THERMAL COMFORT HONEYCOMB HOUSING

PART 2
HONEYCOMB HOUSING

MAZLIN GHAZALI
 THERMAL COMFORT HONEYCOMB HOUSING

PART 2
Chapter 1
Honeycomb Housing
T he concept I have developed and
called Honeycomb Housing is a novel
1.1 and 1.2). All the houses face the garden
like friends sitting around a table. The houses
method of arranging multiple units of houses. shown are commonly called cluster houses,
In conventional schemes, houses are laid out but I prefer to call them quarter-detached
in rows as in the familiar, ubiquitous terraces, houses (quadruplexes) because there are
but in the Honeycomb layout the houses are four houses under one roof, with each one
Honeycomb housing placed in circular fashion around a central being a corner lot. Two of the houses face
is a novel method of space to form a small neighbourhood of the same courtyard; the other two face a
arranging multiple
units of houses. between 5 to 16 houses. different one.
The central spaces Can you see what
are linked to each we have done? We have
other and to the main transformed monotonous
distribution roads terrace houses with
by short small front
connecting yards into what
service appear to be
roads. The semi-detached
central space — a houses with generous
kind of open courtyard gardens. The real magic
Figure 1.1
Houses laid — consists of a cul- is that we can do all this at
out around a
central space de-sac looping around a no extra cost to the buyers.
to form a small
neighbourhood. communal garden (Figures The cul-de-sac

95
 honeycomb housing

Figure 1.2
All houses in the
neighbourhood face
a communal garden.

arrangement is, of course, not new. Neither

is the concept of quarter-detached houses.
However, when the quarter-detached
houses are arranged in a hexagon around
a central space with a cul-de-sac they
form a pleasant neighbourhood unit.
Moreover, the pattern can be expanded
to form a much larger neighbourhood Figure 1.3
made of interlocking units in the shape of In the quarter-
detached block, two
a Honeycomb (Figure 1.3 and 1.4). houses face one
courtyard; the other
The basic Honeycomb neighbourhood two face a different
courtyard.
resembles the cul-de-sac, but up to now
the cul-de-sac has been used as a special-
case arrangement for either small sites or
small parcels of land within a bigger site.
The Honeycomb housing concept can layout is not already well known. It is,
apply the basic cul-de-sac arrangement after all, based on a hexagonal grid and
to whole precincts as is shown in the site these are common in the fine structure of
layout (Figure 1.5). inorganic forms, for example those of gems
It is strange that such a housing and snowflakes (Figure 1.6). It is found, of

96
 1. honeycomb housing

Figure 1.4
The
neighbourhoods
can be arranged
in an interlocking
pattern.

Figure 1.5
A Honeycomb
Precinct

97
 honeycomb housing

course, in the bees’ honeycomb. On the

other hand there are few, if any, examples of
rectangular shapes in nature. This suggests
that polygonal forms other than the rectangle
are somehow more efficient. Nature is
efficiently organized. Without realizing it we
have imitated nature. We have discovered
a more efficient housing layout contrary to
the ‘common sense’ view of the industry that
Figure 1.6
nothing can be more efficient than terrace Snowflake
housing in rows.
This is borne out by a comparative
analysis of the terrace house layout versus
Honeycomb housing. We have found,
in case after case, that the Honeycomb
housing layout is the more efficient of the two
in terms of land-use. The Honeycomb layout
accommodates more housing units per acre
of land than the terrace house layout.
To architects and planners brought up
The Terrace House
with the T-square and Set-square, and now The demand for housing in the urban
hooked on computer grid-lines, this result areas of Malaysia has been increasing
appears startling. The use of terraces on tremendously in tandem with the country’s
an iron grid is generally taken to be the transformation from a feudal society to a
cheapest way of providing houses. If you modern one. According to the Population and
want cheapness, architects and developers Housing Census in 1980, between 1970 and
are saying, you must accept the common- 1980 410 000 people migrated from rural to
sense consequences, in particular the boring urban areas, especially the Klang Valley. By
barrack-like arrangement, requiring hills to 1991 some 51% of Malaysians lived in urban
be cut and streams to be filled. Economics, areas; this increased to 61% in 2000 and is
it seems, overrules the social, aesthetic expected to reach about 80% in 2020.
and environmental concerns. However, we At the same time a burgeoning middle
are happy to have found that in this case class and an industrial working class provided
common sense is quite wrong. more buying power to the rising urban
population.

98
 1. honeycomb housing

Figure 1.7
A typical terrace of
houses.

Since the 60s housing estates have

mushroomed all over the country. Sometimes
these housing developments have made up
whole townships like Petaling Jaya, Subang
Jaya and Shah Alam. The main building
type in all these developments is the terrace
house.
The Malaysian The Malaysian terrace house plan
terrace house plan
has been designed
has been designed and re-designed many
and re-designed times but always within the same restrictive
countless times.
framework. The typical lot varies from 16’ x
50’ to 24’ x 100’, but the most common lots
now are between 20’ x 65’ and 22’ x 70’.
Figures 1.7 and 1.8 show typical double

Figure 1.8 storey terrace houses and the layout of such

A typical terrace
house layout. houses; Figures 1.9 and 1.10 show typical

99
 honeycomb housing
interior plans. All terrace house designs are
variations of these themes.
In the typical housing estate, the
terrace houses are placed along grid-lines
with 40’ service roads in front and narrower
back lanes and side lanes. Communal
areas for schools and civic and religious
buildings, as well as open areas for
children’s playgrounds and parks, are also
included.
Despite the provision of such an
infrastructure, the design of many housing
estates does not conform to the practical
needs of the average resident. Among the
drawbacks of terrace housing is the lack of
public security and of a genuine sense of
100
Figure 1.9 (left)
Ground Floor Plan
Figure 1.10 (right)
First Floor Plan
— All terrace
house designs are
variations of this
theme.
community. In some newer developments
these shortcomings have been addressed
by providing more ‘organic’ layouts
with open green spaces nearer to each
house.
An example is a development at Bukit
Jelutong in Shah Alam, Selangor (Figure
1.11) . Another response is to establish
communal spaces between the terrace
house blocks as in another development
in Selangor (Figure 1.12).
However, these two examples are high
priced developments. In the first case the
upgrading of the layout has resulted in
lower density and this extra cost is paid
for by the consumer.
 1. honeycomb housing

In the second case, the house purchaser

does not receive a simple land title, but
ends up with a group or strata-title, where
several residents share ownership of and
responsibility for a bigger piece of land.
Whatever the drawbacks of the ordinary
rows of terrace houses, they remain the
most common form of landed property
development in Malaysia. Indeed for many
people a terrace house is their dream
home. As land becomes scarcer and more
Figure 1.11 expensive, the price of terrace houses
Low density terrace
house layout with becomes higher and higher. Many people
a loose ‘organic’
plan form at Bukit can now only afford flats or apartments. This
Jelutong, Shah
Alam, Selangor. is a pity.

Figure 1.12
High density
clustered terrace
houses where
communal spaces
are created between
blocks in Desa
Park, Petaling Jaya,
Selangor.

101
 honeycomb housing

Figure 1.13
Arlington
Row, Bibury,
Gloucestershire in
England, built in
the 16th century for
farm workers, was
probably the first
such terrace.

