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

88% 4.65.46% Jadual 1b: Kadar Pertumbuhan Penduduk Dan Kawasan Binaan Bagi Bandar Amerika8 Kadar Kawasan Metropolitan Chicago Kawasan Metropolitan Cleveland Pertumbuhan (%) (1970-1990) (1970-1990) Penduduk 4% -8% Saiz Ruang 46% 33% 5 Goh. beliau mendakwa bahawa konsep petempatan yang padat telah dikonsepkan pada awal 1970an dengan tujuan untuk mengurangkan penggunaan sumber. p. 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.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”.54% 7. pada tahap kepadatan mana masyarakat Malaysia hendakkan bandar mereka dibentuk? Terma bandar padat sememangnya telah menjadi tajuk perbincangan utama dewasa ini. 2/3 . iaitu masing-masing dari 1990~2010 dan 1970~1990. Walaupun kadar pertumbuhan yang dikumpulkan adalah dari waktu yang berlainan. p. Jan K 2001. 6 Brueckner. Dalam penulisan Datuk Dr Goh baru-baru ini. Malaysia Economic Monitor. 8 Brueckner.95% 3.68-70.65. apakah tahap kepadatan yang boleh diterima of masyarakat umum? Dengan kata lain.60% -2. B L 2012.6 Berdasarkan kepada definisi rebakan bandar yang dicadangkan oleh Brueckner. dan dakwaan orang ramai tentang rebakan bandar- bandar di Malaysia. dengan mengambilkira latar belakang sosio budaya komuniti Malaysia yang unik. theSun (Tuesday). Johor Bahru Pertumbuhan (%) Lumpur (1995-2009) (1989-2009) (1990-2009) Penduduk 3. Pulau Pinang and Johor Bahru) dan dua kawasan metropolitan Amerika (Chicago and Cleveland). 7 The World Bank 2011. satu usaha pengumpulan data untuk membandingkan tahap ‘ketidakseimbangan’ bandar-bandar utama di Malaysia dan Amerika adalah ditunjukan di Jadual 1a and 1b.50% Densiti Penduduk -1. pp. tetapi tempohnya adalah lebih kurang sama iaitu selama 20 tahun. maka. Janaury 3. ‘Compact cities– the future of urban living’. Jadual tersebut menunjukkan kadar pertumbuhan penduduk dan kawasan binaan untuk tiga kawasan bandar utama Malaysia (Kuala Lumpur. Nov.55% 1.85% Kawasan Binaan 4.2011.12. kita perlu memahami akan maksud padat? Bersama-sama dengan itu. p.34% -1. Dari Jadual tersebut.penting lagi. ‘Smart cities’. Jan K 2001.

dan pemajuan bangunan bertingkat rendah. New York: Princeton Architectural Press. kita mungkin perlu merujuk kembali Kelbaugh (1989) yang berbincang tentang konsep Pedestrian Pockets9. menggalakkan piece-meal infill. Economakis. Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia. Khususnya tentang idea Krier – “… pembangunan semula bandar … Beliau mencadangkan supaya kembali kepada kaedah urban quarter dan bukannya land-use zoning. National Physical Plan Division. Masyarakat Malaysia perlu lebih kreatif untuk mencari suatu kaedah untuk merancang. Leon Krier: Architecture and urban design 1967-1992. Krier et al (1992) tentang Urban Quarters10 dan Calthorpe (1993) mengenai Transit-Oriented Development (TOD)11. Walkability and community identity in the city centre of Kuala Lumpur. Krier tegaskan bahawa kita perlu usaha ke arah pembangunan bandar era pre-automobile. Martins Press. tetapi satu arahan polisi yang jelas sudah pasti diperlukan bagi menggerakkan pembangunan bandar Malaysia ke arah pencapaian Wawasan 2020. D. Dengan pengertian itu. padat (public transport-oriented). S F 2011. p. P 1993. Hasil dari rujukan tersebut mungkin dapat mencetus ideas.”12 Sejak beberapa dekad yang lepas.43. R E and Watkin. kita telah berpeluang menyaksikan perubahan ‘European towns’ kepada ‘American cities’ di Malaysia.gov. 10 Krier. New York: Princeton Architectural Press in association with the University of Washington. Adakah HPB satu kaedah sesuai untuk mengubah reka bentuk bandar Malaysia? Walaupun kita tidak ada lagi jawapan untuk itu buat masa ini. membangun dan mengurus bandar-bandarnya. Level 17. atau yang bercampur (integrated private-public multimodal mobility strategy)? Bagaimana pendapat anda? _________________ Rokibah Abdul Latif Wong Seng Fatt 13 Jabatan Perancangan Bandar Dan Desa. community. D 1992. 11 Calthorpe. Dewasa ini.my 3/3 . L. persoalan tentang bentuk bandar masa depan Malaysia masih tidak jelas – adakah rebakan (private automobile-oriented). D (ed. and the American dream. Malaysia 9 Kelbaugh. London: St. menjana semula plaza dan square pejalan kaki. The next American metropolis: Ecology. kita mungkin harus berterima kasih kerana tekanan dari isu perubahan iklim dan kemampanan alam sekitar yang membolehkan kita memikirkan semula strategi perancangan. The pedestrian pocket book: A new suburban design strategy. Jalan Sultan Sulaiman 50000 Kuala Lumpur. pembangunan dan pengurusan bandar kita. Berkaitan isu penggubahan bentuk bandar dari rebakan kepada padat. Email: sfwong@townplan. 13 Correspondence Address: National Urbanization Policy Unit. Porphyrios. 12 Wong. praktikkan penggunaan bercampur ke atas bangunan dan jalan. (PhD thesis: unpublished). Wisma Tun Sambanthan. Semenanjung Malaysia Kementerian Perumahan Dan Kerajaan Tempatan.) 1989.

