CHAPTER 7:

KEY ELEMENTS IN PLANNNG AND DESIGN THAT

CONTRIBUTE TOWARDS THE SHAPING OF HEALTHY PLACES

7.1 Introduction

This chapter will dissect the issues shaping healthy places in the LMC housing from the perspectives of urban planning and building design. These subjects were synthesized from issues highlighted in the earlier empirical findings. Our investigations have relied on space appropriation as a channel to uncover the behavioural adjustments and physical changes in the living spaces. This chapter will elaborate on the key elements in planning and design by referring to the context, policies and regulations that has given birth to the various scenarios as uncovered in our findings. The chapter commences with a recap by highlighting the best and worst scenarios through the residents appraisal on building conditions and elements and the significant physical alterations and living habits according to each housing project. From here, these critical issues will be analyzed and discussed in three main sections, i.e. planning; building typology and design; and domestic space functions.

7.2

Summary of key findings according to the six case studies

This section summarizes the key survey findings from the previous chapter. It will serve as an easy reference for the subsequent discussion of the planning and design issues affecting the results of the findings. (For the rest of the chapter, please also refer to Section 4.5 on background information of the six case studies and Appendix 5 for the typical unit floor plan and mapping of the internal space).

Alor Vista In the appraisal of building elements and conditions, Alor Vista (AV) has the worst scores for position of living area, bathroom and toilet location and community halls/rooms. In addition, it also scores badly in children play area. In terms of significant living habits and practices, it has the highest score in the use of bunk beds, mattress folded and leaned against wall when not in use, always close bedroom doors, seldom cook in the house due 180

to smoke, often hang out to avoid crowding in the house, use linoleum flooring and erect shelf to screen off kitchen categories. It has equally high scores in sleep on mattress on floor, often eat separately, close front door for privacy and switch on lights in day time.

Taman Mawar For Taman Mawar (TM), in the appraisal of building elements and conditions, TM scores the best points in window size, windows position, bathroom and toilet location, entrance position and corridor width. However, it scores the lowest in terms of flooring, parking space, parking safety, deck/common area, cleanliness, rubbish collection and maintenance.

Taman Utama Taman Utama (TU) has no items in the best scores in the appraisal of building elements and conditions. But it has many worst scores, in items such as window size, windows position, entrance position, corridor width, parapet height, stairwell and landscaping. It is also the second worst scenario in children play area. In terms of significant physical alterations or renovations, it has the highest score in reducing window size, which was given by onethird of the respondents. As for significant living habits and practices, it has the highest score in switching on lights in day time. It has fairly high scores in birdcage for drying clothes. It is worth mentioning that although it has high scores in close windows or use curtains for privacy, it has the lowest scores in closing front doors for privacy.

Taman Green In the appraisal of building elements and conditions, Taman Green (TG) has the worst scores in ceiling height, ceiling finishes and wall finishes. It has equally bad scores in children play area. In terms of significant physical alterations or renovations, it should be mentioned here that TG has the highest cases of build partition dividing kitchen and living area, i.e. in about one-third of the respondents. In terms of significant living habits and practices, it has the highest score in closing windows and drawing window curtains for privacy.

181

Taman Lone Pine For appraisal of building conditions and elements, Taman Lone Pine (LP) has the worst score in position of bedroom and children play area, although it has the best scores in many items such as ceiling height, ceiling finishes, window position, kitchen location, stairwell, parking safety, community halls/rooms, deck/common area, cleanliness and rubbish collection. For significant physical alterations or renovations, LP has the highest score in building arch on the wall separating kitchen and living area and tear down wall between balcony and living area (one third of the respondents). As for significant living habits and practices, it should be mentioned that LP is highest in the action of erecting shelf to screen off living area from passers-by at the corridor.

Taman Sri Pinang In the appraisal of building conditions and elements, Taman Sri Pinang (SP) has the worst score in kitchen location and lifts. However, it has the best scores in bedroom position, wall finishes, parapet height, parking space, children play area and landscaping, although the score for wall finishes, parking space and landscaping are less than average. In terms of significant physical alterations or renovations, SP scores the highest in having plaster ceiling (40%), tear down wall between kitchen and third bedroom (16%) and change position of toilet entrance (20%). For significant living habits and practices, SP has the highest score in using straw mats or carpets, use curtains to screen off kitchen from living area, drying clothes outside at corridor, often have meals on the floor, place seats outside at corridor, shift fridge to bedroom due to lack of space in kitchen and hanging curtains at bedroom doors. Other than this, it has equally high scores in closing windows or drawing windows curtains for privacy.

7.3

Planning issues

7.3.1

Choice of site, connectivity and accessibility

In Malaysia, public housing policies directly determine the site or location of the LMC housing. Since the LMC is a contribution by developers required by law, in a way it is cross182

subsidized from the more lucrative medium and high costs development. Hence as a pragmatic move, these low costs housing units are usually built in cheaper and less desirable locations that are deemed unsuitable for other types of development. Very often, this has resulted in fragmentation and small pockets of high-rise low cost housing sitting amidst low rise and low density development.

The common practice is that as long as the site complies with the land use zoning and is feasible to accommodate the layout according to the required density and other planning regulations, it will be accepted. On many occasions, the sites have odd shapes (LP), sited on steep slopes (TG), or isolated land far away from all thoroughfares (TG & TU). Three out of the six case studies (TG, LP and TU) are testimonies to such instances, SP is an exception as it is built in the inner city, a turnkey project and the land belongs to the local council. As for TM, it is built as one compound in a self-contained integrated township.

The placement of affordable housing on the urban periphery is in one sense fairly reasonable as the land is much cheaper. However, such locations are usually isolated and have poor access to and from public transport connection. This is partly due to the planning procedures that do not take public transport connectivity as part of the conditions in approving housing schemes. In some cases, such as TG and TU, as evidenced from the survey results, the locations are inaccessible by public transport as the nearest bus-stops or main road are 20 to 30 minutes walking distance away. The hardest hit groups are stay-home mums, young children and the elderly who do not possess own vehicles and who have to depend on others to move around.

