from protection boundaries.

Figure 9(a) and (b) . The typical built form of Joo Chiat consists of two-storey shophouses and terrace houses. Source:By Author,Feb 2025.

Henderson33 argues that in Singapore’s efforts to market local products to a global audience, cultural heritage has been positioned as a strategic tool for attracting tourists and achieving differentiation in a highly competitive tourism landscape. It enhances the appeal of Singapore as “a richly multicultural destination,” with multiculturalism forming a long-standing feature of its tourism branding. Heritage, in this context, is presented as one of the key components of this multicultural image.

Joan C. Henderson, ‘Ethnic Cultures, Globalization, and Tourism: Eurasians in Singapor e’, Tourism, Culture & Communication 13, no. 2 (2013): 67–77.

33

20

Shaw and Ismail 34 note that, as public awareness grew regarding the gradual erosion of Singapore’s architectural and cultural distinctiveness as an “exotic Far Eastern” destination, certain rapidly disappearing aspects of Straits Chinese culture were selectively incorporated into the tourism landscape. These included traditional cuisine, antique furniture and crafts, and the clothing and accessories worn by the Baba and Nyonya communities. Such cultural elements were staged through themed restaurants, cafés, and retail shops to evoke a Peranakan atmosphere. However, many of these efforts were short-lived, as Peranakan advisers criticised them as being driven purely by commercial interests.35

2.3 Multiplicity of Narratives and Community Participation Graham36 and others argue that heritage is not inherent but constructed—its value is assigned through social, political, and cultural processes. Harrison

34 Brian

J. Shaw and Rahil Ismail, ‘Ethnoscapes, Entertainment and ’eritage in the Global City: Segmented Spaces in Singapore’s Joo Chiat Road’, GeoJournal 66, no. 3 (2006): 187 –98.

35 J.

Henderson, ‘Ethnic Heritage as a Tourist Attraction: The Peranakans of Singapore’, I nternational Journal of Heritage Studies : IJHS 9, no. 1 (2003): 27–44.

B. J. Graham et al., A Geography of Heritage: Power, Culture, and Economy, 1st ed., Book, Whole (Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon;New York; Routledge, 2016).

36

21

37

emphasises that preserving heritage requires embracing multiple forms of

narrative. Smith38 further points out that while official narratives often focus on historical significance and national identity, community-based narratives tend to highlight everyday functions and collective memory. The divergence between these perspectives may result in a narrow interpretation of cultural heritage.

Since the 2000s, the URA’s conservation approach has extended beyond individual buildings to include heritage structures such as bridges and towers. There has also been a growing emphasis on public education and community engagement to enhance awareness of Singapore’s heritage and promote a stronger sense of identity.

In 2003, the Identity Plan 39 was introduced to retain and enhance the unique character of 15 local areas, including Joo Chiat. This marked a shift toward a more holistic understanding of heritage, incorporating both social and cultural dimensions, as well as the broader streetscape. Activities such as public surveys, participatory planning, and community-building were formally included in heritage planning. After 2010, individuals and communities increasingly took ownership in

37 Rodney

Harrison, Heritage: Critical Approaches, 1st ed., Book, Whole (New York;Milton Park, Abingdon; Routledge, 2013).

Laurajane Smith and American Council of Learned Societies, Uses of Heritage, 1st ed., Book, Whole (New York: Routledge, 2006).

38

Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA), “Remembering 30 Years,” Skyline, Issue 12, ac cessed April 21, 2025, https://www.ura.gov.sg/Corporate/Resources/Publications/Skyline/Sk yline-issue12/Remembering-30-years.

39

22

defining and shaping their identities and built heritage. Stakeholders began to play more active roles in safeguarding local heritage and sustaining community culture.

A civic and heritage group, My Community40, was established to promote heritage education through guided neighbourhood tours and other community-based initiatives. The Heritage Town scheme was launched by the National Heritage Board (NHB) in 2011, as a funding mechanism to support local cultural heritage and community activities. Joo Chiat was designated as Singapore’s first Heritage Town, with an emphasis on its role as a showcase for “local cultural exemplars.”

Figure 10 Joo Chiat was included in the 2003 Identity Plan. Source:NHB, 2003.

While government efforts toward greater inclusivity in heritage and conservation have improved over time, this has not necessarily translated into collaborative problem-solving with citizens. Ai Lin41 notes that many residents were unable to participate in local conservation meetings due to language barriers or a lack of

40 My

Community, “Guided Tours,” My Community, accessed April 21, 2025, https://myco mmunity.org.sg/guided-tours/.

Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA), “Remembering 30 Years,” Skyline, Issue 12, ac cessed April 21, 2025, https://www.ura.gov.sg/Corporate/Resources/Publications/Skyline/Sk yline-issue12/Remembering-30-years.

41

23

understanding about how heritage policies function. The Heritage Impact Assessment, which plays a key role in policy-making, has struggled to attract meaningful public attention; in some cases, residents expressed concern that such assessments might hinder future development.

Chang42 pointed out that public participation in Singapore’s heritage conservation practices often faces structural limitations. Civic engagement in heritage matters remains relatively low, partly due to disinterest in overly commercialized conservation areas and a prevailing belief in the ineffectiveness of participation.

With the rapid advancement of digital technologies, the modes of cultural heritage communication are also evolving. NHB has actively promoted heritage digitization as a way to enhance public awareness and engagement with local culture through innovative means. However, current research on digital heritage in Singapore remains largely focused on display technologies, platform visibility, and technical implementation. There is limited critical inquiry into its narrative structure, expressive logic, and potential as a tool for social empowerment.

42 Chang,

T.C., and Huang, S. “Reclaiming the City: Mixed-Use Heritage Redevelopment in Singapore.” Urban Studies 42, no. 10 (2005): 1919–1943.

24

2.4 Summary Existing research on Joo Chiat has primarily focused on its historical development, multi-ethnic settlement patterns, architectural heritage, conservation policies, and its role in cultural tourism and urban consumption. These studies affirm that the spatial forms and everyday life in Joo Chiat have contributed significantly to Singapore’s cultural memory, and that the historical and architectural value of its Straits Chinese shophouses is well established.

However, Joo Chiat’s heritage identity did not emerge organically. It has been shaped by overlapping national agendas—urban redevelopment, heritage conservation, multicultural identity-building, and tourism promotion. From its early classification as a secondary settlement to its later designation as a conservation area and eventually a Heritage Town, Joo Chiat has been embedded in multiple planning documents and strategic marketing materials. It has been repeatedly framed, labelled, and promoted as a symbolic heritage space aligned with state-led narratives and policy priorities.

Despite this recognition, much of the existing literature was published more than two decades ago and offers limited discussion of Joo Chiat’s transformation after 2000. There is a notable lack of attention to its recent community development and the everyday stories of local residents. Most importantly, current research has not critically examined how Joo Chiat’s heritage is communicated and interpreted.

25

There is limited analysis of the state-driven, visually oriented and consumer-focused narratives, and little discussion on how different stakeholders participate—or are excluded—in the conservation process. The potential for digital media to empower heritage storytelling, rather than simply visualise or display it, remains largely unexplored.

Preserving and restoring historic neighbourhoods such as Joo Chiat is one way to affirm Singapore’s Asian identity. While some of Joo Chiat’s historical narratives have been introduced, key questions remain: Have these histories been truly understood, collectively told, and meaningfully passed on? The following chapters will take these gaps as a point of departure to analyse how Joo Chiat’s current heritage narratives are constructed, conveyed, and contested.

26

3 Analysis of Joo Chiat’s Heritage Narrative This chapter aims to examine the current system of heritage representation in Joo Chiat through textual analysis, field observation, and stakeholder interviews. It seeks to address the questions: Who is telling the story? How is it being told? What is being told? And who is being excluded?—in response to the research hypotheses outlined earlier.

3.1 Heritage Narratives in Official Policy Documents Joo Chiat’s status as a model of conservation is closely tied to a standardized and repeatedly circulated narrative constructed under the dual pressures of urban development and heritage promotion policies. This narrative reflects clear signs of selective emphasis, driven by state-led agendas and institutional platforms, prioritising visual display over everyday lived experience. An analysis of guidebooks, conservation documents, and promotional materials produced by URA, NHB, and STB reveals three core characteristics of the current policy-driven narrative framework:

(1) Aesthetic primacy of façades.

27

In URA’s illustrated guidebook, Joo Chiat is described using terms such as “diverse” and “colourful,”43 accompanied by photography tips and street view composition suggestions. The focus lies almost entirely on the visual appeal of architecture. In the Conservation Guidelines, Joo Chiat is classified as a “Secondary Settlement,” where conservation priorities are placed on height control, façade integrity, and colour uniformity, with little mention of building usage or spatial memory. This reflects a preservation logic centred on maintaining visual consistency, rather than safeguarding the social functions of space. As a Residential Conservation Area, Joo Chiat is positioned in contrast to more commercial zones like Chinatown or Little India. Within this designation, modern extensions are allowed at the rear of shophouses, and internal conversions for commercial use are permitted—as long as they do not affect the outward streetscape.

Figure 11.

Joo Chiat

Conservation Site and Site with Conserved Building, Source:URA,2017

Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA), Conservation Guidelines for Religious Buildings (S ingapore: URA, n.d.), https://www.ura.gov.sg/services/download_file.aspx?f=%7BF1810969-14 01-4228-828F-EB7ED9E32CA2%7D. 43

28

Figure 12. URA’s classification of shophouses by architectural style and construction period.

Source: USS – Conserving the Nation’s Built Heritage, Urban Redevelopment Authority.

This façade-focused preservation enhances recognisability and visual coherence—a “row of beautiful houses”—but risks producing a static and formalised form of cultural expression. The result is a disruption of interior spatial logic and disconnection from historical patterns of use, reflecting a cultural valuation system where visual aesthetics are prioritised over spatial memory. The formation of these visually striking streetscapes can be traced to state-led urban renewal initiatives that promoted uniform restoration of shophouses. The widespread application of pastel colours and bold, monochromatic paint schemes enabled businesses to differentiate their buildings from others, yet may have compromised the historical integrity of the area’s heritage fabric. 44

Kang Shua Yeo et al., ‘“Using Image Processing to Understand 20th-Century Architectu ral Colour Schemes in Singapore”’, 2018.

44

29

Figure 13 . The conservation guidelines for Joo Chiat address only the protection of physical buildings, with no guidance for safeguarding intangible cultural heritage.

Figure 14. Introduction and visual representation of Joo Chiat focus primarily on its architectural features.

(2) The branding of cultural identity.

In narratives produced by the National Heritage Board and the Singapore Tourism Board, Joo Chiat is frequently framed as a “Peranakan enclave.” The term “Peranakan” functions as a symbolic shorthand, tied closely to specific cultural icons such as kueh, colourful façades, and traditional attire—making the area more legible and marketable for tourism. This narrative, however, overlooks the district’s historical cohabitation of Malay, Indian, and Eurasian communities, as well as the Vietnamese presence during its “Little Vietnam” phase. Such omissions flatten the district’s multicultural reality into a singular cultural symbol.

