Urban Studies, Vol. 43, No.

3, 583– 600, March 2006

High-rise Living in Singapore Public Housing

Belinda Yuen, Anthony Yeh, Stephen John Appold, George Earl,

John Ting and Lanny Kurnianingrum Kwee
[Paper first received, May 2004; in final form, August 2005]

Summary. In recent years, amid the debates of sustainable development and urban compactness,
there has been a widening interest to reintroduce high-rise living in cities. Several European
cities including London and Manchester are once again building high-rise housing as part of
their urban housing strategy. Elsewhere, in Asia, Hong Kong and Singapore are distinguished by
their high-rise public housing developments. With nearly half of the world’s population living in
urban areas, the unfolding trend is towards a more urban-style development with taller
buildings included as an inevitable housing solution. Drawing on findings from a study of
Singapore public housing residents’ living experience, this paper aims to look at the increasingly
important question of the liveability of high-rise living by discussing the occupants’ appreciation
and concerns of high-rise.

Gale, 2000; Costello, 2005). As Helleman

Introduction and Wassenberg put it
Inspired by Smith et al. (1998, p. 8)—“This is
High-rise estates are associated with pro-
why much of our built environment is so un-
blematic living conditions, deprived areas,
satisfactory. High-rise flats were designed
isolated locations, a poor population, a
and built by those who do not have to live in
negative image, social isolation, pollution
them”—this paper considers the liveability
and crime . . . In short, they are not the
of tall buildings from the perspective of the
most popular areas in town (Helleman and
users: the residents. Using empirical data
Wassenberg, 2004, p. 3).
from Singapore where high-rise public apart-
ment living has gained acceptance (The This is not, however, the end of high-rise
Straits Times, 22 June 2005), the purpose of housing. In Asia, Singapore and Hong Kong
this paper is to explore the residents’ appreci- have similarly experimented and scored high
ation and concerns of high-rise living and con- residential satisfaction. The dictates of
tribute to the evolving theoretical and limited land space, a growing population and
empirical discussions on this housing typol- the need for improved housing conditions
ogy. High-rise housing (primarily public have launched these cities to experience and
housing) is often infused with alternative celebrate vertical development. Over a
images in many Western cities (Church and period of 40 – 50 years, high-rise public
Belinda Yuen and Lanny Kurnianingrum Kwee are in the Department of Real Estate, School of Design and Environment,
National University of Singapore, 4 Architecture Drive, Singapore 117566. Fax: þ65 6451 3989. E-mail: rstbyuen@nus.edu.sg
and priscilla_lanny@yahoo.com. Anthony Yeh is in the Centre of Urban Planning and Environmental Management, University of
Hong Kong, Pokfulam Road, Hong Kong. E-mail: hdxugoy@hkucc.hku.hk. Stephen John Appold is in the Kenan Institute of
Private Enterprise, Kenan-Flagler Business School, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, CB# 3440, Kenan Center
Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27599-3400, USA. E-mail: appold@unc.edu. George Earl is in the Faculty of the Built Environment,
University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia. E-mail: g.Earl@unsw.edu.au. John Ting is the Immediate Past
President of the Singapore Institute of Architects, 79 Neil Road, Singapore 088904. Fax: 6226 2663.
0042-0980 Print=1360-063X Online=06=030583 –18 # 2006 The Editors of Urban Studies
DOI: 10.1080=00420980500533133
584 BELINDA YUEN ET AL.
housing has become not just the lifestyle of
the majority of the population, but also the
dominant building form. In Hong Kong,
supported by technological advancement, the
height of public housing increased from 6-
to 7-storeys in the 1950s to 50- to 60-storeys
by the 1990s. Its high-rise public housing
programme has been widely acknowledged
as a success story (Rooney, 2003; Yeung
and Wong, 2003). Equally, with urban
redevelopment, the greater proportion of
Singapore’s resident population has moved
to live in high-rise—84 per cent in public
housing and 6 per cent in private housing.
Even though tall buildings are not the only
building option, high-rise constitutes a
vitally important component of the future
city. As enunciated in Singapore’s long-term
development plan
More homes will be built in the city. There
are currently 30,000 housing units in the
city. Those who prefer the downtown
buzz can look forward to having 90,000
more units to choose from, mostly in the
New Downtown at Marina South. The
average plot ratio for housing in the New
Downtown can be increased to between
6.0 and 7.0 (Urban Redevelopment
Authority, 2001, p. 18)
As with Hong Kong, the height of
Singapore’s apartment housing is set to
rise. New housing, especially private, has
launched ever-taller heights in Singapore’s
downtown: 50- and 70-storeys (The Straits
Times, 11 February 2003, 29 May 2003, 1
October 2004). What is remarkable here is
not just the increasing height but, more
importantly, after some four decades of
high-rise public housing living, an increasing
number of people have personally chosen
high-rise living and 82.5 per cent of
households in public housing have expressed
contentment at the idea of always living in
public housing flats (HDB, 2000). One in
three public housing dwellers are willing to
live on the 40th storey or higher (The
Straits Times, 22 June 2005).
Singapore and Hong Kong are not unique in
tall(er) housing development. In the past 10
years, high-rise has re-emerged as a residen-
tial option in the 21st-century urban regener-
ation agenda. Since the 1990s, the arrival of
new construction technologies combined
with a growing urban population have
encouraged many large Chinese cities (for
example, Shanghai and Beijing) to engage in
high-density site planning by building high-
rise apartment buildings (The Straits Times,
31 May 2003). Elsewhere, with rapid urbanis-
ation (about half of the world’s population
lives in urban areas), many other cities are
revisiting and building high-rise (some being
built by the private sector in prime inner-city
locations) to house the growing population.
In Europe, Manchester and London—for
example, have started to build 47 to 50-
storey tower blocks as the latest answer to
the country’s housing shortage even as many
of the earlier (1960s) high-rise public
housing blocks are being demolished (Abel,
2003). In a similar vein, there has been a
return to high-rise in Australia, in particular
Melbourne, in the past 10 years following a
period of abandonment since the 1970s
(Costello, 2005).
The unfolding trend of urban development
would seem to point towards continued
construction of tall (and taller) residential
buildings notwithstanding the voices predict-
ing the end of tall buildings in the aftermath
of September 11 2001 (Marcuse, 2001;
Kunstler and Salingaros, 2001). The challenge
to London, Singapore and many other cities
remains how to build liveable high-rise
housing, given its resurgence in the urban
development process. The suggestion here,
as Church and Gale (2000, p. 6) put it, is
that more important than the block are the
people inside it. In the next section, we
examine the high-rise development ethos,
clarifying specifically the differing view-
points and debates on this form of high
modernism. This is followed by the sections
that describe our study methodology, analysis
and discussion of our findings on the direct
and essential experience of high-rise public
housing living and, finally, some concluding
remarks on the wider implications for high-
rise development.
 HIGH-RISE LIVING IN SINGAPORE
The High-rise Development Ethos
The high-rise building is often seen as the
rationalisation and symbol of modernity.
From an early time, Gottmann (1966)—for
example, has contended that the tall building
is a modernist cultural expression, a substitute
for the medieval cathedrals in the modern city.
Others have suggested that tall buildings
express economic dominance and power
(Binder, 2001; Abel, 2003). In particular,
high-rise building is often seen as an icon of
a developed (Western) society—especially
that of the US which led the world in the con-
struction of the first modern tall building and
whose subsequent development became a
model for 20th-century urban development.
Throughout the 20th century, the influence
of Le Corbusier is also hard to ignore
(Helleman and Wassenberg, 2004). His monu-
mental towers have inspired a whole new
model of multiple uses in tall buildings that
came to dominate much of post-war urban
renewal in the US and Europe, and to infuse
urban design thinking in many planning
schools (Gosling and Maitland, 1984; Lang,
1994; Bacon, 2001). For Le Corbusier
(1946, 1967, 1971), the high-rise building is
a central and potent symbol for the design of
the contemporary city.
Held as the ultimate, ideal and modern
dwelling form, high-rise is cast as a state sol-
ution to the housing problems of the post-war
city and celebrated as “a panacea for social
problems” (Tibbits, 1988, p. 150). Supported
by technology development (inventions such
as high-speed elevators) which has greatly
reduced the marginal costs of building high,
high-rise housing soon proliferated in many
Western cities. According to Helleman and
Wassenberg (2004, p. 4), high-rise construc-
tion in Western cities mushroomed during
the period from 1960 to the mid 1970s and
there has never since been a period in house
building in which the similarities between
countries have been as great. However, the
high-rise wave is contested by documentation
(through much of the 1970s) that presents the
downsides of living in high-rise. Similar
across many Western cities, the failings of
585
public high-rise housing often concern
dystopia of functionality—in particular, chil-
dren’s safety and mental health, impersonali-
sation and loneliness among the adult
population (see—for example, Young, 1976;
