Cities, Vol. 22, No. 1, p.

3–13, 2005
Ó 2004 Elsevier Ltd.
doi:10.1016/j.cities.2004.10.002 All rights reserved.
Printed in Great Britain
0264-2751/$ - see front matter

www.elsevier.com/locate/cities

Romancing the high-rise in

Singapore
Belinda Yuen *
School of Design and Environment, National University of Singapore, 4 Architecture Drive,
Singapore 117566

Since the 1960s, Singapore has continually built high-rise buildings to house its growing pop-
ulation. While many other developing cities are faced with a housing shortage, the greater
proportion of the Singapore resident population is living in and owning accommodation in
high-rise buildings. Drawing on interviews conducted with public housing families in their
homes, this paper seeks to discuss and provide a perspective of the Singapore residentsÕ atti-
tude to high-rise living. Although the discussion is focused on the Singapore resident perspec-
tive, high-rise living experience is not unique to Singapore. If international building and
urbanization trends are any indication, more and more urban residents will have the opportu-
nity to live in high-rise housing. A widening number of cities, including London, are building
50-story housing as the latest answer to their countryÕs housing shortages. Given the extensive
high-rise living in Singapore, the findings of this paper stand to offer important implications to
cities considering high-rise housing.
Ó 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: High-rise living; resident attitude; Singapore

Introduction density inner city housing becomes a priority in

High-rise housing is a growing phenomenon in many many British cities. London, for example, has in
cities around the world. It is not new, for as Ford early 2003 announced the launch of 50-story Ôgreen
(1994) traces, high-rise living has been attracting ur- technologyÕ tower blocks (Skyhouses designed by
ban residents in large US cities since the early 1900s. D. Marks and J. Barfield) as the latest answer to
In response, a variety of high-rise housing has been the countryÕs housing shortage. The governmentÕs
built throughout America and Europe from the demographic estimate is that about 4.4 million new
large ÔcheapÕ public housing estates in the 1960s households may form in England by 2016. Thus,
and 1970s, to the more recent luxurious high-rises even as local authorities are demolishing much of
in up-market central districts (see, for example, the high-rise public housing of the 1960s, a first re-
Greed, 1993; Abel, 2003, for further discussion of port of the National Sustainable Tower Blocks Ini-
the American and European high-rise movement). tiative has been published in 2000 and new
Despite critics, the importance of the high-rise has guidance on tall buildings issued by the Commission
been acknowledged by scholars, and some, like for Architecture and the Built Environment and
Douglas (1996, p 1), have described tall buildings English Heritage in March, 2003. All indications
as Ôamong the most forceful and defining character- seem to point towards the continued construction
istics of the American urban landscapeÕ. of tall (and taller) residential buildings, even though
There appears to be a revisiting of high-rise hous- several (including Marcuse, 2001) have predicted
ing in the urban sustainability debate, as higher- that no more new mega-towers will be built after
September 11, 2001.
The general direction is that tall buildings can
*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +65 6874 3418; fax: 65 6451 3989; have a positive role in urban development if care-
e-mail: [email protected] fully considered, notwithstanding early criticism of

3
 Romancing the high-rise in Singapore: B Yuen

high-rise living that raises issues over a number of Haffner (1991), relate Hong KongÕs residentsÕ ready
physical, social and psychological dimensions— acceptance of tall buildings to reasons of land econ-
including childrenÕs safety and development (Jeph- omy, prestige and occupant feelings of security and
cott, 1971; Hart, 1979), crime and depersonalized well-being in high-rise living.
living spaces (Newman, 1972) and phobias (Haber, In Singapore, early resident surveys (1968 and
1977). Many of the criticisms are increasingly viewed 1973) on public housing tenantsÕ present and past liv-
as mistakes Ômore to do with bad management, low ing conditions reveal a consistently high level of sat-
quality construction, lack of maintenance and lack isfaction with high-rise living (Yeh and Tan, 1974/
of choice.Õ (BBC News 10 February, 2003) A grow- 75). The 1968 survey has found that standards of
ing number of scholars and policymakers including public housing contrast very favorably with the con-
Yeang (1999) and the Corporation of London ditions in respondentsÕ previous homes. Although
(2002) are revisiting tall buildings as a model of sus- water, electricity, cooking, bathing and toilet facili-
tainable building. As Binder (2001, preface) asserts, ties were standard provisions within high-rise public
Ôtall buildings provide a sensible solution for sustain- housing units, some 25% of the respondent house-
ing a high-density development by optimizing the holds had not had direct water and electricity supply
use of airspace while relieving more ground floor in their previous accommodation, 45% had had only
space for amenity and greenery.Õ a space for cooking, 50% had had to share bathing
Elsewhere, in Asia, where over one half of the facilities with other households and only 33% had
worldÕs population lives, several high density cities, had flush toilets. According to Yeh (1972), about
like Hong Kong and Singapore, have been building 87% of the public housing tenants in the 1968 survey
(and continue to build) high-rise public housing for were former residents of shop houses, mostly pre-
their population for the last couple of decades (Figure war (41%), attap/zinc-roofed squatter houses
1). The two citiesÕ comparative experience in high- (46%) and private housing (13%). With resettle-
rise public housing development has been analyzed ment, families have gradually moved from tradition-
elsewhere (see, for example, Wang and Yeh, 1987; ally low-rise, 2 to 3-story shop houses (Figure 2) and
Castells et al., 1990). In contrast to western experi- single story make-shift squatter huts, to high-rise
ences, public acceptability of high-rise living in these public housing, rising to 30-stories (Figure 3).
cities appears to be high (Yeung, 1987; Lim, 1994; Recent statistics on Singapore public housing res-
Yeung and Wong, 2003). A review of the literature idential mobility reveal a significant 82.5% of all
indicates several possible reasons. In an early study, households who are living in public housing who
Lee (1981) suggested that the Chinese tranquility indicate that they would be content to always live
and uncomplaining attitude, their acceptance of hav- in those flats (Housing and Development Board,
ing to work and survive, mutual dependence of family 2000). Such high satisfaction rate inspires closer
members and low personal emphasis on privacy are examination of life in high-rises, especially in the
some factors why Hong Kong residents can cope with light of growing international interest in tall housing,
the densely populated environment. Others, such as amid lingering criticisms that ÔTower blocks are

