Inequality and Space
The Contradictions of Orchard Road as a Public Space
2019
Singapore’s Orchard Road is often characterized by the consumerist culture as a spectacle of mass consumption and leisure. At first sight, it seems to be yet another glamourous shopping street in a cosmopolitan city. Yet, going deeper, it reveals another sight that is of the everyday rituals and practices. Beyond shopping, it is of leisure, residence, work and the everyday. Within this dichotomy, this essay explores the notion of the public space, what constitutes the term ‘public’ and who are the public or the other. This is examined using canonical texts on public space from western theorists like Jurgen Habermas and Hananh Arendt, alongside with Singaporeans theorists like William Lim and Limin Hee. With this understanding, Orchard Road as a public space is studied through a juxtaposition of images that highlight the various contradictions in the discussion of public. In it, it extends our understanding of the public in Orchard Road as one that is fluid and ever-changing based on perspective and time. Hence, it put forth the argument that Orchard Road as a public space is one of pluralism and multiplicity.
Introduction
Orchard Road
Orchard Road : The Paradox of Public Space
Every nation aspires to have a great street—one that stands shoulder to shoulder with the best in the world. Older cities, shaped by centuries of urban evolution, boast iconic streets like Champs-Élysées in Paris, Oxford Street in London, Fifth Avenue in New York, Michigan Avenue in Chicago, La Rambla in Barcelona, Omotesandō and Ginza in Tokyo, and Nanjing Road in Shanghai.
But for a young nation like Singapore, where urban legacy is not inherited but imagined, the task of creating a world-class street was entrusted to the Singapore Tourism Board (STB). As STB Chairman Edmund Cheng stated in the 2003 Remaking Orchard Road study:
“For a young country such as Singapore, where having a great world street is not a matter of inheritance but of imagination and perseverance, the mission to help translate dream into reality was given to the Singapore Tourism Board.”
(Singapore Tourism Board, 2003)
This statement encapsulates the nation’s aspiration to position Orchard Road as a symbol of progress—an urban showcase that mirrors Singapore’s economic strength and social maturity. Yet, Orchard Road is not an organic streetscape layered through time; it is a curated construct—a canvas upon which national vision is projected. Its public spaces—pedestrian malls, boulevards, plazas—are concrete manifestations of this desire to be seen, to be admired, to belong among global greats.
But how much of Orchard Road is truly public?
While planning authorities may view it as a space for reinvention, Orchard Road also bears the invisible layers of communities and activities built up over time. From its beginnings as agricultural land—nutmeg and gambier plantations—it grew into one of the first suburban townships at the city’s fringe (National Heritage Board, 2018). By the 1980s, it had become a national destination for produce, leisure, and entertainment—a shared space where “McDonald’s youths” mingled with jet-setters and globe-trotters.
Today, Orchard Road is both a timeline and a mirror of change. Towering mall podiums rise alongside aging shophouses. The street is constructed not through heritage layering, but through a collage of transient elements, offering a hybrid interpretation of public space in Singapore.
And here lies the paradox.
How do we define Orchard Road as a public space?
Is it truly public in the way we imagine “publicness” to be?
Who belongs on this street—and who doesn’t?
Using Jürgen Habermas’s The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere as a starting point, this essay questions whether Orchard Road satisfies the communicative and democratic ideals of public space (Habermas, 1989). From Habermas' view, Orchard Road would fall short. But seen through the lens of Lyn Lofland’s concept of the collective space, it may instead be viewed as a site of plural encounters—a spatial theatre of negotiation among different publics (Lofland, 1973).
This essay, therefore, positions Orchard Road as a contradictory public realm, one that resists fixed definitions. Through a juxtaposition of images—past and present, planned and organic—it seeks to reveal the multiple, often competing, notions of “public” at play.
Situating Public Space in
Orchard Road
NOTIONS
What Is a Public Space? What Does ‘Public’ Even Mean?
Public spaces are often understood as physical containers of human activity, shaped not only by urban designers and architects but also by social and historical processes. They serve as urban “living rooms,” offering moments of pause and relief within otherwise dense cityscapes. More than that, they are frequently idealized as arenas of interaction—forums where strangers might meet, negotiate, and coexist (Hee, 2017).
In this sense, public space is not merely a spatial category, but a social construct—formed and re-formed through the routines, rituals, and rhythms of everyday life. Drawing from Hee Limin’s definition of public space as one of ethics and aesthetics, this essay seeks to unpack the multiple notions of publicness, and to question: what does it truly mean for a space to be ‘public’ in the Singaporean context?