The National Tower Blocks Directory, 1992;
Costello, 2005) and crime and vandalism
(Newman, 1972; Ford, 1994). The general
thrust is, as Moser puts it, that
tall buildings are not good living environ-
ments because residents feel imprisoned
and isolated from people and other living
things, or because children are deprived of
direct contact with nature (Moser, 1981,
p. 35).
To this, Helleman and Wassenberg (2004,
p. 15) have more recently added that “high-
rise offers too many, similar and not attractive
dwellings for non-existent average people in
the wrong places”. Nevertheless, as a conse-
quence of the anti-family and children
impacts, there was a strong push to abandon
high-rise from the public housing option in
many cities (Foley, 1980).
While the traditional discourse of high-rise
housing is not always positive, new forces are
redefining its place in 21st-century urbanity.
Just as high-rise public housing is being criti-
cised, stopped and demolished in many cities
throughout Europe and Australia, there is re-
emerging evidence to suggest that high-rise
living is valued for the spectacular views
and sensation of height (Haber, 1977;
Benson et al., 1998), privacy and quietness
(see, for example, Conway and Adams,
1977) and, increasingly, prestige and status
(Johnson, 2002). Lifestyle changes and globa-
lisation over the past decade have seen several
Western cities that once abandoned high-rise
returning to this construction. Melbourne
and London are but two examples that have
started to build tall housing in the inner city
as an aspect of contemporary gentrified city
living. In particular, Johnson (2002) has dis-
cerned that urban high-rise lofts are attracting
‘echo boomers’,1 ascribing the attraction to
the glamour of high-rise living on recent US
television shows like ‘Frasier’ and the hip
586 BELINDA YUEN ET AL.
grunge fashion of cosmopolitanism. Likewise,
Costello (2005, p. 54) has argued that inner-
city high-rise living is becoming a ‘lifestyle’
choice in the global era—the new playgrounds
of the wealthy. In a similar vein, others are
acknowledging the defining impact of the
‘going global’ aspirations of cities (Ford,
1994; McNeill, 2005). As Lacayo observes
of post-September 11 construction
The only clients still interested in building
them [tall buildings] were in nations that
wanted a symbol of their arrival as a con-
tender in the global market, mostly in
Asia’s Pacific Rim (Lacayo, 2004, p. 104).
In contrast to much of the earlier high-rise
construction, many of the more recent high-
rise is by the private sector, in prime inner-
city locations and taller (Abel, 2003). In
their review of the architecture of high-rise,
Ali and Armstrong have predicted the deepen-
ing trend to build taller—the supertall
building
The STB [supertall building] (more than
about 70 or 80 stories) is currently receiving
increased attention in several places around
the world. The growing interest and
expanding need is indicative of its impend-
ing commercial appearance, not too far in
the future (Ali and Armstrong, 1995, p. 15).
As the Chinese Construction Ministry has
recently explained, “A super-tall building
can accommodate tens of thousands of
people” (The Straits Times, 31 May 2003).
Under the current narratives of sustainable
development and higher-density urban form,
high-rise is increasingly considered to offer
the best alternative to suburban sprawl
(Burton, 2000; Planning, 2002). To quote
the Corporation of London (2002), “The
City is effectively full, if you cannot go out-
wards, you have to go up”. To an extent,
many of the ‘failures’ of early high-rise are
viewed as mistakes “more to do with bad
management, low quality construction, lack
of maintenance and lack of choice” (BBC
News, 2003). The discourses underlying
these comments are the relatively successful
high-rise public housing programmes of
Hong Kong and Singapore (Wong and Yeh,
1985; Castells et al., 1990; Yeung and
Wong, 2003). As Church and Gale remark,
high-rise living works when you get people
who want to live there and
It is . . . wrong to identify tower blocks as
‘vertical slums’ and insist that they should
all be flattened. Many are clearly acceptable
places to live for their residents (Church
and Gale, 2000, p. 19).
Yet, in spite of the differing voices for and
against high-rise living (the latter incidentally
are mostly of the 1970s and tend largely to
focus on those towards the bottom of the
socioeconomic hierarchy), there has been
relatively little documentation of the attitude
of people who have personally chosen high-
rise living (Young, 1976). Against the
growing trend of more people living in
tall(er) buildings (Abel, 2003), there is scho-
larly motivation to consider liveability from
the everyday subjectivity of the resident—
the ‘user’ of the high-rise. To borrow the
words of Mumford, “It is ultimately the
person whose foot has to be fitted with the
shoe who knows whether it pinches or not”
(quoted in Conway and Adams, 1977,
p. 595). The need for occupant research has
been made more urgent in recent years.
Especially post-September 11 2001, there
are questions that are being asked about the
future of high-rise. International organisations
such as the International Council for Research
and Innovation in Building and Construction
(CIB) are re-examining the use and construc-
tion of tall buildings—in particular, whether
people will continue to occupy existing tall
buildings and whether new high-rise will be
built. What are the tolerable level(s) of indi-
vidual, business and societal risk in relation
to very tall buildings? (CIB, 2003). These
questions are pertinent to a better under-
standing of the factors to be addressed in live-
able and sustainable tall buildings. This paper
aims to contribute some findings in this
direction using the case study of Singapore.
Singapore with its pervasive high-rise
housing experience offers a natural exper-
iment for investigation. Despite its extensive
 HIGH-RISE LIVING IN SINGAPORE
documentation and experience with high-rise
living, the attractions and concerns of living
in high-rise remain barely explored (Yuen
et al., 1999). Similar to Western high-rise lit-
erature, the few studies that have been con-
ducted are largely decades old (see, for
example, Hassan, 1975, 1977), describing
situations that are not necessarily relevant to
today’s global society.
Studying the Lived Experience
An important aspect of high-rise living con-
cerns the height above ground level. Various
international studies have earlier enquired
the height at which residents want to live
(Conway and Adams, 1977; Herrenkohl,
1981). Conway and Adams (1977, p. 597),
for example, have reported Western studies
that showed respondents’ height preference:
if they had been given a free choice of floor
in a 24-storey block, over 30 per cent would
have chosen the ground to second floors,
another 15 per cent the third to fifth floors,
and over 20 per cent the twenty-first to
twenty-third floors. This issue takes on
renewed pertinence in the light of the recent
renaissance of high-rise and the emergence
of taller housing. To get a perspective of how
residents experienced living in high-rise, a
sample of resident households in the Singapore
new town of Toa Payoh was asked to share
their satisfaction, concern and willingness to
live in tall buildings.2 Assessment is by
occupant’s self-reported satisfaction which, as
Herrenkohl (1981) lists, is the most frequently
used measure of occupant reaction to or liking
for a building environment.
Toa Payoh new town is located approxi-
mately 8 km from downtown Singapore.
Developed in the 1960s, Toa Payoh was the
first new town planned and developed by
Singapore planners to house those resettled
from the then prevailing slums and squatter
settlements in and around the city centre.3
Toa Payoh new town is also the site of
Singapore’s first 40-storey public housing.
The town is connected to all parts of
Singapore by an extensive network of roads,
rapid transit and public transport. In the
587
tradition of the Western neighbourhood unit
principle, the new town provides a wide
spectrum of housing units (various flat sizes
to meet differing family needs) and facilities
(such as children’s playground, swimming
pool, shops, markets, cinema, library,
schools) within convenient walking distance
of the residents, generally about 5 minutes’
walking radius. As Blair and Hulsbergen
(1993) explain with reference to Amsterdam’s
high-rise, the presence of communal facili-
ties can encourage neighbourliness and
community life.
Set against the majority of Western
developments, Singapore public housing is
relatively dense. The current (2001) popu-
lation of Toa Payoh new town is 117 200.
There are 36 107 dwelling units, typically
located in high-rise blocks of 12- and more
storeys, the tallest are 30-storey (see
Figure 1).4 As summarised in Table 1, the
gross density of the new town is 99 dwelling
units per hectare. Notwithstanding the high
density, Singapore flats are relatively large
by international standards. A typical 4-room
apartment comprises 3 bedrooms and 1
living/dining room with a net floor area of
90 square metres or about 24 square metres
per person (mean household size is 3.7
persons). Compared with the congestion
experienced in previous housing types (3– 8
square metres per person in the 1960s), the
high-rise public housing with its multitude
of services would seem to offer an improved
living milieu (Wong and Yeh, 1985). The pro-
vision of neighbourhood facilities and quality
housing is envisaged as a major compensation
in high-rise living. As discussed elsewhere,
the emphasis on a quality living environment
has seen maintenance and upgrading of
public housing continue over the years such
that this high-rise is increasingly identified
not with a negative stigma, but rather, is
synonymous with “high-quality housing
symbolic of modernity” (Teo and Kong,
1997, p. 441). As Pynoos et al. have argued
When households consume ‘housing’, they
purchase or rent more than the dwelling
unit and its characteristics; they are also
588 BELINDA YUEN ET AL.

