How A City Lost Its Waterfront Tracing T PDF

This article was downloaded by: [Universiti Putra Malaysia]
On: 11 June 2012, At: 17:18

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Journal of Environmental Planning and

Management
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjep20
How a city lost its waterfront:

tracing the effects of policies on the
sustainability of the Kuala Lumpur
waterfront as a public place
a b
Shuhana Shamsuddin , Nurul Syala Abdul Latip , Norsidah Ujang
c a a
, Ahmad Bashri Sulaiman & Nursyahida Alfath Alias
a
Department of Civil Engineering (Built Environment), UTM
Razak School of Engineering and Advanced Technology, Universiti
Teknologi Malaysia, International Campus, Jalan Semarak, Kuala
Lumpur, 54100, Malaysia
b
Kulliyyah of Architecture and Environmental Design,
International Islamic University Malaysia, PO Box 10, Jalan
Gombak, Kuala Lumpur, 50728, Malaysia
c
Faculty of Design and Architecture, Universiti Putra Malaysia,
Serdang, Selangor, 43400, Malaysia
Available online: 11 Jun 2012
To cite this article: Shuhana Shamsuddin, Nurul Syala Abdul Latip, Norsidah Ujang, Ahmad Bashri
Sulaiman & Nursyahida Alfath Alias (2012): How a city lost its waterfront: tracing the effects
of policies on the sustainability of the Kuala Lumpur waterfront as a public place, Journal of
Environmental Planning and Management, DOI:10.1080/09640568.2012.681635
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2012.681635
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-

conditions
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation
that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any
instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary
sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,
demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
Downloaded by [Universiti Putra Malaysia] at 17:18 11 June 2012
Journal of Environmental Planning and Management
2012, 1–20, iFirst article
How a city lost its waterfront: tracing the effects of policies on the
sustainability of the Kuala Lumpur waterfront as a public place
Shuhana Shamsuddina, Nurul Syala Abdul Latipb, Norsidah Ujangc*, Ahmad
Bashri Sulaimana and Nursyahida Alfath Aliasa
a
Department of Civil Engineering (Built Environment), UTM Razak School of Engineering and
Advanced Technology, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, International Campus, Jalan Semarak,
54100 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia; bKulliyyah of Architecture and Environmental Design,
International Islamic University Malaysia, PO Box 10, Jalan Gombak, 50728 Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia; cFaculty of Design and Architecture, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Serdang, 43400
Selangor, Malaysia
(Received 27 September 2011; final version received 22 March 2012)
Kuala Lumpur owes its beginnings to the two rivers that transect its historic core
but it lost its waterfront as a public place due to rapid urbanisation. The rivers
were used as flood mitigation measures with limited visual and physical access to
the public. This paper traces the effects of policies on the waterfront development
of the city by focusing on the factors that contributed to its disappearance. It
employs a qualitative approach by analysing the riverfront physical conditions
based on old maps and photographs as well as government documents and in-
depth interviews with local authority officials, architects and developers.
Keywords: waterfront; public place; policies; sustainable development; urban
environment
1. Waterfront and sustainable development

Since the early 1990s, the sustainable development agenda has been promoted and
adopted via policies by many governments to ensure that sustainability can be
achieved in the urban areas and for the community to have a better quality of life
(Boyko et al. 2005). The waterfront is an important area in the city where a
sustainable development approach is much needed due to the importance of the
water as a natural resource to the city and the changing roles of the waterfront to
meet current needs. Over the last two decades waterfronts throughout the world have
been used to improve the city image and to provide opportunities for development
close to the city centre (Butener 2006). Breen and Rigby (1994, p. 10) gave the
definition of urban waterfront based on the visual or other connection to the water,
which was disputed by Cau (1999, p. 44) as being too broad and non-applicable to
cities that rise sharply from the waters, such as Genoa. However, the Department of
Irrigation and Drainage of Malaysia (DID 2003) defined the urban waterfront
corridor to be the area within 50 metres from the edge of both sides of the river or
within two building lots. The condition of the urban development in Kuala Lumpur,
*Corresponding author. Email: norsidah@putra.upm.edu.my
ISSN 0964-0568 print/ISSN 1360-0559 online

Ó 2012 University of Newcastle upon Tyne
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2012.681635
http://www.tandfonline.com
2 S. Shamsuddin et al.
which is the study area, is very dense and the 50-metre distance is the limit from
which one can view the river (Breen and Rigby 1994). Hence, this research employs
the definition used by the Department of Irrigation and Drainage because it complies
with the situation in Kuala Lumpur.
