Kuala Lumpur and Putrajaya

Question 5

In Malaysia, how does the transition of people from interconnected public spaces (parks, plazas, pedestrian streets, outdoor markets, etc.) to self-contained indoor shopping malls affect their interactions?

Themes

Public space; malls; community development; democratic decision-making

Discussion

As more and more people converge in malls around the world it is important to find out whether this should be a matter of concern for governments or not. Con cern could arise over congestion, or pollution caused by mall development. Our interest is in something a little bit different: how relationships among people change in the Malaysian context depending on whether they are in malls or in traditional outdoor public spaces. Who are the people interacting in malls, what are they interacting around and what level of interaction are they having? Have some communitybuilding dynamics been lost as public interaction has moved in doors to commercial centers?

If the answer to the question reveals that there is a matter for concern, it is important to suggest a series of solutions that in the developing world context could help prevent the type consequences resulting from this shift. Should city governments halt the increase in malls, should they attempt to create other kinds of public spaces, should they demand that malls provide spaces for “better” interaction between among citizens and customers (of different ages)?

The experience of the recent “rolezinhos” in Brazil where poor teenagers have been flooding malls as a form of protest might serve as an interesting point of reference.

The lack of functional outdoor public spaces in Malaysia and many other developing countries has forced people (especially the middle classes) to concentrate in malls. The interaction between people in malls is different from the interaction they have in outdoor public spaces for many reasons. Not everybody can enter a mall (the poor for example are conspicuously excluded), not every activity is allowed in malls (political activity is explicitly banned) and the interaction among people appears to be somewhat shallow (mostly buyers and sellers interact). Therefore, a society where malls are the only alternative for people to interact with strangers is essentially a more socially and ethnically divided and politically passive context than one in which a richer array of interactions take place in well-designed plazas, outdoor parks and pedestrianoriented streets.

Malls could be designed to promote more complex types of interaction among customers but the matter of exclusion of certain types of people and certain types of behavior would then have to be addressed

Published resources

UTM Professors Tang Hoay Nee and Tareef Hayat Khan’s paper: “Revisiting strategies to enhance social interaction in urban public spaces in the context of Malaysia” (2012) in the British Journal of Arts and Social Sciences, vol. 8, no. II. Available for download at www.academia.edu

The mall society: illusion, exclusion, and control in the urban center by former MIT DUSP graduate student Daniel Glenn (1989) http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/74348

Brave New Neighborhoods: the Privatization of Public Space by Margaret Kohn (2004).

Preferences For Interior Public Spaces In Kuala Lumpur Shopping Malls by UTM graduate student Fazilah Fazle.

Question 6

In Putrajaya, how does the lack of an elected local government impact planning for sustainability? In the absence of substantial public participation and representation, how can municipalities still provide services that are necessary for urban sustainability and matched to local needs?

Themes

Governance and sustainability ; urban services; decision-making

Discussion

In Malaysia, citizen involvement in local decision-making is limited. In Putrajaya, there is no elected representative government, so the Putrajaya Corporation has launched its own outreach program in an effort to solicit input from the residents. When we visited, the Putrajaya Corporation spoke candidly about the difficulties of involving the public in the planning process on a regular basis, but they cited numerous campaigns to encourage people to attend meetings, provide feedback, and voice complaints.

The nearby municipality of Shah Alam has an elected government. There, the channel for citizen engagement is primarily through formal voting and lodging complaints. “Problem-solving” meetings that involve the public and community gatherings to discuss or debate public concerns are not common. The sustainability implications of the lack of citizen involvement in governance and planning in Putrajaya is important to evaluate.

While development in Putrajaya has produced some highly visible sustainability features (e.g. wetland water filtration), the Putrajaya Corporation has had difficulty offering the kind of basic public services that the populace arguably needs, which also contribute to greater sustainability such as adequate buses from the residential housing areas to government offices and shaded walkways. Putrajaya is entirely dominated by private automobile transportation. Its vast, beautifully groomed parks and plazas, while splendid, do not invite human activity because of the lack of nearby amenities, places of relative privacy, and shelter from the sun and heat.

In the case of Shah Alam, the municipality has impressive volunteer mobilization strategies to keep its properties and waterways clean, but there is further opportunity to focus on reducing the energy consumption of buildings and incorporating low-energy transportation. The Deputy M ayor of Shah Alam told us that they spend 20% of their annual city budget on park maintenance, and that he does not see a need for transportation modeling because congestion is not currently a problem, though they have ambitious plans for population and industry growth.

Increased public participation may lead to more sustainable outcomes in Malaysia, but this premise has yet to be tested. It is likely that the population will be more interested in short-term sustainability measures that are easy to implement, save money (energy or transportation savings), and /or increase personal quality of life (walkable and bicycle-friendly pathways). Discussions with community members in Putrajaya and Shah Alam could test this assumption to see what types of sustainability measures matter most to their residents.

