Homework

11 December 2020

Master of Urban Planning

Architecture: Japanese Houses
- Seike Kiyoshi’s “My House”: Integration of interior and exterior to create practical space in a small house

Japanese Houses Reading Responses
1: Japanese Taste and its Recent Historical Construction / Isozaki
2: Reflection and Inversion / Hiroshi Hara
3: Tarzans in the Media Forest / Toyo Ito
4: Made in Tokyo (Introduction, Method) / Kaijima Monoyo, Kuroda Junzo, Tsukamoto Yoshiharu


Geography: Landscapes of Southeast Asia
- Facilities and training ground of Singapore Armed Forces at Brunei's Temburong District: Creation of a hybrid space to conquer the same defence objectives.


Urban Planning History
- Can a city be planned and built scientifically?


Urban Planning: Urban Infrastructure
- Should developers incorporate stormwaters control systems within developments?
- Infrastructure & Mobility Planning


Urban Planning: Master Planning
- Decentralisation & Economic Activities
- Data for Amenities Planning
- Public Engagement and Feedback Analytics

Labels:

Homework   © 文彬 2004~2024. All rights reserved.

Facilities and training ground of Singapore Armed Forces at Brunei's Temburong District: Creation of a hybrid space to conquer the same defence objectives.

05 November 2020

Title
Facilities and training ground of Singapore Armed Forces at Brunei's Temburong District: Creation of a hybrid space to conquer the same defence objectives.

Landscape
Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) facilities and training ground at Temburong District, Brunei.

Concepts / Keywords
Exclave, Hybrid Space, Negotiation of Space, Bilateral Relations, Defence.

1. Abstract
The title "Facilities and training ground of Singapore Armed Forces at Brunei's Temburong District: Creation of a hybrid space to conquer the same defence objectives" is a metaphor for the close bilateral relationship between Brunei and Singapore. In particular, Brunei and Singapore collaborates extensively on military defence. The Singapore Armed Force (SAF) will send soldiers for jungle training at Temburong, an exclave district of Brunei. This article will examine the creation and negotiation of a hybrid space where SAF uses as training ground, and the impact of SAF's activities on the physical landscape, economy and culture.

Besides references to academic and newspaper articles, part of the report is written based on my personal experience, observations and memories of my army training at Brunei.

2. Introduction
About Brunei
Officially known as Negara Brunei Darussalam (Negara Brunei Darussalam means "Nation of Brunei, the Abode of Peace" in Malay),[1] Brunei is a small semi-enclave country on the northwestern coast of Borneo. Besides the South China Sea coastline, Brunei is surrounded by the East Malaysian State of Sarawak.

Brunei is divided into 4 districts, namely Brunei-Muara, Belait, Tutong and Temburong.[1] Temburong District is an exclave that is separated from the rest of Brunei by Brunei Bay and Sarawak's Limbang District.

Similarities between Brunei and Singapore
Brunei and Singapore shared many similarities, including geographical size, location, history and culture.

Brunei and Singapore are small, but wealthy nation, with advance economies and very high human development index in Southeast Asia (SEA).[2] Both countries share border with Malaysia. Due to the geographical proximity, Brunei, Singapore and Malaysia shares similar climate and physical landscapes; particularly, the tropical rainforest.

Brunei has a land area of 5,765km²,[3] sharing border with East Malaysia and generated Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capital of US$31,086.75 in 2019 (ranked 2nd in SEA).[4] Singapore has a land area of 725.7km²,[5] sharing maritime border with the Peninsular Malaysian State of Johor and generated GDP per capital of US$65,233.28 in 2019 (1st in SEA).[6] In comparison, Malaysia has a land area of 329,847km², generated a GDP per capital of US$11,414.84 in 2019 (3rd in SEA).[7]

Singapore was a former British crown colony,[8] while Brunei was a former British protectorate.[2] Unlike Singapore, Sabah and Sarawak, Brunei rejected the invitation to join the Federation of Malaysia in 1963 and chose to remain as a British protectorate.[2] Brunei gained independence from the British on 1 January 1984 to become an independent Malay Islamic monarchy again.[1]

Singapore's population is composed of 74.3% Chinese, 13.5% Malay, 9.0% Indians and 3.2% Others.[9] Brunei's population comprises 65.8% Malay, 10.2% Chinese and 23.9% Indian or Indigenous.[1] To a certain extent, there is similarity and familiarity in racial and cultural diversity across Singapore and Brunei.

Singapore is strategically located at the geographic centre of SEA and the maritime trade route between China and India. Brunei is rich in natural resources. Extensive crude oil and natural gas fields were discovered in 1929.[1] Revenue generated from the oil and gas industry transformed Brunei into one of the richest countries in the world, allowing Bruneian to enjoy free healthcare, affordable housing and education benefits.[1]

3. Brunei and Singapore's relations with Malaysia
Despite being immediate neighbours, sharing numerous similarities and economic ties with Malaysia, Brunei and Singapore perceived Malaysia as a constant threat to their existence. While maintaining diplomatic relationship, Brunei and Singapore have several bilateral disputes with Malaysia respectively.

History of Brunei
The Sultanate of Brunei was founded by Sultan Muhammad Shah on the Brunei River in 1363.[1, 10] The Sultanate grew into a powerful maritime empire, controlling much of Borneo and southern Philippines at its peak from the 14th to 16th Century.[2] However, frequent internal power struggles and British's colonial expansion on Borneo in the 19th Century resulted in the decline of the Brunei Empire.[2]

Brunei's Limbang dispute with Malaysia
In 1841, James Brooke helped the Sultan of Brunei to suppress a rebellion and was awarded land around the Sarawak River to establish the independent State of Sarawak .[11] Over the years, Brooke forced the Sultan to cede more river basins to Sarawak in exchange for cession money, which the revenue was desperately needed by the Sultan to fund the failing sultanate.[12, 13] Eventually, Sarawak expanded vastly eastward, from the northwestern tip of Borneo to the immediate vicinity of the royal capital, Brunei Town (later renamed Bandar Seri Begawan). The cession of Trusan river basin in 1885 leads to the Sultanate of Brunei being encircled by Sarawak.[13]

Limbang is strategically located at the central of the Sultanate, immediately south of Brunei Town. Limbang was regarded as the 'rice bowl' of Brunei (Cleary & Shaw, 1992),[12] as the fertile Limbang river basin grew most of the food supply of Brunei Town,[12] and is rich in minerals.[13] By 1884, high taxation leads to constant unrest and rebellions at Limbang, providing Sarawak the opportunity to acquire Limbang.[12, 13] In addition, North Borneo is also interested to acquire Limbang and other unceded rivers flowing into Brunei Bay to increase their revenue, strengthen their claim to Labuan and check the growing power of Sarawak.[13]

However, the Sultan realized that further cession of land would result in the disappearance of the sultanate (Crisswell, 1971).[13] Therefore, the Sultan firmly rejected Sarawak's offer of cession for Limbang.[12] The aggressive expansion of Sarawak and bitter fight for Limbang finally forced the Sultan of Brunei to appeal to Britain to stop further encroachment.[2, 12, 13] Eventually, Brunei signed a Treaty of Protection and became a British protectorate in 1888.[2] Thereafter, Brunei was administered by a British Resident and the Sultan was reduced to nominal authority.[2]

Despite protests by the Sultan, the British Foreign and Colonial Office approved Sarawak's annexation of Limbang in 1890.[13] The aggrieved Sultan do not acknowledge the annexation and consistently refused cession money offered by Sarawak.[12, 13] The loss of Limbang was a severe political and economic setback for Brunei (Cleary & Shaw, 1992).[12] Brunei was fragmented into 2 non-contiguous territories,12 where Temburong is disconnected from the rest of Brunei.

While the absorption of Brunei, Sarawak and North Borneo as British protectorates stabilized the boundaries of the 3 territories, the disputed status of Limbang remained a sensitive topic of political contestation between Brunei and Malaysia today.[12] Brunei continues to regard the Limbang border as provisional, noting on official maps that Limbang is a district rightfully belonging to Brunei from the Islamic point of view, but is being administered by another government (Cleary & Shaw, 1992),[12] as Limbang was never properly ceded.[13]

Brunei's maritime claim in the South China Sea
Besides Limbang, the internal territorial waters boundary in Brunei Bay is not clearly delimited nor closed.[14] In addition, Malaysia proclaimed part of Brunei's resource-rich maritime territory in the South China Sea.[14]

The current maritime boundaries between Brunei and Malaysia were legally enacted by the British in 1958.[14] The maritime boundaries are straight seaward extension of the territorial boundaries between Brunei and Sarawak towards the limit of the continental shelf.[14] However, on 21 December 1979, Malaysia unilaterally published the "Territorial Waters and Continental Shelf Boundaries of Malaysia" map (1979 Malaysia Map), which asserted overlapping claims on Brunei's continental shelf and Singapore's Pedra Branca, thereby triggering immediate diplomatic protests from Brunei and Singapore respectively.[14, 15] Furthermore, Louisa Reef , which is within Brunei's continental shelf, is disputed between Brunei and Malaysia.[14, 16] Sovereignty of Louisa Reef is controversial and dependent on the legal definition of maritime features, continental shelf, exclusive economic zone and fishery limits, which are subject to interpetations.[14]

Singapore's disputes with Malaysia
Singapore has several disputes with Malaysia that would resurface regularly. Bilateral tensions usually worsen whenever Malaysia is in the midst of a political crisis.[17] From Singapore's perspective, these disputes are nonsensical non-issues that were provocatively stirred by the Malaysian government for patriotic propaganda.

Notable bilateral tensions include the maritime boundary delimitation,[16, 17, 18] Water Agreements,[19] Pedra Branca,[16, 20] land reclamation at Tuas and Tekong, rail corridor, replacement of Causeway, air space control,[17] and port limit encroachment at Tuas.[17] While some of these issues were resolved, most disputes continued till today. Singapore leaders vowed to stand firmed to protect the country's sovereignty and territory.[17]

Security vulnerability of microstates
Brunei and Singapore are small, but wealthy countries surrounded by Malaysia. Furthermore, both are of strategic and economic importance to the region, making them even more attractive and vulnerable to predators. Iraq's annexation of Kuwait in 1991 is a recent example of a small wealthy microstate being annexed by its bigger neighbour.[21]

Nevertheless, small microstates usually maintain excellent record of persistence in the world stage (Kershaw, 2011).[21] In fact, there might be benefits for being small, because it is easier to defend and govern.

While Malaysia is currently 'friendly' to Brunei and Singapore, both countries do not take their security for granted, as complacency will lead to vulnerability. Furthermore, Brunei and Singapore still have ongoing disputes with Malaysia; not forgetting that threats could also come from other forces. Therefore, Brunei and Singapore cooperate intensively, establishing excellent diplomatic relations across many aspects.[22]

4. Brunei – Singapore Bilateral Relationship
Brunei and Singapore have excellent relations (MFA).[22] Both countries already established diplomatic relationship before it was formalized in 1984, following Brunei's independence.[23] Leaders from both countries maintain close personal ties, with regular exchange of visits at all levels.[22] Both countries collaborate extensively in defence, finance, trade, health, education, aquaculture and tourism.[22] Brunei and Singapore established long-standing arrangements;[22] notably the Currency Interchangeability Agreement (CIA) effective since 1967,[24] and close bilateral defence relationships established since 1976.[25]

Brunei – Singapore Currency Interchangeability Agreement
The Currency Interchangeability Agreement was established on 12 June 1967 to promote monetary cooperation between Brunei and Singapore.[24] Under the agreement, coins and notes issued by the Autoriti Monetari Brunei Darussalam and the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) would be accepted in both Brunei and Singapore; and the currencies could be exchange at par, without charge (MAS & AMBD, 2017).[26] However, the Brunei Dollar and Singapore Dollar would not be legal tender when circulating in the other country (MAS & AMBD, 2017).[26] Instead, the currencies would be "customary tender" that would be repatriated to the issuing country periodically (MAS & AMBD, 2017).[26]

Historically, Brunei and Singapore already maintained currency interchangeability since the early 20th century.[26] The Straits Settlements minted the Straits Dollar as the uniform domestic currency in 1897.[26] The colonial and economic links between the Straits Settlements, Malaya, Brunei, North Borneo and Sarawak resulted in the Straits Dollar being widely circulated as the de facto common currency across these British dependencies, as the Straits Dollar was exchangeable on par with their own currencies.[26] The Currency Ordinance of 1938 created the Malayan Dollar as the common currency for the Straits Settlements, Malaya and Brunei.[26] The Malayan Dollar was expanded to include North Borneo and Sarawak in 1950, before transiting to issue the Malaya Dollar and British Borneo Dollar in 1953.[26]

