Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography, Vol. 6 , No.
I (1985)
SINGAPORE LANDSCAPE: A HISTORICAL OVERVIEW OF
HOUSING CHANGE
BY
TEO S E W ENG & VICTOR R. SAVAGE
With its rapid development Singapore has few
natural, much less pristine landscape t o greet the
eye. From the time of Raffles’ founding in 1819,
generations of Singaporeans have witnessed an
evolving ‘engineered landscape’ - an island con-
tinually undergoing the processes o f man-made
changes. Here is also a varied cultural landscape,
expressing the polyglot and ethnically diverse nature
of society, exhibited in its religious and sacred places,
buildings, house types, monuments and cemetaries.
Particularly in the last twenty years, the post 196Os,
Singaporeans have experienced a rapidly changing
life style in this city of towering buildings. It is a
landscape of high-rise housing flats, flatted factories,
offices, shops, food and entertainment places.
In this paper, it is our intention t o trace the
broad pattern of settlement growth through time,
and in particular to focus on the way housing types
have evolved in the face of changing circumstances.
The discussion falls into three parts. The first part
deals with housing during t h e early settlement
from 1819 to 1900, in which the foundations of
Singapore’s colonial heritage were cemented. The
second concentrates on the slum and squatter pro-
blems of the colonial city and the official response
to the housing shortage, from 1901 t o 1959. And
the third part covers the period of dynamic urban
growth and rapid development in flatted housing,
from 1960 onwards. Though arbitrary, this three-
fold time division provides useful watersheds for
illustrating the evolution of Singapore’s landscape
from a Malay fishing village to a colonial city and
to a modern, independent city-state, and the housing
types that accompany the change.
HOUSING DURING THE EARLY SETTLEMENT:
1819-1900
During the colonial era, Singapore was the arche-
type of the ‘colonial city’ in Southeast Asia, a
product of British planning and development. For
the first eighty years of its colonial history, the
island’s transformation from fishing village to city
landscape reflected the efforts o f several British
officials. Besides its founder, Sir Stamford Raffles;
Lieutenant Philip Jackson (1822-1825), George
Drumgoole Coleman (1826-1 841) and John
Turnbull Thomson (184 1 - 18.53) were pivotal forces
in shaping the island’s physical and cultural land-
scapes. Some of their architectural imprints still
grace the city today., a visible link with the colonial
past.
When Raffles landed in Singapore on 28 January,
1819, the island, according to the account given by
an eye-witness, Wa Hakim, had
. . . One hundred small houses and huts at
the mouth of the river . . . the Raja’s
(Temenggong) house was the only large one,
and it stood back from the river, between the
sea and the river near the obelisk. About thirty
families of ‘Orang Laut’ (men of the sea) also
lived in boats a little way up the Singapore
river at the wide part. (Haughton, 1982 : 74).
It was essentially a fishing village inhabited by a few
Malays and some Chinese, (Bartley, 1982 : 117),
and a good portion of the island was under jungle
or swamps.
At the time of founding up to the formal cession
of the island to the British East India Company in
1824 (Turnbull, 1982 : 29-30), Singapore was a
trading factory of the Company and a warehouse of
the East. As the trading port developed, the fishing
village rapidly gave way t o commercial houses,
wharves and godowns along the banks of the
Singapore River accessible to boats. In these initial
years of foundation, the local Malay ‘plank and
attapl’ architecture (Plate 1) was evident not only
among the rapidly expanding Asian populations
(Malays, Chinese, Indians), but was widely used
for office and public buildings, godowns, trading
houses and residences of the pioneering White settlers
Attap or atap refers to palm-leaf thatch using especially
fronds from the nipah (nipa fruticans), though in Malaya
and Singapore other local palm leaves are used.
 HISTORICAL OVERVIEW OF HOUSING CHANGE. SINGAPORE
(see Anandarajan, 1958 : 135-49). This was a period
when nearly all buildings were erected under the
supervision o f Jackson who in his official capacity
as the assistant engineer appointed t o build and
oversee the development o f the island, made the
greatest impact on the evolution and appearance
of the town. Among his contributions, Jackson built
one of the earliest bridges across the Singapore
River (the drawbridge connecting North and South
Bridge Roads), Raffles Institution at its Stamford
Road site and the Resident’s bungalow.
Between 1819 and 1824, Singapore’s population
grew rapidly from 150 Malays and some Chinese t o
10,683 multi-ethnic inhabitants. Yet this was essen-
tially a Malay town - its population was still domi-
nantly Malay (60 per cent) and its buildings were
typically the Malay architectural style o f ‘plank and
attap’. Like a Malay kampong, the town expanded in
a disorderly but picturesque fashion. There was little
separation between workplace and residence except
for the European merchants and traders. From
Anandarajan’s (1958 : 12-14) analysis of Jackson’s
1823 sketch it is likely that most of the European
population lived in detached houses, not far from the
commercial centre, o n the northern side of the
Singapore River, bounded on the north by Govern-
ment Hill (Fort Canning) and Mount Sophia, then
the property of Captain William Flint. Unfortunately,
unlike the detailed references t o European houses and
activities, there are few insights into the local Asian
population in early Singapore. At least one con-
centration of local population, however, was between
High Street and the Temenggong’s residence where 79
houses and huts were identified, housing a population
of 607 people (Pearson, 1982 : 146). This marked the
site o f ‘Kampong Temenggong’ where the Temenggong
and his followers lived. With the implemention of
Raffles’ Plan, the Temenggong and his followers
were moved to a new location at Telok Blangah in
1823 (see Pearson, 1982 : 146).
After 1825, when the Treaty of Friendship and
Alliance was ratified b y the British East India Com-
pany, giving the Company full sovereignty over the
island forever, the European merchants initiated the
building o f substantial houses, offices and warehouses
on land grants of 999-year leases, This marked the
‘permanent development’ of Singapore, It also
marked the development of the colonial city. Unlike
the earlier haphazard growth o f the town, Singapore
was from now onwards a product of British town
planning. This plan that was to guide the town’s
49
development during the first half o f the nineteenth
century was Raffles’ Plan.