Terrace houses have a long and
successful history. The first of them can be
found in Bibury, Gloucestershire, England.
Arlington Row, shown in Figure 1.13, was
built in the 16th century for farm workers. At
that time it must have been a dream home
for them. Still standing now, Arlington Row
looks prettier than many terrace houses
we have built for highly-paid middle class
families five centuries later in Malaysia.
The terrace house may have reached an
evolutionary dead-end.
Shortcomings of Terrace
Housing
Let us now look at the sociological,
aesthetic and environmental problems of the
typical terrace house layout.
While terrace housing has advantages
in respect of cost and efficiency of land use, The terrace house
social features suffer. In a terrace housing has reached an
evolutionary dead-
estate, the road is the public space that fronts end after five
each house and it is designed for the car centuries.
rather than the pedestrian, rendering it less
suitable for social interaction and unsuitable
as a play area for smaller children. The road
is also a public domain, accessible not only
to the residents and their guests, but also to
uninvited strangers and potential criminals.

102
 1. honeycomb housing
The longer and the more interconnected
the roads, inviting faster traffic and intruders,
the more unsafe is the public space just
outside each house. There may be public
amenities like playgrounds and green areas
in the housing estate, but they may be streets
away, unsuitable for the smaller children to
go to on their own, and being public areas,
subject to vandalism and neglect.
Terrace housing may Social and human factors play the
have advatanges in
cost and efficiency
major role in creating good neighbourhoods
of land use but social but housing design can also play a part,
features suffer.
contributing to social cohesion if it is good,
but to social dysfunction if it is poor. Let us
turn to studies that relate to three issues:
• The influence of the built environment on
the level of social interaction.
• The design features of housing that can
reduce the incidence of crime.
• The role of the environment outside the
home and its effect on the pre-school child.
The Influence of the Built
Environment on the Level of
Social Interaction
Why should the terrace house estate
lack a ‘genuine sense of community’ despite
the provision of communal facilities like a
surau, a multi-purpose hall, playground
equipment, etc.? Certainly, the new migrants
to the urban areas in Malaysia generally
miss the sense of neighbourhood found
in the kampongs and small towns they
come from. The cartoonist Lat has been
so celebrated partly because he taps into
this sense of loss shared by many of his
countrymen.
To answer this question, we can refer to
the work of Jan Gehl who wrote ‘Life between
Buildings’ in 1971. Gehl distinguishes
between necessary, optional and social
activities in public spaces. By necessary
activities he means those that are more
or less compulsory — going to school or
to work, shopping, waiting for a bus or a
person, running errands — in other words,
all activities in which those involved are
to a greater or lesser degree required to
participate. Optional activities happen where
there is a wish to do something and time and
place make it possible. This category includes
such activities as window shopping, taking a
walk to get a breath of fresh air, jogging, or
just sitting around.
While necessary activities take place
regardless of the quality of the physical
environment, optional activities depend to
a significant degree on what the place has
to offer and how it makes people behave
and feel about it. The better a place, the
more optional activity occurs and the longer
necessary activity lasts.
Social activities depend on the quality
and length of the other types of activities,
because they occur spontaneously when
people meet in a particular place. Social
activities include children’s play, greetings
and conversations, communal activities
of various kinds, and simply seeing and
hearing other people.
103
 honeycomb housing
Communal spaces in cities and residential
areas become meaningful and attractive when
all activities of all types occur in combination
and feed off each other. In streets and city
spaces of poor quality, only the bare minimum
of activity takes place. People hurry home.
In a good environment, according to Gehl,
a completely different, broad spectrum of
human activities is possible.
In the early days of urbanization, the
streets laid out in terraces were full of people
going about their business. People walked the
streets to get around regardless of the quality
of the external space. Optional activities
grew out of this crowd of people, and streets
became a social as well as a functional arena.
As people go about their business, they can
hardly avoid contact with other people; out of
this most basic type of social interaction would
grow a sense of neighbourhood. Today’s
streets in the typical terrace house situation
reveal a distinctly different pattern. Society
has become much more dependent on the
car. There is no need to walk the streets,
transit is mainly by car. In the car there is less
need or opportunity to socialize. Moreover,
the noise and fumes from vehicles speeding
past make the streets less pleasant to use.
People hurry through them, if they venture
out at all, and the street becomes a social
void. The terrace house layout, which once
worked adequately, and was providing streets
that served as social arenas no longer does
so in this motorized age.
104
Crime Social Economy Domestic Unemployment
and and Politics Education
Public
Safety
Moral
Problems
Figure 1.14
A national survey
dertermined crime
was the biggest
worry.
The Design Features of Housing
That Can Reduce the Incidence
of Crime
The issue of public security in residential
areas was a hot topic in July 2004. In a
national survey conducted by Merdeka
Centre and Ikmas (Institute of Malaysian and
International Studies), 42% of Malaysians
surveyed at that time said crime was their
biggest worry. Crime is no doubt mainly
linked to social factors (Figure 1.14), but
there is a body of work that has found clear
links between crime and the environment
where crimes happen. This is the ‘Defensible
Space’ concept which evolved some 40
years ago when American architect Oscar
 1. honeycomb housing

Newman was witness to the terminal decline

of the newly constructed, 3000-unit, public
housing high-rise development, Pruitt-
Igoe. The project was designed by eminent
architects and was hailed as a shining
example of Modern Architecture, following
the planning principles of Le Corbusier
(Figure 1.15). Residents were raised into

the air in eleven-story buildings so as to

keep the grounds and the first floor free for
community activity. The buildings were given
communal corridors on every third floor to
house rooms for laundry, storage, garbage,
Figure 1.15 and communal activities.
Pruitt Igoe was
hailed as a shining Newman saw how the design proved a
example of Modern
Architecture. disaster. The common areas, which were

Figure 1.16
Pruitt Igoe, a
3000 unit public
housing high-rise
development, was
demolished only
10 years after its
construction, owing
to social problems.

105
 honeycomb housing
dissociated from all units, were unsafe.
They were soon covered with glass and
garbage. The mailboxes on the ground floor
were vandalized. The corridors, lobbies,
elevators, and stairs were dangerous places
to walk through, and were covered in graffiti
and littered with garbage and human waste.
The elevators, laundries, and community
rooms were vandalized, and garbage
was stacked high around the non-working
garbage chutes. Women had to get together
in groups to take their children to school or
go shopping. The project was torn down
some ten years after its construction (Figure
1.16).
Across the street from Pruitt-Igoe was
Carr Square Village, an older, smaller, row-
house complex occupied by an essentially
identical population. It remained fully
occupied and trouble-free throughout
the construction, occupancy, and decline
of Pruitt-Igoe. With the social variables
constant in the two developments, what,
Newman asked himself, was the significance
of the physical differences that had enabled
one to survive while the other fell apart?
Walking through Pruitt-Igoe when crime
and vandalism were pervasive, he could
only wonder: What kind of people live here?
However, within the development there were
occasional pockets that were clean, safe,
and well-tended. These were found where
only two families shared a landing. If one
could get oneself invited into an apartment,
one found it well maintained — furnished
106
modestly perhaps, but with great pride.
Why was there such a difference between
the interior of the apartment and the public
spaces outside it? From this and other
examples of contrasting situations, Newman
concluded that residents maintained, Newman concluded
controlled, and identified with those areas
that residents
maintained,
that were clearly demarcated as their own. controlled and
Landings shared by only two families were identified with those
areas that were
well maintained, whereas corridors shared clearly demarcated
by 20 families, and lobbies, elevators, as their own.
and stairs shared by 150 families were
disasters — they evoked no feelings of
identity or control. Such anonymous public
spaces made it impossible for residents to
develop an accord on what was acceptable
behaviour in these areas, impossible for
them to experience or exert proprietary
feelings, impossible to tell resident from
intruder.
Oscar Newman looked at these
questions in his book, Defensible Space
in 1972, and said that the key was to make
residents become the critical agents in their
own security.
Newman believed that firstly, design
should propagate ‘natural surveillance’,
generating opportunities for people to see
and be seen continuously. Knowing that they
are, or could be, watched makes residents
feel less anxious, leads them to use an area
more and deters criminals by making them
fear being identified and caught.
Secondly, people must not only watch
but also be willing to intervene or report
 1. honeycomb housing