30

In the STB’s 52 Weekends in Singapore 45 guide, Joo Chiat is featured as a recommended destination, yet the descriptive keywords remain narrowly focused on “colourful and diverse façades,” “Peranakan history,” and “delicious tasting” foods. Within this framing, Joo Chiat is no longer presented as a space of layered

histories,

but

as

a

visually

appealing,

photo-friendly,

and

gastronomically attractive destination. Cultural identity is reduced to a curated aesthetic and commodified landscape, reinforcing a pattern of heritage being packaged for consumption rather than understood in its historical and social complexity.

Figure 15. Cover of 52 Weekends in Singapore (2020), an e-guide published by the Singapore Tourism Board (STB) to promote local exploration and lifestyle experiences.

(3) Fragmented presentation of historical narratives.

Official publications tend to emphasise the so-called “cultural golden age” of the early 20th century, foregrounding fixed stylistic expressions of heritage architecture while rarely addressing the post-war migrations, community

Singapore Tourism Board, 52 Weekends eGuide 2020 (Singapore: Singapore Tourism B oard, 2020), https://www.visitsingapore.com/content/dam/desktop/global/about-singapore/tr aveller-information/52-weekends-eguide-2020.pdf.

45

31

restructuring, or the impact of urban redevelopment on the area’s cultural ecology. Both online and offline materials often focus on “traditional craftsmanship” or “heritage businesses,” rather than acknowledging the layered ruptures and evolving local identities that have shaped Joo Chiat over time.This strategy—substituting selective highlights for narrative continuity—results in a simplified historical account that excludes diverse community memories from the centre of interpretation. When heritage is communicated primarily through a fixed set of institutional keywords or top-down expressions of value, it leads to what may be termed “high cultural visibility but low cultural diversity.”

For Joo Chiat, this has two key consequences. First, the dominance of visual aesthetics imposes a form of aesthetic discipline, narrowing the range of spatial use and cultural practice. Second, the voices of local residents, small business owners, minority groups, and ordinary visitors are rarely integrated into the official communication framework, making it difficult to sustain heritage as a living, evolving cultural process with contemporary relevance.

32

Figure 16. An oral history interview related to Joo Chiat is available through the National Archives, but it remains difficult to discover without targeted searching. The recording is time-consuming to navigate, with limited visualisation and minimal interactive features.

Source: https://www.nas.gov.sg/archivesonline/oral_history_interviews/interview/002057

3.2 Heritage Representation in Tourism Media and Social Platforms Beyond the façade-led heritage narratives constructed by state institutions, Joo Chiat’s cultural identity is further reinforced on tourism platforms, social media, and public guide websites as a system of visually consumable symbols. While these platforms appear to diversify the media through which the public accesses heritage, they often reproduce—and even amplify—the aestheticised and symbolic tendencies of dominant narratives, leaving little space for everyday lived experiences to emerge.

Figure 17. The most iconic photo spot of Joo Chiat on social media: a row of visually striking shophouses along Koon Seng Road. Source: Nov 2024,By Author.

A sampling analysis across platforms such as Google, TripAdvisor, Klook, Trip.com, Eventbrite, Instagram, Rednote, and Facebook reveals that visual content overwhelmingly dominates how “Joo Chiat” is represented online. Most tourist posts revolve around tags like “colourful façades,” “vintage murals,” “Peranakan pastries,” “hipster cafés,” and “local food.” These posts are frequently titled with phrases such 33

as “Instagrammable spots” or “must-visit cafés,” focusing on framing angles, outfit coordination, and filter aesthetics rather than engaging with the site’s historical context or cultural depth.

Figure 18. A search engine result for “Joo Chiat” prominently features colourful shophouses as the most iconic visual representation.

Figure 19. Tripadvisor page for Katong/Joo Chiat highlights keywords such as “Peranakan culture,” “good food,” and “cultural heritage.”

Source: Tripadvisor – Katong/Joo Chiat, accessed April 21, 2025.

Figure 20 . Visitor reviews of Joo Chiat on Trip.com primarily highlight food experiences and architectural interest.

Source: Trip.com – Joo Chiat District, accessed April 21, 2025.

34

Figure 21. Event listings related to Joo Chiat on the local event platform Eventbrite.

Source: Eventbrite – Joo Chiat Events in Singapore, accessed April 21, 2025.

Field observations revealed that many visitors engage in a rapid cycle of "take a photo—post—leave." As one international tourist noted, “Joo Chiat is definitely photogenic, but I felt it lacked the kind of memorable stories you get in other historic districts.” Similarly, local residents frequently remarked that tourists “stay briefly and understand little,” with most unaware of the history or culture behind the buildings, engaging only in superficial visual consumption. This image-centric logic has gradually reduced public perception of Joo Chiat to surface-level tags such as “aesthetic,” “Instagrammable,” and “exotic,” obscuring its deeper historical layers and multi-ethnic interactions.

This pattern aligns with existing academic critiques. Urry’s46 concept of the “tourist gaze” argues that heritage in tourism contexts is often reduced to an object of visual consumption. Waterton and Smith further suggest that such image-dominated representations reinforce alignment between official narratives and tourist expectations, while stripping heritage spaces of historical complexity and opportunities for community engagement. Heritage becomes “visible but not understood.”

John Urry, ‘The Tourist Gaze “Revisited”: THE CONCEPT OF THE GAZE THE TOURIST GAZE AND THE ENVIRONMENT CONCLUSION REFERENCES’, The American Behavioral Sci entist (Beverly Hills) 36, no. 2 (1992): 172.

46

35

Since the 1986 Tourism Product Development Plan, heritage spaces in Singapore have been incorporated into international tourism strategies, framed more as “cultural check-in spots” than as lived historical environments. The tourism board has long positioned the city as a destination, commercial hub, and transport node, where thematic development serves promotional goals rather than enriching local lifestyles47. This visibility-driven communication model, amplified by social media, often focuses on striking façades or stylised scenes curated for visual impact, neglecting the experiential and interpretive dimensions of heritage. For example, the decorative tiles on Joo Chiat’s shophouses once carried rich symbolic meanings about cultural blending and social networks, but are now circulated simply as “vintage elements,” stripped of their semiotic and cultural depth. This decontextualised display strategy reduces living heritage to static, consumable scenery.

It is also worth noting that guided tours in Joo Chiat have become increasingly commercialised and limited in access. Many in-depth cultural walks must now be booked through specialised platforms, often costing between SGD 30–60 per session or more expensive. These tours typically focus on private residences, branded shops, and high-profile landmarks, while many other heritage sites remain “visible but

Brenda S. A. Yeoh and T. C. Chang, ‘Globalising Singapore: Debating Transnational Flo ws in the City’, Urban Studies (Edinburgh, Scotland) 38, no. 7 (2001): 1025–44.

47

36

inaccessible.” This creates a model that is neither inclusive for independent travellers nor welcoming to local residents seeking spontaneous participation.

Within this structure—expert-led, tourist-focused, and resident-marginalised—Joo Chiat’s heritage storytelling continues to drift away from its community roots.

Visually driven cultural communication in the digital age often slips into a three-step structure of “sensory orchestration – tag-based composition – consumable reproduction.” This process tends to reformat heritage into content optimized for algorithmic circulation. Under such a system, cultural presentation shifts away from conveying meaning or historical depth and instead prioritises “shareability” and “commercial appeal” within the visual economy. 48

Figure 22. Tours of Joo Chiat listed on Klook require advance booking through the platform, with relatively high participation fees.Source: Klook – Joo Chiat Tours, accessed April 21, 2025.

Hyeseung Shim et al., ‘Heritage Values, Digital Storytelling, and Heritage Communicatio n: The Exploration of Cultural Heritage Sites in Virtual Environments’, Digital Creativity (Exeter) 35, no. 2 (2024): 171–97, https://doi.org/10.1080/14626268.2024.2313585.

48

37

Figure 23. Representative image of Joo Chiat used in a guided tour listing, featuring pastel Peranakan shophouses and rainbow-hued tiles.

Source: Jane’s Tours – Joo Chiat: The Peranakans, Pastel Shophouses & Rainbow Tiles, accessed April 21, 2025.

Figure 24. The announcement of Hotel Indigo at Joo Chiat reflects how the area is often associated with heritagethemed accommodations.

Source: IHG Newsroom – First Hotel Indigo in Singapore Inked for Prime Heritage Site, accessed April 21, 2025.

3.3 Overlooked Heritage in Everyday Scenes and Community Spaces Based on field observations around Joo Chiat and a review of supporting literature, it becomes evident that the current official heritage narrative contains several “absent elements.”

Firstly, from a historical perspective, Joo Chiat was never a culturally homogenous space. It was once a multi-ethnic neighbourhood, with the Eurasian Association and early Catholic educational networks leaving a lasting imprint on the area. Some longtime residents still recall a time when Malay weddings, Deepavali celebrations, and Catholic processions coexisted within the same community. However, these communities and their cultural traces are almost entirely absent from current

38

official guide materials—constituting a form of narrative exclusion at the level of collective memory.

Figure 25. The Eurasian Heritage Gallery, which documents the history of the Eurasian community, is located away from main thoroughfares and is difficult for visitors to find.

Source: https://cn.tripadvisor.com/Attraction_Review-g294265-d3459646-ReviewsEurasian_Heritage_Gallery-Singapore.html

Several culturally meaningful but often overlooked places can be found in the Joo Chiat area, such as local altars, informal worship sites, and traces of small craft workshops. Although not listed in official conservation inventories, these spaces play a crucial role in shaping local lifeworlds and community memory. From a cultural landscape perspective, such forms of informal heritage form the social and emotional fabric of the neighbourhood. They are not only historical locations but also serve as sites for the reproduction of community identity—essential to understanding urban cultural continuity.

39

Figure 26(a)-(f). Roadside altars, local product shops, and temples along Joo Chiat Road are rich in cultural meaning, but their stories are often overshadowed by the more photogenic shophouses.

Source: Feb 2025,By Author.