Dissatisfied with the disorderly growth of the new
Singapore town, Raffles set up a committee (com-
prising Dr. Nathaniel Wallich, Captain Francis
Salniond and Dr. James Lumsdain in October 3822)
t o advise him on a Plan for the town’s development
(Buckley, 1965 : 73). Drawn up in 1823 and
published in 1828, the Plan is best illustrated in
Jackson’s map (Fig. 1). Henceforth, the morphology
of the settlement and the distribution of population
followed orderly lines according to Raffles’ Plan,
with distinct areas marked o u t on both sides of
the Singapore River for government and commercial
uses and for the various ethnic groups. The area
immediately north o f the river was reserved for
government use, with the fast expanding commercial
sector rising on the south of the river. The European
quarter occupied an extensive site between the
government office sector and the Arab quarter to
the north, centred around the Sultan’s Mosque
because of religious affiliation while the Bugis, a
seafaring people, remained confined to the coastal
area between the Arab quarter and Rochore River.
The Indian and Chinese trading communities were
assigned a river frontage near the commercial core.
The Raffles Plan promoted ethnic separation and
reinforced the growth of ethnic ghetto concentra-
tions, traces of which remain in the present city
landscape. Given the tremendous influx of Chinese
migrants who became the dominant population after
1824, the build u p in their predestined location soon
created a vastly enlarged Chinese settlement, referred
to as ‘Chinatown’. Unlike the Chinese population
that congregated near the town centre, the native
fishing and seafaring population expanded along the
coast, marking generally the northern and southern
coastal extent of the town. By 1836, Coleman’s
Survey Map (‘Map of the Town and Environs of
Singapore’) showed the Bugis village located between
the mouths of the Rochore and Kelang (Kallang)
Rivers while on the south side of the Singapore River,
the former fishing village at Telok Ayer Basin (in
Jackson’s map) was now at the end of Tanjong P a w
Road (Tanjong Pagar Road). Other Malays engaged
in agriculture, settled in their kampongs in peripheral
rural areas away from the town. By the 1850s, both
the Malay and Chinese agricultural populations began
to follow the directions of the ‘frontier’ rural roads,
such as Thomson (known then as Seletar Road),
Chua Chu Kang, Pasir Panjang and Changi roads.
50 SINGAPORE JOURNAL OF TROPICAL GEOGRAPHY
Fig. 1. Raffles’ plan of the town (1823) showing ethnic residential areas.
O f all the ethnic designations in the Raffles
Plan, the Europeans were perhaps the most mobile,
and did not stick rigidly to their designated area.
i n the 1830s, from the numerous houses built by
thc Irish architect, George Coleman, it seemed
evident that the best European residential area
was between the Esplanade and Government Hill
(Anandarajan, 1958 : 21). By the 1840s, the
European community was moving in two other
directions. Leading the way in the direction of the
Claymore and Tanglin districts was Charles Carnie,
who built his house o n Carnie Hill (Cairnhill). This
was followed soon after by other Europeans buying
estates and building houses around Orchard and
River Valley Roads and St. Thomas Walk (Hancock
& Gibson-Hill, 1954). In another direction of the
town, the new prosperous harbour at Telok Blangah
created a ‘white’ residential pocket; its pioneer
settlers being James Guthrie, William Kerr, Charles
Spottiswoode and Bain (Gibson-Hill, 1954 : 900- 1).
The outward movement of the European commu-
nity from Raffles’ ‘European Town’ was largely
associated with flourishing trade which increased
substantially the wealth of the community. This
was expressed in their desire for palatial houses
with large gardens, necessitating the move to the
town’s suburbs where land was readily available.
In the movement, a high class and exclusive ‘white’
residential district was created at Tanglin. At the
same time, the rapidly growing population in the
town was placing heavy pressure In the traditional
ethnic districts ascribed to in the Raffles Plan,
especially so for the Chinese community. The expan-
sion of the Chinese commercial and residential areas
led to their penetration into the northern side of
the river, displacing both the European and Arab
quarters. In the process, they created a new China-
town called colloquially ‘little town’ ( /]\ # ), as
distinct from the ‘big town’ ( 75 & ), the original
area allocated by Raffles to the Chinese.
 HISTORICAL OVERVIEW OF HOUSING CHANGE, SINGAPORE
On the other hand, the Indian commercial com-
munity which in the Raffles Plan was alloted a
section on the southern frontage of the Singapore
River, showed remarkable resistence t o change
through the decades. Their traditional imprint on
the landscape was felt in downtown Singapore u p
t o the 1970s, in the small but tight community,
along Chulia and Market Streets. However, in the
latter half of the nineteenth century, with the mass
inflow of immigrant Indian labourers employed in
the public sector, the Serangoon Road/Farrer Park
‘Little India’ (Siddique & Shotam, 1982) emerged,
a feature still evident in Singapore’s contemporary
cultural landscape.
When Raffles’ Town Plan was enforced in 1823,
the town stretched for 1.6 km along the coast and
0.8 km inland. Beyond the town limit the land
belonged t o the Malay rulers of the island. About
a century later, Pearson (1956) observed that the
Fig. 2. The outward expansion of the town (1819-1950). Up to 1950, the town’s growth was limited to
between 6 and 8 km from the city centre.
51
Municipality of Singapore stretched for 12 t o 16 k m
along the coast, from Pasir Panjang in the west to
Tanjong Katong in the east, and extending for more
than 6 k m inland. The outward expansion of the
town assumed broadly the pattern shown in Figure 2.
Notwithstanding the radial development o f roads
in various directions o f the island and the appearance
of the car in the late nineteenth century, urban
development and population concentration remained
confined within the city limits (Voo, 1963). It was
only in the 1950s that the population began to be
diffused t o other districts of the island, conspicuously
so in the last twenty years. with the birth of satellite
towns.
Early nineteenth century housing in Singapore
reflected a balance between conflicting influences
such as the climate and geographical environment,
the social pattern of the races, the need for security
against attacks, the limited material available, and
52 SINGAPORE JOURNAL OF TROPICAL GEOGRAPHY
the overriding need for economy and simplicity of
construction (Anandarajan, 1958 : 40). The native
Malay population (i.e. also Bugis, Javanese,
Amboinese, etc) lived in their kampongs in plank
and attap houses. The Chinese and Indian populations
were confined mainly to the town area, lived in
shophouses and the Europeans lived i n . the town
and suburban areas in relatively large garden houses.
Apart from the Indians, each of these ethnic groups
retained aspects of their cultural identity in the
architecture of their houses. The final product was
a brand of houses built with a blend and compromise
between the Malay, the Chinese and the transplanted
Europeanised variant of something seen in India
(Parkinson, 1955 : 13-23).
