Vertical cities as a solution for land scarcity: the tallest ......Vertical cities as a solution for land scarcity: the tallest public housing development in Singapore K.M. Grace Wong*

Vertical cities as a solution for land scarcity: the tallestpublic housing development in Singapore

K.M. Grace Wong*

Department of Real Estate, School of Design and Environment, National University of Singapore, 4 ArchitectureDrive, Singapore 117566, Singapore

Singapore, whose land area is approximately 660km2, is one of the most densely populated cities in theworld. In the 2001 Concept Plan, the Urban Redevelopment Authority estimated that Singapore would need800000 more homes or 6400ha of land to cater to a projected population of 5.5 million. Considering othercompeting demands for land resources, the 2001 Concept Plan has suggested constructing taller buildings.Thus, in August 2001, the Housing and Development Board initiated the development of a new 50-storeyspublic housing design. The 50-storeys public housing development, which comprises about 2000 dwellings,is the first of its kind in Singapore. This paper provides an insight into the potential residents’ perception,attitudes, concerns and acceptability of such a high-rise high-density housing development that has featuresthat are similar to a vertical city. Findings reveal that despite being accustomed to decades of high-riseliving, less than half of the Singaporean population would choose to live in such dwellings. Younger andsmaller households, as well as males tend to be more receptive towards this new housing form. The mainattractions of such high-rise housing developments are the scenic view and windy environment in contrastto major concerns such as pricing, safety of the building structure, insufficient provision of facilities as wellas traffic congestion. The findings have important implications for policy-makers, especially in congestedcities where land is a major constraint, and the only way to build is upwards.URBAN DESIGN International (2004) 9, 17–30. doi:10.1057/palgrave.udi.9000108

Keywords: high-rise; public housing; residents’ perception; vertical city; Singapore

Introduction

With a land area of only approximately 660 km2

(Urban Redevelopment Authority, 2001), Singa-pore faces a massive challenge to manage theproblem of land scarcity. Throughout its history,Singapore has sought to resolve this problemthrough land reclamation. However, this methodof land expansion has its limits, both technicallyand geographically. Thus, according to the UrbanRedevelopment Authority of Singapore in the2001 Concept Plan (Figure 1), land reclamationefforts in the future are likely to increase theexisting land area by only another 15% (UrbanRedevelopment Authority, 2001).

The 2001 Concept Plan, which maps outSingapore’s urban development for the next40–50 years, is based on a population scenarioof 5.5 million. This projected population sizewould require another 800 000 homes in addi-tion to the existing 1.0 million homes (UrbanRedevelopment Authority, 2001). In view of this,the Urban Redevelopment Authority’s proposalsfor housing developments in the future haveinevitably included taller and higher-densitydevelopments as well as more innovative andexperimental housing forms so as to accommo-date the population growth (Urban Redevelop-ment Authority, 2001). The concept of a verticalcity (eg, Le Corbusier, 1946, 1947; Soleri, 1970,1996; Takenaka Corporation, 1998) may justbe the solution to Singapore’s problem of landscarcity.

*Correspondence: Tel: +65 68743432, Fax: +65 67748684,Email: [email protected]

URBAN DESIGN International (2004) 9, 17–30r 2004 Palgrave Macmillan Ltd. 1357-5317/04 $30.00

www.palgrave-journals.co.uk/udi

With 85% of Singapore’s population residing inhigh-rise public housing that are constructed bythe Housing and Development Board since 1960(Housing and Development Board, 2001), thepublic housing sector offers immense potentialand scope as well as a better-controlled environ-ment in which to start implementing the innova-tive housing proposals of the 2001 Concept Plan.Thus, when the government announced theredevelopment plan for Duxton Plain in August2001 (The Straits Times, 17 August 2001, Ministry ofNational Development, 2001), the proposal was toconstruct a 50-storeys high-rise high-density pub-lic housing development, which would consist ofapproximately 2000 dwellings on a plot of landmeasuring 25 600m2. Although high-rise livinghas always been the norm in land-scarce Singa-pore, and some of the more recent public housingdevelopments constructed in the early 2000s aretowering at 30- and 40-storeys high, the proposed50-storeys public housing development at DuxtonPlain is still the first of its kind in Singapore.

The public housing programmes in Singapore arebasically government-initiated with minimal in-put and feedback from residents. However, sincebuildings are utilised by people and the latter’s

reaction to the built environment have importantimplications for policy decision-making (Beedle,1979), it is the intention of this paper to examinepotential residents’ perception and attitudestowards the first 50-storeys high-rise high-densityhousing development in Singapore, their concernsand acceptability of this new housing form, whichcomprises some elements of a vertical city, as wellas what features attract or deter them from livingin such dwellings.

After this introduction, the next second section isa brief discussion on the concept and features of avertical city as well as some studies relating toresidents’ adaptation to and perception of high-rise high-density living. The empirical researchdesign and methodology are highlighted in thesubsequent section while the salient findings andtheir practical significance are discussed in thesection thereafter. The last section concludes witha discussion on the policy implications of theresearch findings.