Figure 1. High-rise blocks in Toa Payoh new town, where the tallest block at the time of the study was
30 storeys high.

concerned with such diverse factors as The Study Method

health . . . neighbourhood and social
relations, status, community facilities and
services . . . Being ill-housed can mean
deprivation along any of these dimensions
(Pynoos et al., 1973, p. 1).
Conversely, those factors can strongly affect
residential satisfaction (Gifford, 1997).
Members of the research team visited a
sample of 218 randomly selected households
(0.6 per cent of the population) in the 30-
storey-block precinct of Toa Payoh new
town. Interviews were conducted with the
residents in their homes. Care was taken to
include residents living on various floors
from the lowest through to the top floor in

Table 1. Land use and gross density of Toa Payoh

Land area (373 ha,
Land use 36 758 dwelling unit) Percentage
Residential 150 40
Commercial (town centre and 34 9
neighbourhood centre)
Industrya 47 13
Schools and institutions 69 19
Open space, sports and recreational 24 6
Roads 44 12
Utilities and others 5 1

Gross new town density 99 dwelling units per hectare

a
non-polluting industries only.
Source: Wong and Yeh (1985, p. 94 and 97).
 HIGH-RISE LIVING IN SINGAPORE
the tallest blocks of 30-storeys (the tallest
blocks at the time of interview) and adjoining
lower blocks of 12 –16 storeys. As summar-
ised in Table 2, about 26 per cent of the
respondents lived on storeys 21– 30. A
slightly higher than national proportion of
residents living on the higher floors was inter-
viewed to obtain an in situ perspective of their
experience of living high.
The sampled respondents reflected the
general demographic and multiethnic national
profile: 80 per cent were Chinese, 10 per cent
Malay and 10 per cent Indian. About half (53
per cent) were female; 23 per cent were full-
time home-makers. Most of the respondents
(41 per cent) were in the age-group of 35–
54 years old; 77 per cent were married and
97 per cent owned the flats they lived in.
The remaining 3 per cent were tenants of
rental flats. Only 2 per cent of the respondents
were former residents of private housing, the
rest had moved from another public housing
unit. Many of the respondents (82 per cent)
revealed that they had moved from smaller
(3-room) public housing and 53 per cent had
lived on the 6th – 10th floors in their previous
public housing accommodation.
A majority (75 per cent) had moved to their
present flat under the selective en bloc redeve-
lopment scheme (SERS)5 while 13 per cent
were prompted by personal preference (such
as convenient location, familiar neighbour-
hood) and the remainder by family consider-
ations (such as being near family members).
While many are nuclear families, it is not
uncommon for there to be an extended
family structure in the larger households
where a typical household would comprise
Table 2. Current floor level
Current floor No. of respondents (%)
level (N ¼ 218)
26 –30 24 (11)
21 –25 32 (14.7)
16 –20 27 (12.4)
11 –15 46 (21.1)
6–10 60 (27.5)
1–5 29 (13.3)
589
the parents, child(ren) and grandparent(s). In
terms of family size, the majority of the
respondents were from 3– 5-person house-
holds; 31 per cent of respondents were from
4-person households; 22 per cent were
from 3-person households; and 21 per cent
from 5-person households.
The household interview followed a ques-
tionnaire of closed multiple choice and
open-ended questions. In addition, a revisit
was made to several of the families in the
30-storey block for further in-depth discus-
sion. During many of the discussions, the
spouse and the rest of the family members
also joined in. The interview was mainly con-
ducted in English and where the respondent
was not conversant with English it would be
conducted in Mandarin. Where the respon-
dents agreed, the discussion was taped and
later transcribed and its content analysed
along with the notes taken during the discus-
sion by the researchers. Several other
researchers have supported the combination
of quantitative and qualitative methods to
gain a better understanding of people’s atti-
tudes (de Vaus, 1991; Tashakkori and
Teddlie, 1998). The present focus is on reveal-
ing respondents’ satisfaction with their
present floor level, their willingness to live
higher and their concerns with high-rise
living.
Respondent Satisfaction and Concern
Satisfaction and Attractions of High-rise
Most of the respondents (91 per cent)
expressed satisfaction with their present floor
level. This would seem to echo other recent
statistics on Singapore public housing residen-
tial mobility which reveal a significant 82.5
per cent of all households living in high-rise
public housing indicating that they would be
content always to live in such apartment
flats, with the remaining 17.5 per cent desiring
to live in private housing (HDB, 2000). The
high satisfaction may reflect the specific
context of the lived space.
Under current public housing allocation
policy, residents can apply for where they
590 BELINDA YUEN ET AL.
wish to live and flat rental/purchase is on a
first-come-first-served basis.6 Residents will
generally get their application preference
unless the particular unit is already allocated
to another resident—in which case, they will
be asked to resubmit their preference. In
many ways, self-selection is an integral part
of housing choice and, as observed by
Conway and Adams (1977), it may work par-
ticularly well for high-rise living in that
households most opposed to high-rise living
may have chosen the living situation they
prefer and refused such a tenancy. As sum-
marised in Table 3, about 60 per cent of the
respondents opined that their present floor
level was ‘just right’. The results would
seem to lend support to the wider notion that
living in the higher-floor units (26– 30
storeys) is a conscious decision. While some
(12.5 per cent) among those living in these
higher-floor units expressed a view that the
present floor level was not high enough, a
small proportion (8.3 per cent) felt it was
too high.
Examining the satisfaction of top-floor resi-
dents can be useful for understanding the
attractive proposition of high-rise. Our analy-
sis revealed that the majority of those living
on the top floor of the 30-storey building had
chosen the 30th floor as their preferred floor