planners in particular. however. 2 Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia 2006.12~27. thus we can presume that many Malaysians. is the question of. ‘Isu perbandaran dan konsep pembangunan bandar di bawah RMK-10’. 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.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. how compact Malaysians want their cities to be? 1 Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia 2006. p. we believe that it is deliberated to make Malaysian towns or cities more compact.1-1~1-2. how sprawl Malaysian cities are? If they are really seriously sprawling. Kuala Lumpur: Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia. traffic congestion. ‘Urban sprawl: Lessons from urban economics’. at present. 1/3 . develop and manage the urban environment. Pulau Pinang: Seminar Pelaksanaan Dasar Perbandaran Negara (DPN) Teras 6: Urustadbir bandar yang efektif. suppose that implementation of NUP could contribute to reduce numerous existing major urban problems such as.65. what is the level of compactness that is acceptable to the most Malaysians? State otherwise. Disember 7. 3 Brueckner. taking into account of the unique Malaysian social cultural backgrounds. Jan K 2001. Therefore. Of which. National Urbanisation Policy. at the back of our minds. 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”. Carbon emission. p. pp. At this juncture. under utilization of land or space and weakening social interaction. Additionally and more importantly.40. we need to understand how compact is compact? Alongside with that. Brookings-Wharton papers on urban affairs: 2001. what steps that need to be taken to rectify the ‘mistake’? Is UGL one of the solutions to it? Furthermore.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. rapid rate of urbanization that overly encroaching agricultural land and environmental sensitive areas. how to transform sprawled cities into confined or compacted cities? More importantly. 4 Rokibah Abdul Latif 2011.2 3 4 It is believed that most of the above-mentioned urban problems are associated to the ‘sprawl’ pattern of the present urban form. pp.

85% Built-up Area 4. Walkability and community identity in the city centre of Kuala Lumpur. 7 The World Bank 2011. The term of compact city has really strike the chart of the town planning debate in Malaysia nowadays.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”. thus. The tables show the population and spatial growth rates of three Malaysia’s largest urban areas (Kuala Lumpur. Malaysia Economic Monitor. 10 Krier. Leon Krier: Architecture and urban design 1967-1992. S F 2011. New York: Princeton Architectural Press in association with the University of Washington. D (ed. B L 2012. 12 Wong.34% -1. 6 Brueckner. … He suggests a return to the urban quarter instead of land-use zoning. p.”12 5 Goh.12. Economakis. 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 3.43. D. we might need to return to Kelbaugh (1989) on the concept of Pedestrian Pockets9. Krier strongly argues that we need to work towards pre-automobile cities. Janaury 3. L.50% Population -1.95% 3. 9 Kelbaugh. Nov. Martins Press.68-70.60% -2.65.46% Density Table 1b: Population and spatial growth rates of American cities8 Chicago Metropolitan Area Cleveland Metropolitan Area Growth Rate (%) (1970-1990) (1970-1990) Population 4% -8% Spatial Size 46% 33% About the issue of altering the urban form from sprawl to compact.88% 4. community. R E and Watkin. Jan K 2001.2011. Although the growth rates are taken from different periods. The next American metropolis: Ecology. and build low-rise buildings. Porphyrios. and the American dream. In particular Krier’s idea – “the ‘reconstruction of the city’. regenerate pedestrian plazas and squares. D 1992. New York: Princeton Architectural Press. he has claimed that the concept of compact settlements was conceptualized in the early 1970s as “a means to minimise the use of resources”. 2/3 . theSun (Tuesday). The pedestrian pocket book: A new suburban design strategy.) 1989. ‘Compact cities– the future of urban living’. P 1993. pp. p.65. 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. Penang and Johor Bahru) and two American metropolitan areas (Chicago and Cleveland).54% 7. p. Krier et al (1992) on the Urban Quarters10 and Calthorpe (1993) on the Transit-Oriented Development (TOD)11. ‘Smart cities’. practice mixed-use buildings and streets. a simple compilation of data to compare the levels of ‘imbalance’ between Malaysian cities and American cities are showed in Tables 1a and 1b. however there are all of the period of about 20 years. which is from about 1990~2010 and 1970~1990 respectively. In a recent Datuk Dr Goh writing. and as many claimed Malaysian cities are sprawled. Jan K 2001. 8 Brueckner. London: St. They might give us some lights. (PhD thesis: unpublished).6 Based on Brueckner definition of urban sprawl. p. 11 Calthorpe.55% 1. encourages piece-meal infill.

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. develop and manage their cities. interestingly. Level 17. Peninsular Malaysia Ministry of Housing and Local Government. In that sense. however. Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia. what do you reckon? ______________________ Rokibah Abdul Latif Wong Seng Fatt 13 Department of Town and Country Planning. the question of which route remains unclear – the sprawl (private automobile- oriented). we have a chance to observe ‘European towns’ growing into ‘American cities’ in Malaysia. Since the past few decades. Wisma Tun Sambanthan. Email: sfwong@townplan. Malaysians need to search for a creative route to plan.my 3/3 . or the mixed one (integrated private-public multimodal mobility strategy)? So. Jalan Sultan Sulaiman 50000 Kuala Lumpur. National Physical Plan Division. the compact (public transport-oriented). development and management strategies. Today.gov. a clear policy direction certainly has to be urgently made in order to guide the urban development moving towards the Vision 2020. Malaysia 13 Correspondence Address: National Urbanization Policy Unit. Can UGL become one of the approaches to alter Malaysian cities’ form? Although we do not have the answer right now.