According to Boyko et al. (2005), approaches towards promoting the
sustainability of waterfront development are growing due to a projected increase
of the world’s urban population from the current 47% to 60% by the year 2030. The
approach taken by the Royal Commission for the Toronto’s waterfront signalled
‘‘the emergence of an innovative approach to waterfront planning and policymaking
which placed the urban waterfront planning in the novel context of environmental
sustainability’’ (Goldrick and Merrens 1996, cited in Laidley 2007, p. 260). Marshall
(2001) opined that waterfront regeneration projects are able to relate to both our
past and future. Historically they are located near the old city and provide
opportunities for the cities to be reconnected with their waters in the future,
changing their old function to the new. Waterfront regeneration fulfils the
sustainable agenda by maximising the use of natural resources and changing their
functions to adapt to the current and future needs. The waterfront areas provide
planners with the opportunity to cater for increasing demand for recreation, whilst
ensuring the continued survival of precious natural resources in the city. This can be
achieved if the relationship between planning policies and the survival of the water
bodies is clearly understood and given the attention it requires, particularly in
dealing with the ever-growing transportation and housing problem in the city.
Takahashi (1998) opined that as countries experience continued development, those
involved in the city planning must be aware of their roles in reviving the waterfront
area by recovering the loss of the city’s rivers. He further stressed the importance of
having a comprehensive plan relating to the waterfront so that city planners do not
repeat the previous mistakes in the future.
One of the major problems of Kuala Lumpur’s development is that it is still not
contextually integrated with the rivers, is inaccessible to the public (Salim 1993,
Shamsuddin et al. 2008), and is perceived by its residents as a monsoon drain (Anon.
2003). Since the early days of the city, its planning policies have mostly focused on
using the rivers as a flood mitigation measure and solving the pollution problem
(Table 1).
Many efforts can be seen in the drawing up of policies and guidelines, as reflected
by the 1992 ‘Love our river’ campaign by the Department of Drainage and
Irrigation, which was declared a failure in 2007, as evident by a sum of RM5 million
being spent annually for cleaning up the rivers (Ngah and Roslan 2008). The 2006
National Urbanisation Policy and National Heritage Act 2005 also emphasised the
importance of conserving the natural heritage sites (rivers, lakes and others) as part
of achieving sustainability and improving the quality of urban life. Recently, the
announcement of the Tenth Malaysia Plan (2011–2015) specifically highlighted in
Thrust No. 5 that waterfronts are an important public space for the improvement of
the quality of life in urban areas (Government of Malaysia 2010). In addition, the
revitalisation of the Klang River in Kuala Lumpur into a heritage and commercial
centre was also announced as one of the Entry Point Projects (EPP) in the new
Economic Transformation Plan. It aims to spur additional business opportunities
within Greater KL/Klang Valley (KV) that will continue to enhance Greater KL/
KV’s liveability and generate incremental Gross National Income (Anon. 2010). The
Kuala Lumpur Structure Plan 2020 (KLCH 2004) also mentioned that the
Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 3
Table 1. Chronology of law and policies related to the waterfront development periods.
