106 Mugaain: Suburfun Singaynre

Suburban Singapore : Landscape ofChange

Domien MugovinDeportmenl of Londscape Architecture, Seoul Nstional UniversityI03 Seodun-dong, Kwonsun-gq Suwon 441-7tU, Soulh Korea, mugavin@snu,ac,kr

. lnternational Journal of Urban Sciences , 6(2), 2002, 1 06-1 I 7

. @ 2002lnstitute of Urban Sciences

This paper examines a suburban area in Singapore as an example of how that landscape has

undergone change. Using primary source documents, the findings suggest that a range of bothbiophysical and culfural factors influenced the patterns of change. The nature of the tenain, theregulation of settlement by the colonial government, the ever shifting economic context and emerging

ideas oi 'Garden City' are some of those factors. In the suburb examined, Siglap, a neo-English

housing estate and a kampong settlement co-exist for a period, but the suburban morphologyultimately supplants the kampong form.

lntroduction

This paper seels a clearer understanding of howand why the urbanised landscape of Singapore hasdeveloped. It does this by examining over time thelandscape of a particular locality in suburbanSingapore, the Siglap area. Through examining theprocesses and circumstances of the development ofthis small element of the city-state, an understandingis established of how that area evolved. It also pointsto wider aspects of the landscape of Singapore.

In many respects, contemporary Singapore

appears as a quintessential 'new world' city, wheremodernism and materialist ideology have been given

full force, both in terms of goals and outcomes.From this perspective, the Siglap area is arguablynot all that typical, having retained to this day some

semblance of older morphology, including roadalignments from the earliest period of colonialsettlement. On the other hand, as for much ofurban Singapore, it serves as a clear example of theprocesses of landscape change.

The concept examined in this paper is that livedurban landscapes are developed through cultural

[!i!i'LIt

ii

uus,6(2),2oo2 107

processes, as well as being influenced by biophysical(natural) processes. These processes can be bestunderstood through examining them over time andrelating them to emergent forms and influentialfactors. An understanding of these processes is seenas fundamental to ongoing landscape planning,particularly highlighting the imporiance of culturalprocesses. The influence is not necessarily 'cause

and effect' but rather that urban landscapes areencompassed by changing circumstances andideology, which can be read from the observedlandscape at particular points in time.

The primary source documents that give evidenceabout cultural and biophysical influences, for thissfudy, are maps and plans. Reference is also madeto evolving stafuiory regulatory controls. The clarityand quality of the figures included with this paperreflect their original condition, which is often verypoor, perhaps reflecting the use of poor qualitypaper, and variable storage conditions when theywere first produced.

Clearly, the maps and plans were conceived for avariety of purposes and can be seen asrepresentations of cultural values and economicpower, thus revealing ideological and politicalpurposes, as much as being representations of landresources. In this light, the maps and plans arecultural constructs and are open to a range ofinterpretations, arguably encompassingunderstandings that may not have been envisionedby the mapmaker. Reference is made below to thisaspect of the maps, although it is not intended asthe main focus of this paper.

The statutory regulatory controls may also beseen as representations of cultural values andeconomic power, reflecting ideological and politicalpurposes. They are also culfural constructs, open toa range of interpretations and understandings that

may not have been envisaged by the regulator, butagain, it is not fully explored in this paper.

Eoily settlement: cleor the lond

The pattern of development of the Europeansettlement of Singapore, from 1819, is evidenced indocuments from that era. As for many Britishcolonial towns, the initial directives of the authoritiesincluded clearing of land and the laying-out of streetsand reserved land.

The initial European settlement in Singapore waslocated near the mouth of the Singapore River, onthe mid-south coast of the island. A town layout wasfirst drawn up in 1822, by Lieutenant Jaclson, asdirected by Sir Stamford Raffles, Lieutenant-Governor of Bencoolen. This layout covered asomewhat limited torvnship area, adjoining theSingapore River. Yet by that time there were already24Urn of constructed roads in Singapore. Raffles'sinstructions included extensive levelling and filling ofestuarine marshes and the clearing of dense tropicalforest, commonly occurring in, respectively,Singapore' s coastal and inland areas. It isinteresting to note that, although Europeansettlement commenced in 1819, the land was notfinally ceded to the English East India Company until1824, by Their Highnesses the Sultan andTumungong of Johore.