Concept and features of a vertical city

One of the earliest concepts of a vertical city wasdeveloped in 1922 by Le Corbusier (1946, 1947),

Figure 1. Singapore’s 2001 concept plan. Source: Urban Redevelopment Authority, 2001:50–51.

Vertical cities as public housing in SingaporeK.M. Grace Wong

18

URBAN DESIGN International

who proposed a plan where three million peoplewould be housed in a specially designed ‘con-temporary city’. This notion of a vertical city wasLe Corbusier’s (1946, 1947) first systematicattempt to design an environment in whichman, nature and machines could be reconciled.The main features of Le Corbusier’s 1922 verticalcity consist of very high-rise high-density sky-scrapers, which leave at least 85% of the groundfree for open space and other recreational facil-ities; an elaborate but well-coordinated system ofvertical transportation comprising elevators thatserve as superhighways, subways, access roadsand pedestrian walks; as well as a very largepopulation of people who work and live withinthe skyscrapers (Le Corbusier, 1946, 1947).

Wright (1956) designed another version of avertical city known as the ‘Illinois’ (The FrankLloyd Wright Archives, 1994). The ‘Illinois’,which is a mile-high skyscraper with 528 storeys,could accommodate up to 100 000 people, 15 000car parking lots, and even enough office space tohouse the entire United States state government(The Frank Lloyd Wright Archives, 1994).

Expanding on Wright’s (1956) ideas, Soleri (1969)developed the concept of ‘arcology’, which meansa harmonious combination of architecture withecology. Soleri’s (1969) first vertical city plan was‘Babels’. ‘Babels’, which is intended for a popula-tion of 520 000, comprises an underground in-dustrial and commercial area, with the city centre,neighbourhoods, parks, community areas andhousing located at the very top of the structure.In the design of ‘Babels’, horizontal transportationnetworks are minimised to prevent urban sprawlas well as damage to the environment by smogand pollution.

Another vertical city design developed by Soleri(1970) was ‘Arcosanti’ (http://www.arcosan-ti.org, Cosanti Foundation, 2003). As the buildingsin ‘Arcosanti’ are of mixed-use, with residential,retail, office, recreation and services all locatedwithin the same structure, each building is self-sufficient. The ‘Arcosanti’ concept is envisioned tobe a prototype vertical city that promotes energyconservation, human interaction, and a creativeenvironment while minimising automobile trans-portation. Efforts to construct ‘Arcosanti’ haveresulted in completing only 3% of the project sinceits inception in the 1970s (The New York Times, 26July 2001). Upon completion, ‘Arcosanti’ is likely

to occupy about 60 700m2 of land with buildingsup to 25-storeys high, and accommodating ap-proximately 7000 people (http://www.arcosanti.org, 2003).

As Tokyo is expected to have a population of 29million by 2010, making it the world’s largest city,Soleri was commissioned by Japan in 1996 todesign the self-contained 1 km3 ‘Hyper Building’(http://www.arcosanti.org, 2003) which wasplanned to accommodate the increasing urbanpopulation, and to prevent the manifestation ofinner city congestion, slums, degeneration of thesocial structure, commuting problems as well as aweakening economy due to exorbitant land prices(http://www.bcj.or.jp, The Building Center ofJapan, 2003). This alternative form of verticalurbanism could be as tall as 1000m, with aworking life of 1000 years, providing accommo-dation for 100 000 people. The ‘Hyper Building’(Figures 2(a)-(c)) is designed for efficient landusage with super high-rise and high-densityliving, where residents could lead diversifiedlifestyles from a wide range of facilities andamenities offered within the development. Theunderground transportation and distribution sys-tems, energy plants, waste processing systemsand disaster centres are crucial aspects of thedesign to conserve the usage of land (http://www.bcj.or.jp, 2003). Reflecting the severity ofland shortage in Japanese cities are other verticalcity plans such as Takenaka Corporation’s 1989Sky City 1000 concept, the 600 meters high‘Holonic Tower’ (http://www.takenaka.co.jp/takenaka_e/superhigh/2skycity/skycity, 2003),as well as the 840m or 170-storeys high ‘Millen-nium Tower’ of Tokyo which is self-sufficient andcan even process its own waste (http://www.fos-terandpartners.com, Foster and Partners, 2003).

Although some vertical city proposals tend to berather extreme, and would probably have diffi-culties with actual implementation, for instance,the 3200m or 500-storeys high ‘Ultima Tower’ byTsui Design and Research Inc. (1991), which hasbeen specially planned for building in the middleof a lake so as to ensure a constant supply of freshwater, and a cooling system for the structure(http://www.tdrinc.com/ultima.html, 2003), it isclear that the trend is towards super high-risehigh-density living and working. For example,Asia currently has eight of the 10 tallest buildingsin the world (Table 1). The Taipei FinancialCentre, which stands at 101-storeys and 508m


19


high, is expected to be the tallest building in theworld when it is completed in 2005 (The NewPaper, 25 January 2003).