Would increased, mulilateral civic participation create more local advocates of Malaysia’s master plans , thereby ensuring that evolving development patterns actually match the intentions of the master plans? Is there really a void between the visions contained in the master plans and what is actually implemented? Might greater citizen input into the making of master plan create more of a constituency that will fight to ensure that original planning vision will be implemented effectively? What would be the impact of more citizen participation in both Putrajaya and Shah Alam on the prioritization of sustainability initiatives?

Published resources

Bukit Jelutong Residents Association website: http://www.bjra.com.my

News article from May 2012 listing Shah Alam City Councilors: http://www.nst.com.my/top-news/shahalam-local-councillors-to-swear-in-today-1.56895. As of May 2013, three new Councilors joined: Papparaidu Veraman (DAP), Anizan Othman (PKR), and Fariz Abdullah, from the Setia Alam Hawkers Association.

Putrajaya Corporation website provides lists of all resident association chairmen for each community precincts in Putrajaya: http://portal.ppj.gov.my

Question 7

What impact on traffic mortality rates does the increase in private vehicle usage have in Malaysia?

Themes

Public transportation; traffic accidents; motorcycles; regulation

Discussion

There are a number of reasons why experts believe the most sustainable cities in the world should prioritize public transportation over the widespread use of private vehicles (cars and motorcycles). A variety of public transportation options combat congestion, sprawl and pollution. In transportation planning discussions, a reduction in traffic mortality and injury is sometimes forgotten as a significant benefit when considering sustainable alternatives Certain modes of transportation are cleaner but not necessarily positive or even more sustainable, such as electric cars and motorcycles, as increases in private vehicle use are directly correlated with increases in traffic-related fatalities each year.

Clearly there are many factors affecting the number traffic accidents and deaths in a city The “modal split” (i.e., how many people use cars, how many use buses, how many use motorcycles for each segment of their journey to work and back how) is a very important consideration. Comparing modal splits and mortality rates across different Malaysian cities could be very productive at this juncture in its development. In such studies, it is possible to control for differences in legal regulations, culture, and types of vehicles It might also be interesting to compare these figure within public and private transportation. For example, how many traffic deaths are accounted for by a 1% increase in the modal share that uses motorcycles versus a 1% increase in the share who use cars, or BRT or metro?

Taking human lives into account in figuring the cost of increasing investment in certain mode of transportation might help cities to consider more carefully the value of every dollar they invest in public transportation.

Published Resources

Data on Road and Traffic Accidents http://fab.utm.my/research/research-areas/

Question 8

Themes

Affordable housing; squatter management; informal settlements; p opulation growth

Discussion

Unlike many other cities in the developing world, squatters and informal squatter settlements are not as readily visible in the urban core or on the fringes of development in Malaysia, particularly in its largest city, Kuala Lumpur. The Kuala Lumpur City Council (DBKL) cites “squatter management” policies as one of its successes. M embers of the DBKL purport that they have successfully moved nearly all squatters from homelessness into government-sponsored low -cost housing. Housing the urban poor is a serious issue in larger cities worldwide such as Mumbai, Jakarta, and Karachi, so understanding whether or not a city of 1.7 million like Kuala Lumpur actually has managed to drastically reduce its squatter population through the provision of lowcost housing, and how it planned for, financed, and executed this program, is extremely important.

Further, in the nearby city of Shah Alam, population 700,000, the city council claims that they have a “zero squatter” population. Although in that city, the government provides little low -cost housing. What policies did they put in place to achieve a significant reduction in squatters? How does the government reconcile building so few affordable units with their goal of keeping squatters out? Understanding the experience in Shah Alam, as a smaller, wealthier city as compared to Kuala Lumpur, could help illuminate different approaches to the same problem.

Two sides exist to the story: That of city council members who speak of their success in building low-cost housing and moving squatters off the streets, and that of the people themselves lowcost housing residents, those waiting to get into a low-cost unit, and squatters who still have to make do. This question deals with how affordable housing is provided in the country whether by the private or public sector, which requires further research and understanding and how the provision of affordable housing is or is not directly linked to the removal of squatters.

Published Resources

Kuala Lumpur Structure Plan 2020 – Housing Section: http://www.dbkl.gov.my/pskl2020/english/housing/

Kuala Lumpur public housing offices by zone available at: http://dbkl.gov.my

Information about low-rise Cheras public housing: http://rubanisation.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=84:cheras&catid=35:projects&lte mid=57

News article about high-rise public housing, Bandar Tun Razak: http://www.thestar.com.my/News/Community/2013/12/02/Bandar-Tun-Razak-MCA-aiming-to-get-10000signatures-by-Dec-17.aspx

Question 9

Can government-planned rearrangement of urban development and space usage be effective at facilitating environmentally sustainable transportation patterns? How has the movement of government offices from Kuala Lumpur to Putrajaya impacted congestion, travel patterns, and modal split? What are the likely future trends, and what lessons can be drawn from Malaysia’s experience? More generally, what are the environmental and social impacts of Malaysia’s efforts to concentrate development in themed clusters (e.g. Cyberjaya, Putrajaya, EduCity, etc.)?

