Dispelling Myths Surrounding High Rise Development In Urban Malaysia

---

 
I was not surprised to read a recent report on FMT highlighting once again the objections of city dwellers to another high rise development in their vicinity.
Such stories have repeatedly highlighted issues plaguing urban development in cities like Kuala Lumpur, Petaling Jaya, Subang Jaya, Penang, Melaka and Johor Bahru.
It is the manifestation of a larger nationwide problem, with local authorities failing to balance the expectations of developers with those of affected communities.
Many local councils are notorious for approving planning applications with high plot ratios, justifying their decisions by citing the developers’ need to recover high land costs.
Plot ratio 
Developers argue that the only way to offset high land costs is by building taller and increasing the allowable plot ratio. But the truth is, land cost alone isn’t the issue—it’s the cost of securing approvals.
In the property development business, hidden expenses of payoffs are found at every level of the submission and approval process, from the lowest-ranking staff to top decision-makers. These contribute significantly to rising property prices.
Practically every employee of the local authority, including councillors, has a role in the approval process, and oftentimes hands need to be greased, with some needed to be greased well.
This is precisely why developers are uninterested in low or medium-cost housing in urban areas. They simply cannot recover the high expenses incurred when calculated against a target selling target price.
To be financially secure, their only viable option is to target the high-end market, which includes foreigners. At this level, properties these days sell for no less than RM1,000 per square foot.
These are prices that both the B40 and M40 cannot afford. They are not in the target market. Most urban properties today are built for the T20 or foreign buyers.
Long commute 
This is the sad reality. We are no longer constructing urban housing for Malaysians—certainly not for those without homes, young graduates starting their first jobs, or newlyweds from the M40 income bracket.
Forget those in the B40 group. While their services are much required— including as drivers, gig workers, commercial outlet staff members, teachers, office workers, etc.— they cannot be accommodated in the vicinity of their workplace.
Those who work in Penang will have to find housing in Seberang Perai. For those in KL, they would need to look to Bangi, Kajang, or Klang, where house rentals are much more affordable.
As such, they have no choice but to suffer a long commute to work.
Exorbitant homes 
Take the example of a three-bedroom apartment measuring 1,200 square feet. At RM1,000 per square foot, its price tag would easily hit RM1.2 million.
Given today’s average salaries, how many B40 or even M40 families can afford such a home? What would their monthly payments be if they took out a bank loan to purchase the property?
These are the basic calculations any rational buyer considers before investing in an urban home. And yet most urban condominiums are not built to accommodate the majority of potential house buyers.
Some local authority officials will argue that high-end developments generate more revenue, allowing them to spend more on infrastructure, facilities and services. But how valid is this argument? In the first place, providing utilities and infrastructure in urban areas is not cheap.
Public transport 
Upmarket residents do not buy condos as their first home. If they do stay there, they do not rely on public transport. Most own at least two cars, if not more. The expenses involved in building roads, parking facilities and other infrastructure to manage overcrowding and congestion are just as significant.
So where is the supposed financial return from higher revenues versus lower costs as claimed by the local authorities?
The reality is that the local authorities’ obsession with high-end condominiums is driven by corrupt officials working hand in glove with developers. Bribery and shady deals have shaped our urban spaces into what they are today—crisscrossed with flyovers, overcrowded, and congested.
And yet, these same authorities turn to the federal government, demanding billions in public funds to fix mobility issues—issues that they themselves create by approving high-density developments without proper urban planning or strict land use policies.
Their solution? 
Their solution? Expensive new highways, as well as LRT and MRT projects that serve only a fraction of the commuting population while failing to address the root causes of congestion: poor land use policies, inadequate affordable housing, and an over-reliance on private vehicles.
The irony is that these high-end property developments are marketed to the wealthy and foreigners, groups that do not contribute to our public purse.
So, while on the one hand, local authorities justify these luxury projects based on their pretty images and artist impressions, they simultaneously beg for federal funds to mitigate the very traffic problems they create.
Building more roads means more public money is wasted on overpriced transport projects that do not effectively serve the majority of Malaysians.
But as we all know, two wrongs don’t make a right. - FMT
The author can be reached at: [email protected]
The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of MMKtT.

---