Related Law/Policy/Guideline to the waterfront and the urban river according to the years
Year Law Policy/Guideline
Waterfront Establishment – The Decline of Waterfront (1857–1910)
1907 Sanitary Boards Enactment nil
The Decline of Waterfront to the Commencement of Waterfront Regeneration Awareness
(1911–1978)
1913 Municipal ordinance Cap 133/1913 nil
1916 Town Improvement Enactment 1916 nil
1920 Water Act 1920 (Cap 146)(1989) nil
1923 Town Planning & Development Bill, 1923 nil
1927 Town Planning & Development Bill, 1927 nil
1930s Sanitary Board Enactment Cap 137, 1930 nil
1955 Town Boards Enactment of the Federated nil
Malay States (Cap 137) amended on 21st

April 1955
1953 Irrigation Areas Act 1953 (Act 386) nil
1954 Drainage Works Act 1954 (1988) nil
1958 Undang-undang kecil Bangunan Dewan nil
Bandaraya Kuala Lumpur, 1958
1960 Akta Ibu Kota Persekutuan, 1960 (Act 190) nil
1964 Land Conservation Act 1960 nil
1965 National Land Code 1965 (Act 65) nil
Ministerial Function Act 1969
1974 Environmental Quality Act 1974 nil
1974 Street, Drainage and Building Act 1974 nil
(1994)
1974 Federal Constitution nil
1976 Local Government Act 1976 nil
1985 Fisheries Act 1985 (Act 317) nil
1970s City of Kuala Lumpur (Planning) Act 1973 nil
(Act 107)
1976 Town and Country Planning Act 1976 nil
Waterfront Regeneration Awareness to Current (1979–2011)
1982 Federal Territory (Planning) Act 1982 (Act
267)
1984 Kuala Lumpur Structure Plan 1984
2000 Kuala Lumpur Structure Plan 2020
2002 National Environmental Policy
2005 National Heritage Act 2005 (Act 645) National Physical Plan
2005 River reserve (JPBD)
2005 Konsep Pembangunan Mengadap
Sungai (JPS)
2005 Waterfront as Recreational Area
2006 National Urbanisation Policy
2008 Draft Local Plan 2020
waterfront is a potential public area which would give the city a better quality living
environment, and the recent Kuala Lumpur Draft Local Plan (KLCH 2008)
underlined the guidelines for waterfront development for the Kuala Lumpur city
centre. Nevertheless, with all the policies and guidelines that have been put in place
over many years, the water quality index in the Klang River is still at Class III, i.e.
polluted conditions.
This paper examines the outcome of past planning and development policies that
affect the conditions of the Kuala Lumpur urban waterfront. This is done by tracing
the changes in physical development along the waterfront of Kuala Lumpur from its
early beginnings until today. It also examines the significant legislation and policies
that affect the transformation of the waterfront areas and its ability to function as a
public space. The discussions focus on the physical changes along the waterfront as a
result of the past planning policies adopted in the city.
2. Methodology
Kuala Lumpur has two major rivers – the Klang and Gombak Rivers (Figure 1) with
a total length of 9 km meandering through its city centre zone. Located at the
confluence of the Klang and Gombak Rivers (Gullick 2000), it was granted city
status in 1972 and Federal Territory in 1974. The Federal Territory (FTKL)
comprised an area of 243 km2 with a population of 1.6 million in 2006. The 120 km
long Klang River basin is the most populated in the country with over 3.6 million
people and is growing at a rate of 5% annually (Anon. 2008). According to Chay
(1989, p. 21) the characteristics of the city are indeed influenced by the ‘‘two streams
and the architectural styles’’ that grew from the nucleus of the city at the river
confluence to the current sprawl.
The sustainability of the waterfront was analysed by tracing the physical
transformation of the waterfront areas and its ability to function as a public space as
a result of the policies adopted. Using a qualitative approach, the analysis of the
physical development along Kuala Lumpur waterfront was established based on
four main sources – development plans from Kuala Lumpur City Hall (Master
Plans, Structure Plans, Guidelines, Annual Reports and Local Plans); legislation and
ordinances; old maps from the Department of Land Survey; and old photographs
from the National Archives Department – as well as reports and official letters from
the Sanitary Board, Health Office of Selangor, Public Works Department and
Department of Irrigation and Drainage. The secondary data were gathered from the
National Archive, Kuala Lumpur Library, Kuala Lumpur City Hall’s Library, the
Town Planning Department in Kuala Lumpur, the Drainage and Irrigation
Department, Public Works Department Library, museums, media and personal
collection. Lara (2008, p. 26) conducted 21 in-depth interviews with the residents of
the modernist homes to understand why the modernist influence is apparent in the
design of the houses. For this research, 32 people were interviewed, with 14 key
informants comprising City Hall officials, eight from agencies outside the City Hall,
five developers and five architects. In order to maintain the confidentiality of the
respondents, each respondent has been assigned a number following their profession
and organisation to which the respondent is affiliated to, namely LA (1, 2 . . . etc.) for
the City Hall officials, OA (1, 2 . . . etc.) for government agencies other than the City
Hall, DV (1, 2 . . . etc.) for developers embarking on projects within the waterfront
and AR (1, 2 . . . etc.) for practising architects who have designed projects within the
waterfront areas. These respondents were directly involved with the planning and
development control process involving the riverfront areas whereas the architects
and developers were those who were commissioned to undertake projects near the
riverfront.
