This video is sponsored by Skillshare. The 1st 1,000 people to join with the link
in the description get 2 free months to watch thousands of high-quality classes. For most of the world, the term ‘public
housing’ conjures a clear mental picture: At best, it means uninspired rows of the same
drab concrete boxes. The Soviet-era, copy-and-pasted ‘Urban Hell’. That, or the poor, run-down, crime-infested
‘bad’ neighborhood - the place those with no other options end up. For most of the world. And then there’s Singapore. There, public housing looks like this, this,
and this. Because 80% of the population lives in one
of its one million public apartments, they carry no social stigma and are enjoyed by
the rich and poor alike. The small island city-state has adopted such
a unique set of policies that the usual measures fail to accurately capture just how far ahead
it is. The ratio of median house price to income,
for example, is the most common simple way of comparing affordability. It reveals how many years the average person
would need to work to afford the average house in their area. Unfortunately, it’s based only on privately-sold
properties - a reasonable standard for most countries, but meaningless in Singapore. It also neglects factors like the availability
of loans, government subsidies, and national savings funds - all of which help make public
housing the obvious choice for most all Singaporeans. Another misleading statistic is the homeownership
rate - which would seem to make it only one of many countries where ownership is near-universal. Confusingly, this number is calculated based
not on the number of adults who own a home, but rather the share of homes occupied by
their owner. In other words, a hypothetical city where
prices have risen to such completely unaffordable levels that all adult children are forced
to live with their parents would technically have a 100% home ownership rate, seeing as
every home would still be occupied by its legal owner. So, while Singapore does have a 90% home ownership
rate, its true accomplishment is 90% flat, neighborhood, and estate satisfaction while,
at the same time, remaining affordable for everyone. Somehow, its leaders seem to have “solved”
the problem of housing: That it can be affordable, high-quality, or plentiful - but not all three. The question, then, is: Can these policies
be exported elsewhere? Public housing was first introduced on the
island with the creation of the Singapore Improvement Trust under British rule in 1927. The SIT was an attempt to solve the city’s
growing problem of overcrowding. The poor, at the time, mainly lived in unsanitary
slums and high-density shophouses, where they readily spread disease. The situation was made even worse by Japan’s
World War II invasion and occupation - during which thousands of homes were destroyed and
thousands more were haphazardly constructed. When Singapore finally gained self-governance
in 1959, just 9% lived in public apartments. While the population had grown rapidly - from
250,000 in 1907, to 567,000 in 1931, and nearly a million by 1947, housing had lagged behind. An already-dense 9.7 people per building had
become 18 in that same period. By almost every measure, the SIT had failed. Major changes were needed, and fast. Just weeks after assuming power, the newly
formed People’s Action Party began replacing it with the current Housing and Development
Board. While the new department clearly had its work
cut out for it, in hindsight, this regulatory ‘blank slate’ was probably its biggest
strength - allowing it to envision utopia unhindered by the past. It was also highly motivated. Lee Kuan Yew, the nation’s first Prime Minister,
considered the Founder of Singapore, wrote that home ownership was the key to giving
its population of immigrants a stake in the country. Because of this, the HDB was given an extraordinary
degree of freedom - including a personal guarantee that money would not be a problem. It was exempted from building ordinance laws
and mostly allowed to operate without approval from other departments. Immediately, it got to work. The first priority was existential - solving
the acute housing shortage by building as much and as fast as possible. Early flats were designed as emergency single-room
units with the most barebones of amenities. At the same time, using its almost infinitely-long
leash, it began aggressively acquiring land. In 1961, a massive fire broke out in a squatter
settlement - prompting the government to pass the Fire-Site Provision, which allowed it
to acquire any land occupied by squatters which was cleared by fire or natural disaster. The fire and the government’s success in
relocating the victims was held up as proof of its efficacy, paving the way for future
legislation. 3 Years later, another law was amended which
enabled the state to reclaim land without needing to compensate the affected seafront
landowners. Then, in 1966, the Land Acquisition Act took
this trend to the extreme - authorizing the acquisition of land by quote “any person,
corporation, or statutory board for any work or an undertaking which, in the opinion of