Malaya obtained independence in 1957. Malaya merged with North Borneo, Sarawak and Singapore to form Malaysia in 1963. However, Singapore was kicked out of Malaysia and achieved independence in 1965. Subsequently, Malaysia proposed to issue its own currency from 1966.[26] Initially, Singapore preferred to share a common currency with Malaysia due to the extensive trade and complementary economic relationships, and to reduce frictions and transaction costs.[26] However, negotiations for a common currency collapsed, leading to Brunei, Malaysia and Singapore issuing their own currency on 12 June 1967.[26] Initially, Brunei and Singapore also signed CIA separately with Malaysia on 12 June 1967 too.[26] However, Malaysia decided to float the Malaysia Ringgit with the US Dollar, and terminated the agreements with Brunei and Singapore in 1973.26 Brunei and Singapore continued with the CIA.[26] Despite significant structural changes to the economies and domestic monetary policies, the CIA remained relevant for Brunei and Singapore, resisting several economic challenges over the years.[26]

The CIA boosted investor confidence on the Brunei Dollar and Singapore Dollar.[26] The autonomous Board of Commissioners of Currency Singapore and MAS are responsible for currency issuance and central bank functions respectively, providing check and balance to ensure the central bank is unable to print additional money to finance government deficits.[26] While there are changes to the monetary institutions and currency issuance framework, the credibility and discipline were preserved.[26] The CIA is also supported by the economic fundamentals of Brunei and Singapore, which includes their strong foreign reserve balance, current account surpluses and flexible domestic economies.[26]

Furthermore, the CIA is compatible with the macroeconomic stability of Brunei and Singapore.[26] As both Brunei and Singapore are small but open economies, an exchange-rate-centric monetary policy framework aimed at achieving low and stable inflation is efficient to directly offset imported inflation and indirectly reduce demand for exports (MAS & AMBD, 2017).[26] The CIA allows Brunei and Singapore to share the benefits of a credible nominal anchor by pegging their currencies.[26] In addition, the CIA eliminates foreign rate risks and transaction costs, which are essential to maintain the close economic and financial relationship between Brunei and Singapore.[26] The CIA has mutually benefits Brunei and Singapore for more than 50 years, encouraging stronger trade, investment, tourism and enhancing the strong bilateral relationship.[26]

Brunei – Singapore Bilateral Defence Relations
Brunei and Singapore officially established close bilateral defence relationships established since 1976.[25] The Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) and the Royal Brunei Land Forces (RBLF) cooperate extensively and the interactions continue to grow in scope and complexity.[25] SAF and RBLF interacts regularly through a wide range of activities, including bilateral exercises, visits, professional exchanges, cross-attendance of courses and knowledge sharing dialogues.[25, 27] In addition, Brunei also allows SAF to train in Brunei.[29] The leaders of Brunei and Singapore regularly reaffirms the need to maintain and further strengthen the strong defence relations between both countries.[25, 27]

It is beneficial for Brunei and Singapore to establish a close military partnership. Singapore is grateful to Brunei for allowing SAF to train in their territory.[29] SAF needs extensive land to conduct military training, especially jungle training, which is difficult to be conducted in Singapore due to land scarcity and rapid urbanization. Furthermore, the physical landscape of Brunei is similar to the landscape of Singapore, making Brunei an ideal destination for jungle training. In return, SAF's Officer Cadet Schools (OCS) conducts urban operations training for the officer cadets of RBLF at Singapore.[29]

Singapore imposed mandatory conscription on Singaporean males to serve two years of full-time National Service (NSF),[32] followed by 10 cycles of Operationally Ready National Service (ORNS).[33] The ORNS system ensures Singapore that there will be more than enough servicemen to be mobilized in the event of national emergency. While Brunei could afford to purchase the most advance military equipment, Brunei does not have enough soldiers to defend or operate the military assets, which serves as an absurd reminder of its vulnerability (Kershaw, 2011).[21] Therefore, from Brunei's perspective, the presence of SAF would act as a form of psychological deterrence to predators aiming for Brunei's territory and resources.[21] Besides the CIA, Brunei needs Singapore to defend the country's currency, assets and economy.[21]

In addition, the close defence relationship between Brunei and Singapore is part of a broader defence strategy. Singapore also has excellent bilateral defence relationship with Thailand,[34] which is strategically located north of Peninsula Malaysia. Although Brunei and Singapore were threatened by Indonesia's Konfrontasi in the 1960s, both countries currently enjoys warm and friendly ties with Indonesia,[35] as Indonesia progressed to pursue policies of internal stabilization and co-existence with neighbours (Kershaw, 2011).[21] Singapore's strategic defence relations with Thailand and Brunei ensures that there is holistic military strategies, check and balance of power on Malaysia and the shipping lanes along the Straits of Malacca and South China Sea from all directions.

5. An Exclave within an Exclave
Concept of Exclave
An exclave is a portion of a territory that is geographically separated from the main territory by foreign territory or international water. An enclave is a territory that is geographically surrounded by foreign territory.

Exclave exhibit several disadvantages and inconvenience, including transportation and governance. Strategically, it is difficult to defend an exclave as it is geographically separated and isolated from the main territory.

Temburong: a semi-enclave exclave of a semi-enclave country
Brunei is a small semi-enclave country that is almost completely surrounded by Sarawak. The South China Sea coastline provides Brunei with maritime access to the high sea.

The easternmost Temburong District is an exclave that is separated from the rest of Brunei by Brunei Bay after the annexation of Limbang District by Sarawak. Effectively, Temburong District is a semi-enclave exclave district of a semi-enclave country.

Poor accessibility and connectivity leads to negligence and poor economic development at Temburong District.[36, 37] Before the opening of the Temburong Bridge on 17 March 2020,[38] it is difficult to travel between Bangar (district capital of Temburong) and Bandar Seri Begawan by land, as a driver would need to drive for 2h via Limbang, passing through immigration checkpoints that are usually congested.[36]

As Brunei Bay is internal territorial water, the fastest and easiest way to travel between Bandar Seri Begawan and Temburong is via water-taxi, which requires about 45min.[36] A driver may also drive a car onto a fastcraft, which requires 2h to meander Sungei Temburong and cross Brunei Bay from Bangar to Bandar Seri Begawan.

Furthermore, sparse development and the thick jungle of Temburong makes the district a good hiding place for rebels and overland infiltrators, as experienced during the Indonesia's Konfrontasi.[21]

Lakiun Camp: an exclave within an exclave
SAF has two military facilities at Brunei. The headquarter is Jalan Aman Camp (JAC), which is located at Muara, the port town beside the capital. Another facility is Lakiun Camp, which is the base to support the jungle trainings within Temburong. As an overseas army camp, Lakiun Camp function like an exclave of SAF. Interestingly, Lakiun Camp is located at Temburong District, which itself is an exclave of Brunei.

It is a win-win solution for Brunei to allocate land at Temburong for SAF to setup an army camp and conduct military exercises in the jungle. This is because Singapore needs extensive land to conduct jungle training. Singapore do not have enough rainforest to conduct jungle training due to land scarcity and rapid urbanization. Furthermore, the physical landscape of Brunei, in terms of vegetation and terrain, is similar, but tougher than the landscape of SAF's training areas in Singapore. Extensive, similar but tougher landscape makes Brunei an ideal destination for SAF's jungle training.

From Brunei's perspective, Temburong is an exclave that is sparsely populated and largely agricultural or covered with thick primary rainforest. The presence of SAF at Temburong would act as a form of psychological deterrence to threats and the presence of SAF stimulates the local economy. Furthermore, Lakiun Camp and SAF's jungle trainings have minimal impact on majority of Brunei population, who resides in West Brunei.

In addition, the landscape of Temburong is similar to the landscape of Limbang and rural Peninsular Malaysia. Therefore, familiarity with the landscape would be an advantage for SAF and RBLF in the event of conflict and there is a need for the armed forces to counter an offensive towards Limbang or other parts of Malaysia. After all, forces that are flexible and deployable enough to move rapidly between different environments and types of operations is an strategically important for defence and deterrence (Tan, 2011).[41]

6. Hybrid Space
Jungle Adventure at Temburong
The thick primary rainforest at the interior of Temburong is the main training ground of SAF in Brunei. I visited Brunei for jungle training during my National Service. The trip lasted for 18 days (from 21 April 2006 to 8 May 2006) and comprise of a jungle orientation training, climbing Mount Biang and other minor jungle exercises [please see "Annex A" for details of my Brunei trip].[42]

SAF conducted assorted jungle trainings for officer cadets, Infantry, Commando and Ranger in the rainforest of Temburong. Collectively known as Exercise Lancer, notable jungle trainings include the Jungle Confidence Course (JCC), Support arms Officer Cadet Jungle Orientation Training (SOCJOT), Exercise Nomad and climbing Mount Biang. These exercises aim to train officer cadets for jungle navigation and survival.

Creation of a Hybrid Space at Temburong
Lakiun Camp is SAF's base to support the jungle trainings conducted at the rainforests within the vicinity. Lakiun Camp is located along Labu Highway, about 9km east of Bangar. It is strategically located at the mid-point of Labu Highway, the only East-West thoroughfare of Temburong, with trans-national access into Sarawak at both ends. It takes approximately 1h to travel from Bangar to Lakiun Camp by bus.

Lakiun Camp is located on the mid-slope of a mountain. The bunks resemble the long house of Borneo's indigenous people, but were constructed using zinc and wood. The bunks also looks like those disused camps at Pulau Tekong. Each long house can house 70 boys, while the furniture are legacy of SAF's hardware from previous generations. Although cantilevered on silt, with a veranda around its perimeter, the bunk has poor air ventilation, making it very hot and stuffy. This is weird, because architecturally, the bunk should be cool. The heat and poor ventilation might probably be due to the zinc wall, small window design and east-west orientation. The floor is constructed using wooden planks, which will vibrate whenever someone walks past.

As Lakiun Camp is a military base owned and operated by SAF, it creates a hybrid space that feels neither like Singapore or Brunei. Legally, SAF soldiers enjoys extraterritorial rights within Lakiun Camp. However, troops training in Brunei are expected to follow the rules of SAF and laws of Brunei. Interestingly, besides Lakiun Camp, SAF do not own the training grounds at Temburong. Therefore, the jungle trainings are conducted in a negotiated space.

Negotiation of Space & Impact of SAF's presence at Temburong
SAF's training were mainly conducted in the rainforests, which will not interfere with the everyday life of most locals. As SAF's soldiers are either confined within Lakiun Camp or in the jungle, there is minimal interactions with the locals, except during the Educational Tour at Bandar Seri Begawan.

As SAF do not own the training grounds at Temburong, SAF imposed strict rules for the jungle trainings conducted in the negotiated space, so as not to damage the environment or cause inconvenience to the locals. SAF's instructors will give detailed briefings and instructions to the soldiers on not to damage the environment and not to disturb or cause inconvenience to the locals. These are basic courtesy required from SAF to the host country.

For example, the primary forests are important natural and environmental assets, the army boys are instructed not to litter within the jungle. Strict measures, including item checks before and after an exercise were imposed to ensure that all garbage are accounted for and not abandoned in the forest. As the indigenous Iban population still live in the rainforest, occasionally, there were reports of SAF training troops who encountered the Iban. The soldiers are instructed to respect and not interfere with the everyday life of the Iban.

Soldiers are not allowed to take shortcuts across padi fields or plantations, to avoid killing or damaging the crops. There are accounts that farmers demanded compensation from SAF for alleged damages done by SAF troops, evitable from the unique footprints left behind by the SAF boots. While such claims are subject to further investigation, SAF would usually compensate the damages, because such incidents are rare and SAF do not want such unhappiness to affect the opportunity to train at Temburong and bilateral relationships.

In addition, as Brunei is an Islamic country, soldiers are not allowed to possess or consume pork or alcohol within Brunei. However, cigarette is easily available and unbelievably cheap in Brunei.

As the Singapore Dollar is accepted as "customary tender" at Lakiun Camp Canteen and shops in Bandar Seri Begawan, army boys do not need to exchange money for the trip. Unlike in Singapore, where many businesses and individuals prefer not to accept the Brunei Dollar, businesses in Brunei accepts the Singapore Dollar happily and we are able to pay using Singapore Dollars without rejection. Such acceptance level indicates that the Singapore Dollar is widely circulated in Brunei, and Singapore army boys probably plays a significant role in boosting the local economy. Furthermore, we noticed that many snacks, canned food and fashion are actually imported from Singapore. Therefore, these products are priced slightly higher (about 10% more) than in Singapore. In addition, food in Brunei are similar to Malay and Indian Muslim cuisines in Singapore.

Identity of a Hybrid Space (from a Singaporean's perspective)
From my experience, the physical landscape of Temburong Jungle indeed resembles SAF's training areas in Singapore. Without caption, a photo of Temburong could be mistaken as Western Water Catchment, Ama Keng, Mandai or Tekong. Perhaps, the differences are tougher terrain, higher knolls, steeper slopes, taller and denser trees.

To make feelings more complicated, Brunei shares the same time zone (GMT+8) with Singapore. However, as Singapore is in the wrong time zone , I feel that there is technically a 1h time difference.

The presence of SAF, similarity in physical landscape, acceptance of home currency at foreign land, and availability of familiar products blurs the border. Together with racial, religious and cultural diversity and familiarity, these generates an impression that as if I am still in Singapore, even though I am physically in Brunei. These hybridity constructed the impression of a hybrid space,39 making Brunei appears like an exclave of Singapore.