Although the Duxton Plain public housing deve-lopment in Singapore may not have achieved thesuper-high building heights of the vertical citydesigns discussed above due to aviation height

controls, which limit the maximum height of allbuildings in Singapore to 280m (Urban Redeve-lopment Authority, 2003), this 50-storeys deve-lopment marks a bold initiative by the Singaporegovernment to provide for the first time high-riseliving that is complemented with numerous othertypes of land uses within the same buildingstructure. Besides providing quality housing with

Figure 2. (a) The hyper building: first-level structure; (b) second-level structure; and (c) third-level structure. Source:http://www.bcj.or.jp/hyper/e_kuukan.html, 2003. Notes: This first-level structure consists of huge metal shafts thatare linked by inter-connected platforms. At this level, public spaces such as sky parks, sky plazas, disaster blockspaces, and transportation/corridor spaces are provided. The shafts, which connect the upper and lower parts of theHyper Building, are encircled with spiral tubes providing spiral transportation systems for both utility and mobilityservices. The second-level structure comprises sub-structures that are constructed around the shafts and platforms.These sub-structures, which are designed in a grid pattern, could be easily modified. Residential and office spaces arelocated in this section. The third-level structure fills the spaces between the second-level sub-structures withresidential, commercial, industrial and recreational uses. The construction method employed should be flexible andeasy to apply so that more units of each use could be quickly manufactured.


20


good natural lighting, ventilation, orientation andviews, the development additionally offers aquality living environment, which incorporates avariety of recreational, institutional, retail andcommunal uses (Urban Redevelopment Author-ity, 2002). Sky parks, which link all sevenapartment blocks in the development, are pro-vided at the 26th storey and roof level. Twojogging tracks, a communal hall and a gymna-sium are located at the 26th storey sky park whilethe sky park on the rooftop will have gardens andpavilions. Above the car park decks is a commu-nal garden that is serviced by many cafes andconvenience stores. Part of the communal gardenwill also be transformed into an open-air museumpark that depicts the memory of the old DuxtonPlain buildings. With the implementation of thisDuxton Plain development, which has featuresthat are similar to some of the earlier vertical citydesigns, the idea of a vertical city is likely to befurther explored and experimented as a means tosolve the land shortage problems in Singapore.

Residents’ perspective of high-riseliving

Although many urban planners and architectsadvocate the vertical city concept as a solution toland scarcity, urban sprawl and environmentaldamage, very few studies have been conductedon the needs, perception and reaction of theresidents, basically because many of the proposalshighlighted above have remained as theoreticalconcepts due to constraints of technology andbudget. As such, the existing literature compriseslargely studies carried out on the residents orpotential residents of normal tall buildings (eg,Herrenkohl et al, 1981; Beedle and Rice, 1991;

Haber and Blank, 1992; Council on Tall Buildingsand Urban Habitat, 2001), where they examineissues such as the residents’ preferences andneeds (Haber and Blank, 1992) as well as therelationship between the residents’ acceptabilityand their previous experience of living in a high-rise development (Herrenkohl et al, 1981).

In the context of Singapore, the Housing andDevelopment Board has conducted several stu-dies to assess the residents’ acceptability of livingin high-rise public housing (Housing and Devel-opment Board, 2000a, b, c). In addition, Lim (1994)observes that the population in Singapore hasgradually accepted the high-rise lifestyle. Thepercentage of residents willing to live on the 10thfloor and above has gradually increased from27.9% in 1973 to 35.7% in 1977, and to 47.3% in1981 (Lim, 1994).

In terms of the psychological and social aspects ofliving in high-rise housing, Young (1976) suggeststhat high-rise living could be detrimental to thecreativity and physical development of youngchildren due to the constraints of play activitiesand facilities. It is also noted that health problemssuch as respiratory infection have been moreprevalent among women and children living inhigh-rise buildings. Although there is no clearcorrelation between the incidence of mentaldisorder and high-density urbanisation, higher-density developments have tended to reducesocial contact and community interaction betweenhigh-rise residents (Young, 1976; Housing andDevelopment Board, 2000c).

With regards to environmental factors such asventilation, noise and thermal comfort, Lim (1994)finds that these are generally acceptable in

Table 1 Ten tallest buildings in the world (as at January 2003)

Name of building City Height (m) Remarks

Taipei Financial Centre Taipei 508 Completion in 2005Shanghai World Financial Centre Shanghai 460 Completion in 2008Petronas Twin Towers Kuala Lumpur 452Sears Towers Chicago 442Jinmao Tower Shanghai 421International Financial Centre 2 Hong Kong 420Empire State Building New York 381Central Plaza Hong Kong 374Bank of China Tower Hong Kong 369T & C Tower Kaoshiung 348

Source: The New Paper, 25 January 2003 and The Straits Times, 6 February 2003.Note: The original height of the Shanghai World Financial Centre is 460m but the Pudong District government has since changed thebuilding’s final height, which is expected to be taller than the Taipei Financial Centre to become the tallest building in the world.