The interviews were conducted to ascertain the effects of the city policies on the
physical development along the waterfront and the factors that influence the type
Figure 1. The two main rivers crossing through the city centre. Source: Kuala Lumpur City
Hall (2004). (Colour version online.)
of policies adopted. The analysis of the interview transcript is in the form of

content analysis because this technique has gained popularity due to the general
rise of scientific methods in the social sciences. Referring to Bird et al. (1983, p.
146) and Sulaiman (2000), the content analysis is based on a two-step procedure
that consists of: (1) breaking down the communication into constituent units or
categories which are then coded, and (2) recombining these units to provide a
composite measure or profile of the study. The data obtained from the interviews
are then compared to the physical changes that have occurred along the waterfront
based on the archival data, during the time when decisions were made and the
policies were adopted.
3. The beginning of a waterfront settlement

The birth of Kuala Lumpur (which means ‘Estuary of Mud’) started at the
confluence of the Klang and Gombak Rivers in 1857, as a result of the search for
new tin mining areas: this formed the nucleus of the early city. In the 1880s the
Malay settlement was concentrated along the riverbank, away from the Chinese
settlements, whereas the west bank of the Klang River became the choice of the new
British residency and administration buildings. The river was then an important
resource to the locals for transportation, daily routines and as a natural sewer
(Public Works Department 1884, Gullick 1988). The first Sanitary Board was formed
in 1890 (Khoo 2004, p. 2) to advise the residents on the disposal of sewage and
human waste into the river (Shariff 1989, p. 12), causing concern about the
conditions of the rivers and its maintenance (British Resident of Selangor 1906,
Public Works Department 1911, Abidin 1990).
Kuala Lumpur experienced rapid population growth from 18,000 in 1890 to
95,000 in 1926, with overcrowding, flooding and sanitation being among its major
problems (State Engineer Selangor 1917). Efforts to contextually integrate the river
with the waterfront were demonstrated by the tree planting schemes along the river
at Lornie Road in 1937 (Shariff 1989, p. 13). Although the concern for public open
space in the city centre was urgently required, it had not been implemented, even up
until 1948 (Hancock 1948). However, some government offices were already
established around an open turf field, known as a ‘padang’, on the left bank of
the Klang River, which were used for public socialising, sports and a venue for
events.
When Kuala Lumpur began to be a trading post, an embankment was
constructed near the original landing place, known as the Market Quay, to secure
the area from flooding. The river structure started to change when one bend in the
river was straightened in the 1890s for flood mitigation, as well as to accommodate
the railway goods yard and engine shed (Gullick 2000). The steps at Market Quay
were also altered to become a double flight of steps that projected into the river
(Government Secretary of Selangor 1891). By 1885, a new landing place was
constructed below Market Street, with wooden premises abutting the river being
removed in 1887 (Gullick 1988).
By the 1950s the town was congested with many squatters settling along the river
reserves, being 17% of the total population by the late-1970s and 1980s (Anon.
1996). It also aggravated the river pollution and flooding problems, with a loss of
US$17 million each year (Anon. 2006), making the river one of the most polluted
rivers in the country by 1980. In the mid-1980s extensive relocation of the squatters
outside Kuala Lumpur took place with new housing projects built to accommodate
the growing population, including the existing Tiong Nam Settlement, which is
situated on the right bank of the Gombak River.
The confluence of the two rivers is located ‘almost at the centre of the historical
zone’ forming a ‘Y’ shape that divides the city into three significant land
parcels (KLCH 2004). Originally the rivers were left in their natural state, with
the two largest bends, known as the ‘S’ bend, located at the southern part (Figure
2, left).
