Safety and dwelling in Singapore

Safety and dwelling in Singapore

Belinda Yuen,

School of Design and Environment, National University of Singapore, 4 Architecture Drive, Singapore 117566




1. Introduction
Over the past 20 years, an increase in crime has become a problem in many of the world’s cities with 100,000 or more inhabitants ([Vanderschueren, 2000]). In the words of [Healey et al., 1995]), "cities, once seen as the heart of the innovatory energy and cultural force of western society, now seem to be drifting into becoming decaying and dangerous places". Other studies, dissecting the processes of globalization, have pointed to the sharpening social and spatial inequality playing out in a geography of marginality that has created "dead" city areas in the evenings and enhanced people’s fear of crime ( [Greed, 1994, Oncu and Weyland, 1997 and Sassen, 1999]). In addition, the rise of the modern city dominated by the car has created, on the one hand, congestion and pollution and, on the other, urban disinvestments and risk from road injuries and deaths ( [British Medical Association, 1997]). In 1991, residents in 5000 households in Newcastle, England, were asked what would make Newcastle a healthier city. The most common responses were "tackling crime" and "reducing traffic". A consensus appears to exist that dangerous and unsafe cities are places from which people seek to escape, where residents live and work out of necessity rather than choice ( [Smith, 1984]).

On a city level, the UN-Habitat in its 1996 "Safer Cities Program" has argued that crime and the fear of crime pose serious threats to urban livability, to the stability and social climate of cities, to sustainable and economic development and to the quality of life and human rights. According to [Wekerle and Whitzman, 1995], the fear of crime is a substantial barrier to participation in the public life of the city. By contrast, cities that are safe are enjoyable and will attract people. Many advantages can be gained by strengthening urban safety. [Lynch, 1981], in his discussion of good city form, established safety as one of the criteria for good cities. As [Moughtin, 1996] elaborates, one measure of a civilized society is the degree to which its city streets and squares are public and open to all citizens to use safely and without restriction, free from fear.

The objective of this paper is to provide an optic of the Singapore approach to planning a high quality urban environment, examining its latest city planning effort from the perspective of its potential contribution to urban safety. Singapore is particularly distinguished by its high density—6060 persons/km2—and relatively low crime rate, even though 86% of its population lives in high-rise and densely populated public housing. The paper will analyse how providing a quality living environment and constructing a usable past may serve to build up the present basis for planning a safe city environment that contributes to making the city a distinctive and delightful place to dwell in.

2. The significance of urban safety
Urban safety is a growing world concern. The path of globalization, while delivering economic growth impulses, is also producing some major policy challenges. It has led to increasing income inequality and widening social disparities among groups ([Sassen, 1999 and Kumssa, 2001]). Some, such as [Sen, 1997], argue that globalization generates conflicts and violence. Although exact causality is to be established, certain observers underscore the increase in urban poverty as a major factor for the increase in crime and violence ( [Ayres, 1998]). As [Vanderschueren, 2000] explains, "poverty may not automatically lead to violence, but may favor it in certain circumstances. Violence is not a spontaneous phenomenon but, above all, the product of a society characterized by inequality and social exclusion."

Data from [UNCHS, 1998] indicate that on average, at least once in every 5 years, more than half of the world’s population living in cities with more than 100,000 residents is victim to some kind of crime. The impact of this is tremendous, especially when in some cities violence is the principal cause of death ( [Latin American Weekly Report, 1995]). To emphasize its importance, the UN declared "safer cities" as the theme for World Habitat Day 1998 ( [UNCHS, 1998]). Two years earlier, the UN put forward a Safer Cities program to develop a prevention strategy at city level, based on a partnership between local governments and other stakeholders as the fundamental precondition for the capacity to tackle crime and insecurity. Initiatives to fight urban crime have emerged in many cities across Europe, America, Africa and Asia ( [ICPC, 1998]; [Wakely and You, 2001]). Enhancing urban safety is also one of the central foci of the present discourse on the livability and cultural sustainability of cities ( [Freire and Stren, 2001 and Wakely and You, 2001]). Livable cities, as documented by the [OECD, 1995], should have an environment free of nuisance, overcrowding, noise, danger and pollution for all city dwellers to be able to live in relative comfort and be empowered to participate. It is far from profound to suggest that urban safety has an impact on the everyday quality of life in the city.

2.1. The challenge
The maintenance of peace and safety is far from new, but a basic human need. [Maslow, 1943 and Maslow, 1987]) pioneers in focusing attention on people’s hierarchy of needs. Over and above the physiological survival needs and basic comfort requirements, the aspatial issue of safety and security features strongly in our urban environment. [Lang, 1994], in his analysis of the urban design of American cities, highlights two dimensions of safety and security needs in places:

• physiological need—to have freedom from bodily harm, i.e. to feel safe from wild animals, criminal assault and various types of accidents; and
• psychological need—to have a sense of place, i.e. to know where one is in space and time, to orient oneself and find one’s way around the city.
The first need prompts the planning and design of different city elements or spaces (the roads, the buildings, the surface materials, etc.) that would provide safe settings for economic, social and cultural life. The heart of the resulting range of challenges is how to make the urban environment structurally sound to support the various spatial behaviors (walking, sitting, shopping, etc.) that are likely to take place under different conditions (e.g. night and day, rain and shine), and to meet comfort needs (biological and psychological). As [Felson and Peiser, 1998] observe, real estate influences crime, poorly designed buildings encourage criminal activities.

