Anecdote - The Value of Our Work

by Kee Zhi Wei
Summer 2022

A Townhall was held via Zoom. Slightly more than one hundred members attended out of 1700+ registered architects. As a young practitioner, the phenomena of young architects leaving architectural practice to us, is not an unfamiliar one.

It is clear that architects often question the time we put into our work, our purpose in life, our everyday sacrifices, in contrast to our remuneration. Perhaps leaving the practice at an early stage is due to the knowledge of the petrifying salary gap (especially when projecting into the near future) against our peers, in other industry, who studied lesser but gets paid better, offered better welfare, seemingly on course to great job satisfaction and quality of life. A late leaver in the practice may well be ousted by an accumulation of dissatisfaction, when a commitment > architecture caught up with us, or when we finally concede that our dying passion is not reasonably practicable anymore.

Losing young architects in practice is in part a vicious cycle. But we have not been able to deal with it, or at least we were all told that our firms could not, because the cost of running a firm is ever increasing albeit salaries are not, and because fees are competitively decreasing albeit bidding amongst our own. I understand. Our professional fee, is probably one of the most insipid manner, yet an essential one in the modern society, to assign a value to our work. Evidently, we cannot expect all architects to be equipped with a foolish sense of morality to resist a job, in a system where the lowest fee, not the most honorable or faithful one, wins the highest score. We are caught in a system designed for our self-destruction. If information on awarded fees on public tenders is transparent and readily available, an established fee guide would be of the least impact, since the mental construct that the lowest fee in a bid bluntly translates to the highest score, remains unchanged. This translation is economically convenient, but does it mean it is well worth the money spent?

We want to eliminate an exceptionally low fee, because an exceptionally low fee may be due to inexperience in accounting, misinterpretation in scope of work, poor man-hour allocation to a project. We want to eliminate an exceptionally high fee, because an exceptionally high fee may be due to non bona fide submission, poor productivity, little interest or dedication to the project. So, hypothetically speaking, when there are 3 firms with the exact same quality scores, one with an exceptionally low fee, one with an exceptionally high fee and one with a mean fee, who can we depend on? The point is not about “what you pay is what you get”, but rather that the reduction of fee scale to a mere measurement in monetary terms, is in itself too convenient. Fee assessment could be better designed to allow for the most dependable fee to be scored the highest. An example aside from assessing a mean fee, is to quantify the man hours in a tender, be it by procurement agencies or by tenderers. This mechanism prevents discrepancies in allocation of resources and encourage a systematic approach to fee proposal, that is more transparent and precise, deterring an ill-conceived fee. Could there also be other ways to value the work that we deliver through an outcome-based fees or performance-based fee then?

Fees aside. The fundamental question remained. How do architects value our work? How do we allow non-architects to appreciate the true value of architecture? Whatever our differences may be, I believe that most architects have believed that the true value of architecture lies in the arcane, the immeasurable, in our everyday delightful experience of the built environment. After all, it has been the immeasurable that had kept us in this profession, longer than we expected. Whist its workings may be understood by few, the impact of architecture in all our lives, is immanent and unavoidable. Bad architecture = bad quality of life, period. It is then up to us to actively engage the society, to make our works accessible, understood, appreciated and valued more. We could strive again to be the leader in the transformation of our built environment, to question the convenient and show new possibilities, to educate our next generation, to organize scholarly yet engaging events, to create courses to be recognized, and to claim the credits to our works when credits are due! Or simply on a fundamental level, to be objective and mythological, to be able to explain nuances, to always verbalise architectural delights in layman terms, to be evidence and research based, to showcase our process and rigor. Until the next renaissance, perhaps these are some of the things we must press on, to prevent the value of our work from diminishing into the price tag that we are assigning ourselves to.

Anecdote by Kee Zhi Wei
Summer 2022

Neo-liberalism In the Everyday -
Exploring spatial-political alternatives in neo-liberalised cities

by Kee Zhi Wei
Spring 2013

Contents
1. Introduction - Problematising Current Neo Liberal Discourse
2. Everyday Neoliberalism - Hypothesising cities as sites for accumulating consensus
3. Materialising Accumulation of Consensus – Space inducing action/non-action
4. Uncovering Disturbances – Action appropriating space
5. Conclusions

1. Introduction - Problematising Existing Neoliberal Discourse
“Why have we not revolt?” This was the puzzling question and a closing remark made by David Harvey
in his recent lecture on the neoliberal city. Current theoretical discourse on neo-liberalism remains problematic
because it over emphasizes on the “perceived” and “conceived”, negating the “lived”, and hence incompetent
in responding to these sorts of questions. While larger concepts on political level (i.e. de-statisation, erosion
of state as spatial unit), economic level (i.e. financialisation, free market), social level (i.e. social integration,
poverty, marginalisation), geographical level (i.e. globalisation, uneven urban development, slums) are assumed
to be connected to small-scale spatial practices, their exact affinities were never specified. Meanwhile these
established paradigms become increasingly limited in their ability to illuminate contemporary urban changes
and struggle. This not only impaired our understanding on the working of neoliberalism on cities, for some it
has already become difficult to believe in architecture’s role accelerating and catalysing political opposition
in today’s cities. On another note, the restless periodicity and slipperiness of the urban phenomena itself has
also somehow led to the submission of the city as a self-regulating organism. This myopic sense exemplifies
our incapability in understanding the post-modernist “lived” environment, as Lefebvre claimed “its complexity
surpassed our tool of understanding and the instrument of practical capacity”, (Lefebvre, 1991)1 thus we assign
it to something that is beyond our comprehension. Yet Lefebvre also commented on professionals attitude, that
although experts [e.g. architects] are embedded in everyday life, they prefer to think of themselves as outside
and elsewhere; convinced that everyday life is trivial, they attempt to evade it. Thus architects tend to use
rhetoric and meta-language as “permanent substitutes for experience, allowing them to ignore the mediocrity of
their own condition” (Lefebvre, 1992)2 while affording them a totalising view. In other words, not only has our
discourse stopped believing in architecture’s role, architects themselves have been circumventing their social role
and are absent in shaping the social condition of cities.