The Jaclaon Plan extended over limited areas tothe north and south of the Singapore River but didnot include the occupied areas beyond, which hadalready extended to the Siglap area. The Jacksonplan was eflectively an idealised projection;implementation of the plan was at best very poorlyadministered, with many buildings and landoccupations ignoring its requirements. Registrationof land occupation was certainly inadequately

108 Mugouin : SuburLnn Singalnre

administered: by 7827 sufficient permits had been

issued io cover the whole island, nine times the

actual cleared area (Bristow, 7992, p 21.

In 1828, local orders were issued that, within the

town area, land occupied under leases or "tickets"

was required to be cleared of all vegetation, or

forfeiture would result, and indeed 277 lols were

resumed (Makepeace, 7927. p.304).

Outside the town area, clearing was also required,

after which holdings could be surveyed and leases of

15 years issued, which could later be converted to

999 gear leases. Many of these leases are still

current. Land clearance proceeded apace, allowing

nutmeg (1830-45), gambier (1830-55), and rubber

(1900-35) plantations, encouraged by both the

regulatory regimen and prof itable trade.Commencing in the 1830s plantations wereestablished as far to the east as Siglap Road. By

!849,Dr Robert Little owned the 450 acre Siglap

estate.

Each of the plantation crops was replaced in turn,

for environmental or financial reasons. Nutmegproduction was initially quite successful but tree

disease caused failure. Gambier processing required

firewood, which resulted in very extensive loss of

forest and ultimately, due to lack of fuel, the crop

was abandoned in favour of the more lucrative

rubber plantations. The latier required even larger

areas of land, which necessitated yet more clearing.

Arguably this was the iniiiation of a tradition in

Singapore- the razing of vegetation as an expression

of 'progress' , a practice that is still evident today.

By 1886, 85 percent of the land area of Singapore

had been cleared (Wee, 1986).

A land survey of the island was not carried out

until 1847-51, and even then, it was mainly forrevenue purlposes and did not necessarily show all

geographical features or cadastral boundaries.

Nonetheless, this survey is significant in representing

both biophysical and cultural aspects of Singapore at

that time. A copy of a dyeline print of part of one of

the survey maps, showing Siglap village and nearby

areas, is shown in Figure 1. [The quality ofreproduction of this map is poor. The map has been

enhanced through scanning and overwriting; theproblem is with the quality of the original dyeline

print.l

This map can be interpreted to identify some

biophysical aspects of the Siglap area and it is

discussed in more detail below. It is clear from this

map is that land clearance, for the establishment ofplantations, was an important aspect of theSingapore landscape at that time.

Lond subdivision

As well as land clearing, land subdivision was also

proceeding apace. A new Municipal Committee was

accorded powers in 1856 to lay out streets.

Extension of powers in 1887 included the laying out

and conskuction of streets and drains, street lighting

and new building controls. The Indian Act }O(VII of

1856 and an Ordinance of 1887, included byJaw

controls, similar to those pertaining to 'byJaw'

housing in England. Additionally, in 1894,dimensional and constructional requirements forboth new streets and buildings and the submission ofplans were instituted @ristow, 1992).ln effect, this

framework of conirols remained in place through iothe 1950s, without any prioritisation of land use or

open space planning, although some particular

areas were set aside as water catchment.

After the opening of the Suez Canal in 1869, and

the ensuing growth in port traffic, there was rapid

population growth, in setflements near to the port

aus,6(2),2002 109

{

t.,t;grrW

; ,.;r:, &,.t1:

(Figure 1) Revenue Map of paft of the lsland of Singapore, at Sigtap.Dated 1 Jan 184g. This Figure wasproduced by scanning and enhancing a dyeline print, which was in very poor condition.A search of official achieves in Singapore did not locate the original suruey map. Source: MapResource Centre, Geography Depaftment, National University of Singapore.

and the Singapore River. By 1907, Professor W.J.Simpson reported'overcrowding and insanitaryconditions and the need for alleviating the crampedconditions in congested areas' (Dale, 7999, p.20).The population was growing rapidly and there wasan acute need for dwellings within walking distanceo{ the port area.

