33

THE SJ3IFTING PARADIGMS OF HIGH-RISE LIVING

BELINDA YUEN
National University of Singapore

This paper reviews the changing conceptualizations and prospects of high-rise living in contemporary cities. The
argument is not for or against high-rise. Rather effort is to situate the modem high-rise in perspective at a moment where
many cities around the world are re-discovering and building ever increasingly taller housing for their population in the
wake of globalization and technological advancement. Using data largely from Singapore where 90% of the population
resides in high-rise, this paper explores the issue of high-rise and everyday life. Intention is to raise residents’ perception
and acceptability issues not just from the Asian perspective, but also to explore the wider urban representations and
performance pathways in the endeavour towards better quality of life with this housing style.

1. Introduction study has primarily been the high-rise public housing

that emerged in the 1960s. At the time, high-rise
High-rise living is increasingly experienced in cities
proliferated as state provided housing in many countries
across the world, from America to England, Asia and
as a viable option to housing large numbers of people.
Australia. In spite of negative discourses on high-rise
This housing solution was celebrated as ‘a panacea for
and the strong push to stop the growth of high-rise
social problems’ [4]. However, by the early 1970s the
public housing by the 1970s, there appears to be a
discourse surrounding high-rise was increasingly filled
revisit of high-rise housing in the last 10-20 years.
with negative comments, especially that it was an
High-rise housing is fast becoming an alternative option
unhealthy living environment for families and children
in many inner city redevelopments under the current
[5]. The pressure and resultant response was to abandon
narratives of urban sustainability and globalization [ 11.
high-rise public housing. With the construction of such
Melbourne, for example, has in the 1990s witnessed a
housing being halted for some time, housing research
construction boom in high-rise housing in its revitalized
too shifted to emphasize more on other issues (such as
central business district [2]. Elsewhere, even as local
affordability and finance).
authorities in the UK are demolishing many of the
Notwithstanding the recent renaissance of the high-
1960s high-rise public housing, London is building 50-
rise, it would appear that much of our knowledge of
storey ‘green technology’ tower blocks (Skyhouses
high-rise living remains decades-old basing on
designed by D Marks and J Barfield) as the latest
situations that are not necessarily relevant today. For
answer to the country’s housing shortage. In intensively
some, the latest high-rise still resonates with anti-child
urban Asian cities such as Hong Kong and Singapore,
and family sentiment and the target population is in the
high-rise is the common lifestyle of much of the
main singles, childless ‘professional’ couples and
population. Notwithstanding that several urban analysts
empty-nesters lacking childcare responsibilities [6]. But
including Marcuse [3] may have predicted the end of
the high-rise of today is not that of the past. To quote
high-rise right after the Sep 11 2001 World Trade
Greg Lynn of FORM [7], ‘Tall buildings are turning
Centre destruction, all indications seem to converge
into urban fabrics...Architects are thinking about how
towards a continued revival of high-rise housing and its
to pull the qualities of the street into the building.’
celebration as a symbol of affluent modem living.
Many of the new high-rise is what Ali and Armstrong
Against the new and rising images of high-rise, how
[8] call as a supertall building. Many of the world’s
much do we really understand about this contemporary
tallest buildings are found increasingly not just in
style of living? What are the attractions and concerns of
Europe or USA but in Asia [9]. By and large, it would
high-rise living? How do residents in high-rise living
seem that research has not kept pace with current
perceive and relate to this form of housing?
realities. In particular, McNeill [ 101 astutely observes,
Available evidence seems to indicate that research
‘In debates over the future of urban form, existing
into high-rise living has in the most part been based on
Western-biased theories and models are of questionable
studies of western cities and population. The unit of
relevance.’ Against this unfolding trend, there is urgent
34

need to re-examine and re-define high-rise living in towering height, as markers of place, sculptors of the
order to give a more accurate interpretation of the way city silhouette and as conveyors of public image.’ To
high-rise is experienced every day, especially in Asia this, Mies van der Rohe and Le Corbusier have inspired
where high-rise is mushrooming [ I l l . As Lefebve [I21 with their skyscraper visions. Le Corbusier [20] in
argues, to know more about what is will help us to particular is widely cited for the way he has enshrined
understand more about what is likely to be, the tall building as the landmark in the design of the
It will help us to grasp how societies generate contemporary city. His monumental towers have been
their (social) space and time - their celebrated as a new model of multiple uses that has
representational space and their representations of dominated much of post-war urban renewal in United
space. This would allow us, not to foresee the States and infused urban design thinking in many
future, but to bring relevant factors to bear on the planning and architectural schools [2 11.