7. Challenges & Solutions
The excellent bilateral relations between Brunei and Singapore will continue for as long as Brunei and Singapore are small, wealthy, vulnerable, and still consider Malaysia or other forces as an exogenous threat. However, a few endogenous challenges might disrupt existing bilateral defence relationships and CIA.

Temburong Bridge
Temburong Bridge was opened to traffic on 17 March 2020.[38] The 30km highway between Bangar and Bandar Seri Begawan reduced driving time from 2h to 30min.[36] The project was built to provide Temburong with direct land connection to the airport and port, with an aim to stimulate economic growth at Temburong.[37]

Temburong is no longer an isolated exclave after the completion of Temburong Bridge. With improved connectivity and potential economic development, it might affect Brunei's decision to allocate space for SAF's military training.

Singaporeans' Perception of Brunei
Like many Singaporeans, my perception of Brunei's landscape is army, rural, forested, exotic, mysterious and tough before my Brunei trip. While some urban legends like Brunei gets dark at 5pm, unable to see our fingers at night, tough terrain, killing of quail, proves to be true, many myths were debunked after my Brunei trip.

For example, I was very surprised that streams in the jungle are extremely fresh and clear, as opposed to the rumoured muddy "milo water", and small fish and prawns can be seen swimming in the streams. The morning of Temburong is cool, where the ruralscape is covered with a blanket of morning mist, making the landscape appears mystical. The views of Temburong rainforests from a Super Puma helicopter are fascinating. The beautiful scenery is filled with lush greenery, contrasting with small houses that look like lego bricks. There is more potential for Temburong's rainforest than just military jungle training.

Potential for Themed Tourism
Brunei is only a 2h flight from Singapore, but Singaporeans seldom travel to Brunei for tourism. Most guys do not re-visit Brunei after their army experience. This is a huge contrast with Thailand and Taiwan, where SAF also has overseas training, but are popular travel destination among Singaporeans. It is even weirder if we consider that Bandar Seri Begawan shares the same flight radius as Bangkok and there is no need to exchange currency. While Brunei might not appeal to everyone, it could be an attractive destination for specific tourists – the adventurers, green travellers, military geeks and humanities scholars. Brunei may consider exploring themed tourism to target these groups.

As SAF only used the vicinity of Lakiun Camp for jungle training, there is still huge tract of primary rainforest in Temburong with opportunities for adventurous and eco-friendly tourism. Perhaps, Brunei could collaborate with Outward Bound Singapore (OBS) to setup an overseas campus at Temburong. The proposed OBS @ Temburong could target students of Pre-University level, especially those from Outdoor Adventure Club (ODAC) and uniform groups. Besides learning about jungle navigation and survival skills, OBS @ Temburong could educate the participants on leadership, geography and environmental protection.[40] Humans are paranoid of the unknown. Many boys are worried about NSF life and it is not helping that the urban legends of Brunei adds to the anxiety. Experiencing a short jungle boot camp at Temburong during Pre-University will help to reduce the anxiety and be better prepared for NSF and Exercise Lancer.

Advanced outdoor programmes could also target Singaporeans who are more adventurous, enjoys outdoor challenges or would like to reminisce memories of army days. After all, it is a fun experience sleeping in a hammock and being close to nature. However, opening up the rainforests for activities will expose the jungles to damages and pollution. Perhaps strict rules similar to SAF's should be enforced on the tourists to ensure that tourism activities will not disturb the environment and everyday life of indigenous locals.

For the less adventurous tourists, they may check into an eco-friendly resort to relax and enjoy a panoramic view of Temburong from a helicopter. Furthermore, Bandar Seri Begawan has potential to develop historical and cultural tourism. The Brunei Museum documented the history, territorial evolution and insights on the oil economy. Kampong Ayer is a floating water village built on stilt in the middle of Brunei River that could be utilized for authentic homestay.

Improved connectivity and development of themed tourisms will stimulate the economic growth of Temburong and check on illegal logging. Increased interactions will improve the impression of Brunei and further enhancing the depth of bilateral relations between Brunei and Singapore.

8. Conclusion
Brunei and Singapore established excellent bilateral relations long before it was formalized. Both countries collaborate extensively in defence, finance, trade, health, education, aquaculture and tourism; notably the Currency Interchangeability Agreement and close bilateral defence relationships.

Brunei and Singapore are small but wealthy microstates that are surrounded by a bigger neighbour that might be aiming for their territory and resources. SAF needs extensive land to conduct military training and Brunei needs Singapore to defend the country's currency, assets and economy. Besides its primary role in military defence, SAF is also punching above its weight by contributing to bilateral relations through alliance building (Tan, 2011).[41]

The annexation of Limbang teach Brunei a painful lesson that Brunei needs to defend its territory against encroachment from exogenous forces. As Temburong is an isolated exclave that is difficult to defend, the presence of SAF would act as a form of psychological deterrence to predators. Furthermore, the landscape of Temburong is similar to Malaysia, which would be an advantage for SAF and RBLF to counter an offensive during conflict.

Excellent diplomatic relations, complex bilateral cooperation, the presence of SAF, similarity in physical landscape and acceptance of home currency overseas blurs the border between Brunei and Singapore. These hybridity creates a hybrid space that feels neither Brunei nor Singapore. Nevertheless, there are good reasons for Brunei and Singapore to maintain and further strengthen the strong bilateral relations, as both countries mutually benefits from the close ties. In fact, Brunei and Singapore should explore more diverse partnerships beyond existing cooperation.