crime when it occurs. Newman proposed Newman considered man as a territorial

reducing anonymity and increasing territorial
feelings by dividing larger spaces into zones
of influence. This can be accomplished
on a small scale by clustering a few
apartments around a common entrance.
On a larger scale individual yards or areas
can be demarcated by having paths and
recreational areas focus around a small
set of apartment units, or by having each
Newman also building entry serve only a limited number of
concluded that rates
of crime, vandalism apartments. Thus he envisaged the architect
and turnover were creating in residential areas an intricate
lower in places
that conformed to hierarchy of public, semi-public, semi-private
the principles of and private domains, as illustrated in Figure
defensible space.
1.17.
being, as a being that needs territory as
he needs water, in order to be able to live
a satisfactory life. He posited that man is
not basically criminal — preferring social
cohesiveness to anarchy, social harmony
to tension. Providing surveillance over
defensible spaces allows man to be in his
natural state, surveying and defending his
domain.
Newman and his followers tested these
ideas by studying housing developments
in cities across the USA, from New York to
San Francisco, and concluded that rates of
crime, vandalism and turnover were lower
in places that conformed to the principles of

Figure 1.17
Oscar Newman in
Defensible Space
argued for design
strategies to change
the public spaces
around homes from
‘no man’s land’ into
‘shared’ spaces.

107
 honeycomb housing
defensible space. In a variety of large and
small cities, housing projects and urban
neighbourhoods have been redesigned in
accord with defensible space principles.
While the results have not been consistent,
reductions in crime and fear and increases
in a sense of community have been found
in several places. The concept of Defensible
Space enabled residents to take back
control of their neighbourhoods and reduce
crime.
The problem with the typical terrace
house situation is that the street outside
the gate is considered ‘no man’s land’.
Residents of terrace houses have no control
over the space just outside their homes,
over the people who use it or what they
do — similarly with the green spaces, the
social amenities provided by the developer
or government. There is no sense of
ownership, and they therefore fall victim
to neglect and vandalism. Using Oscar
Newman’s analysis it is understandable
why, but also it is possible to think of how
to overcome this problem.
The Role of the Environment
outside the Home and Its Effect
on the Pre-School Child
The protagonist in the best of Lat’s
cartoons is the pre-school child, named,
well, Lat. His experience of growing up in his
village community with family and childhood
friends is by no means unique. Many fellow
Malaysians of my generation have similar
memories. Lat’s cartoons strike a common
108
chord, and these childhood memories
are in sharp contrast to the experience of
small children in the present day. They are
cosseted in their homes, ferried around
to kindergarten, to music classes, and to
playgrounds to play with friends, all under
the close supervision of the parents or a
maid. Play outside on the streets? Never!
It’s too dangerous! A lecturer in my university
when I was an undergraduate student in
Cardiff, Wales had an interesting insight.
Charles Mercer in his book Living
in Cities (1975), cited the work of Lee
Rainwater (1966) and John and Elizabeth
Newson (1968) and proposed that play is
an important aid to learning for the child; Mercer believes
growing up can be seen as a process, that the opportunity
for exploring a new
where the child becomes more and more environment is best
independent of the parents, exploring presented in small,
discrete steps.
first the spaces around the mother and
progressing to other rooms in the house,
the front yard, and beyond. Mercer believes
that the opportunity for exploring a new
environment is best presented in small,
discrete steps so that children can explore
them at their own pace (Figure 1.18).
The problem with the typical situation
in urban Malaysia is that the process of
exploring new territory independent of
the parents stops at the front gate. It is
not considered safe beyond that. When
the child is finally old enough to go out
unaccompanied by an adult the transition is
too big and he is disadvantaged as compared
to a child that was able to explore bit by bit
the neighbourhood around the home.
 1. honeycomb housing

Figure 1.18
We must design
safe playing areas
outside the house
that are free from
traffic hazard and
crime, and are
suitable for our
children of pre-
school and early
school age.

Spaces outside the This suggests that the spaces outside
home should be the home should be made favourable to the
made favourable
to the growing-up growing-up process. They should be safe
process. for smaller children with ample facilities for
play. Football fields several minutes away
from the home do not serve this function.
The ideas from these areas of study
reinforce each other very well and can be
incorporated in a diagram (Figure 1.19)
developed from Oscar Newman’s Figure
1.17 . The semi-private and semi-public
spaces are shown in green, signifying play
areas safe for small children.
It is possible to design child-friendly
terrace housing. However, whenever
attempts are made to modify the road
network to create more exclusive, semi-
private zones friendly to children and
pedestrians, for instance by incorporating
looping roads or culs-de-sac, or by placing
green spaces in front of each house, the
efficiency of land use is reduced.
This increases the cost of the development
and renders it either unaffordable to the
public or commercially unfeasible.
So the welfare of children ends up being
sacrificed for economics.
Similarly, where cost is a priority, as it is
most of the time, the aesthetic features of
the row housing suffer, because efficiency of
land use has the following requirements:-
• rectangular plots of land
• narrow frontages, the narrower the better.
• regular façade lines, the straighter the
better.
109
 honeycomb housing

The more irregular the shape of
housing units, the wider their frontage,
the more articulated the façade, the more
expensive the development becomes.
The long block of terrace houses does
not fit well on naturally sloping or undulating
sites. It is cheaper to decapitate hills, and fill
valleys and streams to provide relatively flat
platforms for them. Rev up the bulldozer!
Earthworks are cheaper than the extra
construction cost of building a row of terrace
houses on different levels. The economic
need for level land is a particularly grave
disadvantage of terrace housing. The
natural terrain and environment of hills and
valleys are flattened and natural streams
are replaced with concrete drains. Every
tree, every natural feature of the landscape
and every blade of grass is sacrificed for
economics.
The technical challenge, therefore,
is to invent a novel method of planning
repetitive housing, resulting in new types of
housing units and layout that can overcome
the social, aesthetic and environmental The technical
challenge in
shortcomings of row housing, but which planning repetitive
meet the test of commercial viability, in housing lies in
the need to solve
keeping down the cost of land, infrastructure social, aesthetic
and earthworks, and rendering the new and environmental
problems, while
types of houses affordable. In particular still controlling
the challenge is to find a viable alternative costs and achieving
affordability.
to the terrace house as the most cost-
efficient building type for landed property
development. These are the technical and
economic challenges facing Honeycomb
Housing.

Figure 1.19
The housing
layout comprises
a hierarchy of
public, semi-public,
semi private and
private spaces.
It is intended to
give residents a
sense of ownership
of communal
spaces, reduce
the dominance of
vehicle traffic in the
residential areas,
and provide green
spaces where they
are most wanted, in
front of houses.

110
 THERMAL COMFORT HONEYCOMB HOUSING

Chapter 2
The Basic Concept of Honeycomb Housing

H oneycomb housing is the product

of a new way of designing town plan
Tessellation Method layouts. I call it the ‘tessellation’ method of
of Design design.
In mathematics the meaning of the
word ‘tessellate’ is to cover a plane with a
pattern having no gaps and no overlapping.
When tiles are fitted together to fill a flat
area, this is tessellation. The tiles can be
square or of other shapes so long as the
mathematical rules are satisfied.
The commonly existing plan, with
individual housing units repeated to form
blocks, and the blocks repeated to form
rows of blocks could be described as
a tessellation on a rectangular pattern
(although that is not how those familiar
with the art look at it). Houses, be they
terraces, semi-Ds or bungalows, are built
on rectangular plots of land.

