The road to affordable housing


Emmanuel Joseph

OVER the weekend, the World Urban Forum was held in Kuala Lumpur. In conjunction with that, several social activists took the effort to showcase ideas on how to tackle the lack of space in Kuala Lumpur.

One of the interesting ideas proposed was to use car park slots to house micro-houses. Each unit will only take up two car parking slots, but be able to house a single person, or two. The houses are scalable and adaptable, and look similar, layout-wise to the micro-apartments in Rome or Hong Kong.

This idea is that with the government and city hall’s policy to discourage usage of cars into and around the city, along with the move to encourage usage of bicycles, the number of parking bays needed would go down, and they could be repurposed to address the need for affordable housing.

This amazing proposition does not stop there; the idea further posits the possibility of re-introducing the ‘kampung’ spirit into towns via a semi-open living environment.

Expensive housing is an increasingly worrisome and growing issue. If the young are unable to afford housing, it would be difficult for them to imagine building families. In order to cater to this need, housing developers are moving away from the cities, and even further than the usual satellite cities. With this decentralisation, bustling commerce and financial hubs get quiet at night, which not only affects the local economy, but renders the space wasted after office hours, and the low occupation density also increases security concerns.

Urban poverty and homelessness is also an increasing problem, with one contributing factor being the high cost of housing and rent – when the cost to rent become too high, along with the cost of travel, some lower-level employees are forced to seek shelter on the street just to get by.

Often the burden is placed nearly squarely on the shoulders of the government, but the problem should be as much the private sector and landowners’.

Happier employees are more productive employees. Helping to ease their worries, such as housing, would benefit the employer as well.

Apart from the CSR-flavoured medium and low cost housing developments undertaken by developers, individual employers could also provide subsidised housing for their employees commuting from outside town, similar to what was done by the government or MNCs of yesteryear. Interest-free or interest-reduced loans could also be offered by companies that can afford it.

Building new homes is not always the best, nor efficient or cost-effective thing the government can do. We have many abandoned and semi-abandoned government, TNB, KTMB, Telekom and other quarters in and around main towns, many of which are quite derelict. These houses should be repurposed and re-used, instead of being left idle to be consumed by age and disuse.

The same applies for abandoned buildings and shoplots. Many of these units are left after the businesses there previously had relocated, moved on to another trade or occupation. These units could be used to house public amenities, if not gentrified to revive economic activity in that area. Not only is this more environmentally sound and a better use of space, it preserves some of the historical value of these buildings. While the government may not afford to do this alone, they can offer incentives such as tax breaks, assist with supporting infrastructure development and promotion of these areas. They can be facilitated by NGOs, resident associations and community movements.

Affordable and sustainable living, like health and public safety, is a collective responsibility and we should all play a role in it. – February 13, 2018.

* Emmanuel Joseph firmly believes that Klang is the best place on Earth, and that motivated people can do far more good than any leader with motive.

* This is the opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insight. Article may be edited for brevity and clarity.


Sign up or sign in here to comment.


Comments


  • The 'low cost' home I used to live in Desa Jaya, Kepong is today worth RM600,000. It cost my Dad 15 months(RM600) of his salary to afford it at that time at RM9K in the early 70s. Within a couple of years in 1976 he bought another 'low cost' house in Taman Bunga Raya, Setapak that cost him 36 months his annual salary at RM25K. Now that house is worth a little over a million RM.

    My point is what took 2-3 year annual salary to afford a home then has now increased to 27-46 years for the same today. Do you find the vast differential to afford a decent home a cause for serious concern?

    The social degeneracy, the dehumanisation, the break-up of the family unit we see today with so much apathy and self-centredness has a co-relation to our inability to afford a home. Putting society under colossal debt burden will only see more cruelty and less emotionally available relationships. People are becoming more unkind and insecure. IMHO.

    Posted 8 years ago by Arun Paul · Reply