Table 1 Summary of Overlooked Cultural Elements in Joo Chiat Type

Current Status

Cultural Value

Non-Peranakan religious

Present but not included in

Reflects ethnic coexistence and

spaces

official heritage trails

religious diversity

Traditional family-run

Some remain, increasingly

Reveals local economic structures

workshops

commercialised or

and community-based labour

redeveloped

practices

Eurasian community

Largely unmarked and fading

Represents Singapore’s pluralistic

sites and memories

from public memory

historical composition

Street-level crafts and

Partial remains of murals

Captures grassroots memory and

decorative elements

and pavement motifs

spontaneous cultural expression

40

Community life nodes

Still in use by residents, not

Reinforces emotional bonds and

(e.g. gathering corners)

classified as heritage

intergenerational identity within the neighbourhood

Non-institutionalised

Not officially documented,

Preserves living traditions and

cultural activities

e.g. informal festivals or

emotionally rooted cultural practices

rituals

The absence of these elements risks pushing Joo Chiat’s cultural narrative toward fragmentation and musealisation. Urban heritage should not be confined to gazetted buildings alone but must also encompass “structures of social memory” and “the cultural processes of everyday life.” Without inclusive mechanisms to recognise and interpret these “unnamed cultural spaces,” they risk being marginalised or erased through urban redevelopment. The lack of participatory platforms for communities and researchers to negotiate heritage recognition results in a growing silence around these intangible layers—leading to the gradual disappearance of what might be termed unspoken heritage from both public memory and future cultural planning.

Figure 27. The Joo Chiat Heritage Activation event and “mini museum” counter were located inside the community centre, with heritage trail maps placed out of sight from major visitor routes. As a result, the trail remained difficult to notice. Source: Feb 2025,By Author.

41

3.4 Public Interviews and Community Surveys People from different social, professional, and cultural backgrounds often hold contrasting views on the cultural meaning and heritage value of Joo Chiat, as well as how its story should be told. This study interviewed49 a range of stakeholders— including nearby residents, long-time shopowners, first-time tourists, cultural practitioners, heritage experts, and tech professionals—whose varied relationships with the area shaped diverse interpretations.These differing perspectives highlight the perceptual and narrative gaps that exist within public understanding and communication about Joo Chiat, underscoring the need for more inclusive and participatory heritage frameworks.

There are significant differences in how various groups interpret the concept of "heritage" in Joo Chiat. A conservation expert noted that the district was originally a “mixed community” of middle- and upper-class migrants—comprising Chinese, Malays, Indians, and others—rather than a purely Peranakan enclave. He criticised the dominant, label-driven narrative that oversimplifies Joo Chiat as a “Peranakan zone,” echoing a broader pattern in Singapore’s cultural branding strategy: Chinatown represents Chinese culture, Kampong Glam the Malay community, Little

49

The complete interview is included in the appendix.

42

India the Indian population, and Joo Chiat the Peranakan identity. While this approach facilitates tourism and urban marketing, it reduces cultural complexity.

Local residents tend to have a more everyday perspective. One East Coast resident, who frequently passes through Joo Chiat, associated it mainly with “nice houses and good food,” but had no knowledge of its history, nor had he used any guide tools.

Most residents surveyed described the area as “visually attractive” but lacked understanding of its migration histories or Peranakan identity. For them, Joo Chiat is a familiar landscape yet culturally distant—an everyday backdrop rather than a meaningful heritage space.

Figure 28 . The heritage signboard on Joo Chiat Road is small and placed inconspicuously on the building façade, making it difficult for passersby to notice or learn about the street’s history.

Source: Feb 2025,By Author.

43

Tourists also exhibit limited cultural engagement. Although Singapore tourism narratives promote Joo Chiat as a showcase of Peranakan, Eurasian, Malay, and Chinese heritage, the district lacks the visibility of more centralised and heavily branded areas like Chinatown or Little India. In Henderson’s 2003 study50, only 13% of surveyed tourists had heard of the Peranakan district, and just 10% had visited Katong. Similarly, several tourists interviewed in this study only came across Joo Chiat “by chance” or through local recommendations. Many described it as “clean, charming, and photogenic,” but lacking accessible cultural content—no signage, no guided interpretation, and little to anchor visitors to its historical context.

A deeper divide exists between “users” and “observers” of the space. Official narratives emphasise visual icons—façades, curated shops, festive events— constructing an aestheticised, media-friendly image of Joo Chiat. Yet this visual abstraction, as one expert pointed out, promotes sellable culture while losing the lived, embodied dimensions of heritage. For example, while URA preserves streetscape consistency by regulating façade designs, it allows high-rise extensions behind conserved structures—visually maintaining an “old street” impression while eroding the original social fabric.

Joan C. Henderson, ‘Managing Tourism and Islam in Peninsular Malaysia’, Tourism Ma nagement (1982) 24, no. 4 (2003): 447–56.

50

44

Figure 29(a) and (b). Heritage trail maps provided by official agencies prominently highlight various houses as key sites of interest. However, many of these buildings are inaccessible to the general public. Sources:https://www.theadmin.sg/katong-joochiat-art-circuit; https://www.roots.gov.sg/han/Neighborhoods/Katong-Joo-Chiat

Interviewees expressed concern about increasing gentrification. Historic shophouses are now converted into high-rent co-living spaces-3200sgd/month, with many long-time residents displaced. Tourists engage in surface-level consumption—photos and cafés—while original residents and small business owners are excluded from the narrative. One shop owner remarked that government photo campaigns only involved him in staged images with traditional costumes, with no further engagement. A cultural practitioner described Joo Chiat’s evolution as “heritage Disneyfication,” reducing the area to “pretty façades” rather than living history.

45

Figure 30. Listing of a co-living rental unit on Joo Chiat Road, featured on a property platform. A single bedroom is priced comparably to a full HDB flat, with interiors entirely renovated. As one interviewee noted, the house colours may no longer reflect their original appearance.

Source: https://www.figment.live/rooms-studios-listing/

Experts warned that Joo Chiat is reaching a cultural tipping point. “If commercialization isn’t controlled,” one noted, “it may follow the path of Tiong Bahru—losing all sense of community.” Indeed, many shophouses have become cafés, bakeries, upscale restaurants, or short-term rentals. While this enhances visual appeal, it erodes the district’s cultural rootedness. There is also a structural imbalance in narrative participation. Despite the presence of long-standing residents and businesses that carry rich oral histories, their voices are rarely integrated into official communication. Current heritage interpretation relies on static signage and unidirectional displays, lacking platforms that support community-led expression. To reposition Joo Chiat as a co-created heritage space, a more inclusive and participatory communication framework is needed—one that recognises and integrates diverse narratives into the core of cultural representation.

Today, the transmission of information in Joo Chiat depends heavily on visuals, geotags, and social media exposure, with little infrastructure connecting people, place, and memory. As one interviewee aptly put it, “Culture is not just for enjoyment; it must be experienced”—and meaningful experience demands embodied presence and human connection.

46

3.5 Summary Joo Chiat is a layered urban space shaped by diverse communities and overlapping cultural contexts. As a state-designated conservation area, its heritage narrative has gained wide visibility. However, three key issues remain. First, heritage expression is dominated by visual symbols and consumer-friendly labels. Policies focus on façade aesthetics, while tourism and social media reduce the district to a photogenic icon, overlooking its historical depth and social diversity. Second, dissemination relies heavily on official tour routes and selective heritage sites. Third, community voices are often marginalised in heritage storytelling.

Although Joo Chiat is a lived neighbourhood marked by migration and local interaction, resident stories, minority experiences, and everyday memories are rarely included in mainstream narratives. This weakens public connection to place and limits deeper historical understanding. The next chapter considers how digital storytelling might address these gaps and support more inclusive and participatory heritage communication.

47

4 Digital Strategies for Reimagining Joo Chiat’s Heritage Communication As outlined in the previous chapter, Joo Chiat’s current heritage narrative reflects a representational gap—buildings are visible, but people and their stories remain largely absent. The focus on façades often comes at the expense of deeper cultural meaning. This chapter explores how digital storytelling can serve as an intervention to support more interactive and inclusive approaches to heritage communication in Joo Chiat.

4.1 The Necessity of Introducing Digital Narratives into Heritage Communication Current modes of heritage communication in Joo Chiat reflect what Laurajane Smith describes as the Authorised Heritage Discourse (AHD) 51. This discourse privileges aesthetic and scientific values, centres material forms as the primary carriers of meaning, and maintains expert control over heritage interpretation. It tends to frame heritage as a consumable cultural product, simplifying its complexity for touristic appeal while marginalising the diverse meanings held by non-expert

51 Laurajane

Smith, Uses of Heritage (London: Routledge, 2006).

48

groups. 52 While effective in shaping urban branding, such narratives suppress community agency, leaving limited space for residents, local business owners, and alternative voices to participate meaningfully in storytelling.

The 2008 ICOMOS Charter for the Interpretation and Presentation of Cultural Heritage Sites 53 stresses that decisions about what is preserved, how it is interpreted, and how it is communicated are all elements of heritage interpretation.

These decisions reflect each generation’s evolving understanding of what is significant and why it should be transmitted. The charter highlights “authenticity,” “sustainability,” and “inclusiveness” as core principles, and it calls for greater attention to local voices, lived experiences, and community histories. Yet heritage interpretation in Joo Chiat remains largely presentational, focusing on visually appealing façades and symbolic imagery, while failing to address whose stories are told, from whose perspective, and to whom.

In this context, the introduction of digital storytelling is not merely a technological update, but a structural shift in narrative approach. Giaccardi’s concept of heritage

M. Zhang and J. H. Lenzer, “Mismatched Canal Conservation and the Authorized Herit age Discourse in Urban China: A Case of the Hangzhou Section of the Grand Canal,” Int ernational Journal of Heritage Studies 26, no. 2 (2019): 105–119, https://doi-org.libproxy 1.nus.edu.sg/10.1080/13527258.2019.1608458.

52

53 ICOMOS

Charter for the Interpretation and Presentation of Cultural Heritage Sites. Inter national Journal of Cultural Property 15, no. 4 (11, 2008): 377-383. doi:https://doi.org/1 0.1017/S0940739108080417. http://libproxy1.nus.edu.sg/login?url=https://www.proquest.com /scholarly-journals/icomos-charter-interpretation-presentation/docview/232078274/se-2.

49

as participatory media 54 reframes digital tools as platforms for negotiation, expression, and narrative plurality, rather than instruments of display. For heritage districts like Joo Chiat—rich in visual symbolism, historical layering, and ongoing community dynamics—digital storytelling offers viable mechanisms for inclusive engagement and collaborative meaning-making.

First, digital tools can help overcome the spatial constraints of traditional heritage communication. Many heritage spaces in Joo Chiat are “visible but inaccessible”— locked, privatised, or linguistically exclusive. Through visual modelling, audio narration, and multilingual interpretation, digital storytelling can bridge physical and cognitive boundaries, allowing "silent buildings" and inaccessible sites to reenter the public domain through virtual means. This enhances both the accessibility and pedagogical value of heritage55. Recent developments in the “immersive turn” and “affective turn” further suggest that interactive and contextual technologies can evoke deeper emotional resonance and cultural identification56. Here, technology becomes not just an external interface, but a shared device for constructing cultural identity, spatial memory, and civic participation.

54

Elisa Giaccardi, Heritage and Social Media: Understanding Heritage in a Participatory Culture

(London: Routledge, 2012).