In response, this paper bring together two disparate notions, one ordinary the other obscure, neoliberalism
and the everyday, as an attempt to bridge between the “concept” and the “lived” (De Certeau, 1988)3 and to
prevent a receding role of the architects in the “lived”. The probe into the topic of neoliberalism as ordinary,
down-to-earth phenomena and practices on a daily basis as Lefebvre have said, is not to replace “general concepts
which have been worked out by means of highly specialised activity and abstracted from everyday life... On the
contrary, they [are meant to] take on a new meaning for lived experience.”(Lefebvre, 1991)4 On a more serious
note, the trivial and everyday actually constitutes the basis of all social experience and is where the true realm
of political contestation is found. Thus the understanding of it in the context of neoliberalism is immanent in our
quest to seek potential realms outside the neoliberal agenda.

2. Everyday Neo-liberalism – Hypothesising cities as sites for accumulating consensus
The everyday simply describes live experiences shared by people around us, the banal and ordinary
routine that most of us become all too familiar with. Yet what is blatantly ordinary reveals an intricate condition
defined by a complex realm of social practices – a conjuncture of accident, desire, and habit when we commute,
work, relax, walk on the streets, shop, buy, dine, run errands, etc. This notion of the everyday is in conjunction
to the description of our everyday spaces as a social product invested by the idiosyncrasies of people in their
everyday uses. Yet spaces as such are also to a large extent shaped by those in power according to their prevalent ideologies, i.e. the definition of streetscape by developers and planning authorities.5 In the neoliberal society, both process of production of everyday spaces have increasingly lent themselves to the logic of neoliberalism, our experience of everyday spaces are designed to streamline our idiosyncrasies through our everyday use. As a result, daily social practices become attuned to and we are induce to aspire for further neoliberal developments. Therefore to envisage the effects of neoliberalism on our everyday experience, we argue that apart from the inherited concept of the city as a site for absorbing and accumulating surplus capital, everyday spaces in the city are predominantly sites to generate and accumulate consensus in the “lived” as well.

Conceptually consensus in the neoliberal city is briefly represented by an unexpressed acceptance
towards the free market as the economic, democratic as the politic and humanitarian aid as the morally just,
yet often branching off to a variety of seemingly different and disassociated ideologies from social inclusion, to
consumerism, to financial security, to encouraging private ownership, etc. This is to ensure that its ideologies
remain relevant to every class in the society while avoiding any associations to its deeply rooted capitalistic
origins and its inherent inequalities. Without a consensus, the accumulation of capital, the exploitation of labour,
the demand of excess, the implementation of policies to engender free market, good business climate, tax free
zone, etc. becomes undesirable, intolerable and unfeasible.

Since cities are areas where large populations gather in small areas seeing to the exchange of means,
ideas and knowledge, it preconditioned the dissemination of ideas and effecting the accumulation of consensus.
Yet the notion of accumulating consensus is far more compelling because no formal act or even consciousness of
giving consent is required. Instead, accumulation operates on the individual and subconscious level; assimilating
people into its system, then without a clear sense of how they have got there, find themselves contributing
to every part of it. Unlike the concept of ‘shock and awe’6 which triggers man to become conscious of fear
and emancipation, the notion of accumulation prefers to mask itself in the banal, in the ordinary that we are
all too familiar with and we become ignorant about; therefore remained unknown, uncontested, unchanged.
Therefore it is in the banal, the everyday where accumulation is most effective. The purpose of this essay is an
attempt to materialise the mechanism of accumulating consensus in our everyday environment, focusing on the
dialectic between neo-liberalistic manipulations versus autonomous action of human agency in the production
and perception of everyday spaces; while the on-going studio focuses on uncovering alternative realities, tactics7
and the production of spatial-political imaginaries outside the consensus.

3. Materialising Accumulation of Consensus – Space inducing action/non-action
According to Crawford, both Lefebvre and Debord recognised our urban environment as potential
common ground to contest alienation of modern capitalist society, which once overcome would render the
individual whole anew. Naturally both saw the city they polemicised and the city they envisage as totalities.
Although larger concepts are necessary for our understanding of cities, such totalising views have also proven
to cripple our method of inquiry hitherto. Thus by acknowledging the fragmentation and incompleteness of
the everyday where differences occur due to multiplicity of circumstances, we attempt to materialise
consensus through relearning from modest and small-scale situation based conditions without dismissing
their implications and relations to larger socio-economical agendas. The proposition, that it is impossible
to understand or overcome the mechanism of accumulating consensus as a totality, led us the principles of
Actor-Network Theory (ANT), which describes the production of space by emphasising on the specificity of a
particular everyday event in a non-totalising way, happening in a moment. Yet each of these everyday scenarios
assumes part of a larger network subservient to the neoliberal agenda, at which consensus are accumulated.