Geographers and environmental criminologists, in exploring the relationships between crime and location, have begun to indicate that the physical design of the public realm can determine whether a space is a potential target for criminal activities ([Jeffrey, 1977 and Herbert, 1993]). As Jeffery also argues, environmental design may prevent crime, as the proper design and effective use of the built environment can lead to a reduction in the fear of crime and the incidence of crime. This has led to situational crime prevention, in particular, the development of the concept of crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED) to design out crime or reduce its opportunity within the physical environment ( [Brantingham and Brantingham, 1991, Crowe, 1991 and Cozens, 2002]). This approach is considered by some to be more effective than traditional policing methods ( [Poyner, 1983]).

In the design-against-crime paradigm, others (such as [Jacobs, 1961]) have argued that city districts and streets can be redesigned to make cities safer. Her "workable forces" are the re-creation of diversity in land-use patterns to bring more "eyes onto the street" (p 41), which could be reinforced with buildings designed to maximize their surveillance potential. However, there is emerging contradictory evidence to suggest that the influence of physical design features may be weak (good design may not necessarily prevent crime), while social factors may engineer aversive responses to crime ( [Merry, 1981, Hope, 1986 and Stollard, 1991]). As [Merry, 1981]) maintains, "the relationship between environment and social behavior is complex and reciprocal since the environment itself is defined by the ways its users interpret and impose cultural meanings on it."

[Lang, 1994] second psychological need opens up a potential distinction in the modes of crime prevention, roughly situational and social, by thinking on cultural meanings and a sense of place. The challenge here is to reduce the fear of place or the uncertainty in the environment. The research on the image of the city ( [Lynch, 1960]) and proxemic behavior ( [Hall, 1966 and Newman, 1972]) provides some clue as to how we may reduce the sense of uncertainty in the environment. [Hall, 1966, Newman, 1972 and Coleman, 1990], among others, have suggested that each behavior setting is a territory claimed, enduring or momentary, and defended by those participating in the activities.

There has been much literature discussing the importance of social factors, in particular, the feeling of attachment or a sense of belonging to place, arguing for a spatial quality of the city that concretizes the meaning and identity of its space ([Relph, 1976 and Norberg-Schulz, 1980]). An early work by [Lynch, 1960] has suggested that a highly imageable city would invite the eye and the ear to greater attention and participation. The basic tenet is that we would feel more secure in the city if we knew where we are. The individual would thus feel "at home", which is intrinsically a part of the notion of home as a safe place, and could move around the city easily without fear of getting lost, inspiring public confidence in the environment.

For geographers of the humanistic tradition ([Tuan, 1974 and Relph, 1976]), the sense of feeling "at home" or in place reflects a certain emotional and physical connection with that place, making it meaningful and belonging to us in some way, becoming part of who we are, the way we understand ourselves and finally our identity and place in the world. The meanings derived from people’s interactions with a place are thus important components of the sense of place. More recent studies have continued to support Lynch’s findings on the importance of orientation in space ( [Pocock and Hudson, 1978 and Arthur and Passini, 1990]).

However, orientation is not limited to the spatial dimension. As [Norberg-Schulz, 1980] puts it, there is also orientation in time: the hour of day, the seasons, historical time. To explain, [Lang, 1994] contends that old buildings give us a sense of history and a sense of permanence; new buildings remind us of the cycle of life. In other words, we would like to know not only "where we are" but also "when we are" and how "now" relates to time past and to come. Developing this point, [Mumford, 1938] raised the concept of usable past to provide a possible reorientation of how we may build up the present, by searching the past for principles, rules and long-term tendencies that may still form the basis of today’s town and culture. The assemblage of old buildings and cultural heritage provides further constituents for developing the city’s identity and "home" spaces with opportunity to heighten the sense of delight and security in place, and to stress the wider social issues of urban livability and active citizenship.

3. Dwelling in Singapore
Singapore enjoys a low crime rate, which ranks it among the lowest internationally (The Straits Times, 31 March 2003). As illustrated in Table 1, the broad trend has been towards a declining crime rate despite increasing population and density. For the period 1960–1990, the average crime rate was 1093 cases per 100,000 total population. In 2002, the crime rate (total arrestable offences) per 100,000 total population is 768 cases ([Singapore Police Force Annual Report]).



Table 1. Population and crime rate in Singapore


Source: Singapore Police Force Crime Report, various years; [Singapore Department of Statistics], Singapore Census of Population, various years.




A proportion of the crime is non-violent offences, such as housebreaking (14%), cheating and theft (54%). The incidence of violent crime such as murder (0.3%), rape (1.6%) and robbery (11%) is comparatively low. According to [Yeo, 1997], Singapore’s violent crime rate is much lower than that of most densely populated and developed countries, about five times lower than that of Hong Kong and 15 times lower than the US. A number of factors may underlie the low crime rate. To quote the Minister for Law ( [Jayakumar, 2000]),

I would attribute our low crime rates to three main factors. First, a set of tough laws that are regularly reviewed to ensure that they remain relevant and deter the criminally inclined. Second, a transparent criminal justice system that is further bolstered by a professional Police Force and well respected Judiciary. Third, an increasingly enlightened public, which appreciates the importance of keeping Singapore free from crime and contributes actively to crime prevention.

As a former Straits Settlement, Singapore’s major criminal enactments of the Penal Code, the Criminal Procedure Code and the Evidence Act are modeled on British India legislature, which in turn is based on English criminal statutes. Specialized criminal legislation was subsequently promulgated to address such modern day crime as vandalism, arms offences and misuse of drugs and computers. Several of Singapore’s criminal laws, as reviewed by [Chan and Phang, 2001], carry very severe penalties on conviction including mandatory caning (The Vandalism Act) and the death penalty or life imprisonment with liability for caning (The Kidnapping Act), which have helped to foster a general antipathy towards criminal acts among the Singapore population.

