Building Cultures

Project and article by Ahad Mahmood and Cathy Chen

Singapore’s HDB Housing Skyline (Source: Unsplash)

Having both spent a significant portion of our lives in Singapore, our design discovery process began with a reflection on growing up in this city. While Singapore may be known for its food culture or futuristic landscapes, to those who are more familiar, the pastel orange and pink tones of Housing Development Board (HDB) buildings characterize the city skyline. Home to 80% of residents [1], these HDB public housing has a strong influence on the local culture.

Using an experimental approach inspired by David Hockney’s photography collages [2], we photographically mapped key architectural features in residential spaces, contrasting the architecture of HDBs with London’s analogous council housing. We hoped to discern how people took ownership of communal public space and potential differences between two cultures.

Through the process of visually deconstructing and then reconstructing space, we uncovered some mechanisms of expressing ownership: visual signalling (graffiti or signage), physical presence and the publicization of living areas.

Singapore HDB and London Council Housing common corridors, in contrast. We see a lot more intentional ownership of this public walkway in Singapore, with well-maintained potted plants decorating the space liberally, while London common corridors are reserved, more barren and seemingly used as a storage space instead.

Singapore and London residential balconies and building exterior, in comparison. We see decorated balconies with plants and other items spilling out of their private space organically.

It became clear that Singaporeans and Londoners have different attitudes towards communal spaces, with Singaporean residents taking a stronger ownership presence, whether that was in hallways or the ‘void decks’ [3] on the ground floor.

We isolated expressions of ownership in this council garden in a London residential area, we can see a defunct swing, flower pots and litter in this decently spacious area. Through our exploratory sensemaking, we used scale and opacity to signal the strength of the expression of ownership over a space, attempting to highlight the extent of occupancy.

This void deck in Singapore ended up being used as a garbage disposal (or furniture giveaway?). In the far distance we can also spot a barrel often used for burning of incense paper as religious offerings, bringing a certain cultural and religious presence to this shared space.

Londoners seemed to adopt a much more reserved approach, solely decorating or occupying spaces that were dedicated to their flats. Surely the architecture and ensuing culture have a reflexive relationship: HDBs may invite more participation than the unfurnished communal areas of the council housing, but cultural attitudes may then reinforce the behavior around expressing ownership. Private and public life also seemed to have different roles, where Singaporeans seemed more open to blending the two.

Our scanning and sensemaking process prompted us to analyze our environments through a different lens, it also inspired curiosity: What are the differences between occupying a space for personal or communal benefit? What are the motivations behind seemingly positive and negative expressions of ownership? Are these expressions permanent or temporal?

Ultimately, we were left asking, what behaviors were borne of culture and what of architecture, and is it even possible to separate the two?

[1] Statista — https://www.statista.com/statistics/966747/population-living-in-public-housing-singapore/

[2] David Hockney — https://www.hockney.com/works/photos/photographic-collages

[3] National Heritage Board — https://www.nhb.gov.sg/~/media/nhb/files/resources/publications/ebooks/nhb_ebook_void_decks.pdf