future in prospect-on the project, in other words, According to Helleman and Wassenberg [22], the
of another space and another time in another peak of high-rise living was reached during the period
(possible or impossible) society. of 1960s and the mid-l970s, and there has never since
The following section will review the changing been a period in house building in which similarities
conceptualizations and discourses surrounding high-rise between countries have been as great. Largely provided
with the aim to establish present understanding of high- as public housing, high-rise is seen as the solution to
rise. The paper will also explore issues of resident’s housing the masses and to arrest the growth of sub-
living experience drawing on empirical data from standard housing. Held as the ultimate, ideal and
Singapore, and highlight the areas for further research. modem dwelling form, high-rise public housing
construction is however quickly contested by
2. -
What We Know The Trends and Forces documentation (much of the 1970s) relating to the
downsides of living in high-rise. Very much the same
The phenomenon of high-rise living is not new. As Ford
across many western cities, the failings of the high-rise
[ 131 traces, high-rise living has been expanding in large
often concern dystopia of functionality in particular
American cities since early 1900s. According to
high-rise housing is unsuitable for families with
Douglas [14], a key factor for the growth of tall
children. Research details the negative effects on
buildings is rapidly increasing urban land values. As
children’s safety and mental health, impersonalization
Huxtable [ 151, Abel [ 161 and others have contended, the
and loneliness among the adult population [23]. Some
tall building is the direct product of more people
such as Stevenson et a1 [24] have described high-rise
wanting to occupy the same choice city sites than could
housing as ‘gaols in the sky’ and ‘prisons for families’.
be accommodated by smaller buildings. As a societal
Others including Doxiades [25] have on reflection
expression, tall buildings have come to project the
concluded that high-rise housing is a mistake,
image of a rapidly industrializing and progressive nation
My greatest crime was the construction of high-
or as Huxtable [I71 observes, ‘It romanticizes power
rise buildings. The most successfit1 cities of the
and the urban condition’. The staying power of this is
past were those where people and buildings were
perhaps best encapsulated by Lacayo [18] post-Sep 11
2001, ‘The only clients still interested in building them in a certain balance with nature. But high-rise
were in nations that wanted a symbol of their arrival as buildings work against nature, or, in modern
terms, against the environment. High-rise
a contender in the global market, mostly in Asia’s
buildings work against man himself; because they
Pacific Rim.’
isolate him from others, and this isolation is an
From this perspective, high-rise is often seen as an
important factor in the rising crime rate. Children
icon of a developed (western) society and a part of
suffer even more because they lose their direct
urban boosterism especially American who leads the
contacts with nature, and with other children.
world in the construction of the first modem tall
High-rise buildings work against society because
building and its subsequent development as a model for
they prevent the units of social importance-the
the shape of cities in the 20” century. As Crilley [19]
fami ly...the neighbourhood, etc -from functioning
observes, high-rise buildings ‘are charged with
representational responsibilities to act, by virtue of their as naturally and as normally as before. High-rise
 35

buildings work against networks of transportation, development than the familiar low-density decentralised
communication, and of utilities, since they lead to suburban structure. As Sassen [35] explains, ‘strategic,
higher densities, to overload roads, to more creative activities - whether economic, cultural or
extensive water supply systems---and, more political - thrive on density... There is an economic
importantly, because they form vertical networks logic, then, to thick, dense places.’ Supported by
which create many additional problems-crime advancement in technology, the deepening trend is to
being just one of them. build taller - the supertall buildings, which Ali and
However, just as high-rise housing is being Armstrong [36] define as the growing interest and
criticized, stopped and demolished in many cities, there expanding need. What is remarkable in the high-rise
is new enthusiasm in recent years in several European trajectory is not just the vertical skywards growth in
cities to revive high-rise in inner city as a residential height but also how its diffusion has globalised, perhaps
model for the new urban affluent. Some such as London nowhere more so than in Asia, notwithstanding the
sees high-rise as part of its global city growth strategy, limitations of the paradigm.