By assigning meaning and motives to the organisation of mundane objects in our everyday environment,
we are offered a critical look at how everyday spaces in the city are painstakingly maintained and in turn how
people living in cities are subjugated to act in a certain way in given time frame by these spatial strategies.
Following the ANT, accumulation of consensus first produces space in a specific way to induce our movement,
acts, views etc – it formats8. Then through the art of persuasion and persistent exposure, a certain habit within
the consensus is cultivated or a certain doctrine is eventually accepted – you (unconsciously) subscribe9. For
instance, we can observe this phenomenon in the investment of underpass in cities – traffic-free, air-conditioned
environment, lined seamlessly with shops and advertisements made into inevitable connections along everyday
destinations are in fact sites to propagate a certain consumerist culture. Episodes within these normative spaces
in the city can be further disassembled to analyse how material and spatial organisation is made subservient to
neoliberalism.

McFarlane pointed to the political potential of ANT in the neoliberal discourse. First, by paying detailed,
ethnographic attention to these processes, we are better equipped to understand how everyday spaces in the
neoliberal city are constituted and thus more capable to imagine alternatives to these specific situations. In a
similar vein, it diversifies the range of agents involved, considering both human and non-human setups coevally,
hence multiplying the sites for critical intervention. While on a more general note, empirical studies as such
increases our sensibility to materiality in everyday spaces, its dispossession and inequality. However the drawbacks
of ANT is its risks in rejecting larger concepts of structure in favour of “naïve objectivism” (Sayer, 1992), veiling
itself from larger concepts and explanatory tools to understand the context where urban spaces are locally
embedded and social forces are position. Yet the ANT allows the view of the city, as “opposed to essentialist or
reductionist way, as immanent, contingent, heterogeneous and ontologically flat, disclosing no other level, final
explanation, or hidden core”. (McFarlane, 2011) Thus ANT is most effective when linked to established concept,
theories, hypothesis, research agendas, etc.

To avoid over-objectification on the accumulation of consensus based on outright interpretation of
behaviourism, the format-by and subscription-to consensus described earlier are not to be accorded as the universal
cause and effect of everyday experience but rather an instantaneously and simultaneously mediation between
“manipulation” and “freewill” pertaining to a scenario. By positioning the ANT against Tschumi’s categories
of space and action in space, when the relationship between formatting and subscribing, is of “indifference” or
“reciprocal” (Tschumi, 1981) whereby no resistance is registered - consensus is accumulated. However the third relationship of “conflict” (Tschumi, 1981) exists, since each scenario meant very different to each and
everyone. In the case of a shopping cart to a middle-class mother versus a homeless person, the human agency
(homeless person) finds no need or means to subscribe but a need to re-appropriate these spatial entities,
changing its use, thus the shopping cart is eventually used as a mobile home. While it is important to understand
how everyday spaces are subservient to neoliberalism through materiality and spatial organisation, it is also
naive to conclude that everyday action can be rationalised by spatial organisation and materiality. Our daily
encounters often reveal to us scenarios whereby not only are formats undermined, the use of the space/object
opposes its intended function - it is being misused. These episodes of misused found in the “conflict” (Tschumi,
1981) between conformed space10 and non-conformist actions are considered as resistances and disturbances to
the network of accumulation of consensus. If our everyday environment in the neoliberal city is constructed in
attempt to modify our actions and perceptions, what we could draw from the everyday that is equally omnipotent
is the way human action defies these spatial setups causing disturbance to the accumulation of consensus.

4. Uncovering Disturbances – Actions appropriating space
Inherently absent in the notion of consensus is the truly democratic public, founded on contestation
rather than on unity that allows competing interest and violent demands as mush as reasoned debate, without a
prior consensus. Yet spatial organisation erected to accumulate consensus are more often than not protected by
law. To re-appropriate them or to contest them in our everyday lives mainly arise from outmost need, the need to
misuse space, in conflict to what the neoliberal city wish to offer.

According to Latour, subscribers tend to make themselves obligatory passage points, which have fuelled
the continued success of the network (of accumulation). Hence when all is stable, its underlying inequality and
dispossession are disguised under the illusion of integrity and ubiquitous acceptance. The network could fall apart
due to quasi-entropic decay, strategic missteps or the disguise could be made apparent through the intentional
refusal on part of one or another “subscriber”. The former is extremely uncommon since the neoliberal network
of accumulation, effectively branches off to a variety of seemingly different and disassociated ideologies,
constantly updating itself to social changes, remaining relevant to every class in the society. The latter however
describes a way to identify disturbances through identifying “intentional refusal” in spaces that are set up to
accumulate consensus by influencing our actions. Those actions that compromise the performance of formats and
subscription, and that are in conflict to normative space are deemed as disturbances. Yet what is implied is that
the inherent inconsistencies, contradictions and disjunctions between format and subscription, between space and
people’s action in space, are politically charged and is where disturbances are founded upon.

By disturbances, public space is also understood in a broader sense, making a distinction between
everyday public and monumental public, which could take on a more temporal notion, like a disturbance. In this
respect, disturbances to consensus could also be seen as the brief moment when lived experience and political
expression of the individual or the group come together, over turning status quo in otherwise “normative” spaces
of consensus or “non-public” spaces. Without claiming to represent the totality of public space, these disturbances
to consensus are of great significance as they construct and reveal fragments of alternative logic of space. For
instance, the claiming for new uses by hoards of Philippino domestic helpers during Sundays at the ground floor
of the HSBC Bank in Hong Kong, in Foster’s recent exhibit. These disturbances could also be seen in parallel to
what Edward Soja, following Lefebvre, called “third space” - a category that is neither the material space that
we experience nor a representation of spaces, but rather a space of representation. This ‘third space’ is activated
through tactics, which underline the mode of transgression and the production of space outside consensus.