7.3.2

Housing density, building footprint and site layout

In the context of the LMC, the density of the project is fixed at 120 residential units per acre. There are no restrictions on building height or number of storeys except for very few locations that impose height limits such as the inner city conservation area and the land adjacent to the airport. The height of the building is determined by the site character while the number of storeys is determined by the feasibility of construction, e.g. lifts installation. 183

The existing allowable density of 120 units per acre is a sort of compromise between government and private developers to ensure feasibility to provide the low cost housing. If we take the average household size as 4.3 persons per unit,1 this would work out to be 516 persons per acre (or 1275 persons per hectare). As a comparison, it is less than half of the housing density in Hong Kong, i.e. in Hong Kong, a typical public housing project has a density between 3200 persons per hectare (2000s) to 4770 persons per hectare (1960s) (Ng & Wong, 2003). But it is slightly higher than the 400 persons per acre (or 1000 persons per hectare) as in the Radiant City proposed by Le Corbusier (Jensen, 1966)2.

In a study by consultants Llewelyn Davies on the type of housing suitable for redevelopment sites in London, it was suggested that for remote areas, densities can be 30-50 units per hectare (12-20 units per acre) and sites in the central areas can have densities of 240-435 units per hectare (97-176 units per acre) (Towers, 2005, p. 5-6). This suggests that density control should be applied discretionarily according to the intensity of development, the infrastructure and the needs of the particular area.

The argument in favour of high-rise high density in urban centres is that taller buildings can free space for greenery and recreation. However, in the examples of LMC, as are shown in LP, AV, TU, TG for instance, this may not be the case as the sites are primarily covered by built-up area and/or taken over by parking lots (See Fig. 7.1). According to Rolf Jensen, density3 expressed as intensity of occupation is not by itself the sole qualitative measure of housing development, which also depends greatly on planning and amenity standards, and the habitability of homes. Besides this, there are also other quantitative assessment of density in terms of size of buildings, site coverage and any necessary height limitations, as a means of securing balanced open spaces and neighbourliness (Jensen, 1966).

1 2

This figure is unofficial figure, derived from our survey data. Referring to Corbusiers Radiant City, the minimal biological cell for habitable space is 14 sq. m per inhabitant and base on this calculation, the density for the Green City would be 1,000 persons per hectare (Corbusier, 1967, pg. 145). There are two measures of housing density. The gross residential density measures the population of any area which consists predominantly of housing; and net residential density measures the population of a site exclusively devoted to housing. Basically there are four different measures in use, i.e. dwellings per hectare/acre; bed space per hectare/acre; habitable rooms per hectare/acre and housing floor space per hectare/acre. Most publications use number of dwelling units or habitable rooms (Towers, 2005).

184

Figure 7.1: Examples of high site coverage or building footprint

Taman Lone Pine

Taman Alor Vista

As shown in Hong Kong and Singapore, high density housing need not equate to poor living quality. The high-rise flats can be as high as 30 to 50 storeys provided that there are additional policy controls to ensure quality living. For instance, to ensure there is sufficient open space, certain percentage of greeneries can be built into the guidelines, i.e. the site coverage or building footprint can be calculated. The existing built-up space or site coverage of 20-60% (as estimated from our six LMC case studies) is way much higher than the 12% site cover proposed by Corbusier and 10% of some of the better public housing schemes in Hong Kong! The result of this super-high site coverage in the case of the LMC is that nearly the entire site is covered with concrete buildings and very little open air spaces between buildings. These small open spaces left are empty spaces in between building that are required under the minimal building set-back, road width and other infrastructure requirements.

Any effective system of density control must, amongst other things, provide adequate day lighting conditions, space for amenities, access, ensuring privacy, reduction in airborne noises and elimination of risk of fire spread. In some of the newer public housing estates in Singapore, although the density can be as high as 6000 persons per sq. km., the quality of living spaces and the general impression do not show the feeling of cramped and 185

crowdedness. In fact, and by having less site coverage/building footprint, it frees up the land spaces for greeneries and other civic amenities, critical for healthy living (See Figure 7.2)

Figure 7.2: Building sky-high to free up ground space for greenery and recreation

Domestic housing density and sense of crowding The existing 120 units per acre in the LMC regulations alone does not reveal the number of persons per dwelling or the number of persons per room, and it cannot therefore indicate the amount of living space per person. To assess the domestic housing density of the LMC, the space standards by the United Nations (Table 7.1) and the WHO Regional Office for Europes standards of 12sq.m. of habitable space per person are tabled here for comparison.

Table 7.1: Minimum floor space requirements for family of three to five as proposed by the United Nations (UN)4:Room Living plus dining room Kitchen First bedroom Second bedroom Third bedroom Total usable space sq. m. 18.6 7.0 13.9 12.0 8.0 59.5 sq. ft. 200 75 150 130 87 640

Based on the 12 sq. m. space per person of habitable space as set by the WHO European Office, the average 4.31 persons per household as shown from our survey data would need a

United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (1959) Utilization of space in dwellings, Geneva.

186

total floor area of 51.7 sq.m. (557 sq. ft.). Thus, the standards of 500-550 sq. ft (46.5 51.1 sq. m.) in the six case studies appear to be barely adequate judging by the UN and WHO standards. And since less than 17% of the respondents came from households that have six persons and beyond, we can say that crowding in terms of internal density is not a major concern here, although our survey data showed that the number of occupants in the house did have significant influence on the perception on feeling of crowding in the house.