References
1. Tourism Development Department. (2020). About Brunei – Brunei Tourism. Brunei Tourism. Retrieved September 24, 2020, from https://www.bruneitourism.com/about-brunei
2. Gnanasagaran, A. (2018, February 23). Brunei, a success story from the beginning. The ASEAN Post. Retrieved October 20, 2020, from https://theaseanpost.com/article/brunei-success-story-beginning
3. The Commonwealth. (2020). Brunei Darussalam. The Commonwealth. Retrieved September 25, 2020, from https://thecommonwealth.org/our-member-countries/brunei-darussalam
4. The World Bank. (2020). GDP per capital (current US$) - Brunei Darussalam. The World Bank. Retrieved September 25, 2020, from https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD?end=2019&locations=BN&start=1965
5. Singapore Land Authority. (2020, September 18). Total Land Area of Singapore. Data.gov.sg. Retrieved September 25, 2020, from https://data.gov.sg/dataset/total-land-area-of-singapore
6. The World Bank. (2020). GDP per capital (current US$) - Singapore. The World Bank. Retrieved September 25, 2020, from https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD?locations=SG
7. The World Bank. (2020). GDP per capital (current US$) - Malaysia. The World Bank. Retrieved September 25, 2020, from https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD?locations=MY
8. Government of Singapore. (2014). Singapore attains Crown Colony Status. HistorySG. Retrieved October 30, 2020, from https://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/history/events/372a4e72-9f1b-4eb4-9ec6-58cad02000f0
9. Department of Statistics. (2020, September). Population Trends, 2020. Department of Statistics, Ministry of Trade & Industry, Republic of Singapore. https://www.singstat.gov.sg/-/media/files/publications/population/population2020.pdf
10. Sidhu, J. S. (2010). Historical Dictionary of Brunei Darussalam (2nd ed.). Scarecrow Press.
11. History of Sarawak. Brooke Heritage Trust. Retrieved October 20, 2020, from https://www.brooketrust.org/history-of-sarawak
12. Cleary, M., & Shaw, B. (1992, April). Limbang: a lost province of oil-rich Brunei Darussalam. Geography, 77(2), 178-181. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40572167
13. Crisswell, C. N. (1971, September). The Origins of the Limbang Claim. Journal of Southeast Asian Studies, 2(2), 218-229. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20069920
14. Haller-Trost, R. (1994). The Brunei-Malaysia Dispute Over Territorial and Maritime Claims in International Law. Maritime Briefing, 1(3).
15. National Archives of Singapore. Solving Bilateral Dispute Diplomatically - Pedra Branca / Pulau Batu Puteh. https://www.nas.gov.sg/1stCab/7585/Panels/sec3_2_opt.pdf
16. Roach, J. A. (2014). Malaysia and Brunei: An Analysis of their Claims in the South China Sea. U.S. Policy Options in the South China Sea. https://www.cna.org/cna_files/pdf/iop-2014-u-008434.pdf
17. Tan, C. K. (2018, December 11). Five things to know about the Singapore-Malaysia territorial dispute. Nikkei Asia. https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/International-relations/Five-things-to-know-about-the-Singapore-Malaysia-territorial-dispute2
18. Channel News Asia (2018, December 6). Singapore, Malaysia maritime dispute: A timeline. Channel News Asia. Retrieved November 1, 2020, from https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/singapore-malaysia-maritime-dispute-port-limits-timeline-11006762
19. Ministry of Foreign Affairs. (2020, October 23). Water Agreements. Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Retrieved November 1, 2020, from https://www.mfa.gov.sg/SINGAPORES-FOREIGN-POLICY/Key-Issues/Water-Agreements
20. Ministry of Foreign Affairs. (2020, October 23). Pedra Branca. Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Retrieved November 1, 2020, from https://www.mfa.gov.sg/SINGAPORES-FOREIGN-POLICY/Key-Issues/Pedra-Branca
21. Kershaw, R. (2011, May). The Last Brunei Revolt? A Case Study of Microstate (In-)Security. Internationales Asienforum, 42(1-2), 107-134.
22. Ministry of Foreign Affairs. (2020, September 11). Brunei. Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Retrieved September 24, 2020, from https://www.mfa.gov.sg/SINGAPORES-FOREIGN-POLICY/Countries-and-Regions/Southeast-Asia/Brunei
23. Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade. (2012). Singapore. Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade. Retrieved February 22, 2014, from http://www.mofat.gov.bn/index.php/bilateral-relations/item/86
24. Monetary Authority of Singapore. (2020, April 28). Brunei-Singapore Currency Interchangeability Agreement. Monetary Authority of Singapore. Retrieved September 24, 2020, from https://www.mas.gov.sg/currency/Currency-Interchangeability-Agreement-between-Brunei-Darussalam-and-Singapore
25. Ministry of Defence. (2016, November 10). Brunei Deputy Defence Minister Visits Singapore for 40th Anniversary of Bilateral Defence Ties. Ministry of Defence. Retrieved September 24, 2020, from https://www.mindef.gov.sg/web/portal/mindef/news-and-events/latest-releases/article-detail/2016/november/10nov16_nr/!ut/p/z1/tVLbbtQwEP0WHvzo9SSby
24lhNKCWlDTpbBtE79UzmZygcROHTehf89sFySkXhAP-MXjmTnHZ3wspMiE1Gpqa-Vao1VH51xGt_Hm_ckZBP7FJtx6kFxvt-fh8cXHqzgS10IKudNucI3I-1aXWPGd0Q61Y9CYHhlonEeudMlxouzIoFMOR8ctdqhGpIQPXkR9ZsK-QMvA28dedKvtnn3YtaXIMYjDJZbIi0JVPIjR52sKOVRBVfp-FUVFIG7-JldSGV5YCRBePrZsLoNTLwD_fJN-CYlhvV5t4bMPp_Gvhlc4ctIQv6whFjdTi7O40sb29MJf_3HEMxCfHiW8MiW
51n67u5MJWbP34ocT2X_whq7xbXqS1jSAcg1vdWVEtgeI7DdAZH8ASH
jdmeLwrxJdLFcEtVihRbu4t5RunBvGIwYM5nleHDQvajMtxppSWDAYjHWq
Y3CoMRhR2V3z7rC9Pbb3Gtvn6Bsz0is8YRVD36-WD_x7lX5YBrJ4mKvUhXny5ifS7mqI/dz/d5/L2dBISEvZ0FBIS9nQSEh/?urile=wcm%3Apath%3A%2Fmindef-content%2Fhome%2Fnews-and-events%2Flatest-releases%2F2016%2Fnovember%2F10nov16_nr
26. Economic Policy Group, Monetary Authority of Singapore & Authoriti Monetari Brunei Darussalam. (2017, April). The Currency Interchangeability Agreement: Fifty Years On. Macroeconomic Review, XVI(1), 73-76. https://www.mas.gov.sg/-/media/MAS/Macroeconomic-review-2017/MRapr17.pdf?la=en&hash=772DD145F23DB9CBCE6F168357EE542428FACD0A
27. Ministry of Defence. (2020, September 15). Singapore and Brunei Reaffirm Defence Relations through 8th Defence Policy Dialogue. Ministry of Defence. Retrieved September 24, 2020, from https://www.mindef.gov.sg/web/portal/mindef/news-and-events/latest-releases/article-detail/2020/september/15sep20_nr/!ut/p/z1/tVHLbsIwEPwWDjlau3k4j2NKK
2hFSB8BEl9QHg6kJU5ILCh_j4Oqqheoeqh92vXO7IwHGMTARHqoNqmsGp
HuVJ0we-2E9-MpWsY8pJGO_jKKZvRu_rhwbFgCA5YL2cotJHUlCl6SvBGSC6nhtqm
5hoIfe5KKgvCD6vYa7lLJe0k6vuNpz1XDUFfDnreS1xnvNNSpKgxci26gb_
OqgMRC13QcapPC8yixsrwgXp7ZxDVz1E1aYpkjrH7Ty9QzXjn-gGeXkfDFmugWGrMweKWKwfPcCJ8NnDhfAzc4EqXBua7BgdWh4kdYiKar
1Re__dHiFOHpIuGGSxVb9b7fM19lM4TxKSH-j3DUHqMLxsFGOUjlllSibCAeEBB_IyD-gWjr2jVP5KMMHkyLZaejPxqdAUpnxRw!/dz/d5/L2dBISEvZ0FBIS9nQSEh/?urile=wcm%3Apath%3A%2Fmindef-content%2Fhome%2Fnews-and-events%2Flatest-releases%2F2020%2FSeptember%2F15sep20_nr
28. Ministry of Defence. (2020, July 29). Singapore and Brunei Navies Conclude Bilateral Exercise Pelican Conducted at Sea. Ministry of Defence. https://www.mindef.gov.sg/web/portal/mindef/news-and-events/latest-releases/article-detail/2020/july/29jul20_nr/!ut/p/z1/rVFNc4IwEP0tHjhmsmD48EhtR9sR6Q
cq5OIECIqFoJBq_fddnM70pJ3ONHvI7ubl5W0e5TSmXIljuRG6bJSosE64
s3bD-_EUmDUP7cgEfxlFM_tu_rhwHbqknPJM6b3e0qQuVS4LkjVKS6UN2Da1
NEDJU0eEyok8YrczoBJadpq0spKik9iwMAzYfVRnzEe4W7BWbc-8z8qcJszxHDNNGckAUsJk6hLhFQ7JHLCZ6TqQ5ZKufpPK8RiuLB_wPr9
Awhc2MRlYszB4tZFhNPIieLZg4n4DbnAkqMG9rsGlq2MpT3ShmrbG3337
44hToE8XCTemRMfK3eHAfbSl9-FT0_iffcEnrDYYBxsUL_SWlKpoaNyDadyDMf8B7-vaG57JexE8DBlPzyd_MPgCOh69JA!!/dz/d5/L2dBISEvZ0FBIS9nQSEh/?urile=wcm%3Apath%3A%2Fmindef-content%2Fhome%2Fnews-and-events%2Flatest-releases%2F2020%2FJuly%2F29jul20_nr
29. Lim, M. Z. (2019, November 8). Ng Eng Hen thanks Brunei for allowing SAF to train there. The Straits Times. Retrieved November 1, 2020, from https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/ng-eng-hen-thanks-brunei-for-allowing-saf-to-train-there
30. Ministry of Defence, Brunei Darussalam. (2015). Bilateral Exercise. Ministry of Defence. Retrieved November 1, 2020, from http://www.mindef.gov.bn/SitePages/RBLF%20Bilateral%20Ties.aspx
31. Ministry of Defence. (2019, October 23). Singapore and Brunei Celebrate 25 Years of Exercise Airguard. Ministry of Defence. Retrieved November 1, 2020, from https://www.mindef.gov.sg/web/portal/mindef/news-and-events/latest-releases/article-detail/2019/october/23oct19_nr2/!ut/p/z1/tVJNT9wwEP0tPeTo9SRONptK
VRUoglaEpe0CG1-Qk0w-aGIHx2zKv-8sy6FSgaqH-mLPx3t-42cu-ZZLrXZdo1xntOopzuXyNl5_Oj6DMLhYRxsf0uvN5jw6uvh8FS_5NZdcltqNru
X50OkKa1Ya7VA7D1ozoAca54kpXTHcUXbyoFcOJ8cs9qgmpEQAfuKBKZ0
p0FIo6Ognt9oGe_ax7CqeQ7QsExUii0UdsbCqBEsQKyagEqosa1-ImN_8Ta6kMryyUiC8fGpZfw1P_RCC83X2LSKGJFlt4DKA0_i54Q2OnDTEr2
sgkbsOZ36ljR3ohb__44hnwL88SXhjSnKtu7u_lylZs_fip-Pb_-ANXRPY7DhraADlWtbp2vDtHsC3zwAKfwOQ8KY3xeFfpboQK4JarNGiXTx
YSrfOjdN7DzyY53lx0LxozG4xNZTCwoPRWKd6Dw41DyZUtmw_HrYPR_
ZBY_cSfWsmeoU_WPk4DCvxyH7U2YkIZfE415mL8vTdL6Q1gow!/dz/d5/
L2dBISEvZ0FBIS9nQSEh/?urile=wcm%3Apath%3A%2Fmindef-content%2Fhome%2Fnews-and-events%2Flatest-releases%2F2019%2FOctober%2F23oct19_nr2
32. Ministry of Defence. (2018, October 24). DISCOVER NS. CMPB. Retrieved November 2, 2020, from https://www.cmpb.gov.sg/web/portal/cmpb/home/about-us/discover-ns
33. ns.sg. (2018, February 28). ORNS Training Cycle. NS Matters. Retrieved November 2, 2020, from https://www.ns.sg/web/portal/nsmen/home/nstopics/orns/overview-orns/orns-training-cycle
34. Ministry of Foreign Affairs. (2020, October 23). Thailand. Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Retrieved November 1, 2020, from https://www.mfa.gov.sg/SINGAPORES-FOREIGN-POLICY/Countries-and-Regions/Southeast-Asia/Thailand
35. Ministry of Foreign Affairs. (2020, October 23). Indonesia. Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Retrieved November 1, 2020, from https://www.mfa.gov.sg/SINGAPORES-FOREIGN-POLICY/Countries-and-Regions/Southeast-Asia/Indonesia
36. The Two Parts Of Brunei Finally Get A Direct Road Link. (2020, January 5). Asia Today. Retrieved September 25, 2020, from http://www.asiatoday.com/pressrelease/two-parts-brunei-finally-get-direct-road-link
37. Carlucci, A., Hooton, M., Abd Salim, M., Yip, S., Moneypenny, K., & Kite, S. (2015). Temburong Bridge, Brunei – Design of two cable stayed bridges. BERICHT, 92(3), 220-226.
38. Kon, J. (2020, March 17). Temburong Bridge opens. Borneo Bullertin. Retrieved November 1, 2020, from https://borneobulletin.com.bn/2020/03/temburong-bridge-opens-2
39. Ramadan, A., & Fregonese, S. (2017, February 28). Hybrid Sovereignty and the State of Exception in the Palestinian Refugee Camps in Lebanon. Annals of the American Association of Geographers, 107(4), 949-963.
40. Outward Bound Singapore. (2018, March 16). About Us. Outward Bound Singapore. Retrieved November 4, 2020, from https://www.nyc.gov.sg/en/obs/about-us
41. Tan, A. T. H. (2011, December). Punching Above Its Weight: Singapore's Armed Forces and Its Contribution to Foreign Policy. Defence Studies, 11(4), 672-697.
42. See, B. P. (2006, May 6). Memories of Brunei. Fumiakira. Retrieved October 30, 2020, from https://fumiakira.blogspot.com/2006/05/memories-of-brunei.html
43. Matthews, R., & Zhang, N. Y. (2007, September). Small Country 'Total Defence': A Case Study of Singapore. Defence Studies, 7(3), 376-395.
44. Ong, W. (2011, September). Peripheral to Norm? The Expeditionary Role of the Third Generation Armed Forces. Defence Studies, 11(3), 541-558.
45. Da, D. C. (1999, Spring). Sociological Aspects of the Singapore Armed Forces. Armed Forces & Societies, 25(3), 459-475.
46. Nicoll, A., & Delaney, J. (2007, December). Singapore's military modernisation: Upgrading the city-state's deterrent. Singapore's military modernisation, 13(10), 1-2.
47. Biolsi, T. (2005, May). Imagined geographies: Sovereignty, indigenous space, and American Indian struggle. American Ethnologist, 12(2), 239-259.
48. Mountz, A. (2013). Political geography I: Reconfiguring geographies of sovereignty. Progress in Human Geography, 37(6), 829-841.
49. Newman, D. (2006). The lines that continue to separate us: borders in our 'borderless' world. Progress in Human Geography, 30(2), 143-161.
50. Martin, B. (2018). From Camp Town to International City: US Military Base Expansion and Local Development in Pyeongtaek, South Korea. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 967-985.
51. Reyes, V. (2015, March). Legacies of Place and Power: From Military Base to Freeport Zone. City & Community, 14(1), 1-26.
52. Springer, K. (2017, September 7). Connecting Brunei ... with Brunei: Will this bridge change the sultanate forever? CNN Travel. Retrieved September 25, 2020, from https://edition.cnn.com/travel/article/brunei-bridge-rainforest-eco/index.html

Annex A: Boon Ping's Memories of Brunei

[This is my Final Paper submitted for "GE5214 Landscapes of Southeast Asia" module on 5 November 2020 for AY2020/2021 Semester 1. "GE5214 Landscapes of Southeast Asia" is offered by National University of Singapore (NUS) Faculty of Arts & Social Sciences (FASS) Department of Geography & Department of Southeast Asian Studies, and is taught by Dr Hamzah bin Muzaini.]

Labels: , , , ,

Facilities and training ground of Singapore Armed Forces at Brunei's Temburong District: Creation of a hybrid space to conquer the same defence objectives.   © 文彬 2004~2024. All rights reserved.

Should developers incorporate stormwaters control systems within developments?

13 October 2020

Topic
The developers in a city should incorporate stormwaters control systems within their developments. This will obviate the need for the city authority to expand public drainage infrastructure to discharge the increased runoffs from their developments.

Background of Topic
Stormwater collection system in HDB Towns
Public Utilities Board (PUB) is the national water agency that manage water supply, drainage and sewerage.[1] Housing and Development Board (HDB) is the planner and developer of public housing. HDB has always collaborate with PUB to build infrastructure to drain surface runoff and channelled the collected rainwater into reservoirs.

PUB is constantly exploring options to expand the water catchment area to maximize Singapore's water sources. The Bedok – Sungei Seletar water scheme was completed in 1986 and it is the first urban water catchment in Singapore.[2] Under this scheme, rainwater are collected in the urban catchments of Bedok, Tampines, Pasir Ris, Ang Mo Kio and Yishun New Towns through a comprehensive network of drains and 9 stormwater collection facilities.[2] Rainwater are either drain directly into Bedok or Lower Seletar Reservoirs, or collected in stormwater collection facilities.[2] As there is a capacity limit for drains and reservoirs, the stormwater collection facilities act as additional storage space to drain surface runoff and rainwater collected will be pumped into the reservoirs when capacity permits. The Bedok – Sungei Seletar water scheme can collect 47,000m³ of water a day.[2] The water scheme won the Environmental Engineering Honour Award in the United States' National Competition in 1987.[2]

Initially, the 8 stormwater collection facilities at Bedok, Tampines and Loyang are utilitarian square concrete tanks that does not blend well with the residential surroundings. Subsequent stormwater collection facilities like Yishun Pond and Pang Sua Pond are landscaped ponds that collects stormwater and drains it to the respective reservoirs in their catchment.[2] In addition, existing ponds in Pasir Ris Town Park, Punggol Park and Woodlands Town Garden were adapted into stormwater collection facilities. The natural drainage network at Bukit Panjang, Woodlands and Sembawang New Towns were transformed into new urban water catchment during public housing development under the Seletar Streams water scheme.[2] These strategies are win-win solutions for both HDB and PUB, as Singapore lacks the space to collect and store rainwater, solve issues of excessive surface runoff and drainage capacity limit, and the waterbodies beautify the landscapes of HDB New Towns.