21


Singapore’s high-rise public housing. As high-risebuildings tend to be tall and narrow, they shouldbe designed such that when subjected to strongwinds, the vibrations should not become unac-ceptable in terms of serviceability and safety(Balendra, 1993).

A view offered by a high-rise dwelling has beenfound to command a price premium (Rodriguezand Sirmans, 1994; The Straits Times, 11 March2000; Lee, 2001) such that the view is in factregarded as an amenity within the housing unit.With the application of hedonic models, Bensonet al (1998) even differentiate the quality of theview, where ‘good’ and ‘bad’ views could lead toa difference in prices of between 8 and 20%. Withonly 0.2% or approximately 7000 housing units inSingapore being located at the 25th storey orhigher, the prices of these dwellings have beenfound to escalate exponentially with its height,resulting in hefty premiums being paid for thesehigh-rise units (The Straits Times, 11 March 2000).According to the Housing and DevelopmentBoard’s sales data (The Business Times, 16 June2001), dwellings on the top two floor levels of thepioneer batch of 40-storeys public housing blocksin Toa Payoh are priced between 12 and 15%higher than those units located on the first 20storeys within the same building. This pricedifferential translates to an average of S$31 000–$41 000 more.

Empirical research design andmethodology

In order to assess the perception, acceptabilityand concerns of potential residents of the DuxtonPlain 50-storeys public housing development, anempirical research was conducted in June 2002 tosurvey potential residents of newly completedhigh-rise public housing, some of which could beup to 40-storeys high. Drawing from the relevantliterature above, a list of positive and negativedeterminants affecting residents’ perception to-wards high-rise high-density living has beencollated to form the main focus of the question-naire survey. In addition to the respondents’household particulars and current housing de-tails, they are asked to give their opinions on eachof the factors based on a 5-point Likert scale,where 1 represents ‘very unattractive’ and 5means ‘very attractive’. A total of 443 validquestionnaires have been completed out of 500

responses from a random sampling of potentialpublic housing residents. The sampling has beenconducted at the sales office of the Housing andDevelopment Board, which is the official desig-nated location for the sale and allocation of newlycompleted public housing units. Face-to-faceinterviews have been carried out, and wherenecessary, language translations are provided soas to ensure that the respondents fully understandthe questions asked.

The data collected are examined using SPSScorrelation analysis to compare the associationand correlation between two variables, where theconfidence level applied in this study is 95%. Inthe analysis of the profile of potential residentswho choose to live in the Duxton Plain publichousing development, the dependent variable ymay assume only two values, which are repre-sented by ‘0’ for ‘no’ and ‘1’ for ‘yes’. Since thefitted value of y from a simple linear regression isnot restricted to lie between zero and one, anormal regression model is not suitable. A binaryregression model is therefore employed as it isdesigned to handle the specific requirements oftwo dependent variables only. Binary regressionmodels could be fitted using either the logisticregression procedure or the multinomial logisticregression procedure. For the purpose of thisstudy, the logistic regression procedure is appliedto produce the predictions, residuals, influenc’estatistics, and goodness-of-fit tests using variablex data, which consist of the characteristics of therespondents, including their gender, age, educa-tional level, income level, and their currenthousing details. In addition, a ‘Probit’ model isemployed to reflect a standard normal distribu-tion for the regression. As the interpretation of thecoefficient values tends to be complicated by thecategorical and qualitative nature of the x vari-ables, the discussion focuses on the sign of thecoefficient and the probability figures rather thanon comparing their degree of impact. The sign ofthe coefficient indicates the direction of impact,while the probability shows the likelihood of avariable occurring.

Acceptability of the vertical city concept

When the Singapore government announced theplans to construct a 50-storeys high-rise high-density public housing development at DuxtonPlain (Figure 3) in August 2001, and when the


22


design details (Figure 4) were finalised in April2002, the concept of a vertical city has beenreceiving wide publicity through the local media.

The site at Duxton Plain is historically significantbecause of the government’s bold initiative 40years ago to construct the first two public housing

Figure 3. Location map of Duxton Plain site. Source: http://www.can.com.sg, 2003. Note: The Duxton Plain site is onthe fringe of the Central Business District (in pink).

Figure 4. Architectural model of the 50-storeys public housing development at Duxton Plain. Source: UrbanRedevelopment Authority, 2002:2.


23


blocks (Figures 5(a) and (b)) on this site as a startof a massive endeavour towards urban renewal(Housing and Development Board, 1963–2003).

Despite the extensive publicity given to thisproject, when this research was conducted inJune 2002, it is found that only 50.8% of therespondents are in favour of the 50-storeys public

housing development at Duxton Plain (Table 2),and only 42.1% would choose to live in such ahigh-rise high-density development. As the Dux-ton Plain public housing development, costingapproximately S$247 million, will only be com-pleted in 2007, and hitherto the Singaporepopulation has no prior experience with livingat such heights, potential residents are still rather

Figure 5. (a) Existing 10-storeys public housing at Duxton Plain (as an February 2003). Source: Author. (b) Aerial viewof the two blocks of public housing at Duxton Plain (as an February 2003).