Over the past 30 years, Singapore’s population has doubled from 2 million in 1970 to 4 million by 2000. Singapore is a highly urbanized and densely populated, multi-ethnic society comprising Chinese (79%), Malay (14%), Indian (6%) and a residual category of "others", mainly Europeans and Eurasians (1%). Its land area of 660 km2 and growing population needs (the present 4 million is projected to increase to 5.5 million in 40 or 50 years) have taken densities to more than 6000 persons/km2, leading to the development of the skyscraper as the most ubiquitous building type. In the city center, the tallest commercial building is 60 stories.

In the residential arena, 91% of the population resides in high-rise apartments, the majority (86%) in publicly built housing and the remaining 6% in privately built apartments and condominiums. Most buildings are 12 stories high and in areas where there are no height constraints, buildings may be 30 stories tall. According to [Perry et al., 1997], life in publicly built housing is a microcosm of the stresses and strains of everyday life in Singapore. It is the housing environment for the majority of the population: 86%, mostly in owner-occupied units. Only about 5% of public housing is under rental. Considering its pervasive environment and recognizing with [Wekerle and Whitzman, 1995] that safe residential areas are perhaps the most important element of safe cities, the next section will examine Singapore’s publicly built housing, to highlight some of the recent multi-dimensional ways of intervening in public neighborhoods to generate a sense of community belonging and safety through urban identity.

3.1. Public housing neighborhoods
Modeled along Western principles of new town and neighborhood planning but adapted to local circumstances, public housing in Singapore has given impetus to suburban growth and intense urban concentrations ([Wong and Yeh, 1985 and Field, 1992]). Each new town occupying an area of approximately 650 ha accommodates a population of 250,000 at a gross new town density of 92 dwelling units per hectare. From its inception, publicly built housing is seen as a way to provide a good living environment for income groups who cannot afford the cost of renting or buying privately built housing. Consequently, unlike much public housing elsewhere, Singapore offers high quality residential space ( [Addae-Dapaah, 1999 and Foo, 2001]) ( Figure 1). It is drawn by the needs, expectations and lifestyles of its residents.


(23K)

Figure 1. Facilities and lifestyle are important themes in creating quality public housing environment in Singapore



Over the years, the proportion of the resident population living in publicly built housing has increased from 23% in 1964 to 86% by 1988 and has remained constant since. The number of new towns has correspondingly grown from 1 in 1965 to 23 by 2002. With a current monthly income ceiling eligibility criterion of S$ 8000 per household, publicly built housing caters not to the minority but is extended to include 90% of the households in Singapore. Under the government’s "shelter for all" program, all Singapore citizens who do not already own homes and whose combined monthly household income falls below the specified ceiling are eligible to rent or buy publicly built housing.

Emphasis is on a quality living environment. Thus, in addition to the residential units that occupy less than 50% of the new town land, each new town is provided with a hierarchical range of facilities and amenities to enable household members to fulfill their various needs within the new town. Increasingly, the aim is to provide not just shelter, but a total living environment, and to create not only physical settings but also a sense of community spirit and belonging among the diverse population:

Today, residents of the HDB [public housing] estates belong to various ethnic groups and they come from all walks of life. This conglomeration of different social groups must be quickly welded into a cohesive community if we were to avoid turning our public housing estates into soulless monstrosities ([Teh, 1983], local forum on public housing policies and directions).

As with much post-war urban planning, the early new towns were primarily defined along functionalist lines. In consequence, it has been usual to find standardization (same dwelling types and block forms), a uniform skyline and a monotonous townscape ([Wong and Yeh, 1985]). Standardization—though expedient—has not remained unchallenged. Since the 1990s, there is an increasing endeavor to strengthen the bonds between residents, and those between them and their environment, by defining a greater sense of identity in high-rise living ( Figure 2). As [Teo and Phillips, 1989] observe, with economic growth and increasing affluence, Singapore’s public housing has become synonymous with comfortable, middle class housing and its target residents are much more interested in the quality of life than previous generations.


(27K)

Figure 2. Identity markers including neighborhood resident committee (RC) zones are used to define a greater sense of identity in high-rise living



The quest for urban identity is related specifically to the modern architectural and urban effort to accommodate contemporary residential needs, not just shelter but also quality of life and image-creation. The goal is as much to enhance a sense of public control and ownership of the publicly built housing environment as it is to break the common image that it is low-income and alternative housing for those slum dwellers who were the first residents of the public housing program, initiated in 1960. As [Moughtin, 1996] shows, a defined neighborhood image can heighten local distinctiveness and create memorable places that generally evoke pride and satisfaction among the residents. It is an important factor in achieving a sense of place and enhancing community safety, as pointed out by several scholars, including [Newman, 1972 and Relph, 1976] and [Norberg-Schulz, 1980]. [Newman, 1972], in particular, has raised concerns over the physical design of high-rise buildings, arguing for a model of defensible space that includes attention on four specific dimensions: territorial definition of space, maximization of natural surveillance, design of non-stigmatizing housing and location of housing estates in "safe" urban milieux.

4. Building identity: multiple strategies
The issue of how to give the new town its own physical identity and how to make its neighborhoods a place with character, distinct from that of other public estates, is addressed at several levels. The focus is not only on environmental development of landscapes and facilities but also on advancing the cause of good neighbors and social interaction between neighbors. Unlike those that are privately constructed, publicly built housing neighborhoods in Singapore are not gated communities. There are no gates, street closures, security guards or other mechanisms to prevent outsiders or "undesirables" from entering the town. Having the residents involved in identity building and calling upon the old notion of community cohesiveness and mutual responsibility to promote identity and positive behaviors while limiting opportunities for crime offers one strategy to enhance urban safety and livability.

