Berunding Antara Bentuk Bandar 'Rebakan' Dan 'Padat'. Dasar Perbandaran
Negara (DPN) 2006 Malaysia mengandungi 30 dasar yang khusus untuk.
Had Pembangunan Bandar (HPB): Berunding Antara Bentuk Bandar ‘Rebakan’ Dan ‘Padat’
Dasar Perbandaran Negara (DPN) 2006 Malaysia mengandungi 30 dasar yang khusus untuk dirujuk bagi merancang, membangun dan mengurus persekitaran bandar. Dalam pada itu, salah satu daripada polisi tersebut, iaitu DPN4, telah menyatakan “Had pembangunan bandar (urban growth limit) ditentukan berasaskan daya tampungan bagi setiap bandar di seluruh negara”.1 Disebabkan DPN merupakan satu dokumen hasil daripada ribuan kali rundingan antara semua peringkat pihakberkuasa dan pihak-pihak berkepentingan di dalam bidang perancangan dan pembangunan bandar, maka kita boleh menganggap bahawa kebanyakan orang ramai, perancang bandar terutamanya, mengandaikan pelaksanaan DPN boleh menyumbang kepada mengurangkan banyak masalah bandar semasa seperti, kadar perbandaran pesat yang telah mencerobohi tanah pertanian dan kawasan sensitif alam sekitar, kesesakan lalulintas, pelepasan Karbon, penggunaan tanah atau ruang yang tidak optimum dan melemahkan interaksi sosial.2 3 4 Adalah dipercayai bahawa kebanyakan masalah bandar tersebut di atas adalah dikaitkan kepada corak ‘rebakan’ bentuk bandar semasa ini. Oleh itu, ia adalah jelas bahawa salah satu rasionale bagi gubalan polisi tersebut (DPN4 tentang HPB) adalah untuk menangani isu rebakan bandar. Tambahan dan lebih penting lagi, kita jangka bahawa ia adalah bertujuan untuk membentuk bandar Malaysia yang lebih padat. Walau bagaimanapun, pada ketika ini, persoalan yang timbul di dalam minda kita adalah, sehingga kini, pada tahap manakah rebakan bandar di Malaysia ini? Jikalau ia adalah pada tahap rebakan yang serius, apakah langkah-langkah yang harus diambil untuk memperbetulkan ‘kesilapan’ tersebut? Adakah HPB satu penyelesaian kepada rebakan bandar? Tambahan pula, bagaimana untuk mengubah bandar yang telah rebak kepada bentuk bandar yang padat? Lebih 1
Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia 2006, National Urbanisation Policy. Kuala Lumpur: Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia. p.40. 2 Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia 2006, pp.12~27. 3 Brueckner, Jan K 2001, ‘Urban sprawl: Lessons from urban economics’. Brookings-Wharton papers on urban affairs: 2001, p.65. 4 Rokibah Abdul Latif 2011, ‘Isu perbandaran dan konsep pembangunan bandar di bawah RMK-10’. Pulau Pinang: Seminar Pelaksanaan Dasar Perbandaran Negara (DPN) Teras 6: Urustadbir bandar yang efektif, Disember 7, pp.1-1~1-2. 1/3
penting lagi, kita perlu memahami akan maksud padat? Bersama-sama dengan itu, dengan mengambilkira latar belakang sosio budaya komuniti Malaysia yang unik, apakah tahap kepadatan yang boleh diterima of masyarakat umum? Dengan kata lain, pada tahap kepadatan mana masyarakat Malaysia hendakkan bandar mereka dibentuk? Terma bandar padat sememangnya telah menjadi tajuk perbincangan utama dewasa ini. Dalam penulisan Datuk Dr Goh baru-baru ini, beliau mendakwa bahawa konsep petempatan yang padat telah dikonsepkan pada awal 1970an dengan tujuan untuk mengurangkan penggunaan sumber.5 Manakala Brueckner yang mengkaji kritikan rebakan bandar dari perspektif ekonomi bandar telah mendefinisikan rebakan sebagai satu keadaan “ketidakseimbangan antara pengembangan bandar dan asas pertumbuhan penduduk”.6 Berdasarkan kepada definisi rebakan