Figure 2.1
Three types of
regular tessellation.

111
 honeycomb housing

However tessellating rectangles are but

a small subset of all possible tessellations.
Figures 2.1 and 2.2 show some basic types

of tessellation.
Tessellations of just a few basic tile
designs can result in complex and beautiful
patterns. Figure 2.3 illustrates an Islamic tile
pattern. This tessellation can mesmerize us Figure 2.2
with the effect of its complicated overlayed Simple examples
of irregular
patterns, but the complexity is achieved by tessellation.

assembling just one type of square tile with

the same decorative pattern (Figure 2.4).
Such is the creative power of tessellation.
Now imagine the tessellation concept
applied to town planning and the design
of housing layouts. Using this method,
the patterns on each tile are not mere
decorations. The coloured areas on the
tile represent actual land, roads, houses,
gardens, communal green areas, or any
other feature to be designed. In this way a
method used to generate pure art forms, is
used to create functional architecture.
The range of tile designs used in
tessellation planning and shown in this book
is rather limited, with emphasis on hexagonal
units, partly to make it easier for the reader
to grasp this new concept. However, were
the reader to survey the range of tile designs
produced throughout history, in the crafts,
in mathematics and in art, he would marvel
at the range of possibilities. The work of
the Dutch artist, Escher, is a good place to
start (Figure 2.5). As for mathematicians, try
Kepler (Figure 2.6).
Yet, it is very strange that, to our best
112
knowledge, the concept of tessellation has
never been applied to the field of town
planning, or to help in the measurement
and subdivision of land, an activity which
has been going on everywhere since early
civilization. Indeed the word geometry,
derived from Greek, literally means ‘earth
measurement’, so it is appropriate that
tessellation, a geometrical concept, should
now be applied to the arrangement of
houses on land!
The simple tessellation of regular The Hexagon
hexagons provides an excellent shape for a
basic neighbourhood. In the example shown
in Figure 2.7, it comprises several housing
units clustered around a looping cul-de-sac
and communal garden.
 2. the basic concept of honeycomb housing

Figure 2.3
Islamic (Moorish)
Tile Pattern

Figure 2.4
The seemingly
complex pattern in
Figure 2.3 is achieved
by tessellating a
single basic tile
design.

113
 honeycomb housing

Figure 2.5 (left)

An example of
tessellation by
Escher.

Figure 2.6 (right)

Another example by
Kepler.

Figure 2.7
A hexagonal
neighbourhood
tile comprising
housing units, roads
and green areas,
tesselated from a
single tile.

114
 2. the basic concept of honeycomb housing

The polygon that contains this basic
neighbourhood arrangement is then
tessellated. This process creates a jigsaw
pattern consisting of lots containing the
houses as well as the roads and public
spaces. The result is a housing layout
(Figure 2.8) that is completely different from
• The shape of the individual housing
lots, the relationship between adjoining
housing lots and the potential for
linkages between them.
• The complex arrangement made up of
only two basic triangular tile patterns.

row housing in the following respects:-

• The shape and arrangement of the
external spaces between the housing
units, including the distribution of the
public spaces and the network of
roads.

Figure 2.8
The basic
neighbourhood
tile is tessellated to
form the layout of a
housing precinct.

115
 THERMAL COMFORT HONEYCOMB HOUSING

Chapter 3
The External Spaces

T his chapter deals with the shape

and arrangement of the spaces between
the housing units, the distribution of public
spaces and the pattern of the network of
roads.
Hierarchical The external spaces created by the
Structure of Public tessellation design method can be described
Spaces
in terms of quality and quantity. Let me first
The central courtyards, culs-de-sac
and connecting roads, join together to form
a hierarchical structure of public spaces
and roads. The hierarchical structure of the
roads can be described as follows:
In the example of the tessellated layout
given in the preceding chapter (Figure
2.8), the distribution road is the busy main

describe the road network from a qualitative road. The network of roads below this level
aspect. consists of short stretches of connecting
roads, roundabouts and culs-de-sac; these
The Road Network features slow the speed of traffic, in contrast
with existing road patterns that arise from
Distribution Road
row housing.
In fact the higher the level of hierarchy,
Service Road
the larger the volume of traffic, and the greater
the priority given to the car. Lower down
Roundabout
the hierarchy the rights of the pedestrian
become predominant.
Service Road Service Road We can also look at the road network
as a structured hierarchy determined by
Cul-de-sac Cul-de-sac levels of accessibility. The more accessible

117
 honeycomb housing
a place, the more public it is and, conversely,
the less accessible the place, the more
private it becomes. This structured hierarchy
of public, semi-public and semi-private
zones is an important feature achieved by
tessellation planning.
This is the type of environment that can
create ‘defensible spaces’ as conceived by
Oscar Newman (1972), discussed in my
Chapter 1 and illustrated in Figures 1.17
and 1.19.
The Green Areas and Public
Amenities
This structured hierarchy is further
emphasized by the distribution of green
areas and public amenities such as places
of worship,kindergartens, community halls,
etc.
At the base of the hierarchy, just
outside the front door of the house, is the
front yard. This area, although belonging
to the house owner, is nevertheless semi-
private in nature because it is not visually
shielded from neighbours. Residents going
about their routine in their front yards can
see and be seen by the neighbours. Thus
the front yard is a good platform for social
interaction.
The Courtyard
Next up in the hierarchy is the open
courtyard: a single road enters it and loops
around the central garden. The courtyard
is 112 feet (34 metres) across, which size
is on the scale Jan Gehl (1971) thought
118
suitable for human interaction. Within
100 feet (30metres) the eye can discern
the facial features of people one meets
infrequently and within 60 – 80 feet (20-25
metres) most people can perceive relatively
clearly the feelings and moods of others.
The size of the courtyard is therefore
appropriate for a semi-public area. Friends
will be greeted, strangers queried. This will Size of Courtyards
discourage petty criminals. The central
gardens are between 2000 and 3000
square feet (200 to 300 square metres),
large enough for high trees and benches
or simple playground equipment. Medium-
sized trees could be planted along the culs-
de-sac, just outside the front boundaries of
the houses (Figure 3.1).
When the trees in the courtyard have
grown to medium height they will be
shading the area and modifying the micro
climate, making it more suitable for human
recreational use.
In sharp contrast to conventional row
housing, the tessellated layouts make it
possible to provide communal gardens in
front of every house economically. Through
traffic is eliminated; cars are forced to
slow down: the culs-de-sac becomes safe Communal Gardens
for smaller pre-school children. Thus, it is
possible to provide such children with the
opportunity to play safely just outside their
homes, within the relatively distant visual
surveillance of their parents. Such an
arrangement, according to Charles Mercer
(1975), makes for a better growing-up
environment.
 3. the external spaces

Figure 3.1
The central
courtyard in
a Honeycomb
neighbourhood.

