A growing body of scholarship has recently spotlighted modernist architecture in Southeast Asian cities at midcentury, a period marked by decolonization, rapid urbanization, and export-oriented industrialization. The transnational regime of urban renewal dramatically reshaped the built environment, often removing slums and displacing urban poor people from central districts across Asia. Amidst these sweeping changes, architects and planners embraced modernism as a tool for social transformation in newly independent nations, adapting its language to local contexts through innovative experimentation. Everyday Modernism: Architecture and Society in Singapore, coauthored by Jiat-Hwee Chang, Justin Zhuang, and Darren Soh, extends this important scholarship by documenting a transformative yet underexplored chapter in Singapore’s architectural history.

Chronicling the evolution of a modernist architectural movement, the authors delve into the vibrant years from the 1950s through the 1980s, when Singapore’s rapid industrialization and economic growth were closely tied to strategic investments in the built environment. These investments materialized through the development of new towns and public housing to shelter the rapidly growing urban population—projects ranging from Queenstown and Toa Payoh to People’s Park—and the establishment of transportation infrastructure as a backbone of economic development. As a newly established city-state following its independence from British colonial rule in 1959 and separation from Malaysia in 1963, Singapore faced an urgent need to visually project its modernity and progress. This imperative drove key state agencies, such as the Housing and Development Board (HDB), the Public Works Department (PWD), and the Jurong Town Corporation (JTC), to spearhead efforts in reconfiguring the urban fabric of Singapore. In their account, the authors vividly illuminate how the built environment took center stage in postwar nation-building during the formative years of the city-state (69).

Building on previous scholarship concerning the everyday, modern, and vernacular architecture, the authors aim to “rework and reframe” existing theories of architecture and urbanism (67). They expand on how the idea of the everyday has been construed in architectural history, confronting with what they conceptualize as a hierarchical dichotomy in the study of modern architecture. In previous scholarship of modern architecture, works of high modernism, conceived by professional architects, have been appreciated for their aesthetic qualities, whereas everyday architecture—often described as “non-pedigreed vernacular structures by anonymous builders”(67)—has been equated with its utilitarian characteristics. The authors contend that this hierarchical dichotomy, erroneously drawn between the spaces built by experts and anonymous people, fails to comprehend the production of Singapore’s urban reality. In Singapore, high modernist architecture encompasses postindependence landmarks designed by private-sector architects tasked with designing major projects emblematic of nation-building, such as the National Theatre (1963–86) by Alfred Wong Partnership and the Singapore Conference Hall and Trade Union House (1965) by Malaysian Architects Co-partnership. Meanwhile, everyday modern structures—such as public housing, markets, parks, schools, and factories—were designed by professionals working within government agencies. However, as the authors note, the boundaries between architects in private practice and state agencies were frequently blurred. During this era of rapid growth under study, private architects were regularly enlisted to design public projects while forging partnerships with state agencies (68–69).

By questioning the dichotomy between seemingly discrete domains of architectural practice, the authors track a mingling of “the heroic with the ordinary and the iconic with the inconspicuous” (69). What the authors term “everyday modernism” invites us to rethink the relationship between modernism and the everyday (72–73). Contrary to conventional perspectives that view modernist architecture as antithetical to everydayness, the authors propose moving beyond production-centric narratives to explore how modernist architecture constantly shapes and is shaped by the conduct of everyday practices. This approach frames modernist architecture as an evolving and porous entity rather than a static and autonomous artifact, and redefines the agency of residents as active participants in adaptation and innovation, rather than merely passive recipients of global modernism. Central to this discussion is the recognition of temporal changes in buildings of which Singapore’s universal public housing programs serve as a unique point of departure for rethinking modern architecture in the context of everyday life. As the authors note at the outset, over eighty percent of Singaporeans today reside in public housing. While often perceived as uniform, nondescript cookie cut-outs, public housing in Singapore has been the site of numerous architectural experiments aimed at accommodating diverse needs of residents and fostering community. Since the 1960s, for instance, the HDB has experimented with designs for blocks, flats, and corridors to enhance a sense of neighborliness among the residents. Of particular note is the introduction of the void deck in the 1970s—an open-ended, multifunctional space on the ground floor of public housing blocks used for a variety of community needs, such as kindergartens, senior citizen clubs, weddings, and funerals. These versatile functions of public housing units have thus redefined and reshaped everyday life in Singapore, demonstrating modern architecture as a dynamic and evolving entity (88).

