1. CULTURAL CONSIDERATION IN VERTICAL
LIVING IN BRUNEI DARUSSALAM

2. PRESENTERS
1. Mohd Hafidz Bin Haji Hassan / 09b1226
2. Siti Liyana Binti Abdul Rahim / 09b1041
3. Hjh Khairah Siregar bte Hj Hairudin / 09B1119
4. Nor Azeerah Bte Jasseri / 09b1200
5. Ak Hj Ahmad Adib Bin Pg Hj Aji / 09b1168
6. Ak Md Syahir Fadillah bin Pg Salleh / 09b1007
7. Md Amalul Ariffin Bin Abd Azis 09b1257
8. Ak Abdul Malek Bin Pg Bidin 09b1254

3. The research team consists of 5 respective
lecturers from Geography and development and
Environmental Studies Programme, University
Brunei Darusalam :
1. DK Noor Hasharina Bte Pg Hj Hassan (Mentor)
2. Gabriel Yong (coordinator)
3. Izni Azrein Noor Azalie
4. Khairunnisa Ibrahim
5. Dr. Hjh Hairuni Hj Ali Maricar

4. OUTLINE
 Introduction
 Methodology
 Results
 Other Primary Data
 Recommendations and conclusion

5. INTRODUCTION
 What the project is all about and why it is
important?
 It is focusing in vertical living in Brunei Darussalam
along with practicing sustainable consumption.
 It is also view on how we can sustain the energy
and to preserve it for the future generation’s use.
 Increasing sustainable consumption as well as
help promote Bandar Seri Begawan to become a
more sustainable city.

6.  Why green house building?
1. To save energy and resources, recycle materials
and minimize the emission of toxic substances
throughout its life cycle.
2. Harmonize with the local climate, traditions, culture
and the surrounding environment
3. To sustain and improve the quality of human life
whilst maintaining the capacity of the ecosystem at
local and global levels.

7. 4. Make efficient use of resources have significant
operational savings and increases workplace
productivity.
5. Sends the right message about a company or
organization- well run, responsible and committed
to the future.
Why it is important?
 To examine the trend and Brunei demand for the
type of housing they want and propose a site for
vertical housing projects that are essential to the
development of the property

8. OBJECTIVES
 To identify a typology of consumption in
Brunei society and their characteristics
 To examine the views/perceptions and
misunderstandings in relation to sustainable
consumption among community samples of
Brunei society.
 To respond the question of whether people of
Brunei are ready for sustainable consumption
based on data analysis.

9. AIMS & HYPOTHESIS
 To argue that the perceptive and approval of
the Bruneian’s lifestyle, social and cultural
proxemics are really important for urban
planners to consider.
 Hypothesis –
Bruneian agree with vertical housing in the
future as their housing scheme only if the
requirements of the cultural space in high
rise buildings are fulfilled

10. WHEN WE STARTED AND UNTIL WHEN?
 This project took about 2
months, which started from
September to November to
complete and the research
schedule includes:

11. TIME ACTIVITIES
a week before Divided tasks to contact the architects of Brunei
September 24th ,2011 Went to meet architect Berjaya.
September 28th, 2011 1st conference with supervisor (for half an hour )
1st Meeting with the architects Mr Wong (1 hour) and Mr
October 1st, 2011
Halimuddin (10-15 minutes)
2nd Meeting with architects Wong (15-30minutes) and went to Kg
October 3rd, 2011 Manggis but to no avail
Meeting with Dr Rina with regards to our findings
October 5th, 2011 (approximately 15-30 minutes) and then we discussed among
ourselves about the architects.
October 6th, 2011 Survey questionnaires is released via email (English Version)
October 8th, 2011 Survey questionnaires is released in (Malay Version)

12. October 13th, 2011 Distribute questionnaires to the Mall (2 hours )
Meeting with Sir Gabriel, Dr Hairuni, Dr Hasharina, Dr
October 15th, 2011
Khairunnisa with regards to the Project's result (1 hour)
Met Dr Rina and Gabriel & then off to Beribi Flat area and
October 24th, 2011 rural areas.
Distributed the questionnaires to public at The Mall Gadong
Went to Tutong areas Kpg Bang Dalam
October 26th, 2011 Distribute questionnaires to remote / rural areas in Tutong
Consult supervisor at 12 (less than an hour) and then and then
Sir Gabriel taught 3 of the group members how to key the result
October 27th, 2011 data into the excel. We divided task about our findings and do

13. METHODOLOGY
HAFIDZ

14. METHODOLOGY
1) ARCHITECTS
- By Telephone
- Went to their offices
- Direct Meeting without an appointment
2) ONLINE SURVEY
3) Distributing questionnaire to public.
(fieldwork)