The latest instalment is Alkaff Pond, an artificial lake in Bidadari Park that is inspired by the former Alkaff Lake Gardens.[3] HDB designed Alkaff Pond to create a tranquil urban oasis within Bidadari Estate, its latest public housing estate.[3] Alkaff Pond also double as a flood control facility to slow surface runoff from the flood-prone Potong Pasir vicinity.[4]

Stormwater collection facility under flyover
Besides HDB, Land Transport Authority (LTA) built a stormwater collection facility under the junction of Bukit Timah Expressway (BKE) and Seletar Expressway (SLE) when constructing the interchange.[2] Besides collecting surface runoff, this reinforced concrete stormwater collection pond also maximized under-utilized space under flyover.[2]

Great Orchard Flooding
On the morning of 16 June 2010, Orchard was flooded by the infamous "Great Orchard Flood".[5] PUB's hydraulic analysis reported that intense rain and heavy accumulation of debris in the covered Stamford Canal drainage system caused the flood at Singapore's prime shopping district.[5] Debris trapped in a culvert obstructed water flow and reduced the draining efficiency of Stamford Canal, resulting in rainwater overflowing onto Orchard Road.[5] Furthermore, the construction of new malls (e.g. Ion Orchard, 313 Somerset and Orchard Central) on previously vacant greenfields might increase surface runoff beyond the maximum capacity of Stamford Canal.[22]

Many buildings, including Liat Tower, Tangs Plaza, Lucky Plaza and Ion Orchard, were severely affected by the "Great Orchard Flood".[6] While then Minister for the Environment and Water Resources Yacob Ibrahim described the June 2010 flood as an 'once in 50 years' freak event,[7] Orchard Road was flooded again by at least 6 flash floods in July 2010, June 2011, October 2011, December 2011,6 November 2012, and May 2018.[8]

After the June 2010 flood, PUB increased the frequency of clearing debris and maintenance of the Stamford catchment.[5] PUB also constructed the Stamford Detention Tank and Stamford Diversion Canal to improve the drainage capability of Stamford Canal and protect Orchard against floods.[9] Completed in September 2018, the Stamford Detention Tank under Botanic Gardens will temporary store excessive surface runoff, before pumping the rainwater back to Stamford Canal when capacity permits.[9] The covered Stamford Diversion Canal divert stormwater from the upstream of Stamford catchment into Singapore River.[9] Similar underground stormwater storage tank was built in Greater Tokyo (i.e. The Metropolitan Outer Area Underground Discharge Channel).[10]

PUB worked with building owners (e.g. Liat Tower, Tanglin Mall, Lucky Plaza, Wisma Atria) to install flood protection barriers.[9] In December 2010, Liat Tower spent $200,000 to install 19 anti-flood panels to form a 54m long barrier against floodwater of 80cm high.[11] In addition, the basement shops (i.e. Hermes, Wendy's, Starbucks and Massimo Dutti spent more than $11,000 to install portable slide-in floodgates at their entrances. However, the flood protection measures at Liat Tower did not work and the basement shops were flooded by rainwater again in December 2011.[6, 12] In March 2013, Lucky Plaza spent $1,000,000 to construct a 150m long pop-up flood barrier around the building.[13] The 1.2m high concrete panel lies flat as part of the corridor, but will sprung up after sensors detect water and set off a siren to warn pedestrian to keep clear. However, the flood barrier has not been activated yet.[13]

Flood Control Measures at Kovan
Intense downpour on 17 November 2014 resulted in the worst flash flood at Kovan, Hougang.[14] The heavy rain caused water to overflow from the upstream canal of Sungei Serangoon, flooding landed houses and basement carparks of condominiums along Tampines Road and triggered power outages.[14] The water level is ankle-deep at ground level and reached the windows of cars parked in the basement carpark of Fortune Park condominium, located along Tampines Road.[14] Severe flash floods were reported at the area again on 14 July 2017 and 30 April 2020.[15, 16]

As Kovan is a flash flood hot spot, several measures were implemented to address the problem. PUB completed the drainage improvement works to the upstream of Sungei Serangoon in March 2019, where the canal is widened and deepened, and roadside drains in the vicinity were upgraded.[17] Hydraulic analysis showed the drainage improvement works reduced the flood-prone area by 86%, and the 30 April 2020 flood was confined to the depressed road junction of Tampines Road and Hougang Avenue 1.[17] PUB and LTA are studying the feasibility to raise the depressed road junction.[17]

In addition, PUB loaned portable flood protection barriers to residents staying at the landed properties along Tampines Road,[18, 19] which were built decades ago and do not meet the prevailing minimum platform level standard.[19] The flood protection barriers are inflatable panels to be installed at doorways and requires the owner to manually pump to inflate it.[18, 19] Although it is difficult to setup the barriers, residents feedback that it is better than having nothing to protect against the flood and hope that innovation would improve the design.[18, 19]

On 12 August 2020, PUB announced that Fortune Park condominium was chosen for experimentation of a new smart flood protection system.[20, 21] The flood barriers will be installed at the entrance of Fortune Park, which will prevent the basement carpark from being flooded again.[21] The system do not requires electricity or manual operation,[20] as it will be automatically activated in the event of a flash flood and it will be able to block floodwater of up to 1m high.[21] This is the first flood control project piloted by PUB at a private residential development and is expected to be completed in October 2020.[21]

Private Developments
In the context of private development, PUB imposed minimum platform level as conditions for Government Land Sales (GLS) site, Additions and Alterations work and redevelopment.[23]

Assessing the Topic
In my personal opinion, to a certain extent, developers should incorporate stormwater control system within their developments as a 'final line of defence' against flash flood. However, the drainage authority should continue to forecast, plan, expand, manage and maintain the drainage infrastructure to discharge increased runoffs from new developments.

Developers to Raise Platform Level
Currently, PUB mandated that the minimum platform level of a development must be at least 104mRL and 104.5mRL for developments along the southern coast and northern coast respectively; or 300mm above adjacent road or ground level; or 600mm above the highest recorded flood level; whichever is higher.[23]

The highest floodwater level Singapore ever experienced was 40cm high.[19] Perhaps, PUB should consider revising the minimum platform level requirements from 104mRL and 104.5mRL to 105mRL, which is above the highest floodwater level. In this way, the development will be less likely to be affected by flash flood and rising sea level.

Incorporate Water Features in Urban Design
While PUB already encourage developers to incorporate ABC Waters design features within developments, the authorities might wish to consider providing incentives (e.g. bonus GFA, property tax rebates) to developers that incorporated such features (e.g. bioswales, rain gardens, wetlands) within landscape to reduce surface runoff.

If developers are to incorporate advance stormwater control system within their developments, there will be opportunities to create innovative multi-functional spaces where utilitarian stormwater collection facility could blend into the urbanscape through urban design. These stormwater collection facility could take the form of landscaped pond, water plaza, fountain garden, aquaculture or hydroponic farming. In fact, Benthemplein Water Square at Rotterdam is a successful stormwater management facility that doubles as a public square when dry and becomes a pond after a storm.[24, 25]

PUB may also consider imposing the construction of underground stormwater detention tank as part of a GLS condition.

Who to Bear the Cost & Responsibilities?
However, let's not forget that the Great Orchard Flood was a mistake (lack of maintenance), misjudgement and oversight (increase surface runoff from new developments) by PUB.[5]

It is unfair for developers and owners of existing buildings to bear the cost of constructing stormwaters control and flood management systems. The flood protection barriers at Liat Tower and Lucky Plaza are funded and built by developers and owners of existing buildings. It is particularly insulting for Liat Tower to pump so much money on a system that did not work.

While getting the developers and building owners to implement and bear the cost will help PUB to save substantial cost and effort, this strategy is not ethical and reflects badly on the image and competency of PUB as the national water agency. Furthermore, developers and owners are not experts in stormwater management. This strategy is as bad as shifting the mistake and blame to the developers and owners, which will cost heavily in political opinions.

Therefore, conditions imposed needs to be moderated, so that it is fair and not too onerous for the developers and owners. Alternatively, PUB should provide grants to existing building owners who need to install flood protection barriers.

References
1. Public Utilities Board. (2020, July 28). About Us. Public Utilities Board. Retrieved October 9, 2020, from https://www.pub.gov.sg/about
2. Lee, J. (1997, June 16). Catchment areas coming up in urban sites. The Straits Times.
3. Xue, J. (2013, August 29). New Alkaff lake for Bidadari estate. Today. Retrieved October 9, 2020, from https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/new-alkaff-lake-bidadari-estate
4. Tan, C. (2020, March 14). Bidadari to have flood prevention lake. The Straits Times. Retrieved October 9, 2020, from https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/environment/bidadari-to-have-flood-prevention-lake
5. AsiaOne. (2010, June 17). PUB: Heavy rain and debris likely cause of Orchard flood. AsiaOne. Retrieved October 11, 2020, from https://www.asiaone.com/News/AsiaOne%2BNews/Singapore/Story/
A1Story20100617-222707.html
6. Won, X. L. (2018, December 27). 4 Floods in Singapore You May Have Missed In The Past 10 Years. The Epoch Times Singapore Edition. Retrieved October 11, 2020, from https://epochtimes.today/4-floods-in-singapore-you-may-have-missed-in-the-past-10-years
7. Au Yong, J. (2013, September 17). Idea of the '50-year flood' has been misunderstood. The Sunday Times. Retrieved October 11, 2020, from https://www.asiaone.com/singapore/idea-50-year-flood-has-been-misunderstood
8. Lam, L. (2018, May 26). Heavy rain causes flash flood in Orchard Road; vehicles stuck in murky water. The Straits Times. Retrieved October 11, 2020, from https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/flash-flood-in-orchard-road-pub-issues-high-flood-risk-alerts-in-central-region
9. Public Utilities Board. (2018, September 28). Stamford Diversion Canal and Stamford Detention Tank Go Operational. Public Utilities Board. Retrieved October 11, 2020, from https://www.pub.gov.sg/news/pressreleases/
stamforddiversioncanalandstamforddetentiontank
10. 江戸川河川事務所. 首都圏外郭放水路とは. 江戸川河川事務所. Retrieved October 11, 2020, from https://www.ktr.mlit.go.jp/edogawa/edogawa00402.html
11. Today. (2010, December 23). New pop-up anti-flood system for Liat Towers. Today. Retrieved October 11, 2020, from https://www.eco-business.com/news/new-pop-anti-flood-system-liat-towers
12. Tan, L., & Liang, A. (2011, December 27). Countermeasures fail to stop flooding at Liat Towers. The New Paper. Retrieved October 11, 2020, from https://www.asiaone.com/News/Latest%2BNews/Singapore/Story/
A1Story20111227-318299.html
13. Koh, H. T. (2013, March 8). Lucky Plaza goes from sandbags to concrete. The New Paper. Retrieved October 11, 2020, from https://www.asiaone.com/print/News/Latest%2BNews/Singapore/Story/
A1Story20130306-406696.html
14. Tan, A. (2014, November 18). Tampines Road hit by flash flood. The Straits Times. Retrieved October 9, 2020, from https://www.asiaone.com/singapore/tampines-road-hit-flash-flood
15. (2017, July 14). Heavy rain causes flood at Tampines Road. Channel News Asia. Retrieved October 9, 2020, from https://news.nestia.com/detail/-/93285
16. Lay, B. (2020, April 30). Flash floods in a few areas in S'pore as torrential downpour pounds island. Mothership. Retrieved October 9, 2020, from https://mothership.sg/2020/04/flash-floods-singapore-2020
17. Ministry of Environment and Water Resources. (2020, May 27). Parliament Q&A. Ministry of Sustainability & the Environment. Retrieved October 9, 2020, from https://www.mse.gov.sg/news/written-reply-by-mr-masagos-zulkifli--minister-for-the-environment-and-water-resources--to-parliamentary-question-on-flash-floods--on-26-may-2020
18. Hariz, B. (2019, November 22). PUB to lend new anti-flood devices to residents and businesses for monsoon season. The Straits Times. Retrieved October 9, 2020, from https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/pub-to-lend-new-anti-flood-measures-to-residents-and-businesses
19. Ang, H. M. (2019, November 22). PUB to deploy new portable flood protection devices for northeast monsoon season. Channel News Asia. Retrieved October 9, 2020, from https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/pub-portable-flood-protection-devices-northeast-monsoon-12117310
20. 黄, 贝盈. (2020, August 12). 公用局拟试用新自动防洪栅栏. 联合早报. https://www.zaobao.com.sg/realtime/singapore/story20200812-1076372?amp
21. 吴, 俍㬕. (2020, August 12). 政府拟装新防洪栅栏 阻水淹进私人公寓. 8视界. https://www.8world.com/news/singapore/article/pub-flood-barrier-trial-1217736
22. Chua, G. (2010, June 17). PUB probes Orchard Rd flood. The Straits Times. Retrieved October 11, 2020, from https://wildsingaporenews.blogspot.com/2010/06/pub-probes-orchard-rd-flood.html
23. Public Utilities Board. (2013, June). Code of Practice on Surface Water Drainage. Public Utilities Board.
24. C40. (2014, August 27). Benthemplein Water Square: An innovative way to prevent urban flooding in Rotterdam. C40 Cities. Retrieved October 1, 2020, from https://www.c40.org/case_studies/benthemplein-water-square-an-innovative-way-to-prevent-urban-flooding-in-rotterdam
25. Bokern, A. (2014, June 5). Water Square in Rotterdam by de Urbanisten. Uncube. Retrieved October 1, 2020, from http://www.uncubemagazine.com/blog/13323459

[This is an essay submitted for "DEP5105 Urban Infrastructure & Mobility Systems" module on 13 October 2020 for AY2020/2021 Semester 1. "DEP5105 Urban Infrastructure & Mobility Systems" is offered by National University of Singapore (NUS) Department of Architecture (DoA) Master of Urban Planning (MUP).]

Labels: ,

Should developers incorporate stormwaters control systems within developments?   © 文彬 2004~2024. All rights reserved.

Can a city be planned and built scientifically?

29 April 2020

Title
Can a city be planned and built scientifically?

Abstract
Urban planning is a multi-disciplinary, progressive and utopian concept. Over the decades, several planning theories, principles and models were conceptualized by various creators from diverse background. Subsequently, these planning concepts were experimented and implemented (wholly or partially) around the world to varying degree of success.

This paper will examine whether a city can be planned and built scientifically according to various planning models conceptualized. Furthermore, if a planning concept is successfully implemented in a city, can the same concept be duplicated in another city?

