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
Every country dreams of having a great street equal to the best in the world. Older cities that have benefited from centuries of existence and sophisticated societies have their great streets – Champs Elysee in Paris, Oxford Street in London, Fifth Avenue in New York, Michigan Avenue in Chicago, La Ramblas in Barcelona, Omotesando and the Ginza in Tokyo and Nanjinglu in Shanghai. For a young country such as Singapore, where having a great world street is not matter of inheritance but of imagination and perseverance, the mission to help translate dream into reality was given to the Singapore Tourism Board (STB).
These were the opening statement of the Chairman of Singapore Tourism Board (STB), Edmund Cheng written for the 2003 Remaking Orchard Road, a study for the future development of the street (Singapore Tourism Board 2003). This statement pretty much sums up how we as a nation perceive Orchard Road as a public streetscape. It encapsulates our aspirations for the street to rival with others in the world, treatment of it as a reflection of our economic might and the maturity of our society. Orchard Road’s rich palimpsest of time,
history and culture, to the planning authorities, perhaps is not of top priority but could almost be treated like a fresh piece of paper for planners to reimagine. Orchard Road is not an organic streetscape that was built upon layers; rather is an imagined construct. Its public realm of pedestrian mall, plazas, boulevards are the concrete manifestations of our nation’s vision, desires to be taken seriously, to be on par with other developed nations. It is a spectacle for others to marvel and a stage to be marveled at. Within that, how much of Orchard Road is public?
Simultaneously, the layers upon layers of communities and activities formed over time cannot be ignored. From its humble beginnings as plantation estates, it transformed itself into one of the first suburban areas at the city’s fringe (National Heritage Board 2018). By the 1980s, it was the nation’s go-to destination for daily produce, entertainment and leisure (National Heritage Board 2018). It was a confluence of locals, Macdonalds youths co-existing with the jet-setters and global-trotters.
Orchard Road has always been a passage of time and change. Through its evolution, tall, voluminous podium blocks are built side-by-side with small-scale shophouses. The construction of Orchard Road as a public space of the city through the collage of these transient elements provides us a hybrid interpretation of the public realm in Singapore.
This notion of public space can be said of a paradoxical one. It raises the question of how then do we define Orchard Road as a public space. In fact, is Orchard Road even a public space? What does ‘public’ even mean in Singapore’s context? Presuming Orchard Road as a public space, who is the public and the Other sharing its streetscape then? While these questions may be simple, they seek to divulge the deeper contestations and negotiations of different communities and demographics in the area.
Using Habermas’ Transformation of the Public Sphere as a starting point, this essay examine how Orchard Road as a public space was constructed. In Habermas terms, Orchard Road would have lack the communicative nature of a public space (Habermas 1989). Yet, if it were seen as a collective space (explained by Lofland), Orchard Road can be perceived as a site of plurality that allows a variety of encounters and interactions (Lofland 1973). In this sense, Orchard Road is a contradiction that have multiple interpretations. By juxtaposing a series of photographs, we seek to reveal the different notions of public space and the definitions of the ‘public’.
As seen above, by contrasting the old and present of Orchard Road, the tree-lined road seemingly did not change. Yet, the cash crops of the old Orchard Road has been replaced by new money – real estate in the background. As Hee pointed out, ‘the representation of Orchard Road has changed from traditional figure-ground maps and photographs, to abstract forms like graphs anticipating real estate and rental values’ (Hee 2017 ). The economic value of Orchard Road has evolved from an agricultural estate to the speculation of land value.
In this essay, the definition of public is re-interpreted as one that is fluid, ever-changing, transient and dependent on different perspective. These definitions will be studied and supported by juxtaposing images as illustrated above to highlight the paradox hidden within the notion of Orchard Road as a public space. The essay is split into 3 parts: firstly, understanding the concepts of public space through canonical texts of Habermas, Arendt, Koolhaas and etc. Secondly, juxtaposing the paradoxical notions of the ‘public’ in Orchard Road in order to elucidate the frictions and reconciliation of communities residing within and lastly, concluding on the dichotomy of Orchard Road as a public space. Ultimately, this essay put forth the idea of Orchard Road as a site of plurality of occasions, making it a unique public space in the context of Singapore.
Situating Public Space in
Orchard Road
NOTIONS
What is a public space? What does ‘public’ even mean?