15. 1) ARCHITECT
 On 15th Sept, 2011, we started to call them (referred from
yellow pages)
 Approaching directly to their offices.
-> 1st Attempt was on the 25th Sept
(Arkitek Ibrahim & berjaya,)
-> 2nd Attempt was on the 29th Sept,
-> 3rd Attempt was On the 1st Oct,2011
we received immediate respond & meeting with:
a) Rekarya (Gadong)
b) Berjaya (Tungku link)

16. 1st MEETING (1st Oct)

17. 2ND MEETING (3rd Oct)

18. Advantages:
 By making a call, we know which architects have
this kind of project (green house and building)
 By approaching the architects, we manage to get
direct information regarding green living.
Disadvantages:
 Unreliable information (telephone)
 Some of the companies promised to give a call
and email for appointment - no response.
How we solved?
We decided to go and see them directly to their

19. 2) ONLINE SURVEY
Conducting questionnaire via survey monkey
(internet).
 First, in English version. (6-10-2011)
 Then, In Malay version. (8-10-2011)

20. ADVANTAGES:
 Convenient for the respondent to answer
the survey (email and link given) – (time)
 Data from respondents are automatically
recorded into the system
DISADVANTAGES:
 Not all respondents have internet access
 It is difficult to know whether the
respondents understand with the
questions given.

21. 3) FIELDWORK
One of our ways to increase the
respondent, we made 200 copies of the
Malay questionnaires. (easy to print)
Target Places in distributing questionnaires:
- MALL
- RURAL AREAS
- FLAT RESIDENCE

22. VENUE:
MALL (Why???)
- - Distributing questionnaires especially to low
income people.
- - We believe that they are a kind of people
who hope for government house schemes.
Most of them are cashiers, sales assistants
and cleaners (local)

23. Fieldwork at Mall
Gadong
13-10-11
12-2 pm

24. Rural Areas : 1) Bukit Bang Dalam, Tutong On 24-10-11 at 3-

25. RURAL AREAS
Tutong Area: Tanjung
Maya, Lamunin,
Layong: 26/10/2011,
6-9pm

26. FLAT RESIDENCE
1) BERIBI AREAS: 24/10/2011, 10-12PM

27. 2) FLAT IN TUTONG TOWN (MOH FLAT)
PICTURE~ 26/10/2011, 5-6PM.

28. The advantages and the
disadvantages in our fieldwork:
 In distributing the questionnaire, we
managed to get direct response from the
people
 Received an opinions & recommendations
about vertical housing
 Time consuming (because we have to go
and see them)
 Some respondents reluctant to answer the
questionnaire.

29. RESULTS
LIYANA & ADIB

30. Results From Phone Call (Architects)
Arkitek Ibrahim - Available Arkitek alamreka - Design for the
government buildings only
Arkitek Aziz - Available
Arkitek haza,- Design for Government
Arkitek Berjaya - Available especially mosques
Arkitek opfis – Available Arkitek Ghani – Outstation
Arkitek idris – Available SERI SEZAMAN- No respond
Arkitek Rekajaya – Available “KANA TUTUPI TELEPON BUIIII....
HAHAHA”
Arkitek Berjaya - Available
Rekarya- Not Available
OWMP INTERNATIONAL- Available
Gemilang Latif – Architect on leave,
PDO CHARTERED ARCHITECTS- recommended to send an email but no
AVAILABLE response
Suria YTF - In process Asareka akitek - Recommended to send
an email but no response

31. Categories of prospective vertical housing owners
Category Description
Newly Employed Cosmopolite strongly influenced by globalization; wide range of habitat preferences;
quality of life, connectivity important, aware of sustainability issues.
Mid-High Income Eco-modern and educated; preference for innovative design and use of technology to
Professional improve quality of life, protect environment, and support family and harmony with
neighbours.
Low-Middle Income Supporting skilled/semi-skilled workers; functional spaces and cultural traditions
Employee important.
Low Income Employee Supporting semi-skilled/unskilled workers; functional design; cultural practices important.
Self-Employed Business owners, entrepreneurs, free-lance specialists; wide exposure to global forces
and hence, products and services, style and designs in the market; wide range of space
needs.
Retiring Age 50’s; with or without savings; functional; modern technology (not ICT); concern about
the environment.
Retired Age 60’s; with or without savings; culture important; basic functional spaces.
About to Enter Cosmopolites; generally lack sense of reality; provide glimpse into wish lists of dream
Workforce homes 31