What is Urban Planning?
There is no standard definition for urban planning. In modern context, urban planning can be defined as a multi-disciplinary, creative, geopolitical process that encompasses land use planning, architecture, economic development, social engineering, etc. The purpose of urban planning is to evaluate, design and organize proposed land uses and buildings into logical spatial arrangement to maximize land efficiency. Planners also aspire to create a new social order to assert control over the population and economy.

Historically, cities of ancient civilizations were planned, evident in the city wall and grid pattern. Modern urban planning originated at Europe in the late 19th Century. The successful industrialization of Manchester and rejuvenation of Paris fuelled the urbanization and spatial transformation of cities across Europe. However, the first comprehensive planning projects were experimented in colonies before implementation in Europe. (Rainbow, 1989) The invention of skyscrapers expedited the development of high-rise, high-density urban settlements.

Who are the Urban Planners?
Planning is such a diverse and ambiguous discipline that many “experts” tried to define through scientific methodologies. With the exception of Architects Camillo Sitte (“City Planning Accordingly to Artistic Principles”) , Le Corbusier (Radiant City) and Frank Lloyd Wright (Broadacre City), it is interesting to note that many inventors of revolutionary and influential planning theories are not academically or professionally trained in urban planning, urban design, architecture or geography.

For example, Ebenezer Howards, who invented the “Garden City” concept, ended his formal education at 14-years-old and was not trained in architecture or urban design. (Fishman, The Ideal City Made Practicable, 1982) Christopher Alexander, who invented the “Pattern Language” and co-authored the highly influential “A Pattern Language: Towns, Buildings, Construction” was a mathematician before crossing over to architecture.

In addition, many bureaucrats and supporters who advocated, critiqued or implemented planning projects were also not trained in planning. Baron Haussmann, the Prefect of Seine who engineered the urban renewal of Paris studied law; Robert Moses, the “Master Builder of New York City”, studied political science. Similarly, opposer like Jane Jacobs was a journalist without training in spatially-related fields.

Since these planners were not trained in spatial discipline, it raise questions on the credibility and validity of the concepts proposed and implemented by them. While urban planning is a multi-disciplinary practice, it is still ironic if most of the fundamental concepts were not developed by professionals trained in relevant field. Nevertheless, these planners share a common goal: to invent a perfect urban planning model to guide the creation of an ideal city.

The Science of Urban Planning
Several major cities around the world are entirely planned and built from scratch; examples includes Singapore (1819), Sapporo (1869), Canberra (1913) and Brasilia (1960). In addition, many cities like Berlin, Hiroshima and Seoul were destroyed by wars or natural disasters in the 20th Century and were rejuvenated using scientific and systematic approaches.

Ebenezer Howard invented the “Garden City” concept in 1898, which is a compilation of existing ideas created to resolve assorted problems caused by capitalism and urbanization. Howard managed to see the connection between these ideas, adapted and compiled them into a coherent design. The “Garden City” aims to re-construct a new social-economic environment through decentralisation of cities, cooperation and re-distribution of wealth and power. (Fishman, Inventing the Garden City, 1982) Land is collectively owned and part of the rental income are deposited into a sinking fund for investment, maintenance and provision of services. (Fishman, Design for Cooperation, 1982)

The “Garden City” is a tightly-organized, self-contained, low-density development where 30,000 dwellers live in the urban core. The “Garden City” is surrounded by farms or forest, where 2,000 farmers would supply food to the urban core and constitute an integral part of the cooperative economy. The countryside also doubles as green spaces for leisure and prevents urban sprawling. If the population grows, the existing “Garden City” shall not be expanded or intensified for the system to work. Instead, a new sister “Garden City” could be developed beyond the green buffer. Eventually, 6 “Garden Cities” would cluster around a main city to form a “Social City” network. (Fishman, Design for Cooperation, 1982)

The “Garden City” concept is a simple and functional idea that can be easily applied. Howard founded Letchworth in 1903, the first New Town constructed based on the “Garden City” concept. The “Garden City” was eventually adapted into various decentralization concepts by planners worldwide. (Fishman, The Ideal City Made Practicable, 1982)

Modernist urban planning is generally a top-down process. Bureaucrats would identified urban issues and planners are tasked to conceptualize a plan to resolve these problems. Such process were criticized by planners, intellectuals and activists to be problematic and insensitive, because solutions were designed based on projected efficiency and profits, without taking into consideration environmental impact, social diversity, feedback, everyday life and memories of residents. This approach eventually leads to the failure of “big planning” projects. Therefore, Susan Fainstein, Oscar Newman and Paul Davidoff proposed new planning theories to counter these issues. These models focus on different planning process, perspectives and emphasis; each producing varied outcomes, with its pros and cons.

The “Communication Model” juxtaposed top-down planning by using pragmatism and communicative rationality. Planners need to listen and mediate among stakeholders to reach consensus on differing viewpoints for a project. While this is ideal, the “Communication Model” is unrealistic, inefficient and time-consuming to obtain 100% consensus. This method results in biases, Not-In-My-Backyard (NIMBY) syndrome, domination by powerful grassroots and placing of unwanted facilities near community with weaker voice. (Fainstein, 2000)

“New Urbanism” is a neo-traditionalism design-oriented model that aims to use urban design to create an array of mixed-use buildings, housing typologies for different demographic groups and public spaces to construct a diverse and cohesive community. The basic planning unit is the neighbourhood, which has a defined boundary and focal centre where residents could access essential amenities within walking distance. “New Urbanism” believes that improvement in physical environment will enhance spatial relationship between living and working spaces. However, “New Urbanism” is market-driven and needs to rely on private developers to build and finance the projects. This often result in destroyed and displaced community, homogeneous development and ‘forced conformity’ among the people. These contradicts the emphasis on community, creativity and diversity. (Fainstein, 2000)

A “Just City” aims to resolve social inequality caused by capitalism through participation in decision-making and advocates for the needs and wants of the community. Planners need to identify a purpose and fight to achieve the spatial goal. However, the “Just City” is unpopular in developed cities as it ignores the interests of the middle-class majority and certain minority groups. Furthermore, the dismissal of economic importance makes the “Just City” model only suitable for cities with a mature economy. (Fainstein, 2000)

The “Defensible Space” concept deploys architectural design, spatial planning and behavioural psychology to create a safer environment that enables casual and continuous surveillance of the public spaces by residents. Planners of “Advocacy Planning” advocates an idea and opines that planning should be more pluralistic and democratic, with stronger participation from individuals, communities and interest groups. (Davidoff, 1965)

Planned City: A Study of Singapore
Singapore was a planned settlement, with the first town plan drawn in 1822. A Master Plan needs to have legislative power for effective implementation and regulation. However, early plans were merely records of existing developments, without anticipating problems and proposed plans proactively. (Dale, 1999) Urban planning only starts to take off after Singapore obtained self-governance in 1959 and Singapore was successfully urbanized and transformed within 30 years.

To a huge extent, Singapore is planned using a top-down approach based on ideas extracted from various planning principles. Ideas from the “Garden City” are echoed in the Koenigsberger Ring City Plan, New Town developments and Constellation Plan. The “New Urbanism” vision to promote social mixing of different racial, cultural and income groups was achieved by building public housing flats of various typologies next to each other.

Singapore’s success in urban planning is mainly due to the consolidation of power and the government owning majority of the land. The government is able to delegate its land, finance and power to certain ministries and statutory boards to plan, implement and regulate urban planning projects quickly, efficiently and effectively. (Dale, 1999) Such bureaucratic approach empowered the Housing & Development Board (HDB), Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) and Jurong Town Corporation (JTC) to be master developers for public housing, urban renewal and industrial developments respectively and avoided the challenges faced by the “Communication Model” and “New Urbanism”.

Singapore developed a ring of New Towns around the Central Water Catchment. Each town is self-contained and comprises several neighbourhoods organized around a town centre. The provision of shops, hawker stalls and factories within the town allow resettled farmers and entrepreneurs to operate small business, provide services and employment opportunities for the community. Such initiatives were envisioned, but not implemented during Howard’s time.

Initially, New Towns were planned based on the neighbourhood principle, where approximately 100 blocks of flats are built within walking distance to a neighbourhood centre. In 1980s, HDB modified this principle by inventing the precinct as the smallest planning unit. A neighbourhood is de-cluster into several precincts; each containing about 10 blocks of flats planned around a precinct centre where essential shops and amenities are located. The precinct reduced distance to amenities, encourage closer social interaction, foster stronger sense of belonging and improve spatial identity. The layout of precinct, setup of Neighbourhood Police Posts and Community Watch initiative construct a “Defensible Space” that deters crime. The precinct concept was successfully piloted at Tampines in 1982 and was subsequently applied to other New Towns. These adaptation and improvement of the “Garden City” idea was in line with Howard’s vision for his invention to be capable of great improvement.

Similar to “Garden City”, Town Councils were formed to manage and maintain the common areas of New Towns. A Town Council is led by politicians and appointed councillors (who are residents), and run by a team of professionals for ground operations. Town Councils are primarily funded by Service and Conservancy Charges collected from residents. (Dale, 1999)

The New Towns are connected to the City Centre by a comprehensive transport network. Decentralization was proposed in the Concept Plan 1991, which mapped out a constellation of Regional Centres, Sub-Regional Centres and Fringe Centres radiating out from the City Centre. Each decentralized centre serves several neighbouring towns and reduces commuting by providing more amenities and alternative job opportunities closer to homes.

Tampines New Town won the World Habitat Award in 1992, a testament on the success of Singapore’s public housing and innovative urban transformation efforts. Singapore’s success in urban planning inspires several cities to rejuvenate based on the “Singapore Model”. While Suzhou Industrial Park, Tianjin Eco-City and Colombo Beira Lake District resembles Singapore physically, it needs time to evaluate whether the customized “Singapore Model” is successful in other aspects.

Problems of Urban Planning Concepts and Models
Scientific problems are controlled and hypothesis can be tested and proven. In contrast, planning challenges are “wicked problems” that cannot be clearly defined and there are no right or wrong solutions. (Rittel & Webber, 1973) Planning problems are inter-related and decisions might have consequences on other issues. (Dale, 1999)

An urban analysis is never comprehensive, because information was researched based on problems identified by the planner. It is difficult to design a development that would resolve future problems that could not be predicted accurately. Furthermore, every site is unique and the same solution might be incompatible for similar problems. (Rittel & Webber, 1973)

A solution can be classified by different parties as good and bad simultaneously. A planning decision may benefit the majority, but affects some in the name of public good. Big planning also proved to be impossible without loss of liberty and equity. (Rittel & Webber, 1973) For example, urban renewal, land acquisition and resettlement were essential for Singapore, but was disruptive to the resettled villagers, as they could no longer stay at their kampong and farm to be self-sufficient. They need to adapt to urban life and work in unfamiliar jobs to finance HDB mortgages. Fast-forward a few decades, it is interesting to note that most Singaporeans wants their flats to be selected for Selective En-bloc Redevelopment Scheme, which is a form of resettlement with lucrative benefits.

Planning is fuelled by capitalism and efficiency, which is to use minimum land to achieve maximum development potential. Efficiency can be quantified by Gross Plot Ratio, population density and land utilization rate etc. While capitalism has merits in promoting pragmatism and desire for improvement, capitalism is also the root cause of social inequality, unhealthy competition, consumerism, wastage, environmental damages, poor physical and mental health etc. Decision-makers should not approved projects solely from an economic perspective, else residents will be deprived of non-profit-generating amenities near homes and direct bus routes to town centre will be removed. The government could subsidize private operators to ensure services will still be provided for the convenience of the community. In fact, it is controversial to privatize essential service providers, because their main objective would switch to profit-making after privatization.

As the economy and society mature, it is necessary for planning strategies to evolve accordingly. (Dale, 1999) Since 2000, there is a gradual shift towards collaborative planning and participatory design. Planners would organize community workshops, walking conversations and pop-up engagements to gather feedback. While such shift is ideal, planners needs to filter NIMBY noises from feedback and be firm with the initial planning objectives when necessary. To discourage NIMBY, planners could encourage protesters to submit a counter-proposal for consideration. Planners should evaluate alternatives, manage powerful voices and balance feedback objectively in the general interests of the community.

Policy-makers attempt to improve effectiveness by inventing unnecessary systems, which complicates the problem and does not necessarily produced better solutions. Agencies either operate in silo, has overlapping functions, (Dale, 1999) or create ‘grey area problems’ not within anyone’s purview. Consolidating planning into the same organization might not lead to greater efficiency, as departments might have conflicting objectives or lack internal coordination. (Dale, 1999) These necessitate coordination to resolve issues that may not be complicated. Policy-makers might lose touch with the ground and advocate “white elephant” projects that residents do not need or want. Nevertheless, the public will always complain that planners did not solve problems that planners claimed they could solve.