Public space are often perceived as physical containers of human activities, shaped by urban designers, as well as social and historical processes. They function as urban ‘living rooms’ that not only provide a sense of breathing space in an otherwise dense urban environment, they tend to be also idealized as a forum of interactions amongst people (Hee 2017 ). In this sense, the public space is a social construct of everyday processes. Using Hee’s definition of public space as a space of ethics and aesthetic, I hope to understand the different notions of the public space and what it entails to be ‘public’ (Hee 2017 ).
ETHICS
In the ‘Ethics’ Discourse, according to Hee, public space can be conceptualized either as a ‘stage’ that is ‘performative’ by its actors or a ‘collective space’ filled by multitude of people across social hierarchy (Hee 2017 ). Habermas’ notion of the public sphere falls in the former concept as a stage for public opinions to be formed and is accessible to all (Habermas 1989). Therefore, the public space can become a space for communication that is blind to class positions and is formed by a mutual will to participate in matters that have a general interest (Cultural Reader 2011). In this sense, the public space is ‘a product of democracy’ (Habermas 1989).
According to Arendt, the ‘public’ refers to everything that can be seen and heard by everybody in which individual experiences is also common to all of us in the public space and is distinguished from our privately owned place in it (Arendt 1958). Both Habermas and Arendt make clear distinction between the public-private realm and elucidates the ‘deterioration of the public realm through the rise of the free market, the break-up of the constituents of the public, and the breakdown of the notion of a common good’ (Hee 2017 ). This means with advent of globalization, capital forces of private developments have blurred the boundaries of the ‘private and public’ as defined by Habermas and Arendt, in turn, disrupting our understanding of public space. Looking at Orchard Road, while it is undeniably a highly capitalist space, has the activities of consumerism degrade the public realm of its streetscape? Perhaps, it is hard to tell now as what is public about Orchard Road has been blurred by the private forces at work.
In Hee’s terms, the public space can also be constructed as a ‘collective space’ in which ‘groups occupy domains and co-exist on a competitive basis with other groups’ (Hee 2017 ). Such nature of space tend to be more social than political, as compared to the definitions put forth by Habermas. An example of such a collective space is Lofland’s term of the public realm as a space populated by strangers – ‘it is a world of strangers’ (Lofland 1973). Such concept of space is a contested notion in which the close proximity of
co-existence may provoke tensions but also interactions. The multiplicities of communities add to the vibrancy of the public space. Broadly speaking, a real, robust public space, in Habermas, Arendt and Lofland’s terms, ought to have the capacity to provide for the full extent of the public (discounting the political or social aspect), in any given society, ‘from the very wealthy to the wretched’ (Koon Wee 2013).
AESTHETICS
In terms of aesthetic, architectural-theorist Rem Koolhaas has this to say about the ‘nostalgic’ perception of public space of architects:
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. I think the truth is somewhere in between. But 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 Internet, the notion of the public space is rapidly evolving. As Koolhaas pointed out, how public spaces are conceived is still seen in a reminiscing manner (Koolhaas 1995). In addition, the theories on the topic is often trapped within a largely Western tradition, which associates the nature of public space into larger questions of citizenship and democracy (J. M. Jacobs 2013). Think of public space, we often relate to the Italian plazas, streets of New York, the squares in London and Paris. Though these traditions are important in their own right, they do not capture the political, economic and social aspects of Asian cities. How then do we situate the public realm in an Asian context?
According to Jacobs, the Asian city has a number of ‘hybrid spaces’ that are public in ways not necessarily recognizable in Western cities (J. M. Jacobs 2013). In Asia, the market and the state are calibrated in distinct ways, resulting in an unusual mish mash of ‘the hyper-regulated and laissez-faire, the planned and the informal, the marketized and the collectively provided and consumed’ (Koon Wee 2013). This blurs the boundaries of public-private, the global and local and, the virtual and real. In Koolhaas’ words, it is ‘somewhere in between’ (Koolhaas 1995). Hence, when confronted, it is hard to comprehend the nature of these hybrid spaces in Asia. This is especially so in Singapore, given its nature as a developmental state.
Singapore’s provision and use of public space is inescapable from the control of the state, national development and national ideology. The nature of governance, coupled with the pragmatic economic emphasis, has shaped public space to be partly state-owned, semi-private, yet designed for common use by people. In addition, being a former British colony, the beginnings of public space in Singapore is tainted with European notions of lawns, squares, promenades – physicalized in the form of the Padang (Hee 2017 ). Concurrently, the
privately-owned shophouse typology with its public 5-foot ways are also often discussed as a typology of the Singapore’s public realm (Hee 2017 ). This in turn blurs the boundaries of the public-private spheres. Contestation arises.