‘London must continue to grow and maintain its global In rapidly urbanizing Asia, cities such as Hong
pre-eminence in Europe. London must continue to reach Kong and Singapore have embraced high-rise as the
for the skies.’ [26] In contrast to much of the earlier inevitable option for housing a growing population on
high-rise construction, many of the recent high-rise is limited land. High-rise has become the lifestyle for the
by private sector and in prime city locations. majority of the population. Over the past 40 years, not
Integral to this--and notwithstanding negative only has high-rise emerged as the dominant building
perceptions, is emerging evidence to suggest that high- form but its height has been rising. In Hong Kong many
rise living is valued for the spectacular views and of the new housing is 60-storey. Equally in Singapore,
sensation of height [27], privacy and quietness [28] and high-rise has displaced the traditional low-rise 2-3-
prestige and status [29]. In particular, Johnson [30] has storey shop-house as the norm. At present, some 92 per
noted that urban high-rise lofts are attracting ‘echo cent of its population lives in apartment housing - 86 per
boomers’, grounding that attraction to the glamour of cent in public housing and 6 per cent in private housing.
high-rise living on recent television shows like ‘Frasier’ While the tallest public housing in Singapore is at
and the hip grunge fashion of cosmopolitanism. Others present 40-storey, new housing, especially private, is set
in the real estate industry have predicted rising demand to rise to 50- and 70-storey in the central business
for high-rise from baby boomers that are fast becoming district [37]. However, in contrast to much of western
empty nesters [3 11. High-rise supporters have argued experience, public acceptability of high-rise living in
that ‘it is possible to make tower blocks cater these cities appears to be high [38]. Take the case of
successfully for these groups’ [32]. As a symbol of Singapore, recent statistics on its public housing
modernization, high-rise seems to gain more power and residential mobility reveal a significant 82.5 per cent of
persuasion now than before. It fits perfectly with the all households living in public housing indicating that
notions of smart growth. they would be content to always live in those flats [39].
High-rise intensifies urban living, takes up less land Such residential satisfaction with high-rise can be
and supports high-density building form. As Harada and viewed as a challenge to cities adopting high-rise living
Yeang [33] would contend, ‘super-tall skyscraper or as an urban solution. At the same time, Singapore and
‘hypertower’ (being a building of over 500 metres high) Hong Kong with its decades-old tradition of building
offers even greater opportunities for ecologically- ever-taller housing for a broadening segment of
responsive solutions and enables the freeing of land at population offer source-ground for closer analysis to
the ground plane for ecological succession (Le. return to augment our understanding of life in high-rise
natural flora and fauna states through natural processes especially in the light of growing international interest
of recolonisation)’. Against the narratives of sustainable in tall housing amid lingering criticisms that ‘Tower
development and new urbanism, high-rise has re- blocks are fundamentally flawed as a general form of
entered housing policy agenda to offer the best housing’ [40].
alternative to suburban sprawl [34]. It is also arguably With rapid urbanization (and more than half of the
the better setting to facilitate global economic world’s population is to live in urban areas), tall(er)
housing seems an unexceptional component of the attributes of the building, especially spaciousness, room
future city, especially when building outwards and arrangement and quality of construction. These points
downwards are not the best options. Against the are picked up by Odeleye and Jogun [49] in a study of
heritage of discourse fragmentation and the growing 14 and 12-storey high-rise housing in Africa. They
trend of more people living in tall(er) buildings [41], found that most of their respondents were not averse to
there is scholarly motivation to consider liveability from high-rise living even though they would prefer to move
the everyday subjectivity of the occupant, the ‘user’ of to low-rise if there is a choice. In view of the centrality
the high-rise. The rationale is perhaps best summed up of residents in the satisfaction outcome, we obviously
in the words of Mumford [42], ‘It is ultimately the need to obtain and analyze Information about the
person whose foot has to be fitted with the shoe who perceivers themselves. How people feel about living in
knows whether it pinches or not’. the tall buildings is central to the liveability index.
