Latest news with #AnandKrishnan
Free Malaysia Today
17-05-2025
- Politics
- Free Malaysia Today
Syerleena's take on urban renewal only touches the surface
From Anand Krishnan I am writing in response to YB Syerleena Abdul Rashid's opinion piece titled Urban Renewal isn't a threat – it's the help our cities desperately need, published by FMT recently. I found her opinions rather light and imprecise. They merely touched the surface of what cities have to deal with. It did not articulate the breadth and depth of factors that make up a city. I'll explain. We have structure plans that guide development in our cities; we have many existing laws like the Streets, Drainage and Building Act 1974, the Strata Titles Act 1985, the Town & Country Planning Act 1976, and the Uniform Building By Laws 1974, amongst others, that provide a framework for regulating development; and we have local authorities and other agencies to enforce these Acts. There are also other checks and balances to ensure all works well. If this existing framework of acts, plans, and local authorities, has been so bad, how come our cities have developed into what they are now? Our cities — if she looks at them more — are lovely and well regarded by any standard. Her opinion piece was essentially to support one act, the URA, but does she not realise that urban renewal is but just one mode in the entire matrix of development planning and economics? The way she writes suggests it is the only way forward for a city to grow. It is not, there are many other modes available to urban designers and planners. The real question that she failed to ask is do we really need another act to complement all the other Acts we already have? In its current form, I don't think so. 'Supporting the URA means choosing a Malaysia that works for everyone,' she writes. This is another example of her impreciseness. She doesn't articulate her notion of 'everyone'; it is highly questionable and glaringly vague. Just who is the 'everyone' she talks about? Clearly, the URA is not out to help everyone. When developers get hold of a large tract of urban land in an already urbanised city in Malaysia through the provisions of the URA, they are not going to build low-rise affordable multiracial housing, swathes of parks and lakes, community and institutional facilities or even aged-care facilities for 'everyone'. It doesn't make economic sense. It is just not going to happen. In such land, procured cheaply through the provisions of the URA, the type of development that will get the best returns on investment, would be expensive high-rise offices, high-rise condominiums, high-rise commercial blocks, high-rise hotels and high-rise malls. These buildings would be for a select group of 'someones', not everyone. If we are honest with ourselves, we should accept this reality. She talks about 'reversing the decline' of cities. Again, she is imprecise. If she really wants to reverse the decline, she should start with the suburbs. Build better buildings there. Make better development decisions now so that in 30 years we are not faced with demolishing our mistakes. She should push for developing existing vacant land for affordable housing in the suburbs, not in the downtowns of cities. She should get developers to rehabilitate existing buildings in the city that are old, dilapidated and neglected. Give them a new lease of life through innovative, adaptive reuses. Repurpose abandoned buildings into vibrant community facilities. Build new high rises in empty land in-between these old buildings. This is what urban renewal really means. It is not about displacing communities, bulldozing everything you see and building anew. It is about integrating the new with the old, Respect the old streets, old trees, and the old people. These old buildings will become the heritage buildings of the future. We owe it to ourselves to make the right choices today. Anand Krishnan is an architect, urban designer and more recently, a conservation advocate. He is also an FMT reader. The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of FMT.
Free Malaysia Today
17-05-2025
- Politics
- Free Malaysia Today
‘Urban renewal' not a dirty term
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.