24


apprehensive and express their hesitation toaccept this concept. Further analysis reveals thatthe respondents’ level of acceptability of the 50-storeys public housing development is highlydependent on whether they choose to live in suchhousing (Table 3). From a marketing perspective,the acceptability of such high-rise high-densitydevelopments would probably be better enhancedby emphasizing more of the intangible benefitssuch as greater convenience, comfort and timesavings as well as less pollution, commuting andtraffic congestion rather than merely creating aniche market of super high-rise dwellings.

Potential residents and determinants oftheir decision

Findings indicate that the respondents’ decisionwhether to live in a high-rise high-densityhousing development is strongly influenced bytheir household size (Table 4). The negativecoefficient infers that the larger the householdsize, the less willing is that household to live in asuper high-rise building. In addition, the findingsreveal that younger respondents, males and thosewho are currently living at higher levels tend tobe more in favour of such high-rise high-densityhousing than older people, females and residentsof lower-level dwellings. To a lesser extent,respondents currently living in larger dwellingsas well as having higher monthly incomes and

higher education tend to be more inclinedtowards super high-rise living. As those house-holds who are less willing to live in such high-risehousing development tend to have families withyounger children, elderly parents, and probablyfemales who do grocery shopping, it could beinferred that access and escape by verticaltransportation is a very real concern, in additionto their fear of unfamiliar experiences andresistance to change. The practical significanceof these findings is therefore to design spacious,efficient and reliable vertical transportation sys-tems that are suitable for all ages, including thehandicapped.

To determine the salient ‘push’ and ‘pull’ factorsaffecting potential residents’ decision whether tolive in a super high-rise housing development likeDuxton Plain, the respondents were asked to rankeach factor using a 5-point Likert scale where 1represents ‘very unattractive’ and 5 indicates‘very attractive’ for ‘pull’ factors, and 1 represents‘very unconcerned’ and 5 means ‘very concerned’for ‘push’ factors.

From the results, it is obvious that the mainattractions of super high-rise living are the scenicview and windy environment1 (Table 5). With theprobability values of scenic view and windyenvironment being estimated at zero and slightlyabove zero respectively, it could be inferred thatalmost all potential residents who wish to live in a

Table 2 Acceptability of the vertical city concept

Acceptability of the vertical city concept %

Favours vertical city concept 50.8Does not favour vertical city concept 49.2Total 100.0

Given a choice, would prefer to live in a vertical city 42.1Given a choice, would prefer not to live in a vertical city 57.9Total 100.0

Source: Author’s survey.

Table 3 Relationship between acceptability and choice

Choice Total (%)

No (%) Yes (%)

Acceptability No 48.3 0.8 49.2Yes 9.6 41.3 50.8

Total 57.9 42.1 100.0Correlation coefficient 0.8046


Table 4 Binary probit regression of housing choice by profileof respondents

Variable Coefficient z-Statistic Probability

C 1.43592 2.15872 0.0309Gender �0.40845 �2.28420 0.0224Age �0.16810 �3.22923 0.0012Highest education attained 0.00774 0.07262 0.9421Monthly household income 0.05093 1.00559 0.3146Current housing type 0.08987 1.12753 0.2595Storey/level of current home 0.03195 1.66371 0.0962Household size �0.24796 �3.53369 0.0004

Mean dependent variable 0.42083Standard error of regression 0.46485Sum squared resid 50.13099Log likelihood �144.17810

Source: Author’s survey.Note: The larger the absolute figure of the z-statistics, the biggerthe role a variable has in the model.

1In Singapore’s hot and humid tropical climate, and as allnewly constructed public housing are not equipped with air-conditioners, a windy environment is an added attraction as ithelps to create air movement to keep the dwellings cool.


25


super high-rise building are generally attracted bythese two factors. As the view together with awindy environment are highly valued by poten-tial residents who are also willing to pay highprices for these factors (eg, Rodriguez and Sir-mans, 1994; Hanson et al, 1998; The Straits Times,11 March 2000; Lee, 2001; The Business Times, 16June 2001), developers of high-rise buildingswould therefore have sizeable monetary incen-tives to consider carefully the physical orientationand design of their developments so as tooptimise the available scenery and wind direc-tions.

Another interesting observation reflects a mis-conception by many respondents who perceivehigher floor dwellings to have a quieter environ-ment (Table 5). On the contrary, the noise level islikely to increase at greater heights basicallybecause sound travels upwards, more householdsare being housed within the higher-densitydevelopment, and heavier traffic is likely to begenerated as a result of more households. Trafficflow has been found to be the main component ofnoise in public housing estates, especially duringthe evening peak hours (Lim, 1994). Therefore,instead of having a quieter environment aswrongly perceived by some respondents, noisecould be a major problem for the Duxton Plainpublic housing project.