If one o f the major aims of housing is t o protect
the early inhabitants from the vicissitudes of the
environment, then the Malays, of all the ethnic
groups in Singapore, had by far the longest
experience in building houses suited for the tropical
environment. The attap Iow-eaved roof of the Malay
house provided protection against sky glare, hot
sunshine and torrential rains. The walls of the house
were made from thatched leaves hinged horizontally
to admit air and exclude the sun, thus keeping the
house cool. The house was built on stilts, well off
the ground, to avoid thc cold damp soils, as a pro-
tection against predators and to afford accessible
location in coastal and riverine areas. Furthermore,
their attap houses had verandahs on three sides that
allowed free flow of air while minimizing the direct
effects of a hot environment. The techniques were
a reflection of a hard-won experience through
generations of trial and error; the building materials
were a selective product of accumulated knowledge
about the quality and uses of local materials, and
the plank and attap house a symbol of cheap, simple
and quick methods o f construction (Parkinson,
1955 : 40).
In comprehending the housing tradition in nine-
teenth century Singapore, it would be myopic not to
consider the sustaining influence the Malay attap
house had on the Western and Chinese house types,
In the early years (1819-1825) of the colonial
port, the Malay house type was clearly the ‘model’
for government, public and European residential
h~ildings.Jackson’s 1823 sketch (Plate 2) provides
a vivid illustration of the Malay character of the
town, with its wood and attap structures. Several
reasons account for the early British imitation of the
Malay house type. First, a new town with a rapidly
growing population demanded a viable and speedy
method of building. Second, the building materials
for the construction of the native house types were
easily obtainable on the island. Third, the dominant
Malay labour force could be easily exploited especi-
ally since they were skilled in their native techniques
o f erecting buildings. And finally, the early British
builders were not trained architects, but military
engineers like Jackson, who was more comfortable
with constructing simple and quick structures similar
to the ones already present at the Singapore River.
However, the early British also introduced the white
stucco walls; a reflection of the Indian house type.
The permanent development of the settlement
after 1825 must begin with a pertinent footnote t o
George Drumgoole Coleman who spent fifteen
crucial years (1826-1841) as architect, surveyor,
engineer and planner in Singapore: and his successor,
J o h n Turnbull Thomson (1841 -1 853), a surveyor,
but who also contributed towards adorning the island
(see Anadarajan, 1958 : 15-31, 32-43; Hancock,
1951 : 57-70). It was Coleman who first brought
the western architectural tradition t o Singapore,
marking a departure from the conventional military
and Malay houses of Jackson’s era. Among his archi-
tectural credits, the Irish architect built many
schools, including the rebuilding of Jackson’s Raffles
Institution (1 835-1 841); the historic Armenian
Church (1835); the first St. Andrew’s Church (1836);
the gateway of the first Christian Cemetary at Fort
Canning (1833 or 1846); Coleman Bridge, linking
North Bridge Road and Hill Street (1840); and the
godowns and warehouses along North Boat Quay,
government offices and residential buildings.
As an architect, Coleman was very much an inno-
vator. His architecture was a blend of western and
eastern designs and styles, characterized by classical
pil!ars, pediments and white stucco walls. In the
western tradition, his buildings conveyed the classical
dignity of Roman Doric and Tuscan columns and
pilasters, arcades and piazzas, and the decorations
and details of the late Georgian period. With
Coleman, the tradition o f buildings became Palladian,
after the Italian architect Andrea Palladio (1 508-
1580), but it was a Palladian style which he and
Thomson skilfully modified t o suit the tropical
environment. From the local architectural designs,
 HISTORICAL OVERVIEW OF HOUSING CHANGE, SINGAPORE
Coleman and Thomson adopted the ‘Chinese jack-
r o o f 1 and added a fretted piece of woodwork in
between the overlapping roofs. In poorly drained
areas and on undulating grounds, the houses were
elevated from the gound up to about 3 metres (10
feets) on arches or pillars, and with deep and wide
verandahs and hooded openings for shade, and
louvred windows. In the synthesis of eastern and
western architectural techniques and styles in their
buildings, Coleman and Thomson developed a
‘colonial classic idiom’ in which the best elements
of the two cultures were combined. The Coleman
style of architecture was to continue long into the
nineteenth century ; living evidences of his influence
are Government House (built in 1868); Raffles
Museum (1886); the ‘arch-and-verandah’ bungalow
houses along Bukit Timah Road and St. Thomas
Walk, and the various detached houses scattered on
hillocks in Singapore (Plate 3). It took the present
century, with its emphasis on economy, to reject
Coleman’s style as having outlived its purpose.
As for the Chinese architectural imprint on the
landscape, prior to the permanent development of
Singapore, the Chinese community lived in Malay
style timber and attap houses. However, once the
settlement was established, the typical, two-storeyed
Chinese shophouse form began to surface on the
island’s landscape. Wary of the fire hazards of the
attap house, the early Chinese settlers searched for
better roofing materials and found the answer in
clay tiles. With the use of tiles, they now had to
solve the problem of the roofs weight since the
timber pillars could not support them. This resulted
in brick pillars replacing timber pillars. Another
by-product of the tiled roof was the ‘Chinese jack-
roof necessitated by the fact that the ordinary tiled
roof did not have the same ‘cooling effect’ provided
by an attap roof. To relieve the heat in the house,
the tiled roof was made t o fall in two stages, with
an overlap and a sort of clerestory - a feature that
may be described as ‘Malayan Chinese’2 (Parkinson,
1955 : 15). The Chinese houses also saw a break
from the Malay tradition of building houses on stilts.
Following from their cultural tradition in China,
1Jack-roof refers to an elevated gabled or pyramidal roof
segment sheltering a clerestory opening which separates
it from the main roof. Chinese records in 1806 show the
use of such roofs in China (Kohl, 1984 : 158).
2The term ‘Malaya’ refered to both ‘Peninsular Malaya’
and ‘Singapore’ which were officially separated in 1965.
53
they built houses directly on the ground and in the
process, dry cement floors replaced the less reliable
wooden plank floors.