Other socio-demographic variables such as age, gender, ethnicity, marital status, religion, occupation and education did not generate any significant relations with the sense of crowding in the house nor feeling of crowding in the neighbourhood perceptions (Refer Table 6.3 and 6.4 in Chapter 6). However the present living conditions such as whether they have young children and the types of household composition have significance influence on feeling of crowding (Table 6.5 in Chapter 6). This finding is slightly different compared to some earlier studies by Alexander and Yi-Fu Tuan, who had observed that the experience of crowding differs with ethnicity and culture. Tuan also added that ample space is not always experienced as spaciousness, and high density does not necessarily mean crowding (Tuan, 1977).

Studies have shown that residential crowding may be partially ameliorated by having floorplan layouts affording greater architectural depth (Evans, et.al. 1996, Baum et al., 1987). However, due to the limited floor space of the LMC, which in turn has a shallow depth of space, there is very little chance for private retreat in the dwelling. This limitation points to the greater importance of other means of relief. Interior design elements such as sound attenuation, visual access and exposure, and window views are some of the elements that can be used to create positive distractions. Exterior design elements such as small semi-

interactional space, functional distance to adjacent units, creating characteristics of defensible space, can also be other means that could be further explored.

7.3.3 Space for children and communal uses

As shown in the appraisal of building conditions, the community halls/rooms have very poor 187

scores, with a mean value of 3.31, for children play area, the mean score was the worst amongst all items, with a mean value of 3.75! Our data also show that 43.7% of the respondents have tendencies to spend long hours at home. This includes occupational categories such as student, unemployed, housewife, retiree and nanny/working from home.

Generally, there is a lack of communal space in the six housing schemes under study. In some cases the space is provided but not the facilities or that the facilities are insufficiently provided or with poor maintenance. As suggested by Mitchell (1970), the organization of space outside the individual dwelling units and buildings, especially the ground level, may be the most significant issue needing attention. The provision of spaces outside the house for socializing and communal functions are important both for personal and community well being. In the case of the LMC where the home space is small, the need for such breathing space is even more crucial.

From our observation, children living in the LMCs spend long hours at home watching television or in front of the computer. Le Corbusier, an ardent proponent of high-rise housing, actually said that the residential skyscraper was not suitable for children. According to him, higher densities per hectare can be allowed provided that children live not in his large buildings but in separate child care centres or boarding houses! (Tiege, K, 1999). Other studies have pointed out that children living in crowded homes that have a space where they can retreat to and who can easily play outside suffer fewer ill effects from residential crowding (Saegert, 1982). Nonetheless if the environment in the flat is planned in such a way that it is children friendly it can be a conducive environment for children. The existing planning regulations do not have a legal provision for children play area per se. But there is a guideline for public open space and community centres. The calculation for both is based on a per capita basis (area per person). For instance, for open space, it is 4 sq.m per person and 0.2 sq.m per person for community centres. The occupancy rate for calculating community facilities for LMC was 2 persons per unit5. This formula used is low

Clause 9.4, Guidelines on Public Low-Medium Cost housing (amendments till 5-4-94) by the Municipal Council of Penang Island MPPP.

188

compared to the actual occupancy rate per household - 4.31 persons per house!6 In addition, the definition and criteria of open space and community centres are not clearly stated. As land is a precious resource, the subsidized nature of the LMC housing schemes means that some amenities and green open space on the ground would be compromised. Some quarters have proposed that providing green space does not necessarily have to be on the ground in the open air and that jogging tracks, sports courts and landscaped open space can be provided inside the building or at the roof tops 7. However, the lack of control and criteria specifying the basic qualities of open space and the lack of control over the provisions of amenities have resulted in situations whereby only empty space is provided without or with minimal facilities. In many case, these spaces become redundant as they are not suitable or safe to use. Some of the above examples can be seen in our case studies, e.g. AV and TU.

Another aspect of the planning policy that contributes towards the malaise is the policy of monetary contribution in lieu of physical provision, meaning that the developer can pay a sum of money to the local authority for not being able to provide enough of what is required 8 . The contribution is supposed to go to a common fund to build a bigger and centralized facility in other areas. In reality, how this fund is being used and whether the residents do benefit from it are not known. What is certain is that this policy deprives the local residents of enjoying the facilities on site. 7.4 Common building typology and the resulting issues

There are a few building typologies commonly found for the high rise LMCs. Most of the LMC found in Penang are slab block structures, some of them are stand alone buildings (e.g. TM, TU, AV) while others are slab blocks built on a podium car-park cum facilities (e.g. TG & LP). Four of the six case studies consist of long rectangular slab blocks (TU, AV, SP, LP) while TG has a U shaped layout and TM has a bended irregular shape layout.
6 7 8

Data from our sample survey. Field interviews with developers. Clause 9.2, Guidelines on Public Low-medium Cost housing (amendments till 5-4-94) by the Municipal Council of Penang Island (MPPP).

189

Most of the LMC observed have very simple floor layout of long double corridor type. In fact four out of the six case studies have double-loaded corridor (LP, AV, TM & TU). It is understood that double loaded corridor building is less costly to build than the single loaded and twin-towered point block schemes because it has less peripheral wall, less foundations and smaller service core. Its standard repetitive design is also speedier to build with the industrialized system. In LP, it has a private balcony design. The balcony design adds to the aesthetic value but it is rather small for practical use except for small clothes drying and planting purposes (Fig. 7.3).

In principle, the double loaded corridor type should be admitted only where the corridor is terminated at both ends with good openings and a maximum length and/or maximum number of units. The distance allowed is usually calculated by the maximum distance between doors of the most remote apartment to the nearest fire escape/staircase. Although the existing arrangement has satisfied these regulations, some of the projects (e.g. LP, AV & TU) appear to have very poor lateral access to day light9.