In contrast, high-rise living as a lifestyle andwhether such high-rise developments are of betterquality are both not considered convincing ‘pull’factors by the respondents (Table 5). Out of therange of ‘pull’ factors, fresher air is observed tohave a negative coefficient and a probability of0.0014, which indicate that although many re-spondents may not wish to live in high-risebuildings, they are, however, attracted by theprospect of fresher air at higher floor levels. Thus,as long as the fundamental issue of acceptingsuper high-rise lifestyle is still yet to be fullyresolved, the provision of better quality buildingstructures, and even the prospect of fresher airquality seem unlikely to change households’ basicpreference for lower-rise dwellings.

With regards to the list of ‘push’ factors, potentialresidents appear to be least concerned with thedifficulty of escaping in times of emergency(Table 5). This high level of confidence in thesafety provision for housing in Singapore couldbe attributed to the fact that since early 1990s,every unit of new public housing constructed bythe Housing and Development Board has beeninstalled with a specially reinforced ‘householdshelter’ (Figure 6) that operates as a disastershelter in the event of an emergency or cata-strophe. Another ‘push’ factor that is not con-sidered a crucial concern is the psychological fearof heights since it is only logical that those

Table 5 Binary probit regression of housing choice by determinants

Variable Coefficient z-Statistic Prob.

C �7.43695 �7.05945 0‘‘Pull’’ factorsBetter view 0.99209 4.64429 0Fresher air �0.69795 �3.19419 0.0014More windy 0.39907 2.13789 0.0325Quieter environment 0.39267 2.77373 0.0055High-rise living as a lifestyle 0.22607 1.11020 0.2669Better quality of housing �1.89E-01 �0.89080 0.3730

‘‘Push’’ factorsSafety of the building structure �0.09562 �0.69031 0.4900Ease of escaping in emergency 6.98E-01 3.82720 0.0001Longer waiting time for lift 0.14815 1.75151 0.0799Lack of community interaction 0.36624 2.69316 0.0071Insufficient supporting facilities �0.13319 �1.09403 0.2739Greater danger of high-rise littering �1.94E-02 �0.16248 0.8709Personal fear for height 0.27592 2.81853 0.0048Higher pricing �0.10476 �0.82111 0.4116

Mean dependent variable 0.42083Standard error of regression 0.34724Sum squared resid 27.12906Log likelihood �88.15575



26


households who have this height phobia wouldnot even contemplate living in a high-rise build-ing. The lack of community interaction is also notlikely to deter potential residents from living insuper high-rise developments because many ofthem are already accustomed to the existingminimal neighbourly interaction, which is aconsequence of the increasingly prevalent high-rise lifestyle in Singapore. In addition, the timeneeded for vertical travel within the super high-rise building does not appear to be a majorconcern to the respondents essentially because ofthe availability of modern technology, as well asmore efficient and speedier elevator systems.

On the other hand, the ‘push’ factors that pose asstrong deterrents include pricing, provision offacilities and amenities as well as safety issues(Table 5). Although some households may havepaid sizeable premiums for higher floor dwellingsin the past (The Straits Times, 11 March 2000; TheBusiness Times, 16 June 2001), housing is likely tobecome more price-sensitive because 83% ofSingapore’s population are already public home-owners (Housing and Development Board, 2002),the country has undergone two recessions in 5years since the Asian Financial Crisis in 1997(http://www.mti.gov.sg, Ministry of trade andIndustry, 2003), and furthermore the propertymarket is currently experiencing a large propor-tion of excess supply (http://www.ura.gov.sg).As for the adequacy of facilities and amenities,although the respondents are rather concerned,they are also confident that the Housing and

Development Board would ensure sufficientprovisions for the 50-storeys high-rise mega-development at Duxton Plain. With regards tosafety issues, some aspects are part of the hazardsof high-rise living such as high-rise littering andcrime, and as such residents would probably haveto be educated on these issues (see Policyimplications).

Preferred floor level and height ofbuilding

In terms of the preferred floor level, the mostpopular floor levels amongst the potential resi-dents are between 16 and 20 storeys (Table 6).Majority of the respondents (51.9%) prefer to liveon the first 20 storeys and only 10% are willing to

Figure 6. Plan of a typical public housing unit showing location of household shelter. Source: Housing andDevelopment Board, 2002:88.

Table 6 Respondents’ preferred floor level

Preferred floor level %

5 and lower 5.46–10 15.011–15 13.216–20 18.321–25 11.726–30 15.431–35 6.736–40 4.341–45 3.746–50 4.251 and above 2.1

Total 100.0



27


live above 40 storeys. This result infers that afterbeing accustomed to the floor level of theircurrent dwellings that are typically up to 20storeys high, most residents are generally resis-tant to change, especially when it is for an optionthat is unprecedented or unusual.