Porollel plonning concepts

Simpson made proposals that parallel those of the

first planning legislation in England: prohibitingback-to-back housing, setting a minimum area foropen space on each lot, providing back lanes toexisting dwellings, preparation of plans for townextension, restricting the number of houses peracre, and apportioning open spaces.

Contemporaneous developments of planningconcepts in England were cited. Howard's (1902)Garden Cittes ot' Tomorrow, first published in1898 as Tomorrow: a peacet'ul Path to RealRet'orm, garnered influence throughout the English-speaking world. Raymond Unwin' s (7977) Town

110 Mugauin : SuburbanSingapore

Planning in Practice was first published in Londonin 1909, and as noted, legislation enacted in the

United Kingdom, the Housing and Tovsn PlanningAct of 1909. One of Unwin's themes, which mayhave struck a chord in Singapore at that time, was'nothing gained by overcrowding.' Singapore had a

chronic and increasing problem of overcrowding.KinS (1980) has argued that Briiish colonial cities,

such as Singapore, accepted the concept of English

town planning, by which a posited 'public good'

could be delivered.

In the United States, the Parks movement and the

City Beautiful movement had developed betweenthe 1870s and the 1890s, manifested in, forexample, Burnham's plan for Chicago, thetenement housing reform movement, and slum and

congestion reform. At the First National Conferenceon City Planning and the Problems of Congestion,in 1909, many argued that the 'cure' lay inredistributing both population and industry tooutlying areas (Christensen, 1986, p 39).

But in Singapore, while the legislative frameworkexpanded, actual living conditions continued todeteriorate. A Municipal Ordinance (Section 100)introduced in 1913 allowed formal powers toHousing Commissioners io prepare schemes forareas undergoing development, showing streets,back lanes, and open space, necessary to secureproper sanitary conditions, amenity and convenientconnection with the laying out of such land and any

neighbouring lands. Yet again the 1918 HousingCommission reported still deteriorating conditions(Bristow, 1992, p7). The 1927 census indicated a

population of 430 000, but by 7947 this reached

805 000 and by 1951, 1 100 000 (Frasea 1952).The built-up area began to expand rapidly, withsuburban expansion occurring along tram routesfrom 1905, and trolley-bus routes from 7929(Savage, 7992, p. 16). Beach bungalows and hotels

were also built, particularly along the east coast,

including at Siglap. At the same time, kampong'villages accommodated the majority of the ruralpopulation, including areas immediately adjoiningthe town area.

Furiher reforms proceed

A series of proposals for reform ensued, but afterseveral false starts, owing to a lack of basic maps ofSingapore and the rejection of zoning by theLegislative Council, the Singapore Improvement Bill

of 1927 was eventually adopted in 1930. Amongother matters, it required the SingaporeImprovement Trust (SIT) to prepare a GeneralImprovement Plan for the whole of the Island, forboth developed and undeveloped areas, andrequired submission of plans for development. Italso enabled the Trust to prepare schemes for roads,

open space and building setbacks. Effectively, thiswas the first time in Singapore that there was

control of subdivision: hence the disjointedmorphology of areas developed subsequent to theJackson (1827) plan.

The General Improvement Plan was prepared inthe Iorm of maps and an example area of that plan,

Siglap, is examined below. However,implementation was again a problem. In practice,plans were nothing beyond a recording of apatchwork of development, as and when it occunedon individual sites, rather than providing overallguidance (Bristow, 1992, p. 12). Additionally,existing zoning provisions remained with theMunicipal Ordinances of 1913, not the SIT.

Furthermore, such improvement schemes as wereundertaken, whereby back lanes were inserted at therear of back-to-back lots, were arguable counter-productive Veoh, 7992).

Further reform of land-use planning, delayedduring Japanese occupation, was further delayedand overtaken by elections for a new LegislativeCouncil in 1950. A limited bill passed in 1951required SIT to undertake a diagnostic survey of thewhole Colony and to prepare a master plan.Although completed in 1955, this plan, a statutorydocument, was not approved formally until 1958.This was to serve, for better or worse, through theperiod of the Labour Front government,preoccupied with self-government and politicalstability, and then the change to the Peoples ActionParty government in 1959, which abolished theCity Council and set up a Planning Departmentwithin the Prime Minister' s office.