Planning is never perfect, as there are alternative ways to parcellate a site (with accompanying opportunity costs). Furthermore, it is impossible to experiment a land use plan without building it. However, there is no threshold for trial & error, because solutions implemented are usually irreversible and could have severe consequences. Plus, measurement of success and impact is never immediate. (Rittel & Webber, 1973) Planners must note that the view of society changes in response to time, economic development and social diversity. Hence, what was right in the past might be contentious now or in the future.

The Art & Science of Urban Planning
Urban planning is an art and science on balancing: planners need to achieve equilibrium in land use, social needs, economic needs, efficiency, feedback and aesthetics to construct an ideal city. Ideally, the planning process should start with site visits and detailed analysis to understand the existing on-site conditions and identify gaps. This is necessary for conceptualizing functional planning proposals that address gaps.

A city can be planned and built scientifically using a hybrid of planning theories, principles and models. Planning theories are not mutually exclusive; (Fainstein, 2000) most cities are planned using a hybrid of planning models that are customized to fit local context. The strategy is to adopt the pros of a model and replace the cons with the pros of another model. If a planning concept is successfully implemented in a city, the same concept can be duplicated in another city, but it must be customized to suits the different on-site situations and local needs.


References
1. Fainstein, S. S. (2000). New Directions in Planning Theory. Urban Affairs Review, 451-478.

2. Fishman, R. (1982). The Ideal City Made Practicable. In Urban Utopias in the Twentieth Century: Ebenezer Howard, Frank Lloyd Wright and Le Corbusier (pp. 23-26). Cambridge: MIT Press.

3. Fishman, R. (1982). Inventing the Garden City. In Urban Utopias in the Twentieth Century: Ebenezer Howard, Frank Lloyd Wright and Le Corbusier (pp. 27-39). Cambridge: MIT Press.

4. Fishman, R. (1982). Design for Cooperation. In Urban Utopias in the Twentieth Century: Ebenezer Howard, Frank Lloyd Wright and Le Corbusier (pp. 40-51). Cambridge: MIT Press.

5. Rittel, H. W., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning. Policy Sciences 4, 155-169.

6. Dale, O. J. (1999). The Government as Planner and Entrepreneur. In Urban Planning in Singapore: The Transformation of a City (pp. 71-115). Cambridge: Oxford University Press.

7. Rainbow, P. (1989). Governing Morocco: modernity and difference. International Journal of Urban and Regional Planning, 32-46.

8. Davidoff, P. (1965). Advocacy and Pluralism in Planning. Journal of American Institute of Planners, 331-338.

[This is my Final Paper submitted for "DEP5102 Introduction to History & Theory of Urban Planning" module on 29 April 2020 for AY2019/2020 Semester 2. "DEP5102 Introduction to History & Theory of Urban Planning" is offered by National University of Singapore (NUS) Department of Architecture (DoA) Master of Urban Planning (MUP) and is taught by Prof Lee Kah-Wee.]

Labels: , ,

Can a city be planned and built scientifically?   © 文彬 2004~2024. All rights reserved.

Seike Kiyoshi’s “My House”: Integration of interior and exterior to create practical space in a small house

11 April 2020

Title
Seike Kiyoshi’s “My House”: Integration of interior and exterior to create practical space in a small house.

Abstract
“My House” (私の家) is the personal residence of renowned and highly-decorated architect Seike Kiyoshi (清家 清) (13 December 1918 – 8 April 2005) that was designed and built by himself.[1] Completed in October 1954, “My House” is a 10m by 5m house constructed on the 182m² site of Seike’s parents’ house at 3–519 Higashiyukigaya, Ota Ward, Tokyo Metropolis.[3, 4, 6, 7]


[Location of “My House”.]

Despite its small building footprint of 50m²,[1, 4, 7] “My House” is Japan’s first modern 1-room house that is known for its functionality, openness, spaciousness and innovation.[29] “My House” also reflects Seike’s beliefs in gender equality; demonstrated elements of “Japan-ness” and “inversion”; and customized to fit the liberal lifestyle of his young family.[1]

This paper examines how Seike was inspired by elements of traditional Japanese house and used modern materials and construction methods to create a small but functional house that successfully integrates the exterior and interior into a continuous and spacious entity.


[“My House” successfully integrates the exterior and interior into a continuous and spacious entity.[1]]

Background: About the Architect / Owner
Seike graduated from the Tokyo University of the Arts and Tokyo Institute of Technology.[16] Seike was an apprentice of modernist architect Yoshiro Taniguchi.[15] Seike founded the Seike Research Institute within Tokyo Institute of Technology and he was a Professor at Tokyo Institute of Technology,[29] Tokyo University of the Arts and Tama Art University.[16] Seike is a recipient of the “Order of the Sacred Treasure” (1989), “Medal with Purple Ribbon” (1983), “Order of Culture” (1955), “Architectural Institute of Japan Grand Prize” (1991), “Architectural Institute of Japan Prize” (1954).[16] Some of his notable works include “House of Mori Oto” (1951), “House of Prof Sato” (1952), “My House” (1954), “Kyushu Institute of Technology Memorial Hall” (1960), “Yokohama Hakkeijima Sea Paradise” (1993), “Sapporo School of the Arts” (1995).[16] His apprentices include Shinohara Kazuo,[15] Hayashi Shouji, Hayashi Masako and Banjoya Gyoji.[16]

Seike believes in “Nothing can be something” and “Less is More”.[2] He believes that designing a house is similar to sculpting, which unnecessary elements are removed through the process.[2]

Furthermore, Seike opines that Japan is not a conducive place to live due to frequent seismic activities and extreme climate like heavy snowfall at Hokkaido, Tohoku and Hokuriku regions in winter, rainy spring, hot and humid summer and strong typhoons in autumn.[2, 9] Therefore, he thinks that Japanese houses must have strong structural supports and needs to be constructed using a variety of special techniques and methods to withstand such difficult climate and natural disasters.[2]

Background: Historical Context
“My House” was completed shortly after the Allied Occupation of Japan, which ended in 1952. This was the transitional time when Japanese pursued everyday life amid huge social, economic and environmental changes.

The occupation revolutionized the social and family values in Japan. Traditionally, construction of Japanese houses was centred around the extended family system, which was dissolved during the occupation.[2] Japanese started to aspire the standard American couple and nuclear family as role model for their everyday life.[5] Japanese also began to view the married couple as a mutually united and equal entity.[1, 5] Rapid urbanization and the break-up of the extended family resulted in mass country-to-city migration.[2, 9] In addition, women started to have rights to vote in 1945 and laws promoting gender equality were enacted in 1947.[5]

The Japan Economic Miracle characterized by rapid economic growth was in full bloom in the 1950s. This leads to an increase of per Capita Gross Domestic Product by an average of 7.1% per annum from 1945 to 1956 and growth of the Middle-Class.[2, 17] World War II contributed to a shortage of materials, which affected construction projects in the post-war period.[14, 18] This period is also plagued by severe pollution, notably the 1956 Minamata Disease, which was caused by methylmercury in industrial wastewater.[19, 20] Inflation, lack of construction materials and mass urban migration leads to severe housing shortage and expensive land prices in the cities.[1]

Despite extensive macro-level changes and foreign influences on everyday life, Seike feels that the design of Japanese houses remained very conservative and only began to change after 1947.[2] Seike believes that the modern Japanese house must suit the purpose for which it was built and cater to the different lifestyle, habits, tastes, needs and wants of its residents.[2]

Background: About “My House”
Seike originally designed and built “My House” for his parents, but they declined to move in.[1] Therefore, 36-years-old Seike moved into “My House” with his wife, 7-years-old eldest daughter Yuri and 6-months-old son Atsushi.[7]

“My House” is an unexpectedly small and modest house for a famous architect.[4] Nevertheless, “My House” was huge during the time of construction, when the average house has a building footprint area of only 15m².[7] “My House” was built to the maximum allowable building area of 50m² for it to be eligible for the Japan Housing Finance Agency loan, as enacted by the 1947 Temporary Ordinance.[1] In addition to the ground floor area of 50m², “My House” includes a 20m² basement.[4, 7] The basement was designed as a study, but was subsequently converted into a children play area.[5]

As his family grew, Seike expanded “My House” by adding “My House II” (続・私の家) in 1970 and “Son’s House” (倅の家) in 1989.[1] “My House” was registered as a Tangible Cultural Property on 27 October 2017.[3] “My House” is currently owned by Yuri.[7]

Converting the Exterior into Interior: Tall Boundary Wall
“My House” is located in a tranquil residential neighbourhood within the heart of downtown Tokyo. The land lot is enclosed by a tall boundary wall of approximately 3m high.


[Tall boundary wall enclosing “My House”.[4]]

Besides being a physical marker demarcating the legal boundary of land ownership, the tall wall also effectively divide the space into public and private domain.[5] The tall wall converts the enclosed outdoor into an ‘internal space’,[1] producing a huge garden that forms an integral part of the house.[9]

The tall wall completely blocks the view of the house and garden from the street.[5, 6] The tall wall provides privacy and allows the family to be ‘open’ within their compound.[5] Ferns and creeper plants growing on the wall reduced the claustrophobic feeling within the compound.[5, 6]

Furthermore, the tall wall protects the house from unexpected changes in the neighbourhood by focusing on the inside.[9]

Integration of Exterior and Interior: Huge Garden
After entering the gate, guests need to walk through a huge garden before reaching the house.[5]

The 132m² garden is disproportionately huge for a small house. The huge garden creates a sense of spaciousness and openness for a small house.[5, 7] Besides being aesthetically beautiful, the huge garden ensures sufficient sunlight, wind and air circulation could reach the interior.[9]

Integration of Exterior and Interior: Absence of Genkan
Another characteristics of “My House” is the absence of a ‘Genkan’ (玄関 / entryway).[1, 4, 7] The genkan is where shoes are removed and stored in a traditional Japanese house.[7] The genkan act as the official front door of the house and is a symbol of the family’s social status.[1] The genkan is where the family receive postage and deliveries, interact with salespersons and host unfamiliar guests.

The absence of a genkan gives an impression of a missing official front door and guest enter directly into the room.[4, 5] This caused ambiguity on whether guest needs to remove shoes before entering “My House” and a blur distinction between the exterior and interior.[5] Nevertheless, guests are required to remove their shoes before entering “My House”.[5]

Since the house and the garden are on the same platform level, the absence of a genkan creates a wide entrance and produces a wide view of the huge garden.[5, 7]

“Nouveau Japan-ness”: Use of Modern Materials
Seike’s previous architectural works before “My House” were all minimal wooded houses constructed with influences of traditional Japanese house and lifestyle.[5, 14, 15] However, the structure, wall and ceiling of “My House” were constructed using Reinforced Concrete (RC).[3, 4, 5, 7] The use of RC and modern construction techniques enable “My House” to withstand fire, earthquake and tough climate,[7] which Seike believed are essential to overcome Japan’s geographical disadvantages.[2]

Seike’s decision to use RC is due to shortage of traditional construction material,[1] progress in the development of chemical building materials and light alloys, resulting in cheaper construction cost.[2] The switch to mechanized construction is also because good workmanship and craftsmen are gradually disappearing.[2]

Nevertheless, Seike still managed to juxtapose tradition and modernity. Although constructed using RC, its incredibility thin frame of approximately 70mm generated a Japan-ness of lightness and an impression of being constructed using wood.[5, 29] The thin structural frame and wall is also due to Seike’s desire to reduce unnecessary wastage of space, which is precious in a small house.[7, 14]

Boundary between Exterior and Interior: Stone Flooring
Seike used teppei-seki (鉄平石 / andesite) as flooring for the garden and the interior.[5, 6, 7] This is a huge departure from traditional Japanese houses that used wood or tatami as flooring for the interior. Traditional garden is either earth-floored, turfed, or covered with gravel, which gravel was the same material used to pave urban street then.[5]

Andesite is a type of fine-grained igneous rock that is light or dark grey in colour.[21, 27] Andesite is composed of multiple layers of lava produced by stratovolcanoes that cooled and crystalized quickly.[21, 22, 28] Its geological characteristics makes it easy to split into board-like pieces.[22] Andesite is commonly used as ornamental rock in traditional Japanese garden.[22] However, andesite was seldom used in Japanese architecture. Andesite was only used as roofing material for teppei-seki-yane minka in Suwa (Nagano Prefecture) since 1811, as there are abundant andesite at Suwa.[22, 23, 27, 28]

Seike might had chosen andesite for its thickness, durability (against pressure, fire and weather), flexibility (can be used for flooring, roofing and ornament), ease of cutting and texture.[25, 26, 27, 28] Furthermore, andesite was used to pave the Omotesando (sacred boulevard) leading to Meiji-jingu in 1920.[28] Cobblestones made from andesite were commonly used to pave urban street overseas. Therefore, Seike might had anticipated that the gravel-paved urban street might be re-paved with andesite; hence he might chose to pave the garden with andesite to match the street.

Interestingly, there is remarkable differences in the size, layout, grain, filling and surface treatment of the andesite laid in the interior and exterior.[5] For example, the andesite laid inside the house are smooth and shiny black with minimal spacing filled with cement; while those laid in the garden are rough and sandy with wide spacing filled with soil.[5] This creates a subtle boundary between the continuous exterior and interior spaces.