In other words, the collision of the third space with normative space can also be seen as a realistic
utopia where users and interest that would not ‘normally’ intersect are suddenly in proximity and in awareness,
where the true realm of political contestation and alternative towards neoliberalism resides. Therefore to
identify disturbances in the neoliberal city is to also identify these tactics. There are however already embedded
in everyday lived spaces as Debord suggested “one day, we will construct cities for drifting... but, with light
retouching, one can utilise certain zones which already exist. One can utilise certain person who already exits”.
Our immediate task is to find them and to relearn from them.

Reflections
As we have discussed, our research on Everyday Neoliberalism recognised the political potential in
aspects of the everyday as theorised by Certeau and Lefebvre using it to discuss more contemporary discourse on
neoliberalism which led to the hypothesis of cities not only as sites for accumulation of capital but accumulating
consensus in the “lived” as well. By proposing the Actor-Network Theory (ANT) as a basis for analysing
the materialisation and accumulation of consensus in cities we are able to draw parallel the idea of format/
subscription to Tschumi’s theory on space/event (3 relationships of reciprocal, indifference, conflict) therefore
able to more clearly define disturbances - when a “conflict” between format versus subscription or space versus
event is registered. These disturbances are what Lefebvre described as “third space” which reveals fragments of
alternative logic in the production of space in capitalistic cities. In our onward research for the graduation studio,
we proposed to focus on two aspects. First De Ceteau’s concept on spatial tactics will be studied to understand
how disturbance overcome normative spatial organisation. Second, the inherent disjunctions in architecture
not only in event-space, but also conception-perception, representation-interpretation, programme’s functionuse
are all important premises where disturbances are founded. Their investigation could offer more insight to
alternative logic of production of space. Therefore while the theoretical research and on-site fieldwork focus on
spatial tactics, the concurrent studio research focuses on the exploration of some of these disjunctions. According
to Tschumi, these inherent disjunctions in architecture are what possibly make architecture capable of political/
spatial alternatives by being constantly unstable, unpredictable, constantly on the verge of change due to humanly
intervention and interpretation. Only by acknowledging and engaging these inconsistencies in architecture, then
we are equipped to address its social role and thus operates in the “lived”. While the days where big movement
and manifestoes instigated social change have passed, it is almost impossible to imagine outright resistance
to consensus that is legal and non-violent in neoliberal cities. Hence by uncovering and relearn from these
disturbances that exist in small-scale appropriation and struggles we hope to derive at alternative production of
space in capitalist cites.

References

Brenner, Neil, Peter Marcuse, and Margit Mayer. Cities for People, Not for Profit : Critical Urban Theory and the Right to the City. London; New York: Routledge, 2012.

Chase, John, Margaret Crawford, and John Kaliski. Everyday Urbanism. New York: Monacelli Press, 2008.
Kaminer, Tahl, Miguel Robles-Durán, Heidi Sohn, M. Christine Boyer, and Delft School of Design. Urban Asymmetries : Studies and Projects on Neoliberal Urbanization. Rotterdam: 010 Publishers, 2010.

Tschumi, Bernard. Architecture and Disjunction. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1996.

End notes:
1. Henri Lefebvre. Critique of Everyday Life. London: Verso, 1991.
2. Henri Lefebvre. Everyday life in the Modern World. New York: Harper, 1971. Pg 92.
3. Michel de Certeau. The Practive of Everyday Life. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1988.
4. Henri Lefebvre. Critique of Everyday Life. London: Verso, 1991. Pg 95.
5. Accoding to Ley & Duncan, place is “ a synthesis of charisma and context, a text which may be read to reveal the force of dominant idea and prevailing practices, as well as the idiosyncrasies of a particular author.” In our case, we accord singularity of place to that of everyday spaces.
6. Shock and Awe (technically known as rapid dominance) is a military doctrine written by Harlan K. Ullman and James P. Wade in 1996 and is a product of the National Defense University of the United States. Later adopted by Alan Watt in “The Manipulation Of The Human Psyche” to describe underlying social mechanism of our contemporary society.
7. Tactics here is consistent with de Certeau’s distinction between strategic and tactical that is one of vernacular, local improvisation, tactical strike versus planning.
8. Bruno Latour’s
9. ibid
10. Refer, Atelier d’Architecture Autogérée. R-Urban Commons - Catalogue of Common 1.2 Alterotopias. http://rurbancommons.wikispot.org/Catalogue_of_Commons, accessed 14 Nov 2012.

Essay by Kee Zhi Wei
Spring 2013

Housing Cities - From quantity to quality

by Kee Zhi Wei
Spring 2012

1. Introduction
Urbanity - Many developing cities today sought for while struggle to cope with these experiences, where unprecedented transformations arrive in various aspects such as culture, demographics, built environment, lifestyle as well as the environment where people dwell in. Indeed the exponential influx of populace to urban centres brought about the demand for new types of formal housing in these cities, where in many cases, the renewal of incredibly dense slum areas are already pressing at hand. Therefore, speed, numbers and above all affordability
are quantitative aspects of housing programmes, immanent to their success. For instance in Mumbai, large-scale provision of housing within a short period has indeed iron out problems such as overcrowding, hygiene, sanitation and encroachment to natural resources in slums. However the housing provided under such motivators, were often stripped to its bare minimal, 10-storey high blocks placed only 3m apart, with no daylight into living spaces, the
overall condition sometimes less humane than the slums. Even though the problem of housing in most cases begins with the problem of shortage, what the various presenters made clear was that it is a fallacy to outweigh economic and pragmatic aspects of affordable housing programme, and assume that number, speed and price tags alone will suffice in answering the issues face in their own cities. Therefore by revisiting the four cities, this article attempt to highlight four underlying problems with affordable housing that emphasise on the economic
and pragmatic aspects.