Figure 1 Going up 60 stories in Hong Kong.

4
 Romancing the high-rise in Singapore: B Yuen

Figure 2 Shop houses once provided the main residential space in Singapore.

examined, following a review of the relevant Singap-

orean and international literature.

High-rise living in Singapore

Singapore, with a land area of 690 km2, where
approximately 84% of the 3.4 million resident popu-
lation lives in public housing, has been described by
many observers as an urban laboratory (Koolhaas
and Mau, 1995; Turnbull, 1997). While many other
developing cities are faced with housing shortages,
Singapore under state provision and support has em-
barked on a national public housing program that
extends housing to not just those affected by slum
clearance, but all families who lack. Under a shel-
ter-for-all policy, all citizens of Singapore who do
not already own homes and whose combined
monthly household income falls below the specified
ceiling, are eligible to rent/buy public housing. The
policy has fuelled a rise in the proportion of the res-
ident population living in public housing, from 9% in
1960 to 86% by 1988 (and remaining thereabout
since). With a current monthly income ceiling eligi-
bility criterion of S$8000 per household, public hous-
ing may be accessed by 90% of households in
Singapore.
Figure 3 30 Stories is the current tallest public housing in The governmentÕs commitment to subsidize the
Singapore. three basic services of housing, education and health
care in order to make them affordable was reiter-
fundamentally flawed as a general form of housingÕ ated by the Prime Minister in his 2001 National
(BBC News, 10 February, 2003). This paper takes Day rally speech, ‘‘No Singaporeans should be
on the challenge to discuss and provide a perspective denied these basic needs . . . no matter how poor
on the Singapore residentsÕ experience of high-rise he is’’ (The Straits Times, 21 Aug 2001). In conse-
living, in order to understand the considerations that quence, while the poor elsewhere are homeless,
may attract people to live in high-rises. The circum- the poorest 20% of households in Singapore are well
stance of SingaporeÕs high-rise public housing is housed and 75% of them are homeowners (The