4.1. Know thy neighbors
The strategy at the neighborhood and "soft" community level is illustrated by the formation of town councils and residents’ committees with emphasis on localism. These community organizations play acknowledged roles in encouraging greater community interaction, ownership and cohesiveness through a whole range of activity opportunities related to daily urban living. As [Jacobs, 1961] notes, crime flourishes when people do not know their neighbors, when they stay behind their doors and when they have no sense of identity within the neighborhood in which they live. By contrast, crime declines when neighbors know each other and there is neighborly bonding, as an elderly woman related to [Tan, 2002/03],

…this neighborhood is an older part of the whole of Hougang housing estate, and many of the older generation in Hougang came from the kampongs [local word for "villages"]. Till today, there is still this friendly, neighborly bond between many of the residents here. They helped to look out for one another, and this created a much secured feeling for many of us living in this neighborhood. Hence, I feel that this neighborhood is very safe.

Community involvement is critical to a sense of ownership of the public housing environment, where much of the neighborhood is considered public property. As [Canin, 1994]) astutely observed, "When the streets are perceived as a "no man’s land", they are more inviting to trespassers and criminals."

To foster "communities of interest" that provide a sense of personal identity to the resident, community activities (ranging from recreation such as excursions and block parties to social and vocational activities including dressmaking, dance lessons, cooking, music and art classes for all age groups) are regularly organized through the 107 community centers and clubs in the 23 new towns. Beginning in 1978, resident committees were formed in all new towns to promote neighborliness and community cohesiveness among the many residents in high-rise living. The number of resident committees has increased 19-fold over the past 20 years from an initial 28 to the current 540, with over 8500 members.

According to [Lim, 1998/99], participation in resident committees has a positive relationship with neighborliness. The resident committee, comprising members from the neighborhood, meets on a regular basis to discuss issues pertinent to their particular dwelling area, including estate maintenance and the community’s welfare and safety. The resident committee members visit the block residents regularly to distribute crime prevention literature and speak to them about self-help prevention. One initiative is the mobilization of resident surveillance through neighborhood watch schemes in every block of each neighborhood, which the National Crime Prevention Council has helped to finance and promote.

As a non-profit organization incepted in 1981, the vision of the National Crime Prevention Council is "Making Singapore Safe and Secure for All" by raising the level of public awareness and concern about crime and self-help in crime prevention ([National Crime Prevention Council Annual Report, 2001/02]). As described by [Quah, 1995]), the neighborhood watch scheme is "an informal arrangement among a few immediate neighbors to help each other protect themselves against robbers, thieves and molesters by looking after each other’s home and well-being". Crime prevention incorporates not only the practices of the formal criminal judicial system but also those of private individuals and community. In the recent words of the Minister for National Development, "by being vigilant and on the look out for suspicious characters and activities, the community can play a vital and impactful part in reinforcing community safety and security" (Minister’s speech on 29 March 2003). It is part of being "crime smart" and working together to avoid being a victim of crime. Working in partnership with the police, participating residents assist as an extra set of "eyes and ears" to deter crime in public settings, especially when daily vertical policing or policing each floor level is difficult to achieve in high-rise living. All residents belonging to the particular resident committee zone will automatically become members of the neighborhood watch group.

The development of resident-based surveillance to prevent crime is gaining popularity in several other countries including Germany and the US ([Miyazawa and Miyazawa, 1995]). An increasing number of scholars have recognized the beneficial effect of such community-based crime prevention programs, especially in the field of residential burglary prevention ( [Poyner, 1983 and Kube, 1995]). The impact of community-based crime prevention in Singapore may be glimpsed from the [National Crime Prevention Council Annual Report, 2001/02] (Chairman’s report): in 2001, 50% of the criminals involved in snatch theft, motor vehicle theft, robbery, housebreaking, outraging of modesty, murder and rape were apprehended as a result of public assistance. The importance of active citizenry in crime prevention is acknowledged and celebrated each February in Singapore with Neighborhood Watch Zone Day. Public consciousness that everyone, not just the police force, can do something positive to fight crime is very high.

4.2. Have a stake
As part of the community stewardship of public housing, owners and tenants are encouraged to participate in looking after the common properties in their own apartment blocks and neighborhoods. Established since the late 1980s, the town councils are seen as another means "to help Singaporeans to forge stronger community spirit and identity" ([Ministry of National Development Singapore, 1988]) and take control of their public housing environment. At least two-thirds of the elected town councilors must be residents within the new town.

The main function of the town council is to control, manage, maintain and improve the common areas (that is, the public areas shared by the residents such as columns, beams, external walls, staircases and central services installation like power, light, sanitation and water) in new towns. The town council also deals with such conservancy matters as regular refuse removal and disposal, landscaping and daily sweeping and washing of common areas, all of which were previously handled by a centralized public housing authority. The major advantage of resident management is that it increases the residents’ sense of self-worth and accelerates the collaborative process within the community. It is as much about creating a comfortable and safer environment in which enterprise, community activity and personal responsibility can flourish in high-density publicly built housing as it is about informing the authority of the wishes and ideas of the residents.