Addis Ababa – Diluting social values
Since 2004, 200000 dwelling units have been provided under the Grand Housing Programme (GHP), with an estimate of 60000 dwelling units per year needed in Addis Ababa for the next 20 years. As the government adopts a “down-with-the-old-to-bring-in-the-new attitude, the GHP came in the expense of traditional urban structure that is largely interlink to its social structure of the indigenous city. With the import of foreign housing type in GHP, foreign lifestyle are also being imported whereby inhabitants are assumed into a universal modern living environment which is apparently incompatible with their existing lifestyle. Corridors spaces are used for day-to-day chores instead of the kitchen space provided within the unit while large open spaces in-between blocks were disuse since there is little sense of ownership to them. Traditionally in the Kebeles, little segregation was made between the middle class and the poor in the city. Social structure as such have also changed in the GHP, as little mechanism is being put in place to ensure the mix of people living in the neighbourhood especially the poor who would rather rent out their unit for a better income. Despite its success in relocating people from the slums in large numbers, the imprudent import and erection of new housing under the GHP has since caused the social values to be eroded
together with the old urban structure.

China – Dysfunctional urban environment
A different situation was presented in China whereby the mass housing stock is almost entirely provided by real estate developers instead of the government. Plots are first parcelised to facilitate their sale with an attached permissible built area to each plot. Naturally, these developers maximise the cost efficiency for building as well as cost of their land by building super tall residential blocks with identical floor plans for each levels. Plots that are parcelised smaller eventually result in a “pencil block” while a larger plot creates an entire cookie-cut neighbourhood with several identical blocks. Yet this repetition is not limited to single project since developers often reuse existing floor plans in a number of projects with only minute changes to the façade design. This homogenisation of urban landscape is made worse by the gating of each housing project, planting blind spots in the urban fabric that is inaccessible and unconnected. Hence the provision of housing as a commodity under such circumstances has resulted in an overall dysfunctional urban environment in many emerging Chinese cities today.

Moscow - Contrast between rich and poor
In Russia however, housing is a field that is heavily politicised. Used as a symbol for progress, equality and fairness in the socialist state whereby the collective is emphasised while individualistic expressions are reduced to its minimal if not entirely dismissed. It was under these circumstances that the housing stock have continued to be supplied in large quantity during the Soviet Union and resulted is a highly homogenised environment today. However the shift from socialism to capitalism has allowed many private projects to be possible in the last 20 years. These private developments are largely catered for luxury housing rather that mass affordable housing which are usually isolated. Thus while existing inhabitant remain in the socialist blocks with limited amenities, parts of the city have moved forward with their own private developments resulting in the huge contrasts between the rich
and the poor within the city we see today.

Mumbai – Unsustainable housing
One of the most important statements highlighted during the lecture is that there is no formal plan for housing in Mumbai. The Neoliberal government opportunistically focuses on freeing up existing slums sites and selling the land to private developers without a proper framework to relocate the inhabitants of the slums they have displaced. In some cases, blocks of high rise, temporary ones at first, were casually erected and slum settlers were put into these makeshift construction; while in other cases, formal housing were being built on unattractive sites, quantified by the maximum number of units possible in a limited size of land. They came in the form of double loaded blocks, positioned as close to each other as possible with only one window opening to the bathroom which the whole house ventilates through and received daylight from. As the city develops at the speed now, it is difficult to subscribe that housing provided in such a manner would continue to be relevant in 20years’ time.

Reflections
Consequently, these underlying problems can be accorded to the government’s pragmatic and economic attitude towards provision of mass housing. Without referring to the existing lifestyles of the people it can be inferred that provision of housing is a concern of numbers in cases such as Addis, Mumbai and Moscow. In China however, the government shun its responsibility over the provision of mass housing leading to the commoditisation of housing
under real estate developers. Yet without the emphasis on pragmatic and economic of mass housing, larger societal problems such as overcrowding, hygiene problems of diseases in slums areas, degradation of urban green and open spaces make cities more unliveable. Therefore while housing is to be provided in large quantity alleviates initial problems in cities, it is the quality of the housing, which determines the longevity of these programmes.

Essay by Kee Zhi Wei
Spring 2012

Considering Place-
The aftermath of conservation in Singapore
Part 1

by Kee Zhi Wei
Spring 2012

Personal Motivation
The three episodes below, in chronological order, spurred me on in my pursuit of this topic.