In addition, as the unit entrances are arranged directly facing the opposite units, this is seen as a form of intrusion on visual privacy. In fact, five out of the six case studies have windows and doors directly facing the opposite rows. The result of such design is that many people have a tendency to close the front doors (Highest: 60% in AV, 58% in SP), or closed windows or drawn curtains (Highest: 76% in TG, 67% in SP) for privacy. Only in TM, have attempts been made to position the entrances to avoid direct frontage with the opposite units.

In TU, the central corridor is shared by two floors of building, which mean the lift landing and access corridor occurs on every alternate floor (Fig. 7.4). From the corridor, the units are connected by staircase, either going up or down in a cross-over or scissors manner. This design allows costs savings in the lift gear and openings, however, additional costs for

In Singapore, the double loaded internal central corridor type of flats is no longer found, while in Hong Kong, this was only built in the period between 1950s to 1970s and it has thus been phased out. At present, in Hong Kong the double loaded central corridor applies to the tower block buildings but the maximum units per wing are limited to four, with very few units per floor.

190

individual staircases are needed. Units placed higher than the corridor enjoy better ventilation and unobstructed views while units lower than the corridor are correspondingly disadvantaged as the common corridor with the parapet is higher than their units and therefore directly blocking the frontage. It is also inconvenient for the frail and the disabled having to go up and down the stairs.

For single loaded external corridor access (e.g. TG), or open gallery / balcony access system, traffic will have to pass through kitchens, bathrooms and entrance halls, all of which have to have windows on that side of the building. SP and TG can be considered as belonging to this type although they are single loaded internal corridor design. The units fronting the common corridor have less privacy and can pose a potential risks to young children, unless the railings or parapet height is high enough.

High-rise housing should be designed in such a way that as few families as possible to share a building entry, the use of elevators, and the use of corridors at each level. But the economics of operating elevators make it difficult to limit the number of people sharing the elevators. Elevators are most efficient if two or three to serve 150 families rather than having three separate elevators to serve 50 families each. The lobby of the elevator buildings should be designed and positioned so that it is clearly visible from outside. The entrance to the building and the lobby area should be located to and a short distance from a well-trafficked public walkway or street.

7.4.1 Day lighting and ventilation

As mentioned, most of the LMCs are of the double loaded central (internal) corridor design (e.g. TM, TU, AV and LP) as this is the most economical, maximizing the use of lifts and stairs. In this design, the corridors are shared by two rows of residential units facing each other, and so the aspects of day lighting and ventilation are compromised. In this typology, the spaces fronting the entrance, i.e. usually kitchen and toilet areas have no natural lighting. This is evidenced by a high percentage of residents switching on the lights during the day time, especially in TU (46%) and AV (42%). 191

Figure7.3: Typical floor layout of the six case studies

Taman Lone Pine (LP)

Double loaded central corridor punctured with small air wells. Private balconies.

Taman Alor Vista (AV)

Double loaded internal corridor punctured with air wells.

Taman Sri Pinang (SP)

Single loaded corridor facing internal central air well.

Taman Green (TG)

Single loaded corridor facing internal central air well.

Taman Mawar (TM)

Doubled loaded central corridor.

Taman Utama (TU)

Split level, double loaded corridor. Each unit is connected to the central corridor by a flight of stairs.

192

Figure 7.4: Section view of a split level block where the central corridor is shared by two floors

For proper day lighting and ventilation, the standard calculation for distance between buildings is usually half of the building height. However, in many of the LMC flats, if two rows of flats are joined together by walkways link bridge or internal corridors, it is then not considered as two separate blocks, but one single block and so the distance required between buildings need not apply. In such a case, the space between the two slab block is then considered as internal central air well (Refer examples of SP, TG & TU in Figure 7.5). If we follow the so-called air well requirement under the Uniform Building by-Laws (UBBL), it was spelled out as the minimum width of such air wells in any direction shall be 2.5m 10 a distance sufficient for a landed residential housing. For two storey terrace houses, at least 10m distance between buildings is needed to ensure that the front rooms of houses receive adequate day lighting. However, in the three out of the six case studies we have, the distance between these two rows was calculated after adding the total widths of the required amenities, e.g. lifts, staircase, buffer between staircase and wall (fire requirement) and corridors. In actual fact, the distance between the two blocks (rows of units) separated

10

Clause 40 (1)(b) Uniform Building by-laws, Malaysia.

193

by a central air-well (or central courtyard) and joined by link ways or internal corridor ranges only between 7.3 to 10.1 meters! (See Fig. 7.5).

Figure 7.5: Distance between two blocks or rows of units in typical LMC layout

7.3m Taman Sri Pinang (SP)

10.1 m Taman Green (TG)

7.9m Taman Utama (TU)

Not to scale

Such a short distance between two fronting rows of flats causes great discomfort especially to the middle and lower floors where the lightings have to be switched on 24 hours a day. Such condition seems to be repeating the conditions of some tenement blocks in the 19th and early 20th century New York City, where it was said that the windows in many tenement rooms opened into an air-shaft instead of directly to fresh air and hallways were reported to be pitch-black (Hynes & Lopez, ed., 2009, p. 107)

7.4.2

Lack of transitional space

Generally, there is a lack of transitional spaces in the present LMC buildings. From our observation, the public-private dichotomy in the high-rise public housing environment was very clear. As soon as one steps out of the home (private space), one will encounter the long straight common corridor (public space). The private space is thus confined to the home spaces and anywhere outside the wall is considered public where everything is open and 194

shared. In such situations, the private lives of people who live in flats are constantly exposed to common surveillance and visual glances from passersby and so, strangers are not normally entertained.

The semi-public or transitional space is quite limited. This is perhaps confined to the spaces immediately outside the house. These spaces can be considered semi-private because here, people can walk past but they will be discouraged from hanging around there without a reason. Other spaces around the compound are public spaces, e.g. long straight common corridor, open deck area, parking area.