5
 Romancing the high-rise in Singapore: B Yuen

Straits Times, 30 June 2000). Although begun as 202 entries from over 30 countries (The Straits
rented housing, home ownership of public housing Times, May 11 2002).
is encouraged as a policy, which has raised owner Taller buildings appear to be the trend of the fu-
occupation to the greater proportion (94%). Home ture. Planners forecast that 800,000 new homes
ownership is part of a pragmatic strategy to trans- would be required for an additional million and a
form public housing estates into good places to live half people by 2040–2050. As pronounced in the
as envisaged by the Prime Minister (Lee, 2000, p countryÕs latest long-term Concept Plan,
116), More people will get to live on higher floors and
My primary preoccupation was to give every citizen a enjoy the views. In areas with less stringent height
stake in the country and its future. I wanted a home- constraints, housing can rise to 30 stories and higher.
owning society. I had seen the contrast between the Currently, only about 35,000 people live above the
blocks of low-cost rental flats, badly misused and 20th story (Urban Redevelopment Authority, 2001,
poorly maintained, and those of house-proud own- p 16)
ers, and was convinced that if every family owned
How does it feel to live that high? The aim here is
its home, the country would be more stable.
to discuss and provide a perspective of residentsÕ
Teo and Phillips (1989) have argued in reviewing everyday experiences, their reasons and concerns
SingaporeÕs public housing development that these of living high.
concrete high-rise flats—though initially derided
for their monotony and architectural insensitivity—
have over time, with physical renewal and improve-
ment, become synonymous with comfortable, mid- Theory and evidence
dle-class housing, for most Singaporeans. To begin, According to Haffner (1991), mankind has always
much of the public housing in Singapore is framed wanted to build tall. From the visions of Le Corbu-
within new towns and prioritized towards the devel- sier, Mies van der Rohe to the designs of Norman
opment of high-rise apartments, in part because of Foster and Paul Rudolf, high-rise housing has occu-
land limitations and partly to sustain high standards pied a most public and visible presence in the town-
in living conditions (Wong and Yeh, 1985; Foo, scape. As Curtis (1986, p 15) argues, tall buildings
2001). Unlike elsewhere, the high-rise option in- Ôcan have a certain kind of complexity and richness;
volves commitment to increasing the amount of liv- they also have an enormous potential for banality.Õ It
ing space in Singapore. The Singaporean flats are is no surprise that as these buildings proliferated
relatively large by international standards—an aver- from the large ÔcheapÕ public housing estates in the
age of 90 m2 for a 4-room flat (3 bedrooms) and 110 1960s and 1970s to the more recent luxurious high-
m2 for a 5-room flat (4 bedrooms) or about 18–22 m2 rise in up-market districts of central London, their
of living space per person, as compared with about construction would receive considerable attention
7–15 m2 in cities such as Tokyo and Seoul. in the literature, from the disciplines of architecture
With the passage of time, building height has pro- (Yeang, 1999) to psychology (Bell et al., 1996), and
gressively increased from under 7 stories to more at the annual conference discussions of the Council
than 25 stories, with most buildings 12 stories high on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (see, for exam-
(Table 1). The current tallest public housing is 30- ple, Herrenkohl et al., 1981; Beedle and Rice, 1991;
story and taller housing (40 and 50-story) is being Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat, 2001).
built in both the public and private sectors, as popu- Even as the merits and problems of tall buildings are
lation and urbanization grow. The first of the 40- being fiercely debated, serious questions have been
story public housing towers is under construction asked about occupant issues, in particular about
at Toa Payoh, the first new town developed in the occupant satisfaction, responses and well-being.
1960s. Design of the first 50-story public housing Without seeming to oversimplify the issues in the
development in the city was launched in August trajectory of high-rise development, Cooperman
2001, with an 8-month, 2-stage international archi- et al. (1981) in an early review of this literature, have
tectural design competition. With an estimated pro- cited research by the UK Department of the Envi-
ject cost of S$247 million, the competition attracted ronment in London, that indicated a relatively high
satisfaction level on high-rise estates and many
(68%) were happy about living off the ground. Some
have argued that there is an element of self-selection
Table 1 High-rise living in Singapore
among high-rise tenants, in that households most op-
Story level Public housing (%) Private flats (%) posed to living there may have refused a tenancy
(Conway and Adams, 1977). However, as Cooper-
12 and below 90.3 84.3 man et al. (1981) astutely observe, an element of
13–24 9.5 14.4
25 and above 0.2 1.3
self-selection exists in any housing, as people are
likely to choose the living situation they prefer, since
Source. Department of Statistics (2000). the home is the most important physical setting for

6
 Romancing the high-rise in Singapore: B Yuen

many of us. A number of other studies by Michelson after resettlement from the village by Chua (1997),
(1977) and Cooper-Marcus (1995, 1999) have shown very little documentation has been made of the atti-
that specific kind of people with pre-existing behav- tudes of people who have chosen high-rise living,
ior are attracted to particular residential milieus. their reasons for wanting to live high and their
Cooper-Marcus (1995), for example, has described concerns thereof.
the Ôhouse as a mirror of selfÕ in her exploration of
the deeper meanings and relationships to the resi- Resident experience
dence. Indications are that residential satisfaction
has many determinants, including oneÕs cultural This paper comes out of a larger research project
background, place in the life cycle, socioeconomic that investigated residentsÕ living experiences in
status, lifestyle, personality values and hopes for high-rise public housing (see Yuen et al., 2003). It
the future. Norms, neighbors, preference of others draws on data from in-depth interviews with resi-
as well as the structural quality and spaces of the dents in two 30-story blocks in the new towns of Bu-
house may also affect residential satisfaction and kit Panjang and Toa Payoh, to illustrate the living
add to the complexity of the evaluation of a resi- experience in high-rise public housing in Singapore.
denceÕs satisfaction (Gifford, 1997; Ukoha and The in-depth interviews were conducted as a follow-
Beamish, 1997). up to the household survey to gather more informa-
There is some research to indicate that high-rise tion on respondentsÕ worries, likes and dislikes about
living is valued for the spectacular views and sheer living in the 30-story blocks. We explored aspects
sensation of height (Haber, 1977; Benson et al., relating to their preference (and consideration) to
1998), privacy and quietness (see, for example, live on higher floors. The advantages of mixed meth-
Greater London Council, 1968; Dept of Environ- od research have been explored elsewhere (see, for
ment, 1970) and prestige and status (Johnson, example, Tashakkori and Teddlie, 1998). The 30-
2002). But the findings are not conclusive, as there story blocks, with some exceptions, were new flats
are others who have reported dissatisfaction with developed under the Selective En Bloc Redevelop-
high-rise living because of vandalism, the lack of pri- ment Scheme (SERS: the 30-story blocks in Bukit
vacy, and feelings of isolation and loneliness (Con- Panjang town were built as new and not under
way and Adams, 1977; Helleman and Wassenberg, SERS).
2004). Some like Doxiades, cited by Blake (1977, p SERS, first introduced in 1995, is the latest estate
82) has lamented high-rise housing, renewal effort introduced by the public housing
authority, the Housing and Development Board
My greatest crime was the construction of high-rise
(HDB) where older flats (usually smaller flats) are
buildings. The most successful cities of the past were
demolished and new taller (30-story) buildings with
those where people and buildings were in a certain
4- and 5-room flats are built, to optimize land use
balance with nature. But high-rise buildings work
(Lau, 1998). Through the scheme, 25-, 28- and 30-
against nature, or, in modern terms, against the envi-
story blocks have been progressively introduced into
ronment. High-rise buildings work against man him-
the older towns, where the general height of build-
self, because they isolate him from others, and this
ings has been 10–25 stories. Toa Payoh is the first
isolation is an important factor in the rising crime
new town to be developed in the 1960s. It is located
rate. Children suffer even more because they lose
about 8 km from the city centre. It has a population
their direct contacts with nature and with other chil-
of 115,100, living in 35,120 dwelling units in 8 neigh-
dren. High-rise buildings work against society
borhoods (HDB Annual Report 2002/03). It is also
because they prevent the units of social impor-
the site of the 40-story public housing construction.
tance—the family. . . the neighbourhood, etc—from
Bukit Panjang is a newer town (developed in the
functioning as naturally and as normally as before.
early 1990s), with a smaller number of dwelling units
High-rise buildings work against networks of trans-
(29,264) and a current population of about 99,800. It
portation, communication, and of utilities, since they
is located further, about 14 km, from the city centre.
lead to higher densities, to overload roads, to more
The in-depth interviews, guided by a schedule of
extensive water supply systems—and, more impor-
questions, were conducted by the author, with the
tantly, because they form vertical networks which
help of a research assistant, over a one and a half
create many additional problems—crime being just
month period in the evenings and weekends of
one of them.
mid-2002. It initially involved six respondent fami-
Buttressed by the conflicting evidence, we are lies, each from the two sampled blocks (of 30-story)
motivated to take a leaf out of the extensive Singa- but, eventually, only eleven families participated (six
pore public housing development to examine how in Toa Payoh and five in Bukit Panjang). Many of
it feels to live that high, especially when residential the respondents in the household survey declined
satisfaction surveys have similarly registered high to participate in the stage two in-depth interviews,
satisfaction levels with the public housing flat. Apart citing a lack of time. The interviews, each lasting
from an early study by Hassan (1977) and a more re- about 3 h, were conducted in the home of the family
cent study on life in public housing environments and in many cases, the spouse and the rest of the