the Minister, is of public benefit or of public utility or in the public interest for any
residential, commercial, or industrial purpose.” Landowners could not object and compensation
was then provided at below-market prices. When it ran out of land to take, the state
began reclaiming the sea - which makes up about one-fifth of the country today, including
the famous Marina Bay. From 1960 to 2005, the percent of government-owned
land grew from 44 to 90%. And by the mid-1960s, hundreds of thousands
had moved into government housing under the leadership of the prolific Lim Kim San. Naturally, there were a few snags along the
transition from slums to high-rises. Many residents had no idea how to budget for
rent or electricity, while others simply found life that high up unnatural. Overall, though, the process was remarkably
smooth and when Lim died in 2006, he was remembered as the mastermind behind Singapore’s residential
revolution. In 1964, the HDB introduced the Home Ownership
Scheme which today attracts international attention and envy. As of 2020, there are over one million public
flats - mostly situated in 24 ‘new towns’ around the island. Each is designed to self-contain around 1
to 200,000 people - with their own schools, grocery stores, hospitals, gyms, and malls. Most residents only need to leave for work
- which is made easy by the attached MRT train stations. And although their coverage is extensive,
areas without them are connected by smaller light rail stations. While this is functionally similar to estates
in Hong Kong, where rows of high-rise apartments surround a common area, mall, and train station,
there’s one critical difference: Instead of “walling-in” residents and preventing
air circulation, new towns in Singapore are arranged in a somewhat checkerboard-manner,
with alternating tall and short buildings. It’s not hard to guess in which estate residents
feel happier, are less likely to vandalize, and are prouder of their communities. Another important feature of its apartment
buildings are known as ‘Void Decks’ - One floor, usually the first, is reserved as a
communal space - for Malay weddings, Chinese funeral wakes, polling stations, and other
events. The units themselves come in many shapes and
sizes - from 1 to 5-room flats and everything in-between. There are even Executive Condos designed,
built, and priced by private developers but subsidized by the government at below-market
prices, subject to the HDB’s restrictions. The best apartments are nice enough to evade
the usual ‘public housing’ connotation, while the low-end is made affordable by a
variety of government programs. First, and most importantly, Singaporeans
have no choice but to save their money. All workers under 55 are required by law to
contribute 20% of their wages, and their employers, another 17%, to a social savings fund that
can be withdrawn from only for a few specific reasons - of which, buying a house is the
most common. In this way, and countless others, Singapore
has completely removed housing from the free market. Prices are set based on one’s ability to
pay, individuals can’t own more than one public flat at a time, and although foreigners
are not banned from buying, they’re required to pay significant stamp duties. The nature of housing is thus a place to live,
not an investment. Which is not to say homes aren’t assets
- they do serve that role, just secondarily: Owners of new subsidized flats are allowed
to sell them at market rates after 5 years of occupancy, usually to buyers who don’t
want to wait the 3-4 years for new projects to be completed. Likewise, the elderly are encouraged to sell
their flats and down-size. One catch underlying all of this is hidden
in the definition of ‘ownership’. Here, that means 99-year leases. For the most part, residents are free to buy,
sell, and inherit property - with a few exceptions - but the government is always and only the
true ‘owner’. None have yet expired, but as that date steadily
approaches, the question of what happens next looms large and could present a heated political
challenge. In the meantime, there’s a bright side to
government ownership: it’s responsible for maintaining, renovating, and even upgrading
public apartments free of charge. Of course, no system is without flaws. There is always a concern that the same heavy-handed
policies which make housing so effective will be taken for granted by younger generations,
or, worse, perceived as a form of social control. Indeed, from the very beginning, Singapore
has designed flats with the explicit intent of shaping society. A mild example is the arranging of different
size units next to each other to create cohesion between income-levels - 2-room units next
to 3-room, 3, next to 4, and so on, while 1 and 3 room or 2 and 5 room mixing was said
to create more division than unity. More radically, to prevent earlier racial
tension created by separate and disconnected communities, public housing follows strict
ethnic quotas. As of 2016, its majority 74% Chinese residents