Attempts to straighten the ‘S’ bend along the lower parts of the river were already
being discussed in 1909 due to the damaging effects of the big flood in 1902, although
no work was instigated at that time (Figure 3) (Abidin 1990). After the big flood in
1971 the river was channelled in 1978 and the projects to clean, widen and upgrade
the river were implemented in 1988 (interview with architect, 2008). This marks
the beginning of the loss of the waterfront as a public realm because the ‘natural
edges’ of the river were turned into a large ‘concrete edged monsoon drain’ (Anon.
2003).
A proposal to upgrade the rivers for the city’s recreational purposes was put
forward in the 1970s, but only the channelling of the rivers to mitigate the flood was
implemented (interview with City Hall officials, architect, 2008). The rivers’ potential
was not important then (interview respondents, 2008, Kamalruddin 2006), where,
according to Concannon (1958), the previous ‘town plans’ only comprised zoning
plans and maps that were used to guide future development but did not highlight the
potential role of the waterfront for public recreation.
It was only in the late-1980s that natural boulders were brought to the Putra
World Trade Centre (PWTC) site riverbanks to recreate the natural look of the river
there (interview with City Hall officials, 2008) (Figure 4). This was because an
international event was due to take place, which resulted in all the existing walkways
along the river in the city centre being cleaned and cleared to allow pedestrian access
along the river, and measures were taken to encourage developments, with new
buildings facing the river (interview with City Hall officials, 2008).
In 1997, the controversial proposal to build a mega project called Linear City
(a multi-storey mixed development project above and along the river) was
approved, but the project did not happen due to the economic crisis (Chew 2001).
This would have been another attempt to erase the waterfront from the city’s
fabric. The 1990s saw a decreasing number of people living in the city centre
Figure 2. Diagram showing the development of straightening work and the widening of the
rivers throughout the years for flood mitigation measures.
Figure 3. Map of the Kuala Lumpur city centre showing the locations of the Gombak River
and the Klang River.
(Kuala Lumpur Structure Plan 2020) due to high land prices and expensive
housing. Many older parts of the city were deteriorating, including the waterfront
areas (KLCH 2008).
Figure 4. An attempt to naturalise the riverbank next to the PWTC area (refer to ‘A’ in
Figure 3).
4. The effects of transportation mode on the river’s function

With the introduction of trains and cars in the early 1900s, the river’s function as a
transportation mode started to decline. Many of the earlier streets in the town and
along the river that were designed for pedestrian use were later transformed into
roads for cars. From the original landing place at the waterfront area, a new trading
post grew in the form of a market place with a square. By 1875 there were already a
few streets established around it, which included Cross Street to the north and
Market Street to the south, both running straight down towards the river. These two
streets were paved with ‘corrugated’ timber for the easier movement of loads to and
from the embarkation points at the river. Some of the early roads were very narrow,
measuring only about 12 feet wide (Gullick 1988). Both streets were perpendicularly
connected to the High Street, which ran parallel with the river (Gullick 1994). When
the railway lines were constructed, the main exit for the goods to be transported was
into Market Street, thus, making it one of the busiest thoroughfares in the city
(Abidin 1990).
Until the 1880s the river became a barrier that confined the earlier village to the
east side of the bank (Gullick 1994, p. 5). The need for a bridge arose when the
British Government offices were built along Holland Road on the west bank. In
the following years more bridges were constructed that crossed the rivers (Gullick
1988, 2000). With the introduction of the new transportation system in 1928, Lornie
Road (now known as the Federal Highway) was well developed along the Klang
River (KLCH 1977). Later, the road systems in Kuala Lumpur evolved into a radial
pattern originating from the city centre which caused major traffic congestion
(KLCH 1977, p. 10).
The original roads were also too narrow to accommodate the increasing traffic
due to inefficient public transportation. This led to a series of bypasses being
constructed in the city centre during the 1970s, with an elevated bypass crossing the
river to the south (Rudduck 1956, p. 74). The elevated road created a visual barrier
to the river from the city centre. A bypass that runs parallel to Gombak River was
also constructed very close to the river’s edge to allow the maximum amount of land
to be developed. This trend continued into the early 1990s.
