A Current View of Penang’s Development: Rhetoric & Reality

� Dr. Lim Mah Hui

� MPPP Councillor

� Penang Forum 5, Penang

� August 4, 2012

1

State Government – Penang Blueprint

p.135 –liveable city defined broadly as:

� People centered, residents wellbeing

� Strengthen community relation

� More public space to encourage more civic engagement & interaction

� Pedestrian network, bicycle lanes, efficient public transport

2

Khazanah & World Bank – Cities, People and Economy: A Study on Positioning Penang

� Penang offers relaxed, cosmopolitan and balanced lifestyle

� Attributes of liveability declined with growth

� Air & water quality deteriorated

Traffic congestion soared

3

� Traffic congestion soared

� Absence of good public transport

� Urban amenities like libraries neglected

� Lively civic participation suffered

Commitment to liveability must start with citizens’ concerns

� Last study on people’s views was done in 1999 –Penang Peoples Report

� Lower stress, open spaces, access to shopping, heritage sites, medical shopping, heritage sites, medical care, bookstores & libraries, sports and social facilities, cultural events are features that young professionals cite as most important

� Must incorporate these in planning4

Two major conclusions from the studies

� (1) Significant - What are not mentioned as attributes of liveability

� More roads and highways

� More high rise luxury condos� More high rise luxury condos

� More trees cut down

� More hill slopes cut

5

Greater Emphasis given to:

� Social, cultural infrastructure r/t physical infra except public transport

� REALITY – over emphasis to non-human scale concrete buildings along human scale concrete buildings along established communities – Kelawai, Gurney, Macalister, Burmah

6

#2 -Emphasise human element & people at centre of planning

� People participate in planning process

� People cannot be an after-thought or relegated to a footnote

� Planning is at heart of liveable city� Planning is at heart of liveable city

� REALITY?

� Planning is fragmented & outsourced

� Developers treated as clients and people as complainants

7

Is “Development” Moving Towards More Liveability? Measure against objectives

� Objective # 1 – People-centric, Civic Engagement, Public Places

� Is our “development” more people-centric or property-centric?centric or property-centric?

� Who has more access to government?

� Are people “clients” or “complainents”

� Why surveyors, planners, architects, engineers & developers have a committee - SPEAD to expedite projects?

8

People–centric?

� Why rakyat not represented in SPEAD or no such regular meetings with directors and heads of local govt?

� Why more resident associations � Why more resident associations complaining of “development” that threaten their environment?

� How often are people consulted BEFORE a project is implemented?

9

Recent positive development with this government

� Botanic Gardens SAP

� MPPP Budgeting process

� Penang Master Transport Plan

10

� Chowrasta market project

� All these came about from public diligence & clamour for participation

� Participatory democracy

#2- Availability of Public Amenities

� City lacking in pedestrian walkways, bicycle networks, libraries, green and open spaces, linear parks, public transporttransport

� Structure Plan calls for 4 ha of open space for every 2,500 persons

� MPPP plans for only 2 per 5,000

� Policy of 10% of open space land in a development project - inadequate

11

Cleaner & Greener Penang Campaign - good

� Must have more meat to it

� Integrated master plan for planting trees, cleaning rivers and beaches, protecting hillsprotecting hills

� Green hills are lungs of Penang –produce oxygen, thru natural channels cold morning air moves down fr hills to town to replenish urban air

12

Hills of Penang

� Green hills provide aesthetic backdrop or stage to life of community

� Gives Penang its character� Gives Penang its character

� Hill slope “development” is NOT simply a technical-engineering issue; it is an Environmental and Social issue

13

Beaches and Shores of Penang

� Blue Print shows Penang island has 66 km of coastline – 20km beaches, 8.5km new reclamation, 2.3km properties, 3km public amenitiesproperties, 3km public amenities

� Study highlights recent private development making sandy beach & foreshore less available to public & trend MUST be reversed

� Propose first 100m of all reclaimed shore land must be open to public 14

Urban Parks

� MPPP has 22 acres of land around SP Chelliah, behind Time Square

� Should it be another urban commercial & housing centre & MPPP commercial & housing centre & MPPP headquarters ? Or an international class urban park ?

� Can people be consulted BEFORE its planned & developed?

15

Rehabilitation of Rivers & Beaches

� Priority be given to rehabilitate rivers and beaches of Penang as has been done in Singapore, Kaoshiung, Taipei

� Takes at least 10 years for it to � Takes at least 10 years for it to rehabilitate; we should have started 4 years ago? Not too late to start now and commission master plan

16

# 3 – Planning & Public Transport

� Penang 1.6m people, 2m vehicles

� Population growth 2.4%, vehicle growth 9.5% per annum

� Building more roads alone WON’T � Building more roads alone WON’T solve problem

� Solution lies in MANAGING growth and use of vehicles, link to planning

17

Planning & Public Transport

� Density & plot ratio of Draft local plan for island based on assumption of 50% public ridership

� Today this ratio is 4%� Today this ratio is 4%

� Policy of 87 units/acre density should be only in transport nodes

� Today its allowed any area where density is up to 30 units/acre > traffic congestion

18

# Heritage Preservation provided in enclave zone

� What about buffer zone and other parts of city with rich architectural and historic buildings & communities?

� Recent episodes highlight danger of � Recent episodes highlight danger of destruction of heritage

� Illegal demolition of Khaw Bian Cheng’s mansion in Pykett Avenue

� Two historic houses where first Thai Prime Minister Manoparkorn torn down 19

Erosion of Heritage

� Even if heritage buildings not demolished, they have been mutilated and suffocated, surrounded by 30 storey structuresby 30 storey structures

� Many foreign visitors have lamented this sad state

� Propose temporary moratorium of further demolition of such buildings pending inventorization

20

Liveable for Who?

� When we speak of liveability, we must keep in mind, for who?

� For rich & for expats who can afford good schools, condos & health care?good schools, condos & health care?

� For ordinary people who can’t access affordable housing and health care?

� For foreign workers who build our roads, cities and clean them?

21

Meaning of International ?

� Should international be a primary adjective or secondary one? Which “model”

� International place of abode like NY � International place of abode like NY and London

� Hong Kong and Singapore?

� Singapore so “successful” that locals left behind > political backlash

� International destination for tourists –Bangkok , Kyoto

22

International City

� International place for arts, culture, cuisine

� International destination for foreign investors in :investors in :

� manufacturing and services?

� Or for property – like in Dubai?

� We should be aware of its positives and negatives

� C.M. will spell this out for us.23

THANK YOUTHANK YOU

24