Why better cities are a working-class necessity

More humane, equitably designed urban spaces improve the lives of those who need them most, not just the elite.

From Boo Jia Cher

I was sitting at a mamak stall one evening.

In one corner, young men in fluorescent jerseys hunched over their phones beside glasses of teh ais, sweat and flattened hair a testament to hours wearing helmets.

At another table, uncles in grubby polo T-shirts laughed softly, taking a break from long days on the road.

Nearby, a nurse, who had just finished her shift at the hospital, was waiting for a gap in endless traffic to cross the road to the MRT station.

These ordinary people are the hidden infrastructure of our city.

As someone who dreams of a more humane Kuala Lumpur with walkable streets, pocket or mini parks, frequent buses, and transit-oriented development, I can’t help but wonder: will these improvements actually reach the working class, or are they just a fantasy for Taman Tun Dr Ismail (TTDI) and Desa ParkCity elites?

I argue that walkable, transit-oriented cities are not luxuries for the rich; they are lifelines for the working class, and that our car-centric urban model is one of the most elitist systems we could have built.

The invisible tax of car dependence

In most Malaysian cities, owning a vehicle is survival, not choice. Bank Negara Malaysia data shows transport is one of the largest household expenses for low-income families, rivaling food and housing.

Loans, fuel, tolls, parking, insurance, maintenance; they are an invisible tax on the poor.

Where public transport is weak, people fall into the motorcycle trap. Motorcycles are cheap and flexible, but deadly on wide, fast roads built for cars.

Malaysia has one of the highest road fatality rates in Southeast Asia, with motorcyclists making up 60% of deaths. These are not accidents; they are predictable outcomes of a system that forces the poorest to risk their lives just to move.

Bodies as infrastructure

Every day, thousands of delivery riders thread through our sprawling streetscape, absorbing heat, inhaling exhaust fumes, and enduring traffic violence to meet deadlines.

We prioritise the speed of SUVs over the survival of people. In cities stretched thin by urban sprawl, slow, safe movement is impossible, forcing the poorest workers to gamble with their lives.

Urban design won’t fix low wages, but it can stop making the “hustle” a death trap. Shorter distances, shaded paths, and dedicated lanes mean a rider isn’t one pothole away from a hospital bed.

In a compact city, that same worker might even swap a risky motorcycle ride for a commute on bicycle, avoiding fuel costs and debt. We may not fix the labour economy overnight, but we can stop making workers pay with their lives.

Highways as recreational space

Highways and oversize roads have erased public space. In many working-class areas, youths have nowhere safe to gather or release stress.

Mat rempits’ cultural roots are spatial: we built cities that behave like racetracks without providing enough plazas or parks. When the only open space is a highway, it becomes social space, with tragic consequences.

Clearing the way for the delivery economy

The claim that walkability hurts deliveries is a myth. If your GrabFood is late, it isn’t because of a pedestrianised street, it’s because single-occupancy cars choke the roads.

Transport logic is simple: more roads create more traffic. Shifting commuters onto transit frees up space for those who must drive: delivery riders, logistics vans, ambulances.

In dense hubs, cargo bikes already outperform vans for short trips. They are cheaper, faster and safer but they require compact, human-scaled streets.

Last-mile infrastructure isn’t a tourist perk; it’s a working-class lifeline. Safe crossings, shade, and paved paths aren’t for sightseers, they are for the security guards, cleaners and students who currently trek dirt shoulders or sprint across six-lane junctions just to reach work.

Urbanism is for the rich?

This myth collapses once we look beyond Malaysia.

In Bogotá, Colombia, with a lower gross domestic product per capita than Malaysia, transport reform was framed as social justice. The city built TransMilenio, a low-cost bus rapid transit system, alongside hundreds of kilometres of bike lanes. The goal was simple: mobility without car ownership.

Closer to home, Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City in Vietnam have dense, mixed-use neighbourhoods that let daily life happen on foot or by bike. Pedestrian areas like Hoan Kiem Lake are used not by elites, but by ordinary families and workers.

Density and proximity, not wealth, make walkability possible.

I’ve heard people say we must keep poor neighbourhoods “unpleasant” to keep them affordable. It suggests the working class should trade dignity and safety for a lower rent.

Weaponising neglect is a policy failure. The fear of displacement is real, but the enemy isn’t a pocket park. It’s a predatory real estate market.

The solution isn’t to deny poor neighborhoods basic dignity; it’s rent protection, social housing and anti-displacement laws. Safety and beauty should be universal rights, not premium features for the elite.

The bottom line

Better cities are not an elite fantasy. They are a rescue plan for the Malaysian working class.

If we truly care about workers, we must stop justifying highways and multi-car households, and start building cities that offer safety, dignity and a chance at a better life for those with the least room for error. - FMT

The view shared are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of MMKtT.