119
 honeycomb housing
Next up the hierarchy are the public
amenities like the surau, community hall,
kindergarten, or the public parks that serve
the larger neighbourhood. With conventional
row housing, it is only at this level of the
hierarchy that the public amenities and
green area start to be provided. As we
have seen, this is insufficient to foster good
neighbourhoods, where the communal
amenities are required at a lower level of the
hierarchy. As has been shown, it is possible
to achieve this with tessellation housing.
Of course it is also possible to achieve
the characteristics of a good neighbourhood;
in the sense that Gehl, Newman and
Mercer variously advocate, by adapting
conventional methods of designing row
housing. But the more irregular, the more
120
organic the plan, the less efficient the layout
becomes in terms of land usage.
The Road Network and
Land-Use Efficiency
The economic efficiency of a road network
in a housing scheme can be assessed by
determining the ratio of the total area of roads
to the total area of the development.
In this way, a theoretical site with a
tessellation layout is compared with one of
terrace houses on a site of similar area. The
layouts of both schemes are according to
their respectively most efficient forms, the
row housing being laid out in an iron grid, the
tessellated housing forming a hexagon. A
table of comparison is given on the following
page.
Figure 3.2
An example of
an ‘efficient’
theoretical terrace
house layout.
 3. the external spaces

Figure 3.3
An example of
a theoretical
Honeycomb layout.

Figure 3.2 shows the conventional
terrace house layout and Figure 3.3 the
tessellated Honeycomb layout.
The results may be summarized as
follows:
The land-use efficiency is greatly
increased. The number of units in each
layout is the same but the tessellated layout
produces an increase in average lot size of
30 per cent.
These results must appear startling to
architects and town planners, who have
assumed for so long that terraces are the
most efficient form of layout for repetitive
housing in terms of density (units per
acre).
It is also instructive to look at and study
the layout of a single neighbourhood of 16
units, then in more detail 5 of the units.
121
 honeycomb housing

Figure 3.4 (left)

16 Units of
Quadruplexes and
Duplexes

Figure 3.5 (right)

16 Terrace Houses

Figure 3.6 (left)

5 Units of
Quadruplexes and
Duplexes

Figure 3.7 (right)

5 Terrace Houses

122
 3. the external spaces
The basic neighbourhood comprising
16 units of quadruplexes and 4 duplexes* is
compared with a terrace house arrangement
of an equivalent 16 terrace houses (Figures
3.4 and 3.5). The ratio of the areas of the
roads to the green spaces, is determined. It
is demonstrated in the table above that the
Honeycomb layout makes more efficient use
of land.
Result : Honeycomb housing uses
less area for roads (23% of the total) than
does terrace housing (35%). The land saved
is distributed to give each house a larger
garden. The area for houses and their
garden is 70% of the total, up from 58 per
cent.
Looking in closer detail, by making a
5-unit comparison (Figures 3.6 and 3.7), it
is again clear that the Honeycomb layout
is more efficient with less land occupied
by roads and more land for houses and
gardens.
Result: Honeycomb housing uses 15%
less road area than terrace housing and
the land saved is used to provide a larger
garden for each house. This also increases
the saleable house land from 52% to 67 per
cent.
Why is Honeycomb Housing
More Land-Efficient?
The Honeycomb In a conventional housing layout, a
layout makes more
efficient use of land.
cul-de-sac is a special case of a row of
houses (Figure 3.8). It is more efficient
* On duplexes, see page 129.
than row housing with through roads, but
the advantage is slight (in that very little
road space is saved) and is offset by the
inconvenience caused to drivers who enter
the dead end by mistake and have to turn
out again.
This service road can be reduced by
shortening it. However, this results in an
uneven distribution of land area and shapes
that are unsuitable for linked houses, as is
found in existing cul-de-sac developments.
The odd-shaped lots are not considered
desirable (Figure 3.9), and accordingly, such
developments are comparatively rare.
An even distribution of land area and
shape is achievable by having the cul-de-sac
serve a circular piece of land (Figure 3.10).
This is an efficient subdivision with access
provided to each residential lot. However, a
circle does not tessellate (Figure 3.11). As
can be seen, a lot of space is wasted since
the circles only touch at a point.
A better alternative is, of course, the
hexagon. The shape provides both an even
distribution of land area and uniform shapes.
Furthermore, the hexagon can tessellate.
Compared with a neighbourhood
(served by a cul-de-sac) which has the
shape of a rectangle or square, a hexagonal
one, being closer in shape to the circle, is
more efficient.
When the design of the basic
neighbourhood incorporates the most
economical road access pattern, that is
the cul-de-sac, and when this pattern is
123
 honeycomb housing

Figure 3.8 (left)

Cul-de-sac at the
end of a row of
houses.

Figure 3.9 (right)

A shortened cul-
de-sac creates
undesirable and
uneven lot shapes.

Figure 3.10 (left)

A more even
distribution of lots
is achieved by a cul-
de-sac in a circular
lot.

Figure 3.11 (right)

Circles do not
tessellate, so there
are gaps.

repeated, the result is a housing layout as the iron grid can be modified to fit given
where the ratio of the area of roads to the site conditions, and to achieve improved
total development area is quite low. This effects (but at a cost) so can the basic form
results in high land-use efficiency. In the of tessellation housing.
above case study on p.106 of a theoretical Indeed, using the tessellation method of
development, terrace housing uses 47% planning, but with different tile designs and
of the land for roads against only 33% for modified procedures a variety of forms may
Honeycomb housing. This has great appeal be generated.
to developers since they can only sell land
and gardens: they don’t sell roads.
It is worth reminding the reader that
the comparisons made above are between
the properties of two generic designs.
Honeycomb housing in its most efficient
form is compared with row housing in its
most efficient form, i.e. on an iron grid. Just

124
THERMAL COMFORT HONEYCOMB HOUSING
Chapter 4
The Housing Units
H aving looked at the external spaces
comprising road and green areas, let us now
look at the individual housing units and the lots
they sit on.
This chapter describes the shape of the
individual lots, the relationship between adjoining
lots and the potential for linkages between them
and between the housing units.
Shape
The shape and dimensions of a housing
lot evidently influence the design of the
building erected on it. The characteristics of
the generic forms of buildings on Honeycomb
residential lots, shaped like chopped-off
triangles, will necessarily be different
from those of conventional housing on
rectangular lots. In particular the generic
house types exhibited in Figure 4.1 relate to
a quadrilateral with the shortest side facing
the central courtyard and the longest side
at the back.
To maximize usage of such land, the
buildings must also follow or approximate to
the funnel shape of the sites. The geometry
of the most efficient building form on such
a site contrasts with that on a rectangular
site.
The differences can be illustrated. A
typical bungalow lot of 6000 sq ft (558 sq
m) in a conventional layout is compared
with a typical bungalow lot of the same size
in a Honeycomb layout. Both typical lots
are subjected to the current Malaysian 10
feet setback requirement, which determines
the maximum footprint allowable. These
footprints or plinths are compared in Figures
4.1 and 4.2.
Maximum Plinth Area
The maximum plinth area of the
Honeycomb bungalow lot is 2510 sq ft (233
sq m), as compared to that of a bungalow
on a conventional lot, which is 2400 sq ft
125
 honeycomb housing

Figure 4.1
The Honeycomb
housing lot, subject
to the same setback
requirements,
produces a higher
buildable area than
the conventional 60’
x 100’ lot.

Figure 4.2
The Honeycomb
housing lot provides
a wider building
frontage than the
conventional 60’ x
100’ lot.

(223 sq m). The maximum plinth area on
the Honeycomb lot is 100 sq ft (10 sq m)
bigger, a gain of 4.6 per cent.
The Elevation Ratio
This ratio compares the length of the
front elevation with that of the side elevation.
In the tessellated bungalow this is 1.8; for
the conventional bungalow (small front and
long side) it is less than 0.6.
These calculations have practical
importance; they allow architects to design
more attractive houses, with wide frontages
(Figures 4.3 and 4.4).
Linkages
Honeycomb layouts contain housing
lots whose basic shapes support various
permutations or combinations of different
types of housing units. The relationship
between a house-lot and the adjoining
ones allows the housing block on it to
remain detached or to link up. In this way,
the tessellation design method can include
detached houses but can also create several
new generic linked house types as follows:
• Duplex house
• Triplex house
• Quadruplex house
• Sextuplex house
These are shown in Figure 4.5.

