{"id":1556,"date":"2023-11-21T12:07:26","date_gmt":"2023-11-21T12:07:26","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.spatialhistory.net\/cities\/?p=1556"},"modified":"2024-03-12T18:49:50","modified_gmt":"2024-03-12T18:49:50","slug":"kampung-house-experiments","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.spatialhistory.net\/cities\/2023\/11\/kampung-house-experiments\/","title":{"rendered":"“Kampung House” Experiments"},"content":{"rendered":"

Chua\u2019s chapter \u201cModernism and the Vernacular\u201d explains how the different spatial configurations of the kampung and of Chinese squatters\u2019 housing led to different socialisations of \u201cpublic space\u201d in the modernist Housing Development Board (HDB) housing estate. The HDB\u2019s vision was one of \u201coverwhelming conformity\u201d with some form of abstract designs of which their purpose is to \u201cserve as \u2018place markers\u2019 in what would otherwise be placeless continuum of similarity.\u201d1<\/a><\/sup> While Chua\u2019s chapter elucidates a theme central to the historiography of housing in post-colonial Singapore, Chua\u2019s unilateral presentation of HDB\u2019s housing vision can be nuanced by investigating the Singapore Institute of Architects (SIA) journal Rumah<\/em>2<\/a><\/sup> during the first phases of HDB\u2019s development. The \u201cmodern\u201d and the \u201cvernacular\u201d were envisioned as a possibility and spelt a vision of \u201cpublic space\u201d completely different to that of the HDB.<\/p>\n

The SIA in its September 1961 issue presented the HDB\u2019s raison d\u2019\u00eatre as one of continuity and change. The HDB\u2019s initial work was launched off the final of the Singapore Improvement Trust (SIT)\u2019s reports on housing.3<\/a><\/sup> Yet, this Report entailed the post-colonial government\u2019s \u201cbasic reassessment of aims and policies\u201d in terms of \u201crental of housing units, densities of development, standard of accommodation, scale of building programme and many others.\u201d Geographically, the HDB would begin by renewing \u201cobsolete properties in the central areas\u201d before a gradual, radial process of undoing marginal, slum properties.4<\/a><\/sup> This was in concert with the HDB chief architect Teh Cheang Wan, who agreed with the remit of the HDB in relation to SIT. His words were confirmed by Lim, who argued that this strategy was needed as a \u201clasting solution to the urban housing problem prior to major economic development, industrialisation and a basic solution to employment,\u201d indeed emphasising that this would also be the terms the HDB would be judged on.5<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n

Thus the SIA, while accommodating the aforementioned writings from both HDB officials, was also very deliberate with student development. The Student Section, while bearing the stamp of the Singapore Polytechnic Architectural Society (SPAS), was open to any letters from the public. The SPAS also seemed aligned with how Chua characterises the HDB – \u201cmodern architects\u2019 socialist sentiments\u201d infused with the early twentieth century British \u201cGarden City\u201d movement.6<\/a><\/sup> The page bore the SPAS\u2019 \u201cmanifesto\u201d \u2013 in which students emphasised the primacy of \u201cpublic spaces\u201d, \u201cparking facilities\u201d and the relationships buildings held within the unit of a formalised \u201cTown Plan.\u201d7<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n

\"\"

Pages 54-56 of the “Student Section” of Rumah, Sep 1961<\/p><\/div>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

However, the entries in this issue were just as concerned with the \u201cvernacular\u201d. All the entries were concerned with \u201cVillage dwellings\u201d, with Second Year student Wee Chwee Heng\u2019s entry detailing a topographical study following fieldwork Wee conducted. Wee was also the only student to submit a design for a \u201cTemple to Kuan Yin\u201d which he submitted as a \u201cthird year project preceded by field studies on Chinese temples in Singapore.\u201d In contrast with schematics that Chua uses in his chapter, Wee focused his drawings on wide-angled views rather than bird\u2019s eye projections of his studies. Wee\u2019s drawings place the \u201cvernacular\u201d firmly within the \u201cmodern\u201d \u2013 his temple is designed with an \u201centrance from Nicoll Highway.\u201d8<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n

The bulk of the other drawings responsed to a call for a \u201cKampong House prototype\u201d, including an entry by Tay Kheng Soon when he was still a Second Year student. Tay\u2019s envisioning of a kampung on stilts visualises the elements that Chua describes in the kampung \u2013 the clear features of the stilts and the serambi<\/em> (verandah) are immediately obvious. Yet, just like Wee, Tay\u2019s conception of the \u201cvernacular\u201d kampung house imagined both \u201cmodern\u201d and \u201cvernacular\u201d. Tay pictures a car pulling into the paved flooring, leaving still a bench in the serambi<\/em> for a resident to use, even if the car\u2019s intrusion into this \u201cpublic space\u201d is not clear. In fact, Wee\u2019s last submission bears a similar imagination in \u201cprototyping\u201d a \u201cKampong House\u201d focused on envisioning the \u201cmodern\u201d and the \u201cvernacular\u201d. Yet, both students did not identify \u201cpublic\u201d space necessarily as an area of discontinuity, and instead found ways of picturing them both inside and outside the kampung.4<\/a><\/sup> For these architectural students, therefore, Rumah<\/em> columns became a platform for experimentation – just as public housing would eventually become for the HDB.<\/p>\n

  1. Beng Huat Chua, Political Legitimacy and Housing: Singapore\u2019s Stakeholder Society<\/em> (London: Routledge, 2002), 74-75. [↩<\/a>]<\/span><\/li>
  2. Bahasa Melayu for \u201cHome\u201d [↩<\/a>]<\/span><\/li>
  3. The Report is not available in the issue but is discussed by William Lim. Lim later gained prominence for his architectural achievements and social activism. William SW Lim, \u201cThe Singapore Improvement Trust 1959,\u201d in Rumah<\/em> (Sep 1961): 58-59. [↩<\/a>]<\/span><\/li>
  4. Ibid.<\/em> [↩<\/a>]<\/span> [↩<\/a>]<\/span><\/li>
  5. All quotes are from Teh\u2019s article is at the front of the issue. Teh, \u201cPublic Housing in Singapore,\u201d in Rumah<\/em> (Sep 1961): 5-9. [↩<\/a>]<\/span><\/li>
  6. Chua, Political Legitimacy and Housing<\/em>, 75. [↩<\/a>]<\/span><\/li>
  7. \u201cStudent Section,\u201d in Rumah (Sep 1961): 49. [↩<\/a>]<\/span><\/li>
  8. \u201cStudent Section,\u201d in Rumah (Sep 1961): 54-56. [↩<\/a>]<\/span><\/li><\/ol>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    Chua\u2019s chapter \u201cModernism and the Vernacular\u201d explains how the different spatial configurations of the kampung and of Chinese squatters\u2019 housing led to different socialisations of \u201cpublic space\u201d in the modernist Housing Development Board (HDB) housing estate. The HDB\u2019s vision was one of \u201coverwhelming conformity\u201d with some form of abstract designs of which their purpose is […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":30,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[6,5],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1556","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-domestic-space","category-southeast-asia"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.spatialhistory.net\/cities\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1556","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.spatialhistory.net\/cities\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.spatialhistory.net\/cities\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.spatialhistory.net\/cities\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/30"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.spatialhistory.net\/cities\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1556"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/www.spatialhistory.net\/cities\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1556\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1904,"href":"https:\/\/www.spatialhistory.net\/cities\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1556\/revisions\/1904"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.spatialhistory.net\/cities\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1556"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.spatialhistory.net\/cities\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1556"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.spatialhistory.net\/cities\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1556"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}