Coleman and Thomson’s Palladian style with the
motifs and decorations was popular with the Chinese,
especially the rich towkays3. An early example of
this was the Ellenborough Buildings (shophouses
behind Ellenborough Market), built for Tan Tock
Seng (1778- 1850) (the wealthy Chinese businessman
and philanthropist) by Thornson between 1846 and
1847 (Hancock & Gibson-Hill, 1954 : 15). Functional
and aesthetically pleasing, the Ellenborough Buildings
had a set of arches, pillars and windows well inter-
spersed with a frieze all round the building (Fig. 3). It
was the style of the Ellenborough Buildings that
henceforth influenced the building of Chinese shop-
houses but without the pediments and rustications.
Besides the ready acceptance of Palladianism, new
syncretic styles such as the Chinese Georgian, and
the Chinese Corinthian and the Chinese Baroque
(Parkinson, 1955 : 19-23) began t o grace Chinese
shophouses, adding a new dimension to the archi-
tectural landscape of colonial Singapore (Plate 4).
A distinctive feature betweep the houses of the
Chinese and the Europeans lies in the contrast in
the use of space. The typical Chinese dwelling was
built with the economical use of space foremost in
mind while the European residences sprawled rather
freely. Little imagination is required to conceive of
the palatial houses that Coleman built when one
considers that the house he built for the merchant,
John Maxwell, was turned into a Court House, and
his own residence (Number Three Coleman Street)
later served as a hotel for several decades. The
Chinese shophouse typically combined the dual
purpose of workplace and residence on the same
premises. Commerce, retail and cottage industries
occupied the ground floor while the upper floor
was used as a residence; a convenient set up, con-
sidering that the traditional Chinese living and
business was very much a family affair. Throughout
the nineteenth century, as trade flourished, the rapid
arrival of Chinese immigrants, however, caused
many of the original shophouse units in Chinatown
to be hastily and indiscriminately enlarged at the
sides and rear. with extra floors often tacked on
3 ‘Towkay’ refers to a Chinese merchant or businessman in
the Malayan context.
54 SINGAPORE JOURNAL OF TROPICAL GEOGRAPHY
iofeet 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Fig. 3. This architectural drawing of part of the Ellenborough Buildings, reflects the prototype of the
architectural style of Chinese shophouses in Singapore.
to cope with the expanding population (Choe,
I W I : 163).
SLUM, SQUATTERS AND OFFICIAL RESPONSE:
1901-1959
In the first half of this century, Singapore was
beset with an urban dilemma - the problem of a
rapidly deteriorating environment and acute housing
shortage in many parts of the city centre. To com-
prehend the magnitude o f this problem requires
elaboration o f the syndrome o f factors which contri-
buted to the slum and the appalling housing con-
ditions.
One of the most pressing problems confronting
the authorities during this period was the rapid
population growth. Up to the enforcement of restric-
tive regulations (i.e. The Alien Ordinance Act) o n
male immigration in 1933, the continuous inflow
of immigrants especially from China was most ini-
portant in the rapid growth of population in the
central city area. Between 1901 and 1931, immigra-
tion alone accounted for 83 per cent of the popula-
tion increase, resulting in tremendous pressure o n the
already inadequate public facilities and housing.
Even though the volume o f immigration slackened
considerably after 1933, population continued to
increase to reach an all time high growth rate of
4.3 per cent per annum between 1931 and 1947.
The cause of this high population growth rate was
now due t o natural increase. I t was a period in which
the immigrant population was shedding their ‘migrant
mentality’ and looking for a sense o f security in their
newly-acquired homeland.
By 1931, with over three-quarters of the island’s
population comprising mainly Chinese living in the
90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 17o iaofeet
municipal area, the housing problem in Singapore
was predominantly a Chinese housing problem.
Crowded within the congested confines of the city
area (i.e. /I\ and g), the Chinese migrant
population made their homes in the multi-storied
and multifunctional shophouses which continually
underwent modifications and subdivisions. Their
tendency to congregate in the already overcrowded
shophouses stemmed from largely ethnic and econo-
mic reasons. Since the new immigrants were poor and
usually sponsored b y their Singapore-based relatives,
it was natural for them to live with relatives o n
arrival, and this was further reinforced by the fact
that the new migrants preferred to live with their
own Chinese community.
Another contributory factor to the slum and
housing problem was essentially a legal and legislative
one. For most of the nineteenth century, there was
a lack of stringent building laws and by-laws to
regulate town planning. And even in 1896 when
building laws and by-laws were promulgated, they
only applied to the building of new houses and
rebuilding o f old ones. The government, as such,
had little control over the haphazard growth o f the
town. Houses, for example, built o n Statutory Grant
(i.e. 999-year lease) before 1869, even though
declared insanitary, were sacrosanct and o u t of
official reach. O n the other hand, those built o n a
99-year lease after 1869 had t o await expiry of the
lease before official action could be taken. Further-
more, the municipal ordinance gave n o official
encouragement to land development as taxes on
undeveloped lands were so nominal that owners
were under no pressure to develop them, and hence
left to lie idle (Tan, 1959 : 12-13). The status quo
of the old buildings and houses remained although
HISTORICAL OVERVIEW OF HOUSING CHANGE. SINGAPORE 55

nj d
2 c
U.
J
9 ,a
4 4,

ba
E

6
4
4
t3

2
2 9
9 4
4
56 SINGAPORE JOURNAL OF TROPICAL GEOGRAPHY
they were literally bursting at their seams as the
population continued to rise in the municipal area.
Finally, private and public housing attempts
were severely hampered by a series of international
political and economic events. The First World War
(1917-1918) created a housing shortage owing to
the difficulty of obtaining building materials and
the high costs, and further accentuating it, the
depression years of’ the 1930s led to severe un-
employment, a shortage of capital, and an economic
situation in which housing was accorded low priority.
Soon afterwards, the Japanese Occupation (1942-
1945) brought the Singapore economy to a standstill
with housing once again severely affected. All these
precipitated the housing problem so that by the end
of the Second World War, the housing shortage had
reached epidemic dimensions in the ‘Central Area’ -
referring to the area 1.6 km north and 2.4 km south
of the Singapore River (Choe, 1975 : 97).