ETHICS
In the Ethics discourse, Hee suggests that public space can be conceptualized as either a “stage”—performative and activated by its actors—or a “collective space” inhabited by a diversity of people across social hierarchies (Hee, 2017). Habermas’ idea of the public sphere aligns with the former: a space where public opinion is formed, accessible to all, and open to rational debate (Habermas, 1989). In this model, public space becomes a platform for communication, blind to class distinctions, and driven by a shared will to engage in matters of common concern (Cultural Reader, 2011). In that sense, public space is viewed as “a product of democracy” (Habermas, 1989).
Hannah Arendt similarly defines the public as everything that is seen and heard by all, where individual experience becomes part of a shared collective visibility (Arendt, 1958). Both Habermas and Arendt distinguish clearly between the public and private realms, and note how public life has deteriorated through the rise of free-market capitalism, the fragmentation of community, and the erosion of a common good (Hee, 2017). With the forces of globalization and privatized development, traditional boundaries between public and private have become increasingly blurred. In the case of Orchard Road, while it is clearly a highly capitalist space, we are left to wonder: has its consumer-driven activity eroded the publicness of its streetscape? It is perhaps difficult to say—because what is truly public about Orchard Road has become so obscured by private interests.
However, Hee also proposes an alternative view: public space as a “collective space,” where various groups co-occupy shared domains and co-exist—sometimes in competition—with others (Hee, 2017). This interpretation leans more social than political, departing from the idealistic democratic models of Habermas. Lofland’s notion of the public realm reflects this: a “world of strangers” defined by shared proximity (Lofland, 1973). Such spaces may provoke tension, but also opportunity—for interaction, recognition, and exchange. The multiplicity of communities becomes the driving force behind the vibrancy of public space. A robust public space, in the eyes of Habermas, Arendt, Lofland, and even Koon Wee, must support the full spectrum of society—“from the very wealthy to the wretched” (Koon Wee, 2013).
AESTHETICS
In terms of aesthetics, architectural theorist Rem Koolhaas offers a pointed critique of architects’ nostalgic attachment to traditional ideas of public space:
“I think we are stuck with this idea of the street and the plaza as public domain, but the public domain is radically changing… with television and the media and a whole series of other inventions, you could say that the public domain is lost. But you could also say, that it’s now so pervasive it does not need physical articulation any more… we as architects still look at it in terms of a nostalgic model, and in an incredibly moralistic sense, refuse signs of its being reinvented in other populist or more commercial terms… you can go to these cities and bemoan the absence of a public realm, but as architects it is better for us to bemoan the utter incompetence of the buildings.”
(Koolhaas, 1995)
With the advent of media and the internet, the nature of public space has been radically redefined. As Koolhaas points out, architectural discourse often remains trapped in a reminiscent, moralistic view, clinging to Western models of the street or plaza (Koolhaas, 1995). Theories of public space, too, are often grounded in Western traditions, tethered to ideas of citizenship, democracy, and liberal public spheres (Jacobs, 2013). When we think of public space, we often imagine the Italian piazza, the Parisian boulevard, or the New York sidewalk—models that don't fully capture the political, economic, and cultural complexities of Asian urban life.
According to Jacobs, Asian cities often exhibit “hybrid spaces” that are public in ways not easily legible through Western frameworks (Jacobs, 2013). The relationship between market and state is configured differently—producing a hybrid urbanism that blends the hyper-regulated and laissez-faire, planned and informal, private and collectively consumed (Koon Wee, 2013). In Koolhaas’ terms, it exists “somewhere in between” (Koolhaas, 1995). These in-between spaces challenge conventional notions of public-private boundaries, especially in a place like Singapore, where urban development is heavily shaped by its developmental state model.
Singapore’s public spaces are inseparable from state control, national narratives, and economic pragmatism. The design and function of these spaces often reflect state-led goals—whether it’s for nation-building, tourism, or order. The legacy of British colonial planning remains visible in the layout of lawns, squares, and promenades—exemplified by the Padang (Hee, 2017). Simultaneously, shophouse arcades with their five-foot ways are often cited as local expressions of a semi-public realm, where ownership is private, but access is shared (Hee, 2017). These overlapping layers blur the boundaries between public and private—creating spaces that invite both belonging and contestation.