Figure 7.6: Lack of transitional spaces and hostile common spaces

Such arrangement is in contrast with the local traditional kampong buildings where a visitor is greeted in the informal semi-public area or serambi (porch) before entering the main hall/living area or ibu rumah (Fig 7.7). The transitional spaces are not unique to the local vernacular houses. In other types of conventional housing, a front gate, a yard, a vestibule, with windows overlooking the approach, provide warning, time, and vantage point.

As the residents comprises of a large number of Muslim community, the concerns for privacy is thus highly regarded. In a typical Muslim courtyard house, we can see that there is a clear demarcation of public and private spaces within a house, whereby the private realms are not directly accessible or exposed from the outside (Fig 7.8). Even in non-Muslim western societies, visitors pass through areas such as wind catch and front hall before entering the

195

grand hall or living room. As a comparison, such abrupt changes between the inside and outside of the flats have resulted in sacrifices of privacy.

Figure 7.7: Floor plan of a traditional Malay house

Fig 7.8: Floor plan of typical Muslim courtyard house

N. J. Habraken once wrote, Living is an act which takes place in two realms, the public and the private Living exclusively in the public realm is tantamount to institutionalization. Living exclusively in the private realm is a kind of exile. (Habraken, 1961) The dwelling must therefore straddle both spheres, in providing meaningful semi-public or transitional spaces by creating small pockets of meeting and recess points within every floor for instance, would encourage human interaction, and allows for personalization, better control and surveillance leading to defensible space.

7.5

Domestic layout and space functions

The current layout is a direct product of the LMC guidelines approved in 1994. These flats 196

were constructed under the stipulated maximum development density, minimum floor area for typical unit and number of bedrooms. Besides these, the minimum number and size of rooms were also specified. As such, the spaces were designed down to the absolute limits of their designated functions. As shown in our data, there have been many physical alterations to the internal structure to suit the different living circumstances and habits.

From the extensiveness and diverse forms of physical alterations, we could see that the internal layout is quite prescriptive or hard. This has resulted in many instances of internal renovations involving alterations to the internal structure. Our data showed that common physical alterations include tearing down of partition walls (highest or 16% in SP). Although SP has similar total floor area (550 sf.), there were three bedrooms provided. This has resulted in very small functional spaces and therefore, high tendencies to tear down a wall in one of the bedrooms to enlarge the dining or kitchen space. Besides this, other physical modifications observed across all six housing schemes include having sliding walls/partitions and placing shelves for the purpose of space division and screening. The various forms of space appropriation in terms of physical alterations showed that such rigid layout pattern have not catered to the diversity in actual needs.

Figure 7.9: An example of enlarging the space by removing the partition wall

Original unit floor plan

After modification
Not to scale

197

(For the following discussions on various functional spaces, please refer to Appendix 5 Mapping of the internal layout)

7.5.1 Kitchen

The preferences for kitchen and the various ways to appropriate it to suit usage are affected by gender, culture and lifestyles, which are closely linked to ethnicity and religion. How people prepare food, the meaning of cooking, its ritual and social significance varies with each household. Our empirical data have shown that there were some distinct differences in the appreciation, preferences and alterations of the kitchen across the six case studies. In the appraisal of kitchen location, LP scored the highest while SP were the worst. On the preference of open or enclosed kitchen, contrary to the proponents of open kitchen 11, from our survey data and documented observations, the majority (89%) of the respondents preferred to have enclosed kitchens. Our findings also showed that there were high incidences of permanent or semi-permanent partitions to screen the kitchen from the living
Figure 7.10: Kitchen facing the toilet

area, with the highest in TG (38%), followed by TU & LP (34% each). In AV, there was a high usage of cabinet/shelf for such purposes. Using partial or non-permanent furniture for screening allows better ventilation and lighting. It is also less costly. On the contrary, in SP, due to the small kitchen space, some residents have torn down the wall dividing the kitchen and the third bedroom (19%).

As Asian cooking relies heavily on frying that generates a lot of fumes, this perhaps explain why many have preferred enclosed kitchens. However, in urban metropolitan areas, there may be some

11

The open kitchen concept was first mooted by Le Corbusier in his criticism on the Frankfurt kitchen. To Corbusier, the living room must be a kitchen, the kitchen a living room (Western, 2002, p. 78)

198

young families or couples without children, accustomed to the lifestyle of eating out often, who do not need a full kitchen or prefer that the kitchen be opened up, and the oil and fumes contained by smoke ventilators. From such diversities, the proposition to have open or enclosed kitchen is quite contentious and thus, it is perhaps best left to users to make their own choices.

As a rule of thumb, the kitchen is best located in an area that has natural ventilation. As the LMC is a type of low income housing, we should not assume that people will use mechanical devices as this adds to the expenses. Going back to the Frankfurt kitchen, where the kitchen was created for modern women with little time for domestic cares, even though the kitchen in the modern flat is small in size but it should be as efficient as it can be. This can be achieved by eliminating furniture, equipment and other functions other than cooking from the kitchen. The layout of the kitchen should be designed in such a way that it streamlines basic cooking functions such as food cutting, washing and cooking. To quote Tiege, The kitchen is the nerve centre of the apartment household. It is the best designed and most rationalized room of the modern house, simply because as a place of production, a workshop or a miniature factory, it was the most obvious place to apply the organizational experience of modern factory production methods. (Tiege, 1999)

7.5.2 Living and dining area

The living area is the central hall of the family, and so it is usually the largest of the rooms in the house and a space shared by everyone. Due to the limitation in the size of the flat, it has a dual-function combining living and dining together. This space also serves as study room and play space for children. The dining table is cleared after the meals so that it can be used as a study and working table. In the living area, furniture such as sofas and seats are usually leaned against the wall to free up the space. The furniture used is usually small, compact and multi-function. People often have meals on the floor with Malays and Indians more likely to do so than the Chinese.

