Orchard Chronicles
An Investigation into Inequality and the Ground
2018
Linkages in Inequality
Various aspects in relationship
Positioning Inequality
OWNERSHIP, ACCESS, ENCLOSURES
What Is Inequality?
More specifically, what are its implications on space, form, and order?
This book offers a partial understanding of inequality through architectural terms—focusing particularly on the public realm of shared and social spaces. By “inequality,” we refer not just to the measurable income gap or the socio-economic divide between the rich and poor, but also to the multitude of agents and stakeholders that shape the city: different communities and subcultures, property owners and wage workers, long-time residents and newcomers—all holding individual and collective interests that often conflict (Martin, 2015).
A historical lens over the past 200 years reveals how the technological revolution has reshaped the economy—and, with it, the way we live (Rifkin, 2015). As society has grown more complex, governance has become increasingly entwined with the forces of capital, particularly within today’s neoliberal framework. State policies tend to reinforce this market-driven structure, often institutionalizing discrimination and difference (Teo, 2018). In many cases, public assistance is differentiated by income brackets defined by market logic, categorizing citizens into rigid labels: rich, poor, powerful, powerless.
Beyond economic status, individuals must also navigate additional layers of identity—gender, race, nationality—all of which further shape and often exacerbate their social standing (Puthucheary, 2018). These layers of inequality are not abstract; they materialize in daily life, becoming embedded in the rituals, routines, and spatial conditions of our living environments. From the production of goods to the places we gather to consume them, these inequalities are woven into the physical and symbolic fabric of the city (Rifkin, 2015).
Urban malls, hawker centres, and neighbourhood hubs are today’s marketplaces—shared spaces where exchanges happen. And yet, architecture often sharpens the lines of class divide (Martin, 2015). It’s in the size of your home, your proximity to prestige, your access to amenities. Inequality manifests through form—who shops where, who eats what, who gets seen, and who stays invisible. Our built environment shapes how we perceive ourselves, and how we view others.
As Winston Churchill once said, “We shape our buildings; thereafter they shape us.” So what kind of environments are we shaping? Are we building spaces of contestation and segregation—or can we design for coexistence?
Can we, with intention, create spaces that embrace difference rather than flatten it?
Can we imagine a city where all of us share the same plane?
Diverse Viewpoints
The first who, having enclosed a piece of land is thought of saying This is mine, and found people simple enough to believe, was the true founder of civil society.
Jean Jacques Rousseau
As 19th-century philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau—writing at the height of the First Industrial Revolution—argued, inequality is an artificial condition, a moral construct born from man’s desire to govern and impose order upon society (Rousseau, 2018). According to Rousseau, humanity legitimized hierarchies of power and wealth through systems of governance, which then materialized in the form of property rights. And yet, he also recognized that it is impossible to return to a state of nature to restore equality, as we have become conditioned to our present way of life (Rousseau, 2018).
In more recent political discourse, inequality is acknowledged by the state as a longstanding issue—one that has persisted since colonial times. It’s a matter of relativity, of managing tensions and balancing social forces. The goal isn’t necessarily to limit growth at the top of society (Yahya, 2018), but rather, to close the gap by lifting the bottom—primarily through access and opportunity (Ong, 2018). Social mobility is often presented as the key to addressing inequality. As long as the “moving escalator” continues to elevate people through housing, healthcare, and especially education, the argument goes, different social strata can coexist in the same city (DPM Tharman Shanmugaratnam, 2018).
On the social front, sociologist Teo You Yenn’s This Is What Inequality Looks Like is a timely and powerful contribution. Her work documents the everyday lives of people living at the margins—not just in terms of income, but through the lens of lived experiences and family life. It moves beyond statistics to show inequality as it plays out in real, human terms. Teo reminds us that inequality is not just about them—it is also about us. It’s not only a structural issue but a deeply social one, tied to dignity, identity, and the everyday (Teo, 2018).
Meanwhile, French economist Thomas Piketty, in his seminal Capital in the Twenty-First Century, traces wealth and income inequality in Europe and the U.S. since the 18th century. His core thesis is that when the return on capital (r) exceeds the rate of economic growth (g) over the long term, wealth inevitably concentrates at the top—leading to economic and social instability (Piketty, 2017). Put simply, capital owners grow richer through returns on investments faster than wage workers can advance through labour.
Jeremy Rifkin echoes this in his discussion of the industrial age: the concentration of production in the hands of capitalists and the subordination of labour was the defining class struggle of the 18th century (Rifkin, 2015). Land, once a shared commons, was transformed into real estate—fenced off and enclosed for private interests. Today, these enclosures persist as speculative assets, tightly held by the wealthy and increasingly inaccessible to the rest of society.
So within this context of ownership, access, and enclosure—
Where does architecture fit into the picture?
History of Retail Form
Evolution of the Marketplace
Architecture cannot solve inequality. But it is essential to recognize architecture as a critical piece of the puzzle. It is the crystallization of economic, political, and social conditions—an environmental manifestation of inequality.
What architecture can do is improve access to these enclosures. This article explores the urban marketplace—specifically the shopping malls of Orchard Road—as a shared space for the exchange of goods, services, information, and culture. It is about diversifying enclosures to allow different communities to coexist on the ground plane. In doing so, we aim to dissect the exclusive and inclusive nature of these spaces.