32. CULTURAL ARCHITECTURE TYPOLOGY (FOR BRUNEI)
SYMBOLICAL
Students Cosmopolites TECHNOLOGICA
L
Self-employed
Professionals
MODERNISATION (high income)
Newly-employed
TRADITIONAL Migrant
Self-employed
(least income)
Migrant Low-rural
income
Traditional Retired/ Retired/ retiring
FUNCTIONAL Malay retiring with with good
less savings savings NATURAL
COMMUNITY AND INDEPENDENT AND
COMMUNAL SPACES PRIVACY
32

33. SURVEY
Survey
questionnaire:
The Survey Result will focus on the building preferences :
BUILDING PREFERENCES
Types of high rise low-cost, open, nature, green, smart, condo,
(= flats
(b) = (c))
Priority spaces & features shower, bath-tub, toilet master, toilet room,
living room, dining room, wet/dry kitchen,
kitchen, bed rooms, master bedroom,
garden, store, parking, work room, study,
recreation, spa
Design priorities (vertical conveniences, recreation facility, energy
homes efficient, effective management, common
spaces, community, friendly, same religion,
same culture, practise culture, security,
clean environment, good view
33

34. 6. SURVEY DATA
Community Overall Percentage Division
Newly employed 14.9% 82.6% young adults
17.4% matured
Professionals 19.4% 51.7% matured
43.3% young
Low-medium income employees 14.6% young (40.0%),
matured (48.9%)
Low income employees 10.4% 62.5% young,
25.0% matured
12.5% retiring
• Self-employed 2.3%
• Retiring 1.9%
• Retired
2.9%
About to enter workforce” 32.7%
(mainly students
• Urbanites 31.2%
• Rural 12.9%
60%
• Did not indicate
(difficult to decide what is urban/ 34
rural in Brunei)

35. SURVEY RESULTS: HIGH RISE DESIGNS
TYPOLOGY – MID-HIGH INCOME PROFESSIONALS / ECOMODERNIST
Expected: preference for
green tech &
designs, nature, open
concept, modern amenities
Data shows that while this
is generally true, preference
is more moderate than
strong
Dislike standard flat
designs and low cost high
rise
35

36. SURVEY RESULTS: PRIORITY SPACES & FEATURES
TYPOLOGY – MID-HIGH INCOME PROFESSIONALS / ECOMODERNIST
Expected: Consumption
pattern influence by
global trends for quality
living.
Data shows:
• Master bedroom with
en suite toilet,
kitchen, living room
to be high priority
spaces
• Large baths with
bath-tub, en suite
toilets for individual
rooms not a priority
36

37. SURVEY RESULTS: PRIORITY SPACES & FEATURES
TYPOLOGY – MID-HIGH INCOME PROFESSIONALS / ECOMODERNIST
Expected: Consumption
pattern influence by global
trends for quality living.
Data shows:
• Parking & storage
spaces important
• Spa & recreation
spaces not a priority
(not as expected)
• A quarter indicated
garden, work room or
study to be low priority
• (not expected)
37

38. SURVEY RESULTS: DESIGN PRIORITIES
TYPOLOGY – MID-HIGH INCOME PROFESSIONALS / ECOMODERNIST
Expected: Design priorities
should follow global trends for
quality living & environmental
concerns
Data shows:
• Health, safety, effective
management & energy
efficiency to be very
important
• Living with people of same
religion not so important for
half respondent; important
to the other half (important
to note)
38

39. SURVEY RESULTS: HIGH RISE DESIGNS
TYPOLOGY – LOW-INCOME EMPLOYEE / FUNCTIONAL/ LOCALISED/ LOW TECH?
Expected: influenced mainly
by functional designs and
local situations
Data shows (as expected):
• Higher preferences for
low-cost, modern condo
and open concept design
• More than 60%, they
dislike or weakly like flats
& smart buildings
• 20-30% have low
preference for green,
smart, modern or open
concept buildings
39

40. SURVEY RESULTS: PRIORITY SPACES & FEATURES
TYPOLOGY – LOW-INCOME EMPLOYEE / FUNCTIONAL/ LOCALISED/ LOW TECH?
Expected: influenced mainly by
functional designs and local
situations
Data shows (as expected):
• Master bedrooms very
important to >80%,
• Individual bedrooms priority is
moderate to high priority
• Kitchen most important
• Other high priority: living &
dining room
• Interesting, more prefer large
bath rooms with tubs to
functional showers
(unexpected)
40

41. SURVEY RESULTS: PRIORITY SPACES & FEATURES
TYPOLOGY – LOW-INCOME EMPLOYEE / FUNCTIONAL/ LOCALISED/ LOW TECH?
Expected: influenced mainly by
functional designs and local
situations
Data shows:
• Parking spaces, store, work
room & study important
spaces
• Garden – most quite
important
• 40%, place low priorities/ not
important in Recreation &
spa
• 60%, shows moderate
priority in recreation & spa
(unexpected)
41

