‘Urban renewal' not a dirty term

Free Malaysia Today

17-05-2025

From Boo Jia Cher
I would like to respond to Anand Krishnan's letter critiquing Bukit Bendera MP Syerleena Abdul Rashid's support for the Urban Renewal Act (URA).
Anand makes a compelling case for thoughtful urbanism, heritage conservation, and a healthy scepticism toward Malaysia's latest legislative attempt at reshaping the city.
But his critique, while eloquent and preservationist in tone, glosses over the deeper, on-the-ground realities that many Klang Valley residents live with daily.
It's one thing to argue for sensitive reuse and the existence of adequate laws; it's another to ignore that large parts of Kuala Lumpur are already suffering from entrenched structural neglect.
Take a walk through Pudu or Imbi
Anand's claim that 'our cities are lovely and well-regarded by any standard' is, frankly, out of touch.
Just minutes from the gleam of Bukit Bintang, urban decay is everywhere. Walk through Pudu, Imbi, or even areas near Jalan Tun Tan Cheng Lock, and you'll find overcrowded shophouses, dark alleys overflowing with trash, rats darting through neglected infrastructure, and public amenities on the brink of collapse.
Perhaps Anand should try waiting alongside the elderly poor and migrant workers at the undersized ageing bus stop on Jalan Pudu, then tell us how wonderful KL really is.
These areas don't necessarily need to be demolished and rebuilt wholesale. But they do need serious, sustained reinvestment – just as Singapore did with old neighbourhoods like Tiong Bahru and Kampong Glam. To pretend these places are 'fine as they are' is to turn a blind eye to people living in substandard conditions.
Plaza Rakyat: a monument to dysfunction
Nowhere is KL's urban rot more evident than Plaza Rakyat: a half-finished megastructure sitting at the city's core, paralysed for decades by legal and bureaucratic inertia. Adjacent Pudu Sentral, once a bustling bus terminal, now limps along, hollowed out and forgotten.
Jalan Pudu, the artery between them, is a pedestrian hazard: crossing it feels like a death wish, and continuous sidewalks are rare or nonexistent.
For visitors to the city, this corridor leaves a jarring first impression – of abandonment, decay, and an infrastructure built with anything but people in mind.
Are such places worth 'preserving'? Or are they symbols of abandonment, deserving bold and overdue intervention?
Kuala Lumpur's contradictions are stark
The real scandal isn't demolition; it's disrepair. Across KL, gleaming condo towers rise across the street from derelict flats and crumbling shoplots. This is more than just aesthetic contrast; it's a spatial expression of inequality. It reflects, as Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim noted, a tale of two cities – where some flourish, while others are left to rot.
Are we meant to romanticise this contrast in the name of heritage? Or should we confront it?
Car-centric planning has hollowed out the city
KL's car-centric design is part of the decay. Much of the city is built not for people, but for vehicles. Wide roads, elevated highways, and mega-malls isolate neighbourhoods and sterilise streets. Walking is neither safe nor pleasant. Streets are not places to linger; they're obstacles to cross.
Anand may find KL 'lovely' because, like many, he likely experiences it from behind the wheel. But step outside the car and a different city reveals itself: one where illegally parked vehicles choke sidewalks, noise and fumes dominate, and historical streets like Jalan Sungai Besi and Jalan Loke Yew are reduced to sad, forgotten corridors. This is not urban vitality; it's engineered alienation.
If the URA is to mean anything, it must take aim at this form of urban planning. The housing and local government ministry must coordinate with the works and transport ministries, Kuala Lumpur City Hall, and urban thinkers like Think City to confront the real problem: we've built cities for cars, not people. How can we then reverse this death spiral?
Preserve, but also intervene
Anand is right to call for greater attention to heritage and adaptive reuse. These must be central to any renewal strategy. But to oppose the URA outright, or to rely on existing legal frameworks that have repeatedly failed, is wishful thinking.
The very laws he defends are what allowed Plaza Rakyat to languish for decades and Jalan Sungai Besi's heritage stock to crumble along high-speed roads. They are not sacred; they are part of the reason we're in this mess.
Urban renewal shouldn't mean blanket demolition or unchecked developer profit, nor should it be reduced to cosmetic fixes or nostalgic preservation. In a city grappling with neglect and inequality, renewal must mean real transformation, driven by public interest, equity, and thoughtful planning.
Look at Mexico City: recent investments in underserved areas like Iztapalapa have improved housing, infrastructure, and public services without displacing residents. These projects show that renewal can be ambitious, inclusive, and community-driven.
The question isn't whether to act – it's how. We must proceed with care, but let's not pretend that inaction is the more principled choice.
Boo Jia Cher is an FMT reader.
The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of FMT.