55 J. Kidd, “Immersive Heritage Encounters,” Museum Review 3, no. 1 (2018).

Agiatis Benardou and Anna Maria Droumpouki, “Difficult Heritage and Immersive Expe riences,” in Difficult Heritage and Immersive Experiences, ed. Agiatis Benardou and Anna Maria Droumpouki (London: Routledge, 2022), 1–9.

56

50

Second, digital storytelling can strengthen community participation by opening up space for alternative narratives. Traditional visiting tours are largely curated by institutions, with content filtered through expert selection. In contrast, digital platforms—through features like interactive maps, public comment boards, and resident story uploads—offer non-expert groups such as residents, shopkeepers, and visitors a voice in shaping heritage narratives. These platforms support a more democratic model of interpretation, in which users are not only passive consumers but also producers of heritage knowledge and experience 57 . Tourists become listeners and participants, engaging actively with the meanings of place.

Third, digital tools provide structural flexibility to accommodate the layered, evolving, and commercially embedded cultural textures of Joo Chiat. Unlike museum-type heritage sites, Joo Chiat is a living urban environment where everyday life, commerce, and identity intersect. Its cultural value lies not only in architectural forms, but in its function as a site of local memory and ongoing use. 58 Through modular storytelling frameworks, digital media can integrate living cultural data—such as migration histories, business transformations,

and

transnational

tenancy

patterns—thus

overcoming

the

representational limits of static exhibitions and printed materials. The goal is not to

57 Sanghun

Park, “Re-Imagining Heritage Interpretation: Enchanting the Past-Future,” Journ al of Tourism and Cultural Change 15, no. 4 (2015): 393–96.

UNESCO, The Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence (Paris: United N ations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, 2021), 31, 58

51

deliver a single story, but to build an open-ended narrative infrastructure. In this context, heritage communication must shift from “telling for” to “telling with,” and ultimately, “telling together.”

Fundamentally, heritage is not a fixed object, but a social process continuously shaped through narrative. To realise Joo Chiat’s full heritage potential, the focus should not be on making it more photogenic, but on making it more narratable, participatory, and inclusive. Only when local memories are made visible, resident voices are heard, and everyday experiences are integrated into cultural expression can Joo Chiat move beyond the confines of “labelled heritage” or “Instagrammable street,” and evolve into a heritage space grounded in publicness, participation, and continuity.

4.2 Learn from Global Models of Digital Engagement in Heritage Although digitisation is not new in cultural communication, its ability to expand narrative dimensions, introduce diverse perspectives, and support community cocreation depends largely on the strategies and structural frameworks adopted.

While digital technologies are reshaping how people engage with heritage, their full potential cannot be realised if used merely as tools for visual replication. 59 International projects have shown that, when applied within appropriate

Yehuda Kalay, Thomas Kvan, and Janice Affleck, “New Heritage,” in New Media and C ultural Heritage, ed. Yehuda Kalay, Thomas Kvan, and Janice Affleck (London and New Y ork: Routledge, 2008).

59

52

interpretive contexts and designed to enhance interaction, digital tools can effectively strengthen the communication of heritage values.

Joo Chiat faces a growing disconnect between commercial renewal and lived experience, where heritage risks becoming a form of “spectacular consumption” rather than an ongoing cultural practice rooted in everyday life. To address similar challenges, the Virtual Kyoto60 project in Japan offers a digital heritage model based on reconstructing the city’s multilayered spatial memory. Centred on a 3D GIS platform, the project integrates historical maps, community archives, oral histories, and contemporary urban data to build a virtual model of the city that allows users to “navigate through history.”Notably, the project is not only led by experts but is also open to use by communities, researchers, and visitors, forming what has been described as a “co-constructed digital museum of urban history.” In this framework, the city’s historical memory becomes a shared resource and a foundation for public dialogue on the future of heritage cities. The map is reconceived not as a static guide, but as an open platform for cultural negotiation.A related example is the Gion District in Kyoto, where augmented reality (AR) guide systems and interactive exhibitions have been developed to reconnect visitors with the area’s intangible heritage. Using mobile devices, users can view reconstructions of traditional

Ritsumeikan University, “Gion Festival Digital Museum: CAD Center,” Ritsumeikan Unive rsity Art Research Center, accessed April 21, 2025, https://www.arc.ritsumei.ac.jp/lib/vm/ gionfestivalDMe/cad-center/.

60

53

performance arts—such as scenes from maiko (apprentice geisha) performances— within their historical settings. An open-access digital archive has also been established to document and communicate this cultural heritage to the wider public, enhancing both the accessibility and experiential quality of the site.If Joo Chiat were to develop a digital cultural map combining historical context, resident memory, and visual documentation, it could help shift the focus beyond architectural aesthetics and return to more fundamental questions—who once lived here, and how do they remember this street?

Figure 31 . Virtual time-space navigation in Kyoto and digital reconstruction of Kabuki performance. Source: Virtual Kyoto Project.

Figure 32 . A virtual tour of Hanamikoji Street Source: https://gionminami.jp/vrtour/

54

Joo Chiat’s current communication structure follows a top-down model, with limited avenues for community input. Residents, cultural groups, and interested visitors lack meaningful opportunities to participate in heritage storytelling. A valuable reference is De Digitale Stad, launched in Amsterdam in 1994 as the first digital civic platform. Initially a virtual city driven by public interaction, it later evolved into a participatory digital heritage archive61, now recognised by UNESCO’s Memory of the World 62 . Users could upload personal memories, forming a grassroots cultural record. Adapting a similar model for Joo Chiat—such as a My Joo Chiat digital platform—could allow individuals to share stories, photos, and sounds of the street.

Organised by theme or location, this would decentralise narrative control and transform the street from a viewed heritage site into a co-created cultural space.

Figure 33 . The virtual communication interface of De Digitale Stad Source: DDS, https://waag.org/en/article/unesco-names-de-digitale-stad-memory-world/

Waag Futurelab, “Waag Futurelab,” Waag Futurelab, accessed April 21, 2025, https://w aag.org/en/.

61

62 UNESCO,

“De Digitale Stad – The Digital City,” UNESCO, accessed April 21, 2025, http s://www.unesco.org/en/memory-world/dds-de-digitale-stad/digital-city.

55

Figure 34 . The Memory of the World entry for De Digitale Stad on the UNESCO platform Source: UNESCO, https://www.unesco.org/en/memoryworld/dds-de-digitale-stad/digitalcity

Joo Chiat’s current heritage trails remain relatively limited in scope. In comparison, Amsterdam’s Waag Futurelab integrates AR technology into its routes, allowing visitors to access site-specific stories via mobile devices. In Melaka, a digital platform enables users to explore themed routes—such as colonial heritage, Peranakan culture, or street art—through an interactive map linked to texts, visuals, and audio guides. Some points also connect to digital museum collections and virtual exhibitions, enriching public engagement and academic value.Such practices offer useful insights for Joo Chiat. As a multicultural district shaped by Malay, Chinese, and Eurasian communities, it holds strong potential for a multilingual digital platform. By combining AR, audio, and video, the area could reconstruct an oral cultural space—making diverse stories more accessible, inclusive, and interactive.

Figure 35 . Future Heritage Lab’s digital heritage project: guided routes with mobile AR interaction Source: Future Heritage Lab 56

Figure 36. Self-guided digital tour map of Melaka.Source:

Current heritage communication in Joo Chiat tends to emphasise architectural aesthetics while overlooking the historical and migratory contexts behind building styles. The Rome Reborn 63 project provides a useful model by using VR to reconstruct ancient Rome, offering immersive navigation through temples, forums, and everyday spaces. Supported by archaeological data and academic review, it embeds political, religious, and social systems into spatial paths, enabling users to experience history through movement rather than linear explanation. Although Joo Chiat does not require large-scale modelling, its rich spatial layering and cultural density make it well suited to a modular approach. Through AR, micro-modelling, or immersive commentary, fragmentary narratives such as “When was this façade built?”, “Who lived behind it?”, or “What businesses once stood here?” could be embedded into key sites like shophouses, markets, temples, and family-owned stores. This would create a dynamic, memory-based narrative system where buildings act as entry points for layered interpretation—enhancing public

Flyover Zone, “Rome Reborn: Flight over Ancient Rome,” Flyover Zone, accessed April 21, 2025, https://www.flyoverzone.com/rome-reborn-flight-over-rome/.

63

57

understanding and supporting differentiated communication for residents, visitors, and educators.

Figure 37 . Interface view of the software’s Time Warp feature, allowing users to jump to different destinations within the ancient city Source: Ancient Rome Reborn Through Virtual Reality

Figure 38(a) and (b). Virtual reconstruction of the ancient city and lost architectural structures Source: Ancient Rome Reborn Through Virtual Reality

4.3 Strategic Approaches to Digital Narrative Design for Joo Chiat Building on the specific heritage characteristics of Joo Chiat and insights from digital storytelling case studies, this section proposes three complementary strategies for digital heritage communication: a participatory map, an interactive guide system, and a community narrative platform. Together, these aim to reconstruct public engagement mechanisms and activate spatial memory and narrative plurality.

58

First, the participatory map should function not only as a navigation tool but as a collaborative platform for urban memory. By integrating historical records, oral histories, and community submissions, it would allow users to upload stories, landmark tags, and multimedia content. This approach decentralises storytelling and challenges top-down authority. Dual pathways—"historical facts" and "resident perspectives"—can be designed to enhance transparency and representational diversity.

Second, the interactive guide system replaces conventional static tours with storydriven experiences. The system would offer thematic routes such as “Vanished Shops,” “Festive Memories,” or “Minority Voices,” embedded with pop-up story nodes and spatial cues that invite users to listen, see, and interact as they move through the area. Features such as comment boxes, geolocation feedback, and usercontributed content would support a loop of storytelling and response.

Third, the community narrative platform would serve as an accessible space for cultural expression. Residents, shopowners, and visitors could upload personal histories, photographs, and voice recordings. Content would be organised by location and theme, with multilingual interfaces and voice-to-text support to reduce participation barriers. In collaboration with local universities and cultural institutions, “digital culture workshops” could be introduced to encourage youth participation in content creation and platform maintenance, shifting users from 59

passive consumers to active co-creators.Technologies such as augmented reality (AR) and micro-modelling could further enhance the experience. For example, pointing a phone at a building could trigger historical visuals or reveal stories of household structures and migration paths, bridging visible spaces with hidden histories. This approach, inspired by projects like Rome Reborn and Kyoto’s Gion XR, would use fragment-based storytelling to gradually build an emotional map of the neighbourhood.

Ultimately, these strategies aim to transform Joo Chiat into a narratable, participatory, and interactive heritage space—moving beyond tagged landmarks and tourist checkpoints toward a multi-vocal, socially sustainable, and communityrecognised heritage landscape.

