Putrajaya at 30: a capital city without a soul

A capital city cannot inspire if it goes to sleep at 7pm.

Returning from abroad recently, I made a short stop in Singapore. One evening, I joined my wife and daughter at a concert at the iconic Singapore’s National Stadium in Kallang.

I was astonished. About 60,000 people filled the arena, singing and dancing with the performers for nearly three hours.

And here’s the economics: the cheapest ticket cost S$600. The organiser and stadium must have generated staggering revenue from that single show. And it wasn’t a one-off — the concert ran for three consecutive nights.

Singapore is far ahead in harnessing pop culture, crowds, and connectivity to generate economic energy.

Reality at home 

Back in Malaysia, I learned that Putrajaya has just marked its 30th anniversary.

Construction began in 1995 with ambitious hopes. Putrajaya was meant to be Malaysia’s crown jewel: a symbol of architectural confidence, engineering capability and modern governance.

It was supposed to embody national aspirations — an orderly, technologically advanced, efficient and culturally rich capital, open to all Malaysians.

Three decades later, that vision remains unrealised. Instead of becoming a vibrant national stage, Putrajaya has become a sterile administrative enclave — impressive from afar, hollow up close. It reflects neither Malaysia’s society nor its success.

A city built for cars, not people 

Putrajaya is one of Asia’s most car-centric planned cities — and today, the most car-dependent city in Malaysia.

Wide highways, oversized roundabouts and long empty distances between precincts make walking impractical. Public buses are almost invisible. Amenities are scattered far apart.

Unlike Singapore, where concert-goers walk seamlessly to MRT stations, Putrajaya remains a “drive-through city” — buildings surrounded by vast, lifeless parking lots, one which goes to sleep at 7pm.

Even its main exhibition centre, the Putrajaya International Convention Centre (PICC), is reachable almost exclusively by car.

As any transport planner would say: a good city is one you can walk in comfort and feel safe. Putrajaya fails this fundamental test.

Outdated planning philosophy 

Putrajaya is stuck in a 1990s design mindset, out of sync with modern urban norms.

Despite decades of lessons, no meaningful effort has been made to rebalance private vehicles with public transport.

The consequences are clear:

• The MRT station sits far from the city centre.
• You still need a car to reach the MRT.
• There is no major art centre, museum, theatre or cultural institution.
• No stadium like Kallang, no music hall or performance venue.
• No cycling lanes, walkable districts or friendly neighbourhoods.
• No pedestrian streets, street cafés or creative public spaces.

So who, exactly, was this capital city built for?

Unlike Washington DC, Tokyo, London, Paris, or even Bangkok — all of which serve as cultural and civic stages — Putrajaya lacks the community life expected of a capital.

Other capitals teem with concerts, exhibitions, outdoor festivals, parades, debates, and civic expression. Putrajaya offers none of this.

No cultural, economic or social energy 

Putrajaya’s urban design offers monuments instead of districts, administrative buildings instead of communities. Form without life.

No capital city can survive on civil servants alone. A city needs a creative class, cultural institutions, universities, artists, entrepreneurs and students. Putrajaya lacks all of these.

It performs administrative functions well, but it does not embody the nation it represents.

Imagine what Putrajaya could have been

It could have been:

• A transit hub with airport express trains, MRT, trams or BRT, and walkable districts.
• A cultural capital with galleries, libraries, museums, theatres and concert halls.
• A civic capital with plazas, film festivals and public squares alive with parades.
• A liveable capital with universities, creative quarters and mixed neighbourhoods.
• A green capital with parks, waterfronts, lakeside homes and cycling networks.

This is what a modern capital city should look like.

Heart of the issue

Putrajaya is not a failure of architecture — it is a failure of purpose.

A capital city must be alive, symbolic, visible, and connected to its people. It should reflect national identity, encourage cultural exchange and stimulate economic dynamism.

Today, Putrajaya remains orderly and beautiful in small pockets, but fundamentally hollow — a polished shell without a soul, built at an estimated cost of US$8.1 billion.

Where are the strategies to generate returns on this investment — economically, culturally, socially?

That concert I witnessed in Kallang should have been staged here, in Putrajaya.

Imagine the numbers and the local economy it would generate: RM1,900 (roughly S$600) multiplied by tens of thousands of audience members, including visitors from across Asean.

Shouldn’t we harness these growing economic activities?

After all, we have the infrastructure: an international airport, express rail, MRT, low-cost airlines, hotels, great food and a welcoming audience.

We should be that host. Only then can we truly claim to be Asia’s capital of culture and connection. - FMT

The author can be reached at: rosli@mdsconsultancy.com

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