126
 4. the housing units

Figure 4.3
A narrow-frontage
house on 60’ x 100’
land.

Figure 4.4
A wide-frontage
back-to-back duplex
on 3200 square feet
of land.

127
 honeycomb housing

Duplexes Quadruplexes

Triplexes Sextuplexes
Figure 4.5
Types of units
in Honeycomb
Housing

128
 4. the housing units

Duplex
The duplex house is the Honeycomb
counterpart of the semi-detached house.
However, the duplex house naturally favours
a back-to-back instead of a side-to-side
linkage.
It is possible to link semi-detached
houses back-to-back in the efficient row
housing layout, but this results in a short
party wall and narrow front elevation. For
best economy the shared party wall needs
to be as long as possible.
As illustrated (Figures 4.3 and 4.4) the
Honeycomb duplex on 3200 sq ft (288 sq
m) looks better than the narrow-frontage
bungalow on 6000 sq ft (558 sq m) of
land. Each duplex house is accessed from
separate culs-de-sac; as can be seen in
Figure 4.4, from the entrance the duplex
Triplex
The triplex is a house type composed of
three units linked back-to-back (Figure 4.6),
with each house accessed from a different
cul-de-sac.
The triplex is a novel generic house
type that has no application in row housing.
Its invention is a result of the tessellation
method of designing housing layouts.
Each house, looked at from its respective
entrance, presents itself as a detached
house. Each is accessed from a different
cul-de-sac. (Figure 4.6)

looks like a detached house.

Figure 4.6
Triplex Houses

129
 honeycomb housing

Figure 4.7
Cluster House with
4 units

Quadruplex • The cluster house layout cannot fit in as

many units on each hectare of land as the
The quadruplex is a house type composed
terrace house layout.
of four units linked back-to-back and side-to-
However, using the cluster house
side. It is the Honeycomb equivalent of the
in tessellated layouts overcomes these two
cluster house which is illustrated in Figures
drawbacks. The ‘cluster house’ (now called
4.7 and 4.8. Because each quadruplex has
quadriplex or Quarter-D) has both long back-
two party walls, it is also the equivalent of the
to-back and side-to-side party walls. And as
terrace house, in terms of construction cost
shown in the previous section, the effective
per square foot. Party walls are walls that are
density is better than that of the terrace house
shared between two units; the more party
layout.
walls there are, the cheaper the construction
cost.
For a long time, I have designed and
Sextuplex
The housing arrangement that produced
promoted cluster houses as a better alternative
the triplex can also be designed as a sextuplex, The sextuplex is
to the terrace house, but without much created by the
i.e. a block of six houses, each with its own
success, for two reasons:- tessellation method
access, two houses sharing a cul-de-sac. of design.
• The cluster house has two party walls, but
As with the triplex, the sextuplex is a novel
generally the length of the party wall in the
house type created by the tessellation method
equivalent terrace house is longer.
of design (Figure 4.9).
130
 4. the housing units
Figure 4.8
Cluster houses laid
out in rows.
The Environmental Aspect
As shown above, the linkages arising
from the tessellation design method avoid
the long rows of terrace houses. The duplex
and triplex present themselves as ‘detached’
units, the quadruplex and sextuplex, as
‘corner’ units.
Apart from the aesthetic aspect, there
are advantages that result from the fact that
the linked tessellated houses have compact
footprints.
The quadruplex has One of the reasons why the tessellated
an efficient footprint. quadruplex is able to match the density of
the terrace house is its efficient footprint. As
an architect I make sure that, by contrast
with most cluster house designs, there
are no internal voids (e.g. airwells) and
generally, I aim for compact shapes that fit
well in a circle, or of course, a hexagon!
A small footprint has its own rewards.
This has to do with earthworks and the
foundations of buildings. Blocks with small
footprints require small earth platforms.
Blocks with big footprints require larger earth
platforms. A series of small earth platforms
generally involve less cutting and filling than
a series of larger platforms cut out from the
same original slope profile (Figure 4.10).
From the same illustration it is also
intuitively clear that it is easier to arrange
blocks which have a compact footprint
to sit on cut ground than it is to arrange
131
 honeycomb housing

Figure 4.9
Sextuplex Houses

row housing blocks to meet this same than terrace house blocks provide greater
requirement. Having original ground to sit flexibility in external layout design, requiring
on rather than filled ground can save a lot less earthworks and giving lower foundation
in foundation costs. costs.
Of course terrace houses can be Another factor to consider when looking Quadruplex blocks
provide greater
arranged along contours to minimize at the compact footprints of tessellated flexibility.
earthworks, though this limits the flexibility linked houses is the distribution of green
of the layout and is not effective where spaces, both private and communal. Every
the land slopes in two directions. Another house has green space on two or more
possibility is to stagger the terrace houses sides, i.e. the side yards and back yard or
down the slope.This requires retaining front yard as follows:
walls and the doubling up of beams in party
walls, which again adds cost, and reduces Detached house green all around
standardization. Duplex, triplex green on three sides
Therefore it can be said that, generally, Quadruplex & sextuplex
quadruplex blocks with smaller footprints green on two sides.