Since independence, public space took on another nature of being a visual embodiment of modern Singapore through the ‘Garden City’ narrative (later ‘City in a Garden’) (Hee 2017 ). Through its parks and tree lined boulevards, it signals metaphorically the arrival by the ‘clean government and clean civil service’ (Hee 2017 ). Heritage buildings were converted into museums, art galleries while architectural icons were built as malls and music venues. Through the Housing Development Board (HDB) neighbourhood towns, the public space not only exist in the satellite town centres, the notion is also extended into the comforts of the home through TV and now Internet (Hee 2017 ). In recent years, there is renewed acceptance of the everyday spaces like the kopitiams, hawker centres, HDB void decks and corridors as Singapore’s archetypal public spaces (Hee 2017 ). Within these spectrum of spaces, Singapore’s public realm is very much attuned with the comfortable middle-class living environment we achieved through the success ascent of the developmental state.
Through Hee’s categorization of public space in ‘ethics’ and ‘aesthetic’ discourses, it is clear to understand public spaces as a constructed space of political, economic, cultural and social forces at work. It is a realm for individual expressions, yet is accessible to all. Therein, it gives rise to plurality of occurrences and encounters, yet also contestations.
How then does Orchard Road fit into these different notions of public space?
ORCHARD
NOW & THEN
Major road into the city centre
Orchard Road is a paradox.
Orchard road is a theatrical stage for actors in global communities, globe-trotting tourists, the middle-class Singaporean consumer and the migrant workers to express themselves individually. Yet, it is also a collective space for the everyday and serendipitous encounters. Flanked with endless shopping malls on both sides, it is a ‘third place’ for the middle-class to shop and dine before heading home after work; yet is highly consumerist in nature (Hee 2017 ). Its angsana-lined 4-lane carriageway is abuzz with cars and pedestrian alike. Its pedestrian malls are activated with cafes, buskers and pop-up spaces. In effect, it has the elements of what Jane Jacobs referred to as the ‘ballet of the street’ (J. Jacobs 1992).
Yet, in Habermas terms, Orchard Road falls short as a communicative space for political dissent (Habermas 1989). Ironically, Orchard Road is home to several embassies like Thailand, Cambodia, Ireland and Netherlands (National Heritage Board 2018). At the end of Orchard road, it is the official residence of the President of Singapore, the Istana (National Heritage Board 2018). Despite these political landmarks, Orchard Road seemingly has no room for expressions of public opinion and political discussions. Given the high censorship and state control, can the public spaces in Singapore accommodate such aspirations (accounting permit-bound Speakers Corner at the usually quiet Hong Lim Park)?
As Sophie Watson has argued, individuals and collectives inscribe their values, claims and identities in public space in ways that are not always overtly political (Watson 2006). Expressing identity, recognizing heritage, gathering, shopping, creating, cultivating, passing-by or avoiding, are all ways of being in public spaces which articulate citizen interests and matter of concerns (J. M. Jacobs 2013). While Habermas’ interpretation of public space as a site of political discussion, through leisure activities, interactions beyond the political can still occur that in turn shape thoughts and feelings, social behavior and our opinions about rights and responsibilities in the public space. As Richard Sennett notes in his The Fall of Public Man the earliest recorded use of the term ‘public’ in Europe related it to the idea not of rights but ‘common good’ (Sennett 1978). Perhaps, to comprehend Orchard as a public space, we need to perceive it as a common space for all to share.
Orchard Road is a platform for new identities being constructed of place, as well as of the occupants of the space. It is a typical public space of the city, where different groups of people are funneled into close proximity – sometimes as spaces of gathering and at times spaces of frictions. Yet, it is an atypical space that fits into the brackets of categorization of public space in Singapore. It is perhaps the culmination of various aspects of economic, social and cultural that makes it a whole of a public space.