The terms exclusivity and inclusivity are used here in a neutral way. They refer to the private and public character of enclosures—spaces that may serve any number of heterogeneous communities, not just those defined by wealth or class.
The essays in this book can be read individually but have been arranged to form a cohesive narrative. The structure is divided into three parts, each exploring the relationship between inequality and the ground.
First, this introductory section positions inequality within architectural discourse. It transposes questions of ownership, access, enclosure, and inclusion/exclusion onto Orchard Road to better understand how the architectural space of the marketplace operates as a social space.
Second, the Where’s the Ground section investigates how spatial enclosures relate to access inequality. It focuses on circulation, typology, and the microtopography of the ground plane—how people move, meet, and navigate space.
Third, the final section brings together the findings to examine the nature of exclusive and inclusive enclosures and their relationships with the ground and different communities. It concludes with a proposed set of spatial operations—strategies for negotiating the ground plane to create better, more accessible enclosures for people.
Situating Inequality
OWNERSHIP IN ORCHARD
Spectacle of Retail
Platform of needs and wants
Multi-faceted Ownership
.jpg)
.jpg)
Orchard Ownership
Various Ownership models
Orchard Road is more than just a retail street for tourists.
It is a strip layered with nuanced identities and complex ownership. Behind the Singapore Tourism Board’s world-class, curated image lies a place of contrast. It is home to the rich and famous—and at the same time, a hangout spot for youths. On one end of the polished streetscape, you’ll find flagship international fashion brands housed in duplexes, even Southeast Asia’s first Cartier triplex. Yet, directly across the street are gritty fast-fashion incubators tucked within aging, strata-titled malls.
By night, Orchard transforms into a watering hole for expatriates, rising middle-class professionals, and white-collar workers chasing happy hour. But “happy hour” takes on different meanings across its various stretches—where nightclubs, KTV lounges, social escorts, and sex workers also shape the after-dark economy. The tree-lined boulevard isn’t just a tourist magnet; it is a space where desired and undesired communities coexist—on a single surface: the ground.
This multifaceted character stems in part from its fragmented and diverse ownership. Orchard Road has one of the most complex landholding models in Singapore. It is the birthplace of some of the country’s biggest real estate players—Far East Organization, for instance, owns the largest portfolio along the strip and has earned the moniker “King of Orchard” (Far East Organization, 2018). Local developers like City Developments and Hotel Properties Limited also hold major stakes. On top of that, foreign ownership abounds—Hong Kong-based Wheelock Properties, Australia’s Lendlease, and Malaysia’s Starhill REITs all maintain a presence (Whang, 2015). Even the King of Brunei owns a slice of Orchard, not far from the Thai Embassy.
Beyond these heavyweight stakeholders, there’s a layer of middle-class participation. Strata-titled malls and Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs) such as Frasers Property, SPH REIT, and OUE REIT (Whang, 2015) offer opportunities for small and medium investors to own a piece of this prime 2.2-kilometre strip.
Yet, with this diversity of ownership comes friction. Orchard Road is a battleground—a site of rising rents, competitive footfall strategies, and the constant pursuit of profit.
History of Orchard Road
Palimpest of Time
Historical Development of Orchard Road
This diversity of ownership did not emerge overnight—it was layered over 200 years of transformation.
1800s: Hillside Plantations
In the 1800s, Orchard Road was little more than an unnamed path cutting through a valley of expansive plantations—mostly gambier and nutmeg. These plantations were primarily owned by the British, including notable figures such as William Cuppage and William Scott (National Heritage Board, 2018). When beetle infestations devastated the nutmeg crops, much of the land was subdivided and sold to wealthy Asian families and banks, who developed bungalows to house high-ranking staff (Tan, 2018). Over time, particularly at the Tanglin end, these bungalows clustered into one of Singapore’s earliest residential communities.
Early 1900s: First Suburban Town Centre
By the early 20th century, Orchard Road evolved into one of Singapore’s first suburban town centres. It became the primary connector between the Tanglin residential area and the city centre (Tan, 2018), serving as a gateway to the business and commerce district near the Singapore River. With an increasing population, shophouses began to line the road—selling sundries, daily necessities, and showcasing the latest car models from brands like Audi and Cycle & Carriage (National Heritage Board, 2018). It became a stopover space—a “third place”—between work and home. Unsurprisingly, Singapore’s first supermarket, Cold Storage, was founded here. It later transformed into Centrepoint, a major mall still standing today (Tan, 2018).
1960s to 1990s: Singapore’s Retail Hub
By the mid-20th century, Orchard Road had cemented itself as the destination for the latest fashion, new gadgets, and social buzz. It became a space to see and be seen. C.K. Tang opened one of the earliest department stores, and the Shaw Brothers brought cinemas to the strip (National Heritage Board, 2018). Far East Organization put Orchard on the global map with the opening of Lucky Plaza—the world’s first multi-storey, fully air-conditioned shopping mall (Far East Organization, 2018). It was also home to Singapore’s first McDonald's, attracting a generation of youth who gathered, loitered, and created memories in the area (National Heritage Board, 2018). At its peak, Orchard Road was an inclusive urban marketplace where people from all walks of life came to exchange goods, services, and stories.