132
 4. the housing units
Figure 4.10
Blocks with small
footprints can better
fit a sloping area.
Furthermore, the private green areas
within the house compound are contiguous
with the neighbour’s private green areas
and these are close to the public green
areas in the central open courtyard.
Honeycomb houses are set among green
Honeycomb houses
are surrounded by an areas; terrace houses are surrounded by
even distribution of other houses, a front road and a back lane,
green.
resulting in what has been aptly termed a
‘concrete jungle’.
By comparison with the situation of
terrace houses, the diffuse distribution
of green around Honeycomb houses will
provide more shade and thereby improve
the micro-climatic conditions around the
houses.
Additionally, where the green areas
are contiguous rather than separated from
each other by concrete houses and roads
there is a greater opportunity for the natural
propagation of flora and fauna.
Species of flora can be pollinated and
spread their seeds more easily. Similarly,
animal species like birds and insects can
move more easily from area to area, rather
than being marooned in an isolated park.
The more even distribution of green
found in the tessellated layout can thus
promote a higher degree of biodiversity in
the urban or suburban environment.
133
 THERMAL COMFORT HONEYCOMB HOUSING
Chapter 5
Pioneer Project
Kuching, Sarawak
B y the end of 2004, I had been able
to present the Thermal Comfort Honeycomb
idea to several consultants and developers
including CEO’s of top companies like
Bandar Sunway, Country Heights, UM
Land, Metro Kajang and Talam. The typical
response to my presentations was interest
and attention, but not quite wholehearted
endorsement. At the same time there were
no fatal objections. The most common
Most Common obstacle was ‘I like this idea, but I’m not
Obstacle
sure “someone else” will accept this.’ This
‘someone else’ was someone out there,
somebody who was not in the audience at
that particular time. So, the engineer would
say, ‘...I’m not sure the architect will like
this’; the architect would say ‘...I’m not sure
the developer would like this’; the developer
would say, ‘...I’m not sure the authorities
would like this’; the authorities would say
‘…I’m not sure the house-buyer would like
this’, and so it went on. This obstacle was
not only difficult but it could also be elusive,
given the fact that many parties are involved
in the industry’s value chain, that it is highly
regulated, and that the delivery process is
very risky.
In Malaysia, as in most other
countries, the housing industry involves
many players. There are many steps in the
delivery process, and at each step, many
parties may be involved, starting with the
land owner, land broker, developer, town
planner, architect, various sorts of engineers,
the main contractor, sub-contractors, banks
and financiers, local authorities, various
government departments, utility companies,
estate agents, sales and marketing people,
and not forgetting the house-buyers.
The developer is perceived as the main
mover in the value chain, but, the housing
market is very fragmented. No developer
controls more than 10% of it. Success in
any particular geographical location is no
135
 honeycomb housing
guarantee of success in another location:
the local knowledge and standing of the
developer is absolutely critical. In addition,
developers would often complain that
they are at the mercy of the approving
authorities. The housing industry is also
very highly regulated. At any location,
the power to delay or veto a proposal is
dispersed amongst many approving bodies.
Furthermore, there are over a hundred local
authorities, and rules and procedures are
often not as standardized as they should
be. Finally, the developers face a real risk
of failure – witness the abandoned projects.
Not getting any one component right can
cause the delivery process to jam after
considerable resources have been poured
in. Failure can be extremely punishing and
therefore developers have to be cautious.
Developers were all impressed
by the Honeycomb idea, but had serious
worries about the feasibility and cost,
and about the marketability but, most
importantly, about whether the plans could
be approved. We had gone a long way in
addressing the first issue through number
crunching analysis, and the second through
market studies. But the potential problem of
getting approvals was particularly difficult
to overcome.
In November of 2004 I presented
a paper on ‘Honeycomb Housing’ at the
Affordable Quality Housing Conference
organized by the Institute of Engineers, Miri
Branch. I had the chance to hear Sarawak’s
136
Minister of Housing, YB Dato Seri Abang
Zohari speak. I was very impressed by
his provocative challenge to the housing
industry, in particular to architects, to
improve the quality of low cost housing.
In this meeting, the Minister, barely six
months into his new portfolio, gave a
searing critique of the quality of ‘low-cost’
housing (‘future slums lacking in the human
touch’) that produced a lot of red faces in
the audience. This was the opportunity Opportunity Arises
that Peter Davis and I were waiting for.
The trouble with Peninsular Malaysia is
that there are just too many people that
need to be convinced. This was where we
found an advantage in Sarawak. We could
see that after just a few months it would be
possible to get a consensus. In that time we
would be able to present our case to just
about everyone of consequence. We could
also sense that the State is well managed
under strong political leadership, and if we
could convince it that tessellation planning
was something good that should be done,
the political leadership could knock heads
together and make things happen!
We soon wrote to the Minister telling
him of the work that Arkitek M Ghazali and
UPM had done since 1999. On the 20th
January 2005, we met the Minister, his Meeting the Chief
Ministry officials and officers of the Housing
Minister
Development Corporation. YB Dato Seri
Abang Zohari immediately arranged for us
to give a presentation at the 1st Housing
Co-ordination Meeting the next week.
 5. pioneer project kuching sarawak
LOCATION PLAN
Green
PROPOSED SITE
Existing
20 Blocks
Apartments Education
(Primary
Scooh)
Community
Single Storey
Detached Houses
Centre
Semi-detached
Existing Terrace
Houses
Single Storey
Terrace Houses
Figure 5.1 Sarawak is a big state – almost
Location plan
of Demak Laut as big as Peninsular Malaysia – but its
Industrial Estate
population is only about 2 1/2 million. Its
people and history are quite distinct from
the other states; it enjoys considerable
autonomy. On 28th January 2005, when
we gave our presentation to the State
Housing Consultative Committee, we were
in a room with about 50 people. There
were representatives from all sections
of the housing industry. All the relevant
State departments were there, the Fire
Department, the utility bodies for electricity,
water, telecommunications and gas, the
Sarawak Developers’ Association, the local
chapter of the Architects’ Institute and the
local branch of the Institute of Engineers,
even the bankers! At the head of the table
was the Housing Minister, flanked by senior
officials from his Ministry and the Housing
Development Corporation. We could not
have asked for a better introduction.
AFFORDABLE HOUSING AT DEMAK
INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, KUCHING
The Site
We have since designed an affordable
housing scheme on an 18-acre site for the
Housing Development Corporation.
This site is the third phase of
Single Storey
a housing development located about
Houses
10 km east of Kuching in a well established
industrial area (Figure 5.1). The existing
Green factories there are a magnet for workers,
and there is already completed housing in
the earlier phases of the development. The
first phase comprises 5-storey walk-up flats
for rent and sale. The second phase, just
completed, consists of single storey terrace
houses. With the employment opportunities,
and the existing pool of tenants and owners
that are considering upgrading from their
flats, there appears to be a very good
market for housing in the affordable
segment, from RM 40 000 to RM 180 000.
The proposed site is low-lying and
flat and will require about a metre of fill and
probably piling to approximately 2 lengths.
Planning Parameters
In Sarawak, the planning
requirements are different from those of
Peninsular Malaysia. Sarawak has a lot of
land and a relatively small population, and
the standards pertaining to setbacks and
allowable densities are more demanding.
For houses, the front setback is 6m, side-
setback 4.5m, and rear setback 9m, with
137
 honeycomb housing
the service road in front of a house 15m
wide (Figure 5.2). The maximum allowable
densities, according to existing rules under
the Sarawak Planning Authority, are 18 units
per acre for low cost houses, 12 units per
acre for ‘low-cost plus’ houses and 8 units
per acre for other types of houses where the
selling price is not controlled. However, the
Housing Ministry is currently reviewing the
present policy and guidelines.
The Design Intent
The purpose of this project is to
demonstrate the possibilities opened up by
using the Honeycomb concept. This aims
to provide a physical setting where the
residents find it easy to get to know each
other, to interact socially, and to act collec-
tively; in short, to build a community. It also
aims to create an environmentally-friendly
138
Figure 5.2
Planning
parameters
for housing in
Sarawak: road
widths, setbacks and
densities.
neighbourhood, where every house faces
a garden with big shady trees that will cool
the external surroundings, where the lush
landscape is not only pleasing to the eye
but also provides a home for small animals
and birds. The houses will not follow the
conventional design, which — as indicated
earlier in this book — makes houses too
hot.
These desirable features are to Design Intent
be achieved, as far as possible, without
adding to the normal cost of constructing
housing. Affordability is a key object, but
affordable housing should improve on the
easy expectations of the current ‘low-cost
low-standard’ approach. The aim is to pro-
vide high quality housing, but in the price
range the majority of Sarawakians can af-
ford. It is not sufficient that houses are af-
fordable: they should also be good value
 5. pioneer project kuching sarawak

Figure 5.3 (left)

The Quadruplex/
Sextuplex Courtyard
‘Tiles’

Figure 5.4 (right)

The Quadruplex/
Sextuplex Block
‘Tiles’

for money. The objective

test of the success of any
social housing scheme, for
sale to the low and medi-
Figure 5.5
Laying the ‘tiles’ on um-income group, must be
the site.
that the resale value of the
houses appreciates with
time.

Development Components
and Layout
We have used the basic court-
Development yard ‘tile’ design with 16 houses around a
Components and
Layout
looping cul-de-sac. The basic house types are
the quadruplex and sextuplex (Figure 5.3). We pro-
duce two differently sized versions of the basic tile to
create a range of building price options. The central garden
is large, amounting to about 3000sf or 6% of the total land
area. The basic courtyard tiles are tessellated to form block
tiles (Figure 5.4), which are arranged on the 18-acre. The culs-de-sac and courtyards
within the site are all accessed from a looping road (Figure 5.5). A few house on the east-
ern border are served by the main road. The road system is simple. There are spaces set
aside for a small park and a surau.