7
 Romancing the high-rise in Singapore: B Yuen

household joined in the discussion. All 11 families that peopleÕs perception may be influenced by their
interviewed were flat owners living on various floors: living experience (see, for example, Rapoport,
low (10-story and below), mid (11–20th floor) and 1977; Zube and Moore, 1991). As shown in Table
high (21st and above floor). The majority of the dis- 2, 3.3% and 23% of those living on high floors
cussions were conducted mainly in English (with a (above 20-story) considered a 25- and 30-story build-
few in Mandarin), and were taped with the intervie- ing, respectively, as very tall buildings. On the other
weesÕ consent (a few refused to have the discussion hand, as many as 13.5% and 38.3% of those living on
taped) and later transcribed for analysis, along with low floors (10-story and below) rated the 25- and 30-
the notes made during the discussion. Respondent story building, respectively, as very tall buildings.
characteristics and survey details are reported in A further comparison of peopleÕs preference on
Yuen et al. (2003). Not all the responses are of direct floor level over the years indicated that as more
relevance to this paper and relevant information high-rise buildings were built, more households were
(including respondentsÕ comments) is reported now living on a higher floor than 29 years ago. A
where appropriate, even though they may not reflect majority of households (54%) were living on ground
Standard English. to 4th story in 1973 (HDB Household Sample Sur-
vey, 1973). The most preferred floor in 1973 was
ground to 4th story while in our survey, where
Perception and preference 48.5% of those interviewed were living on 15–30th
Looking at the data on height perception, members floor, we were seeing more people expressing a pref-
of all 11 families opined that 10- and 15-story build- erence for higher floors—29% stating 15–20th floor
ings were not tall buildings. Equally, they were as their highest preferred floor and 52.9% for above
unanimous when considering 40-story and above to the 20th floor. It would appear that as more people
be tall buildings. The perception was, however, more become used to high-rise living, more are confident
divided when it came to the 20- and 30-story build- and willing to live higher.
ings. The finding was echoed in the household sur- From an early period, Conway and Adam (1977)
vey (348 respondents and 70% response rate) have noted the importance of past experience, cur-
where about half the respondents considered a rent living habits, reference groups and aspirations
20-story block to be a tall building, while the other to peopleÕs reactions to housing. In Singapore, since
half did not think so. There is plenty of evidence the initial building of public housing, the govern-
in the environmental perception literature to suggest ment has continued to prioritize upgrading and

Table 2 Perception of 25- and 30-story building

Floor levela Perception of 25-story building (%) Perception of 30-story building

Not a tall building Tall building Very tall building Not a tall building Tall building Very tall building

High floors (n = 91) 34.1 62.6 3.3 20.9 56.0 23.1

Low floors (n = 133) 34.6 51.9 13.5 22.6 39.1 38.3
a
Reflects only the respondents living on high floors (above 20-story) and low floors (10-story and below); mid-floor responses are not
included.