Inadequate housing conditions in the postwar
period were manifested in two major distressing
ways. There was the eyesore of the ‘black holes’
(the cubicles) of Chinatown, the slum menace in
the Central Area and the growing blight of squatter
settlements around the city fringes. But a graver
problem was the insanitary dwellings which pro-
vided the breeding grounds for the spread of diseases
especially tuberculosis. Buildings were such that
escape would have been almost impossible in the
event of fire and related hazards. Rapid population
growth and increasing urbanization were directly
responsible for the deterioration of housing, but
chief of the factors contributing to the dilapidation
was the introduction of the Rent Control Ordinance
of 1947. The Act protected the interests of tenants
against unreasonable landlords but caused the rapid
deterioration of buildings since property owners,
unable to raise rent, made no attempt to renovate
or repair rundown buildings.
The overcrowding and appalling conditions under
which slum-dwellers lived have been amply demon-
strated in several social surveys in the 1950s (see Goh,
1956; Kaye, 1960). With a population density of
50,200 persons per sq km in the city area in 1957,
it was not uncommon to have a density of over
100 persons per shophouse. Goh’s (1956) survey
of low income inhabitants in the central area and
Kaye’s (1960) study of Upper Nankin Street, a
densely settled part of Chinatown, vividly depict
the conditions of squalor. Over half of the residents
lived in cubicles with an average size of about 9 sqm.;
a high proportion of these cubicles had no windows;
sanitary conditions were intolerable and the buildings
completely dilapidated (Plate 5). Further aggravating
the problems of overcrowding and slum in the Central
Area, squatter settlements mushroomed around
the city fringes in the immediate postwar years.
Though information of squatter settlements is
exiguous, the inhabitants were generally known
to live in worse conditions than slum-dwellers,
occupying substandard shacks of attap, planks,
corrugated zinc and other scrap materials (see Chang,
1970 : 5-10) (Plate 6). In 1962, squatter colonies
provided accommodation for an estimated quarter
million people.
For a long time, the colonial government adopted
a laissez-faire attitude to Singapore’s urban growth
dilemma and housing shortage. The start of official
recognition came with the Municipal Bill of 1896
which made the Municipality the guardian of town
improvement and empowered it to undertake im-
provement schemes which might relieve the slum
problem. But the process from official recognition
to successful application and action was a slow and
enept process. Two phases can be identified in this
colonial period towards a solution to the housing
problem. The first phase (1 896-1 927) covers the
Municipality period, and the second (1927-1959)
deals with the public housing attempts by the
Singapore Improvement Trust (SIT).
One of the major outcomes of the municipality
phase was The Simpson Report of I907 which
reported that buildings in Chinatown were unhealthy,
houses and cubicles were overcrowded with people
and the absence of backlanes caused refuse pollution.
The root of these problems was the lack of housing.
Simpson’s solution was for the authorities to form
a ‘Housing Commission or Trust’ to deal effectively
with the problems, a recommendation that led later
to the establishment of the SIT. Following from
the Report, a Bill was introduced in 1907 to demolish
unhealthy dwellings, construct backlanes and recon-
struct unhealthy areas, By 1908, both the backlanes
and improvement schemes were approved, but in-
adequate legislation created difficulties that delayed
their implementation. It was during the years 1913
and 1917 that tangible results surfaced on the city
landscape with the construction of backlanes (e.g.
Jalan Sultan, Minto Road, Crawford Street) and
improvement schemes ( e g . Orchard Road-Penang
Road; Pyoh Goyang, Kampong Kapor, Kampong
 HISTORICAL OVERVIEW OF HOUSING CHANGE, SINGAPORE
Java) (Tan, 1959 : 5-6). However, the lack of
finance, staff and effective legislation permitted
these schemes to make only a modest contribution
to alleviating the urban congestion and housing
problems. It seemed relatively negligible when
thousands of people continued to live in houses
‘like rabbit warrens’ (see Tan, 1959 : 9). This
recognition of the housing shortage led to the
formation of the 1917 Housing Commission which
led to the creation of an ‘Improvement Trust’ in 1920
for town planning and housing schemes. The
Singapore Improvement Trust (SIT) operated initially
as a self-contained department within the municipa-
lity between 1920 and 1927.
With the passing of the Singapore Improvement
Ordinance Bill in 1927, an independent Singapore
Improvement Trust came into being, thereby ushering
a new phase in urban planning and public housing in
Singapore. Under the SIT, public housing was finally
beginning to make some headway. Between 1936 and
1941, the SIT built the first public housing satellite
town of Tiong Bahru which housed about 6,000
people (Plate 7). But up to the Second World War,
the SIT’s progress was slow. It was only after World
War Two (i.e. from 1947-1959) that its building
activity was stepped up, providing some 20,907
units over the 13-year period. The bulk of this
postwar development took place in the Alexandra/
Queenstown area which was to develop in later
years, under its successor, the Housing and Develop-
ment Board (HDB) into one of Singapore’s major
public housing satellites.
Overall, in its thirty-two years of existence, the
SIT was ineffective in solving the housing shortage;
only building about 20 per cent of the nation’s total
housing requirements (HDB, 1965). There were
many reasons for poor performance, some of which
were beyond its control. Since housing was not
given to priority in government circles, the SIT
lacked adequate funds and official backing for its
housing schemes, and being burdened with other
functions ( e g road construction and the general
improvement of the city), its full energy could not
be channelled to its housing programmes. Part of
the blame lay in its poor organization, but essentially
the SIT suffered from a shortage of experienced
professional and technical staff to cope with the
complexities of public housing, and since many of
the senior staff were expatriates, they were less
sensitive to local cultures and situations (Tan, 1973 :
21-24). Finally, the disruption of social activities
57
caused by the Second World War and the subsequent
‘baby boom’ were events beyond the powers of the
SIT.
Given the difficulties and odds it faced, the SIT’s
performance should, perhaps, be viewed more favour-
ably. In many respects, it laid the blue-print for the
future development of Singapore’s public housing.
It introduced the idea of satellite towns and the
‘neighbourhood concept’ in public housing schemes.
It made the first inroads in the decentralization
of population from the core areas of the Central
Area (i.e. Chinatown). Most of all, it created a new
residential landscape that initiated flat-dwelling
as a way of life which has become a norm with
Singaporeans.
ERA OF PUBLIC AND PRlVATE HOUSING AND
URBAN RENEWAL: 1960 ONWARDS
Established in 1959 and functioning by February
1960, the Housing and Development Board (HDB)
marked another major phase in Singapore’s housing
that is significant in the large numbers (about 80
per cent of the population) who have been relocated
and accommodated in the relatively short time span
of over twenty years; in the impact that high-rise
HDB flats have had on the physical landscape and
in the way HDB living has altered the life style and
status pattern of society in Singapore. During this
period, the private sector has enriched the residential
landscape as well as created further status differenti-
ation through the addition of terrace, semi-detached,
bungalow, apartment and condominium housing.