bandar yang dicadangkan oleh Brueckner, dan dakwaan orang ramai tentang rebakan bandarbandar di Malaysia, maka, satu usaha pengumpulan data untuk membandingkan tahap ‘ketidakseimbangan’ bandar-bandar utama di Malaysia dan Amerika adalah ditunjukan di Jadual 1a and 1b. Jadual tersebut menunjukkan kadar pertumbuhan penduduk dan kawasan binaan untuk tiga kawasan bandar utama Malaysia (Kuala Lumpur, Pulau Pinang and Johor Bahru) dan dua kawasan metropolitan Amerika (Chicago and Cleveland). Walaupun kadar pertumbuhan yang dikumpulkan adalah dari waktu yang berlainan, iaitu masing-masing dari 1990~2010 dan 1970~1990, tetapi tempohnya adalah lebih kurang sama iaitu selama 20 tahun. Dari Jadual tersebut, dapat dilihat bahawa ketidakseimbangan kadar pertumbuhan antara penduduk dan kawasan binaan bagi bandar-bandar utama di Malaysia adalah tidak ketara jika dibandingkan dengan bandar-bandar di Amerika. Jadual 1a: Kadar Pertumbuhan Penduduk Dan Kawasan Binaan Bagi Bandar Utama Malaysia7 Kadar Kawasan Greater Kuala Pulau Pinang Kaw. Johor Bahru Pertumbuhan (%) Lumpur (1995-2009) (1989-2009) (1990-2009) 3.55% 1.88% Penduduk 4.85% 4.95% 3.54% Kawasan Binaan 7.50% Densiti Penduduk
-1.34%
-1.60%
-2.46%
Jadual 1b: Kadar Pertumbuhan Penduduk Dan Kawasan Binaan Bagi Bandar Amerika8 Kadar Kawasan Metropolitan Chicago Kawasan Metropolitan Cleveland Pertumbuhan (%) (1970-1990) (1970-1990) 4% Penduduk -8% Saiz Ruang
5 6 7 8
46%
33%
Goh, B L 2012, ‘Compact cities– the future of urban living’. theSun (Tuesday), Janaury 3, p.12. Brueckner, Jan K 2001, p.65. The World Bank 2011, ‘Smart cities’. Malaysia Economic Monitor, Nov.2011, pp.68-70. Brueckner, Jan K 2001, p.65. 2/3
Berkaitan isu penggubahan bentuk bandar dari rebakan kepada padat, kita mungkin perlu merujuk kembali Kelbaugh (1989) yang berbincang tentang konsep Pedestrian Pockets9, Krier et al (1992) tentang Urban Quarters10 dan Calthorpe (1993) mengenai Transit-Oriented Development (TOD)11. Hasil dari rujukan tersebut mungkin dapat mencetus ideas. Khususnya tentang idea Krier – “… pembangunan semula bandar … Beliau mencadangkan supaya kembali kepada kaedah urban quarter dan bukannya land-use zoning. Krier tegaskan bahawa kita perlu usaha ke arah pembangunan bandar era pre-automobile, menjana semula plaza dan square pejalan kaki, praktikkan penggunaan bercampur ke atas bangunan dan jalan, menggalakkan piece-meal infill, dan pemajuan bangunan bertingkat rendah.”12 Sejak beberapa dekad yang lepas, kita telah berpeluang menyaksikan perubahan ‘European towns’ kepada ‘American cities’ di Malaysia. Dewasa ini, kita mungkin harus berterima kasih kerana tekanan dari isu perubahan iklim dan kemampanan alam sekitar yang membolehkan kita memikirkan semula strategi perancangan, pembangunan dan pengurusan bandar kita. Masyarakat Malaysia perlu lebih kreatif untuk mencari suatu kaedah untuk merancang, membangun dan mengurus bandar-bandarnya. Adakah HPB satu kaedah sesuai untuk mengubah reka bentuk bandar Malaysia? Walaupun kita tidak ada lagi jawapan untuk itu buat masa ini, tetapi satu arahan polisi yang jelas sudah pasti diperlukan bagi menggerakkan pembangunan bandar Malaysia ke arah pencapaian Wawasan 2020. Dengan pengertian itu, persoalan tentang bentuk bandar masa depan Malaysia masih tidak jelas – adakah rebakan (private automobile-oriented), padat (public transport-oriented), atau yang bercampur (integrated private-public multimodal mobility strategy)? Bagaimana pendapat anda?