In the six housing schemes under study, three have living areas/halls facing a direction that 199

has ample natural lighting and ventilation (See examples of TM, AV & LP in Figure 7.11). In these three schemes, the living area has major openings on both ends, one has the windows facing outside and the other end is the main entrance doorway from the internal corridor, culminating in a vertical axis, hence allowing for better cross ventilation and natural lighting. However, due to the arrangement of the floor layout in such a way that the main entrance is directly fronting the opposite houses entrance, the main door is usually shut. In that sense, the cross ventilation that comes with the vertical axis cannot be enjoyed.

Figure 7.11: Cross-ventilation in some of the unit layouts

Not to scale

Comparatively, for the rest of the three schemes (SP, TG & TU), the living area is dark, especially those from the middle to lower floors. This is because the two bedrooms are located deepest inside with external windows while the living hall is trapped in the centre. As such, many residents there have to leave the bedroom doors open so that the sunlight can penetrate the living area through the openings of the bedroom doors.

200

Figure 7.12: Positioning opposite entrances away from directly facing each other to enhance the visual privacy.

Existing

Proposed

The dining areas are usually near or immediately outside the kitchen area, all except SP. In SP, although it has similar floor space with the rest (550 sf.), it has managed to squeeze in three bedrooms, thus making each functional space very small. Actually, many people prefer the dining table near to the kitchen. If the space in the kitchen allows them to place dining table near the kitchen, they will try to do so (e.g. TG and TU), In AV, the placement of the dining table is more awkward due to the layout. It is sometimes placed along the passage way as there is no designated space for cooking.

7.5.3

Bedroom

The unit size of all the six case studies is in the range of 500 550 sq. ft. There are five that have two bedrooms and one with three bedrooms (SP). The first bedroom is also the master bedroom, and thus is slightly bigger than the second bedroom. Generally the bedrooms are positioned facing the outside. This allows good natural lighting and ventilation. This is evidenced from the best score in the appraisal of building elements in SP for instance.

In some schemes, the second bedrooms focus the inner court or small air well, and so are less comfortable, e.g. SP, AV and LP. In SP, the third bedroom opens to an internal space (often used for kitchen), so the ventilation in the bedroom depends on the windows of the kitchen which is open to the small air well. This arrangement has made the third bedroom not very habitable, and so, some respondents have used this room for functions other than sleeping (See examples of SP 28-14-19, SP 28-06-01, SP 28-8-18 & SP 28-15-19 in Appendix 5). 7.5.4 Toilet and bathroom 201

Our data shows that most occupants preferred separating the water-closet (toilet) from the shower space (bathroom) (84%). But in SP, incidence of toilets being renovated were high, mostly by dismantling the common wall between toilet and bathroom and converting them to one opening (20%). The reason was that both toilet and bathroom were too small. This just shows that although people prefer separate toilet and bath, but if separation means making them very small, they prefer them to be joined (See examples of SP 28-04-19 & SP 28-07-28 in Appendix 5).

Understandably, the toilet/bathroom cannot be large due to span limits, as it should be in proportion with the space allocation in a small house. Although the provision has complied with the minimal regulations12, the toilets and bathroom seem to be small for their usage. Perhaps by having one toilet cum bathroom, the space will be bigger and this would also allow easy access for wheel chairs bound residents. For such requirements, what can be done is to allocate a certain number of units in the housing estate as wheelchair friendly units, especially the lower floors or units near the lifts to have single unit of bathroom cum toilet.

In small apartments such as the LMC, the basic fixture in the toilet consist of a cistern, in the bathroom, there is a shower head, a small wash basin and water trough in one corner. The trough is to store water which suits the habit of some local people, especially the older generation who prefer to scoop water to wash themselves. This is considered to be more refreshing in the hot humid tropical weather. The wash basins are sometimes removed or placed outside the toilet. This may appear to be unhygienic, but it is one way to reduce the morning rush hour traffic in the house when all family members tussle to use the toilets and the wash basins.

7.6

Windows as a building envelop

In the design of high-rise high density housing, the size of windows must be adequate and be correctly positioned as the window is an important threshold connecting the inside and
12

According to the UBBL Clause 43 (a).the minimum size of both toilet and bathroom is 1.5m x 0.75m each.

202

outside of the house. Studies on hospital patients have linked the lack of windows with high rates of anxiety, depression and delirium. Similarly, office workers with access to natural light and views of greenery were found to be more productive and have higher job satisfaction (Schweitzer, et. al., 2004). Such is the importance of windows being one design element in high-rise housing that could potentially influence the qualities of healthy living. Although the size of the window basically have satisfied the minimum requirements 13, the various physical alterations to windows points to the weaknesses in window design. Physical alterations include changing louver windows to sliding glass windows (mean value of 48%); reduce or alter the window size for safety involving closing one of the three window panels nearest to the door knob to reduce chances of break-ins and plastering the lower part of the window pane to maintain visual privacy (see Figure 5.4 in Chapter 5).

The high percentage of such practices occurring in TU (32%), LP & SP (22% each) may be due to that fact that these units share some similarities, i.e. windows facing the common corridor in the same level. For the same matter, it was also found that on the average, 59% of respondents close their windows or draw curtains for privacy with the highest in TG (76%), followed by SP (57%) and LP (56%). The space appropriation in terms of altering, using or decorating the windows is influenced mainly by concerns for visual privacy, which is more apparent with Muslims being more concerned with protecting their aurat 14 compared to other races.

It is thus suggested that besides paying more attention to the placement and direction of the windows, choosing the right material and detailing can also help in improving ventilation, day lighting and visual privacy. The commonly used material - louvre windows seem to be a practical solution because the window panes can open or close to a certain angle to deflect and protect from rain. However, the design of the louvre windows can be improved to two top and bottom openings instead of one, and the use of tinted and glazed patterns instead of
13

14

According to the, UBBL Clause 39 (1), Every room designated, adapted or used for residential, business or other purposes except hospitals and schools shall be provided with natural lighting and natural ventilation by means of one of more windows, having a total area of not more than 10% of the clear floor area of such room and shall have openings capable of allowing a free uninterrupted passage of air of not less than 5% of such floor area. The definition has been explained in Section 5.5.2.