Between 1993 and 1998, the Light Rail Transit (LRT) was constructed and
completed with most of the rail tracks constructed along the line of the river (KLCH
1996) (Figure 5). The tracks of a portion of the LRT System II that run on viaducts
descend at point ‘C’ shown in Figure 5, into a tunnel system, which links to the rest
of the track system II within the city centre. A pedestrian promenade was built above
the tunnel at Jalan Benteng along the waterfront (KLCH 2004). This was followed
by the completion of the monorail to support the LRT system in 2003 with only one
part crossing the Klang River (Figure 5). In 2001, the completion of 7.9 km of the
first elevated highway, known as AKLEH, resulted in the Klang River being
sandwiched by the highways. The rest of the LRT tracks were either built on the
surface following the height of the viaduct; or were located next to the riverbank,
such as the Pasar Seni LRT Station, or at the edge of the banks, such as the
Bandaraya LRT station; or built on top of the river such as the Masjid Jamek and
PWTC LRT stations.
By 2007, many pedestrian walkways along the river were also upgraded and
paved with some complying to the requirements of the Disability Act 2007 (interview
with City Hall officials, 2008).
5. Effect of plots and buildings in changing the water edge

During the early period the plots were as irregular as the streets and in various sizes.
Many smaller lots were amalgamated to accommodate larger-scale development.
Figure 5. Road and LRT pattern in relation to the river in 2008. Source: Abdul Latip et al.
(2009, p. 6). (Colour version online.)
Some new plots in the late-1970s were larger in size, such as the ones along
the waterfront of Gombak River at Jalan Raja Laut where many high-rise
buildings are concentrated in the city centre. A plot ratio and plinth control was
then proposed to regulate future development in the heart of Kuala Lumpur
involving areas ‘‘between Jalan Church on the North and Jalan Sultan Suleiman to
the South, and between Klang River on the west and Jalan Sultan to the east’’ (TPD
1960, p. 1).
In the 1920s many public buildings were built in the city centre (Concannon
1958), such as the Central Market that was erected in 1936 near the river (Davis
1937). The building had a double frontage that faces both the street and the river. By
this time the control of development regarding proper location, back and side lanes
was scrutinised by the Town Planning Board for every building application
(Ramasamy 1943, p. 5). Later, development expanded along and between the two
rivers where buildings lining the waterfronts were kept at a maximum of five storeys
(Concannon 1957, interview with architect and City Hall official, 2008). From the
year 2000 onwards, more high-rise blocks were built along the waterfront. By this
time new buildings built along the waterfront were required to address the river such
as the Medan Selera, Jalan Batu, although there are still new commercial buildings
built that have their services and car parks facing the Klang River such as Capsquare
in Jalan Munshi Abdullah.
In the early days, the Malay settlements in the form of singularly stilted buildings
were arranged organically according to the topography with some units abutting the
rivers, whereas the houses of the Chinese were built like a street system on the
ground with a narrow street in between (Shariff 1989). After the by-law that imposed
the use of bricks for the walls and tiles for the roof was introduced following the fire
in 1881, the first rows of brickwork buildings built were well arranged along Market
Street near the river. By 1895 a few major public buildings such as the Sultan Abdul
Samad Building (a court house) were built near the west bank of the river with its
secondary entrance facing the river. A similar approach was taken on a double
frontage building of the Central Market on the east banks. Interestingly, the Jamek
Mosque sits in the middle of the triangle-shaped land at the confluence of the two
rivers and was designed with its entrance steps direct from the river. Many of the
buildings mentioned are still standing today.
5.1. Planning layout

It was found that some of the residential buildings that were built after the river lost
its function as a transportation mode followed the same planning layout as those
built during the early beginning of the settlement. It can be inferred that this may be
the reason why the river started to be treated as a backyard.
Buildings that were built during the period 1911–1978 were governed by the
roads layout. At that time the earlier footways along the river were turned into back
lanes to comply with the requirement that all shop houses should have back lanes.