At another level of town and physical infrastructure development, older new towns are upgraded under a formal upgrading plan that will last 15 years from 1991, benefit 95% of the residents and allow "a complete change in the perception of public housing" (The Straits Times, 12 July 1989). Residents are consulted in the upgrading proposals and finally asked to decide on the upgrading by voting for the upgrading, which will only proceed if there is a 75% vote in favor (Figure 3). In most cases, residents are not required to relocate during the upgrading process. They are however required to pay a small portion of the upgrading costs, 8–21% depending on the size of their flat, with the government and town council paying the balance. To help residents with the upgrading cost apportionment, easy repayment terms and special assistance measures have been set up for senior citizens and families in financial hardship.


(24K)

Figure 3. Samples and models of the upgrading items offer residents a better sense of what it is they are voting for



From the state’s perspective, upgrading is part of an asset enhancement policy to raise the value of public flats and share Singapore’s economic growth with the population. On a social level, upgrading offers a way to create new flats in older estates that would help to stop the decline of older towns (there is a growing tendency for young people to shun the older towns in their preference for a new flat). Through upgrading, residents can continue to dwell in place and not move to new housing areas to enjoy new facilities (Figure 4). Its merit, as the Minister for Home Affairs announces, "is a design that not only enhances your living environment, but also endows it with an identity and a community spirit all of its own" (Minister’s speech at the upgrading and launch ceremony for Indus Precinct on 24 November 2000). Addressing the important role of improving living conditions in crime prevention, [Kube, 1995], concluding from German evidence, has observed that programs supporting improvements in the local infrastructure can have a lasting preventive effect. As [Foster and Hope, 1993]) put it, "Visible signs of positive investment in the estate may strengthen the community to resist the growth of crime."


(26K)

Figure 4. Living through the upgrading works as prefabricated lift and additional room spaces are added to the housing block



These positive investments would comprise the creation of precincts and facilities (such as barbeque pits, landscaped gardens and children’s playgrounds) where they did not exist previously, updating the facilities of markets and lifts (lift stopping on every floor instead of every few floors in the older blocks and clear window panels on lift doors to enhance safety in lift travel), architectural improvement to blocks such as including motif, dormer and color to make them individually distinctive, and enlargement of individual dwelling units by adding prefabricated spaces such as a utility room or an extra toilet for flats with only one bathroom/toilet. Principal among the planning and design considerations is the creation of clearly defined, thoughtfully located and meaningful spaces, a human scale and quality housing environment to encourage residents to use and take control of the public spaces and give the neighborhood a feeling of being together and tightly organized. There is a strong perception that active, "peopled places" seem safer ([Wekerle and Whitzman, 1995]). In Singapore, identity of the neighborhood offers more than a consideration of community bonding, it bespeaks pragmatic economic value. The current emphasis is "to have my estate look unique to increase the value of my block" (Housing and Development Board 2002 briefing on identity development of new towns).

4.3. Use the past
The building of urban identity is not limited to resident committees and town upgrading. The quest for urban identity has become part of a larger consideration at the national level that includes constructing a usable past to create a pleasant and distinctive "home" city. As stated in the country’s latest long-term strategic plan,

The Concept Plan aims to create a distinctive city alive with rich heritage, character diversity and identity. A city we can fondly call home. ([Urban Redevelopment Authority, 2001])

The Concept Plan has guided Singapore’s physical development since 1971. The Plan is reviewed once every 10 years (the latest in 2001). In the 2001 Plan, concerns of heritage, character and identity have taken on a strategic role in concretizing the ideas about home and attachment to place, which is very much a theme of crime prevention, operating on an idea of a stable and harmonious society.

The basic tenet is that urban identity can play an important part in Singapore’s effort to build a global city in the rapidly globalizing world ([Ong, 1990]). According to Concept Plan 2001, identity in new towns and the larger Singapore will be taken forward through several levels:

• on an individual level, it involves identifying a sense of community, the activity and the businesses that have become unique and familiar anchors to a place;
• on a regional and local level, it involves identifying specific buildings, landmarks, streetscapes and areas including houses, shops, temples, churches, schools, parks, etc. that are significant to the population and contribute to the overall color and character of place;
• on a national level, it involves identifying spaces of heritage—natural and built, and strong identity with shared collective memories and events of national pride and significance.
Singapore’s particular history, traditions, culture and social life offer an active, living resource for the building of urban identity. When the past is assessed, there are five broad areas of heritage ([The Committee on Heritage Report, 1988]):

• nation building heritage that includes the experience of living under and the people’s response to the British colonial administration, the Japanese occupation, the post-war struggle for independence and against the communists;
• economic success heritage that includes the economic achievements of its various migrant communities and individuals;
• multi-cultural heritage that includes the lifestyles, customs and traditions of its different ethnic communities;
• built environment heritage that includes buildings, landmarks and other visible and tangible physical landscape links to the past; and
• natural environment heritage that includes the parks and water bodies that define Singapore’s territorial identity and ecological location in Southeast Asia.
The result is that as much of this heritage as possible will be integrated as part of the new and urban development to give residents a sense of identity, history and continuity. As stated in the draft identity plan exhibition brochures ([Urban Redevelopment Authority, 2002]): "We need you (the public) to play your part. Please share your views, opinions and ideas to help refine the plans. Based on your feedback, we will refine and develop the… Identity Plan further."
By setting identity as its focus and releasing the draft identity plan in 2002 for public consultation, the 2001 Concept Plan serves to define the heritage sites and harness community participation. Culture and social life inevitably involve people who at various times may have intense and particular relationship with the spaces. By inviting the community to come forward and share, such participation, as [Rapoport, 1969] observes, allows the images and meanings of places to develop from the bottom up. It is a primary mode for enhancing local ownership and urban livability. As the Singapore Minister for National Development explains,