With regards to the preferred number of floorlevels a public housing block should have,majority of the respondents suggest a buildingheight of between 30 and 35 storeys, with a meanof 34 storeys. As the new public housing blocksthat are currently being built are between 30 and40 storeys high, it appears that the public housingresidents in Singapore have accepted this build-ing height but are not yet ready to experience newconcepts such as super high-rise buildings andvertical cities. Nevertheless, the population inSingapore is likely to gradually accept the superhigh-rise buildings and vertical city concept as away of life just as the previous generations ofpublic housing residents have done when theywere resettled from kampongs2 to high-rise livingover the years (Lim, 1994).

Policy implications and conclusion

As the concept of super high-rise buildings andvertical cities is still rather new to the populationin Singapore and the first of such a housingdevelopment will only be completed in 2007, it isnot inconceivable that only half of the potentialresidents are in favour of such a new housingform, and even less people choose to live in it. Thepolicy implications of this finding are likely to bein the realms of public education, feedback andparticipation so that the level of public awarenessand acceptability could gradually be increased.As the new housing form appears to be morepopular among the younger and smaller house-holds, the public education efforts carried outshould place more emphasis on the older andlarger households.

One interesting observation is that some 9.6% ofthe respondents exhibit a ‘not in my backyard’attitude, where they may accept or agree tocertain policies or concepts as long as the latterdoes not affect them personally (Table 3). As the

Singapore government authorities are makingtheir decision-making processes more transpa-rent in recent years by informing and educatingthe population on new policies and explain-ing how these new initiatives may directly orindirectly affect them, a larger number of house-holds are likely to adopt a more responsibleattitude towards the development and feedbackon policies.

With the scenic view and windy environmentbeing highlighted as the two major attractions ofhigh-rise living, planners, developers, and policydecision-makers should ensure that these impor-tant ‘pull’ factors are incorporated into thedesigns of their developments so as to attractmore households to reside at higher floor levels,and at the same time demand a price premium forthese features. Thus, while developers have thepecuniary incentives to build higher and higher,the government’s economic objective to optimiseland could also be satisfied. However, from theperspective of potential residents, a primaryconcern is the exorbitant pricing of the superhigh-rise dwellings. A balance must therefore beachieved by the policy decision-makers to ensurethat pricing of such high-rise high-density devel-opments remains affordable to the target house-holds, and at the same time new financingpackages and instruments are introduced tofacilitate home-ownership of these new housingforms.

On the other hand, the dual problems of noise andsafety at higher floor levels would tend to beaggravated by the larger number of householdsand heavier traffic flow as a result of higherdensity and more intensive usage. The policyimplication is that newer and more resilientbuilding materials, modern technology as wellas more innovative acoustic and constructionmethods are likely to be explored to try andalleviate some aspects of these issues so as tomake high-rise high-density living more accepta-ble and sustainable in the long term. In fact, manyof the vertical city designs highlighted earlier inthis paper have proposed the use of flexible anddurable building materials that could be recycledwhen demand changes (eg http://www.bcj.or.jp).

Public housing residents’ preferred floor level andbuilding height have increased significantly com-pared to their perceptions in the past. It took theHousing and Development Board less than 10

2Kampong is a Malay word to describe a village or temporaryhousing settlement characterised by makeshift single-storeywooden huts with zinc-sheet roofs.


28


years to transform unsanitary, slum-conditionhousing into high-rise dwellings, and only aboutfour decades to super high-rise high-densityvertical city developments. Past literature (Lim,1994) has shown that the Singapore populationhas been very adaptable to new housing forms. Itis therefore expected that before long, the popula-tion in Singapore would also become accustomedto the vertical city concept. This inference bodeswell for planners and policy decision-makers whohave to be constantly experimenting with inno-vative housing forms to alleviate Singapore’s landscarcity.

Although land scarcity in major cities may be thefundamental motivation to develop high-rise high-density vertical cities, in recent times, cities aroundthe world are also trying to create its own identitywith skyscraper landmarks. In fact, the race is onto construct the tallest building in the world. Withone of the proposed designs for the rebuilding ofthe World Trade Centre in New York standing at541m tall, New York’s World Trade Centre mayonce again be the tallest building in the world inclose competition with Shanghai World FinancialCentre at 460m (The Straits Times, 6 February 2003)and Taipei Financial Centre at 508m (The StraitsTimes, 7 February 2003).

References

Balendra, T. (1993) Vibration of Buildings to Wind andEarthquake Loads. New York: Springer-Verlag.

Beedle, L.S. (1979) On Hazards of the High-Rise.Bethlehem, PA: Fritz Engineering Laboratory,Lehigh University.

Beedle, L.S. andRice, D.B. (eds.) (1991) Tall Buildings:2000 and Beyond. Bethlehem, PA: Council on TallBuildings and Urban Habitat.

Benson, E.D., Hansen, J.L., Schwartz, J.A.L. andSmersh, G.T. (1998) Pricing residential amenities:The value of a view. Journal of Real Estate Financeand Economics, 16(1): 55–74.