Present Day: International Fashion Street
By the mid-2000s, Orchard Road began to lose its central role in everyday Singaporean life. A national decentralization policy, outlined in the 1991 Concept Plan, redirected development toward regional centres in Tampines, Jurong, and Woodlands (Ng, 2015). These new hubs brought retail closer to residents’ doorsteps. At the same time, e-commerce introduced new competition. In response, Orchard Road underwent a series of rebranding efforts—positioning itself as a world-class international fashion street.
Yet, this makeover came at a cost. The result is a more homogenous streetscape, one that appears curated for tourists and global luxury brands. The vibrant mix of subcultures, communities, and locals that once defined Orchard’s street life now feels less visible—less welcome. What was once a shared public space is becoming a narrowly defined one.
Competitive Nature: Survival of the Fittest
Competitive Nature
Measure of intensity of refurbishments
Due to its diverse portfolio of owners, Orchard Road has become a battleground of property ownership—each jostling to attract the highest footfall. This competition is illustrated in the diagram above, which tracks a decade of building refurbishments along the strip, amounting to approximately $982 million in cumulative investment. Much of this was catalyzed by the entry of major new retail developments in 2009, such as ION Orchard at Orchard MRT Station, and Somerset 313 and Orchard Central at Somerset MRT (Ng, 2015).
Following their debut, a ripple effect of refurbishment swept the area. Nearby properties, including Shaw House and Mandarin Gallery, underwent upgrades. In Mandarin Gallery’s case, retail was added to what was previously a predominantly hotel block. These retrofitting projects focused on increasing gross floor area (GFA) through additions of new wings, extra levels, or expanded shop frontages (Ng, 2015).
Notably, none of these were full demolition projects. Complete redevelopment would incur significantly higher costs. Instead, owners opted for strategic upgrades to remain competitive—a more cost-effective approach (Ng, 2015).
Building refurbishments have become a key strategy to increase GFA. This is a common method used by REITs and single-asset owners to enhance rental income and shareholder returns. By expanding the net lettable area, owners can diversify tenant mixes, refresh the mall's image, and ultimately command higher rents—boosting profits and dividends.
To achieve this, property owners typically rely on three main tactics: leverage, backfill, and decant.
To Leverage
Owners often tap into state incentive schemes to unlock additional GFA. These include initiatives like the Outdoor Refreshment Area scheme, Art Incentive, Covered Walkway scheme, and Community Uses incentive. For instance, developments within 400 metres of an MRT station in the city centre can reduce their minimum carpark requirements by up to 20%, converting the freed-up space into commercial use.
To Backfill
A frequently used loophole involves backfilling low-yield basement areas—such as underutilized carpark lots or service corridors—with soil. This allows the space to be reclassified for higher-yield purposes, such as retail (Ng, 2015).
To Decant
Similar in spirit to backfilling, decanting involves gutting out low-yield spaces—typically office floors—in a tower block and reallocating the GFA to more profitable segments. For example, as office spaces tend to generate lower rental returns than high-end fashion retail, owners may decant several floors of offices to boost the retail yield (Maybank Kim Eng, 2018).
Methods to grow distributions
Leverage, Backfill, Decant
The result of these actions is twofold.
First, it drives a constant increase in rents. As rental spaces expand, so do the prices of goods and services—inevitably contributing to the rising cost of living.
Second, it disregards the architectural integrity and experiential quality of spaces. This results in a vicious cycle of continuous additions and subtractions—profit-driven moves that often come at the expense of community, culture, and continuity.
In Orchard Road, with its diverse landscape of owners, there are many competing self-interests at play. Each owner operates with different priorities, resulting in a range of enclosures being created. Some favour exclusivity—designed for the privileged few—while others lean toward inclusivity. These varying degrees of openness shape who feels welcome and who is left out. Over time, this dynamic determines which communities take root and which are pushed out.
What emerges is a complex, layered environment: derelict buildings caused by fragmented strata-title ownership, underpaid service staff, domestic workers, and sex workers coexisting with luxury hotels, high-end residences, and exclusive clubs. The result is a spectrum of identities that coexist—often uneasily—beneath the heavily promoted, tourist-facing image of Orchard Road.
Where's the Ground?
A STUDY OF CIRCULATION AND TYPOLOGY
Retail Form
STREET FORM, ATRIA FORM, HYBRID FORM
Circulation and Typology
The street is the urban glue that binds communities together (Jacobs, 1992).
A study of 25 malls along Orchard Road was conducted to examine the relationship between the pedestrian pathway and adjacent consumption spaces. The "pathway" refers to the horizontal surface people traverse—indoors or outdoors—and is analysed in relation to adjacent spaces of consumption, such as retail units, social areas, or outdoor public spaces. This analysis sheds light on spatial accessibility and reveals how circulation and building typology can shape inclusion or exclusion.
The malls along Orchard Road can be broadly categorized into three typologies: Street Form, Atria Form, and Hybrid Form. Each form produces distinct psychological effects on users—some invite people in as destinations, while others are perceived merely as corridors to pass through. From a retail perspective, these spatial perceptions influence how goods and services are programmed and where different brand tiers are placed. Additionally, the varying widths of these pathways often allow for secondary uses—spaces for sitting, gathering, or simply enjoying solitude.