Themes

Transportation; spatial planning

Discussion

The concept of cluster development is being promoted globally by organizations such as UNIDO, as well as municipal governments in developed countries and the developing world alike. Therefore, it is important to understand Malaysia’s experience with cluster development and share the outcomes with other countries pursuing cluster strategies. Several regions of Malaysia are enthusiastically promoting cluster development and rearranging their city centers, some aiming to alleviate pressure on transportation infrastructure of overdeveloped regions (e.g. Putrajaya), while others are aiming to create favorable business climates for new investment in specific industries and bolster regional competitiveness (e.g. Cyberjaya, and Iskandar’s flagship developments). The question of the impact of these decisions on vehicle fuel consumption (both from idling and mileage traveled) is important given that transportation accounts for a significant fraction of urban fossil fuel-derived CO2 emissions.

Promoting clusters of companies in specific industries can create density at nodes that are already accessible by public transit (as in the case of Boston’s innovation district, or Munich’s various technology cluster developments). Or in other cases, clusters can be formed in areas that have easy connectivity by private transportation (like Boston’s biotech ring alo ng the Route 128 corridor). Malaysia has created both types of clusters, by positioning Putrajaya close to an existing mass transit line and positioning EduCity and other IRDA developments far from transit or other development. Given the recent migration of all federal government offices to Putrajaya, there is a unique opportunity to observe the early impacts of such transitions. Alleviating congestion can lead to induced demand and higher total car volumes but it can also reduce the fuel wasted by idling cars.

The efforts to alleviate congestion in Kuala Lumpur by relocating the government to Putrajaya may not lead to a significant reduction in overall mileage traveled. Because of Putrajaya’s inability to achieve mixed use development that will attract its workers to its own town center for dining, shopping, and recreation, it is likely that Putrajaya workers travel to Kuala Lumpur and other localities for leisure in addition to driving to work. This may have the effect of reducing the peak burden on Kuala Lumpur’s highways, while potentially adding new off-peak trips.

Furthermore, the incomplete transit link to Putrajaya center is resulting in a situation where newly relocated Putrajaya families must have enough cars to get all adult family members to work, leading to potential problems with “automobile lock-in.” Given the ease with which Putrajaya’s government employees can drive to work (as evidenced by the wide roads and ample parking), and the inconvenience of public transportation, the vast majority of government employees are driving to their offices. With so many individuals owning cars, achieving Putrajaya Corporations goal non-automobile mode split of 70% of trips will be very challenging.

Finally, at of the time of our visit to Putrajaya Corporation in January 2014, the city had only attracted ¼ of its planned population, despite the fact that all the government offices had been moved there. It is possible that commute distances for many of the remaining ¾ of the workers have increased.

Published resources

Developments of Clusters and Networks of SMES: http://www.unido.org/fileadmin/user_media/Services/PSD/Clusters_and_Networks/SMEbrochure_UNIDO. pdf

Institutional Contacts: Kuala Lumpur and Putrajaya

Kuala Lumpur City Hall - DBKL

Urban Transport Department

Contact: Tan Kim Bock Steven, Deputy Director

E-mail: steventan@dbkl.gov.my

Phone: 019-217-0489

Housing Management and Community Development

Contact: H.J. Wan Mohammad Ghazali Bin Nor, Head

GreenRE

Website: http://greenre.org

General E-mail: info@greenre.org

Contact 1: Mr. James Chua, Executive Director

Majiis Bandaraya Shah Alam

Website: http://www.mbsa.gov.my/ms/shahalam

General e-mail: mbsa@mbsa.gov.my

Contact 1: Mokhtar Hani, Deputy Mayor

Contact 2: Puan Nurul Syimah , Head of Planning

Contact 3: Haji Tahir Greening Shah Alam Head

PAG Consult Std Bjd, Planning Advisory Group

Website: www.pag.com.my

General E-mail: pagsb@pag.com.my

Contact 1: Philipose Philips, Executive Director

Contact E-mail: philpose@pag.com.my

Phone: 6019-229-6340

Pemuda UMNO Malaysia

Website: http://www.pemuda.com.my

Contact: Muhammad Azan Bin HJ. Bujang

E-mail: bujang_muhammadazan@yahoo.com

Phone: 070861-5461

Perbadanan Putrajaya / Putrajaya Corporation Website: http://www.ppj.gov.my

Contact: Dato’ Omairi Bin Hashim, Vice President, City Planning

E-mail: omairi@ppj.gov.my

Phone: 601-8887-7154

Contact: Wang Tze Wee, Senior Assistant Director, City Planning

E-mail: wangtw@ppj.gov.my

Phone: 610-8887-7180

UNIDO, Malaysia, Industrial Energy Efficiency Project for Malaysia Manufacturing Division Website:http://www.unido.org/en/where-wework/offices/regional-offices/regional-officethailand/selected-activities/malaysia.html

Contacts: Ms. Kaveta and Dr. Kannan, National Project Managers