and all were found to be satisfied with their
present floor level. Among the environmental
attributes that attracted those respondents to
high floor living were the view (they “could
see the city skyline from the . . . windows”),
the breeze, cleaner air and the privacy they
can get from high-rise living, that “on top of
Table 3. The present floor level (percentages) (N ¼ 218)
Too Not high
Present floor level high enough
1st–5th floor 0 17.2
6th– 10th floor 1.7 25
11th–15th floor 0 19.6
16th–20th floor 14.8 14.8
21st –25th floor 15.6 9.4
26th–30th floor 8.3 12.5
Total 5.5 17.9
the world” feeling. The lived sense of dwell-
ing is an important state that has been recog-
nised by Lefebvre (1991) as the affective
dimension: the environment of locality and
spaces. As one respondent (a mother with
two young children aged below six) put it
You can say I am kiasu 7 and would always
choose the highest floor to avoid problems
of water dripping from wet clothes/mops
of upstairs8 [see Figure 2] . . . Even when
my children were much younger, we have
always lived on the top floor, previously
on the top floor in the 12-storey block . . .
and now in this 30-storey block. In every
case, the first priority would be to choose
the highest floor . . . we will only consider
the top 10 per cent of floors when selecting
our flat. And, yes, we would always want to
continue to live on the top floor, even if it’s
100-storey as long as the lifts are reliable.
As another respondent explained, her privacy
was enhanced if her floor were higher than the
neighbouring blocks (Figure 3). In these
senses, it would appear that strategies of satis-
fying high-rise living would necessarily
include protecting the much-treasured view
and the privacy of the dwelling, drawing on
the traditional theorisations of home
(Cooper-Marcus, 1995).
When compared, there appeared no marked
distinction between male and female respon-
dents in their satisfaction with present floor
level. However, along the age dimension,
those in the older age-group (65 years or
over) generally responded that the present
floor level was ‘just right’, while younger
Too Just Don’t care/never
low right thought about it Total
44.8 24.1 13.8 100 (29)
15 55 3.3 100 (60)
0 73.9 6.5 100 (46)
7.4 59.3 3.7 100 (27)
3.1 65.6 6.3 100 (32)
0 79.2 0 100 (24)
11.5 59.6 5.5 100 (218)
 HIGH-RISE LIVING IN SINGAPORE
Figure 2. The local practice is to put laundry on
long bamboo poles out of rear (kitchen) windows
to dry.
people (especially those aged 15 – 24 years
old) were of the view that the present floor
level was not high enough. There was a pro-
pensity among younger respondents to view
Figure 3. Enhanced privacy and an unblocked view if adjoining blocks are of lower height.
591
living in tall buildings as a prestigious life-
style. The elderly residents, on the other
hand, appeared to favour the lower-storey
units. They expressed slightly more concern
about the structural reliability of tall build-
ings, their soundness and stability. As one
respondent in her 50s explained
Somehow, there is this sense of insecurity. I
am especially concerned about losing
balance and falling off when cleaning the
windows . . . you read about the case of
maids falling off when cleaning windows
in the newspapers9 [unlike in commercial
buildings, residents are responsible for
their own window cleaning in high-rise
housing].
To another, “walking feels like floating” was
how she had imagined it would be to walk
along the common corridor of a 50-storey
slab apartment block, prompting others to
suggest a more enclosed corridor design on
high floors of tall buildings to counteract the
psychological effects of vertigo.
When it comes to living in taller housing,
about 54 per cent of the respondents indicated
willingness to live on the 21st and higher
floors (Table 4). Sampled residents on the
592 BELINDA YUEN ET AL.

Table 4. Highest floor on which respondents are
willing to live
Floor level Percentage (N ¼ 215)
1–5 storeys 1 high floors of a 40-storey or higher block
6–10 storeys 10.7
11– 15 storeys 15.3
16– 20 storeys 18.6
21– 25 storeys 12.1
26– 30 storeys 27
31– 50 storeys 13
Above 50 storeys 2.3
top floor appeared to prefer and were more
willing to live on higher floors of taller build-
ings. This is perhaps because they, more than
any other residents, have a better appreciation
of what life is really like up top. The findings
suggest the importance of living experience in
the choice of floor level and would seem to
lend support to Moser’s remark that
Those who resent living on the 50th storey
are those not accustomed to it. But they will
get accustomed, like the first fish that
stepped ashore (Moser, 1981, p. 31).
Analogous results are found in the HDB
(2003) resident survey which reports a
strong inclination among respondents to live
on storeys higher than their present ones.
Even though high-rise living is primarily a
post-1960 phenomenon, it appears that this
housing type has gained satisfaction and
acceptance in Singapore.
Even so, when floor preference is measured
against the individual’s perception of the tall-
ness of building height, we found the majority
of respondents were not willing to live on the
which they perceived to be a very tall building
(see Table 5). It would appear that one’s per-
ception of tallness may affect willingness to
live off the ground. In elaboration, several
respondents talked about their “fear of such
height” and the absence of experience—
“never visited such high place before”—as
reasons for not desiring to move to live in
the taller blocks. It should be emphasised
that these are very much perceived rather
than actual experiences. (There are at
present no 50-storey residential buildings in
Singapore.) There is a sense that respondents’
willingness to live in taller blocks is some-
what restricted to their imaginary perception
and absence of experience with such high-
rise living. As one respondent said
I was previously afraid of living in high-
rise, but after visiting a friend living in a
high-floor flat, it was not so scary as I
have imagined. It is quite fine to live
high-rise and I will most certainly consider
and choose a high-floor flat the next time.
In this context, Conway and Adams note, it is
to be expected that people would respond
differently to different heights above the
ground and their