The 1958 plan had strong references to theBritish legislation of 1949, particularly in terms ofdiscretionary planning powers regarding individualapplications, but at the same time, the effectivenationalization of development rights for individualproperty (Bristow, 1992, p. 28). The Master Planwas revised in 7965, with a major revision, to beknown as the Island Concept Plan,in7972.

It is against this background that the evolution ofthe use and development of the suburban land atSiglap can best be understood. The circumstancesand applicable controls, at each point in time, arereflected in the evolution of that area.

Siglop: on evolving londscope

The Siglap area is located on the east coast ofSingapore, about 10 km east of the ciry and theSingapore River. It is thus beyond walking distancefor port workers, and throughout the nineteenthcentury might be referred to as a rural area,although actually just within the town limih.

:JUS,6(2),2002 111

The name Siglap was derived from the Malayword 'Si-gelap' , dark place. The area was once soheavily forested that sunlight could not penetratethrough the thick canopy and the ground wasshrouded in darkness (Chou Loke Ming, 7977).Kampong Siglap was a small fishing village, on thecoast, located at what is now Jalan Sempadam.

The survey maps of 7847-57 (Fig. 1) shows twoconstructed tracks passing through the area,generally from east-southeast to west-northwest. Italso shows Siglap Road, winding north-south,connecting the other two. All three of these tracksaccord with the alignment of current roadways. Themap also shows areas of swamp, marked by dashes,

on the west side of Siglap Road and also near theword 'Lebar (Malay for low{and), extending south-east towards the coast. There is a small meanderingstream that emerges from the east end of iheswamp area, which crosses Siglap Road and thenturns south and extends to the coast, just to the east

of Siglap Village. The village is shown as a row ofsmall buildings along the coast road. There is oneother building near the village, numbered 26 or 28,which is thought to be a bungalow.

The boundary of Siglap plantation is shown bydash/dot lines; the plantation areas are markedSiglap, Riboirinhi, and Tillokura. It occupies landbounded by the unnamed coast road to the south,the east-west track to the north, and the dotdashline that follows the alignment of the stream,mentioned above. The plantation includes the villagearea.

While there is no legend on the dyeline copy,given the date of the map, it was likely to be agambier or coconut plantation.

So this map, while prepared for a differentpurpose, can be interpreted to identifu some of the

112 Mugouin : Suburfun Singapre

biophysical aspects of the Siglap landscape, at thattime. It indicates the nafure of the terrain (coastalswampland); the use of the land; the areas clearedfor plantations; the extent of swamp areas and thesmall meandering creek; and it shows the location ofthe coastline (high water mark?) as a dotted line.

The map also.depicts some cultural aspects ofSingapore at that time, corroborated by writtendocuments: the larger landholdings of theEuropeans, who own plantations but live elsewhere;the establishment of east-west tracks, one along theforeshore and another on the north side of theplantation, and Siglap Road joining these two; itshows the displacement of Malays into smallkampongs - Siglap Village. The Malays providedlabour for the plantation and relied on fishing forincome. The map also shows the rather informalarrangement of small land holdings along each sideof Siglap Road.

The map is also an expression of political powerin Singapore: large tracts are cleared and given overto the elite for further economic gain. By the sameprocess, forest vegetation is obliterated and coastalestuarine swamp destroyed. Seen in this light, anunderstanding of the social, ideological andbiophysical landscape begins to emerge.

Evolution of suburbon Siglop

The further transformation of Siglap is explainedhere in terms of changes to the landscape. It is anarea where suburban development has seeminglyinexorably taken over from the plantation andkampong landscapes, which were themselvespreceded by dense forest and coastal swamp. Theculfural landscape of suburbia eventually asserts themajor influence.

The evolution of Siglap is illustrated in an extracifrom the General Improvement Plan, mentionedabove, and dated 1933. Again the reproduction isof poor quality, and partial retracing has beennecessary Frg 2).