_________________ Rokibah Abdul Latif Wong Seng Fatt 13 Jabatan Perancangan Bandar Dan Desa, Semenanjung Malaysia Kementerian Perumahan Dan Kerajaan Tempatan, Malaysia
9
Kelbaugh, D (ed.) 1989, The pedestrian pocket book: A new suburban design strategy. New York: Princeton Architectural Press in association with the University of Washington. 10 Krier, L, Porphyrios, D, Economakis, R E and Watkin, D 1992, Leon Krier: Architecture and urban design 1967-1992. London: St. Martins Press. 11 Calthorpe, P 1993, The next American metropolis: Ecology, community, and the American dream. New York: Princeton Architectural Press. 12 Wong, S F 2011, Walkability and community identity in the city centre of Kuala Lumpur. (PhD thesis: unpublished), p.43. 13 Correspondence Address: National Urbanization Policy Unit, National Physical Plan Division, Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia, Level 17, Wisma Tun Sambanthan, Jalan Sultan Sulaiman 50000 Kuala Lumpur. Email:
[email protected] 3/3
Urban Growth Limit (UGL): Negotiating between ‘sprawl’ and ‘compact’ urban forms
The 2006 National Urbanisation Policy (NUP) of Malaysia comprises 30 specific policies to be referred in order to plan, develop and manage the urban environment. Of which, one of the policies that is NUP4 has stated as “Urban Growth Limit (UGL) is determined based on its carrying capacity for all towns in the country”.1 Since NUP is a product after thousands of consultation among all levels of authorities and stakeholders in the field of urban planning and development, thus we can presume that many Malaysians, planners in particular, suppose that implementation of NUP could contribute to reduce numerous existing major urban problems such as, rapid rate of urbanization that overly encroaching agricultural land and environmental sensitive areas, traffic congestion, Carbon emission, under utilization of land or space and weakening social interaction.2 3 4 It is believed that most of the above-mentioned urban problems are associated to the ‘sprawl’ pattern of the present urban form. Therefore, it is obvious that one of the rationales of that particular policy (NUP4 of UGL) is anticipated to deal with the issue of urban sprawl. Additionally and more importantly, we believe that it is deliberated to make Malaysian towns or cities more compact. At this juncture, at the back of our minds, however, is the question of, at present, how sprawl Malaysian cities are? If they are really seriously sprawling, what steps that need to be taken to rectify the ‘mistake’? Is UGL one of the solutions to it? Furthermore, how to transform sprawled cities into confined or compacted cities? More importantly, we need to understand how compact is compact? Alongside with that, taking into account of the unique Malaysian social cultural backgrounds, what is the level of compactness that is acceptable to the most Malaysians? State otherwise, how compact Malaysians want their cities to be? 1
Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia 2006, National Urbanisation Policy. Kuala Lumpur: Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia. p.40. 2 Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia 2006, pp.12~27. 3 Brueckner, Jan K 2001, ‘Urban sprawl: Lessons from urban economics’. Brookings-Wharton papers on urban affairs: 2001, p.65. 4 Rokibah Abdul Latif 2011, ‘Isu perbandaran dan konsep pembangunan bandar di bawah RMK-10’. Pulau Pinang: Seminar Pelaksanaan Dasar Perbandaran Negara (DPN) Teras 6: Urustadbir bandar yang efektif, Disember 7, pp.1-1~1-2. 1/3