Table 5. Perceptions of tall buildings (N ¼ 218)

Building Not a tall building Tall building Very tall building
height
Mean Mean Mean
Percentagea highest floorb Percentagea highest floorb Percentagea highest floorb
10-storey 96.8 25 2.8 19 0.4 3
15-storey 91.3 26 8.3 18 0.4 3
20-storey 51.4 28 46.3 22 22.9 10
25-storey 35.8 28 56.9 24 7.3 14
30-storey 22.5 27 47.7 28 29.8 19
40-storey 3.7 30 34.4 28 61.9 23
50-storey 0.46 40 19.3 31 80.3 23
a
Percentage of respondents who rated the building as ‘not a tall building’, ‘tall building’ or ‘very tall building’ respectively.
b
Mean highest floor on which respondents indicated willingness to live.
 HIGH-RISE LIVING IN SINGAPORE 593

reactions to their housing are influenced by the people on the ground floor below
their past experience, their current living talking, when they are talking so loudly
habits, their reference group and their on their hand phones as they walked pass
aspirations (Conway and Adams, 1977, the block or as they are waiting for others
p. 596), in the void deck.
However, perceived fear in the extreme can The common apartment block design is to
detract from the living experience and be a locate dwelling units from level 2 upwards,
major deterrent. Rapoport (1977) among leaving the ground floor void as a public
others has argued that people’s subjective jud- space and thoroughfare for residents
gements and evaluations are often inextric- (Figure 4). Our results seem to indicate that,
ably related to their feelings of satisfaction contrary to Conway and Adams (1977), the
and powerful determinants of housing issues of nearness to the ground and lack of
choice. Among the small proportion of our dependence on lifts are, 30 years on, perhaps
respondents who were willing to live higher, not sufficiently compelling to result in a
on the 50th storey, a dominant consideration low-floor preference. Over time, certain
is the broad consensus that they should feel improvements have been made in high-rise
satisfied with the safety features (they ques- living. Several of the low-floor respondents
tioned the smooth and safe evacuation of resi- indicated that they used the lifts every day
dents in the case of an outbreak of fire), the and had not walked the stairs even though
location and orientation of the unit. It is thus they only lived on the 3rd and 4th floors.
pertinent to understand the worries affecting On-site observation of the lift travelling time
resident confidence in high-rise living. in the 30-storey block indicated the present tra-
velling time to range from 27 to 58 seconds,
Concerns of High-rise
Looking at the data, just as the highest floors
of taller buildings were not hotly preferred,
the lowest floors were also seemingly less pre-
ferred among the respondents. The main con-
cerns for not preferring the lowest floors were
the smell of rubbish (the flats are served by a
central rubbish chute whose contents are
removed daily and cleansed at the ground
floor collection outlet) and the nuisance of
mosquitoes. In addition, there were also
issues of view blockage and lack of privacy.
As one respondent living on the 7th storey
declared
The 5th floor is about the lowest I am
willing to live.
Another respondent, who lived on the 4th
storey, shared his desire to live higher
because of noise from street traffic and
passers-by
In low floor, we have traffic noises and
people’s noise—for example, people Figure 4. The ground floors of apartment buildings
talking loudly with their hand phones in are generally left void as public spaces and
the void decks . . . You know, we can hear thoroughfares for pedestrians.
594 BELINDA YUEN ET AL.