Table 3 Satisfaction with present flat

Flat attributes Very unsatisfied (%) Unsatisfied (%) Fairly satisfied (%) Satisfied (%) Very satisfied (%)

Floor level (n = 348) 3.2 5.5 36.2 34.8 20.4

Location (n = 348) 0.3 2.6 26.7 45.4 25.0
View (n = 348) 3.2 15.8 33 31.6 16.4
Breeze (n = 348) 0.6 12.1 20.1 40.8 26.4
Privacy (n = 348) 1.4 6.6 25.3 41.7 25
Noise from traffic (n = 347) 3.7 17.6 28.5 30 20.2
Noise from neighbors (n = 346) 0.9 3.5 27.5 36.1 32.1
Space between buildings (n = 348) 3.2 19 34.5 29.3 14.1
Convenience to facilities (n = 348) 2 9.8 23 40.2 25
Othersa (n = 24) 12.5 0 29.2 33.3 25

Note. n denotes the number of valid responses received to each of the flat attributes.
a
Other areas include potted plants along corridor, wide corridor, lift noise, big service balcony, personal safety, near MRT, cleanliness of
estate and lift service and accessibility.

8
 Romancing the high-rise in Singapore: B Yuen

improving high-rise dwelling conditions, aiming to travel to the city (Figure 4). We found a similar
enhance satisfaction and make the high-rise public emphasis on ease of transport among the families
housing estates a good place to live (Foo, 2001). in Bukit Panjang. Several families shared that they
Our data indicated a sense of satisfaction with the find it easy to go by bus to the city. As one respon-
present flat on several dimensions (Table 3). Few dent said, ÔIt is still quite near to the city area as I
(less than 9%) were dissatisfied with their present need only less than 30 min direct bus ride to the
floor level. Location seemed an important consider- town (city centre) during off-peak and about 45
ation, and to some, it was the top consideration in min during peak hours.Õ
choosing a flat. We found all respondents in Toa In the discussions, residents also expressed partic-
Payoh to be very happy with the location of their ular satisfaction with the safety and security. The lift
flats. They emphasized the central location and lobby areas were mentioned as safe places. In partic-
proximity to shops, mass rapid transit station and ular, the ground floor lobby was within view of pass-
bus interchange and the ease with which they can ersby and had a sense of natural surveillance (Figure

Figure 4 Mass rapid transit provides convenient connections between public housing and the rest of Singapore.

Figure 5 A ground floor lift lobby is within view of passers-by and surrounding activity areas.

9
 Romancing the high-rise in Singapore: B Yuen

Figure 6 Lifts serve units on every floor and the upper floor lift lobby is conveniently sited in relation to the apartment
unit.

5). They felt safe for their children to walk through tral Business District, while from the bedrooms
these areas. The lift lobbies on upper floors were de- and kitchen, MacRitchie Reservoir and beyond are
scribed as very bright and conveniently located in visible. The views are so good that Mdm Tang Keng
relation to the flat (Figure 6). One respondent epit- Ngoh, 60, and her son and daughter have not
omized this by stating that the floor design had facil- stopped raving about them a year after moving in.Õ
itated her elderly mother whom she described as Ôa Notwithstanding initial euphoria that comes with
bit forgetfulÕ to recognize the surrounding and re- housing choice, the Singapore finding lends support
turn safely to her unit. The spatial provisions and to others who argue that high-rise living is valued
their design would appear essential in attending to for the spectacular views and sensation of height
the experience of high-rise living. (Haber, 1977; Benson et al., 1998).
From our interviews, one family went so far as to
consider the view and privacy in high-rise living as a
Attractions and worries good trade-off for the space they experienced in
What are the attractions of high-rise? The three com- their previous low-rise dwelling in a Malaysian vil-
mon items that seemed to have consistently attracted lage where land is plentiful. The implication of such
respondents to live high-rise were the view, breezes response is that planners would do well to consider
and the privacy they can get in high-rise living. As the juxtaposition of subsequent development to en-
one respondent living on the 29th floor shared, ÔI will sure that the prized view is not compromised or
get more privacy if my floor is higher than the neigh- diminished. Apart from views, there appear to be
boring blocksÕ. Another on the 22nd floor offered the other persuasions to high-rise life. Specifically, we
reason that there is no problem of Ôwater dripping found that some families had chosen to live on high
from upstairsÕ while another cited the problem of up- floors because of personal beliefs related to religion
stairs neighbors throwing cigarette butts/tissues/trash and prayer. One family who lived on the 25th floor
that get blown through her window on the 17th floor asserted that they selected the floor number because
as motivation for wanting to live higher. Others liked Ôthe number sounds goodÕ while another head of
the clean air and view that one gets of the city from household believed that his lucky number was 17
the living and master bedroom. and thus he would like to live on the 17th floor. As
Our findings draw broad support from other re- in western society, certain house numbers are pre-
ports on HDB living, such as the recent ÔWe just ferred because they are considered by the occupant
canÕt go high enoughÕ (The Straits Times, 27 January, to be lucky. There is a body of literature on the Chi-
2003): ÔFrom any window in their 30-story 5-room nese tradition of geomancy and numerology (see, for
flat in Toa Payoh Lorong 2, the Wong family can example, Lo, 1992; Too, 1994).
see almost clear across the island. Their south-facing Yet another attributed her preference for high
unit was picked for just that—the living and dining floor to the ÔkiasuÕ attitude (local dialect word for
rooms afford views of the East Coast and the Cen- not wanting to lose out, see Mulliner and Mulliner,

10
 Romancing the high-rise in Singapore: B Yuen
Table 4 Worry of traveling time

Floor levela Worry of traveling time (no.)