JUXTAPOSING ORCHARD ROAD
SPECTACLE / SURVIVAL
QUEUING
Queuing for luxury versus Lining up for sustenance
As seen in the pairing of images above, Orchard Road presents a contrast between the spectacle and survival. Queueing is observed as a typical phenomenon on the shopping strip. On one hand, there are people who lined up just to enter fashion flagship stores for the latest Chanel bags or Hermes scarves. On the other, the service staff, office workers who queued for food in small subterranean eateries, coffeshops during lunch period. This highlights the glamorous side of Orchard Road as a site of ‘endless choices of high-end goods presented in sophisticated environment’ (Hee 2017 ), yet it is also a site of employment for the thousands that come to work in related industries or as direct service staff that satisfied the upkeeping of this consumerist landscape. Hence, within the glitzy façade of Orchard, there also lies spaces of the everyday for simple nourishments and etc.
This transposition of 2 distinct spaces on a single plane delineates the concept of public space in Orchard Road, especially through the archetype of the ‘street’. With the economic boom in 1980s, there was an increase in interiorization and the privatization of public space. This is reflected in new typologies like the atrium space, podium blocks epitomized by Lucky Plaza, which at that time, was the first fully air-conditioned mall in the world and one of the first podium block typologies in Singapore (after People’s Park Complex). The notion of the street was brought indoors, creating a seamless flow of people and with it, wealth into the shopping malls. By the turn of the century, the air-conditioned shopping mall of interior streets and alleyways has usurped and become the dominant public space.
On the contrary, the concept of the street (or public space) is also often associated with ‘discrimination and revolts’ (Koon Wee 2013). To some, public space should be open-ended, in order for the public to enjoy and express themselves. As pointed by Habermas, public spaces are supposed to function like a sponge – it absorbs the full range of expression of the societies they serve, from celebratory events to difficult forms of questioning (Habermas 1989). Yet, in Orchard Road, this political end of spectrum is of non-existent due to the nature of governance in Singapore. Instead, privatization of public space leads to greater profits. As Koon Wee pointed out, ‘the depoliticized public enhances consumerism and its need to turn to our urban environment into spectacles’ (Koon Wee 2013). This is especially so in Asian cities which created hybrid spaces that devoid political agendas and advocate state provision of collectively consumed infrastructure. To Koon Wee, these are self-enclosed make-believe themed environments of leisure, made and often owned by singular developers for maximum profits (Koon Wee 2013). Through the interiorization of the shopping malls, Orchard road has become a spectacle of capital consumerism. So, is it even possible to reintroduce the political into the public sphere of Orchard Road?
In addition, this spectacularization of urban public space in the name of consumption and leisure also reinforces the national narrative of the meteoritic rise of Singapore into a world class city (Hee 2017 ). Orchard Road is undeniably an imagined construct of Singapore’s
economic prowess. With the publication of the Report of Future Economy, Orchard Road is earmarked as one of the key growth centers to boost trade and commerce (Heng 2017). In order to do so, it is envisioned as a lifestyle destination of a unique streetscape that cements Singapore’s national branding as a ‘City in a Garden’ (Hee 2017 ). In doing so, it maintains its position as one of the most expensive streets in the world, showcasing Singapore’s transformation from a ‘fishing village into a cosmopolitan city’ (Singapore Tourism Board 2003). Likewise, as illustrated in the Introduction pair of images, the evolution of the ‘nutmeg plantations into an international fashion street’ (National Heritage Board 2018).
However, in this national narrative, it subjugate the everyday. The everyday (service staff as an example) does not form part of the national narrative despite the necessity of their presence to sustain this image of Orchard Road as this great street that rivals with the likes of Champ Elysees, Fifth Avenue and etc. Hence, Orchard road as a spectacle, it made visible the flows of goods, wealth and power, yet render the everyday struggles and survival as invisible, creating this mirage of a pristine, glitzy shopping street as an urban public space of consumerism.
PUBLIC / OTHER
The term ‘public’ is dependent on the perspective of occupants in space. They are observed to have the agency to define the space as of theirs or of others. These definitions, at times, go beyond the architectural categories of public squares, plazas and pathways. As Arendt puts it, the public is a realm that is accessible by all (Arendt 1958). However, this ‘all’ often rests on the perspective of the people occupying the space. In that sense, as the public is defined, the notion of Otherness also arises through distinctions.
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’ standpoint, the pathway with its shrubs and angsana trees become the next best alternative as a temporal gathering space for picnic. Its close proximity to Lucky Plaza makes it convenient for the maids to settle their remittance before or after meeting up with their friends. At times, the curbs of the road become stools. The trees provide shade and the shrubs offers privacy. Even the elevated plaza of Tong building helps to shape some form of enclosure, making the pathway an intimate setting for conversations with friends. This once again highlights the notion of the public is susceptible to the definitions of the occupants. Here, a circulatory pathway becomes a point of congregation.