All of us who have a stake here ought to have a say in how we want this place to develop. The more we are involved in the planning, then the more aware we are of the constraints we face and the trade-offs we need to make this little red dot [Singapore] livable and comfortable. (The Straits Times, 21 July 2001)

The public exhibition attracted a record number of more than 35,000 visitors from all segments of the population and is the most extensive public consultation in planning (Urban Redevelopment Authority News Release, 25 November 2002). About 4500 public examples of feedback have been received and are being considered. In the words of the Minister of State, National Development, "These new ideas will certainly keep URA [planning authority] very busy over the coming months, as we examine how best to implement and incorporate these proposals into the final Master Plan 2003… The challenge now is for us to move the proposals in… the Identity Plan, from drawing board to the ground" (Minister’s speech on 22 January 2003). In implementing the identity plan, Singapore is attempting to draw on the power of people’s relationship to the place where they live and grow up in, and its past, to make Singapore a distinctive and delightful "home" place to dwell in. By encouraging delight and identity in place, the approach to urban safety is thrust within the wider objective of creating an attractive city environment, to act with an eye to the future and the larger framework of dwelling, instead of merely reacting to crime.

5. Public perceptions
The Singapore population’s perception of urban safety as documented by [Yeo, 1997] is largely favorable: 98% of those surveyed in 1996 felt secure in Singapore, while 93% perceived Singapore to be safer than most other countries. In a more recent study of women’s safety in Singapore public housing, [Tan, 2002/03] has reported that the respondents generally felt safe in their public housing neighborhoods. International studies have revealed that women are twice as likely as men to report feeling unsafe ( [Wekerle and Whitzman, 1995]). About 90% of the 150 women of different age groups interviewed by [Tan, 2002/03] opined that the public spaces (such as bus stops, void decks, lift lobbies, playgrounds, parks, car parks and jogging paths) in their neighborhoods were safe from crime. Less than one-third of the women interviewed felt that the current public space designs encourage crime. In many instances, the design is related to dim lighting, isolation and obstruction of people’s view. These "unsafe" aspects are also identified in other international studies on what women consider as dangerous places in the city ( [Gordon and Riger, 1989]), reminding us that safety must be factored into micro-environments.

Does the presence of housing regeneration activities in the neighborhood make an impression upon the residents’ commitment to and perceptions of the locality? Notwithstanding some disruption and inconveniences experienced during the upgrading process, an earlier survey of 906 public housing residents in 1997 revealed a high level of satisfaction with the upgraded precinct. Almost 80% of the respondents expressed the view that the provision of precinct facilities—such as the children’s playground, barbeque pits and residents’ corners—had brought residents closer together ([Teo and Kong, 1997]). Results have emerged from another survey of 776 public housing households that about 35% of respondents reportedly sold their flats after the announcement of the upgrading program (the result of the enhancement in property values). Among those who stayed and the new owners, only 15.1% of them intended to move within the next 5 years, a percentage that is lower than the national average of 35.7% (The Straits Times, 3 June 2000).

The keen sense of belonging also appears in results from another survey with a larger sample size of 8690 households and overall sampling error of about 1.5% at 95% confidence level: the majority (82.3%) of respondents expressed a sense of belonging to their publicly built housing estates ([Housing and Development Board Singapore, 2000]). The main reasons for the sense of belonging included: living in the estate for a long time (an average of 12 years), good neighbors and pleasant surroundings/environment. The evidence seems to suggest that upgrading presents one way of revitalizing declining living space to meet people’s restructured needs.

6. Conclusion
This paper has focused on some of the urban safety challenges and planning possibilities towards making safer cities. Safe places encourage people to dwell, to stay a little longer and connect with one another and be connected. They are healthy places and increasingly bearing importance driven by studies suggesting that cities of the future will hold more people in denser settings ([Rogerson, 1998]). To challenge cities to enhance urban safety would be meaningless in the absence of known ways of achieving this. The thrust of this paper is that there are known ways and urban possibilities.

Singapore offers one illustration where its effort to construct a modern metropolis has given increasing emphasis to providing a high quality living environment and strengthening urban identity as a way to creating a delightful, "home" city. Singapore enjoys a relatively low crime rate and the popular perception is that it is a safe place to live in, and this includes its publicly built housing. This is not a spontaneous development but the result of a carefully crafted strategy involving investment in the physical environment—upgrading old housing, improving the living environment and constructing a usable past to build up the present basis for planning a distinctive and delightful city. Emphasis is on building "home" places and actively engaging the community in defining urban identity, managing their living areas and preventing crime. As [Vanderschueren, 2001] observes, urban violence cannot be dealt with by repression and police justice only.

Against the city’s high-density public housing and multiple spaces, investing in a sense of community identity is one way of encouraging urban residents to take control and responsibility over their environment, and harnessing the community’s potential contribution to crime prevention. Both [Jacobs, 1961] and [Newman, 1972] have argued for natural surveillance in community safety. The perspective of the city as a place "we can fondly call home" offers a powerful persuasion in crime prevention. It reflects an attempt to provide an optimal psychological fit between people and their physical environment, a basic element in the making of safe places. Such planning advantage also takes away the anonymity often found in public housing, demonstrating yet again that quality and safer public housing may be livable.

Given that there are so many different possible forms of crime prevention, the institutionalization of urban identity is but one strategy in the making of safer cities. As the Singapore activities illustrate, it covers a very broad range of interventions at the city and individual level that essentially draw on the notion of place to unpack the self-sustaining delight and dynamism that is in city spaces. Its distinctiveness stems from the community element that very much reflects a grass roots or participatory approach ([Bottoms, 1993]), which would find favor among those who are moving towards a more general approach of community safety.