Some of the back lanes were turned into roads when the motor systems were
introduced. This shows that the initial planning and introduction of the other
transportation systems has affected the present condition of the waterfront
development. There is no evidence that policies or guidelines were in place during
the early beginning that promoted development to orientate towards the river, as
reflected below:
No. . . no . . . at that time, planning did not have anything of that aspect [on regulations
or guidelines facing the river] . . . let us say what an architect wants to do, we just have to
follow the Bye Laws and regulations and that is all. The rest is you . . . you in your own
ingenuity if you want to focus on that. (AR1)
Some of the developments that backed onto the river were built before the release of
1984 Kuala Lumpur Structure Plan where the subsequent policies and guidelines
that were introduced through the Kuala Lumpur Structure Plan 2020 (KLCH 2004)
tended to promote development to orientate towards the river. However, the lack of
a framework and detailed guidelines led to difficulties in monitoring. The develop-
ment in Kuala Lumpur after the KLSP 1984 depended solely on the Structure Plan,
a general development framework that was based on zones and not lots (OA9).
However, the Structure Plan acknowledged that the waterfront was a potential
public place and considerations of the surrounding environment were an important
part of the development control in the future. However, this document has no
supporting framework or detailed plan for its implementation.
The Structure Plan 2020 (KLCH 2004), gazetted in the year 2004 to replace the
Structure Plan 1984, also has similar problems. Six years after the document was
gazetted, the local plan, which is supposed to have a detailed plan by lot at the
waterfront area, is still in draft form and has yet to be revised after the public hearing
on the draft plan in August 2008. Although it includes consideration on the aspect of
addressing the river, due to the public comment on the document it is yet to be
gazetted. LA2 claimed that some of the available guidelines were too general and not
applicable in the Kuala Lumpur context. An example was shown of a guideline for
developments fronting the river. It shows a diagram of a building that has ample
space between the building and the river. This situation is very rare in the fully built
up area of Kuala Lumpur. This tallies with the statement mentioned in the KLSP
1984 (KLCH 1984, p. 3), which stated that many of the policies and guidelines are
drawn up on a nationwide perspective by many ministries and departments, and are
not applicable to the needs of Kuala Lumpur.
OA1 highlighted that the non-statutory nature of the guidelines have limitations
in its implementation. Other guidelines that were produced include ‘Fronting the
River Development Guideline’ by DID in 1995 and also the ‘River Reserve as the
Public Open Space’ guideline by the Town Planning Department. Their implementa-
tion is still questionable as there have been buildings built in recent years that still
back onto the rivers. Another factor given by LA12 and OA1 is due to profit making
as a main priority of the developers as illustrated below:
First, we consider is it feasible? Then we will look at the how much profit we can make.
Can you sell it? If you cannot sell, we do not want your idea or concept. (DV2)
This situation is paralleled with Greed and Roberts (1998, p. 198) who opined that
the main consideration of the developers is always the opposite of the town planning
requirements. To them ‘the cost factor’ and ‘profit’ are the priority rather than the
‘design’.
LA12 added that although some developers are receptive to producing good
design, there are still those who are reluctant to do so due to the condition of the
river itself, which was polluted and flooded almost every time there was heavy rain
before the SMART tunnel was constructed and officiated in 2007. The 9.7 km
SMART tunnel is another engineering solution which not only attempts to relieve
the traffic congestion in the southern parts of the city centre but also acts as an outlet
for surplus water during heavy downpours. It is a combination of a storm water
management system with a road tunnel aimed at reducing the problem of flash floods
in the city centre. DV2 mentioned that they tried to follow the instruction of the
authority by facing the river but, unfortunately, they had to ‘enhance’ the
apartments’ view by having a landscaped car park partly on top of the river to
screen the view of the polluted river. AR1 added that due to repeated flooding one of
the building forms was designed with the car park to be on top and ramps for the car
parks were placed at the back of the building facing the river as a buffer in case of
flooding. LA2 added that due to the unbecoming condition of the river, most of the
developments did not consider it as a factor that would enhance the value of the
development. AR2 shared his experience:
I did one project also facing the river, part of it. We wanted to incorporate the river,
thinking that people can walk along the riverbank. In the original design, there was a
water feature that goes from the development to the river. It is similar to the one in San
Antonio. But for the developer to wait for the river to be cleaned for this to happen, the
project will never start, you see. How? They cannot wait for that. So, it is not practical,
the best is we leave a buffer. Then, when the river is cleaned up, maybe we can open it up
again. (AR2)
This illustrates that the condition of the river (polluted and flooding) is a
contributing factor to development backing the river despite the presence of the
SMART tunnel. Awareness of conserving heritage buildings (generally 2–4 storeys
high) only happened in the 1980s when much damage had already been done. With
the incentive to build higher, no setback could be created on plots of tight
‘shophouses’ close to the water’s edge. A high rise is only viable if it is constructed on
at least eight plots of the old ‘shophouses’, resulting in a narrow space between the
waterfront and the river (AR1).