In doing so, it challenges architecture archetypes of public space. In this sense, a transit space becomes a destination space in which people gather. Its form does not conform to architects’ definition of the squares, plaza and street. This shows that the function of urban design elements like corridors, walkways are not mono-function. They can be re-appropriated from being a connection between points into a temporary connection amongst people. If so, is the form of the public space essential to its definition? definition of the squares, plaza and street. This shows that the function of urban design elements like corridors, walkways are not mono-function. They can be
re-appropriated from being a connection between points into a temporary connection amongst people. If so, is the form of the public space essential to its definition?
If we were to look at the macro point of view, by understanding the jurisdiction of Orchard, we can postulate who are the public and the others of the strip. Orchard Road is primarily under the purview of STB, the tourism arm of Singapore (Singapore Tourism Board 2003). In its 2003 publication, it outlined a plan to develop Singapore into a tourism capital with Orchard Road as one of its key projects (Singapore Tourism Board 2003). They also partnered with the private developers of Orchard through the Orba business association (Heng 2017). In this sense, one could hypothesize that the primary target group are tourists in order to reap more profits for the private developers. Being the agency that is concerned with the tourist arrivals in the country, it is logical to tap on Orchard Road as a tourist attraction. As such, upgrading the road with beautiful flowering plants, more pop-up stores and etc come as little surprise as this would freshen up Orchard Road’s image as a green belt. If tourists are of top priority, it seems the public notion of Orchard Road refers to the foreigners, which could be extended to include the transnational domestic and foreign workers. If so, perhaps, the locals are the other in Orchard. This is a logical postulation as to why many Singaporeans start to see Orchard as an increasingly irrelevant public space. Coupled that with the rise of suburban malls and e-commerce, Orchard Road has become a foreign space to the locals.
In this discussion of the public, the publicness of a space can change based on perceptions of the society and those in power of the space. The familiar can become the foreign with the change of priorities. The question of the public and the other is a question of perceiving differences. As Arendt elucidates in The Human Condition, ‘Speech and action corresponds to the fact of distinctness and is the actualization of the human condition of plurality that is of living as a distinct and unique being among equals’ (Arendt 1958). This means while differences are made, it gives rise to plurality that adds vibrancy to the mix. As Lim pointed out, ‘the practice of recognizing difference as ‘specificity, or variation’ instead of essentializing difference as a flawed departure from what is perceived as the common culture, is important’ (Chee 2013). Perhaps, instead of portraying differences as oppositions to the norm, we should allow these differences to value-add to the normative public space.
STILL / CHANGE
TIME | CHANGE
Office crowd in the morning | Service staff for lunch | Social Escort at night
The notion of public can also change over time. This series of images reveals not only the ephemerality of a space, instead, due to this quality, it allows the co-existence of different communities in a space. 3 shots of the entrance of Orchard Towers were taken at 3 different timing – morning (9am), lunch (12pm) and night (8pm). In the morning, it is observed that office workers ascend the tower block of the building. In the day, it is a workplace filled with offices like law firms, trading companies and even embassies. By lunch, office workers, service staff of the building and the vicinity poured into its basement for lunch in the coffeshops, food court and eateries. Yet, by the evening, as the offices closed while the nightclubs come alive, social escorts start to sell their services along the entrance of the building. At night, it becomes a public space for prostitution in which males (mostly Caucasians) are observed to be smoking and socializing with the social workers.
NIGHT / DAY
Displayed at Night / Hidden in Day
Through these images, it let slips the transient nature of the public. Temporality of space helps to bridge the co-existence of different communities together in the same space. Despite the differences, communities can socially mix together, regulated by time. Perhaps, it is in the in-between periods like in the evening in which the office workers docked off work and the social workers start to stream into the building where chance encounters and interactions are made possible. In addition, the co-existence of different communities also made them to be aware of each other’s presence. As seen above, the nightclub’s signage is kept and taken out every night, rather than having a permanent sign hung onto the wall. In other shops, it is also observed that sex toys in the window displays are also veiled in the day, only to be exhibited prominently at night. In Chee words, the politics of race, class, gender and sexuality are visibly enacted in the conceptualization, allocation, sharing and interpretation of spaces (Chee 2013). Time becomes a regulator of these differences and their adaptation of the space for their own use. Perhaps, such negotiations of different communities within the same space allow one another to be more respectfully towards each other’s lifestyles.