The book is organized around “six key verbs” that constitute the mundane activities of everyday life in Singapore. While the introduction establishes a theoretical framework for rethinking modernist architecture in relation to the everyday, the six subsequent sections—"Live,” “Play,” “Work,” “Travel,” “Connect,” and “Pray”—explore various architectural aspects of everyday modernism in Singapore. The first section, “Live,” focuses on residential structures, ranging from public housing such as People’s Park to luxury high-rise apartments such as Futura. The second section, “Play,” delves into spaces of entertainment, shopping, and leisure, including cinemas, shopping centers, hotels, lookout towers, parks, playgrounds, and swimming pools that shaped mid-century Singapore. Among these architectural examples, cinema buildings stand out as quintessential expressions of mid-century architectural language, with façades serving as advertisements and incorporating elements of car culture. Their futuristic, technology-oriented, and space-age designs evoke similarities to those of Googie architecture, a style developed in Southern California at midcentury, illustrating the simultaneity of modernist architectural languages across the world and their localization in the context of Singapore. The third section, “Work,” examines industrial spaces that embodied “the visual culture of aspirational developmentalism” (174) between the 1960s and the 1980s. Large-scale office towers emerged in Singapore’s city center as part of urban renewal programs, whereas flatted factories were built adjacent to public housing blocks to attract low-cost labor, especially housewives. Once emblematic of Singapore’s labor-intensive industrialization, the flatted factories exemplify everyday modernism and exhibit the adaptability of modernist architecture over time. Originally designed as partitioned spaces of production for small-scale industries, such as electronics and garment manufacturing, these flatted factories featured simple, utilitarian designs with open-plan layouts. Despite the decline of the small-scale manufacturers today, the versatility of these architectural features has allowed them to be repurposed for contemporary uses, including artist studios, showrooms, and boutiques, thereby illustrating the enduring relevance of modernist architecture.  

The fourth section, “Travel,” explores transportation infrastructure, such as parking lots, overhead bridges, and expressways, which marked themselves as icons of economic growth and modernity. These mid-century developments also gave rise to novel landscapes, including skyscraper garages and rooftop gardens. The fifth section, “Connect,” exhibits utmost variety in its selection, covering a wide array of spaces for education and institutional use, ranging from schools, courthouses, and public libraries to community centers and hawker centers. At first glance, the reader may wonder how this section differs from “Travel” due to their semantic overlap. However, the use of the term “connect” here emphasizes the function of architectural spaces as “institutions connecting residents to the state” (233). This section sheds light upon how architectural styles do not stand alone as aesthetic objects, but always communicate with the public, the agents of change and adaptation inhabiting the everyday. For instance, institutional buildings such as courthouses embody what is known as civic monumentality through brutalist design. However, as the authors explain, these buildings have recently undergone re-cladding to “soften” their monumental presence, reflecting changing societal needs and expectations (222). The final section, “Pray,” focuses on the evolution of religious architecture, including churches, mosques, and columbaria. Examples include Catholic churches undergoing modern transformations and cinemas repurposed as churches by emerging Protestant groups, projects that shed light on the dynamic interplay between architecture and religious practices. The authors also examine the introduction of new mosque design in the 1980s, featuring indigenous motifs and regional influences that departed from the dominant architectural style of mosques. The authors argue that while this new mosque design reflected the global crisis of architectural modernism during the mid-1980s, it should also be understood as a way of expressing indigenous traditions and regional identity that had long received little attention in the discourse of modern architecture.   

The book makes a meaningful contribution to scholarship on Southeast Asian cities while complementing works on Singapore’s contemporary urban form. The book is written in accessible language, thereby making it an ideal textbook for architectural education. The authors provide a thorough account of Singapore’s modernization, guiding the reader through remarkable examples of modernist architecture therein. Along the way, the authors bring home the critical role of transnational architectural ideas and knowledge at midcentury—facilitated by a diverse range of actors—in shaping a capitalist urban future in Asia. Additionally, the book highlights how the emergence of new architectural types went hand in hand with the development of norms to discipline behaviors and educate users. This is evident in the institution of etiquettes for use of technological novelties such as elevators and expressways, educational campaigns, informational leaflets, and kiosks, demonstrating the mutually constitutive relationship between modernist architecture and its users.  

The authors enrich the book with a vivid collection of colorful photographs, providing a visually captivating guide for readers. The book serves as a work of preservation, presenting an archive of “building biographies” that stands as both a textual and visual record of Singapore’s modernist architecture, much of which faces the threat of disappearance (73–74). Each chapter is complemented by a dedicated section featuring supporting illustrations, maps, and photographs. However, it is somehow challenging to fully navigate these visual elements due to the absence of in-text references to the images. The inclusion of figure numbers within the text, for instance, would significantly help readers connect the arguments with the corresponding visuals. Additionally, while the book dedicates substantial space at its beginning and end to colorful photographs of the architectural examples being discussed, there is still room to improve their contribution to the overall arguments of the book. For instance, the color photographs on pages 60–62 depict Jurong Town Hall, built in 1974 as the headquarters of the Jurong Town Corporation, yet these images are not sufficiently linked to the extensive discussion of the building on pages 172–77. It seems necessary to include more detailed captions that explicitly connect each photograph to relevant chapters or discussions, thereby enabling readers to better understand how these visual elements support and supplement the analysis of the book.  

All in all, Everyday Modernism: Architecture and Society in Singapore is an outstanding study of how distinctive architectural types emerged and evolved in Singapore in response to societal and technological changes both locally and globally. The book illustrates architecture not only as a witness to these changes but as an active participant in them. While primarily focused on Singapore, the book delivers valuable insights into the global development of mid-century modern architecture—a style characterized by rising car ownership, national aspiration for development, space-age aesthetics, and the use of brutalist vocabulary deployed in government buildings. Given the growing body of scholarship on mid-century modern architecture in Asia, however, readers may find themselves curious to know how Singapore’s experience compares to those of other Asian cities that have followed similar trajectories of decolonization, urbanization, industrialization, and rural-urban migration. This reviewer hopes for the publication of comparable anthologies looking into other Asian contexts, continuing the exploration of global modernism’s impact on everyday life across the region during these transformative years.