Nga must find balance in KL’s urban renewal

 

From Boo Jia Cher

In recent months, housing and local government minister Nga Kor Ming’s announcement of an Urban Renewal Act (URA) has sparked both excitement and anxiety among Malaysians.

The proposed URA promises the redevelopment of ageing buildings and improvement of urban amenities, but it has also become a lightning rod for controversy.

Critics argue it could lead to the unjust displacement of low-income communities, erasure of cultural heritage, and a prioritisation of commercial interests over the needs of local residents.

The proposed redevelopment of 139 properties, including 91 residential buildings, has left many property owners feeling uncertain and vulnerable.

In some areas, residents are being pressured by developers to agree to redevelopment plans, while others fear a potential change in the law could lower the consent threshold to 75-80%, forcing them to vacate their homes against their will.

Residents also oppose redevelopment plans when public land is used for private projects.

Risks of displacement and loss

Such concerns are not unfounded. Developers in Kuala Lumpur are not exactly known for their ethical approaches to urban development.

In a city where income inequality continues to widen, it is understandable for residents to be wary, especially as the skyline becomes increasingly dominated by luxury condominiums that appear exclusive and elitist.

One can’t help but wonder: who stands to benefit from this redevelopment – the developers, or the everyday citizens?

Top-down vs bottom-up

The situation brings to mind the famous clash between urban planners Robert Moses and Jane Jacobs in mid-20th-century New York City.

Moses, a powerful figure in city planning, championed large-scale, infrastructure-driven development that prioritised cars and high-rise projects, often at the expense of communities. Jacobs, a writer and activist, advocated for a more human-centred approach, emphasising walkable streets, community spaces and social equity.

Their most famous battle was over the Lower Manhattan Expressway, which Jacobs helped defeat. This conflict highlighted the tension between top-down, efficiency-driven planning and a vision of cities as vibrant, diverse spaces where people’s needs are at the forefront.

Today, Kuala Lumpur faces a similar dilemma with the Urban Renewal Act. Yes, the city has many areas in need of revitalisation, but at what cost? Will we lose our heritage and sense of place in exchange for more high-rise developments and shopping malls? What kind of city do we want Kuala Lumpur to be?

The recent loss of the old Lai Meng School campus along Jalan Ampang – replaced by a carpark – is a poignant example. What will become of this site next? Another office tower, luxury hotel or mall – spaces most Malaysians will never interact with? Do we view the old parts of our city as disposable, to be torn down for the next shiny development?

Successful urban renewal projects

However, there are examples of urban renewal that defy the norm. The Zhongshan Building, once a dilapidated shophouse, has been transformed into a vibrant arts and cultural hub, while the old Rex Theatre nearby now hosts a variety of alternative F&B, retail and arts venues.

These projects preserved the original buildings’ character and history, offering something more unique than the homogenous shopping malls popping up across the Klang Valley.

Such are simpler, more impactful steps that Nga can take to improve the quality of life for all residents, regardless of income level. Rather than focusing solely on grand redevelopment projects, he could prioritise creating a city that is liveable and accessible for everyone through smaller, yet meaningful, improvements.

For instance, prioritising investments in essential public amenities such as pedestrian walkways and crossings, bicycle lanes, public toilets, parks, playgrounds, markets and food centres across all neighbourhoods – not just the affluent ones – could significantly level the playing field.

These improvements would benefit people of all income levels, ensuring equal access to a clean, liveable environment throughout Kuala Lumpur. Enhancing basic infrastructure would not only improve public health and foster social interaction, it will also make the city more walkable, vibrant, and inclusive.

Simple investments in accessibility, inclusivity and conservation can be just as transformative as large-scale redevelopment, but with far less disruption to communities.

Ensuring that every neighbourhood, regardless of its socioeconomic status, has access to these essential services would address immediate quality-of-life issues and create a stronger sense of community in Kuala Lumpur.

The fight for ownership of the city

Many residents have also said that they do not see the need for large-scale redevelopment. Some believe their homes are in decent condition and would only require simple upgrades or a fresh coat of paint. When we read news about developers pressuring residents to sell, it raises the question: who truly benefits from the Urban Renewal Act?

The sweeping, top-down approach of the Act leaves little room for ordinary people to have a say in their own neighbourhoods. This mirrors the tension between Moses and Jacobs – a conflict between visions of urban development driven by efficiency and those driven by community and social justice.

Nga must carefully define his vision for KL’s future under the Urban Renewal Act. Will he create a city shaped by developers’ financial interests, or one where local communities shape their environment and Malaysia’s cultural diversity thrives?

Does he want to be Malaysia’s version of Moses, reshaping the city at the expense of its people? Or will he seek a more inclusive, sustainable path that balances growth with preservation, ensuring Kuala Lumpur’s soul endures for future generations? - FMT

Boo Jia Cher is an FMT reader.

The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of MMKtT.