But catering, as it does, to the needs of a more
affluent and small minority of the population (about
8 per cent), the impact of private housing has largely
been overshadowed by public housing. Meanwhile,
the adoption of the official policy of deliberate
urbanization through urban renewal in the past
one and a half decades has transformed the city
centre beyond recognition with the previously
insignificant skyline punctuated by imposing sky-
scrapper buildings, and in place o f the former colonial
entrepot city has emerged a modern metropolis (Teo,
1983a). The post 1960 period indeed, is one of
dynamic urban growth and change in Singapore
compared to the relatively slower past developments
of the earlier two periods.
At the time the HDB took over from the SIT,
the housing problem remained acute. It had the
mammoth task of building 10,000 low-cost units
58 SINGAPORE JOURNAL OF TROPICAL GEOGRAPHY
annually over a ten- year period from 1960 t o 1970
t o correct deficiencies arising from overcrowding
and t o cope both with the pressure o f a growing
population for housing as well as the demand created
by Central Area redevelopment. Endowed with wide
legal power and a large budget and the full backing
of the government machinery the HDB’s success
story in housing four-fifths of Singapore’s population
of 2.5 million is well documented and needs no
repetition (see HDB Annual Reports, 1964/65 to
1979/80). Rather, our concern here is with the
types of flats developed by the HDB at various
stages of its building activity, and the influence
HDB housing has o n the urban landscape and societal
change.
The HDB’s first Five-Year Programme (1960-
1965) was launched essentially to relieve the ‘housing
famine’ in the Central Area where under rent control,
properties had fallen into disrepair, and many sub-
tenants were living in cubicles. An estimated one-
quarter million people in Chinatown alone required
rehousing, and another one-quarter million were
living in badly degenerated slums from Telok Blangah
in the west t o Geylang Serai in the east (HDBAnnuaZ
Report, 1961; Buchanan, 1972 : 184-88). This
excludes the nearly one-quarter million squatters on
the city fringes who also urgently needed rehousing.
Preliminary studies by the HDB indicated that the
majority of people urgently in need of public housing
depended greatly on employment in the Central Area
and their household incomes were low, ranging from
S$lOO to S$500 per month. Given these factors,
accordingly, the HDB’s housing estates under the
1960-65 programme were located around areas
of heavy population concentration, away from,
but within easy reach (about 6 to 8 km) o f the city
where land was readily available. But as land values
were high in these areas, the HDB was left with n o
alternative except to build high-rise structures o f
about twenty storeys. And given the magnitude
of the population that had t o be housed and the
HDB’s stated policy o f providing for the lower
income groups, the first priority was for flats that
could be produced quickly and economically, hence
the emphasis on the construction of one-room
emergency type units in which toilet and kitchen
facilities, etc were either communal or semi-
communal (Plate 8). Rentals were kept at a minimum
with rates for the one-, two-, and three-room flats
fixed at S$20, S$40 and S$60 per month, respec-
tively, equivalent in each case t o about 15 per cent of
the household income. Over the years, however the
HDB had no choice but t o periodically adjust its
rentals and prices of flats upwards in line with in-
flation, and higher labour, material and energy costs.
But the current HDB rentals and prices are far below
those in the open market.
The housing estates were planned along the lines
of the ‘neighbourhood concept’ o f the European
postwar new towns, with some modifications to suit
the conditions of the local environment. For
example, whilst providing the essential modern
facilities lacking in the old slum areas, the Asian
‘communal way of living’ built upon close kinship
and socialization with neighbours was retained. Each
neighbourhood comprising between 1,000 and 5,000
families, was self-contained in terms of shops,
primary schools, clinics, community centres and
playgrounds. The idea was to minimize travel outside
the neighbourhood. The basic neighbourhood prin-
ciple of self-sufficiency has been retained in the deve-
lopment o f the HDB’s later housing estates and new
towns with a better range of facilities in terms of
transportation, recreation, schools, shops, etc. But
t h e initial policy of restricting commuting distance
t o work t o less than half an hour had t o be waivered
because of the more distant locations of the new
towns from the city centre.
With the successful completion of the first Five-
Year Plan in 1965 and the backbone of the housing
shortage broken, the HDB was now in a position t o
turn to the problems of urban renewal (i.e. through
the establishment of the Urban Renewal Unit in
1964, which in 1966 became the Urban Redevelop-
ment Authority, URA) and the provision of housing
to meet the demand arising from population growth
and the relocation of families displaced by urban
redevelopment in the city centre. The 1966-70
building programme of the HDB thus showed a shift
in emphasis ‘from speed and expediency t o amenity
and quality.’ (HDB, 1966). It had moved out o f the
crises situation of the 1960-65 period when its
sole task was t o construct the maximum units in
the minimum time at the most economical cost.
Its new position was reflected in the qualitative
changes in the design of the estates and flats and
in the relaxation of the ruling on family size from a
minimum of five to two persons for those applying
for HDB flats. The standards adopted in the planning
and layout o f the estates were liberalized with
more generous provisions made for open spaces
between buildings, playgrounds, landscaping and car
parking facilities (see Teh, 1969). Instead of one-
HISTORICAL OVERVIEW OF HOUSING CHANGE, SINGAPORE 59

d
ba

d
60 SINGAPORE JOURNAL OF TROPICAL GEOGRAPHY
room communal flats, one-room ‘improved’ and
three-room ‘improved’ flats, characterized by better
design and greater floor area, were built. The ‘point-
block’ type of flats, which allow residents greater
privacy was also introduced for the first time (Plate
9). With Home Ownership of HDB flats made a
reality in 1964, owners took a pride in ‘doing up’
their homes, further enhancing the quality of the
flats compared to those built during the earlier
programmes.