with an average waiting time of 15.1 seconds, Table 6. Concerns about high-rise living
while the average walking time from the lift to (N ¼ 202)
the furthest unit is 22.8 seconds. Others in Percentage
high-floor units mentioned that they had Concerns of respondents
learned not to place their favourite breakables,
such as vases, next to open windows to avoid Lack of neighbourhood 26
facilities
those being damaged by the strong winds Lift breakdown 20
that sometimes occur. Yet others had learned Crime in the lift 14
to keep their windows closed during especially Who you have as your 14
windy times. neighbours
Perhaps because of such inconveniences, Fire risk 9
Accidental falling-off of family 5
respondents from the higher floors were less members
keen to live on the high floors of tall(er) build- Travelling time in lift 2.5
ings. The reasons were primarily safety con- Collapse of the building 2.5
siderations (i.e. height phobia, safety of Power failure 2.5
children and the elderly, “scared if the lifts Walking along the common 2
corridor to reach your flat
are broken” or “scared if a crime occurs on a Height of the building 1
high floor”)10. As one respondent put it Other worries 1.5
I would be really afraid to put the bamboo
Note: Some respondents did not reply to this question.
poles [of wet laundry] out of the window
to dry if the unit was too high [when wet,
these laundry poles could be quite heavy
The concern over a lack of neighbourhood
to lift and the fear was with losing one’s
facilities is perhaps reflective of the local
balance and accidentally falling off].
housing environment. In parallel studies of
Safety and security are a recurring theme and Hong Kong and Australian high-rise respon-
merit serious consideration in taller housing. dents, the five biggest worries in descending
As Moser points out in the wider literature order were: in Hong Kong, fire risk, lift
breakdown, who you have as neighbour,
With tall buildings, factors such as size,
crime in lift and accidental falling-off of
complexity and interdependence of
family members; in Australia, who you
systems and elements increase the risk of
have as neighbour, lack of facilities, power
a minor incident turning into a major or cat-
failure, fire risk and time in the lift. As
astrophic one. If there is a mechanical, elec-
noted earlier, right from the start, Singa-
trical, or structural disaster, or fire, building
pore’s new towns are planned with an
high increases the risk of potential danger,
emphasis on a quality living environment
and correspondingly more secure features
where each new town is provided with a
must be designed into the building.
full and hierarchical range of facilities and
(Moser, 1981, p. 58)
amenities to enable household members to
Safety concerns, as summarised in Table 6, fulfil their various daily needs within the
may cover several dimensions of personal town. Thus, to live without such a conven-
safety from crime in the lift to the accidental ience would greatly detract from the living
falling-off of family members and the collapse experience, especially when the greater
of the building. When asked to share what majority (74 per cent) of respondents had
concerns them most in high-rise living, the expressed satisfaction with the convenience
lack of neighbourhood facilities, lift break- of facilities relative to their present flat.
down, crime in the lift, who you have as According to the latest HDB Sample House-
neighbours and fire risk, were ranked among hold Survey,11 ‘estate facilities’—compre-
respondents’ biggest worries about high-rise hensive and well-planned facilities provided
living. in HDB (public housing) estates—were one
 HIGH-RISE LIVING IN SINGAPORE
of the three most liked aspects of public
housing (The Straits Times, 22 June 2005).
The provision of facilities is increasingly
noted in some studies on Western population
as critical to the well-being of high-rise
dwellers and an element in the quality of
the high-rise living milieu (Greenberg,
1999; Church and Gale, 2000).
In a similar vein, worries about the lift bring
to focus its importance in high-rise. As
Conway and Adams (1977) remind us, lifts
are an important feature of high-rise living
and an area where residents often report pro-
blems. The concern will only increase as
buildings go taller and the search for liveable
tall buildings continues. As one respondent
living on the middle floor reasoned, travelling
time in the lift would be longer in taller build-
ings and crime risk would increase. All
respondents in the Singapore study empha-
sised the importance of providing good and
reliable lifts as an essential element of high-
rise living. They were appreciative of the
current provision of three lifts servicing one
apartment block. As one respondent
explained, “it was unlikely that two or all
Figure 5. Enhanced security window feature in lift provision.
595
three of the lifts would breakdown at the
same time”. Others praised the current
design of lifts which stopped on each floor
and were installed with window panels in
the lift door, a much-desired safety feature
against crime in lifts (Figure 5).12 They unan-
imously supported the continued provision of
a bright and open lift lobby area which many
see as a ‘must-have’ security feature of high-
rise living, given that at present public
housing estates in Singapore are open to all,
residents and the public. Relatively fewer
among the respondents expressed concern
about the collapse of the building (2.5 per
cent) and power failure (2.5 per cent). The
respondents generally expressed good faith
in the provisions. As one respondent
summed it up
If I were concerned with the collapse of the
building, I would not have chosen to live in
high-rise buildings.
The results would seem again to converge
towards a certain confidence in high-rise that
comes with the self-selection of housing.
596 BELINDA YUEN ET AL.
Conclusion
In speaking of satisfaction with high-rise, it is
appropriate to state at the outset that this paper
is not advocating that all housing in the city
should be high-rise. However, given current
urbanisation trends, it would appear that
high-rise housing is an inevitable consider-
ation in many cities’ search for answers to
solve the problem of urban growth and
housing shortage. The consensus on modern
design is once more converging towards tall
buildings as a model of sustainable building
(Corporation of London, 2002; Abel, 2003).
Many of the early problems associated with
high-rise living are increasingly viewed as
mistakes of building management and tenant
selection. The argument seems to support the
importance of self-selection and willingness
to live in high-rise buildings as a vital precon-
dition in the demand for tall housing. As
Church and Gale (2000) and many others
remind us, high-rise living works when you
get residents who want to live there. This
appears to find support from the Singapore
case. As the headlines in the local press
declare, “One in three HDB (public housing)
dwellers ready to give high life a try” (The
Straits Times, 22 June 2005). Residents are
given a choice of apartment type and where
they want to live including the option to pur-
chase. Notwithstanding the common negative
descriptive about high-rise living in the litera-
ture, our findings lend support to the sugges-
tion that high-rise living can be a satisfying
experience.
Developed as a solution to the housing
shortage, high-rise housing has become the
living space of the greater proportion of the
Singapore resident population. The majority
(84 per cent) of Singapore’s resident popu-
lation has progressively moved from tra-
ditional low-rise housing to live in tall
public housing largely located in new towns
all over the island. Even though they may
not have initially chosen to live high-rise,
many have adapted to this alternative way of
living and have voiced high levels of satisfac-
tion and their continued intention to remain in
high-rise blocks. Building height is increasing
and the trend is to build taller (50 and 70
storeys) with increasing population growth.
As with many other fast-growing cities,
tall(er) building has become a vitally
important component in present and future
Singapore. However, as the data from
Singapore illustrate, mass high-rise does not
necessarily mean ‘vertical slums’.
With careful planning and design, high-rise
public housing can have its level of conven-
ience. Right from the start, almost echoing
Langdon and Conway and Adams, a central
focus of the Singapore high-rise effort has
been to
create surroundings which make it easier
for people to do the things they want to
do and have to do, to live the way they
want; and make it unnecessary for them to