Street Form
Circulation and Typology
Street Form
The most common typology observed is the Street Form. This configuration offers a prescriptive route that curates the user’s spatial experience. Pathways typically range from 1.5 to 4 meters in width and are found largely on the ground plane or basement levels of malls. Ceiling heights in these spaces generally fall between 3 to 4.5 meters. These dimensions create a directional scale—spaces designed primarily for movement rather than pause, functioning more as corridors or indoor boulevards than places to dwell.
The narrowness of these pathways reinforces a linear experience. Faceted façades and architectural elements often frame the start and end of these paths, guiding sightlines and creating a sequence of forced views intended to draw attention to adjacent retail spaces. The proximity between the walkway and the shopfronts brings pedestrians physically and visually closer to the displays, enhancing the potential for interaction and entry. This typology allows for a high degree of control over both visibility and circulation.
In particular, basement walkways in malls like ION Orchard, Wisma Atria, and Ngee Ann City often see faster pedestrian movement, with users focused on reaching specific destinations. These spaces typically host mid-range to low-end retail offerings, though this is not exclusive. Overall, the Street Form recreates the energy and flow of an urban streetscape within an interior setting—though in a more orchestrated and controlled manner.
Atria Form
Circulation and Typology
Atria Form
The Atria Form offers a more exploratory mode of circulation, where movement flows around large central atrium spaces. Unlike the linear clarity of the street form, the pathway edges here are softened or blurred by the open volume of the atria. These walkways typically range from 3 to 9 meters in width and are positioned along the periphery of one or more atriums. Compared to the Street Form, Atria Form spaces often feature much higher ceiling heights, creating a sense of openness and verticality.
The shape of the atrium plays a key role in defining circulation. A square atrium tends to produce rectilinear pathways, while a circular one leads to more fluid, curved movement. These paths form looped trajectories that encourage continuous exploration, inviting people to wander rather than move directly from point A to B.
With volumes spanning three to four storeys, these atria naturally draw the eye upwards. Visitors are often awed by the verticality and enticed to explore the upper levels. The visibility of activity on different floors adds to the sense of dynamism and excitement.
This typology is common in malls like ION Orchard, which cater to mid- to high-end consumers. While it offers less overt control over direction than the Street Form, the Atria Form subtly encourages extended stays by drawing people into a looping circulation—effectively keeping them within the building’s orbit.
Hybrid Form
Circulation and Typology
Hybrid Form
The Hybrid Form blends characteristics of both the Street and Atria typologies. This occurs when the atrium is relatively small—typically no more than 10 meters across—and/or when the adjacent pathways are moderately wide, ranging between 2.5 to 4.5 meters. These proportions often result in overhanging floor slabs that create spatial eaves, merging the linearity of street-like corridors with the openness of atrium environments.
As a result of this hybridization, the pathways become semi-directional. While they guide movement, they also allow for a degree of meandering. The spatial experience is less rigid—more akin to a leisurely stroll through a park than a commute through a corridor.
This form is commonly found in more niche, specialty-focused malls such as Palais Renaissance and Forum The Shopping Mall. The hybrid nature of the layout creates a rhythm of spatial compression and release, alternating between tight and open zones. This variation not only enhances wayfinding and directionality but also introduces moments of pause and respite within the retail environment.
Sight and Signage
View points
Sight and Signage
Typological forms influence more than just movement—they shape how users perceive and engage with space. As users circulate, their sightlines and visual fields are subtly guided by spatial design. These visual cues inform psychological readings of scale and intimacy, which in turn affect how inclusive or exclusive a space feels.
Sightlines can be intentionally accentuated by creating strategic viewpoints. Angled window displays, for instance, are designed to capture attention and draw users into retail spaces. Shopfront façades may be faceted to widen the user’s cone of vision, increasing visibility and appeal. At key circulation points, façades can curve or break into multi-faceted surfaces to signal importance or to create a sense of arrival.
This form of visual choreography is particularly evident in Street Form typologies, where sightlines tend to move horizontally. These spaces rely on curated, linear perspectives to guide users from point to point, reinforcing directionality and flow. Sightlines become an integral part of the user’s experience, heightening awareness and engagement as they navigate the corridor-like spaces.
In contrast, Atria Form typologies shift the gaze vertically. The expansive voids of atrium spaces naturally lead the eye upwards, revealing layered views of brand signage, circulation nodes, escalators, and balconies. This upward visibility helps users orient themselves within a larger volume, providing a spatial understanding of the building’s structure and offerings. In this way, atria help users internalize circulation paths in what might otherwise be a complex or disorienting environment.
This cognitive understanding of space—achieved through sightlines—contributes to a user’s perceived accessibility of the space. When people can visually understand and navigate their environment, they are more likely to feel included. Thus, well-designed sightlines not only support movement but also foster a psychological sense of openness and belonging.
Street as Public Space
Kits of Parts
Kits of Parts
In the study of circulation and typology, spatial accessibility is deeply influenced by the typology of the malls examined. To understand the relationships within these circulation spaces, they can be broken down into three core components: Pathways, Spatial Elements, and the Form of Atria.
Pathways
The pathways observed ranged from 1.5 to 20 metres wide, both within buildings and in outdoor settings. These varying dimensions serve different spatial purposes. In directional corridors—often 1.5 to 2.5 metres wide—the design encourages continuous flow. In contrast, high-end malls like ION Orchard use wider circulation paths of around 4.5 metres, paired with higher ceiling heights to evoke a grander, more luxurious retail experience.