Episode 1 – Demolition is always justifiable
A Blog - Siew Kun Hong, Nominated Member of Parliament’s asked in retrospect of the demolition of the old National Library in 2004: “How important are those 5 minutes?” Because cars are meant to travel at 70km/h and no less in that area, because cars are meant to take the shortest route, because at 70km/h cars would require a turning radius that unfortunately wipe out our National Library. There are few of the rationales the State was using to justify their decision, apart from better land use of valuable land, which in the end was offset by the cost of building the tunnel. So how important exactly are those 5 minutes to Singaporeans?
Episode 2 – A matter of convenience
An online poll in 2008 – 13 buildings/structures were put on an online survey by the State to find out which building do Singaporeans think its the most worth conserving. Most of them are prominent buildings such as the Golden Mile Complex, Queenstown Community Library, Singapore Improvement Trust flats, just to name a few.
Winning entry appears to be a dilapidated bus stop in Old Chua Chu Kang road (one of the most remote places Singapore). Within months, URA and LTA responded, claiming they have heeded the voice of Singaporeans and have decided to list the structure under monumental status. No restoration work has been done whatsoever.
Episode 3 – Nothing shall stand in the way
Latest developments, announced in 2012 - A portion of a historical cemetery at Bukit Brown where many of the nation’s forefathers are buried at, is to be cleared out for a new highway, while a stretch of the Singapore River is to be redirected to make way for a new train tunnel. With the fate of places that are well loved, pre-determined by the State, depended on land use and development other of infrastructure. What has conservation meant to Singaporean thus far?

Part 1.1 - The Power Of Place
“The power of place” is the title to a book written by Agnew and Duncan in 1989. As the title implies, “place” is a commonly used, powerful yet deceptively simple term. In the more tangible aspects, place could, inter alia, mean a “portion of space”, a relatively larger location where people interact or an area as small as a seat for an individual; while more abstract notions of place may refer to a temporal ordering (“took place”), a social status or even a responsibility (“knowing your place”). More complications arise when these multiples meanings of place are
further interpreted for instances the notion of home and situation, which could interchangeably mean a specific concrete settings or as amorphous as an impression.

While not dismissing the complexity of the term and developing in the interest of our paper, we put our attention on two important concepts of place, which could be referred to, throughout this paper. Firstly, places are recognised as concrete setting in which individuals carry out their activities in specific conditions and environment provided. Similarly, these settings also provide the context for collective acts of organisation and destruction, celebration and conflict (Cooke, 1989). Places as concrete settings could therefore refer to locations such as the
Kallang National Stadium in Singapore or the Champs-Élysées in Paris. On the other side of the coin, place could also be socially constructed as people constantly invest meanings in places with respect to their individual’s or collective’s goals and concerns, within the context of their time. Yet different but overlapping versions of constructs across different times constitute to the meaning of a place. Construct of places are also not confined to the concrete setting of a specific time (the present) but encompasses constructed places in memory, in Geosophies
(Wright, 1947) or even in re-presentations. Places may therefore refer to constructs such as Heaven or colonial Singapore. In short, the notion of place used in this paper concurs to the expression of Daniels, as both a “way of living” (concrete settings) and “way of seeing” (mental constructs).

Part 1.2 - Place as a Process of Becoming: The Dominant Force and Idiosyncratic Individuals
Putting our perspectives of place together, both as concrete settings as well as social constructs, we identify two enduring characteristics that are fundamental to the discourse of place making and meaning. On the ground, places attain meanings that are invested by individuals who use and interpret these concrete settings when performing their daily activities and business. Yet more often than not placemeanings operate within a larger social construct which is imposed top down by those in power, and are articulated to advance certain prevalent ideologies within
the context of their time. (Yeoh & Kong 1996) Given that these conditions of place making and meaning are true, it can be inferred that meanings of places can change and possibly will change over time as individuals in place are replaced with the pass of a generation; similarly prevalent state ideologies are constantly adjusted in response to both internal and external, social, economical and political factors. Indeed, one of the first and foremost characteristics that should be acknowledged in this discourse is that place-meanings are not static and places under conservation are no exception. Thus in Pred’s words, places can be understood as a “process of becoming”. Secondly, although place-meanings are said to operate within a larger social construct articulated by the dominant force, individuals on the ground are indispensable as they relentlessly form and re-appropriate the meaning of places constantly. Therefore, place is essentially “a synthesis of charisma and context, a text which may be read to reveal the force of dominant idea and prevailing practices, as well as the idiosyncrasies of a particular author.” (Ley & Duncan, 1993) Conversely, to consider place is to understand the motivations of these actors, which changes overtime, and allegedly to conserve place is to acknowledge the changeability of place while preserving the essences invested by these actors.

Part 1.3 - Hypothesising the Aftermath of Conservation in Singapore
This paper is positioned in the aftermath of conservation in Singapore, the 23rd year since the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) announced the first list of gazetted areas under conservation in 1989. If place meanings are not inert and ahistoric but rather constantly evolving (following our first characteristic of place),
we are particularly interested in what prevailed as a consequence of conservation efforts by the State that continues to shape the meanings of these places today. By exposing the dominant force and the idiosyncratic individuals involved in shaping these places, pre-conservation until today, we argue that the State’s blinkered,
capitalistic, and pragmatic style of conserving gave rise to new dominant forces in the construction of places (under conservation) today. In the same vein, conservation efforts by the State have also altered former relationships between people and place; specifically individuals who constantly use and interpret these places have been replaced. We next argue that three radical collective behaviours in Chinatown: ethnic tourism, consumption of nostalgia, and magnification of quintessential Chineseness, emerge and thrive under these conditions, in these places. As a result, place meanings are changed from the inside out. If place is a “process of becoming” different, these collective behaviour continues to shape the meaning of place today. However before delving into our observations in Boat Quay, Clarke Quay and Chinatown, an overview is necessary to highlight the various milestones along Singapore’s effort in conservation and the corresponding realities, in brief – How exactly did the conservation agenda began? What has been done and the underlying purpose of conserving places in Singapore?