do what they do not want and would not
otherwise have to do (Langdon; quoted in
Conway and Adams, 1977, p. 612).
It is celebrated as good housing for all who
lack shelter. The pragmatic emphasis is thus
on providing a quality living environment.
As Teo and Kong (1997) argue, there is
strong commitment and continual effort to
upgrade the older flats and towns to be con-
sistent with modern lifestyles. Viewed as a
long-term asset of the country, technological
advances and housing maintenance are con-
tinuously harnessed to improve the urban
quality of life in tall buildings. Over time,
lifts with security windows are introduced to
heighten the sense of security. More recently,
drying poles that parallel the building and face
on small balconies have been introduced to
alleviate the insecurity of hanging the poles
perpendicular to the building and over the
void. What is important to illustrate is that,
while there are resident confidence issues in
high-rise, good (and improved) design and
management may go some way to addressing
their concerns and enhancing high-rise live-
ability. But how willing are residents to live
in high-rise blocks, in particular, the rising
supertall buildings? Is this typology more
suited to some than others as the high-rise
discourses seem to indicate?
 HIGH-RISE LIVING IN SINGAPORE
Considering its place in urban form, it is not
difficult to imagine the relevance of knowing
residents’ willingness to live in tall(er) build-
ings. The data presented here indicate some
general conclusions. First, living in tall(er)
buildings is likely to appeal more to the
younger age-group. Younger respondents
tend to view living in tall buildings as a pres-
tigious lifestyle while older respondents
appear more inclined to favour lower floors
and are slightly more concerned with the
structural reliability of high-rise buildings.
However, as willingness to live in a tall build-
ing is not exactly demand, it remains to be
seen whether the younger residents as well
as the more mature residents who have
expressed a continuing desire to always live
high above others will follow through on
their enthusiasms, particularly when price
becomes a factor (price level generally
increases with height). This opens an area
for further research (in urban economics)
that will give firmer empirical grounding to
the depth of the demand.
Secondly, even though preference for floor
level seemed to differ according to individual
personal considerations such as age and incli-
nations, it would seem that residents were
generally not averse to the idea of living in
tall buildings. If their floor preference in
public housing over the past 30 years is any
indication, Singapore residents appear highly
adaptable to high-rise living. Over time, the
willingness to live higher seems to have pro-
gressed with growing familiarity. Even so, it
is interesting to see that while more respon-
dents were willing to live on the 26th– 30th
storeys, not many were for the high floors of
apartment blocks (40 or 50 storeys) which
were perceived to be very tall buildings. As
Rapoport (1977) and others have contended,
perception can act as a barrier, especially
when it is tinged with safety considerations
as in the present data. Safety and security in
their various dimensions are a recurring
theme in respondents’ concerns about high-
rise living and will continue to challenge
designers as they plan for taller buildings.
Our findings seem to suggest that people’s
acceptance of living in these buildings is to
597
some extent restricted by their imaginary
perception and the absence of experience.
However, the issue of perception does not
rule out the possibility that, when the build-
ings are built and occupied, residents’ percep-
tion and preference for such living may
change accordingly.
Thirdly, reflecting the further influence of
lived space, top-floor respondents were more
inclined and willing to live on higher floors
of taller buildings, having had the benefit of
past living experience. More among high-
floor respondents were willing to move to
higher floors than low floor respondents.
Beyond the act of being kiasu, the attractions
seem to converge on the unit’s view, breeze
and privacy that can yield a source of satisfac-
tion for those living high. The implication is a
challenge not to erode the view and privacy as
more tall buildings are built. In addition, more
than the specifics of the dwelling unit, it
appears that satisfaction with high-rise living
also draws on a considered balance of the
wider residential environment. In considering
the liveability of the high-rise, concern seems
to be prioritised on the availability of neigh-
bourhood facilities, lift efficiency and safety
and one’s neighbours. Those factors have the
potential to enhance the enjoyment of high-
rise living and prompt proper consideration
by tall-building designers when offering sol-
utions for the future of taller housing. Need-
less to say, the attractions and concerns of
high-rise living identified in this paper are
by no means exhaustive. As the wider litera-
ture on housing satisfaction indicates, resi-
dents’ satisfaction is not absolute and can be
affected by many factors including the charac-
teristics of the dwelling unit and the physical
environment, the characteristics of the resi-
dent, the nature of interaction with neighbours
and psychological feelings (Rapoport, 1977;
Ukoha and Beamish, 1997).
Against the trend of more people living in
taller buildings, there is a need (now more
than ever) for urban scholarship to rekindle
the issue of liveability and give voice to the
appreciation and concerns residents have of
high-rise living. A high-rise unit that is well-
built in terms of engineering and technology
598 BELINDA YUEN ET AL.
may not necessarily be considered satisfactory
from the occupant perspective. Understanding
the satisfaction and concerns of the residents,
the ‘users’, offers planners and designers of
tall housing a way of “putting people first”
(Church and Gale, 2000, p. 6).
Notes
1. ‘Echo boomers’ (also referred to as ‘Gener-
ation Y’ or ‘millennials’) are those born
between 1982 and 1995, the children of the
baby boomers. They form the largest gener-
ation of young people since the 1960s—
nearly one-third of the American population
with a spending capacity of approximately
US$170 billion a year.
2. This formed part of a larger research project
investigating residents’ living experiences in
high-rise public housing (see Yuen et al.,
2003).
3. According to the 1947 Colony of Singapore
Housing Committee Report (p. 16),
Singapore had then one of the world’s
worst slums, “a disgrace to a civilised com-
munity”. Surveys in the 1960s estimated
about 300 000 people to be then living in
temporary squalid dwellings in squatter
areas with no sanitation, water or any of
the basic health facilities and another
250 000 in ramshackle traditional shop-
houses (2- to 3-storeys in height) within the
city area, in neighbourhoods such as China-
town “in which gross overcrowding was
common” (HDB, 1966, p. 30). Singapore’s
population was then around 1 million.
4. With the recent completion of the 40-storey
blocks, the tallest lived-in public housing in
Singapore is now 40-storey.
5. SERS, first introduced in 1995, is the latest
estate renewal effort by the public housing
authority where older flats are demolished
and new taller buildings with improved
facilities are built. Residents in the older
flats are given relocation preference and
compensation to move to the new flats or
another location of their choice. SERS
allows residents to continue to live in the
same neighbourhood and enjoy improved
dwelling facilities (see Lau, 1998, for
further discussion of this and other estate
renewal efforts instituted to maintain the
quality of the public housing environment).
6. The housing policy is towards home-
ownership and various assistance plans
exist to help families including those on
low incomes to progress towards public
housing ownership (see Wong and Yeh,
1985; HDB Annual Reports, various years).
7. Kiasu (pronounced as kee-ah-soo) is a
popular local Chinese dialect (Hokkien)
word which, when translated literally,
would mean ‘afraid to lose out to others’. It
is commonly used to describe those who
want to get the most for whatever they pay
for (for a more detailed discussion, see
Mulliner and Mulliner, 1991).
8. The local high-rise public housing practice is
to hang wet laundry and other wet items out
of the kitchen window to dry. Singapore is
located about 18 north of the equator and
enjoys much sunshine around the year,
with daily temperatures (Fahrenheit) in the
high 70s and 80s.
9. There are no specific statistics but according