When pathway widths reach 7 to 20 metres—typically found in outdoor conditions—the space transitions from being purely circulatory to functioning as a destination in itself, supporting lingering, social gathering, and public life.
Spatial Elements
Architectural elements such as walls, columns, doors, and railings significantly influence the experience of circulation. Their materiality—such as transparent glass or polished steel—can shift a user’s perception of scale and spaciousness. Glass frontages and railings, for example, create visual openness and continuity.
In addition, smaller features like steps, niches, and landscaping further define how a space is used. These elements can also be temporary or flexible—planters, seating, and advertisement boards—that subtly shape the flow and behaviour of users.
Form of Atria
The geometry of an atrium plays a key role in circulation. A square or rectangular atrium typically results in linear, rectilinear paths, while a circular atrium encourages free-form circulation that can trap users in a loop (Paknejad, 2017). The size and form of the atrium also affect the adjacent pathways, influencing both directionality and spatial hierarchy.
Assemblage
When assembled, these elements—pathways, spatial elements, and atrium form—collectively shape how people move, pause, and perceive inclusivity in a space. They determine whether a place feels like a destination or merely a transitional zone.
For example, in Wheelock Place’s basement, a narrow 2.5-metre corridor surrounding a 15-metre circular atrium, combined with lower ceiling heights, discourages engagement with retail units—even if shopfronts have glass displays. The result is a purely directional space that encourages vertical movement rather than exploration.
In another case, Paragon Shopping Centre employs an 8-metre-wide corridor subdivided by temporary elements like potted plants. This effectively creates two directional lanes, easing bi-directional flow while also guiding users closer to shopfronts—offering clearer, more engaging retail displays.
At the urban scale, the recent addition of the Apple Store at Knightsbridge (Grand Park Hotel) introduces a new model of public interface. Its overhanging glass roof and transparent façade blur the boundary between interior and exterior. The store faces a 7-metre-wide landscaped pedestrian street, enhanced by the planting of 6 to 8 trees and a pair of benches. This assemblage transforms the edge into a destination public space, softening Orchard Road’s otherwise directional streetscape and making the store an extension of the pedestrian realm.
Exerting Exclusivity
Exerting Exclusivity
Strategies and methods
The assemblage of architectural elements can also subtly exert exclusivity—shaping how, and whether, someone approaches or enters a space. Entrances that amplify thresholds may deter certain groups from entering, navigating, or even locating the space altogether. These tactics can be summarized in five spatial strategies:
1. Contradictive Archetype
The building form or spatial typology creates a visual mask that conceals its intended function. A luxury retail store may resemble a private club, making it unclear—or intimidating—whether the public is welcome at all.
2. Stealth Mode
Barriers, whether visible or hidden, obscure access. A space may be concealed from direct sightlines or lack clear entry points, making it feel closed-off even if technically open to the public.
3. Labyrinth of Obstacles
The circulation path is intentionally convoluted, with architectural or programmatic obstructions that confuse rather than guide. While the space appears accessible, it frustrates movement and discourages exploration.
4. Mental Dead Ends
Visual cues may attract attention—such as a bright display or signage—but lead nowhere. These design decisions divert sightlines or create perceptual blocks that disorient users or subtly signal that the space beyond isn’t meant for them.
5. Jittery Thresholds
Entrances designed with heightened privacy—such as recessed doorways, heavy materials, or dark finishes—can psychologically deter entry. These thresholds suggest exclusivity or surveillance, making the space feel uninviting or off-limits.
Through these spatial strategies, the class divide between communities is continuously negotiated—often without a single word being spoken. Architecture, in this way, becomes a quiet gatekeeper of social belonging.
Nolli Map
Nolli Form
Community and Congregation
Through the study of circulation and typology, we begin to stitch the various spatial forms into a Nolli map of Orchard Road. Traditionally used to distinguish public and private space, the Nolli map here also reveals degrees of accessibility. Highlighted in black are obstacles—walls, partitions, thresholds—that accentuate the sense of enclosure around the white voids, which represent accessible or open areas.
Beyond tracing circulation paths, the map begins to unveil the larger spatial voids that function as gathering points for different communities. These open areas suggest possibilities for public life, interaction, and pause within the otherwise commercialized fabric of Orchard Road. The Nolli map becomes a powerful visual tool—not only showing what’s open or closed, but also how design elements shape those enclosures.
However, it is important to note: the ground plane of Orchard Road is not flat.
Its vertical complexity—ramps, stairs, split levels, and underpasses—adds another layer to the accessibility of space, complicating how users move through and perceive the street.
An Inquiry into Microtopography
Orchard Road is situated in a valley of hills.
Orchard Road is situated within a natural valley formed by surrounding hills—Claymore Hill, Cairnhill, Emerald Hill, and Mount Elizabeth. Cutting through this undulating landscape is a stream that was later canalised and renamed the Stamford Canal in the early 1900s. While the streetscape may appear flat at first glance, the ground plane beneath Orchard Road tells a more complex story. Behind the 2.2-kilometre stretch of malls lies an elevation variance ranging from 6 to 18 metres, making the entire strip an assembly of buildings sited on uneven terrain.