203

smooth transparent glass. This is so that people would have better control on visual privacy without sacrificing the vital natural ventilation needs (See Figure 7.13 below). To enhance the air movement, Tajuddin has proposed that timber be used as internal partition wall and clerestory windows in the upper part of the partition wall as some of the possible solutions to reduce the stack effect of trapped warm air. (Tajuddin, 2007)

Figure 7.13: Leveling of windows and floor height to improve visual privacy

Existing

Proposed
Simple solutions like having top & bottom window openings, different floor heights between internal space & corridor can greatly improve visual privacy without compromising lights and ventilation. For spaces facing open air, a lower & longer window can enhance visual connectedness.

To increase the sense of spaciousness and visual connectedness to the outside, it is suggested that the windows be built longer and lower, transparent full glazed glass windows be considered for rooms facing outside as this could transform the living area to be like an open veranda. The visual improvement will be very suitable to the local custom of sitting on the floor instead of chairs and sofas. When the external views are within the eye level, this would serve as a positive distraction and reduce boredom, especially to home makers, the elderly and the toddlers who spend long hours in the house (See Figure 7.13 & 7.15).

7.7

Conclusions and recommendations 204

Since the LMC first came into being in the mid-1990s, it has been through several amendments15, however the layout and building typologies remained unchanged until today. Although all of the six case studies were similar in terms of high-rise typology, density, period of construction floor area16, etc. (which complied to the same guidelines), we have shown that the living experiences were largely affected by the characteristics of the building typology, layout and design. Our analysis in this chapter exposed many elements in planning and design that directly affect the experiences of healthy places in the LMC housing.

Generally, there is a lack of integrated long term planning for the LMC. The existing sitting of the LMC are ad-hoc, sporadic and piecemeal, depending on the land available on the developers end. Many of the resultant issues such as connectivity and incompatibility with adjacent development are testimonies of such practices. It is argued that there is a dire need for long-term planning and strategies in identifying suitable sites for building affordable housing. Such land need to be sizable for consolidation of large public housing schemes, so that reasonable public transport, civil amenities and sufficient open space can be provided. High density with small building footprint or site coverage should be considered as long as the criterion of healthy living is complied.

For the building typologies, the most significant issue are the two conflicting demands of visual privacy verses good ventilation cum day lighting needs, all of which are major factors in shaping a healthy place. As mentioned earlier, evidences in a number of studies have shown that natural sunlight is important in healing and insufficient light would lead to poor physiological health such as fatigue, sleep fragmentation and loss of concentration. The building typologies and floor layout of the six LMC examples reflect on the weaknesses and insufficiency of the current building regulations in the control of these aspects. In particular, the spacing and distance between buildings when two blocks is joined with link bridge or corridor. Although Part III of the UBBL has a section devoted to Space, Light &

15

16

Some of the major amendments on the LMC policies from 1994 till 2004 include changes to the pricing (RM50k to RM75k); number of bedrooms (from 2 to 3); parking requirements (1:2 to 3:5; occupancy rate for calculation of amenities (2 to 3 persons per unit); floor area (from 500 sq. ft. to 753 sq. ft.). The six LMCs typologies as discussed is representative of the LMCs built in the period between mid to late nineties.

205

Ventilation, the standards were mostly referring to low-rise settings, while regulations pertaining to high-rise residential blocks were lacking and gross.

When designing for a small dwelling such as a flat, the functionality and efficiency of the small space design should be emphasised so that the small space does not appear to be cramped and suffocating. This is especially tricky in our tropical humid environment as the design has to cater to the crucial biological need for natural ventilation and day lighting (artificial lighting and air-conditioning add extra expenses to the household income) and at the same time, has to be extra sensitive to local religious-cultural sensitivity that places high regards on visual privacy. In particular, the role of the entrance hall and windows as important thresholds to regulate visual access between the inside and outside and between the public and private domains were not carefully thought out.

The analysis revealed that the public spaces in the LMC were poorly provided. Regulations concerning the public spaces and the amenities were poorly defined and coordinated. For the individual mental emotional well being, it is important to have a balance between refuge (private) and socializing (public and semi-public) spaces. This is especially so for a highdensity residential settings, where the need to temporary get-away from the domestic environment is so much greater. There should be comfortable spaces outside the home for such purposes. Hence, it is also important to create more semi-public spaces - transitional spaces that people can develop better sense of care and responsibility, and spaces to mingle and bonding. The concept and definitions of open space in the existing guidelines need to be redefined to include the essential qualities of a recreational space. The sheltered community halls and other community function rooms such as libraries should not be confused together with the category of open space. The essence of open space should have basic features such as greenery, and it should be wide-open (of a minimal size), whereby the users can enjoy fresh air and unobstructed views of the openness. If the developers allocate the space, the local authority should contribute by providing the necessary infrastructure, landscaping and amenities for the open space in every public housing estate to make these spaces functional 206

and conducive for use.

