That's actually far higher of a GDP per capita than I would have expected, especially since that of Hong Kong (which is what I would consider to be a closer analogy) is sitting at $38k. Hong Kong and Singapore also have a much higher concentration of millionaire households than NYC or London, so in effect, you're really just saying that the Gini coefficient (disparity between rich and poor) is high in these city-states. You'll find no disagreement from me on that matter --- that's just a fact of living in a place that is economically libertarian, unfortunately. Whether or not it is morally acceptable depends on one's opinions on economic philosophy.

Regarding housing: you're sort of comparing apples and oranges --- truthfully the NYC area is more than just NYC itself and also includes northern New Jersey, parts of Westchester county, Connecticut, etc. so that available land is much larger than Singapore; in that context, the fact that the government owns most of the housing is by design, and not indicative of poverty in the same way that (hypothetically) a majority of NYC living in the public housing projects would be. (To an extent, this is true of Hong Kong as well, but the government owns a smaller percentage of the housing than in Singapore.) I'm not saying this is necessarily the best solution, but the situation is not at all similar to public housing projects in NYC or council estates in London.

I can't speak for New York but it must be similar there.

Well, most of the funding is for repairs and basically trying to keep a broken system from failing, rather than any new expansions.

The lack of a social safety net is part of the package deal with a libertarian mindset. I'm not saying it's right, but it's not hypocritical if your official stance is libertarian. This is the situation in Hong Kong as well (which has an official stance of a laissez-faire economy); there is supposedly a safety net, but it is meagre.

I think (note that this is mainly conjecture based on my experiences) Asian countries tend to have very poor social safety nets. At least a part of it can be associated to "Chinese" or "Asian" values.

To conclude: I don't think Singapore has failed in it's goal at all, especially since it beats out HK in most metrics, despite HK having a head start on development (1900s) and the "political stability" that came from being a colony (not saying that colonialism is good, of course). Ultimately your complaints seem to be leveled at the fundamental goals that Singapore had when it embarked on this mission of modernization, rather than how it went about doing it.

Ultimately, my personal metric for the successful management of a major city is, obviously, how I feel when I'm in it. And ultimately, I find Singapore to be cleaner, safer, more modern, and more efficient than either New York or Hong Kong.