To better understand the spatial implications of this hidden landscape, an investigation was conducted into the relationship between microtopography and architectural enclosures along Orchard Road. Microtopography here refers to subtle yet significant variations in the ground level—ranging from 1 to 18 metres—that impact how buildings relate to the site.
Each building negotiates the terrain differently, resulting in enclosures that are either deliberately planned or unintentionally formed. These enclosures are shaped by decisions made in response to topographic constraints, creating pockets of space that can feel either exclusive or inclusive depending on their programming and the people who occupy them.
To visualize these conditions, a series of sectional cuts have been produced, revealing the spatial relationships between the terrain and the built forms—highlighting how the ground itself plays an active role in defining access, hierarchy, and enclosure.
Microtopography Section
Reaction to the Elevations
Concorde Hotel and Mall – Stamford Canal Section
This end of Orchard Road is largely flat. At Concorde Hotel and Mall, the building dips approximately 1.5 to 2 metres below street level, creating a semi-sunken two-storey retail podium. This intervention results in the formation of a new, artificial ground plane, with the hotel tower lifted above and sitting on top of the retail base. This elevation serves a dual purpose: it offers privacy for hotel guests while also providing spatial enclosure to the sunken retail podium below.
The result is a 4-metre-wide sunken pathway, functioning as a semi-private circulation space that connects discreetly to the bustling streetscape of Orchard Road. This layered separation between retail and hospitality programs reflects a deliberate negotiation with the terrain to serve different user experiences.
At the opposite end of the building, a 10-metre-high raised plinth, flanked by adjacent buildings, creates a courtyard space. This space, while informal, has become a back-of-house social zone used by hotel service staff for smoke breaks. Adjacent to the courtyard is a semi-sheltered hawker centre, which serves dual purposes—catering to service staff during the day and attracting tourists in the evening. By subtly shifting the terrain through sunken and raised platforms, the design has generated distinct zones of enclosure for different groups across different times of day.
Centrepoint – Orchard Central / Orchard Gateway Section
In this sectional cut, the terrain deepens more dramatically. Buildings such as Centrepoint, Orchard Central, and Orchard Gateway descend into the ground, with 2 to 3 basement levels carved out below the streetscape. These levels are connected by an underground underpass that cuts across Orchard Road at grade level, linking three separately owned malls. This passage is programmed with food and beverage outlets, transforming it into a vibrant sub-street food hall for users commuting to Somerset MRT station.
Centrepoint (owned by Frasers Property REIT) has recently been revamped, converting part of its underground level into a three-storey sunken atrium. This intervention enhances visual and physical connectivity between street level and the underground food court, helping to boost footfall and accessibility.
This section also juxtaposes Centrepoint, one of the most horizontally-oriented malls, with Orchard Central and Orchard Gateway, two of the most vertically-stacked malls along the Orchard strip. Unlike horizontal malls, vertical malls rely on voids to organize spatial experience across levels. In the case of Orchard Central, strategically placed voids punctuate different floors—facilitating visual connectivity and circulation across distinct zones of activity.
At ground level, a large void had to be created to accommodate the Stamford Canal running beneath the site (DP Architects, 2012). Throughout the tower, these voids enable a spatial zoning of retail programs: a gym occupies the upper levels, a dining zone spans a separate level, and another zone is dedicated to beauty and wellness. This programming creates exclusive vertical pockets, each catering to specific target groups, illustrating how topography and sectional design inform the inclusivity—or exclusivity—of retail environments.
Microtopography Section
Reaction to the Elevations
Robinsons The Heeren – Scape Section
In this section, the buildings begin to negotiate the gentle elevation changes at the foot of Cairnhill, where the ground rises by approximately 1.5 to 2.5 metres. This subtle topography influences how buildings relate to one another and to the terrain.
At Robinsons The Heeren, this elevation shift results in a ramped pathway that connects the retail podium to the adjacent office block. Interestingly, while the ramp ascends to meet the office block at level two, it also aligns with ground level as it reaches the office entrance—reflecting a deliberate response to topographic conditions. This separation—both visual and physical—creates distinct enclosures for office workers and retail users, reinforcing functional zoning through the terrain itself.
On the opposite end, the youth-oriented space at *Scape takes a more playful approach to the terrain. A gentle ramp leads visitors upward into the mall’s second level. On either side of this pathway, shallow depressions form sunken plazas, occupied by casual F&B kiosks. These lowered pockets, nestled under lush landscaping, carve out intimate, small-scale spaces that feel both sheltered and social. In negotiating with the terrain, *Scape succeeds in creating more inclusive and human-scaled enclosures—spaces that invite pause, interaction, and informality within the larger retail strip.
Microtopography Section
Reaction to the Elevations
Tangs Plaza – ION Orchard Section
In this segment, the terrain undulates more significantly due to the natural hills behind Tangs Plaza and beneath ION Orchard. The two buildings adopt contrasting strategies in response to this topography.
Tangs Plaza takes a more traditional approach, flattening portions of the site to suit its building footprint. While the visible streetscape remains level, the rear of the building adapts to the terrain with carpark ramps that align with the elevated land behind. This solution effectively disregards the terrain, treating it as an obstacle to be subdued rather than integrated.