This map shows Siglap canal, in a straightalignment, installed to drain the swamps, apparentlyconstructed during the 7920s. To the west of thecanal there is a residential subdivision. This is notshown on Fig 2 due to the poor quality of theoriginal, but can just be discerned in the centre ofFig 4. Employing a modified rectilinear grid thataligns with the previously mentioned east-westroads, most lots are of the order of 6000 to 16000sq ft, (550 to 1500 sq m) and contain detachedhouses shown, but the map also shows rowallotments of around 1500 sq ft, 140 sq m, forexample in Joo Chiat Place, with back lanes andsemidetached housing. Although the research isincomplete, it is thought that the small lotdevelopment is similar to that of the 1890s, in thatit is laid out in the 'by{aw housing' form of thatera.

To the east of the canal, towards Siglap Road,which is retained but partly realigned, there is a veryinteresting 'double take' shown on the plan (Fig 2)It is a kampong, with an 'informal' layout of fencedenclosures, with one or more buildings within eachenclosure. The 'lots' are inegular in shape and thebuildings are not aligned with the boundaries. Theenclosures are arranged so as to form lanewaysbetween them, which occasionally widen out, insome instances forming open 'squares' . This layoutaffords privacy and access for each dwelling. It alsoallows adaptation to local feafures such as trees anddrainage. Community activities, such as small retailstalls and local religious or performance events arealso accommodated in the various public spaces.

rJUS,6(2),2002 113

'tr:,vr:-.-.

LEGEND

Fence-lines

Buildings: permanrnt; tempory

Street and Allotment boundary

(Figure 2) Parl of General lmprovement Plan: sheet 193-11. Dated 1933.

This plan shows an earlier kampong layout, overwhich is drawn a new 'garden-subu6 layout.

Source: National Archives of Singapore: microfilm NA 141 1 . Redrawn by the author.

E

114 lllugadn : Suburfun Singalnre

In a general sense, the kampong form, which was

once common in Singapore, was an adaptation by

immigrant workers to the colonial power strucfure

and economic deprivation, but it was also arguably

prompted by cultural values, religion in particular,

and also by the tropical climate.

On this plan, the kampong has been overdrawn

by a 'garden suburb' layout. Indeed, the Plan shows

both layouts simultaneously. The newer layout

regular shows allotments of 7000 to 9000 sq ft(650 to 835 sq m), facing lengths of linear sireet

reserves of uniform width, which form twoconcentric rectangles that are linked by two shorter

streets. The area within the inner rectangle is open

space. This layout was to become known as the

Frankel Fstate.

The rectilinear layout, including the generous

open 'square' , Greenfield Drive Park, has clear

relerences to Unwin' s ideas, as seen at Hampstead

Garden Suburb, but research into this aspect will not

be dealt with here. The subdivision layout appears

to date from the early1930s, with land tifles being

issued from l932.The stark contrast between with

ihe kampong layout is very apparent.

The new layout was to take some time toestablish. The map of 1933 shows just three

buildings that are aiigned to the new layout, hvo of

which are semidetached pairs, five dwellings in all.

Allthe other buildings shown on this plan belong to

(Figure 3) Malay houses in Kampong Siglap. (Chou Loke Ming, 1977, p 5)

the preceding kampong layoui. Later maps givereference to the kampong form, more than theoverwritten plan. There is a map (not reproducedhere owing to its poor quality) from the era ofJapanese occupation, dated 1943, that shows thekampong as dominant (National Archives ofSingapore, 1943). Another map of 1954 (Fig. 4)shows some of the Frankel estate, with incompletestreet layout, and what appears to be many of thekampong dwellings still in place. Indeed, there is

evidence of the kampong continuing in existence

uus,6(2),2ao2 115

through to the 1970s (Fig. 3).

The map of 1933 is clearly not intended as alandscape pian, but it does indicate how themodernist planning agenda proceeded, with scantregard for pre-existing biophysical and culturalpatierns: the swamp is drained by a concrete canal,vegetation is no longer evident. and the informallayout of the kampong is replaced by constructedstreets. Other major changes include the land fillingof the coastline: the former Siglap fishing village and

(Figure 4) Map of Singapore City. 10' to a mile. Marked 'survey Dept., Federation of Malaya 1954".Source: Resource Centre, Department of Geography, National University of Singapore.

Z

116 Mugouin: Suburbon Singclnre

East Coast Road, previously on the coast' are now

about 0.8 to 1 km inland.