Yet, despite the growing literature on the positive
3. Some Key Questions - Going Beyond the and negative views of high-rise living, there has been
Physical to Social relatively little documentation on the attitudes and lived
Clearly, with more people living in taller buildings, experiences of people who have personally chosen high-
there is a need in research to go beyond the physical and rise living [50]. Even less scholarship is on the
engineering concerns to consider liveability and impact perceived quality, willingness and acceptability of super
of that environment on its users. There is no denying the high-rise living notwithstanding its growing presence
importance of engineering considerations in the future internationally. Several key questions therefore remain:
of high-rise especially post-Sep 11. As Easterling [43] do we really understand the nature of the impact of
observes, it is the elevator technology that will continue super tall buildings on our city? What do such
to drive the fbture high-rise. High-rise residents are developments actually mean in terms of the lives of
dependent on the lift everyday to get into and out of those people who live in them? More pointedly,
their homes. If something goes wrong, they are highly perhaps, how do residents perceive these dwellings and
their neighbourhood? What are the affective and
vulnerable. People are anxious of being trapped by a
power failure, unable to escape and fearful of crimes in cognitive reactions evoked by the condition of such
the lifts such as rape, murder and robbery [44]. The residential environment? What is the extent of
catastrophe of the World Trade Centre towers further residential annoyance and satisfaction? At what height
do they thiwfeel an apartment building begins to feel
heightens general concern about the lift and safety of
tall buildings. However, as we all know, a house that is tall? Is there any relationship between how tall a person
thinkdfeels a tall building is and hisker past living
adequate from the engineering or design dimensions
arrangement, as well as hisher demographic
may not necessarily be considered adequate or
characteristics? In short, are certain people more suited
satisfactory by the occupants. From an early time,
to high(er)-rise living? As things stand, there is a
housing observers have argued that the housing unit is
but one in a chain of factors of housing habitability that perennial danger that we may yet follow a similar cycle
determine people’s relative satisfaction with their and resurrect the earlier period of negative visions of
accommodation [45]. The adequacy of the housing unit, high-rise if we do not question expectations and reality.
While perceptions may be fraught terrains in the world
as determined by the internal space, the structural
quality, the household facilities and other such housing of scientific, technical engineering inquiry, the case
remains that careful analysis of residents’ lived
amenities and qualities within the wider housing
experiences offers insights into the social impacts of
environment, will influence the extent to which the
high(er)-rise living that may yield pathways to
inhabitant is satisfied with the unit [46].
The debate on the connection between residential strengthen the potential benefits while minimizing the
space and satisfaction is not new. It has been pursued in dissatisfactions. It is also a way of shoring up
several studies on high-density living [47]. Williamson opportunities for residents to stake claims to their living
[48], for example, has studied 530 high-rise apartments environment and city [5 11.
in Germany and found that overall residential Where scholarship must surely turn its attention
satisfaction was strongly related to the physical soon is to occupant research. This is the departing point
 37

for enhancing the efficacy and liveability of tall(er) 10. D. McNeill, Skyscraper geography, Progress in
housing. Internationally, following the Sep 11 2001 Human Geography 29( l), pp42, (2005).
collapse of the World Trade Centre Towers, the 11. G. Binder, Tall Buildings of Asia and Australia,
Mulgrave, Victoria, The Images Publishing Group,
International Council for Research and Innovation in (2001).
Building and Construction (CIB) has re-examined the 12. H. Lefebvre, The Production of Space, translated
use and construction of tall buildings and re-defined its by D. Nicholson-Smith, Oxford: Basil Blackwell,
priorities to include a focus on occupant research. The pp92, (1991).
CIB task group on tall buildings (TG50) was then 13. L. R. Ford, Cities and Buildings: Skyscrapers, Skid
formed to spearhead this research and included on its Rows and Suburbs, Baltimore: John Hopkins
research agenda are questions relating to societal University Press, (1994).