In contrast, ION Orchard embraces the terrain as part of its spatial strategy. Instead of leveling the site, the building is designed to conceal and absorb the slope within its architecture. At the front, it is elevated several steps above street level, forming a prominent entrance framed by stepped terraces. These steps have been informally appropriated as public seating, transforming them into an urban plaza—a rare civic gesture within the retail-heavy context of Orchard Road.
At the rear, a gentle ramp leads to a drop-off point that aligns with level two of the mall, facilitating access from the higher terrain behind. This arrangement not only negotiates the terrain but also shapes a looping circulation path, guiding shoppers through ION’s atria-form layout. In doing so, the building creates a dynamic spatial experience—blurring the boundary between topography and typology, movement and pause.
Microtopography Section
Reaction to the Elevations
Hyatt – Royal Scotts Section
In contrast to Tangs Plaza, Hyatt Hotel adopts a more sensitive approach to terrain negotiation. The hotel comprises two separate wings of rooms connected by a skybridge—an architectural gesture that reconciles the 12-metre elevation difference between the hilltop and Orchard Road’s ground plane. Instead of flattening the site, the bridge extends outward from the higher hotel wing, allowing the design to respect and retain the natural topography with minimal intervention.
Beneath the bridge, the carpark follows the sloping terrain with a gentle ramp, aligning with the contours of the land. This careful response to site conditions enables the integration of a waterfall feature at the higher elevation. The water cascades down toward the lower wing near Orchard Road, creating a tranquil, sensory-rich environment for hotel guests. This element enhances the luxurious atmosphere befitting a high-end hotel brand and demonstrates how architectural decisions can merge topography, aesthetics, and experience.
Palais Renaissance – Hilton and Four Seasons Hotel Section
Similar to Hyatt, both the Hilton and Four Seasons hotels are situated on undulating terrain ranging from 1 to 12 metres. The Four Seasons sits on higher ground, positioned behind Hilton. To improve access to Orchard Road, the property owner constructed a connecting bridge between the two hotels, offering Four Seasons guests direct entry to the bustling retail street.
However, this access is curated and exclusive. The bridge connection, while seemingly utilitarian, also conceals a series of high-end retail outlets—including brands such as Issey Miyake and Comme des Garçons, discreetly housed within Hilton’s podium block. One of the shops is reportedly owned by the property owner’s wife, illustrating how private interests can shape public-facing architecture.
The route to Four Seasons is intentionally veiled, requiring visitors to first be aware of the connection, and then navigate a labyrinthine circulation path through multiple thresholds. These spatial and psychological barriers form a highly exclusive zone, tailored almost entirely for hotel guests and patrons in the know. While the buildings function as hospitality infrastructure, their spatial layout creates layered enclosures that selectively grant access—blurring the line between public space and private domain.
.jpg)
Negotiating Topography
Form and Split-level Typology
Lucky Plaza
At Lucky Plaza, the building responds to a terrain that rises between 4.5 to 6 metres. To accommodate this elevation, a service road was introduced, leading to the carpark while also allowing for a separate bridge access to the residential block situated above the retail podium. This design not only ensures privacy and security for residents but also creates a distinct separation between the public and private realms.
The building aligns with a section of the ground plane that is 1.5 metres higher, resulting in one end of the structure sitting slightly elevated compared to the other. This 1.5 to 2.5 metre elevation gap presents a design opportunity: it enables direct split access to both the basement and the first level of the retail podium. By offering multiple entry points at different levels, the building naturally distributes pedestrian flow—increasing footfall across various floors of the mall and enhancing the overall retail experience.
Lucky Plaza’s response to topography is both functional and strategic, using subtle shifts in elevation to create circulation advantages and layered access—while reinforcing the complex programmatic mix of retail and residential uses.
Public Form
Plaza and elevation
Microtopography Operations
Augmenting Form
Negotiating the ground
Through an understanding of microtopography and its relationship with built form, we can identify four key spatial operations that augment the ground to create enclosures of either exclusivity or inclusivity:
1. To Undulate
This involves digging and raising the ground to form a series of subtle depressions and elevations—typically within a range of up to 1.5 metres. These undulations generate pockets of public space, often used for alfresco dining, pop-up stores, or outdoor café seating. Even on otherwise flat terrain, undulation introduces rhythm, programmatic variation, and opportunities for informal occupation.
2. To Conceal
Here, level changes in the terrain are absorbed within the building mass, creating the illusion of a single level while actually connecting across two or more vertical planes. This is a common strategy for negotiating terrain shifts between 4.5 to 6 metres, resulting in mezzanines, split-level connections, and tiered interiors. These spatial manipulations can guide circulation discreetly while supporting diverse programmatic arrangements.
3. To Create
This refers to the formation of a new, artificial ground plane—either on flat land or sloped terrain—elevated above the natural ground. The new plane becomes an exclusive platform, often used in hotels or luxury developments to provide a controlled, secure environment for guests. The artificiality of this level asserts separation from the public realm while offering curated experiences and heightened privacy.
4. To Retain
In contrast to the previous strategy, this operation respects the existing terrain by building lightly on stilts or structural slits, minimizing disruption to the landscape. This is especially relevant in areas with significant elevation changes. By projecting a horizontal plane from the hillside, the building can connect to other elevated structures—often forming bridges that enhance accessibility while maintaining the natural ground below. This approach allows for circulation in otherwise segregated or inaccessible zones.