could occupy no more than 84% of a neighborhood, its 13% of Malays could occupy at most 22%,
and its 12% of Indians could occupy, 12%. Once an ethnicity has reached its quota, no
more are allowed to buy a flat in that neighborhood or block level. In theory, this encourages a sense of unity
and ensures different groups have close contact by going to the same schools and shopping
together. Controversially, though, it also means, as
a byproduct, buying or selling a flat may be easier or harder based on your ethnicity. Finally, subsidies heavily favor married families
with children - so much so that locals joke “Will you marry me?” has been replaced
by “Can we buy a house together?” In truth, housing policy was always just as
much a means of modernizing - some would say erasing - the culture of Singapore as it was
about giving people a place to live. Supporters argue the People’s Action Party
has maintained its seven-decade monopoly on power for obvious reasons - by all measures,
HDB policies have had a monumental impact on Singapore, and there is perhaps no issue
more personally significant than where, with who, and how well your family lives. Cynics, in turn, counter that it’s no coincidence
the party which meticulously designed Singapore receives the vast majority of its votes. To the extent that demographics, family structure,
and geography determine voting preferences, one could say, the People’s Action Party
has a built-in advantage. Naturally, this raises questions about transferability. Setting aside the environment which enabled
its housing to thrive - like its disproportionate number of smart, charismatic leaders and its
world-class transit system, Singapore’s public housing is also inseparably linked
to its unique brand of authoritarianism. Where else, after all, would constituencies
trust their government to acquire nearly all land and to exert near-total control over
where and how they live? Even in other autocratic states with similarly
absolute powers to the HDB, how could these powers possibly be utilized for the benefit
of the people, not merely hijacked for political gain? So, while there are certainly lessons to be
learned, and, indeed some of its State-Owned companies have been contracted abroad, it
should be clear that its public housing is more an idea than a method. That despite how tempting it may be to selectively
copy-and-paste from what appears to be a model nation, doing so without the foundation of
a strong, powerful, technocratic state, would produce only a weak house soon to fall. While we’re all stuck in our houses, why
not make use of that boredom to learn something new? Skillshare has thousands of creative classes
to help you feel more accomplished, fend off boredom, and just generally have fun. I’ve been watching Thomas Frank’s class
on how to build and maintain habits - which walks you through the steps of tracking your
progress, reviewing your week, and finding apps that work for you. What’s great about Skillshare is that the
classes are short and digestible but really, shockingly well made. If you’re going to learn a new skill - learn
it from the very best - the best filmmakers, the best designers, writers, and animators. Skillshare has it all. There’s just the right amount of structure
and detail to truly help you learn, with enough fun to keep you entertained. Start learning a new skill today by joining
with the link in the description. The first 1,000 people will get 2 months of
unlimited Skillshare premium. After that, it’s less than ten bucks a month
with an annual subscription.
ça fait 6 ans que je vis à Singapour et cette vidéo décrit très bien comment Singapour à travers de multiples programmes publiques et principalement le HDB (Housing Development Board) permet à 96% de sa population d'être "propriétaire" (99 years lease) d'un appartement. Le concept des "HDB" village c'est à dire d'avoir des quartiers centrés autour d'un complexe HDB et pensé comme une communauté est quelque chose qui m'a toujours fasciné depuis que je suis arrivé ici et cette vidéo décrit assez bien l'effort et la réflexion investi dans ces programmes. J'espère que certains trouveront cela intéressant!
Je crois que la mairie de Paris a un projet similaire avec un système où tu deviens propriétaire du foncier mais pas du bâti.
Sauf que pour que ça marche, il faut que l'Etat accepte d'intervenir.
Quand on voit qu'en France ils ont déjà des pudeurs de gazelle à faire respecter le seuil des loyers dans le cadre d'une expérimentation .. Et que la loi d'expropriation des marchands de sommeil a fait énormément de bruit chez les propriétaires, c'est pas demain qu'on aura le problème du logement résolu.
En attendant, moi j'ai fais mon choix, je préfère ne pas travailler, que de travailler pour payer mon loyer à un propriétaire rentier qui ne travaille pas, tout ça pour habiter dans un 25m² sans aération, dans lequel je crève de chaud l'été. S'il n'y a plus de place et que pour travailler on doit vivre comme un esclave en mettant sa santé en jeu, autant arrêter, ça n'en vaut pas la peine.
ça existe depuis longtemps à Genève, au Danemark, dans certaines villes US...