The term of compact city has really strike the chart of the town planning debate in Malaysia nowadays. In a recent Datuk Dr Goh writing, he has claimed that the concept of compact settlements was conceptualized in the early 1970s as “a means to minimise the use of resources”.5 Whereas Brueckner studied critics of urban sprawl from the lens of urban economics has defined that sprawl is an “imbalance between urban spatial expansion and underlying population growth”.6 Based on Brueckner definition of urban sprawl, and as many claimed Malaysian cities are sprawled, thus, a simple compilation of data to compare the levels of ‘imbalance’ between Malaysian cities and American cities are showed in Tables 1a and 1b. The tables show the population and spatial growth rates of three Malaysia’s largest urban areas (Kuala Lumpur, Penang and Johor Bahru) and two American metropolitan areas (Chicago and Cleveland). Although the growth rates are taken from different periods, which is from about 1990~2010 and 1970~1990 respectively, however there are all of the period of about 20 years. It seems that the population and built-up growth rates of Malaysia’s cities are not that far off-track as compared to the really imbalance grow of both the American cities. Table 1a: Population and spatial growth rates of Malaysia’s largest urban areas7 The Greater Kuala Lumpur Penang Johor Bahru Area Growth Rate (%) Area (1995-2009) (1989-2009) (1990-2009) Population 3.55% 1.88% 4.85% 4.95% 3.54% Built-up Area 7.50% Population Density
-1.34%
-1.60%
-2.46%
Table 1b: Population and spatial growth rates of American cities8 Chicago Metropolitan Area Cleveland Metropolitan Area Growth Rate (%) (1970-1990) (1970-1990) 4% Population -8% Spatial Size
46%
33%
About the issue of altering the urban form from sprawl to compact, we might need to return to Kelbaugh (1989) on the concept of Pedestrian Pockets9, Krier et al (1992) on the Urban Quarters10 and Calthorpe (1993) on the Transit-Oriented Development (TOD)11. They might give us some lights. In particular Krier’s idea – “the ‘reconstruction of the city’. … He suggests a return to the urban quarter instead of land-use zoning. Krier strongly argues that we need to work towards pre-automobile cities, regenerate pedestrian plazas and squares, practice mixed-use buildings and streets, encourages piece-meal infill, and build low-rise buildings.”12 5
Goh, B L 2012, ‘Compact cities– the future of urban living’. theSun (Tuesday), Janaury 3, p.12. Brueckner, Jan K 2001, p.65. 7 The World Bank 2011, ‘Smart cities’. Malaysia Economic Monitor, Nov.2011, pp.68-70. 8 Brueckner, Jan K 2001, p.65. 9 Kelbaugh, D (ed.) 1989, The pedestrian pocket book: A new suburban design strategy. New York: Princeton Architectural Press in association with the University of Washington. 10 Krier, L, Porphyrios, D, Economakis, R E and Watkin, D 1992, Leon Krier: Architecture and urban design 1967-1992. London: St. Martins Press. 11 Calthorpe, P 1993, The next American metropolis: Ecology, community, and the American dream. New York: Princeton Architectural Press. 12 Wong, S F 2011, Walkability and community identity in the city centre of Kuala Lumpur. (PhD thesis: unpublished), p.43. 2/3 6
Since the past few decades, interestingly, we have a chance to observe ‘European towns’ growing into ‘American cities’ in Malaysia. Today, we might like to thank the pressure of climate change and the issue of environmental sustainability that allow us to re-think our urban planning, development and management strategies. Malaysians need to search for a creative route to plan, develop and manage their cities. Can UGL become one of the approaches to alter Malaysian cities’ form? Although we do not have the answer right now, however, a clear policy direction certainly has to be urgently made in order to guide the urban development moving towards the Vision 2020. In that sense, the question of which route remains unclear – the sprawl (private automobileoriented), the compact (public transport-oriented), or the mixed one (integrated private-public multimodal mobility strategy)? So, what do you reckon?
______________________ Rokibah Abdul Latif Wong Seng Fatt 13 Department of Town and Country Planning, Peninsular Malaysia Ministry of Housing and Local Government, Malaysia
13
Correspondence Address: National Urbanization Policy Unit, National Physical Plan Division, Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia, Level 17, Wisma Tun Sambanthan, Jalan Sultan Sulaiman 50000 Kuala Lumpur. Email:
[email protected] 3/3