Since independence, Singapore’s public space has also served as a visual metaphor for national progress—embodied in the “Garden City” and later “City in a Garden” narrative (Hee, 2017). Tree-lined boulevards, conserved heritage buildings turned into museums, and architectural landmarks like malls and concert halls all reflect the state’s image-making. Public space also extends beyond the physical—into the digital and domestic realms, through mass media, television, and now the Internet. In recent years, a growing appreciation for everyday informal spaces—kopitiams, hawker centres, HDB void decks and corridors—has emerged. These are now widely recognized as Singapore’s archetypal public spaces (Hee, 2017), deeply connected to the middle-class aspirations fostered by the state’s housing and urban policies.
Through Hee’s framework of “ethics” and “aesthetics”, we begin to see public space as a constructed realm—shaped by political, economic, social, and cultural forces. It is a space where individual expression is made possible, but also one that must remain accessible to all. In that tension, plurality emerges—through encounters, frictions, and moments of co-existence.
So then, how does Orchard Road fit within these multiple and evolving definitions of public space?
ORCHARD
NOW & THEN
Major road into the city centre
Orchard Road is a paradox.
It is a theatrical stage for a global cast—globe-trotting tourists, middle-class Singaporean consumers, and migrant workers—**each expressing themselves in different ways. At the same time, it is a collective space that invites everyday encounters and chance interactions. Flanked by endless shopping malls, it functions as a “third place” for the middle class to shop, dine, and decompress after work—yet its nature is deeply consumerist (Hee, 2017). Its angsana-lined four-lane carriageway pulses with both vehicles and pedestrians. Its pedestrian malls are animated by cafés, buskers, and pop-up spaces, conjuring what Jane Jacobs once described as the “ballet of the street” (Jacobs, 1992).
Yet in Habermasian terms, Orchard Road falls short of being a communicative space for political discourse or dissent (Habermas, 1989). Ironically, it is home to several embassies—including Thailand, Cambodia, Ireland, and the Netherlands—and it terminates at the Istana, the official residence of Singapore’s President (National Heritage Board, 2018). But despite these political landmarks, Orchard Road offers little room for the public expression of political opinion. In a country where public demonstrations are tightly regulated (limited to the permit-bound Speakers’ Corner at Hong Lim Park), can public spaces like Orchard Road truly accommodate political aspiration?
Sophie Watson reminds us that the politics of public space are not always overt. People inscribe their values, identities, and claims through everyday activities—expressing identity, recognizing heritage, shopping, gathering, strolling, or simply passing by (Watson, 2006). These acts may not be explicitly political, but as J.M. Jacobs notes, they reflect citizen concerns and help shape our shared social imagination (Jacobs, 2013). Leisure and interaction, even in commercial settings, can quietly shape social behavior, opinions, and notions of responsibility and rights. As Richard Sennett points out in The Fall of Public Man, the earliest uses of the term "public" in Europe were not about rights, but about the “common good” (Sennett, 1978). Perhaps, to understand Orchard Road as a public space, we must first see it as a shared space—a common ground, rather than a contested one.
Orchard Road is a platform where new identities are constructed—of both place and people. It brings different groups into close proximity, sometimes harmoniously, sometimes with friction. It is both a typical public space—a site of collective urban experience—and an atypical one, resisting easy classification within Singapore’s definitions of publicness. Perhaps what makes Orchard Road “public” is not just its design or ownership, but its complex layering of economic, social, and cultural forces—a space shaped by commerce, community, aspiration, and contradiction.
JUXTAPOSING ORCHARD ROAD
SPECTACLE / SURVIVAL
QUEUING
Queuing for luxury versus Lining up for sustenance
Spectacle and Survival: The Contradiction of Orchard Road
As illustrated in the paired images above, Orchard Road juxtaposes spectacle with survival. Queuing, a common phenomenon along the strip, captures this paradox. On one hand, consumers line up outside flagship fashion houses for the latest Chanel bags or Hermès scarves. On the other, service staff and office workers queue during lunch hours for affordable meals in basement eateries and coffeeshops. This contrast reveals Orchard Road not only as a glamorous retail destination, full of “endless choices of high-end goods presented in sophisticated environments” (Hee, 2017), but also as a site of labor, sustained by the thousands working behind its polished façade. Beneath the glitz, there lies a parallel world of the everyday and essential—a quieter layer of nourishment, maintenance, and service.
