top of page
Search

Urban Form and Thermal Inequality: Assessing Microclimate Differences Across Singapore Housing Typologies

BY: ATHINARAYANAN MAHALAXSHMI


Introduction

“Even in the 1960s, when the Government had to grapple with grave problems of unemployment, lack of housing, health, and education, I pushed for the planting of trees and shrubs. I have always believed that a blighted urban jungle of concrete destroys the human spirit.” This excerpt from Singapore’s late Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew’s speech at the launch of the National Orchid Garden on Friday, 20 October 1995, reflects Singapore's historical aim of achieving “City in a Garden” status. Green spaces have been positioned as an essential part of Singapore, considering its scarce natural resources. The rhetoric of building a “City in Nature” aims to create a green, liveable, and sustainable home for Singaporeans. But the quality and quantity of these green spaces vary significantly with regard to spatial distribution and the quality of greenery integrated. Existing research has linked reduced green coverage and high urban heat exposure to adverse physical and psychological health outcomes. Though Singapore has made significant progress, structural differences in housing and planning have led to spatial variations in housing density and green space integration, producing differentiated environmental conditions across socio-economic groups.


Background

Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew’s vision for a “green city,” alongside the efforts of essential policymakers such as the Housing Development Board and the Urban Redevelopment Authority, helped to realise this vision. To house a growing population, high-rise buildings were made affordable to the general public. In a land-scarce country, landed properties became more commonly associated with affluent Singaporeans. With dense living being the norm, green spaces might not be equally distributed, particularly in terms of the quality of greenery and its ability to offset housing density. Because greenery increases land prices, the difference between affluent regions and lower-income regions becomes strikingly apparent.


Current Impacts and Case Study

For the purpose of this study, two contrasting housing typologies will be compared — Jalan Kukoh and Bukit Timah. Based on field research, the differences in the amount of green space are clearly observable. Bukit Timah had lush, dense, and concentrated greenery given its proximity to the Bukit Timah Nature Reserve. Jalan Kukoh did have greenery, though it was sparse and spatially dispersed. Residential density also plays a significant role in shaping microclimatic conditions. Based on online real estate data, the estate comprises seven residential blocks containing approximately 958 units. These units range from one bedroom to three bedrooms. Though sizes vary, data shows that these flats are 473 to 778 square feet. On the other hand, Bukit Timah has significantly lower residential density, with online data indicating that land areas exceed 4,000 to 8,000 square feet. A distinction between private and public greenery further highlights differences in integration. Private greenery in Jalan Kukoh consists of small household plants, whereas Bukit Timah bungalows have the space to plant bigger trees. Public, or government-planted greenery, is present in Jalan Kukoh; however, its scale and continuity appear limited relative to the built density of the estate. These differences illustrate not merely a contrast in aesthetic greenery but a divergence in the spatial integration of green infrastructure within everyday residential environments. In landed housing, environmental cooling is partly privatised, whereas residents of high-density government estates rely on shared public green infrastructure.


Systemic Injustice

This spatial difference reflects the interaction of historical planning decisions, political and socio-economic systems. Historical planning patterns during the colonial period indicate that Bukit Timah had gradually moved from an industrial area to an established residential area with proximity to elite educational institutions. The existence of historically significant colonial-era housing further contributes to its higher property valuation. Jalan Kukoh, on the other hand, is classified as a high-density public rental housing estate. This economic inequality presents both logistical and implementation difficulties. It is worth noting that there is a significant distinction between residences integrated with greenery and living in neighbourhoods near green spaces. Jalan Kukoh is close to Pearl’s Hill Park; however, physical proximity does not necessarily translate into regular use or daily environmental integration. Moreover, the presence of a nearby park may not fully mitigate the effects associated with high-density living. Economic inequality is further stratified as green amenities frequently function as a premium feature in property markets. Hence, if this trend persists, it is plausible that higher-income citizens will become increasingly concentrated in areas with more greenery. Lower-density environments with continuous canopy cover may facilitate more effective passive cooling—a stark contrast to Jalan Kukoh. With Singapore being largely urbanised, the Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect is also a concern. The UHI effect leads to positive feedback loops, such as the use of air conditioning to offset heat conditions. Even in the use of air conditioning, inequality is apparent. Residents of public rental flats must submit applications for air conditioning installation, which are then assessed on a case-by-case basis and may require justification, such as medical grounds. Combined with the upfront cost of installation, this makes access to mechanical cooling more constrained compared to wealthier households in private housing. This disparity illustrates how socio-economic differences can translate into environmental comfort disparities. It remains debatable whether environmental variation constitutes a distinct form of inequality or reflects broader patterns of socio-economic stratification. Through the study, it can be seen that Singapore’s efforts towards an equitable green city are well-intentioned. However, structural differences in housing typology may result in uneven experiences of green infrastructure integration.


Existing Solutions

There are ongoing efforts to address this inequality. Through the Singapore Green Plan 2030, the government aims to achieve targets such as:


1. Developing more than 130 ha of new parks and enhancing around 170 ha of existing parks


2. Planting 1 million more trees


3. Ensuring that every household will be within a 10-minute walk of a park.


Through these neighbourhood-centric goals, the government aims to build a “City in Nature”. The government’s efforts to make parks largely accessible are evident in public housing estates such as Bedok and Tampines. However, focusing primarily on parks may limit the ecological and daily experiential benefits that an integrated biophilic design provides. Some residents in public housing often maintain corridor plants and participate in small-scale gardening, often supported by the government. Through the National Parks Board’s “Gardening with Edibles” programme, free packets of edible seeds were distributed to encourage home gardening. Moreover, the government continues to implement innovative initiatives in new developments, including biophilic towns with a nature-centric focus, rooftop and skyrise greenery, greened community facilities, and waterfront developments. Despite these efforts, high-density, low-income rental estates remain constrained in their capacity to integrate substantial greenery due to high residential density, limited space, and funding constraints. This underscores the importance of prioritising government-led initiatives to ensure equitable environmental access.


