Think small and put the buzz into Singapore
17 May 2001
Lydia Lim / The Straits Times
HE SPOKE with passion — and at length — about how to make
Singapore one of the great cities in the world to live in,
comparable to places like San Francisco and Vancouver.
Mr Jonathon Sze, an engineer, was one of 13 people to speak at a
public forum held to discuss the draft of the 2001 Concept Plan,
which will guide Singapore’s physical development in the next
decade.
He was brimming with ideas on how to make this country more
vibrant, more attractive to foreign talent and, therefore, more
competitive.
Why not have jetties along the Singapore River so that people
can travel to and from their waterfront homes in boats, creating a
new kind of “high society living”, he asked.
Why does Hongkong have a buzz but not Singapore? Well, because
Hongkongers live close to their places of work, leisure and
learning, he said, answering his own question. So after work, they
head home for a shower, then head out again.
They are “motivated to socialise”, he said.
In contrast, Singaporeans spend up to an hour commuting and are
so knackered by the time they reach their doorsteps, they don’t
want to step out again, he added, concluding that this is where
Hongkong has a competitive advantage.
At the end of his extended presentation, National Development
Minister Mah Bow Tan, who was chairing the forum, said with a
smile: “I can’t disagree with any of the points you’ve made.
“I just want to add one point
though. Maybe it’s because Hongkongers’ flats are smaller than
Singaporeans’ that they spend more time outdoors,” he said,
to much laughter from the 300-strong crowd.
Of all the points raised at last Friday’s dialogue, I found this
last comment by the minister the most telling.
It said to me that flat size is an
issue that is still on the minds of Singapore’s leaders and urban
planners. And rightly so.
With so little land to be shared among so many competing uses,
housing density — that is the number of housing units on a given
piece of land — is a key issue in urban planning.
In September last year, The Straits Times published a front-page
article that was headlined “Get set for smaller homes in
future”.
It quoted Mr Mah as saying that
with shrinking family sizes, it was “only logical” to build smaller
homes. However, it would be difficult to get people to accept the
idea.
“Human nature being such, I think we still want to have
same-size houses even though the sizes of households are getting
smaller,” he said in last year’s interview.
“So it does not follow that we
will be able to reduce the house sizes too much, but I think over
time, this has got to be the trend,” he added.
The article was reprinted in the
Chinese and Malay newspapers and set off a feedback
frenzy.
Many people called the
Housing Board and the URA to register their unhappiness with any
plans to reduce flat sizes.
Smaller flats emerged as the top
housing issue last year, prompting the most number of responses to
the Feedback Unit.
The issue also sparked a heated exchange on the Straits Times
Interactive (STI) website, where 200 people posted their views.
Most who called or wrote
to the various government departments and the STI were strongly
opposed to the idea. Some felt it contradicted the Government’s
push to encourage Singaporeans to have more babies. Others railed
against the unfairness of shrinking HDB flats that kept ballooning
in price.
Much of the unhappiness was due to a misunderstanding of what
the minister had in mind.
Mr Mah was not announcing HDB’s plans to shrink flats.
He was merely pointing out that if the average size of a
Singapore household falls from four to three, which it is expected
to do with rising affluence, then it only makes sense to build
smaller homes so that more land can
be set aside for parks and other uses.
I agree.
I am not suggesting that in the future, all families —
regardless of size — be squeezed into the equivalent of a
three-room flat. Neither was the minister.
What I am suggesting is that both
public and private sectors build smaller homes to cater to the
growing number of couples with no children, and singles. This will
allow us to house a bigger population, yet preserve the
greenery, old buildings and neighbourhoods precious to so many
Singaporeans.
To make the idea more palatable, I suggest a name change for HDB
homes.
Instead of labelling flats as either five- or four-room, thus
bringing with it the attendant associations of first and second
class, why not market public housing like private condominiums?
Flats could be named after the precinct they are in, such as
Sengkang Cove or Punggol Point. This would go hand-in-hand with the
HDB’s pilot build-to-order scheme, which invites flat-buyers to
choose flats in specific locations.
The price, of course, would still depend on the size of the
individual unit.
I think this would go a long way
to assuage the angst against smaller flats, which I believe is due
more to material aspirations than any crying need for bigger living
spaces.
After all, the average working
adult spends very little time at home, as work is likely to swallow
up two-thirds of his day.
I think the minister may be right to suggest that if homes
become smaller, Singaporeans will change their lifestyles
accordingly.
In a recent article, architect and planning consultant Robert
Powell argued that old Chinatown enjoyed a vibrant street life
because people’s homes were smaller, and so they tended to go out
more, transforming the street into “a communal living room”.
My memory does not stretch that far back, but I do recall
visiting a friend, a Japanese girl, who lived in the heart of Paris
with her family.
Their flat was tiny, her bedroom so cramped that she had no
space for a bed. She slept on the floor on a mattress, which she
pushed against the wall during the day so that she would have more
room to move around.
Yet, I don’t think the size of her flat compromised her quality
of life in any way.
On the contrary, she thrived in Paris, a city she knew as well
as the back of her hand.
She showed me where
to get a top-class panorama of the city, not the Eiffel Tower, but
the roof of a shopping centre called the Samaritaine; where to head
for the definitive display of Monet’s water lilies, and what to
look out for when visiting Notre Dame Cathedral, whose facade she
described as “perfect”.
From her, I learnt that it’s not the size of one’s flat that
matters but the broadness of one’s mind.
Smaller flats will take some
getting used to. But, instead of bemoaning the lack of space, which
good design and clever layout can go a long way to compensate, why
not look forward to less time spent cleaning up at home, and more
time spent meeting and mingling with others, or indulging in a
whole range of sports and other leisure activities?
Let’s not close our minds to the idea that smaller flats may
mean bigger buzz and broader horizons.