References
Addae-Dapaah, 1999. K. Addae-Dapaah, Utilization of urban residential land: a case study of Singapore. Cities 16 2 (1999), pp. 93–101.

Arthur and Passini, 1990. P. Arthur and R. Passini. Wayfinding: People, Signs and Architecture, McGraw Hill, New York (1990).

Ayres, 1998. Ayres R L (1998) Crime and violence as development issues in Latin America and the Caribbean. World Bank Latin America and Caribbean Studies. Viewpoint, January.

Bottoms, 1993. A. Bottoms, Recent criminological and social theory. In: D. Farrington and P.O. Wikstrom, Editors, Integrating Individual and Ecological Aspects of Crime, National Council for Crime Prevention, Stockholm (1993).

Brantingham and Brantingham, 1991. P. Brantingham and P. Brantingham. Environmental Criminology, Waveland Press, Illinois (1991).

British Medical Association, 1997. British Medical Association. Road Transport and Health, British Medical Association, London (1997).

Canin, 1994. Canin B (1994) Mastering Crime in Your Planned Community. Paper presented to Urban Land Institute. October.

Chan and Phang, 2001. W.C. Chan and A. Phang, The development of criminal law and criminal justice in Singapore. Singapore Journal of Legal Studies (2001).

Coleman, 1990. A. Coleman. Utopia on Trial: Vision and Reality in Planned Housing, Hilary Shipman, London (1990).

Cozens, 2002. P. Cozens, Sustainable urban development and crime prevention through environmental design for the British city. Cities 19 2 (2002), pp. 129–138.

Crowe, 1991. T.D. Crowe. Crime Prevention through Environmental Design, Butterworth-Heinemann, Boston (1991).

Felson and Peiser, 1998. M. Felson and R.B. Peiser, Editors, Reducing Crime through Real Estate Development and Management, Urban Land Institute, Washington, DC (1998).

Field, 1992. B. Field, Singapore’s new town prototype: a textbook prescription?. Habitat International 16 3 (1992), pp. 89–101.
Foo, 2001. T.S. Foo, Planning and design of Tampines, an award-winning high-rise, high-density township in Singapore. Cities 18 1 (2001), pp. 33–42.

Foster and Hope, 1993. J. Foster and T. Hope. Housing, Community and Crime: The Impact of the Priority Estates Project, HMSO, London (1993).

Freire and Stren, 2001. M. Freire and R. Stren, Editors, The Challenge of Urban Government: Policies and Practices, WBI Development Studies, Washington, DC (2001).

Gordon and Riger, 1989. M.T. Gordon and S. Riger. The Female Fear, Free Press Books, New York (1989).

Greed, 1994. C. Greed. Women and Planning: Creating Gendered Realities, Routledge, London (1994).

Hall, 1966. E.T. Hall. The Hidden Dimension, Doubleday, New York (1966).

Healey et al., 1995. P. Healey, S. Cameron, S. Davoudi, S. Graham and A. Madani-Pour, Introduction: the city—crisis, change and innovation. In: P. Healey et al.Managing Cities, John Wiley, Chichester (1995).

Herbert, 1993. D.T. Herbert, Neighborhood incivilities and the study of crime in place. Area 25 (1993), pp. 45–54.

Hope, 1986. T. Hope, Crime, communality and environment. Journal of Environmental Psychology 6 (1986), pp. 65–78.

Housing and Development Board Singapore, 2000. Housing and Development Board Singapore. Social Aspects of Public Housing in Singapore, Housing and Development Board, Singapore (2000).

ICPC, 1998. ICPC (1998) European and North American Conference on Urban Safety and Crime Prevention. Montreal, 1989, Final declaration in Reference Document for International Forum of Mayors for Safer Cities. ICPC-UNCHS.

Jacobs, 1961. J. Jacobs. The Life and Death of Great American Cities, Penguin (1961).

Jayakumar, 2000. Jayakumar S (2000) The confluence of law and policy: the Singapore experience. Speech delivered at the Millennium Law Conference (April 10–12), subsequently published in The Singapore Conference: Leading the Law and Lawyers into the New Millennium, Butterworths Asia, Singapore.

Jeffrey, 1977. C.R. Jeffrey. Crime Prevention through Environmental Design, Sage Publications, Beverly Hills (1977).

Kube, 1995. E. Kube, Crime prevention in the field of residential burglary: learning from the offender. In: K. Miyazawa and S. Miyazawa, Editors, Crime Prevention in the Urban Community, Kluwer Law and Taxation Publishers, Boston (1995).

Kumssa, 2001. A. Kumssa, The policy challenges of globalization for developing countries. In: A. Kumssa and T.G. McGee, Editors, Globalization and the New Regional DevelopmentNew Regional Development Paradigms vol. 1, Greenwood Press, Westport (2001).

Lang, 1994. J. Lang. Urban Design: The American Experience, John Wiley and Sons, USA (1994).

Latin American Weekly Report, 1995. Latin American Weekly Report 1995, 8 June.

Lim, 1998/99. Lim S L (1998/1999) Housing Quality and Community Participation, Unpublished BSc (Real Estate) dissertation, National University of Singapore.

Lynch, 1960. K. Lynch. The Image of the City, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA (1960).

Lynch, 1981. K. Lynch. Good City Form, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA (1981).

Maslow, 1943. A. Maslow, Theory of human nature. Psychological Review 50 (1943), pp. 370–396. Abstract-PsycINFO

Maslow, 1987. Maslow A (1987) Motivation and Personality. 3rd ed. Revised by R Frager, J Fadiman, C McReynolds and R Cox. Harper and Row, New York.