4.4 Summary This chapter has examined the role of digital storytelling in reshaping heritage communication, addressing the third hypothesis of this study—whether digital tools can overcome the limitations of Joo Chiat’s current narrative structure and enable a more participatory, multi-vocal approach. The findings suggest that digital technology can enrich heritage experiences by revealing hidden narratives through text, symbolism, and layered media formats. It allows users to encounter other

60

perspectives and engage with heritage not only as interpretation, but also as negotiation. 64

Well-designed digital prototypes encourage reflection and invite users to share personal stories and meanings tied to a place. Through this process, individuals— whether visitors or residents—become active participants in defining heritage. The true potential of digital heritage lies in transforming heritage from a fixed story into an ongoing cultural process, shifting Joo Chiat from a site to be observed into a shared space of storytelling.

64 Waag

Futurelab, Mixed Reality: Nieuwe manieren om je wereld te verrijken: Onderzoe k naar de toepassing van mixed reality in erfgoed (Amsterdam: Waag Futurelab, 2022).

61

5 Conclusion and Further Research This chapter provides a summary of key findings and reflects on the narrative dynamics of Joo Chiat. It also outlines the study’s contributions to heritage communication and digital storytelling, while identifying limitations and suggesting directions for future research.

5.1 Summary of Findings and Responses to Research Questions What is heritage?

In the digital age, this question is being reinterpreted. Heritage is not only about physical remains—it tells us who we are, where we come from, and how we evolve.

It is not fixed, but a negotiated outcome shaped by the past, emotions, values, norms, and personal stories. Its meaning is fluid, varying across individuals, communities, and time. Heritage is not just about the past, nor simply a place to visit—it is a lens through which we understand the present. It is not a story that has already been told, but a process that continues to unfold. The role of digital technologies is to make this process more open, negotiable, and participatory.

Who creates heritage?

As a material form, built heritage changes over time—so too do the perspectives, memories, and emotions attached to it. How these relationships are communicated, both now and in the future, remains an ongoing question. Traditionally, meaning-making 62

around heritage has been the responsibility of the state and experts. Yet as institutions evolve and societies become more diverse, this authority is increasingly shared.

In this context, digital storytelling offers more than just a new medium—it creates a platform to challenge representational hierarchies and support the coexistence of multiple voices.

Using Joo Chiat, a historic neighbourhood in Singapore, as a case study, this research asks whether there is still a need to re-narrate a place that has already been extensively described and promoted. In doing so, it contributes to ongoing debates in urban heritage about narrative structures, power in participation, and the potential of digital media to reshape cultural engagement.

In response to the three research questions posed at the beginning of this study:

Question 1: How has the heritage of Joo Chiat been narrated?

Through content analysis and visual observation, the study finds that dominant narratives of Joo Chiat are shaped primarily by state agencies and tourism platforms.

These narratives construct a recognisable and symbolically charged heritage space, emphasising architectural aesthetics, façade colours, decorative details, and a curated image of multicultural harmony. While such representations enhance communication efficiency and appeal to international tourism, they also tend to

63

flatten cultural complexity, compress community experience, and reduce historical depth—rendering heritage as a consumable cultural product.

Question 2: How do different stakeholders understand and participate in Joo Chiat’s heritage narratives?

Interviews and survey responses reveal significant differences in perception across stakeholder groups, including residents, business owners, cultural practitioners, tourists, and government representatives. Residents tend to focus on changes in the living environment and intergenerational memory. Tourists seek distinctive architecture, food, or shops not found elsewhere. Business owners often associate heritage with commercial potential and local ambience, while official narratives centre on national identity and multicultural tourism branding. The study highlights an imbalance in representational power—mainstream narratives are shaped by institutional actors, while community voices are often marginalised. In both policy tours and media materials, local experience typically appears as historical illustration or narrative ornament, rather than as an integral part of the storytelling process.

Question 3: Can digital storytelling improve or even reshape heritage communication and public engagement in Joo Chiat?

64

Drawing on comparative case studies from Amsterdam, Melaka, and Kyoto, and assessing the applicability of digital strategies to Joo Chiat, the research finds that digital media has the potential to overcome the limitations of conventional one-way narratives. It allows for multi-actor input, real-time updates, and more immersive and resonant public experiences. When local stories and community knowledge are embedded into digital platforms, heritage narration becomes less about top-down delivery and more about co-creation. Although challenges remain—such as designing participatory structures, managing content, and ensuring technological accessibility—digital storytelling offers a viable structural alternative for reimagining heritage narratives in Joo Chiat.

5.2 Research Limitations and Future Directions As a qualitative case study centred on Joo Chiat, this research carries certain limitations in terms of methodology, scope, and applicability. First, the focus on a single neighbourhood limits the generalisability of the findings. Joo Chiat’s distinct position—marked by strong policy attention, tourism promotion, and its status as a nationally recognised heritage site—may not reflect the conditions of other urban conservation areas.

Second, the study relies primarily on content analysis, cultural mapping, and interviews. While these methods enable in-depth exploration of perception and narrative, they offer limited breadth and statistical comparison. Future research 65

could incorporate social media data, text mining, or digital usage analytics to strengthen the empirical base.

Third, the assessment of digital tools in this study remains at a conceptual stage.

Practical implementation—such as platform building or user testing—has not yet been carried out. Further research could involve collaborations with community groups or public agencies to pilot tools like digital maps, virtual tours, or interactive archival platforms, and evaluate their effectiveness in narrative balance, participation, and cultural transmission.

Finally, in the broader context of digital and platform-based heritage communication, the relationship between technology, content, and institutional structure will become increasingly central. Joo Chiat, while often viewed as a site of architectural heritage, also offers potential as a testing ground for new modes of cultural communication. This research aims not only to analyse how Joo Chiat has been narrated, but also to ask how it can be re-narrated—more inclusively, more dynamically—to shift heritage communication from static display to participatory engagement, and from visual consumption to a living cultural presence.

66

Bibliography Books / Reports 1.

Graham Byfield and Gretchen Liu, Singapore Sketchbook (Singapore: Edit ions Didier Millet, 2001).

2. K. E. James and R. J. Walsh, “On the Moral Geography of Cities: A Case Study of Three Singapore Hostess Pubs in a Suburban ‘High Street’ Setti ng,” Advances in Applied Sociology 13 (2023): 139–158.

3. Kong and Tou Chuang Chang, Joo Chiat: A Living Legacy, Book, Whole (Singapore: Joo Chiat Citizens’ Consultative Committee, 2001) 4. Laurajane Smith and American Council of Learned Societies, Uses of Her itage, 1st ed., Book, Whole (New York: Routledge, 2006).

5. Lily Kong and T. C. Chang, Joo Chiat: A Living Legacy (Singapore: Natio nal Heritage Board, 2001), 112–113.

6. Lily Kong, Conserving the Past, Creating the Future: Urban Heritage in S ingapore (Singapore: Urban Redevelopment Authority, 2011), 41–44;Singa pore Ministry of Trade and Industry and Singapore Tourist Promotion B oard, Tourism Product Development Plan (Singapore: Ministry of Trade and Industry and Singapore Tourist Promotion Board, 1986).

7. National Heritage Board (NHB), Our SG Heritage Plan 2.0 (Singapore: Na tional Heritage Board, 2022),https://www.nhb.gov.sg/-/media/nhb/files/re sources/our-sg-heritage-plan-2/nhb-hp2-publication.pdf.

8. Singapore Tourism Board, 52 Weekends eGuide 2020 (Singapore: Singap ore Tourism Board, 2020), https://www.visitsingapore.com/content/dam/ desktop/global/about-singapore/traveller-information/52-weekends-eguide2020.pdf.

9. UNESCO, The Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence (Pa ris: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, 202 1), 31.

10. Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA), Conservation Guidelines for Relig ious Buildings (Singapore: URA, n.d.), https://www.ura.gov.sg/services/do wnload_file.aspx?f=%7BF1810969-1401-4228-828F-EB7ED9E32CA2%7D. 11. Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA), Conservation Guidelines, Decemb er 2017, https://www.ura.gov.sg/-/media/User-Defined/URA-Online/Guidel ines/Conservation/Cons-GuidelinesDec2017.pdf.

12. Waag Futurelab, Mixed Reality: Nieuwe manieren om je wereld te verrij ken: Onderzoek naar de toepassing van mixed reality in erfgoed (Amste rdam: Waag Futurelab, 2022).

Journal Articles 67

13. Brian J. Shaw and Rahil Ismail, ‘Ethnoscapes, Entertainment and ’eritage in the Global City: Segmented Spaces in Singapore’s Joo Chiat Road’, Ge oJournal 66, no. 3 (2006): 187–98, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-006-9 029-9.

14. Hyeseung Shim et al., ‘Heritage Values, Digital Storytelling, and Heritage Communication: The Exploration of Cultural Heritage Sites in Virtual En vironments’, Digital Creativity (Exeter) 35, no. 2 (2024): 171–97, https:/ /doi.org/10.1080/14626268.2024.2313585.

15. ICOMOS Charter for the Interpretation and Presentation of Cultural Herit age Sites. International Journal of Cultural Property 15, no. 4 (11, 200 8): 377-383. doi:https://doi.org/10.1017/S0940739108080417. http://libp roxy1.nus.edu.sg/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/ic omos-charter-interpretation-presentation/docview/232078274/se-2.

16. J. Henderson, ‘Ethnic Heritage as a Tourist Attraction: The Peranakans o f Singapore’, International Journal of Heritage Studies : IJHS 9, no. 1 (20 03): 27–44.

17. Jean Duruz, ‘The Taste of Retro: Nostalgia, Sensory Landscapes and Cos mopolitanism in Singapore’, in Food, Foodways and Foodscapes, 0 vols, World Scientific Series on Singapore’s 50 Years of Nation-Building (WOR LD SCIENTIFIC, 2014), 133–58, https://doi.org/10.1142/9789814641234_ 0007.

18. Joan C. Henderson, ‘Managing Tourism and Islam in Peninsular Malaysi a’, Tourism Management (1982) 24, no. 4 (2003): 447–56.

19. John Urry, ‘The Tourist Gaze “Revisited”: THE CONCEPT OF THE GAZE THE TOURIST GAZE AND THE ENVIRONMENT CONCLUSION REFERENCE S’, The American Behavioral Scientist (Beverly Hills) 36, no. 2 (1992): 1 72.

20. M. Zhang and J. H. Lenzer, “Mismatched Canal Conservation and the Aut horized Heritage Discourse in Urban China: A Case of the Hangzhou Sec tion of the Grand Canal,” International Journal of Heritage Studies 26, n o. 2 (2019): 105–119, https://doi-org.libproxy1.nus.edu.sg/10.1080/13527 258.2019.1608458.

21. Sanghun Park, “Re-Imagining Heritage Interpretation: Enchanting the Pas t-Future,” Journal of Tourism and Cultural Change 15, no. 4 (2015): 393 –96.