Cosanti Foundation. (2003) http://www.arcosanti.org.Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat. (2001)

Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat: Cities in theThird Millennium. Proceedings of the sixth WorldCongress of the Council on Tall Buildings and UrbanHabitat, Melbourne, 26 February–2 March. NewYork: Spon Press.

Foster and Partners. (2000) http://www.fosterandpart-ners.com/projects/.

Haber, G.M. and Blank, T.O. (1992) Building Design forHandicapped and Aged Persons: Council on TallBuildings and Urban Habitat, Committee 56. NewYork: McGraw-Hill.

Hanson, J., Hillier, B., Graham, H. and Rosenberg, D.(1998) Decoding Homes and Houses. United King-dom: Cambridge University Press.

Herrenkohl, R.C., Henn, W. and Norberg-Schulz, C.(1981) Planning and Environmental Criteria for TallBuildings: Council on Tall Buildings and UrbanHabitat. New York: American Society of CivilEngineers.

Housing and Development Board. (1960–2003) VariousUnpublished Reports. Singapore: Housing andDevelopment Board.

Housing and Development Board. (2000a) Profile ofResidents Living in HDB Flats. Singapore: Housingand Development Board.

Housing and Development Board. (2000b) ResidentialMobility and Housing Aspirations. Singapore: Hous-ing and Development Board.

Housing and Development Board. (2000c) Social Aspectsof Public Housing in Singapore: Kinship Ties andNeighbourly Relations. Singapore: Housing andDevelopment Board.

Housing and Development Board. (2001) AnnualReport 2001. Singapore: Housing and Develop-ment Board.

Housing and Development Board. (2002) Annual Report2002. Singapore: Housing and Development Board.

Le Corbusier (1946) Towards a New Architecture. London:Architectural Press (translated by Etchells F. fromthe French Edition).

Le Corbusier (1947) The City of Tomorrow and ItsPlanning. London: Architectural Press (translatedby Etchells F. from the 8th French Edition ofURBANISME).

Lee, R. (2001) The High-Rise View: Another Perspective.Singapore: CB Richard Ellis.

Lim, B.B.P. (1994) Environmental Design Criteria of TallBuildings. Bethlehem, PA: Lehigh University.

Ministry of Trade and Industry. (2003) http://www.mti.gov.sg.

Ministry of National Development. (2001) Press re-lease: Redevelopment of Duxton Plain. Singapore:Ministry of National Development, 4 August 2001.

Rodriguez, M. and Sirmans, C.F. (1994) Quantifying thevalue of a view in single-family housing markets.Appraisal Journal, 62: 600–603.

Soleri, P. (1969) http://www.arcosanti.org.Soleri, P. (1970) http://www.arcosanti.org.Soleri, P. (1996) http://www.arcosanti.org.Takenaka Corporation. (1998) http://www.takenaka.

co.jp/takenaka_e/superhigh/2skycity/skycity.The Building Center of Japan. (2003) http://www.

bcj.or.jp.The Business Times. (2001) Flats on top 2 storeys of

HDB’s 40-storeys blocks cost 12% to 15% more, TheBusiness Times, 16 June 2001.

The Frank Lloyd Wright Archives. (1994) http://www.franklloydwright.org.

The New Paper. (2003) Who’ll have the tallest sky-scraper? The New Paper, 25 Jan 2003.

The New York Times Company. (2001) Deep in thedesert, no longer far out, The New York Times, 26July 2001. http://www.NYTimes.com.

The Straits Times. (2000) High-rise living – tall storeys,The Straits Times, 11 March 2000.


29


The Straits Times. (2001) Duxton Plain – fast forward to2007, The Straits Times, 17 August 2001.

The Straits Times. (2003) Shanghai resumes work onlandmark skyscraper, The Straits Times, 6 February2003.

The Straits Times. (2003) New life, new look for WTC,The Straits Times, 7 February 2003.

Tsui Design and Research Inc. (1991) http://www.tdrinc.com/ultima.html.

Urban Redevelopment Authority. (2001) Concept Plan2001. Singapore: Urban Redevelopment Authority.

Urban Redevelopment Authority. (2002) Skyline. Singa-pore: Urban Redevelopment Authority.

Urban Redevelopment Authority. (2003) http://www.ura.gov.sg.

Wright, F.L. (1956) ‘Mile High Illinois’ architecturalexhibition at Hotel Sherman, Chicago. http://www.franklloydwright.org.

Young, S. (1976) Social and Psychological Effects ofLiving in High-Rise Buildings. Sydney: Ian BuchanFell Research Project on Housing, University ofSydney.


30


Vertical cities as a solution for land scarcity: the tallest public housing development in SingaporeIntroductionConcept and features of a vertical cityResidents’ perspective of high-rise livingEmpirical research design and methodologyAcceptability of the vertical city conceptPotential residents and determinants of their decisionPreferred floor level and height of buildingPolicy implications and conclusionNotesReferences

Documents

Vertical cities as a solution for land scarcity: the tallest ......Vertical cities as a solution for land scarcity: the tallest public housing development in Singapore K.M. Grace Wong*