to The Straits Times (16 February 2004), 96
Indonesian maids have died in Singapore
since 1999—most have fallen from
windows while cleaning them or hanging
out the laundry. About one-third of the
140 000 foreign domestic workers (more
commonly referred to as maids) in Singapore
are from Indonesia. The fatal occurrence has
prompted the Singapore Ministry of
Manpower to step up safety measures for
foreign domestic workers including the
introduction of a compulsory safety aware-
ness course for all new maids in 2004.
10. Compared with other cities, Singapore has a
relatively low crime rate (see Yuen, 2004,
for further discussion of Singapore’s urban
crime situation).
11. The HDB Sample Household Survey is con-
ducted once in every 5 years by the public
housing authority (HDB) to find out its resi-
dents’ assessment on various aspects of
public housing. In the recent (2003) survey,
7300 residents were interviewed. The 3 main
aspects most liked by residents about their
living in public housing estates were: low
housing cost (39.5 per cent), estate facilities
(16.8 per cent) and location (14.6 per cent).
12. These facilities are also being progressively
introduced into older developments through
the upgrading programme.
References
ABEL , C. (2003) Sky High: Vertical Architecture.
London: Royal Academy of Arts.
ALI , M. M. and ARMSTRONG , P. J. (Eds) (1995)
Architecture of Tall Buildings. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
BACON , M. (2001) Le Corbusier in America:
Travels in the Land of the Timid. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
 HIGH-RISE LIVING IN SINGAPORE
BBC News (2003) High-rise living to solve housing
crisis, 10 February.
BENSON , E. D., HANSEN , J. L., SCHWARTZ , J. A. L.
and SMERSH , G. T. (1998) Pricing residential
amenities: the value of a view, Journal of Real
Estate Finance and Economics, 16(1), pp. 55–74.
BINDER , G. (2001) Tall Buildings of Asia and Aus-
tralia. Mulgrave: Images Publishing Group Pty
Ltd.
BLAIR , T. L. and HULSBERGEN , E. D. (1993)
Designing renewal on Europe’s multi-ethnic
urban edge: the case of Bijlmermeer, Cities,
10(4), pp. 293–298.
BURTON , E. (2000) The compact city: just or just
compact? A preliminary analysis, Urban
Studies, 37(2), pp. 1969– 2007.
CASTELLS , M., GOH , L. and KWOK , R. (1990) The
Shek Kip Mei Syndrome: Economic Develop-
ment and Public Housing in Hong Kong and
Singapore. London: Pion.
CHURCH , C. and GALE , T. (2000) Streets in the sky.
The first report of the National Sustainable
Tower Blocks Initiative. London: NSTBI.
CIB TASK GROUP ON TALL BUILDINGS TG50
(2003) The 2nd CIB Global Leaders Summit
on Tall Buildings. Kuala Lumpur, October.
COLONY OF SINGAPORE (1947) Report of the
Housing Committee. Singapore.
CONWAY , J. and ADAMS , B. (1977) The social
effects of living off the ground, Habitat Inter-
national, 2(5/6), pp. 595–614.
COOPER -MARCUS , C. (1995) House as a Mirror of
Self: Exploring the Deeper Meaning of Home.
Berkeley, CA: Conari Press.
CORPORATION OF LONDON (2002) Tall Buildings,
Sustainability and the City. Corporation of
London.
COSTELLO , L. (2005) From prisons to penthouses:
the changing images of high-rise living in
Melbourne, Housing Studies, 20(1), pp. 49 –62.
FOLEY , D. L. (1980) The sociology of housing,
Annual Review of Sociology, 6, pp. 457–478.
FORD , L. R. (1994) Cities and Buildings: Skyscra-
pers, Skid Rows and Suburbs. Baltimore, MD:
Johns Hopkins University Press.
GIFFORD , R. (1997) Environmental Psychology:
Principles and Practice. Boston, MA: Allyn
and Bacon.
GOSLING , D. and MAITLAND , B. (1984) Concepts
of Urban Design. New York: St Martin’s Press.
GOTTMANN , J. (1966) Why the skyscraper?,
Geographical Review, 56, pp. 190–212.
GREENBERG , M. R. (1999) Improving neighbour-
hood quality: a hierarchy of needs, Housing
Policy Debate, 10(3), pp. 601–624.
HABER , G. M. (1977) The impact of tall buildings
on users and neighbours, in: D. J. CONWAY (Ed.)
Human Response to Tall Buildings, pp. 45–57.
Stroudsburg: Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross Inc.
599
HASSAN , R. (1975) Social and psychological
implications of high density in Hong Kong and
Singapore, Ekistics, 235, pp. 382–386.
HASSAN , R. (1977) Families in Flats. Singapore:
Singapore University Press.
HDB (HOUSING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD )
(1966) 50,000 Up: Homes for the People.
Singapore: HDB.
HDB (2000) Residential Mobility and Housing
Aspirations. Singapore: HDB.
HDB (2003) Release of survey findings of residents
living in 20- to 30-storey HDB blocks. Press
release 27 January, HDB, Singapore.
HDB (various years) Annual Reports. HDB,
Singapore.
HELLEMAN , G. and WASSENBERG , F. (2004) The
renewal of what was tomorrow’s idealistic
city: Amsterdam’s Bijlmermeer high-rise,
Cities, 21(1), pp. 3–17.
HERRENKOHL , R. C. (1981) Social effects of the
environment, in: R. C. HERRENKOHL , W. HENN
and C. NORBERG -SCHULZ (Eds) Planning and
Design of Tall Buildings, pp. 169–287. Reston,
VA: American Society of Civil Engineers.
JEPHCOTT , P. and ROBINSON , H. (1971) Homes in
High Flats: Some of the Human Problems
Involved in Multi-storey Housing. Edinburgh:
Oliver and Boyd.
JOHNSON , B. (2002) Living the High Life, National
Real Estate Investor, January.
KUNSTLER , J. H. and SALINGAROS , N. A. (2001)
The end of tall buildings (available at:
PLANetizen,planetizen.com).
LACAYO , R. (2004) Kissing the sky, Time Maga-
zine, 164(26/27), pp. 100–106.
LANG , J. (1994) Urban Design. New York: John
Wiley and Sons.
LAU , W. C. (1998) Renewal of public housing
estates, in: B. YUEN (Ed.) Planning Singapore:
From Plan to Implementation, pp. 42–53.
Singapore: Singapore Institute of Planners.
LE CORBUSIER (1946) Towards a New Architec-
ture. London: Architectural Press.
LE CORBUSIER (1967) The Radiant City, London:
Faber and Faber.
LE CORBUSIER (1971) The City of Tomorrow.
London: Architectural Press.
LEFEBVRE , H. (1991) The Production of Space.
Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
Marcuse, P. (2001) Urban life will change: reflec-
tions on the consequences of September 11,
Trialog, 70(3), pp. 46 –47.
MC NEILL , D. (2005) Skyscraper geography, Pro-
gress in Human Geography, 29(1), pp. 41–55.
MOSER , M. M. (1981) Philosophy of tall buildings,
in: R. C. HERRENKOHL , W. HENN and C.
NORBERG -SCHULZ (Eds) Planning and Design
of Tall Buildings, pp. 1–79. Reston, VA:
American Society of Civil Engineers.
600 BELINDA YUEN ET AL.
MULLINER , K. and MULLINER , L. T. (Eds) (1991)
Historical Dictionary of Singapore. Metuchen,
NJ: Scarecrow Press.
NEWMAN , O. (1972) Defensible Space. New York:
Colliers Book.
Planning (2002) Skyscrapers are ‘model of
sustainable’ building, 26 April.
PYNOOS , J., SCHAFER , R. and HARTMAN , C. (Eds)
(1973) Housing Urban America. Chicago, IL:
Aldine.
RAPOPORT , A. (1977) Human Aspects of Urban
Form. New York: Pergamon Press.
ROONEY , N. (2003) At Home with Density. Hong
Kong: Hong Kong University Press.
SMITH , M., WHITELEGG , J. and WILLIAMS , N.
(1998) Greening the Built Environment.
London: Earthscan.
TASHAKKORI , A. and TEDDLIE , C. (1998) Mixed
Methodology: Combining Qualitative and
Quantitative Approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
TEO , S. E. and KONG , L. (1997) Public housing in
Singapore: interpreting ‘quality’ in the 1990s,
Urban Studies, 34(3), pp. 441– 452.
THE NATIONAL TOWER BLOCKS DIRECTORY
(1992) Community Links. London.
TIBBITS , G. (1988) The enemy within our gates:
slum clearance and high-rise flats, in: R. HOWE
(Ed.) New Houses for Old: Fifty Years of
Public Housing in Victoria, 1938 –1988, pp.
123–162. Melbourne: Ministry of Housing and
Construction.
UKOHA , O. M. and BEAMISH , J. O. (1997) Assess-
ment of residents’ satisfaction with public
housing in Abuja, Nigeria, Habitat Inter-
national, 21(4), pp. 445–460.
URBAN REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (2001)
Concept Plan 2001. Singapore: Urban Redeve-
lopment Authority.
VAUS , D. A. DE (1991) Surveys in Social Research.
London: Allen and Unwin.
WONG , A. and YEH , S. H. K. (1985) Housing a
Nation. Singapore: Maruzen Asia.
YEUNG , Y. M. and WONG , T. K. Y. (Eds) (2003)
Fifty Years of Public Housing in Hong Kong.
Hong Kong: Chinese University Press.
YOUNG , S. (1976) Social and psychological effects
of living in high-rise buildings. Ian Buchan Fell
Research Project on Housing, University of
Sydney.
YUEN , B. (2004) Safety and dwelling in Singapore,
Cities, 21(1), pp. 19–28.
YUEN , B., APPOLD , S. J., YEH , A. ET AL. (2003)
Living experience in super tall residential build-
ings. Final Report. The National University of
Singapore.
YUEN , B., TEO , H. P. and OOI , G. L. (1999)
Singapore Housing: An Annotated Bibli-
ography. Singapore: National University of
Singapore.