This layering of two distinct spatial realities on a single ground plane reflects Orchard Road’s complexity as public space—particularly through the lens of the street archetype. With the economic boom of the 1980s came increased interiorization and privatization of public space. New typologies like atriums and podium blocks emerged—Lucky Plaza being among the first fully air-conditioned malls in the world, following the precedent of People’s Park Complex. The idea of the street was pulled indoors, creating seamless, climate-controlled flows of people—and, crucially, capital—into shopping malls. By the turn of the century, the air-conditioned interior street had become the dominant model of public space in Singapore.
Yet the idea of the street—as a space of congregation, protest, and unpredictability—is also historically associated with disruption and dissent. As Koon Wee notes, public space, in its truest sense, must allow for open-ended expression (Koon Wee, 2013). Habermas argues that a genuine public space acts like a sponge, capable of absorbing both celebration and critique (Habermas, 1989). In Orchard Road, however, such political expression is absent. Despite its proximity to embassies and the Istana, the street remains a depoliticized zone, tightly regulated by state control. Public life is largely sanitized and commodified—the focus shifts from civic engagement to consumer spectacle.
According to Koon Wee, this depoliticization enhances consumerism, transforming cities into make-believe environments designed for leisure and profit—especially in Asian developmental contexts (Koon Wee, 2013). These self-contained retail complexes blur public-private lines, promoting state-sponsored infrastructure over democratic interaction. Orchard Road, through its interiorized malls, has become a showcase of capital consumerism. So we must ask: Is it still possible to reintroduce the political into the public sphere of Orchard Road?
Moreover, this spectacularization of urban space contributes to a broader national narrative—one that celebrates Singapore’s meteoric rise from fishing village to cosmopolitan powerhouse. In line with the Report on the Future Economy, Orchard Road has been designated as a key growth area to boost commerce and reinforce Singapore’s branding as a “City in a Garden” (Heng, 2017; Hee, 2017). Its lush boulevards, iconic retail architecture, and international allure reaffirm its place among the world’s most expensive shopping streets, showcasing Singapore’s transformation and ambition.
However, within this celebratory narrative, the everyday is subjugated. The contributions of service workers, essential to Orchard’s upkeep and vitality, are omitted from the nation’s symbolic imagery. They are invisible protagonists in the making of this global street. Orchard Road, as spectacle, makes visible the flow of goods, capital, and image, while rendering everyday struggles invisible—a curated mirage of pristine glamour that masks the realities of labor and inequality beneath the surface of its consumerist public realm.
PUBLIC / OTHER
The term “public” is inherently perspectival—shaped by the experience and viewpoint of those who occupy a space. People possess the agency to define a space as either their own or belonging to others. These definitions often extend beyond architectural typologies like squares, plazas, or walkways. As Arendt notes, the public realm is one that is accessible to all (Arendt, 1958). Yet, this “all” is not a neutral collective—it is often constructed through subjective boundaries. In defining who belongs, the idea of Otherness simultaneously emerges. Public space, then, becomes a site not only of access, but also of inclusion and exclusion, negotiated through perception, presence, and participation.
UNINTENDED / INTENDED
Pathway as public space / Public plaza as private space
The pair of images above illustrate a scene taken on a typical Sunday in Orchard Road. Located in between Lucky Plaza and Tong Building (as shown in image), an archetypal 2.5 metres pathway becomes a temporary gathering space for Filipino maids. Yet, adjacent to the pathway, Tong building has an elevated public plaza that is cordoned off from access. This results in the maids having their picnic along the pathway which at times, is a circulatory path to the Mount Elizabeth hospital behind. This presents an irony – when does a public plaza becomes not public and when does a pathway becomes a public gathering space?
Weekday / Weekend
Public Plaza on weekday / Private Property on weekend
From the viewpoint of Tong Building’s owners, the public plaza is a private space of the property. Being a Sunday, it should be closed from public use as per the opening hours of the offices. In addition, it prevents the usage by the maids which populate the area on Sundays. They are considered the Other in which are not part of the custodian of the owners of Tong Building. Hence, from that perspective, it does not make any economic sense to maintain the public plaza for the use of the others.
DESTINATION / TRANSITION
Picnic spot / Circulatory route
From the maids’ perspective, the pathway near Lucky Plaza, lined with shrubs and angsana trees, becomes a convenient temporary gathering space—a spot for picnics, remittances, and conversations. Road curbs become stools, trees offer shade, and even the elevated plaza of the Tong Building adds enclosure. Here, a circulation path transforms into a space of congregation, defined not by its form but by its occupants’ needs.
