Ensure Urban Renewal Is Meaningful

---

 Rehabilitate, instead of redeveloping, to preserve the area’s urban history and heritage.
From Anand Krishnan
I was very pleased to see that my recent letter to FMT, Syerleena’s take on urban renewal only touches the surface, was replied to by Boo Jia Cher, titled Urban Renewal is not a dirty term.
The title of Boo’s response hinted as to what to expect: a rebuttal to my points about the proposed Urban Renewal Act (URA). Upon reading it however, it was apparent that the author used my letter – and the points I made – more as a springboard for a broader opinion piece on the failings of urban and social planning in Kuala Lumpur. The URA was mentioned all but twice in his otherwise well-written article. That aside, I admired how he didn’t hold back in his critique about all that ails Kuala Lumpur.
Boo hit hard: overcrowded shophouses, dark alleys, uncollected thrash, vermin-infested back lanes, neglected infrastructure, public amenities on the “brink of collapse”, neglected elderly citizens, migrant workers, substandard living conditions, small bus-stops and finally, what I believe is his catch-cry, the urbanistically-fraught culture of car-centrism in Malaysia.
If I read it correctly, he blames all of this “entrenched structural neglect” or “engineered alienation” on urban planners. Interestingly, there was no mention of politicians and law-makers.
Engineered alienation
That said, I don’t think anyone, certainly not me, would disagree with his critique. He says it with conviction and since we all know it is true, we can murmur our support. But the way he says it, I think he believes the URA is a magic wand of an Act that can reverse-engineer, improve, make better or transform all this “alienation” in one go; and not having it is not an option. I am sceptical, to say the least.
The URA needs revision, refinement
I don’t oppose the URA outright or even in part: I’m not sure why Boo felt I did. All I said was that in its current form, having another Act of Parliament may not be a good thing. If I may expand on this assertion, I am saying that if the URA is revised and refined, then maybe we can do with another Act. In its current form – in my humble opinion – the URA is raw and rough.
The central theme of my argument is that the Act should not be about the process of acquiring land but if it is really meant to be meaningful, it should be about the process of remedial development on specific acquired lots. I’ve heard that the draft has gone through many iterations and has had input from many agencies; why not let others see it, why not allow fresh eyes?
Shortcomings
In its current form, the URA is really another Land Acquisition Act. It kneads contiguous lots into one large land dough of developable land, for expected great returns on investments. It is a legal mechanism that uses the might of the government to acquire plots – 139 in Kuala Lumpur and 534 elsewhere in the country – that are currently occupied by people, buildings, streets and trees. Once acquired, new development will proceed to insert new people, new buildings, new streets and new trees.
The URA, in its current form, check-lists heritage with just one sentence. There is no mention of urban design, no mention of landscape architecture, no mention of cultural and institutional facilities, no mention of aged-care housing, migrant housing, facilities for youth, no open spaces, no mention of preserving existing streets, and so forth.
As all this and more, make up the full gamut of all the elements of a city, wouldn’t their absence in a new Act about urban renewal be a huge red flag? Should an Act that is primarily about land acquisition be called an “Urban Renewal” Act?
Misuse of term ‘urban renewal’
“Urban renewal” on its own is indeed not a dirty term but when it is placed in the title of a new Act, it must be relatable; it must have specific clauses in it that relate and regulate everything that makes up “urban renewal”. When it does not, it will draw flak and criticisms to itself, as is the case now.
A refined, mature, well drafted Act should be thoughtful, considerate, fair and just: to people, buildings, streets and trees. Such an Act will help guide structure plans, area plans, etc, and we won’t need to write up new Acts to rectify our mistakes every 30 years or so.
In other words, if we put effort, resources, talent and time to make thoughtful urban design decisions now, our cities will not “decay” or “decline” later.
The existing ‘engineered alienation’ in our cities?
So how do we deal with all the existing urban ails of our cities that Boo laments about: the ugly, old, dilapidated, neglected buildings that are rat-infested, dirty, with poor, decayed infrastructure in the city? Not with the might of an all-powerful Land Acquisition Act sequel.
I say, rehabilitate them instead. It is not impossible; it just needs money and political will.
Not too long ago, Singapore’s political will made the decision to rehabilitate all of its ugly, old, dilapidated, neglected HDB housing blocks built in the 50s and 60s. They were at the same crossroads we are at now. They could have demolished and built anew (urban renewal) but they chose to rehabilitate. The people, buildings, streets and trees were given another chance. They are now much loved and their footprints remain a part of the urban morphology of the city, a legacy to Singapore’s urban history; why can’t we do the same?
Urban morphology
Urban morphology is hardly talked about in urban planning these days. It is a method of analysis to frame our understanding of existing areas, people, buildings, streets and trees, everything that makes up a city. With such an understanding, when we make new insertions or rehabilitate old ones, when we do urban renewal or any redevelopment, we do so with purpose and meaning.
“Urban grain” and “figure-ground” are two concepts intrinsic in urban morphology, and are about appreciating the different types of building footprints (the “figures”) against streets/open spaces (the “ground”) in a city: the fine grain of terrace lots, to the coarse-grain of office towers, to the large grain of malls.
If all the contiguous lots of Kampung Baru, for instance, were obtained through the provisions of the URA and its existing urban grain is replaced with that of the KLCC district model, Kuala Lumpur’s urban history loses out, the people who lived there for generations lose out, heritage loses out, sameness would triumph. We really don’t want that.
If I may use a specific analogy; urban renewal doesn’t have to be 139 new big books, it could well be 450 new paragraphs of different lengths inserted at appropriate places in the city.
So yes, Boo and I may not be on the same page on all this, but being on the same page means nothing if we are not at the same point on that page. Just saying. - FMT
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 MMKtT.

---