Beginning with the third Five-Year Plan in 1970,
the HDB had to redefine its role as an agent of public
housing. A third of the population, mainly the lower
income groups, had already been accommodated
in the decade of the sixties through the first two
building programmes, and the time was now ripe
for the HDB to divert its attention to the middle
income households that were increasingly being
squeezed out of the private housing market brought
about by Singapore’s housing boom in the early
1970s. Addressing itself to a completely new breed
of flatseekers, the main accent of the HDB’s building
activity throughout the decade of the seventies was
on the development of bigger four- and five-room
units, quality, style, open space, provision of better
facilities and recreational amenities like landscaped
parks for active and passive recreation, swimming
pool, sports complex, etc. Marine Parade, Bedok,
Ang Mo Kio and Clementi new towns are classic
examples of the new-generation HDB flats (Plate 10).
The difference between an HDB estate and HDB
new town lies in the fact that the latter is larger in
size, ranging from 150,000 to 250,000 against
the 10,000 to 50,000 in HDB estates. The larger
population has meant that a wider range of commu-
nity facilities can be provided in new towns than
HDB estates. Interspersed among the HDB blocks
of flats, sometimes occupying separate locations,
for example, Chancery Court, Pine Grove are pockets
of high-rise HUDC (Housing and Urban Development
Corporation) flats. Little different in outward
appearance from HDB’s high grade executive flats,
the spaciousness, more attractive internal design
and the additional recreational facilities that go
with HUDC flats make them a cut above the HDB
flats. In essence HUDC flats are really an extension
of HDB housing, reflecting the demand by
Singaporeans for a type of government-subsidized
housing that is even bigger, better designed, equipped
with more recreational amenities and in choicer
locations than the HDB developments. But, in line
with the government’s policy of encouraging a
balanced socio-economic mix of population in HDB
estates, HUDC housing which has since come under
HDB jurisdiction, will no longer be maintained as
separate enclaves in future developments.
Increasingly, in the HDB’s housing programmes
of the 1980s, the endeavour is to better understand
the expectations and aspirations of residents in the
areas of environmental design, service and manage-
ment of the estates and new towns (HDB, 1980).
The commitment of the HDB to public housing in
the over twenty years of its existence was thus not
merely to provide a roof to four-fifths of Singapore’s
population, it was equally committed to a policy
of improvement of its flats and estates with each
new building programme. Since 1978, the HDB has
embarked upon a programme of redevelopment
and upgrading of its old estate. This was necessary
because it had to adjust to a more and more affluent
and sophisticated population of home-seekers with
higher expectations and aspirations. On the other
hand, because of its ability to satisfy the require-
ments of a more discriminating population of flat-
seekers, the initial psychological barriers which
Singaporeans had against HDB flats were quickly
overcome. No longer are HDB flats linked with the
lower income groups and the phobia about high-rise
living has similarly been removed, Today, HDB
flatdwelling is a norm with Singaporeans, associated
by and large with middle-class living Physically, the
city’s landscape has been radically transformed by
the presence of towering, high-density HDB
structures scattered all over the island.
Complementing the development in public
housing, the private sector also underwent a mini
housing boom over the past two decades, Privately
developed housing originally catered to the middle
income groups, but phenomenal price increases of
private properties (a eight- to ten-fold increase
depending on location) between 1960 and 1980 has
meant that it now serves almost exclusively the
upper income groups. Private housing assumed
importance in the late 1950s with the burgeoning
of a middle-class which generated a demand for more
spacious and better quality housing away from the
traditional shophouse premises in the built up central
areas. The effect of private housing has been to create
increasing differentiation in housing types, beginning
with terrace, semi-detached and bungalow houses
(landed properties) (Plate 11) in the earlier years to
the more recent development of high-rise, high-
density condominium housing in the effort to
 HISTORICAL OVERVIEW OF HOUSING CHANGE. SINGAPORE
economize the use of scarce land in Singapore (see
Teo, 1983b : 4-10; Teo, forth-coming). Individually
designed to suit the taste of private consumers, and
equipped with a wide range of recreational facilities,
the greater architectural variations that characterize
the more luxurious condominium blocks (Plate 12)
provide a visual relief from the rather stereotype,
mass produced high-rise HDB flats. Following the
main arterials leading out of the city centre (i.e.
Bukit Timah/Holland/Thomson/Upper Serangoon
and East and West Coast Roads) the rapid subur-
banization of private housing has expanded housing
into extra-city locations within a relatively short
period of time.
In the city centre, the onslaught of urban renewal
which gathered momentum in the past decade has
drastically transformed the commercial core (see
URA Annual Reports). Skyscrapper blocks of offices,
banks, hotels and shopping complexes has replaced
the once ubiquitous two- and three-storeyed shop-
house structures. In Chinatown itself, the rundown
shophouses and related slums are fast disappearing
under the broad sweep of urban renewal programmes.
As urban redevelopment progresses, in the not too
distant future, except for the occasional historical
and/or cultural building, the city of the past will
soon be forgotten by Singaporeans.
CONCLUSION
In a broader sense, the three phases of housing
highlighted, reflect the prevalent political and eco-
nomic climate of the periods. In the first phase
(1 81 9-1900), stable colonial rule and economic
prosperity of the British entrepot resulted in the
establishment of a western planned colonial city
with aesthetically pleasing houses adorning the
landscape. The second phase (1901-1959) witnessed
the rapid growth of population associated with
immigration and natural increase. This, together
with the disruption caused by the World Wars and
the economic depression of the 1930s took their
toll on housing and direct government intervention
in the provision of shelter became necessary for the
first time in Singapore’s history. The third phase
(1960-1980), an era of public and private housing
and urban renewal of the city, has had the most
profound impact on the island’s landscape. This
period of building boom which involved the massive
redistribution of population was made possible under
the umbrella of political and economic stability
provided by the present government.
61
Today, imprints of colonial Singapore are still
manifest .on the urban landscape despite rapid re-
construction of the city. At the spatial level, traces
of the Raffles Plan that shaped the British town, in
particular, the residential separation of ethnic groups
and the grid pattern of streets have shown remarkable
resistance in the decades of change. In the archi-
tectural sphere, the pioneering and innovative in-
fluence of Coleman and Thomson in the development
of Palladianism that combined the best of the western
and eastern traditions, unsurpassed in its aesthetic
beauty, the majesty o f this architectural style remains
visible in several private and public buildings as well
as shophouses.