This transient nature of the ‘public’ can also be discussed at the city scale. Orchard Road is very much a space that has its own time-based cycles of events: daily, seasonally and yearly. During the Christmas season and the Singapore’s Great Sale, locals start to pour into Orchard significantly to view the Christmas lights and get the worthy deals (Singapore Tourism Board 2003). In addition, over the decades, as it evolve from a public space for youths like the Centrepoint Kids, Macdonald Youth to hang out to one that is more fashion-oriented, the communities that constitute the public have also been evolving (National Heritage Board 2018). This also means our current preoccupation of Orchard Road as a seemingly undesirable public space could perhaps be renegotiated.
THOUGHTS
As a player within the Castellian ‘global space of flows’, Singapore play host to expariates and guest workers who moved within international flows of labour and talent (Hee 2017 ). Orchard Road becomes this nexus of transnational workers, globe-trotters mixing with the locals. As Lim pointed out, given this unique mix, there is a problematic perspective of a single or unified public in Singapore (Lim 2013). This ‘pluralistic identity’ needs to be tolerantly mined (Lim 2013). These heterogeneous publics should participate in the space without assimilation. Specific social groups like the migrant workers, domestic helpers and even the vices should be empowered in the space of the public realm. As seen through the examples, the notion of the public can be redefine in terms of perspective and time. This enables the concept of public space to take on different meanings in Orchard Road – an everyday space that is also consumerist in nature. Perhaps, this paradox that add dynamism to Orchard Road 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, she noted how the historical evolution of Singapore public spaces do not fit neatly into Western theories and model (Hee 2017 ). Instead, they are home to a variety of spatial practices that explore social processes of shaping both state-people and people-people relationships (Chua 2017). In Orchard Road, it is the sum of parts that makes the whole. On one hand, it is a consumerist space of ‘mobility, mass consumption and the occasional spectacle of mass recreation’ (Hee 2017 ). On the other, it is a town center for its surrounding residents, a place of work for employment and a space of the everyday. Within this dichotomy, it gives a dimension of multiplicity to the multitude of communities negotiating the public-private realm of Orchard Road. It is also this pluralistic identity that makes it difficult to classify the notion of public space in its streetscape.
However, through juxtapositions of activities and people in Lucky Plaza and Orchard Towers, we have extended the term ‘public’ as one that is fluid. It is determinate by the perspective of the occupants and time. Having said that, when the perspective of the people in power of the public space is different from the perspective of the users, tensions may arise that may alter the nature and representation of the public space.
While Orchard Road does not necessarily conform into the notion of the public sphere as envisioned by Habermas (Habermas 1989), it is perhaps closer to Lofland’s notion as a ‘world of strangers’ (Lofland 1973). While it may not have political agency of Habermas’ public sphere, Orchard Road is, for the time being, tolerant to multiplicity of activities and people. However, as pointed out by Lim, public space is not democratic but still supported by commodity capital and thus, installs a persistent class barrier (Chee 2013). In Orchard’s context, perhaps we need to be careful of the perspective of STB in propagating this consumerist aspect of Orchard. This is because it would gradually put pockets of space into a hierarchical manner. This in turn may manifest the comparisons of inequality.
However, as Lim elaborates, the idea of a unified homogenous Singaporean public is already in itself flawed as ‘every social group has group differences cutting across it, which are potential sources of wisdom, excitement, conflict, and oppression’ (Chee 2013). This means these differences can produce different identifications, tribes, potential conflicts but also affinities within the communities. As such, Singapore is about a ‘plurality of spatial occasions that allows us to make of the space what we will and move on’ (Chua 2017). This means we should respect the differences in public space and instead develop networks of public space’ in Orchard rather than a ‘homogenous and undefined ones’ (Chua 2017). In doing so, we create more concentrated experiences, a plethora of activities that could create adjacencies for encounter between different groups.
Moving forward, reiterating Lim’s point on recognizing differences, as we conceptualize the construction of public space in Orchard Road, perhaps, we should not view this alternative public space as a ‘flawed departure from what is perceived as the common culture’, instead acknowledging its contradiction as a ‘variation’, thereby allowing its paradoxical, pluralistic identity to thrive (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.