These four strategies—undulate, conceal, create, retain—offer a vocabulary of ground operations that both respond to and reshape microtopography, with direct implications on how inclusive or exclusive a space becomes. They are not just architectural moves, but socio-spatial tools that shape access, hierarchy, and belonging.
How to Ground?
GROUNDING INEQUALITY AND CO-EXISTENCE
Fragmented Islands
Community and Formation
Grounding Inequality
Therefore, through the study of circulation, typology, and microtopography, we gain a clearer understanding of how different ownership models along Orchard Road drive individual agendas—each negotiating with the ground plane in their own way. These negotiations result in a patchwork of fragmented, siloed communities, shaped by inclusive and exclusive enclosures.
Whether intentional or incidental, these spatial outcomes have produced a rich layering of identities, quietly embedded beneath the surface of what many perceive as a uniform, tourist-driven retail street.
Orchard Road is not as flat as we think it is.
Strategic Section
Negotiating Microtopography
Co-existence
Urban Form of Retail
Pratunam Market
Putting forth the potential for co-existence, a study of Bangkok’s Pratunam Market reveals how different stakeholders—vendors, consumers, transporters—can live, trade, and exchange on a single, shared ground plane. Through adaptable kits of parts, small vendors integrate into the larger urban fabric, coexisting with surrounding large-scale retail developments.
Spatial elements such as stall dimensions, roofscapes, and streetscapes support this fine-grain ecosystem. Pratunam has become a model for coexistence, where small businesses thrive within a district otherwise defined by shopping malls and commercial centres. This is not merely spatial, but symbiotic: Pratunam functions as a fashion wholesale hub for adjacent malls, supported by tuk-tuks acting as logistics movers and food peddlers serving as the mobile canteen of the district.
The formation of inclusive and exclusive enclosures is thus crucial to the expansion and sustainability of such communities. Regardless of class or status, exclusive enclosures allow groups to take root and build identity, while inclusive enclosures become sites of cultural confluence, exchange, and shared resources.
The tools explored in this study—circulation, exerting exclusivity, and ground operations—offer a spatial language for shaping such enclosures. They are not rigid formulas but adaptive strategies, capable of responding to varied intents, diverse communities, and evolving activities over time.
Community Building
Kits of Parts
So, enclosures are not inherently bad.
Nor is the question simply about whether an enclosure is exclusive or inclusive. Rather, it is about the interlinkages and interrelationships between them.
The co-existence of exclusive and inclusive enclosures is key to expanding access—to space, to resources, to opportunity.
And it is through these connections that we begin to level the uneven grounds of inequality.
Making retail space
Roofs and Alleyways
References
WHO I QUOTED
DP Architects. 2012. DP Architects on Orchard Road. Australia: The Images Publishing Group.
DPM Tharman Shanmugaratnam, ie. 2018. “The toilet attendant, the disinvited speaker and the moving escalator .” IPS Conference: Diversities, New and Old. Singapore: The Straits Times.
Far East Organization. 2018. Landmarks: 50 years of Real Estate Development. Singapore: Far East Organization.
Jacobs, Jane. 1992. The death and life of great American Cities. New York : Vintage.
Martin, Reinhold, ie. 2015. The Art of Inequality: Architecture, Housing and Real Estate (A Provisional Report). New York: The Temple Hoyne Buell Center for the Study of Architecture.
Maybank Kim Eng. 2018. Singapore Retail REITS: In need of retail therapy. Singapore : Maybank.
National Heritage Board. 2018. Orchard Heritage Trail: A Companion Guide. Singapore: National Heritage Board.
Ng, Josh. 2015. Building Refurbishment- How Commercial Building Owners Increase their Real Estate Value: Special Case Studies of Singapore Marina Bay Area and Orchard Road. Singapore: Partridge Publishing.
Ong, Ye Kung. 2018. “Working towards a more equal society.” The Straits Times. Singapore: The Straits Times, May 16.
Paknejad, Navid. 2017. “The phenomenology of shopping malls, a model for typology of shopping malls characteristic.” Researchgate.
Piketty, Thomas. 2017. Capital in the Twenty-First Century. Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
2018 . Regardless of Class . Directed by Sharon Hun. Performed by Janil Puthucheary.
Rifkin, Jeremy. 2015. The Zero Marginal Cost Society. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Rousseau, The Discourse on Inequality. 2018. The Philosophy.com. Accessed November 9, 2018. https://www.the-philosophy.com/discourse-inequality-rousseau-summary.
Tan, Guan. 2018. “Orchard Road: How a Quiet, Hilly Valley became an Epicenter of Luxury Retail.” The New York Times Style Magazine. September 14.
Accessed September 29, 2018. https://www.tsingapore.com/article/orchard-road-how-quiet-hilly-valley-became-epicenter-luxury-retail.
Teo, You Yenn. 2018. This is what Inequality looks like. Singapore: Etho Books.
Whang, Rennie. 2015. Who owns Orchard Road? Singapore: The Straits Times.
Yahya, Yasmine. 2018 . “Singapore must ensure no one is left behind as the country progresses: PM.” The Straits Times. October 23. Accessed November 3, 2018. https://www.straitstimes.com/politics/spore-must-ensure-no-one-is-left-behind-as-country-progresses-pm.