Essay by Kee Zhi Wei
Spring 2012

Is Continuity an Aesthetic Endeavor in Architecture Re-use?

by Kee Zhi Wei
Fall 2011

Beginning with Aesthetics
We often witness much emphasis being placed on the aesthetical considerations of buildings because, aesthetics is literally the most visible way of expressing the position of the architect, not just how they design it but also how they get others to agree with it and to discuss it1. It is no exception in the realm of architecture reuse; aesthetics is one of the defining elements in expressing a sense of continuity. However I would like to begin by showing two proposals of the reuse of BB Silodam2 in Amsterdam to highlight the importance of spatial quality in the discussion of continuity. This scope of discussion on continuity will be based on the perception of the built environment, rather than that of a historical, cultural point of view. Plainly, what we see and experience.

Continued Spatial Qualities, Discontinued Aesthetics
In his proposal, Hootsmans3 focused on the adaptation of the cylindrical volumes of the grain silo into important features (skylight, light wells, etc) that defined also the spatial quality of the new hotel and its rooms. He then chose to wrap around the entire building with a second skin, creating a completely new and different aesthetic while providing a layer of climate protection for the aged building. What Hootsmans proposal had shown was a decision to achieving continuity through sensitivity to the unique spatial qualities of grain silo rather than continuing the outlook of the building, which was perhaps secondary to him.

Continued Aesthetics, Discontinued Spatial Qualities
The space in the old silo building does not require and therefore had no fenestrations on the northern façade. The rhythm of the structure behind however, was expressed. The architect for the new hotel had carefully made his openings and added intermediate horizontal floors behind this existing rhythm. This is a practical decision but also an aesthetical one. The old silos were neither seen in the hotel, nor in the rooms. The result - a building that continues to aspire the people with its outlook but has no silos and is completely changed from the inside.

Considering Values
Unlike buildings, the reuse of objects such as ordinary plastic bottles is clear when the value of these
bottles is most significant in its functional aspect – a transparent but impermeable vessel made to contain.
Thus, as long as we exploit these attributes even if we transform the look of the bottle, we say that it is a
good way to have continued using the bottle. But, we suddenly becomes extremely careful when, for
instance, the bottle is unique and is designed by Rietveld or the bottle is a family heirloom or the bottle is
the first to be produced in this technique. And we ask ourselves, what defines the bottle then? A

From Aesthetic to Spatial Continuity - 20th Century Monuments and Their Values
In his inaugural message in 2007, Prof. Paul Meurs4 announced the trend that listed monuments are
becoming younger and younger and we are extending our appreciation of the past to industrial and
utilitarian buildings. These buildings are a radical shift from traditional monuments both in its techniques
and in ideas. An enriched vocabulary of spatial qualities with new intended relationships between inside,
outside, private, public, light and transparency is found. Therefore, unlike old monuments, a higher level of
sensitivity towards their spatial continuity than that of an aesthetical one is key when intervening with these
young monuments. The expression of continuity in the reuse of these buildings should not only be an
aesthetic endeavor but of one that respond to the spatial qualities of the existing.

Endnotes:
1 Lars Spuybroek, The architecture of continuity: essays and conversations, V2_ publishing, 2008, pg 11
2 The BB silodam building built in the 19th Century is a grain silo for cleaning, drying, storing, and pumping grain to and from ships and wagons which became is one of the landmark of Amsterdam today.
3 Hootsmans architectuurbureau
4 Prof.Dr.Ir.P.H.Meurs ia the chair of Restoration of Department of RMIT, TU Delft

References

Improvised Architecture in Amsterdam Industrial Squats and & Collectives, “Grain-Silo” Squat 1989 to 1998, David Carr Smith

http://www.davecarrsmith.co.uk/D-WWW_SIL_INT.htm

Methodologies of reuse lecture VI – Continuity projects, Rob Hootsmans

The architecture of continuity: essays and conversations, Lars Spuybroek, V2_ publishing, 2008

Building in the stubborn city - Architecture versus history, Paul Meurs, Inauguration speech at TU Delft, 2007

Essay by Kee Zhi Wei
Fall 2011

How is Cultural Engagement in Architecture Achieved?

by Kee Zhi Wei
Fall 2006

There exist a duality in the definition of culture itself. Culture, on one hand, can be interpreted as deeply embedded in reality; the rhythm and routine of lives of a group of people in a specific place. The nature of culture in this interpretation changes in accordance with the living conditions of the place with time. But, culture can also be described as impositions from the past, sets of inherited practices adopted by a group of people in a specific place. This definition, as compared to the former, connotates that culture is a form of tradition passed down rather then a true reflection of the people’s current living standards and conditions such as technological advances and climatic changes. However, I believe that cultural engagement in architecture can only be fully achieved when the architecture is attuned to its epoch, and at the same time people are able feel some form of connections with the history of the place through the architecture. Therefore, I will be discussing Mr Mok Wei Wei’s (from the W Architects of Singapore) and Le Corbusier’s (one of the greatest architect of the 20th century) perceptions on cultural engagement in architecture and how they articulate these ideas in their works.