The story of suburban developmeni in Singapore

nrnntgnt ui Siglap in many more *.uv: th,?n can be

;;;;;ilr;","tnn ftsnt to the suburbs bv the middle

d"*;-**sport "allowed;

the obsolescence o{

various piantition crops, such as gambier and

,rUUnt, as economic circumstances change;-the';;;;;";r" in indePendent SingaPore oI an

;;lffd* ;ffort to ,nho,te the population' initiallv

;il;"n"n .,ry dwellers but latterly rehousing virtually

;li-k;;;r"; residents; the {ocu.s on, drainage

*o;;";;;i which relates to health and saietv but

*ni.n ftut also depleted swamp and estuarine

nnuironrnnnts' All these matters can be seen as

influential factors.

Conclusion

The early pianmng of Singapore can be seen as a

series of circumstances thai has elicited much of the

f"rJ*.p"-"i today. The initial 'orderly' layout of

the town, the encouragement of land clearance and

,ut.nqrnnt land subdivision, were dominating

inf luences while regulatory regimes were

inianqrutn Subsequent rapid growth.of population

;;il;i ;;"t into outlving areas' including Sislap'

i;tth;t suburban development during the. firsi three

an.uant of the twentieth century resporrded in part

;;;;fu ideas of 'garden suburb'' but at the

*pnnt."of kampong settlements' site -responsive

foims and biophysical feaiures' -l'he bastc

,otpnofogv ani limitations of ihe modernist

Lndt.upn fersist in the Siglap area today'

Note

1 Kampong (also spelt -kgmguns 3r

Camnolgl.ll a

Malay term, generally denoiing a vernacutar

;i11";" whiili mav include areas for public

u.iirliiu., .rop, -d animals as well as dwellings

and other buildings. In Singapore' kampongs

;;;;;';""sed differentlv' according to. the

cultu.ral requirements of residents ethnlc

affiliaiion.

References

Bristow, Roger, 7gg2' The origins-ot' the-

iingopore Land-Use Planning Sysfem'

tUuninl*ur, University of Manchester Occasional

Paner Number 32.1992'Ch*-l"ktMing (ed')' 7977 ' A report on the-"iitiir:^"n 61 sislop singapore: Siglap

CommunitY Centre Youth GrouP'

Christensen, Carol A, 1986' The American

Garden City and the New Town Mouement'

Ann Arbor: UMI Press'

Outn, Otn Johan, 1999' lJrban Planning in--

Singopore: the transt'ormation oi a city'

Sela:ngor (Malaysia): Oxford University Press'

il6,'E C H,'7s;40. "singapore: T9y?. und

" -a;rthy " The Geographical Reuiew'V9l XXX

F;;;;'l;* es v, 1951 "Town Planning and- -

Housing in Singapore'" Town Planning Reuiew'

VolX)il.Harley, J.B, 1988' Maps, Knowledge^ and, Power'..1.' 'Co.stove, D and Daniels' S (Ed) The

lrr"riip,nv' of Landscape: Essays .o-n the

Symbitic- Representation, Design' and Use of

Past Enuironments' Meibourne: Cambridge

UniversitY Press.

Howard, Ebnnn n', l9O2' Garden cities ot' to-' -iirro*. London: Faber and Faber' [Reprint:

Eastbourne: Attic Books, 1985'l

K,; A. D,1980. Exporting planning: the colonial

rJUS,6e),2002 117

and neo-colonial experience. In: Cherry, G. E.(Ed) Shoping an Urban World: Planning in theTwentieth Century. London: Mansell.

Makepeace, W, Brooks, G E, and Braddell R StJ,7927. One hundred years of Singapore,Volume 1. London;John Munay.

National Archives of Singapore, Microfilm NA1410, Acc 408,7943

Savage, Victor R, 1992. Landscape Change: fromKampong to GlobalCi!. In: Gupta, A and Pitts,J (Eds) Physical Adjustments in a changinglandscape: the Singapore story. Singapore:Singapore University Press.

Unwin, Raymond, 1971 [Reprint]. Town Planningin Practice. New York: Benjamin Blom.

Wee, Y C, and Corlett, R, 1986. The City and theForest. Singapore: Singapore University Press.

Yeoh, Brenda S.A, 7992. "An illusion ofImprovement: the beginnings of Tovun Planningin Singapore." Architecture Journal,singapore:National University of Singapore.