Merry, 1981. S. Merry, Defensible space undefended: social factors in crime control through environmental design. Urban Affairs Quarterly 16 (1981), pp. 397–422.

Ministry of National Development Singapore, 1988. Ministry of National Development Singapore. Town Councils: Participating in Progress, Ministry of National Development, Singapore (1988).

Miyazawa and Miyazawa, 1995. K. Miyazawa and S. Miyazawa, Editors, Crime Prevention in the Urban Community, Kluwer Law and Taxation Publishers, Boston (1995).

Moughtin, 1996. C. Moughtin. Urban Design: Green Dimensions, Architectural Press (1996).

Mumford, 1938. L. Mumford. The Culture of Cities, Harcourt Brace, New York (1938).

National Crime Prevention Council Annual Report, 2001/02. National Crime Prevention Council Annual Report 2001/2002.

Newman, 1972. O. Newman. Defensible Space: People and Design in the Violent City, Architectural Press (1972).

Norberg-Schulz, 1980. C. Norberg-Schulz. Genius Loci, Academy Editions, London (1980).

OECD, 1995. OECD. Women in the City: Housing, Services and Urban Environment, OECD, France (1995).

Oncu and Weyland, 1997. A. Oncu and P. Weyland. Space, Culture and Power: New Identities in Globalizing Cities, Zed Books, London (1997).

Ong, 1990. Ong T C (1990) Opening speech delivered at The People’s Action Party Women’s Wing Seminar on Family and Core Values, 1 July, PUB Auditorium, Singapore.

Perry et al., 1997. M. Perry, L. Kong and B. Yeoh. Singapore: A Developmental City State, John Wiley, Chichester (1997).

Pocock and Hudson, 1978. D. Pocock and R. Hudson. Images of the Urban Environment, Columbia University Press, New York (1978).

Poyner, 1983. B. Poyner. Design Against Crime: Beyond Defensible Space, Butterworths, London (1983).

Quah, 1995. J.S.T. Quah, Crime prevention in a city-state: the functions of the public police in Singapore. In: K. Miyazawa

and S. Miyazawa, Editors, Crime Prevention in the Urban Community, Kluwer Law and Taxation Publishers, Boston (1995).

Rapoport, 1969. A. Rapoport. House Form and Culture, Prentice Hall, New Jersey (1969).

Relph, 1976. E. Relph. Place and Placelessness, Pion, London (1976).

Rogerson, 1998. R. Rogerson, Quality of life and the global city. In: (1998).

Sassen, 1999. S. Sassen, Whose city is it? Globalisation and the formation of new claims. In: A.F. Foo and B. Yuen, Editors, Sustainable Cities in the 21st Century, National University of Singapore, Singapore (1999).

Sen, 1997. G. Sen, Globalisation, justice and equality: a gender perspective. Development 40 2 (1997), pp. 21–26.

Singapore Department of Statistics. Singapore Department of Statistics, Singapore Census of Population, various years.

Singapore Police Force Annual Report. Singapore Police Force Annual Report, Crime Report, various years.

Smith, 1984. S. Smith, Crime and the structure of social relations. Transactions, Institute of British Geographers 9 (1984), pp. 427–442.

Stollard, 1991. P. Stollard, Editor, Crime Prevention Through Housing Design, Chapman and Hall, London (1991).

Tan, 2002/03. Tan W Y L (2002/2003) Safety and Security of Women in HDB Neighborhoods, Unpublished BSc (Real Estate) dissertation, National University of Singapore.

Teh, 1983. C.W. Teh. Forum on HDB Policies and Directions, Mar, Singapore (1983).

Teo and Kong, 1997. S.E. Teo and L. Kong, Public housing in Singapore: interpreting "quality" in the 1990s. Urban Studies 34 3 (1997), pp. 441–452.

Teo and Phillips, 1989. S.E. Teo and D.R. Phillips, Attitudes towards service provision in public housing estates and new towns in Singapore. Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography 10 1 (1989), pp. 74–94.

The Committee on Heritage Report, 1988. The Committee on Heritage Report 1988. Singapore.

Tuan, 1974. Y.F. Tuan. Topophilia, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ (1974).

UNCHS, 1998. UNCHS (1998) Press release, World Habitat Day 1998: Safer Cities, CHS/98/05, 13 February.

Urban Redevelopment Authority, 2001. Urban Redevelopment Authority. Concept Plan 2001, URA, Singapore (2001).

Urban Redevelopment Authority, 2002. Urban Redevelopment Authority (2002) Parks and Waterbodies Plan and Identity Plan public exhibition pamphlets.

Vanderschueren, 2000. F. Vanderschueren. Urban Crime Prevention: Background Document, UNCHS (2000).

Vanderschueren, 2001. F. Vanderschueren, From violence to justice and security in cities. In: M. Freire and R. Stren, Editors, The Challenge of Urban Government: Policies and Practices, WBI Development Studies, Washington, DC (2001).

Wakely and You, 2001. P. Wakely and N. You. Implementing the Habitat Agenda: In Search of Urban Sustainability, University College London, London (2001).

Wekerle and Whitzman, 1995. G.R. Wekerle and C. Whitzman. Safe Cities, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York (1995).

Wong and Yeh, 1985. A. Wong and S.K.H. Yeh. Housing a Nation, Maruzen Asia, Singapore (1985).

Yeo, 1997. S.L. Yeo, Crime trends in Singapore. Statistics Singapore Newsletter 20 2 (1997) (Department of Statistics, Singapore) .



Cities
Volume 21, Issue 1 , February 2004, Pages 19-28