“… it is very difficult to navigate this world without an internal compass… We need to have a strong sense of history. We can’t really move forward without knowing where we come from.”
– Mok Wei Wei

Born and raised in Singapore, Ar. Mok Wei Wei is one of those who is closely knitted to his motherland. His perceptions and ideologies on culture and cultural integration are evident in many of his work. To Mok Wei Wei, Singapore independence is sudden and forceful. However this forceful route is one that is lack of struggle and resistance, which are essentials in the development of a nation’s identity and culture. Singapore was abandoned. To survive in these harsh conditions, she could only embrace the world as her hinterland. This intervention allows Singapore to make tremendous progress in her financial and technological development sectors but at the same time continue to cause inevitable dilution of our culture overtime. This dilution is especially pronounced in our architecture. Therefore being an architect in Singapore, Mok Wei Wei believes that it is important for him to integrate and portray his national identity and cultural inheritance in his architecture. Associating us with our direct ancestors from the early Chinese settlements, is one of the strategies that Mok Wei Wei uses to engage culture in his architecture. He believes that this is one of the most direct links through which we can reflect on our identities, giving us a sense of belonging.

The Morley Road house designed by Mok Wei Wei is a clear exhibition of his deep understanding in our Chinese ancestral culture. Replicating, extracting and reducing the elements that is unique in Traditional Chinese garden, Mok Wei Wei installed some form of cultural reference. An orthogonal frame, naturally divides the site into six main zones, which in turn provided clear segregation between areas of different functions. Resemblances of Chinese courtyard and pavilions, forms the entrance the walls, the lobby, etc. The architect’s intentions and perceptions towards cultural values and their engagement in architecture are clear.

“ Tradition can only be inherited through a regenerative process,” and that “without our own creative input we cannot inherit what has come before us.” Edward Said

This quotation from Edward Said led to me to a further understanding on cultural engagement in architecture. Author of “Towards a New Architecture” and one of the most influential architects of the 20th century, Le Corbusier’s approach to cultural engagement differs slightly to that of Mok Wei Wei’s.

“A great epoch has begun”, “The history of Architecture unfolds itself slowly across the centuries of modifications of structure and ornaments, but in the last fifty-years, steel and concrete have brought new conquests, which are the index of a greater capacity for construction, and have an architecture in which the old code have been overturned.”

In my opinion, Corbusier was trying to highlight the other aspect of culture engagement, which many designs in his time overlooked in their buildings. Advances in technology gave design have given a far greater possibilities then the capabilities and imagination and most importantly the acceptance of the people. Besides inheriting what the past have left behind for us ( e.g. Culture as style, traditions, knowledge, skills, etc), Corbusier’s felt that we ought to forge our mark own in accordance to our own culture of our time, attaining attunement to our epoch. That is to say that cultural engagement for Corbusier was to discuss, as much as possible, the living trends and conditions of people during his time. This was to give an accurate and direct reflection of the way people lived, the culture of the people.

Villa Savoye, one of Corbusier’s earlier built works, is a clear demonstration of the capabilities of modern building materials without limitations of culture imposed from the past. Functionality derived from observation, analysis, and consideration of technological potentials; allowing the emergence of a new culture in architecture, it was attuned to Corbusier’s epoch. Cultural engagement in architecture as such, is undoubtedly essential to the progress of modern architecture as well as the society. The basis, which the villa is built upon, is an ideology stemming from Corbusier’s belief that a house is a machine to be lived in. Every aspect of the modern living standards, emotional and physical requirements were carefully considered and expressed in architectural forms by Corbusier. The clarity of the spaces in the villa and clarity of the segregations and arrangement of these spaces brought about greater efficiency, which was one of the main living criteria then. Corbusier’s attitude towards cultural engagement in architecture emphasizes the depiction of the everyday lives of the people in a specific space-time in a specific context.

Thinking back to the exotic “more or less” exhibition, I do not see it as two different exhibitions and exhibition areas. It was synergy. The combination of works by WOHA and W Architects in one exhibition is not coincidental but of purpose. It is the true understanding of culture and cultural engagement in Singapore that brought together these two very different key figures, with very different perceptions towards the development of architecture in Singapore. WOHA displayed their models, plan and writing on panels mounted horizontally on 3 metres high platform. The duree, when viewing these panels accentuates the need for visitors to always be on their feet, ready to move on. This depicts the fast paced society we have here, which has become part of the Singapore culture. The works by WOHA further enhances the notion of efficiency. Efficiency in resources allocation, social competency, and even recreation needs, gives form to their designs, which are mainly clusters of dense living areas well facilitated. Dynamism is also pronounced when I observed the visitors “flowing” through the exhibits. These qualities of WOHA’s, immediately provided a stark contrast when I continued into W Architects’ exhibits. Dim lightings, comparably enclosed space, traditional wooden stools and the word carvings on the wall immediately created a nostalgic feeling inside me. It is intentional. After reading the texts on the walls and looking through Mok Wei Wei’s work, I finally understood his intention. The need for us to experience our culture and feel our connections with our ancestral roots through architecture is the message that was driven into me. As I have mentioned in the beginning, there is evidentially a duality. Does it make us exotic? More or less.

References

Towards a new architecture ; Le Corbusier [pseud.] translated from the French by Frederick Etchells; Imprint London , Architectural Press, 1946

Le Corbusier, Talks with Students ; Le Corbusier, translated form the French by Pierre Chase ; Princeton Architectural Press, New York, 1999.

Putting Singapore into the world map of architecture ; Hunter Douglas Singapore, www.hunterdouglas.com.sg; 2006.
Chinese more or less ; Mok Wei Wei ; Berlin Aedes, 2006.

Between abstraction and cultural reference; Dr. Leon van Schaik, Dean of the Faculty of the Constructed Environment at RMIT University; Singapore Architect, SIA online Magazine, 2006.

Essay by Kee Zhi Wei
Fall 2006

Comments

copyright kzwarchitects 2022