NO LONGER APART, BUT A PART OF

Are we only accepting of the ‘wild world’ when it suits our tastes and circumstances? Yes, says regular columnist Justin Zhuang, and it’s time we recognised that nature does not operate in a ‘human-centric’ manner.

When a landscaped pedestrian mall was introduced along Orchard Road in the 1970s, it seemed like a perfectly good idea. A tree-lined retail boulevard would bolster Singapore’s then emerging ambitions to become a ‘Garden City’, and offer shoppers shade as they went from mall to mall. Today, the stretch (over two kilometres long) is invaded by thousands of birds. Roosting in the canopies of the Angsana trees, the birds poop on the mall, terrorise patrons at the alfresco cafes and declare their presence every evening with a deafening cacophony.

A greener environment has made Orchard Road ‘A Great

Street’ (as its tagline goes) not just for people, but ‘pests’ too. As urbanscapes become increasingly designed with and for nature, such conflicts are sure to grow. Trees and shrubs are not objects designed for users. Nor are they simply another material on a mood board. These living organisms are part of an ecology that architects, designers, clients and users must become more aware of for us to truly live in works that embrace nature.

Design has traditionally been conceived as the antithesis of nature. What is a home, but a shelter from the elements? While modern design regarded nature as something to be overcome and even dominated, this has evolved towards co-existence with the rise in environmentalism. But what does such a design approach actually entail when ‘nature’ is not a monolithic thing?

The birds in Orchard Road – specifically the Asian Glossy Starling, Javan Mynah, House Crow and Rock Pigeon – may not be welcomed, but Singapore has gone out of its way to bring back the Oriental Pied Hornbill. Once thought to be extinct here, a national effort since the early 2000s to design homes and environments for that species has successfully increased its population. Why is one bird species more favoured than others? The same can be asked of Singaporeans’ recent love affair with otters versus how we treat monkeys and snakes. We are all for nature as long as it respects our way of life and suits our tastes.

Such a narrow definition denies us from appreciating the richness of nature. A key challenge for architects and designers is creating landscapes and buildings that help us become more well-acquainted with this wild world. Beyond green facades and rooftop gardens that are increasingly cookie-cutter, how can we further blur the clear-cut boundaries between nature and the built environment to bring users closer to it and vice-versa? I’m curious how residents of the upcoming One Pearl Bank by Serie+Multiply will take to the allotment gardens found on every fourth floor of this pair of 39-storey apartment towers.

Living with nature is also clearly complex. To help architects and designers better understand how their interventions will impact on nature at a site, environmental impact assessment studies must play a bigger role in pre-empting potential issues – such as the

‘bird invasion’ of Orchard Road. It may even help identify design opportunities. In anticipation of rising sea levels, there is now a slew of innovative ways to manage potential floods and even a rethinking of how waterfront developments should work. Just as nature is rarely ever standalone and unchanging, design has to become more flexible in accommodating change and function as part of a system too.

Ultimately, we must recognise that nature does not operate in a ‘human-centric’ manner. Instead, it is up to us to adapt our environments and lives and strike a balance for both to coexist. With the looming climate crisis, we can no longer afford to live apart from nature as we have in the past. We must be a part of nature, and so must design.

Justin Zhuang is a writer and researcher with an interest in design, cities, culture, history and media. justinzhuang.com