Not at all A little Fairly Much Very much

High floors (n = 91) 42 10 10 14 15

Low floors (n = 133) 52 14 41 20 6
a
Reflects only the respondents living on high floors (above 20-story) and low floors (10-story and below); mid-floor responses are not
included.

1991)—she was willing to live as high as 100th story to live on the 16–30th floor, less than 2% were will-
as long as the lifts were reliable. According to her, ing to live higher than 50-story. One respondent
she had always tried to live on the top few floors. shared that she would be too afraid to hang her
She is currently living on the top floor of the 30th clothes out if it was too high (the local practice is
story block (previously living on the top floor of a to hang the clothes on long bamboos out of the
12th story block). Not all the respondents were, kitchen window to take advantage of the tropical
however, prepared to live on the high floors of tall sun). Others related incidents of maids falling while
buildings (40 and above story) citing considerations cleaning windows (cases reported in the local press
of safety, in particular, height phobia, safety of chil- and media were mentioned) and were thus not com-
dren and elderly, Ôscared if the lifts are brokenÕ, or fortable to be living too high. Even as further work
Ôscared if a crime occurs in high floorÕ. One respon- remains, it would appear that respondentsÕ accep-
dent who shared with us her height phobia asserted tance level of living higher is seemingly restricted
that her major worry in high-rise living was lift to their perception. As one respondent shared with
breakdown. Even though she was living on the 3rd us, she was previously afraid of living on high floors
story, she would use the lifts every day and had but no longer after she visited a friend living on the
not yet used the staircases in her building. The high floor and found that the height was acceptable.
importance of good and reliable lift provision in The absence of living experiences does not shut out
high-rise was a common theme in the discussions. the possibility that when taller buildings are built
Almost one-third of the survey respondents living and more people move to live in them, resident per-
on high floors expressed that they were either wor- ception and preference may change accordingly.
ried or very much worried (on a scale of 1–5) about As with the very high floors, very low floors were
lift traveling time, whereas less than one-fifth of seemingly not particularly preferred either. Respon-
those living on low floors were worried or very much dents cited reasons of mosquito problem, rubbish
worried about this (Table 4) even though they had smells, blocked views and lack of privacy for their
all expressed satisfaction with current lift provision low preference of very low floors. One respondent
and found it convenient to travel up and down the currently living on the 7th floor shared with us that
blocks. The observed average traveling time in the the lowest she was willing to live would be the 5th
30-story blocks is less than 45 seconds (including floor. On closer examination, we found that more
during peak time) and average waiting time is less people living on low floors felt less satisfied with
than 15 seconds. Just as personal inclinations may their present floor. This may have been caused by
be a motivating factor, personal fears, real or per- their perception that their floor levels were either
ceived, would appear to detract the high-rise not high enough or too low. By contrast, more than
experience. two-thirds of the respondents living on high floors
As summarized in Table 5, the data from the felt satisfied or very satisfied. The implication is for
household survey revealed that the very high and planners to take residentsÕ living experience
very low floor levels were not favored by most of seriously and come forward with sufficiently robust
the resident respondents. While many were willing solutions for all as higher buildings are constructed.
Not all could or would want to live on the high
Table 5 Highest floor that survey respondents were willing to live
floors.

Highest floor No. of respondents (%)

Conclusion
1–5 0.9 It is not the intention of the paper to advocate that
6–10 11.3
11–15 12.5 all housing in the city should be high-rise. The
16–20 22.4 notion and circumstance of high-rise living clearly
21–25 12.2 differ from city to city. However, under current
26–30 25.9 urbanization trends, it would appear that high-rise
31–50 13.1
Higher than 50 1.7
housing is an inevitable consideration in many citiesÕ
search for answers to the quest of providing enough
Note. % only includes valid responses to this question: 344. living spaces for the growing urban population. It is