Book Chapters 22. Daniel Chew, “Towards a Social History of Tanjong Pagar, 1900–1940,” i n Tanjong Pagar: Singapore’s Cradle of Development, ed. Tanjong Pagar Citizens’ Consultative Committee (Singapore: Tanjong Pagar Citizens’ Con sultative Committee, 1989).

68

23. Y. K. R. Phua and L. Kong, “Exploring Local Cultures: The Construction and Evolution of Meaning and Identity in Katong,” in Portraits of Place s: History, Community and Identity in Singapore, ed. B. S. A. Yeoh and L. Kong (Singapore: Times Editions, 1995).

24. Yehuda Kalay, Thomas Kvan, and Janice Affleck, “New Heritage,” in New Media and Cultural Heritage, ed. Yehuda Kalay, Thomas Kvan, and Janice Affleck (London and New York: Routledge, 2008).

Web Sources 25. Marketing.sg, “Preservation of Monuments Board,” Marketing.sg, accessed April 21, 2025, https://marketing.sg/preservation-of-monuments-board.

26. My Community, “Guided Tours,” My Community, accessed April 21, 202 5, https://mycommunity.org.sg/guided-tours/.

27. National Heritage Board (NHB), “About Heritage Activation Nodes,” Natio nal Heritage Board, accessed April 21, 2025, https://www.nhb.gov.sg/wh at-we-do/our-work/community-engagement/han-heritage-champions/aboutheritage-activation-nodes.

28. National Heritage Board (NHB), “About Us,” National Heritage Board, acc essed April 21, 2025, https://www.nhb.gov.sg/who-we-are/about-us.

29. National Library Board (NLB), “Building History: Conservation in Singapo re,” National Library Board, accessed April 21, 2025, https://www.nlb.go v.sg/main/article-detail?cmsuuid=e84d96e6-53d3-4cb6-a0fc-63d9e0f1dca5.

30. National Library Board (NLB), “Chew Joo Chiat,” Singapore Infopedia, acc essed April 21, 2025, https://reference.nlb.gov.sg/guides/singapore/peopl e/chew-joo-chiat/.

31. National Library Board (NLB), “History of Joo Chiat,” National Library B oard, accessed April 21, 2025, https://www.nlb.gov.sg/main/article-detail? cmsuuid=1138ea9d-9dbe-4f09-9fef-ba2c7105eb91.

32. National Library Board (NLB), “Singapore’s Conservation Journey,” Nation al Library Board, accessed April 21, 2025, https://www.nlb.gov.sg/main/ article-detail?cmsuuid=7a64797c-e86c-44ac-ab2f-6c82a5e213b5.

33. Ritsumeikan University, “Gion Festival Digital Museum: CAD Center,” Rits umeikan University Art Research Center, accessed April 21, 2025, https: //www.arc.ritsumei.ac.jp/lib/vm/gionfestivalDMe/cad-center/.

34. UNESCO, “De Digitale Stad – The Digital City,” UNESCO, accessed April 2 1, 2025, https://www.unesco.org/en/memory-world/dds-de-digitale-stad/d igital-city.

35. Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA), “History of Joo Chiat,” URA Cons ervation Portal, accessed April 21, 2025, https://www.ura.gov.sg/Conserv ation-Portal/Explore/History.aspx?bldgid=JOOCH.

69

36. Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA), “Remembering 30 Years,” Skylin e, Issue 12, accessed April 21, 2025, https://www.ura.gov.sg/Corporate/R esources/Publications/Skyline/Skyline-issue12/Remembering-30-years.

37. Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA), “What We Do,” URA, accessed A pril 21, 2025, https://www.ura.gov.sg/Corporate/About-Us/What-We-Do. 38. Waag Futurelab, “Waag Futurelab,” Waag Futurelab, accessed April 21, 2 025, https://waag.org/en/.

Other 39. Chua Kong Ho, “No More New Pubs, Massage Joints in Joo Chiat,” Strait s Times, February 13, 2005, 8; Joyce Teo, “Joo Chiat Exudes Laid-Back Charms,” Straits Times, September 21, 2008, 25; Tay, “Joo Chiat Facelif t.”

40. Duxbury, Nancy, William Garrett-Petts, David MacLennan, Graeme Evans, Leonardo Chiesi, Paolo Costa, Eleonora Redaelli, et al. Cultural Mapping as Cultural Inquiry, 2015.

41. Kang Shua Yeo et al., ‘“Using Image Processing to Understand 20th-Cent ury Architectural Colour Schemes in Singapore”’, 2018.

42. Shaw and Ismail, “Ethnoscapes, Entertainment and ‘Heritage’ in the Glob al City,” 196; Carl Skadian, “It’s a Battle to Bring the Old Joo Chiat Bac k,” Straits Times, April 1, 2005, 1; Tay Suan Chiang, “Come to Joo Chiat for the Art,” Straits Times, August 24, 2008, 43; Tay Suan Chiang, “Joo Chiat Facelift,” Straits Times, October 17, 2010, 2.

43. Singapore Ministry of Communications and Information, Tanjong Pagar: Singapore’s Cradle of Development, exhibition brochure, 1989, National Archives of Singapore.

70

Appendix Joo Chiat Interview Records All interviews referenced below were conducted in person by the author with real individuals connected to the Joo Chiat area. To protect participants’ privacy, real names have been omitted, with only general identifiers of their roles or affiliations retained. Prior to each interview, participants were informed of the purpose of the discussion and were made aware that selected content might be quoted in this dissertation. Consent was obtained in all cases.

Interviewee 1: University lecturer, Singapore-based expert in architectural heritage conservation, with over 20 years of experience in research, mapping, and restoration of local shophouses.

Q1: Have you been to Joo Chiat? What’s your overall impression of the area?

A: Yes, of course. I’ve been there many times. There are now many food-related shops, and a few traditional small businesses still hanging on. But if we’re talking about the original community, honestly, it’s almost gone. Some of the old shops are still there, but the original residents are very rare now. Most of the people living there today are foreigners. Many old houses have been converted into co-living spaces—divided up into small rental units, mostly for single expats.

Q2: Do you know who the original residents of Joo Chiat were? What was their social class like?

A: They weren’t all Peranakans. Many of the early residents were middle or uppermiddle-class merchants—not super wealthy, but doing quite well. This was a migrant community, with Chinese, Malays, Indians—it was a mixed neighborhood.

I wouldn’t say it was dominated by any single ethnic group. In fact, I don’t think any part of Singapore is ever 100% made up of one group.

Q3: From a heritage perspective, what do you think is the most distinctive feature of Joo Chiat?

A: At this point, probably just the façades—the "historic façades" or "streetscape."

URA emphasizes maintaining visual consistency from the street, but there aren’t strict rules for the interiors. So while the fronts may be colorful and neat, behind them you might find modern 7 or 8-storey buildings. This “low front, tall back” development model is allowed in Joo Chiat because it's a residential conservation area, not a commercial one like Chinatown or Little India, which have stricter 71

controls on height and massing.

Most of the buildings are privately owned. Many are townhouses rather than traditional shophouses. Some old homes have already been bought up and redeveloped by property companies—they keep the façade and build taller structures behind. It's legal and very common under current policy.

Q4: What do you think about this "façade-only" conservation method?

A: It’s really just surface-level conservation. The people are gone, the businesses have changed, and the lifestyle’s gone too. All that’s left is a row of photogenic houses for Instagram. It turns heritage into real estate, and that weakens its historical meaning.

I’ll give an example. I once worked on restoring an old building that, based on historical records, was originally painted in light blue lime wash—a very typical color. I wanted to bring back that original color, but I was advised to use a different one. They told me light blue was already “taken” by the Baba House, and I should use something “new” to stand out, something more attractive. I was confused. Why fake the color just for the sake of looking “good”?

What they really wanted was a more “colorful” and “vibrant” Joo Chiat—for tourists, not for authenticity. It feels like we’re turning Joo Chiat into a kind of heritage Disneyland.

Q5: What do you think of the way official heritage narratives about Joo Chiat are constructed?

A: Singapore’s official heritage communication loves to use “labels.” For tourism or branding, they assign each area a fixed identity. Like Little India for Indian culture, Kampong Glam for Malay heritage, and Joo Chiat for Peranakan culture. But history was never that neatly divided.

Joo Chiat had a mix of ethnicities—including Indian and Malay Peranakans. The culture was actually very blended. Also, the Peranakan story isn’t just about Chinese men and local women—it includes Indian heritage too. But most people only hear the Chinese part.

Q6: What’s the problem with this kind of “labeling”?

A: The biggest issue is that it turns into a single, dominant narrative. It becomes the “official identity” of the place, and that erases complexity.

Once people accept this simplified version, all the other cultural layers just get lost.

Joo Chiat’s current storytelling focuses on a few high-profile heritage landmarks— but that doesn’t mean they’re the whole story. Many small shops and ordinary families have histories worth telling.

But institutions often pick what’s easiest to promote, which leads to an incomplete and oversimplified version of local history.

I once helped study a building from 1923. It wasn’t in the conservation zone and 72

got bought by a developer who planned to demolish it. Almost nothing was recorded. I managed to salvage some tiles, window frames, timber—but the stories and original residents? Completely lost. It’s really sad.

Q7: What is Joo Chiat’s heritage used for today?

A: Mostly for a mix of commercial and promotional purposes. It’s used to promote Joo Chiat’s image—through national campaigns, city branding, cultural maps—and at the same time, it’s heavily commercialized: tourism, real estate, food and retail.

You see buildings used as Instagram backdrops, old houses converted into coliving spaces with rents up to $3,200 per month, and more cafes and bakeries moving in.

It’s a cycle: the more tourists, the more businesses want in; the more businesses, the higher the rent; and that attracts more developers.

This is heritage commercialization—creating a curated atmosphere to attract attention and spending. The issue isn’t commercialization itself, but the balance. If it leans too far into profit and ignores community, then the local culture gets damaged. And right now, I think Joo Chiat is starting to lose that balance.

Q8: Are there still any original residents or community members left in Joo Chiat?

A: A few, yes. One of my students made a documentary and managed to interview an elderly resident who still lives there.

Q9: Are you worried about the continued loss of local culture and residents?

A: Very much. Once the original residents move out, they almost never return. This isn’t theoretical—it’s happened in many cities. Like Shanghai’s lilong—when people left, no one wanted to come back.

If a culture loses its living users, it just turns into a display.

I believe Joo Chiat is at a tipping point. If we don’t slow down the commercialization, it’ll become another Tiong Bahru or Kampong Glam—nicelooking places that have lost their community soul and turned into visitor zones. If we don’t act now, residents will slowly leave, and the living spirit of the place will fade.

Q10: What’s your view on using digital tools for heritage—like virtual tours or AR? A: I’m not a tech fan, but I do think digital tools are useful for documentation.

Things like 3D scanning, like what they did at Baba House—that’s great. It helps preserve a site’s condition, especially for people who can’t visit. But it’s just “documentation,” not “experience.”