14. G. H. Douglas, Skyscrapers; A Social History in
issues/public expectation, in particular, will people
America, North Carolina, McFarland and Company
continue to occupy existing tall buildings and will new Inc, (1996).
ones be built? What are the tolerable level(s) of 15. L. Huxtable, The Tall Building Artistically
individual, business and societal risk in relation to very Reconsidered, New York, Pantheon, (1984).
tall buildings [52]? Locally, a group of us in universities 16. Abel, Sky High: Vertical Architecture, London,
in Singapore and Hong Kong have begun to explore and Royal Academy of Arts, (2003).
extend our understanding of residents’ lived experience 17. Huxtable, op cit, ppl 1.
in high-rise since 1999 [53]. This is a rich field of 18. R. Lacayo, Going up ...and up: When height is all
that matters, Newsweek Dec 27, pp104, (2004).
research where the answers are pertinent to a better
19. D. Crilley, Megastructures and urban change:
understanding of the factors to be addressed in the Aesthetics, ideology and design in P. L. Knox (ed)
development of liveable and sustainable tall buildings. The Restless Urban Landscape, Englewood Cliffs,
Much awaits us still to research and push forward our NJ, Prentice Hall, pp145, (1993).
understanding of high(er)-rise living. 20. Le Corbusier, Towards a New Architecture,
London, Architectural Press, (1946); Le Corbusier
References The Radiant City, London, Faber and Faber,
(1967); Le Corbusier The City of Tomorrow,
1. E. Burton, The compact city, Urban Studies London, Architectural Press, (197 1).
37(2): 1969-2007 (2000). 21. See D. Gosling and B. Maitland, Concepts of
2. V. Ridge, Asian buyer interest wanes, The Age, 1 Urban Design, New York, The St Martin’s Press,
Oct, pp2 (1997). (1984); J. Lang, Urban Design, New York, John
3. P. Marcuse, Urban life will change: Reflections on Wiley and Sons, (1994).
the consequences of Sep 11, Trialog 70(3):46-7, 22. G. Helleman and F. Wassenberg, The renewal of
(2001). what was tomorrow’s idealistic city: Amsterdam’s
4. G. Tibbits, The enemy within our gates: Slum Bijlmermeer high-rise, Cities 21( l), pp4, (2004).
clearance and high-rise flats in R. Howe (ed) New 23. See, for example, Jephcott and Robinson, op cit; S.
Houses for Old: Fifty Years of Public Housing in Young, Social and Psychological Effects of Living
Victoria, 1938-1988, Melbourne, Ministry of in High-Rise Buildings, Ian Buchan Fell Research
Housing and Construction, pp150, (1988). Project on Housing, Sydney, University of Sydney,
5. See, for example, P. Jephcott and H. Robinson, (1976); The National Tower Blocks Directory,
Homes in High-rise Flats: Some of the Human Community Links, London, (1992).
Problems involved in Multi-story Housing, 24. A. Stevenson, E. Martin and J. O’Neill, High
Edinburgh, Oliver and Boyd (197 1). Living: A Study of Family Life in Flats,
6. L. Costello, From prisons to penthouses: The Melbourne, Melbourne University Press, pp 1,
changing image of high-rise living in Melbourne, (1967).
Housing Studies 20( 1):49-62, (2005). 25. Doxiades cited by P. Blake, Form Follows Fiasco,
7. Interview reported in Architecture: Going up.. .and Boston, Little Brown, pp82, (1977).
up: When height is all that matters, Newsweek Dec 26. Foreword by Ken Livingstone, Mayor of London,
27, pp106, (2004). Interim strategic planning guidance on tall
8. M. M. Ali and P. J. Armstrong (ed) Architecture of buildings, strategic views and the skyline in
Tall Buildings, New York, McGraw-Hill, Chp 1, London, Greater London Authority, (2001).