139
 honeycomb housing
One possible product mix is shown
above (Table 1a): it includes affordable
houses priced between RM 47 000
and RM 160 000. In this option no Ther-
mal Comfort attic floor is provided. The
low-cost provision is in accordance with
the present requirement of 30% of total
residential units, and the pricing is that for
corner terrace houses. There is an effort to
avoid completely segregating the residents
by affordability, on the basis that this would
be socially better, without much economic
disadvantage.
140
Table 1a
Product Mix
Table 1b
Better Product Mix
A better mix in terms of feasibility Affordable Houses
would result by freeing up the prices, and
adding Thermal Comfort attic floors for fu-
ture use (Table 1b). The social argument
for this option is that the minimum stand-
ard of the lowest price units is increased
so that they are more desirable, more likely
to appreciate in value, and do not require
the purchasers of the other units to sub-
sidize them. People in the lowest income
category would receive government assist-
ance to rent these houses until they could
afford to invest in home ownership.
 5. pioneer project kuching sarawak
Figure 5.6
My First Home
Type A Sextuplex
Figure 5.7
My First Home
Type B Sextuplex
House Products
The Honeycomb concept’s quad-
ruplex and sextuplex are the most suitable
building types for affordable landed prop-
erty to replace terrace houses. There are
four or six units in a block. Pairs of units
are accessed from different cul-de-sac
courtyards; looking at the building eleva-
Housing Types tion from each courtyard, the units appear
like semi-detached houses and each one
is a corner unit. The design allows two
entrances into each house, a main formal
entrance and a second informal entrance
through the kitchen. The quadruplex has a
15 foot frontage, and the sextuplex, one of
30 feet, allowing parking for one car. Space
for an additional car is available at the side
of each house.
Types A and B are Sextuplexes.
They are 2 1/2 and 1 1/2 storey versions sit-
ting on the same sized lots. On the ground
floor of Type A (Figure 5.6) are the living
and dining rooms, the dry and wet kitchens,
a toilet and a maid’s bedroom. Above, on
the first floor, are 3 bedrooms and another
bathroom. On the attic floor there is space
for an additional bedroom and a bathroom
to be added later. The total floor area in-
cluding the attic space is 1622 square feet.
On the ground floor of Type B (Figure 5.7)
are the living, and dining rooms, the dry and
wet kitchens and the master bedroom with
an en-suite bathroom. On the attic floor are
two additional bedrooms and a bathroom.
The total floor area is 1010 square feet.
141
 honeycomb housing

‘MY FIRST HOME’

Expected selling price RM 80 000
(Where land price is low)

Future
Room

Low Headroom
Storage
Future
Living

Perspective Bonus Loft Floor (Liveable 300 sq ft)

Wet
Kitchen
Green

Master
Dry Bedroom
Kitchen/
Dining Bedroom 2

Bath 2
Bath 1 Living
Carporch
Bedroom 3

Ground Floor (300 sq ft) Upper Floor (362 sq ft)

The type D 2 1/2 storey quadruplex is the smallest home we can design (Figures Figure 5.8
My First Home
5.8). We place the living and dining rooms and a small bathroom on the ground floor. Type D Quadruplex
Because ‘small kitchen’ is such a common complaint from UPM’s satisfaction surveys,
wet and dry kitchens are provided. Above, on the first floor are 3 bedrooms and another
bathroom. The total area of the two floors is 662 square feet, just above the minimum ac-
cording to the Malaysian standards. However, in this type D option, the advantage of a
Thermal Comfort attic floor is added on — with bare finishes for future use, — bringing the
built-up area to 962 square feet. Type C is just a larger version of Type D with a total floor
area of 1278 square feet.

142
 5. pioneer project kuching sarawak
Thermal Comfort
Three design measures are adopt-
ed to keep the houses cool. All upper storey
roof eaves have 4-foot overhangs to shade
the windows and walls. The roof is insulated
with 4 inches of rockwool, or the equivalent.
Finally we cool the high thermal mass of the
Thermal Comfort concrete floors and brick walls with mechan-
ical ventilation at night. However, this combi-
nation of design features alone will not com-
pletely achieve our design aim to keep the
internal temperature below 30 degrees cen-
tigrade even on the hottest day of the year
(see computer simulation study of quarter-
detached house for the hottest month of the
year, Figure 14.1 on page 84). Besides our
Cool House technology we also need to cool
the outdoor environment with the fast-grow-
ing tall shady trees that are proposed for
the central courtyard. The Honeycomb ar-
rangement of the houses also provides very
useful self-shading. Some houses have to
face the hot afternoon sun; our strategy is
to minimize its effect by creating a cooling
environment similar to the kampongs.
Consumer Survey
Using this example, and by courtesy
Consumer Survey of the Sarawak Housing Developers’ Asso-
ciation (SHDA), we displayed the designs at
their SARBEX property exhibition in Kuch-
ing in April 2005. In particular, we highlight-
ed the Type D unit, called it My First Home
and put a price tag of RM 80 000 on it. We
undertook a targeted consumer survey un-
der the aegis of UPM and the response was
found to be overwhelmingly positive: 96%
liked the concept of Thermal Comfort Hon-
eycomb Housing, 95% would recommend
the houses to their friends and 80% would
like to buy one if they became available.
Political Support
We had been pushing our ideas in
Sarawak since January 2005. At the Hous-
ing Minister’s urging, we concentrated on
applying the Honeycomb concept for ‘af-
fordable homes’, a much better term than
‘low-cost housing’. Then in July the Minis-
try arranged a Seminar entitled ‘Pioneering
a New Concept in Affordable Homes for
Sarawak’. This gave us a rare opportuni-
ty to promote Honeycomb Housing to the
right people. For Peter Davis and for me,
the results have been tremendous, with the
encouragement given by the Chief Minis-
ter. Actually, we only had a few minutes
conversation with the CM, but he was prob-
ably briefed beforehand, and was quick to
appreciate the idea. I believe that when
he mentioned Honeycomb Housing in his
speech, it was off the cuff.
143
 honeycomb housing

Figure 5.9
Newspaper Splash
From left, Assistant
Housing Minister
Dr. Soon Choon
Teck, Mohd Peter
Davis, Chief
Minister Pehin
Sri Abdul Taib
Mahmud, Mazlin
Ghazali, Deputy
Chief Minister
Datuk Patinggi Tan
Sri Alfred Jabu, and
Housing Minister
Dato Sri Abang
Hj Abdul Rahman
Zohari Tun Abang
Hj Openg.
(Photo by Jeffri
Mostapa, Courtesy
of Borneo Post,
July 19, 2005)
For us, the wall-to-wall coverage in the newspapers the next day was very impor-
tant (Figure 5.9). It was not just a valuable promotion, it was an endorsement by the Chief
Minister, often described as the Planner-in-Chief of the State of Sarawak.
He was quoted by the Sarawak Tribune on the 19th July, 2005 as saying:

“ A house is more than just a house, but a home where individuals live and
rejuvenate, where there is space for children to grow and mature, a home that
defines how families live and interact, because it is the home environment
that...shapes a community. Political Support

There are now new ways that we can work towards building community bond-
ing in residential areas, such as the Thermal Comfort Honeycomb Housing
concept. The Sarawak Planning Authority will help in ways that it can... ”

Developers had been worried about the feasibility, cost, and marketability of Hon-
eycomb Housing, but most importantly by the question — whether the plans could be
accepted by the authorities. Now this potential problem of getting approvals, for Sarawak
at least, was being seriously addressed.

144