Ura Why Not Prioritise Maintenance Over Demolition

---

 


According to the United Nations, “to be adequately housed means having secure tenure - not having to worry about being evicted or having your home or lands taken away”.
Yet, this very concern may soon weigh heavily on residents of older buildings with the introduction of the proposed Urban Renewal Act (URA).
Overdevelopment, displacement risks
The proposed URA guidelines allow redevelopment with just 75 percent owner consent and use a 30-year benchmark to demolish old buildings, which could increase the risks of overdevelopment and residents’ displacement.
Imagine you bought a home and took out a 35-year mortgage. Years later, your building turns 30 and is suddenly deemed unfit for living by your city hall.
You end up paying for a home longer than you actually live in it, even though buildings can last 50-60 years with proper maintenance.
The proposed 30-year benchmark is highly questionable. It risks promoting poor-quality developments that last only for 30-40 years, enough to qualify for redevelopment under URA guidelines. It also undervalues the importance of building maintenance practice.
Another scenario: you and 75 percent of your neighbours agreed to redevelop your four-storey walk-up flats into 40-storey condominiums. You are promised a one-to-one replacement unit.
Previously, your maintenance fees were modest, perhaps between RM50-100 a month. Now, in a high-rise with lifts, swimming pools, and round-the-clock security you never asked for, your fees have tripled or quadrupled.
Can you actually afford that? Some might manage, but many would struggle and eventually be forced to move out of the community they have long called home just to find something more affordable.
URA should not incentivise poor planning
By enabling the redevelopment of abandoned and neglected buildings, the proposed URA is also seen as a way to address the persistent issue of abandoned and overhanging housing in Malaysia.
However, to tackle the issue effectively, we must first understand the root cause, which lies in the current sell-then-build (STB) housing delivery system.
Under STB, houses are sold before construction begins, with developers relying on buyers’ mortgage payments to finance the construction.
If developers face financial difficulties or go bankrupt, projects are abandoned, and buyers are left stranded.
Meanwhile, overhang units stem from poor feasibility studies, where developers fail to properly assess local demand.
This raises an important question: Why should the government step in through URA to solve problems caused by developers’ mismanagement?
Shouldn’t developers be held fully accountable, instead of shifting the burden to the government?
Even so, the government has already intervened through the Task Force on Sick and Abandoned Private Housing Projects (TFST), which works to revive projects that still have potential.
URA should not become a convenient solution that rewards poor planning. It must not create an expectation that poorly planned housing projects in the future can simply be rescued later through URA mechanisms.
Prioritise maintenance over demolition
Before we rush into demolition, we need to ask: Is it truly necessary? Can the building be revitalised or refurbished instead?
The root cause of needing renewal is our weak maintenance culture. Many buildings are nearing dilapidation, not because of age but because they were never properly maintained.
They lack long-term building maintenance plans, periodic building condition surveys, and life-cycle costing assessments. These tools are essential to managing wear and tear and prolonging a building’s lifespan.
The challenge is even more acute for low-cost high-rise flats. When poorly maintained, these buildings can quickly deteriorate into urban slums.
The problem lies in the mismatch between the design of high-rise living and the financial capacity of low-income residents to sustain it.
High-rises demand more complex and costly maintenance, from lifts to shared facilities. Yet, these residents often lack the means to fund the ongoing maintenance costs.
Ironically, it is the walk-up flats, the ones that are more affordable, easier to maintain, and better suited to this income group, that are now being targeted for demolition and replaced with expensive high-rises, intending to boost property values.
Why not prioritise maintenance over demolition? Any intervention should begin with a thorough needs-based assessment: Can the issues be addressed with façade upgrades, repainting, lift repairs, or roof works?
Demolition ought to be the last resort, pursued only when refurbishment is no longer viable or safe.
We should ask ourselves: Are we building homes for people or just numbers for the skyline? - Mkini
THEEBALAKSHMI KUNASEKARAN is a Khazanah Research Institute research associate. The views expressed here are solely the writer’s own and do not represent the official views of KRI. All errors remain the author’s own.
The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of MMKtT.

---