Palladianism rapidly gave way to an architecture
of economy especially in the Chinese quarter, at the
turn of the century. The influx of Chinese immigrants
and their convergence in Chinatown generated an
insatiable demand for housing that was met by indis-
criminate subdivisions and extensions to the original
shophouse premises. But as the population continued
to increase, the slum and squalor steming from the
fast deteriorating housing turned Chinatown into
the breeding ground for diseases. The need for official
intervention was never more wanting, and it was at
this time that public housing in flats became a reality
with the establishment of the SIT. Given the magni-
tude of the housing shortage and the constraints
under which the SIT laboured, the problem of
shelter, however, remained largely unsolved.
The breakthrough in housing came with the HDB
erecting flats that were resolutely functional and
economical. The over two decades of HDB building
activity has provided accommodation for close to
80 per cent of Singapore’s population, expanded
the housing oikoumene from the traditional confines
of the city centre, and completely transformed the
urban landscape with the new skyline of high-rise
HDB flats scattered over the island. Even more far
reaching has been the trapsformation in the life
style and the social fabric of society. High-rise HDB
flat living has become a way of life with the average
Singaporean whilst house type which includes the
gamut of terrace, semi-detached, bungalow, apart-
ment and condominium housing developed by
private enterprise, has assumed increasing importance
as a stratifying variable, replacing the colonial stratifi-
cation of population along ethnic lines.
Within the city centre, the bulldoze of urban change
in urban renewal programmes has given it a facelift
62 SINGAPORE JOURNAL OF TROPICAL GEOGRAPHY

d
w

*-,

a
Q.

30
c,

2
e
 HISTORICAL OVERVIEW OF HOUSING CHANGE. SINGAPORE
as modern edifices of towering office blocks, banks,
hotels and shopping complexes replace the pre-
dominantly low-tiled shophouses, and as the entrepot
city fast moves to become a global city. With few
exceptions, the last vestiges of colonial Singapore
have made way for a more functional use of land
and living space. In the future, developments will
effect structural changes to the existing urban land-
scape, but the basic housing forms appear likely to
be perpetuated.
REFERENCES
Anandarajan, K. (1958), Colonial Architecture and Urban
Development in Singapore ( 1 8 1 9-18-53), unpub. Acade-
mic Exercise, Department of History, University of
Malaya, Singapore.
Bartley, W. (1982), ‘The population of Singapore in 1819’ in
Tan Sri Dato Mubin Sheppard (ed.), Singapore 1 5 0 Years,
Singapore.
Buchanan, I. (1972) Singapore in Southeast Asia, Kuala
Lumpur .
Buckley, C.B. (1965), A n Anecdotal History o f Old T i m e s in
Singapore, Kuala Lumpur.
Chang, Y.C. (19701, ‘The squatter population of Singapore’,
Berita Peranchang, 1.
Choe, A.F.C. (1969), ‘Urban renewal’, in J.B. Ooi & H.D.
Chiang (eds.), Modern Singapore, Singapore.
(1975), ‘Urban renewal’ in S.H.K. Yeh (ed.),
Public Housing in Singapore, Singapore.
Gibson-Hill, C.A. (1954), ‘Singapore note on the Old Strait,
1580-1850’, Journal o f the Malayan Branch o f t h e R o y a l
Asiatic Society, Vol. XXVII, No. 165, 163-214.
Goh, K.S. (1956), Urban Income and Housing: A Report
on the Social Survey of Singapore, 1953-54, Singapore.
Hancock, T.H.H. (1951), ‘George Drumgoole Coleman,
architect & planning advisor to Sir Stamford Raffles,
designer of Armenian Church, Singapore’, T h e Quarterly
Journal o f t h e Institute o f Architects o f Malaya, vol. 1,
No. 3.
Hancock, T.H.H. & Gibson-Hill, C.A. (1954), Architecture
in Singapore, Singapore.
Haughton, H.T. (1982), ‘Landing of Raffles in Singapore by
an eyewitness’ in Tan Sri Dato Mubin Sheppard (ed.),
Singapore 1 5 0 Years, Singapore.
63
H D B Annual R e p o r t s (1960 onwards).
Housing and Development Board (1 9 6 9 , Singapore HDB
R e p o r t , Singapore.
Kaye, B. (1960), Upper Nankin Street, Singapore: A Socio-
logical S t u d y of Chinese Households Living in a Densely
Populated Area, Singapore.
Kohl, D.C. (1984), Chinese Architecture in the Straits
Settlements and Western Malaya: Temples, Kongsis
and Houses, Kuala Lumpur .
Parkinson, C.N. (1955), ‘Homes of Malaya’, Quarterly
Journal o f the Institute of’Architects of Malaya, VOl. Iv,
No. 4.
Pearson, H.F. (1956), A flistory of Singapore, London.
(1982), ‘Singapore from the sea, June 1823’,
in Tan Sri Dato Mubin Sheppard (ed.), Singapore 1 5 0
Years, Singapore.
Siddique, S. & Shotam, N.P. (1 982), Singapore’s Litrle India,
Institute o f Southeast Asian Studies, Singapore.
Song, 0 . S . (1967), One Hundred Years’ History of t h e
Chinese in Singapore, Singapore.
Tan, H.H. (1959), A s t u d y of the Singapore slum problem
1907-41 with special reference to the Singapore Im-
p r o v e m e n t Trust, unpub. Academic Exercise, Department
of History University of Malaya, Singapore.
Tan, K.C. (1973), Public Housing in Singapore 1 9 4 7 - 70,
( T h e Work of t h e S I T and H D B ) , unpub. Academic
Exercise, Department of History, University of Singapore,
Singapore.
Teh, C.W. (1969), ‘Public housing - the next effects’, in J . F .
Conceicau (ed.), A t N e w Environment f r o m Singapore,
Singapore.
Teo, S.E. (1983a), ‘Planning and urban developmcnt in
Singapore’, in A.D. Beck et al. (ed.), 1 9 8 2 Conference
and Workshop Papers of t h e Geography Teachers’ Asso-
ciation, Singapore.
(1983b), ‘Condominium development in
Singapore: residents’ yiews on condominium living’,
Planews, Vol. 19, No. 2,4-10.
(forthcoming), ‘Condominium living in
Singapore: stock-taking of a decade’s effort’, Inter-
national Real Estate Journal.
Turnbull, C.M. (1982) A History of Singapore 1 8 1 9 - 1 9 7 5 ,
Kuala Lumpur .
VOO, A.N.F. (1963), Urban G r o w t h in Singapore, unpub.
Ph.D. thesis, Department of Geography, University of
Singapore, Singapore.