Pathways Forward

As a global leader in green infrastructure and technology, Singapore can invest in greenery well-integrated in neighbourhoods. Such initiatives can include vertical gardens, green corridors, and rooftop gardens. These interventions are highly effective in a land-scarce nation, taking advantage of already existing high-rise buildings. Singapore’s Urban Redevelopment Authority has introduced the Landscaping for Urban Spaces and High Rises (LUSH) programme, which focuses on green infrastructure. To improve this initiative, the agency could focus on high-density housing estates such as Jalan Kukoh. The government can mobilise residents to support planting and maintenance, which also fosters a sense of community belonging. The Singapore government should continue to incentivise green infrastructure, not only for private housing but also for existing rental flats. Youths, future leaders of Singapore, can mobilise their skills to advocate for equitable green space access. Community engagement plays a significant role in a collective step towards climate action as it enhances ownership and social cohesion. Youths can participate in green initiatives, such as gardening with the elderly or children, to build both repertoire and sustainable climate activism.


Conclusion

Singapore’s vision of a “City in Nature” has led to impressive progress in green infrastructure; however, disparities in housing typologies and socio-economic status create uneven experiences of environmental benefits. As demonstrated by the contrast between Jalan Kukoh and Bukit Timah, high-density, lower-income estates face limitations in green integration and thermal comfort, while affluent areas enjoy lush, well-integrated greenery. This spatial inequality interacts with broader socio-economic structures, affecting residents’ well-being and exposure to heat. Government initiatives provide the pathways forward, but addressing the needs of low-income estates remains urgent. Equitable access to green spaces is not just an aesthetic or ecological goal — it is central to health, well-being, and social fairness in Singapore’s urban future.


Sources

1. Lee, Kuan Yew. Speech by Mr. Lee Kuan Yew, Senior Minister at the Launch of the National Orchid Garden. 20 Sept. 1995, www.nas.gov.sg/archivesonline/data/pdfdoc/lky19951020.pdf.

3. Nazish, Ahsana, et al. “Health Impact of Urban Green Spaces: A Systematic Review of Heat-related Morbidity and Mortality.” BMJ Open, vol. 14, no. 9, Sept. 2024, p. e081632. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2023-081632.

4. Tan, Cheryl. “Resale HDB Flats With Views of Greenery Fetch Higher Prices: Study.” The Straits Times, 9 June 2023, www.straitstimes.com/singapore/resale-flats-with-views-of-greenery-fetch-higher-price-s tudy.

5. “Jalan Kukoh.” Property Guru, www.propertyguru.com.sg/property-guides/jalan-kukoh-10985.

7. Cornelius, and Vernon. “Bukit Timah.” NLB, Oct. 2019, www.nlb.gov.sg/main/article-detail?cmsuuid=114e5035-19ff-443f-91f9-9142ca42d9ba.

8. Hidano, Kaitoh, et al. “Cooling Down a City: Singapore’s Urban Greenery Policies to Mitigate Urban Heat.” Policy Brief, by Energy Studies Institute, 31 July 2024, esi.nus.edu.sg/docs/default-source/esi-policy-briefs/esi-pb-75_cooling-down-a-city.pdf?sf vrsn=c4bf7da8_1.

9. Written Answer by Ministry of National Development on the Number of HDB Public Rental Flats That Have Been Approved to Have Air-conditioning Units Installed. www.mnd.gov.sg/newsroom/speeches/view/written-answer-by-ministry-of-national-devel opment-on-the-number-of-hdb-public-rental-flats-that-have-been-approved-to-have-air-c onditioning-units-installed.

10. Pek, Gawain. “Neatly Arranged Potong Pasir HDB Corridor Garden Wins Praise From Internet and Neighbours.” Mothership.sg, Dec. 2022, mothership.sg/2022/12/neat-plants-potong-pasir.

11. “NParks Launches New ‘Gardening With Edibles’ Programme to Encourage Home Gardening.” Default, www.nparks.gov.sg/news/news-detail/nparks-launches-new--gardening-with-edibles--pro gramme-to-encourage-home-gardening#:~:text=The%20Gardening%20with%20Edibles %20programme%20is%20part%20of%20a%20larger,edibles%2C%20including%20herb s%20and%20spices.

13. “Urban Redevelopment Authority.” Urban Redevelopment Authority, www.ura.gov.sg/Corporate/Resources/Ideas-and-Trends/Skyrise-Greenery.

14. Directory, Sustainability. “Why Is Community Engagement Important for Climate? → Question.” Climate → Sustainability Directory, 31 Mar. 2025, climate.sustainability-directory.com/question/why-is-community-engagement-important-f or-climate.

15. Publishing, Thrive, and Thrive Publishing. “Urban Green Spaces: Not Just a Walk in the Park.” THRIVE Project, 22 Mar. 2022, thrivabilitymatters.org/urban-green-spaces-not-just-a-walk-in-the-park.

 
 
 

Recent Posts

See All

Comments

bottom of page