As noted, the inaugural phase of housing provision by the HDB was undertaken in the name of a diagnosed housing crisis such that many of the earliest HDB provisions were very small 1 bedroom (23m2) or 2 bedroom (37m2) ‘emergency’ flats. Even the earliest ‘improved’, ‘standard’ and ‘new generation’ flats could be relatively small. Internal space was always at a premium in early HDB offerings and much of the advice given by way of Our Home was directed at solving the space problem with limited financial outlay. For example, almost all the articles on interior decoration in the first two years of Our Home advised readers to create a simple, low cost and uncluttered look in their newly acquired flats. This advice came by way of articles entitled: ‘Simple and serene’ [24] ‘Simple and spacious’ [25], ‘Original taste yet economical’ [26], ‘Simple arrangements’ [27], ‘Simple does it!’ [28], and ‘All light and space’ [29], ‘Keeping it simple’ [30] [image_6].

In this context, what to do with ‘clutter’ was a persistent concern.  Indeed, in the advice given about making an appropriate interior for HDB flats it was often assumed that ‘design’ and ‘clutter’ were mutually exclusive terms. As Baker [31] has noted, clutter takes ‘revenge’ on design. What produced ‘clutter’ varied in the pages of Our Home: furniture of inappropriate size or poorly arranged, inadequate storage spaces, and of course too many ornaments. Residents are routinely praised for ‘resisting … all temptation to clutter’ [32] and most of the articles deal in one way or another with this problem. For example, in 1974 Mr Eng Siak Loy shared with others his opinion of clutter:

‘I avoid cluttering the flat with bulky and fanciful furniture …. Most people are inclined to do that. However, if they want their flat to be spacious as well as attractive, they can easily create space by choosing the right kind of furniture and arranging it is the right places’ [33].

Again, in 1981 we visited the home of Mr. Chou Kin Loong who also ‘believes in keeping things simple’:

‘(n)o ornaments, none of the knick-knacks one usually finds in abundance in so many other flats. Just simple, clean-cut furnishing which makes the flat more comfortable than trendy, and a good example of wise budgeting’ [34].

In a similar vein we are introduced to the ‘elegance’ of Mr Tan’s flat within which ‘there is none of the usual ornamental flora and knick knacks that new home owners are wont to decorate their flats with’ and where ‘[o]nly functional furniture greets the visitor’ [35]. And then there were newly-weds, Linda and Derrick Fitzgerald, who simply ‘don’t believe in storing junk’ and only kept ‘what they really need’ [36]. In these examples the ethos of utility operated as a defence against clutter.

As Cwerner and Metcalfe [37] note, the elimination of clutter is not simply produced by the choice not to ornament, it is also a product of how one deals with the ‘problem’ of objects that fall frequently out of use, and which are in need of hiding (‘storage’). Storage, they argue, ‘is key to understanding how people create order in the home and the world’ [38]. Our Home articles showcased numerous resident-devised innovations for clever storage including adding storage capacity to existing furniture and fixtures. For example, a very early article advised residents as to how they could  ‘s-t-r-e-t-c-h that space’ by using the space above the television for storage, or adding shelves to the back of doors, or fitting drawers below settees [39]. Another resident advised readers to avoid, admittedly more economical, ‘readymade furniture’. His built-in unit, it was observed, ‘both acts as a utility and decorative item’, and ‘as [it] has numerous compartments and cupboards, it cuts down on clutter, as everything that was necessary but should be put out of sight was neatly tucked away in the cupboards’ [40].