This challenges the architectural archetype of public space. A transit zone—designed as a connector—becomes a destination. Walkways and corridors are re-appropriated not just for movement, but for social connection. So, must the form of public space define its function?
Looking at the macro view, Orchard Road falls under the Singapore Tourism Board (STB), which, through partnerships with private developers and the Orba business association, positions the street as a key tourist destination (STB, 2003; Heng, 2017). As such, beautification and retail upgrades prioritize foreigners and tourists, including migrant workers. This raises the question—are locals becoming the “Other” in Orchard Road? With suburban malls and e-commerce rising, many Singaporeans now see Orchard as increasingly irrelevant.
Ultimately, publicness is fluid, shaped by those in power and social perception. As Arendt reminds us, public space emerges from the plurality of distinct individuals (Arendt, 1958). And as Chee Lim notes, it’s essential to recognize difference as specificity, not as deviation (Chee, 2013). Rather than viewing difference as opposition, we might begin to see it as enriching the public realm.
STILL / CHANGE
TIME | CHANGE
Office crowd in the morning | Service staff for lunch | Social Escort at night
The notion of public is not fixed—it shifts over time. This is evident in a series of images taken at the entrance of Orchard Towers at three different times: morning (9am), lunch (12pm), and night (8pm). In the morning, the building functions as a professional hub, with office workers entering law firms, trading companies, and even embassies. By midday, its basement eateries become crowded with service staff and office workers on their lunch break. But by evening, as the offices close and nightclubs awaken, the space transforms again—social escorts gather, and the entrance becomes a site of public sex work, with mostly Caucasian men seen smoking and socializing outside.
This time-based transformation reveals the ephemeral nature of public space, where its meaning and users change throughout the day. In this fluidity lies its capacity for co-existence, where multiple, even conflicting, communities can share the same ground—each shaping the space in their own way.
NIGHT / DAY
Displayed at Night / Hidden in Day
These images reveal the transient nature of the public—how temporality enables co-existence among different communities within the same space. Despite their differences, these groups share space sequentially, regulated by time. It is often in the in-between moments, such as early evening—when office workers leave and social escorts begin to arrive—that chance encounters and subtle interactions occur. This rhythm not only facilitates coexistence but also fosters mutual awareness.
Symbolically, this is seen in the temporary signage of nightclubs, which are stored away during the day, and in window displays that unveil sex-related merchandise only at night. As Chee notes, the politics of race, class, gender, and sexuality are enacted through how space is shared, interpreted, and temporally allocated (Chee, 2013). In this way, time acts as a silent mediator, allowing contrasting lifestyles to inhabit the same environment with a degree of mutual respect.
This transient nature of publicness extends to the city scale. Orchard Road, too, operates in daily, seasonal, and annual cycles. During festive events like Christmas or the Great Singapore Sale, the street transforms into a space for locals, drawing crowds with lights and deals (Singapore Tourism Board, 2003). Over the decades, Orchard has evolved from a youth hub for Centrepoint Kids and McDonald’s teens into a fashion-centric boulevard, reshaping who its public is (National Heritage Board, 2018).
Perhaps then, our current view of Orchard Road as an exclusive or irrelevant space is not fixed—but one that, like its users, can be renegotiated through time.
THOUGHTS
As a node within Castells’ ‘global space of flows’, Singapore hosts a diverse range of expatriates and guest workers, moving through transnational flows of labour and talent (Hee, 2017). Orchard Road, in this context, becomes a nexus—a space where transnational communities, globe-trotters, and locals converge. As Lim observes, this complex mix challenges the idea of a single, unified public in Singapore (Lim, 2013). Instead, what emerges is a pluralistic identity that must be tolerantly acknowledged and negotiated, not assimilated (Lim, 2013).
Public space should empower heterogeneous groups—migrant workers, domestic helpers, and even those operating in marginal or informal economies—to participate meaningfully in the public realm. As the earlier examples show, the definition of publicness is not fixed but shaped by perspective and time. In Orchard Road, this allows the space to hold multiple meanings at once: an everyday commons, a consumerist boulevard, and a stage for diverse lived realities.
Perhaps, it is precisely this paradox that lends Orchard Road its dynamism as a public space.
CONCLUDING
Multipicity
‘Non-hierarchical, pluralistic, and a space where people negotiate in their everyday life. These are defining characteristics of Singapore’s public space.’