Given the various alterations and modifications to the home spaces, it has also raised a question on the rigidity of the LMC design and the lack of choices. The assumption of one size fits all seems to expect a homogenous environment to satisfy a largely heterogeneous group of residents from different ethnic and cultural backgrounds. It is thus suggested having a mixture of different types of housing units to allow better choices to suit different needs and income levels. The new LMCs which have done away with the 500 sq. ft. two bedroom types, for the 650 sq. ft. three bedroom units may not be suitable for many people as these are more costly (RM70,000 to RM75,000). Our data have shown that there is a variation of housing needs within different households. Maintaining the availability of 2 bedroom units may be a more sensible thing to do to cater for smaller households and single persons. According to Rapoport, If architecture encloses behavior tightly, then activities will tend to shape architectureinappropriate design decisions may distort activities, may make them more difficult and in extreme cases, make desired activities impossible . (Rapoport, in Kent, ed., 1990). Given the confined space of the LMC (around 500-550 sf.), the fixed

specifications on the number of bedrooms and the size of kitchen, living area, bedroom, toilet, etc. make it very rigid and inflexible to the needs of the occupants. It is acceptable that spaces such as toilets and bathrooms need to be specified to ensure environmental quality. But other than this, the regulations concerning domestic space configuration seem to be rather rigid and leave little room for creativity and choice. Besides providing more choices of units, design that gears towards more flexibility and open planning should be explored as optional design strategy for the LMC, so that people can personalize the spaces to meet their different needs, not only during the course of the day but in answering to the changes throughout their lifetime (e.g. changing household size, lifestyles and economy).

The concepts of flexible or adaptable housing can mean purchasing a home where parts of the space remain unbuilt or unfinished in return for a lower cost. Such concepts are not new. In the pioneer of adaptable housing of modern architect Mies van der Rohe, in his steel frame house built for the Stuttgart Exhibition in 1927, the inner walls could be located according to 207

the preferences of the tenants. In the Habitat for Humanity models, the users contribute by painting their own house, build their own flooring and contribute labour in the construction process in exchange for a reduced cost to buy the houses. In Hong Kongs public housing, the concept of Tenant Fitout is a policy and practice that enables the individual families to fine tune the layouts of the small unfinished flats or shells (Sullivan & Chen, 1997).

In other example, Friedman identified four main areas of intervention to achieving adaptability in dwelling as manipulation of volumes, spatial arrangement, growth and division and manipulation of sub-components. (Friedman, 2002, p. 16). He also coined two concepts in adaptability. Preoccupancy adaptability developed units were adjusted to the occupants lifestyles prior to their arrival. This is soon followed by post-occupancy adaptability, which enabled the occupants to modify the units upon moving in17. (Ibid., p. 33). Besides the western examples, back home in East Malaysia, the Dayaks and Ibans from Sarawak, have been practicing open planning in their rumah panjang or long houses for decades. In the long houses, the common spaces are shared while each family maintains only the rooms for private functions such as sleeping.

Open planning has many advantages, particularly in the elimination of partition walls, so as to lessen internal corridors and lobbies, reduce wastage of space and promote better light penetration and ventilation. Open planning can be accompanied by optional choices with material flexibility. By not providing the permanent brick partition wall, it allows more creativity and personalisation. The residents can choose to have a half partition or semipermanent partition such as wooden shelves functioning both as divider as well as storage, opaque plastic/glass sliding door for better light penetration while effectively functioning as a screen. The flexibility of wide opening and closing of the sliding wall allows multifunctional usage of spaces, whereby in the day time, the sliding wall can be opened for entertainment and living and closed up at night for resting and privacy (See examples in Figure 7.14).

17

In the adaptable homes by Friedman, a menu of fixtures and renovation options can be prepared and offered to the occupants. The potential occupants in turn, can select from alternative layout of the same dwelling size or fixtures they want to install in the unit. Instead of the conventional walls, the use of large plate glass windows and patio doors extended the perceived limits of the internal rooms into the exterior. Other strategies include using drapery, accordion walls, or ceiling high movable storage shelves as partitions. Consequently the finite limits of the rooms were blurred, which cultivated an enhanced milieu of larger internal rooms.

208

As the family lifecycle changes, there will be changes in habits, lifestyles and the use of space, and so the home need to change too. Altering homes or relocating to new homes is costly, and very often people choose to just adapt. A more flexible and open layout would enable people to occupy their homes in a variety of ways, without incurring heavy costs such as tearing down certain parts of the house. The construction costs saved from the material in return could be transferred to the consumers or used to improve the public amenities. The current practice is that the internal layout of the building seemed to be over designed while the external spaces are pretty much neglected. In view of the limitation of the LMC, certain small and sensitive improvement could be done to certain elements of the design especially the elements that connects the inside and outside. Besides this, more emphasis should be geared towards improving the public spaces, and less design determination in domestic spaces. Taking cues from psychosocially supportive design concept, design should introduce wellness factors that focus on stimulating and rejuvenating ones body and mind, rather than merely reducing the causes of stress and inconvenience.

209

Figure7.14: Examples of open floor plan that caters to a variety of households

Original floor plan - open plan (shell)

Scenario 1 1 large bedroom unit for a young couple with two small children.. Note that the partitioning is semi-permanent (sliding wall/curtains) as the privacy needs are not a big concern. A working space is created to allow working-from-home

Scenario 2 2 bedroom unit for a middle-aged couple with a teenage son. Semi-permanent partition is used. Eating at home is a norm therefore the kitchen is bigger and connected to the dining area. The sliding door dividing the second bedroom & living area can be opened up in daytime to brighten up the living area and the whole house.

Scenario 3 3 bedroom unit for a couple with 3 children. The third bedroom is an extension of the living area where the opaque sliding glass door can be opened in daytime allowing better natural day lighting & cross ventilation. Foldable mattress & sofa bed are used in the third bedroom cum living area. Not to scale

210

Figure 7.15: Building elements that can be modified to improve visual connectedness (1) and protect visual privacy (2) & (3)

(1) Using metal grilles for railing instead of solid parapet wall can enhance visual connectedness for small children and reduce boredom of high living.

(2) Replacing conventional transparent one-opening Lourve windows with two openings (top & bottom) to provide options for privacy while not sacrificing ventilation.

(3) Lowering position of windows is especially suitable to the local customs of sitting on the floor, so that the views from the windows are within the eye level.

211