(1995). 27. G. M. Haber, The impact of tall buildings on users
9. See www.emporis.com. and neighbours in D. J. Conway (ed) Human
38

Response to Tall Buildings, Stroudsburg, Dowden, 46. See, for example, Kennedy Smith Associates,
Hutchinson and Ross Inc, (1977); E. D. Benson, J. Housing Study, Isolated Communities and Indian
L. Hansen, J. A. L. Schwartz and G. T. Smersh, Reserves, Prairie Province, Winnipeg, Kennedy
Pricing residential amenities: The value of a view, Smith Associates, (1967); Y. K. Chan, Density,
Joumal of Real Estate Finance and Economics crowding and factors intervening in their
16(1):55-74, (1998). relationship: Evidence from a hyper-dense
28. See, for example, J. Conway and B. Adams, The metropolis, Social Indicators Research 48: 103-124,
social effects of living off the ground, Habitat (1999).
International 2(5/6): 595-614, (1977). 47. R. C. Williamson, Adjustment to the high-rise
29. B. Johnson, Living the High Life, National Real variables in a German sample, Environment and
Estate Investor, Jan, Atlanta, (2002). Behavior ,13(3): 289-310, (1981); W. Odeleye and
30. Ibid. D. Jogun, Some social significance of high-rise
31. L. Copeland, Nice view: Cities of all sizes living on Lagos, Nigeria in High-rise, High Density
embracing high-rise living, The USA Today, Feb Living SPC Convention: Selected Papers,
15, (2005). Singapore Professional Center, pp203-207, (1983);
32. C. Church and T. Gale, Streets in the Sky: Towards A.G. 0. Yeh, The planning and management of a
improving the quality of life in tower blocks in the better high density environment in A. G. 0. Yeh
UK, the first report of the National Sustainable and M. K. Ng (ed) Planning For A Better Urban
Tower Blocks Initiative, ppl, (2000). Living Environment In Asia. Ashgate, Aldershot,
33. K. Yeang, The Green Skyscraper, New York, (2000).
Prestel, pp27, (1999). 48. Williamson, op cit.
34. Skyscrapers are ‘model of sustainable’ building, 49. Odeleye and Jogun, op cit.
Planning 26 April, Royal Town Planning Institute, 50. Young, op cit.
London, (2002). 51. A. Rappoport, House Form and Culture, New
35. S. Sassen, How downtown can stand tall and step Jersey, Prentice Hall, (1969).
lively again, New York Times article: The case for 52. CIB task group on tall buildings TG50, The 2nd
Skyscrapers, Jan 26, (2003). CIB Global Leaders Summit on Tall Buildings,
36. Ali and Armstrong, op cit. Kuala Lumpur, Oct 20-21, (2003).
37. The Straits Times Oct 1 2004. 53. B. Yuen, S. J. Appold, A. Yeh, G. Earl, J. Ting and
38. See Y. M. Yeung, Cities that work Hong Kong and K. L. Kurnianingrum, Living Experience in Super
Singapore in R. J. Fuchs, G. W. Jones and E. M. Tall Residential Buildings, Final Report, The
Pernia (ed) Urbanisation and Urban Policies in National University of Singapore, Singapore,
Pacific Asia, London, Westview Press (1987); Y. (2003).
M. Yeung and T. K. Y. Wong (ed) Fifty Years of
Public Housing in Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Hong
Kong Housing Authority, (2003); Housing and
Development Board, Singapore, Annual Reports,
various years.
39. Housing and Development Board, Singapore,
Residential Mobility and Housing Aspirations,
Singapore, (2000).
40. BBC News 10 Feb 2003.
41. Abel, op cit.
42. Quoted in Conway and Adams, op cit, pp595.
43. K. Easterling, Conveyance ‘germs’: Elevators,
automated vehicles and the shape of global cities in
A. Goetz (ed) Up Down Across: Elevators,
Escalators and Moving Sidewalks, London,
Merrell, (2003).
44. Conway and Adams, op cit.
45. See, for example, C. Bauer, Social questions in
housing and community planning, Journal of Social
Issues, 7:l-34, (1951); W. Michelson, Man and His
Urban Environment, Reading, Massachusetts,
Addison-Wesley, (1970).