[Differences in size, layout, grain, filling and surface treatment of andesite laid in the interior (left) and exterior (right).[5, 7]]

The rough andesite outdoor might be inspired from the kutsunugi-ishi (shoe-removing stone), a stone placed to assist guests to remove shoes and step up from the earthen courtyard into the raised interior.[8] The kutsunugi-ishi served as a symbolic reminder of the indoor-outdoor boundary.[8]

Seike originally adopted an American lifestyle of wearing shoes into the interior.[1, 5, 6] Seike opined that wearing shoes into the interior would unite the exterior and interior spaces.[24] Wearing of shoes is also convenient when switching between the spaces. This justified the absence of a genkan, the use of stone as flooring material for the interior and sleeping on bed instead of futon.[6]

However after 1957, Seike revert to remove shoes at the wide entrance because the seamless connection between the interior and exterior have encouraged his children to be constantly barefoot.[5] Furthermore, andesite feels cool during summer,[5] but warm in winter.[6] Seike’s children love the temperature of the stone flooring and enjoyed lying on the cool Andesite during summer.[5] His family also feel more relaxed being barefoot in the house.[5]

Boundary between Exterior and Interior: Glass Sliding Door
The use of glass is a modern technology that started in the Meiji era. A glass sliding door is a modern interpretation of the ‘Shoji’ (障子 / screen), which was used to define spaces.[1, 9] Thus, the glass sliding door demarcated the boundary of the garden (exterior) and the house (interior).[5]

Interestingly, the original sliding door that was installed in 1954 is still movable and remains in use till today.[5] This might be due to Seike’s insistence on good workmanship and shortage of construction material in the 1950s;[2] as if things were made to last, it eliminated the need for replacement, which requires material and produced unnecessary wastage.

Functionality and Flexibility: 1-room house
“My House” is a flexible 1-room house that is not partitioned accordingly to functions.[4, 5] The interior is continuous, without any doors or division into living, dining, bed, study or play rooms.[1, 4, 5, 6, 7] However, the space can still be divided using curtains hanging from steel truss or enormous furniture and fittings, like the full-height built-in bookshelf that spanned the entire length of the ‘living room’.[1, 4, 6, 29] This flexible layout is the most practical solution for a small house.[5] Although labelled as an 1-room house, separate spaces were still created for functions that are deemed ‘unclean’ – the kitchen and toilet.

While this concept is unprecedented in contemporary modern houses, such convertible style of living is a traditional Japanese concept that has been adopted since the Heian era.[7] This concept reduced unnecessary wastage of space by eliminating walls and separators.[7] Space can be easily enlarged or reduced accordingly by shifting the divider.[5] The flexibility maximized space efficiency for each function at any time, as spaces are no longer ‘reserved’ for functions that are not performed throughout the day.[7] The functions and furniture are change according to time, seasons and needs.[7] This physical transformation reflects the passing of time,[1, 7] amplifying the concepts of wabi-sabi.[1]


[Curtains and furniture are used to partition the interior of “My House”.[1]]

Integration of Exterior and Interior
As the house is small, there might not be enough space indoor for the family.[5] The wide entrance allows the room to extend organically into the garden.[1, 4, 5, 6, 7] The lines created from the asymmetrical temporal partition indoor are extended to the garden,[1] which is visualized through the distinction between the andesite-paved, turfed and planted areas. This connection is enhanced by the use of same flooring material indoor and outdoor. Together, these highlighted the spatial integration, flow and relationship between the interior and exterior.[1]

When the glass sliding door is open, the huge garden function as a seamless extension of the room. The indoor-outdoor permeability creates a spacious and continuous space where the family may use the garden for activities that are typically done in the living and dining room during warmer days.[1, 5, 7]


[When the glass sliding door is open, the interior is seamlessly connected with the garden.[7]]

The seamless connection is similar to the nijiriguchi entrance of a traditional teahouse.[8] This covered earthen terrace serve as a bridging space to extend the teahouse into the garden and prepare guests to enter directly into the tatami interior.[8] The garden resembles the doma (土間),[6] the enclosed earthen-floored buffer after the entrance of a minka (民家 / traditional house of farmers).[1] The doma is a multi-purpose space where shoes were removed and cooking, work or messy chores were carried out.[1, 10] The difference is, while the doma is an important and integral part of the minka, it is considered an unclean space and never used for gathering and dining.[1]

Traditionally, tatami is only used as flooring for the raised interior and requires delicate care to prevent damages. Seike created a movable raised tatami on rollers that can be shifted easily between the interior and the garden.[1, 5] The movable raised tatami could be used as a cot for baby,[1] play area for children, reading, relaxing and sleeping.[5, 7] The movable raised tatami is a fusion of Japanese tradition of floor-sitting and Western modern chair-sitting lifestyles.[1]

The green wall, huge garden and seamless connection with nature creates an abstract nature and a concept of unity between the exterior and interior of the house.[5, 29] The integration of the garden (exterior) and the house (interior) arises from a desire to live with nature and the spiritual connection between nature and man.[1, 9]

However, architecture will always separate the interior and exterior.[1] Furthermore, Seike’s interior-exterior integration contrast vastly with traditional Japanese architecture, where abrupt transition between the indoor and outdoor were avoided, with spaces such as the genkan, doma and engawa designed to bridge the gap.[9] This is similar to western houses, which defined the interior and exterior clearly.[1] As mentioned, Seike believes that a house should exclude unnecessary elements.[2] This is especially essential when he is restricted by limited building area and shortage of construction materials. Seike viewed the genkan and other transitional space as unnecessary, hence were omitted for “My House”.[7]

Openness
Seike’s family is centred around unity, gender equality and democracy.[7] Nothing in the house imposes hierarchical relationship among family members.[1]

The 1-room layout and openness of “My House” is a manifestation of the close and comfortable relationship within Seike’s family. There is effectively no space for anyone to be alone.[5] In fact, for the 1-room house to work, it requires mutual trust and respect between family members and non-interference parenting.[5]

The openness is also practical for Seike and his wife to supervise and look after their children. Furthermore, children who sleep with parents developed a sense of physical and psychological protection.[5] It fostered intimacy between the parents and the children.[5]

Seike opines that Japanese women should no longer be confined to the kitchen.[2] Hence, the kitchen was designed to be very small and fitted with modern appliances.[6] This small kitchen is a symbol of unity and equality between husband and wife.[1, 5]

“My House” is famous for its “toilet without doors”,[1, 4, 6, 7] which further enhanced the concept of gender equality and unity within the family. The toilet excluded bath or shower and the family have to use the bathroom at Seike’s parents’ house. [1] Instead, a bidet, one of the most advanced fittings in the 1950s, was installed.[5]

Influences
Seike successfully piloted the most advanced and innovative ideas, materials, structural design, construction methods and customization at his own house.[5] “My House” is a starting point for Seike to experiment on joinery and prefabrication,[5] which flourished in 1970s.[1]

Although small, “My House” was spacious and customized to suit the lifestyle of Seike’s family. Despite its modernity, Seike is able to inject “Japan-ness” and abstract nature into the small urban house. Notably, Seike successfully integrated the interior and exterior through a mixture of materials, metaphors and methodologies. The interior-exterior integration and elimination of unnecessary elements produced a huge continuous space that the family could use freely for multiple purposes.[1]

Many concepts applied in “My House” would inspired other architects and nuclear families in designing future 1-room houses and apartment flats.[1, 5, 6]

References
1. Shinkenchiku-sha (Ed.). (2017). The Japanese House: Architecture and Life after 1945. Tokyo: Shinkenchiku-sha.

2. Seike, K., & Terry, C. S. (1964). Contemporary Japanese Houses. Tokyo: Kodansha International.

3. 登録有形文化財 (建造物) : 私の家 (清家清自邸). (n.d.). Retrieved February 10, 2020, from https://kunishitei.bunka.go.jp/heritage/detail/101/00011885

4. h9w457y8i (2018, February 20). 私の家 (清家清自邸). Retrieved February 10, 2020, from 近代文化遺産見学案内所 : https://bunkaisan.exblog.jp/28149669

5. Mirutake (2005). An Interpretation on ‘My House’ by Seike Kiyoshi. Retrieved February 7, 2020, from Observing the Architecture: http://takekonbu.fc2web.com/2005/36seike/seike2-e.htm

6. Shimizu, R. (2018, June 19). 清家邸に見る住まいの原点. Modern Living. Retrieved February 14, 2020, from http://modernliving.jp/shimizu/shimizu_20180619

7. Tanazashi (2017, August 27). 日曜美術館「小さな家たちの冒険」私の家・清家清 Retrieved February 8, 2020, from チャンスはピンチだ。: https://blog.kenfru.xyz/entry/2017/08/27/日曜美術館「小さな家たちの冒険」私の家・清家清

8. Nakagawa, T. (2005). The Japanese House: In Space, Memory, and Language. Tokyo: International House of Japan.

9. Pollock, N. (2005). Modern Japanese House. London: Phaidon Press Limited.

10. Young, D., & Young, M. (2004). Introduction to Japanese Architecture. Hong Kong: Periplus Asian Architecture.

11. 文化遺産オンライン: 私の家 (清家清自邸) (n.d.). Retrieved February 10, 2020, from https://bunka.nii.ac.jp/heritages/detail/256755/1

12. @t8mono (n.d.). たてものきろく: 私の家 (清家清自邸). Retrieved February 10, 2020, from https://t8mono.net/bunkazai/11885

13. Housekeeper (2019, October 23). 住み継がれる日本の名作住宅26。その物語をひもとく。. Casa Brutus, Retrieved February 14, 2020, from https://casabrutus.com/architecture/119896/2

14. Fuji, M. (2018, July). The House of Prof. K Saito designed by Kiyoshi Seike. Retrieved February 7, 2020, from Zero Abundance: https://www.interactiongreen.com/the-house-of-prof-k-saito-designed-by-kiyoshi-seike

15. Stewart, D. B. (2015, December). Recognition and Delineation. Werk, Retrieved February 7, 2020, from https://www.wbw.ch/en/magazine/reports/original-texts/2015-12-recognition-and-delineation.html

16. 清家清 (n.d.). In Wikipedia. Retrieved February 10, 2020, from https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/清家清

17. Okazaki, T. (2015, February 9). Lessons from the Japanese Miracle: Building the Foundations for a New Growth Paradigm. nippon.com, Retrieved from https://www.nippon.com/en/in-depth/a04003/lessons-from-the-japanese-miracle-building-the-foundations-for-a-new-growth-paradigm.html

18. Pernice, R. (2006, November). The Transformation of Tokyo During the 1950s and Early 1960s Projects Between City Planning and Urban Utopia. JAABE, 5(2), 253 - 260. Retrieved from https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jaabe/5/2/5_2_253/_pdf

19. Minamata Disease. (n.d.). Boston University Sustainability, Retrieved from https://www.bu.edu/sustainability/minamata-disease

20. Harada, M. (1995). Minamata disease: methylmercury poisoning in Japan caused by environmental pollution. Critical Reviews in Toxicology, 25(1), Retrieved from https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.3109/10408449509089885

21. King, H. (n.d.). Andesite. In Geology.com. Retrieved April 8, 2020, from https://geology.com/rocks/andesite.shtml

22. Locher, M. (2012). Traditional Japanese Architecture: An Exploration of Elements and Forms. Tokyo: Tuttle Publishing.

23. Itoh, F. (1987, June). 諏訪地方における地域文化の地理学的考察. 新地理, 35(1), 29-40. Retrieved from https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/newgeo1952/35/1/35_1_29/_pdf/-char/ja

24. Seike, K. (1957, March). 私の家/清家清. 新建築, 32(3).

25. 建築 (II) (4th ed.). (2010). Tokyo: 雇用・能力開発機構.

26. OSAKA SEKIZAI. (n.d.). Retrieved April 11, 2020, from https://www.osaka-sekizai.co.jp/architecture/sekisyu/slate

27. 平塚市博物館 (n.d.). 平塚の街でみられる地球の歴史. Retrieved April 11, 2020, from平塚市博物館公式ページ: https://hirahaku.jp/web_yomimono/geomado/sekiz13.html

28. 藤森鉄平石. (n.d.). 鉄平石とは? . Retrieved April 11, 2020, from: http://www.teppei.jp/about/index.htm

29. Kouda, K. (2018, March 25). 戦後最初期モダン住宅の魅力 清家清自邸 . Retrieved April 11, 2020, from RCZ住宅: https://rczhome.info/2018/03/25/戦後最初期モダン住宅の魅力-清家清自邸

[This is my Final Paper submitted for "AR5957G Japanese Houses: Discourses and Works" module on 11 April 2020 for AY2019/2020 Semester 2. "AR5957G Japanese Houses: Discourses and Works" is offered by National University of Singapore (NUS) Department of Architecture (DoA) and is taught by Prof Tsuto Sakamoto.]

Labels: , , , ,

Seike Kiyoshi’s “My House”: Integration of interior and exterior to create practical space in a small house   © 文彬 2004~2024. All rights reserved.