11
 Romancing the high-rise in Singapore: B Yuen

a challenge that is yet to be adequately addressed by tion and ease of transport between their new town
planners and city administrators. The Singapore and the city centre. Their satisfaction with the various
data presented in this paper provide but a starting present spatial provisions reinforces the premium
glimpse of the living experience in high-rise living. they place on safety and lift performance consider-
To borrow the words of Hester and Francis (1994, ations in high-rise living. These issues are likely to
p 679), Ôthey are just local, here and now, occur- take on greater significance in taller buildings, with
rencesÕ. Much work remains to be done to under- a greater number of residents. In taking cognizance
stand the ÔwhatÕ and ÔwhyÕ of living in tall buildings of the satisfaction, preferences and concerns of the
as planners search for sustainable development residents, planners and designers of tall housing
solutions. may yet become more efficacious in putting people
Singapore, with the vast majority of its population first in their design than they have hitherto before.
living in high-rise public housing, provides a per-
spective where large high-rise public housing estate
development has been consistently favorably rated Acknowledgments
by the residents. Though developed on a needs basis
to solve a massive housing problem that was consid- The author gratefully acknowledges the assistance
ered by many to be one of the worst examples of and collaboration of colleagues, students and resi-
housing congestion and slums in the world (Wong dents in the study of high-rise living experience in
and Yeh, 1985), the ongoing policy has been towards Singapore public housing.
continual upgrading and improvement to transform
the high-rise into good places for people to live.
With the passage of time, driven by an economic lo- References
gic of space and density of about 6000 persons per sq Abel, C (2003) Sky High: Vertical Architecture. Royal Academy of
km, public housing has extended skywards to more Arts, London.
than 25-stories, as it improved the condition and Beedle, L S , Rice, D B (eds.) (1991) Tall Buildings: 2000 and
stock of housing. The current tallest public housing Beyond. Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat,
Bethlehem, PA.
in Singapore is 30-story, with plans to construct Bell, P A, Greece, T C, Fisher, J and Baum, A (1996)
more high-rise housing (40–50-story) in both the Environmental Psychology. Ted Buchholz, USA.
public and private sectors as the population contin- Benson, E D, Hansen, J L, Schwartz, J A L and Smersh, G T
ues to grow within the limited land space. Taller (1998) Pricing residential amenities: The value of a view.
Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics 16(1), 55–74.
buildings appear to be the trend of the future in Binder, G (2001) Tall Buildings of Asia and Australia. Images
the densely populated city-state. Publishing Group, Mulgrave, Victoria.
As more high-rise housing is built, more Singa- Blake, P (1977) Form Follows Fiasco. Little Brown, Boston.
pore households are moving to live on higher floors Castells, M, Goh, L and Kwok, R (1990) The Shek Kip Mei
Syndrome: Economic Development and Public Housing In Hong
and as the data indicate, expressing a willingness to
Kong and Singapore. Pion, London.
live higher, encouraged by their living experience Chua, B H (1997) Political Legitimacy and Housing. Routledge,
and the attractions of the view, breeze and privacy London.
afforded by high floor living. The Singapore case Cooperman, D, OÕNeill, J and Herrenkohl, R C (1981). Social
demonstrates that with careful planning and consid- effects of the environment. In Planning and Environmental
Criteria for Tall Buildings. Monograph on the Planning and
eration, high-rise living may become a continuing Design of Tall Buildings, Committee 37 (Social effects of the
satisfying experience notwithstanding concerns with environment) of the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban
certain aspects, such as floor level, the lift and Habitat, (eds) R C Herrenkohl, W Henn and C Norberg-
safety—an issue that is of current topical interest Schulz. New York.
Conway, J and Adams, B (1977) The social effects of living off the
(Corporation of London, 2002). In Singapore, high- ground. Habitat International 2(5/6), 595–614.
rise living has been set within the locational conve- Cooper-Marcus, C (1995) House as a Mirror of Self. Conari Press,
nience framework of new towns, where a wide range Berkeley, California.
of cradle-to-grave facilities and amenities are pro- Cooper-Marcus, C (1999) The House as Symbol of Self. In Classic
vided, and where the quality of living spaces is Readings in Architecture, (eds.) J M Stein, K F Spreckelmeyer.
McGraw-Hill, USA.
emphasized. The defining policy is, as articulated Corporation of London (2002) Tall Buildings, Sustainability and
by the planning authority, ÔBuilding high-rise is the the City, London.
way to go, yet not at the expense of variety and qual- Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (2001) Cities in the
ity.Õ (Urban Redevelopment Authority, 2004, p 10) Third Millennium. In Proceedings of 6th World Congress of the
Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat, Melbourne, 26
Such conceptualization of high-rise living becomes Feburary–2 March. Spon Press, London.
more vital than ever in fostering public acceptability Curtis, W J R (1986) The skyscraper and the city. In Design for
of high(er)-rise living. High – Intensity Development, (ed.) M B Sevcenko. Cam-
Each of the SingaporeÕs public housing towns is bridge, Massachusetts.
carefully located and planned. Where they are away Department of the Environment, 1970. Design Bulletin 21,
Families living at high density: A study of estates in Leeds,
from the city center, transport links are provided to Liverpool and London, HMSO, London.
enhance accessibility. On many occasions, the Department of Statistics, Singapore, 2000. High-rise living,
respondents indicated their appreciation of the loca- Singapore Statistics Paper, Singapore.