I believe heritage has to be experienced in person. Tech can’t replace touch, smell, temperature—the things you feel when you’re physically there.

73

Q11: Do you think digital storytelling can work as a supplement?

A: Yes, definitely. I think of it in three layers.

First, there’s online browsing—like panoramic models or virtual tours.

Second, there’s on-site visits with digital aids—QR codes, audio stories.

Third, there’s human interaction—talking to residents, eating local food, staying in the area.

The most complete cultural experience is the third one—walking through the space, chatting with locals, experiencing things firsthand.

There’s no hierarchy between these layers, but if you want a real connection, the third level goes deepest.

Q12: Why do you stress the importance of in-person experience? Can you give an example?

A: I always say, enjoyment and experience are not the same. You can enjoy photos, videos, or 3D models—but you won’t feel the warmth, the textures, the ambient sounds, or the mood of the space.

Culture isn’t something you can “watch”—you have to be in it.

It’s like saying you know your grandparents just from looking at their photos.

That’s not real understanding. You have to live with them to really know them.

Q13: Do you think the current heritage conservation policies are systematic enough?

A: Not really. URA’s approach is too fragmented. They tend to pick the most marketable or easily promoted parts of history. But we all know history is layered and complicated.

If one version keeps getting repeated, other voices start to fade—and eventually disappear.

Q14: What do you think should be the focus of heritage storytelling?

A: It should help people understand the multiple narratives and cultural complexity of a place. Storytelling shouldn’t just push a brand, a cafe, or a row of façades—it should look at the continuity between people, space, history, and the present.

A heritage site isn’t just a visual icon—it’s a lived space where past and present intersect.

Interviewee 2 Engineer, head of a tech company, has worked on several projects involving heritage building surveys and digital processing

74

Q1: As an engineer and someone running a tech company who has also worked on cultural tourism projects, what’s your view on digital technology in cultural communication?

A: Digital tech is definitely a powerful tool. It breaks physical boundaries and allows cultural info to spread faster and wider. In my projects, we’ve done virtual tours, immersive scenes, even tracked visitor behavior—we’re trying to help places tell better stories and enhance the experience. But I still believe technology should play a supporting role, not be the star.

Q2: You just mentioned “technology isn’t the main character”—could you explain that a bit more?

A: Even though I’m in tech, I travel, I take my family around. And honestly, no matter how advanced the tech, it can’t replace the feeling of being physically present. I still want to step into an old house, meet real people, hear local stories.

Even an unpolished oral story told by a resident is more touching to me than a fancy AR animation.

Q3: So do you think digitalization might risk making heritage communication too superficial?

A: Yeah, that risk is real. Especially when digital tools are used to replace the real experience—like using a CG animation to explain a cultural site, but not letting people actually go in, feel the space, interact. That kind of use makes heritage feel like a cutscene, not something you live through.

Q4: Then what do you think is the right way to use digital tech?

A: I think of it as a “key” that unlocks deeper understanding—not the main content itself. Like, if I’m walking through a neighborhood and there’s a way to hear a resident talk about their childhood memories, or if I’m standing in front of an old house and I can see what it looked like decades ago—that’s when tech helps me go deeper, not replace my own interpretation.

Q5: Bringing it back to Joo Chiat—what kind of digital storytelling do you think would suit this area?

A: I’d go for two things. One, small-scale, locally-rooted content—like short clips of residents, audio stories from old shopkeepers. Keep it low-tech and accessible.

Two, interactive elements that let visitors take part—let them leave messages, compare photos, give feedback. Maybe something like “if you used to live here, mark your old home on the map.”

Q6: What do you think this relationship between digital and people means for heritage?

A: The most important thing is making people feel like, “Hey, this is part of my 75

story too.” Too many digital heritage projects focus on showing stuff, but forget to build emotional connections. If someone sees a digital element and says, “This isn’t just a tourist spot—my grandpa used to live here,” then it’s done its job.

Q7: As someone who runs a tech company, are you worried that commercial goals might overshadow cultural value?

A: That’s definitely something to think about. When we design products, clients often ask for high click-through rates, more photos, more social shares—it’s understandable, it’s the market. But I think the responsible thing is to also leave space for memory, for history, for community voices. That’s not anti-business—it’s about creating long-term cultural value.

Interviewee 3 Local Singaporean, lives in the eastern region near Joo Chiat Road, passes by the area often Q1: How often do you visit Joo Chiat Road, and what’s usually the reason?

Maybe around 10 times a year, or even less. I live nearby—not on Joo Chiat Road itself, but I pass through it quite often. Most of the time it’s just on the way somewhere, though sometimes I come over specifically to buy food.

Q2: How did you first get to know about this place?

When I was a kid, my family used to bring me here, so I’ve known about it since young.

Q3: What was your first impression of Joo Chiat? What stood out to you?

I remember the colorful houses—very pretty. And I thought the food here was really good too.

Q4: What do you find most attractive about this area? Is it the buildings, culture, food, or the overall vibe?

Probably the food. That’s the main reason I come here. The rest is okay, but I haven’t paid much attention to it.

Q5: Have you seen any content about Joo Chiat online or on social media?

No, not really. I don’t usually go looking for that kind of information. I just walk around the area when I’m here.

Q6: Do you think that kind of content has shaped your impression or expectations of the place? Do you find it accurate?

76

I don’t really have strong expectations, to be honest. It’s just a familiar area—I come here to eat and look around sometimes, that’s about it.

Q7: Do you think Joo Chiat is a “heritage area”? Why or why not?

Yeah, I think so. There are lots of old buildings, and they’ve been kept in good condition. It seems like a protected zone.

Q8: Have you heard any historical stories about Joo Chiat? Where from?

I know there are a lot of tourists around here, and it’s known as a cultural area. But I don’t know the actual stories—I haven’t really looked into it.

Q9: Do you think the average Singaporean gets a chance to understand the deeper culture behind Joo Chiat, beyond the photo spots?

I guess there’s a chance, but most people probably just take pictures. Not many go into the deeper cultural stuff.

Q10: Have you ever used any digital tools related to Joo Chiat, like online tours, maps, or websites?

Yeah, I’ve seen some of them.

Q11: Do you find those tools helpful, or do you prefer walking around on your own?

I think they can be useful, especially if they explain some background info. That would make it more interesting. But I personally still prefer to walk around and explore on my own.

Q12: If there was a digital platform where you could hear stories from local residents or shop owners, would that interest you?

Definitely. I’d love something like that—it would feel more personal and real, closer to daily life.

Q13: If you could design a “Joo Chiat stories” digital platform, what kind of content would you want on it?

I’d include stories from older residents—like what life was like here in the past— and also feature long-running shops. Some of them have been around for years, and it’d be interesting to know their background.

Q14: Are there any other types of stories or experiences that you feel aren’t really being told right now?

Probably the everyday life of people who actually live here. Most online content is about food, photo ops, or trendy stuff. But not much talks about the original

77

residents—how they live, how the neighborhood has changed. That kind of story matters too.

Interviewee 4 International visitor living in Singapore, working in architectural conservation and tourism Q1: Have you been to Joo Chiat Road? What brought you there?

Yeah, I’ve been there once. I was around the Katong area, happened to walk past Joo Chiat Road, and decided to check it out. I’d heard it was a “Peranakan heritage district” and was curious to see what it was actually like.

Q2: What was your first impression of Joo Chiat?

Visually, it was nice. The colorful houses were lined up neatly, and there were a few murals as well. I remember seeing a number of upscale restaurants, and the streets were quiet—pretty good for a walk. But honestly, I didn’t really feel any strong “heritage atmosphere” there. After walking through it, I felt it wasn’t that different from other shophouse areas in Singapore. In fact, some other areas that are better preserved gave me more of a historical vibe.

Q3: From a professional point of view—as someone working in heritage and tourism—how would you assess Joo Chiat’s cultural expression?

Aesthetically, it’s neat, clean, and pleasant. But from the perspective of cultural tourism, what matters more to me is how stories are conveyed. In Joo Chiat, I didn’t come across any explanations or signage about its history or heritage. Not even a basic introduction. What most people seemed to be doing there was just taking pictures, grabbing food, and moving on.

Q4: How does this kind of “heritage area” experience compare to others you’re familiar with, like those in Europe?

In European heritage districts or museums, there’s often something more immersive. You don’t just see buildings—you step into a way of life. Sometimes you meet locals, artisans, or guides who tell stories. In Joo Chiat, I didn’t get that at all. It felt quiet—but also kind of empty. Like a place that’s been cleaned up really nicely, but left with no memories behind.

Q5: Do you think areas like Joo Chiat would benefit from more digital info or interactive tours?

Absolutely. Not every place needs a human guide, but there could be QR codes, online maps, or story-based content tied to each building. For example, if I’m 78

standing in front of a shophouse and can scan a code to hear the former owner or a neighbor talk about the place’s history—that would make the space feel alive, not just a backdrop.

Q6: What’s your sense of the current crowd and atmosphere in Joo Chiat?

I’ve only been once, but my impression was that there were quite a lot of white expats—people who probably live in the east. There were Western-style cafés and restaurants, and lots of young people taking photos or walking their dogs. Overall, it’s a pleasant lifestyle area, but I wouldn’t say it has much “cultural depth.”

Q7: If you were to improve the cultural experience of Joo Chiat, what would you recommend?

I’d start with making the stories more visible. That could mean adding more interpretive signage on the streets, giving context to the buildings. Also, increasing the sense of community—like opening up small parts of certain buildings for visitors to enter, even briefly. A mini exhibition or a temporary space could go a long way in helping visitors feel connected to the area.

Q8: Do you think digital technology can truly help convey culture, or is it just another photo-op gimmick?

I believe it can help, but it depends on how it's used. Technology itself isn’t the problem—it’s the depth of the content that matters. If it’s just for filters or stickers, that doesn’t do much for culture. But if digital tools can spark memories of the space, or connect visitors to real local stories, then it’s very meaningful. I’m all for tech—but only if it’s used for genuine storytelling, not just surface-level effects.

Interviewee 5 A researcher in architectural conservation based in Singapore.

Q1: What brought you to Joo Chiat Road? Was it for work, personal interest, or other reasons?

A: I was recommended by a friend.

Q2: Did you spend much time there? Were there any specific blocks or buildings that caught your attention?

A: I mainly visited some small shops and walked toward the East Coast area, where there are modern buildings. The scale of Joo Chiat’s streets felt quite small. I noticed the row of colorful houses, but honestly, they didn’t seem as culturally rich as I expected. Most are private residences—you can’t go inside, and there are no

79

informational signs. I wondered whether the colors were historically accurate or just for tourism.

I didn’t sense much Peranakan (Straits Chinese) cultural atmosphere, and the spaces weren’t interactive. It felt more like later-era shophouses with minimal decorative motifs.

