Challenges Faced by Vulnerable Users
After his divorce, 65-year-old cleaner Mr. Toh spent two years from mid-2022 to late 2024 sleeping rough in public housing areas. He frequently used benches in void decks and playgrounds but moved spots weekly or monthly to avoid attention from patrols or resident complaints. The retiree, who withheld his full name, noted that many benches had dividers, complicating his search for rest spots. Without a suitable bench, he opted for cardboard in secluded void deck corners.
At a multipurpose hall in Block 868D Tampines Avenue 8, metal dividers with rollers span the center, installed a few years back. Nearby resident 17-year-old Muhamad Anik and his friends used the open space for football and floorball, trying to stay quiet but occasionally facing neighbor scoldings for noise. A town council notice on a pillar now bans ball games for resident safety, citing risks from stray balls and noise feedback. The dividers unlock mornings for exercises, and Anik’s group plays around them every few weeks, as it’s the most accessible free venue.
Design’s Subtle Influence on Behavior
Simple features like dividers profoundly affect users like Mr. Toh and Anik, demonstrating how public space design guides activities, norms, and access. These areas unite residents and passersby for varied purposes, demanding balanced planning to preserve order while fostering community, experts observe. Small tweaks can steer behaviors without stifling spontaneity.
Recently, mirrors in a Bayfront MRT underground linkway were frosted following complaints that dancers blocked pedestrian paths. This action ignited discussions on prioritizing needs in shared areas, the right to free social spaces, and the costs of limiting informal uses. In dense urban settings like Singapore, such planning complexities intensify.
Assistant Professor of Sociology Education Dr. George Wong from Singapore Management University explains: “Shared spaces naturally involve negotiations and tensions, not always resolving ideally for everyone.” He notes authorities often opt for restrictions during conflicts rather than collaborative designs for coexistence, despite the latter’s challenges in time and resources.
The Role of ‘Third Spaces’ in Urban Life
Central to these debates are “third spaces”—everyday spots between home and work that welcome equal access. Coined by sociologist Ray Oldenburg, these differ from the “first place” (home) and “second place” (work). Associate Professor Dr. Rita Padawangi from Singapore University of Social Sciences highlights: “Third places ensure community members’ equal access, preventing isolation and segregation in neighborhoods.”
She emphasizes mundane interactions in these spaces build social bonds and neighborhood identity. Professor Cheong Koon Hean, chair at Singapore University of Technology and Design’s Lee Koon Yew Centre for Innovative Cities and former head of key urban agencies, describes them as “everyday in-between places” for movement, interaction, and civic life. In high-density cities, their design balances livability with intensity, supporting social ties, activities, and navigation.
Inviting designs attract diverse users, but restrictive ones prioritize certain groups, subtly excluding others. Dr. Padawangi points to factors like physical layout, daily use, and rules shaping unspoken norms. Benches with dividers or angles deter sleeping, dubbed “hostile architecture” by Dr. Wong, which excludes vulnerable groups amid public concerns.
Official Approaches to Public Design
Urban planning authorities stress creating communal areas like parks, plazas, and shaded spots as “living rooms” for respite and socializing. They adapt underused zones under infrastructure for sports and events, and guide private spaces to include shading, seating, and access for varied activities.
At the neighborhood level, towns feature self-sufficient layouts with shops, schools, greenery, transport links, and hubs like malls and community clubs near every block.
Dr. Wong views design as neutral yet influential in guiding uses: “Public spaces offer opportunities for communities to co-manage and build unique identities, whether for youth, elders, or groups.” Vibrant activity often emerges in unintended spots, like the air-conditioned underground concourse between CityLink Mall and Esplanade, where dancers, skaters, and chat groups gather evenings and weekends.
Polytechnic student Mr. Chong Sheng Kai, 18, practices inline skating there for its convenience over hotter outdoor venues. Student Jermaine Ong, also 18, values chance encounters, like meeting a coach at the National Stadium who still offers tips at the concourse—interactions rarer in confined settings.
Community Perspectives and Impacts
Young Urbanists Singapore president Ms. Denyse Tan, 25, argues spaces evolve with users: “People adapt areas to their needs; space isn’t neutral but mutable by time and use.” Low-barrier spots foster ordinary connections without planning or cost.
Void decks enhance neighborhood vitality, per residents. Mr. Muhamad Akid, 34, a civil defense officer and father, uses multipurpose halls for family events like parties and obstacle courses, noting: “Activities make the area lively; otherwise, it’s just a dull street.”
In rental flats, these spaces extend limited homes, vital for low-resource families. 6th Sense co-founder Ms. Jezamine Chua, 31, says: “Children with cramped homes use shared areas as play extensions, building trust across generations organically.” Unlike structured centers, void decks allow casual joining, easing inclusion.
Consequences of Restrictive Changes
Without user input, design shifts curb informal activities, leading to their gradual decline if alternatives falter, Dr. Padawangi warns. The deeper loss is agency and place spirit.
Ms. Tan adds: “Lost is social infrastructure for belonging and identity through routines and faces.” Programmed spaces trade flexibility for order, hindering adaptation and raising isolation risks, especially for the resource-poor.
Community groups observe this: 6th Sense’s Mr. Abishek Bajaj, 33, notes void deck changes like table removals and linear chairs deter lingering, affecting children’s confidence and belonging. Ms. Chua elaborates: “Minor tweaks like sterile layouts make kids feel unwelcome, eroding spaces where they learn community—fundamental losses.”
For rough sleepers, dividers force relocations, complicating volunteer outreach. Homeless Hearts of Singapore’s Mr. Derek Lim cautions these disrupt routines, heighten alienation, and erode trust in aid.
Balancing Tensions Through Design and Norms
Public spaces blend physical and cultural elements, requiring shared responsibility. Planning bodies urge flexible designs for diverse needs, mindfulness of impacts like noise, and user consideration.
Dr. Wong stresses emergent norms from negotiations: “They evolve through addressing needs, fostering status quo via time and dialogue.”
Prof. Cheong suggests zoning for play, paths, and rest, plus temporal uses, alongside signage and enforcement for predictability. Over time, strong norms reduce rules: “Balance regulation with trust and civic culture.”
Design nudges but users assert agency creatively, Dr. Padawangi notes: “Interactions and reinterpretations handle disagreements; key is inclusive processes for minorities.” She views spaces as democratic lessons in tolerating differences.
Ms. Tan encourages tolerance for harmless uses: “Repetition turns transit areas meaningful.” Pedestrian Ms. Siti Munirah, 40, supports considerate activities for liveliness: “Restricting youth bonding in public spots is tough.”
Shared care defines spaces, Ms. Tan concludes: “Third spaces reflect if we manage or share them, revealing values in building our city together.”