12
 Romancing the high-rise in Singapore: B Yuen
Douglas, G H (1996) Skyscrapers: A Social History of the Very Lee, K Y (2000) From Third World to First. Times Editions,
Tall Building in America. McFarland and Company Inc, North Singapore.
Carolina. Lo, R (1992) Feng Shui and Destiny. Tynron Press, England.
Foo, T S (2001) Planning and design of Tampines, an award- Marcuse, P (2001) Urban life will change: Reflections on the
winning high-rise, high-density township in Singapore. Cities consequences of Sep 11. Trialog 70(3), 46–47.
18(1), 33–42. Michelson, W (1977) Environmental Choice, Human Behavior and
Ford, L R (1994) Cities and Buildings: Skyscrapers, Skid Rows and Residential Satisfaction. Oxford University Press, New York.
Suburbs. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore. Mulliner, K , Mulliner, L T (eds.) (1991) Historical Dictionary of
Gifford, R (1997) Environmental Psychology. Allyn and Bacon, Singapore. Scarecrow Press, New Jersey.
Boston. Newman, O (1972) Defensible Space. Macmillan, New York.
Greater London Council, 1968. Housing Development: Manage- Rapoport, A (1977) Human Aspects of Urban Form. Pergamon
ment Branch Height Preference Survey (J. Fairman and B. Press, New York.
Moore), The Council, London. Teo, S E and Phillips, D R (1989) Attitudes towards service
Greed, C H (1993) Introducing Town Planning. Longman Scientific provision in public housing estates and new towns in Singapore.
and Technical, Harlow. Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography 10(1), 74–94.
Haber, G M (1977) The Impact of Tall Buildings on Users and Tashakkori, A and Teddlie, C (1998) Mixed Methodology:
Neighbors: Human Response to Tall Building. Hutchinson and Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Sage,
Ross. Thousand Oaks, CA.
Haffner, C (1991) Aesthetic and social aspects of tallness in Hong Too, L (1994) Chinese Numerology in Feng Shui: The Time
Kong. In Tall Buildings: 2000 and Beyond, (eds.) L S Beedle, Dimension. Konsep Books, Kuala Lumpur.
D R Rice. Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat, Turnbull, D (1997) Social Culture: Singapore. In Architecture of
Bethlehem, PA. Fear, (ed.) N Ellin. Princeton Architectural Press, New York.
Hart, R (1979) ChildrenÕs Experience of Place. Irvington, New Ukoha, O M and Beamish, J O (1997) Assessment of residentsÕ
York. satisfaction with public housing in Abuja, Nigeria. Habitat
Hassan, R (1977) Families in Flats: A Study of Low Income International 21(4), 445–460.
Families in Public Housing. Singapore University Press, Urban Redevelopment Authority, Singapore, 2001. The Concept
Singapore. Plan 2001, Singapore.
HDB Household Sample Survey, 1973, Singapore. Urban Redevelopment Authority, 2004. Skyline, Mar/April,
Helleman, G and Wassenberg, F (2004) The renewal of what was Singapore.
tomorrowÕs idealistic city: AmsterdamÕs Bijlmermeer high-rise. Wang, L H and Yeh, A G O (1987) Public housing-led new town
Cities 21(1), 3–17. development: Hong Kong and Singapore. Third World Plan-
Herrenkohl, R C, Henn, W and Norberg-Schulz, C (eds.) 1981. ning Review 9(1), 41–63.
Planning and Environmental Criteria for Tall Buildings, Wong, A and Yeh, S H K (1985) Housing a Nation. Maruzen Asia,
Monograph on the Planning and Design of Tall Buildings, Singapore.
Committee 37 (Social effects of the environment) of the Council Yeang, K (1999) The Green Skyscraper. Prestel, New York.
on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat, New York. Yeh, S H K and Statistics and Research Dept, Housing and
Hester, S and Francis, D (1994) Doing data: The local organisa- Development Board, Singapore (1972) Homes for the People:
tion of a sociological interview. British Journal of Sociology 45, A Study of TenantsÕ Views on Public Housing in Singapore,
675–695. Government Printing Office, Singapore.
Housing and Development Board, Singapore, 2000. Residential Yeh, S H K and Tan, S L (1974/75) Satisfaction with living
Mobility and Housing Aspirations, Singapore. conditions in public housing estates in Singapore. Singapore
Jephcott, P (1971) Homes in High – rise Flats. Oliver and Boyd, Institute of Planners Journal 4(1), 72–84.
Edinburgh. Yeung, Y M (1987) Cities that work: Hong Kong and Singapore.
Johnson, B (2002) Living the High Life. National Real Estate In Urbanisation and Urban Policies in Pacific Asia, (eds.) R J
Investor, Atlanta. Fuchs, G W Jones, E M Pernia. Westview Press, London.
Koolhaas, R and Mau, B (1995) Small, Medium, Large, Extra – Yeung, Y M, Wong, T K Y (eds.) (2003) Fifty Years of Public
Large. The Monacelli Press, New York. Housing in Hong Kong. Hong Kong Housing Authority, Hong
Lau, W C (1998) Renewal of public housing estates. In Planning Kong.
Singapore: From Plan to Implementation, (ed.) B Yuen. Yuen, B, Appold, S J, Yeh, A, Earl, G, Ting, J and Kurnianin-
Singapore Institute of Planners, Singapore. grum, K L (2003) Living Experience in Super Tall Residential
Lee, B A (1981) The urban unease revisited: Perceptions of local Buildings, Final Report. The National University of Singapore,
safety and neighbourhood satisfaction among metropolitan Singapore.
residents. Social Science Quarterly 62, 611–629. Zube, E H, Moore, G T (eds.) (Eds.), (1991). Advances in
Lim, B P (1994) Environmental Design Criteria of Tall Buildings. Environment, Behavior and Design, vol 3. Plenum Press, New
Pennsylvania, USA. York.

13