42. SURVEY RESULTS: DESIGN PRIORITIES
TYPOLOGY – LOW-INCOME EMPLOYEE / FUNCTIONAL/ LOCALISED/ LOW TECH?
Expected: influenced mainly
by functional designs and local
situations
Data shows (as expected):
• Security & clean envt
important to all
• Common spaces to practice
culture, building community
with friendly neighbours
quite high priority
• 40% said same religion/
culture & conveniences not
so important
• However, 60% of the
respondents said that they
are quite important about
this (to be noted)
42

43. SURVEY RESULTS: HIGH RISE DESIGNS
TYPOLOGY –URBAN VS RURAL
• Most of the respondents from urban &rural dislike for flat and low
cost blocks
• Urbanites show slight preference for green building (tech) than
buildings integrated with nature;
• In contrast, rural is the opposite
43

44. SURVEY RESULTS: PRIORITY SPACES & FEATURES
TYPOLOGY – URBAN VS RURAL
• More urbanites gave low priority to large baths with bath-tubs than
rural
• More rural than urban gave low priority to functional baths with
shower
• Master bedroom with toilet (En suite) more important to urbanites
44

45. SURVEY RESULTS: PRIORITY SPACES & FEATURES
TYPOLOGY –URBAN VS RURAL
• Work room and study less important to rural than urban respondents
• Recreation spaces low priority for rural more so than urban
• While for rural group they likely to have for spas than recreation spaces
45

46. SURVEY RESULTS: DESIGN PRIORITIES
TYPOLOGY – BRUNEIAN URBANITIES & RURAL GROUP
• Rural group places greater priority on energy efficiency than urbanites
• Common spaces also more important for rural group
• Both place high priority on ability to practice culture, form community with
friend or neighbours
• More rural than urban said religion not important ; but also great
proportion said it’s very important to live with people of same religion 46

47. OTHER
PRIMARY
DATA
AMALUL & KHAIRAH

49. WHAT ARE THE PRINCIPLES OF GREEN
BUILDINGS/HOMES?
Siting
 Siting
and orientation based on micro- and
macro- climatic conditions to maximize
energy efficiency
 Design and construction that involves the
least possible disruption to the site.
 Arrangement in randomly could ensures
that wind velocity in the building in the
latter path is not being distracted.

50. POSITIONING THE HOME
 Source: Mr Wong (Fieldwork 2011)

51. Energy Efficiency
 Install high-efficiency lighting systems with
advanced lighting controls. Include motion
sensors tied to dimmable lighting controls.
 Minimizing the size of windows from sun
direction side – to control the amount of hot sun
entering your house.
Materials Efficiency
 Select sustainable construction materials and
products by evaluating several characteristics
such as reused and recycled content.
 Design with adequate space to facilitate
recycling collection

52. Water Efficiency
 Collect rainwater and store in large tanks.
1. To use for irrigate gardens/landscaping.
2. For toilet flushing or a gray water system
 Use for recirculation systems for
centralised hot water distribution

53. FIGURE 4: THE DIAGRAM SHOWING HOW WATER HARVESTING WORKS.
SOURCE: FIELDWORK 2011 , PRIMARY DATA (MR WONG)

54. ARCHITECT HALIMUDDIN (PRIMARY DATA)
 Brunei is very green already. Green concept is
only available to developed countries
 Such design, reliable but not suitable to our
culture in Brunei.
 We are considered as green-culture. We are
not living city life just like in Singapore. Our
culture is environment. We do not need much.
 In terms of saving energy. He suggested the
as same as Mr Wong does. Such as the
material and electronic.

55.  We use Singapore Standard, For example in
terms of collecting water for recycle.
 Use landfill in order to extend land in case of
lacking space.
 Vertical House ; planning is still the same.
For example in terms of siting and
orientation of the building.

56. RECOMMENDATION &
CONCLUSION
SYAHIR & MALEK

57. RECOMMENDATION
Our recommendation for this project
 Continue the project
How?
 Get more survey is better
 Need to cover all district
 Get more people to carry on this project
Improve more on:
 Exposure on this project through media
 Awareness society
 Education

58.  Provide transportation
 Observe the demands of Bruneian in order
to approach their needs.
 Convince the architect to cooperate
 Improve the questionnaire
 Focused more on experience people who
live in flats
 Improve the skill to approach people

59. CONCLUSION
 Most of people prefer for kitchen, living
room, dining room, master bedroom and
parking space.
 Not all of the architects were helpful.
 Most of the Bruneian do not really need
green concept for their housing design.
 Overall, we agree to implement and put into
practice the vertical housing scheme in our
country