Urban Planning in Singapore
In light of the popularised Singapore exceptionalism, particularly due to its miraculous urban development over the past few decades, the essay series seeks to interrogate urban planning in Singapore, with an emphasis on public housing, transport sustainability, as well as heteronormativity.
Synopsis I
With 82% of permanent Singaporean residents living in flats provided by Housing Development Board (hereafter, HDB), the government statutory board in charge of public housing planning, construction, and policy formulation, it is hard to deny that public housing provision is and perhaps has always been a significant cornerstone in urban planning and public policies in Singapore (HDB, 2017). Noticeably, the government’s insistence on affordable public housing provision has received numerous accolades, especially in the contemporary era when housing issue has become a social concern globally. HDB flats’ absolute predominance in Singapore’s housing landscape and their relative affordability aside, other unique features, including but not limited to a deliberate mix of residents across different ethnic and socio-economic backgrounds, as well as housing incentivisation favouring idealised ‘normal’ nucleus family following heteronormative logic and Confucius patriarchy. In short, Singapore’s exploration in public housing provision and its unique housing landscape offer excellent terrain for intellectual discussions about our contemporary housing struggles as well as the idea(l)s to achieve residential inclusivity.
Synopsis II
Situated in Singapore’s context, the multiple roles of planning to initiate, guide, and control are undoubtedly important in conceptualising sustainable goals and operationalising transport development with integrated policies and planning tools, thanks to the city-state’s holistic and highly centralised planning approach. In spite of the government’s emphasis on effective public transport provision, controlled economic mechanisms are also introduced to regulate transport demand control and management in terms of private vehicle ownership. However, acknowledging sustainability’s inherent conceptual complexity, the effectiveness of transport planning in Singapore’s context with integrated economic mechanisms could be interrogated, especially in light of recent trends such as transit-oriented development and attempts to resist automobile dependency. Nevertheless, the meaning of sustainability and transport’s role in creating the progressive possibility towards a better urban future
Synopsis III
“Cities and sexualities both shape and are shaped by the dynamics of human social life. They reflect the ways in which social life is organised, the ways in which it is represented, perceived and understood, and the ways in which various groups cope with and react to these conditions.”
Knopp (1995: 149)
As articulated in Knopp’s (1995) statement above, the inextricable nexus of relationships between spatiality, sociality, and sexuality has been long observed and debated. Seeking inspiration from Lefebvre’s (1991) triad of concepts, namely “representation of place”, “representational space”, and “spatial practices”, the discussion is two-fold, aiming to first examine planning’s role in continuously (re-)producing heteronormative spaces, but also contributing to the ideological metanarrative by perpetuating spatial heteronormativity and eliminating the visibility of any dissident in Singapore; and second, how queer spaces resist and contest the prevalent planning discourse and praxis, hence negotiate their presence and significance to survive and even thrive by emerging via four main ways: the creation of queer-oriented and queer-friendly business clusters specialising in lifestyle services; temporal occupation of public spaces as sites of protest, demonstration and celebration; informal usage of micro spaces for interactions; as well as connection via virtual spaces.