In her book Constructing Singapore Public Space, Hee observes that Singapore’s public spaces do not fit neatly into Western models of urban theory (Hee, 2017). Instead, they reflect local spatial practices that mediate both state-people and people-people relationships (Chua, 2017). Orchard Road exemplifies this hybridity. On one hand, it is a consumerist corridor of mobility, mass consumption, and spectacle (Hee, 2017); on the other, it functions as a town centre, a workplace, and a stage for the everyday. This multiplicity of uses creates a pluralistic streetscape, difficult to define by any singular notion of publicness.
Through the juxtapositions at Lucky Plaza and Orchard Towers, we see how the idea of the public becomes fluid—defined by time, perspective, and use. Yet, when the perspectives of those in power—such as the Singapore Tourism Board—diverge from the realities of everyday users, tensions arise, reshaping both the representation and experience of public space.
While Orchard Road may not align with Habermas’ public sphere, it arguably resonates more with Lofland’s world of strangers—a space of tolerated multiplicity, even without overt political agency (Lofland, 1973). As Lim points out, Singapore’s public spaces are not inherently democratic; they remain tethered to commodity capital, which introduces persistent class barriers (Chee, 2013). In Orchard's case, STB’s consumerist vision risks furthering spatial hierarchies—making inequality more legible through curated differences in access and visibility.
However, as Lim reminds us, the very idea of a unified Singaporean public is a flawed one. Every group contains internal differences—sources of conflict, affinity, and identity (Chee, 2013). It is this plurality, as Chua describes, that shapes Singapore as a “plurality of spatial occasions”—where individuals interpret, occupy, and move through space differently (Chua, 2017). Rather than imposing homogeneity, we should cultivate a network of diverse public spaces across Orchard Road—spaces that invite adjacency, interaction, and co-existence.
As we move forward, recognizing contradiction as variation becomes crucial. Rather than viewing Orchard Road’s pluralism as a flawed deviation from some idealized common culture, we should allow its paradoxical identity to thrive—embracing its layered, co-produced, and evolving publicness (Lim, 2013).
References
Who I quoted
Arendt, Hannah. 1958. The Human Condition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press .
Chee, Lilian. 2013. “Sustaining Publics and their spaces: William Lim’s Writings on Architecture and Space.” In Re-making Public Space in and through Asia, by William Lim, 194-199. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing Co Pte Ltd.
Chua, Alvin. 2017. Constructing Singapore Public Spaces. CLC Lecture Proceedings, Singapore: Centre for Liveable Cities.
Cultural Reader. 2011. “Jurgen Habermas’s Public Sphere Explained.” Cultural Reader: Article Summaries and Reviews in Cultural Studies . September 19. Accessed March 2019, 16. http://culturalstudiesnow.blogspot.com/2011/09/jurgen-habermass-public-sphere.html.
Far East Organization. 2018. Landmarks: 50 years of Real Estate Development. Singapore: Far East Organization.
Habermas, Jurgen. 1989. The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere. Cambrige, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Hee, Limin. 2017 . Constructing Singapore Public Space. Singapore: Springer.
Heng, Swee Keat. 2017. Report of the Committee on Future Economy. Report, Singapore : Committee of Future Economy.
Jacobs, Jane M. 2013. “Re-making Public Space through and in Asia.” In Public Space in Urban Asia, by William Lim, 186-189. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte Ltd.
Jacobs, Jane. 1992. The death and life of great American Cities. New York : Vintage.
Koolhaas, Rem. 1995. S, M, L, XL . New York: The Monacelli Press.
Koon Wee, H. 2013. “Recalling the Political in Public Space.” In Re-making Public Space through and in Asia, by Wiliam Lim, 190-193. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing Co Pte Ltd.
Lim, William. 2013. Remaking Public Space in and through Urban Asia. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing Co Pte Ltd.
Lofland, LH. 1973. A world of strangers: order and action in urban public space. New York: Basic Books.
National Heritage Board. 2018. Orchard Heritage Trail: A Companion Guide. Singapore: National Heritage Board.
Sennett, Richard. 1978. The Fall of Public Man. New Yok: Penguin Group.
Singapore Tourism Board. 2003. Street of Singapore: Remaking Orchard Road. Singapore: Singapore Tourism Board.
Urban Redevelopment Authority. 2017. What makes a good public space. Accessed December 21, 2017. https://www.ura.gov.sg/ms/OurFavePlace/about/a-good-public-place.
Watson, Sophie. 2006. City Publics: The (Dis)enchantments of Urban Encounters. London and New York: Routledge.