These heritage buildings seem somewhat "commodified"—only the facades are preserved, with no engagement between people and the architecture. Since they’re privately owned, accessibility is limited. I’ve studied the Katong area before and find it fascinating how, in the early 20th century, people migrated from the city center to Katong. Joo Chiat shouldn’t be viewed in isolation; it’s part of Katong’s broader narrative. Beyond residents, even shoppers who bought Peranakan products in malls contributed to the cultural identity of Joo Chiat.

Q3: What do you think is Joo Chiat’s most significant cultural heritage value?

A: The urban transformation and migration patterns of different communities. The shift from Chinatown to Neil Road, then to Katong, reflects meaningful ethnicgeographic movement. Post-independence, Singapore’s ethnic cohesion weakened, replaced by community-centric living (e.g., HDB’s ethnic quota system), strengthening individual-national identity.

Peranakan culture was once vital, and I appreciate Joo Chiat’s localization.

Chinatown feels overly touristy, while Little India retains authenticity. In Katong, small shops curate global goods with a local twist—like a store owner importing Greek dresses to express cultural fusion. Singapore thrives on cultural exchange, fostering unique expressions.

What moved me most was Joo Chiat’s community-driven local identity and organic cultural evolution.

Q4: How would you assess the current state of conservation in Joo Chiat?

A: I haven’t studied policies deeply, but I question how to preserve its uniqueness and avoid becoming another Chinatown.

Q5: Is Joo Chiat a "living community" rather than a "museum-style heritage" site?

A: I’m unfamiliar with Peranakan museums, but Joo Chiat feels like a cultural vessel for locals, not a static exhibit.

Q6: Have you engaged with official guides or promotional materials about Joo Chiat?

80

A: No. I’ve explored content on Tiong Bahru, Little India, and Chinatown but haven’t noticed much for Joo Chiat.

Q7: Are these narratives authentic and diverse, or overly simplistic/commercialized?

A: Authenticity matters less than whether there’s a "switch" mechanism to help people engage with the culture. France’s digital displays do this well. I’d welcome digital interventions—it’s too hot to walk outdoors otherwise!

Q8: Are resident/merchant perspectives represented?

A: Yes. Some shop owners actively recommend other stores, reflecting informal community networks.

Q9: Have you encountered digital projects (e.g., virtual tours, AR) for Joo Chiat?

A: No. Q10: Can digital tech enhance heritage understanding, or is it just decorative?

A: It can construct new perspectives. Rome’s projections of historical murals deepened my appreciation. I strongly support such tech.

Q11: Is digital content too visual, neglecting cultural complexity?

A: Depends on the team. Rome executed it well; some canal projects didn’t.

Q12: Can digital tools foster public engagement? What supporting mechanisms are needed?

A: Yes. For example, on-site AR could complement (not replace) the tactile experience of city walks cherished by architects/planners.

Q13: Should architectural conservation include public narratives, especially residents’ voices?

A: Absolutely—it’s essential but challenging. Governments may try, but genuine input is often missed.

Q14: Do you support community co-creation projects? Have you participated?

A: Yes. I joined HDB’s My Community initiative, engaging with residents—a valuable experience.

Q15: Can branded districts like Joo Chiat still foster community-driven narratives?

81

A: Yes. Expand "community" to include youth and culture enthusiasts. Penang and Tokyo host local markets; Malaysia uses rent control to protect small businesses.

Some owners want policy improvements, like collaborative workshops for streetwide renovations.

Q16: What’s your top priority for Joo Chiat’s conservation and outreach?

A: Diversify value recognition—support small vintage shops and local businesses to weave new cultural networks.

Q17: Any exemplary cases of heritage-digital storytelling in Singapore or abroad?

A: Hong Kong’s Tai Kwun. Beyond adaptive reuse, it prompts philosophical reflection. The site, a former prison, doesn’t erase its history—exhibits and audio confront visitors with stories of detainees who merely sought better lives. It encourages critique and empathy, balancing heritage with contemporary discourse.

Interviewee 6 A local business owner operating a family-run eatery on Joo Chiat Road for over 10 years.

Q1: How long have you been running your business here? What do you primarily sell?

A: I’ve been here for over a decade. It’s a family business—we sell traditional pastries and simple meals. We have many regulars, and some tourists visit specifically for our food. My parents used to manage it; I’m the second generation taking over.

Q2: Did you grow up in this area? How have you seen the neighborhood change?

A: Yes, I grew up nearby. Back then, Joo Chiat wasn’t as "famous" as it is now. It was mostly locals, with tight-knit community bonds. Now it’s become more commercialized—many old neighbors have moved away, replaced by outsiders and new businesses. Rent has also skyrocketed.

Q3: How would you describe Joo Chiat today? Do you consider it a "heritage area"?

A: The government calls it a "heritage area," and there’s some preservation, but honestly, for us business owners, it feels more like a "tourist spot." The buildings are pretty, sure, but outsiders don’t know the stories behind them or bother to ask.

82

These days, it’s just a "photo spot"—people come to take pictures, drink coffee, and leave.

Q4: Have you noticed different types of customers? Tourists, locals, expats?

A: Definitely. On weekends, most visitors are tourists—especially white families or young backpackers—along with some nearby residents. Some just take photos without spending; others sit down to eat. Locals still come, but fewer and fewer— many say rents are too high, and the shops feel less welcoming now.

Q5: Have government or organizations approached you for interviews, filming, or collaborations?

A: Once, for a "heritage promotion." They took a few photos, asked me to pose in traditional clothes, and left. I never saw the final output or was included in actual planning or storytelling.

Q6: Do you feel Joo Chiat’s culture has been reduced to just "facades" and "symbols"?

A: Kind of. The buildings remain, but the people—residents and business owners— have changed, and the culture is fading. Is Peranakan culture still alive? Some of our pastries are Peranakan, but fewer people eat them now. Without storytelling or participation, culture becomes just decoration.

Q7: Have you heard of digital guides, AR experiences, or online platforms for Joo Chiat?

A: I’ve heard of some, but I’ve never used them or seen visitors using them outside my shop. Tourists usually just take photos or Google nearby eateries—they rarely ask about the buildings’ histories.

Q8: Would you participate in a digital platform to share your shop’s story or family history?

A: If it’s simple and doesn’t take much time, yes. Our generation still remembers the old stories, and we’d like to preserve them. But our reach is limited—if a platform could amplify our voices, show that this place isn’t just colorful walls but real people, that’d be great.

Q9: What future do you envision for Joo Chiat?

A: I hope it doesn’t become just a photo op or a chain-store hub. To keep local businesses alive and culture thriving, we need support—fair rents, community involvement, and ways to help tourists truly understand this place.

Q10: What role do you think merchants like you play in cultural preservation?

83

A: Not a big one—we’re just small business owners. But if people care about traditional food or old shops, we’re happy to share. If anyone’s willing to listen and support, we’ll do our part.

Interviewee 7 Long-time resident who enjoys the local atmosphere Q1: Do you currently live in the Joo Chiat area?

A: Yes, I’ve been living near Still Road for about ten years now.

Q2: What brought you to this neighborhood initially?

A: I was looking for somewhere quiet yet convenient. It’s close to the city and East Coast Park—perfect for me.

Q3: How do you find living here?

A: I love it. Everything I need is nearby—great food, easy access to the beach. It has this peaceful "edge-of-the-city" vibe.

Q4: What do you find most appealing about the area?

A: It still carries that old-school Singapore charm. Even with new shops popping up, it feels less commercialized than downtown.

Q5: Do you notice the heritage buildings or cultural elements?

A: Sometimes, especially along Koon Seng Road with those colorful houses. I’ll snap photos occasionally.

Q6: Were you aware this is a designated heritage area?

A: I’ve heard about preservation efforts and seen photo tours, but as a resident, it doesn’t impact daily life much.

Q7: Have you joined any heritage activities or tours?

A: Not actively, though I once overheard a tour group and found it interesting.

Q8: Do you see a connection between heritage conservation and everyday life?

A: Definitely. Living here makes you feel the layers of history—it’s different from a brand-new condo.

Q9: What direction would you like to see the neighborhood take?

A: I hope it retains its character. Rising prices shouldn’t erase its local soul.

84

Q10: Would you contribute to a platform sharing resident stories about Joo Chiat?

A: Sure! Longtime residents have unique perspectives worth sharing.

Interviewee 8 Lifelong resident with limited engagement in heritage Q1: Where do you currently live?

A: Joo Chiat—born and raised here, never moved far.

Q2: Do you actively notice cultural landmarks?

A: Not really. It’s just home—familiar, but not something I think about.

Q3: Did you know Joo Chiat is a heritage zone?

A: Vaguely. I know they preserved some old buildings, but that’s it.

Q4: Are there cultural elements worth preserving here?

A: Probably, like the old shophouses and kopitiams, but I don’t pay much attention.

Q5: Do you find the architecture photogenic?

A: Visitors might. For me, the colorful houses on Koon Seng Road are just... normal.

Q6: Have you noticed tourists visiting?

A: Yeah, lots of foreigners taking photos. Sometimes I help them (laughs).

Q7: Have you participated in tours or community events?

A: Nah. Those seem more for tourists. Locals don’t bother.

Q8: Where do you get info about Joo Chiat?

A: Nowhere, really. I wouldn’t look it up unless asked.

Q9: How effective is government preservation here?

A: They saved the buildings, but the people and shops changed. Feels different now.

Q10: How do you see Joo Chiat evolving?

A: Probably more expensive and touristy. But it’s home—I’ll stay however it changes.

85

Interviewee 9 First-time heritage tour participant from elsewhere in Singapore Q1: What brought you to Joo Chiat?

A: A community tour a few weeks ago. I’d been here to eat before but never explored properly.

Q2: Did the tour change your perception?

A: Completely! I used to think it was just Peranakan food and colorful facades. The tour revealed temples, exhibits, and untold migrant histories.

Q3: Any memorable tour moments?

A: Learning about a small temple’s backstory, and a shophouse attic photo exhibit of past residents—stories I’d never have discovered alone.

Q4: Did the tour deepen your cultural understanding?

A: Absolutely. Without guidance, I’d just take photos and leave.

Q5: How could tours improve?

A: Maybe add QR codes for self-guided info when tours aren’t running.

Q6: Did you feel the heritage atmosphere?

A: Visually striking, but the narratives made it meaningful. Beauty needs stories to stick.

Q7: Would you recommend the tour to others?

A: Yes—it’s not just for tourists. Locals should experience this too.

Q8: Would an online history platform help?

A: Very much. Imagine hearing century-old shop owners’ stories firsthand via video.

Q9: Is Joo Chiat more a tourist spot or community now?

A: It’s blurred, but I prefer it as a living neighborhood, not just a backdrop.

Q10: Would you return to explore further?

A: Definitely. The tour only scratched the surface—there’s so much more to uncover.

86