Development in the early days was done in the ‘traditional ad hoc’ manner. It
was only in the late-1970s that the Housing Developers Licensing Act required
developers to be more organised (Chong 1977). Before that developers were not
interested in looking at development in the larger coherent whole and ‘‘could not
care less about urban design’’ (Shahariman 1977, 41). Desfor and Jorgensen (2004)
mentioned that without initial planning of the waterfront and with the inconsistent
demand of market-driven development, high-rise buildings might be built close to
the water’s edge along the waterfront. Before the1984 Structure Plan there was no
consideration concerning the creation of the enclosure of space for the waterfront
area as a potential public space. Although the DID Guideline suggests that all
buildings should be facing the river and lower ones built at the water edge (DID
2003) (Figure 6), it could not be fully implemented because it was a non-statutory
document.
OA1 mentioned that the river reserve was only available in the National
Land Code of 1960. The reserve was meant for the public, similar to the reserves
for the roads, the only difference being that the reserves for roads were given
after the roads were built, whereas the rivers were already there before human
settlement.
OA1 highlighted that most of the buildings built along the waterfront were
already at the waterfront from the beginning of settlements in Kuala Lumpur before
the river reserve was even established. LA14 added that the existing ‘alignments’ of
Figure 6. Example given in the Fronting the River Guideline on the preferred arrangement
of buildings along the waterfront. Source: DID (2003). Redrawn by the author.
the building or plots along the waterfront already existed and, therefore, the 50 m
reserve of the river is quite difficult to apply in the context of Kuala Lumpur,
especially for small sites. The owners are usually required to provide some buffer
depending on or following the neighbouring development in terms of the alignment.
However, the river reserves in Kuala Lumpur are still not a gazetted area.
Actually the river reserve (Right of way – ROW) is not done yet. It is not gazetted yet.
DID are still in the process of doing it. There is a reserve but not a legal reserve. That is
the problem – cannot control. Try asking the DID about the reserve – they would not
want to answer – it is not finished yet! (LA14)
Although KLCH expects DID to manage the river, OA4 stressed that DID does not
have the statutory power over the river to do so.
At the moment, DID does not have any power in any of the Acts. None of the Acts
mention their role except that they are on the board of appeal for appealed projects in
the Water Act – so it is difficult for them to implement projects or manage the river fully
or even request for the river to be gazetted. This is because the river [land and water] is a
State matter. DID are in the process of proposing a new act – ‘River law’ [water
Resource Law] – and in that DID has the power to manage the river, as the implementer
of the law. (OA4)
Despite the involvement of various agencies with respect to the rivers, unfortunately
no one is really focusing on them. As DID have no power in any of the Acts they
have difficulty in even gazetting the reserves. This led to the loss of many river
reserves, with new developments allowed near the riverbanks (LA1). Without clarity
of the job scope, co-ordinated management between the different agencies involved
and appropriate laws, it is going to be difficult to control new development along the
waterfront.
OA1 highlighted that one of the reasons why some of the buildings were abutting
the river in the current context is also related to the river widening exercise for flood
mitigation in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s. OA4 mentioned that in some areas the river
is too narrow to have the capacity to cope with the 100 years of intense discharge to
the river.
It is difficult to do in Kuala Lumpur because the space is too limited. Some of the
buildings are built right up to the reserve area. Therefore, it is difficult to make the river
bigger. We have to go right to the building edge. (OA4)
The buildings in the area were already built quite close to the river before the river
widening took place. The width of the river, which is quite narrow in certain areas,
made them go right up to the building line, which consequently resulted in buildings
that abutted the river when the river widening took place. OA1 and OA3 added that
there are cases where the building was once quite a distance from the river but after
50 years it became very close to the river because of the natural movement and
meandering of the river. This phenomenon sometimes caused the concrete wall to
continuously collapse which resulted in more money being spent on the
rehabilitation process. Consequently, some of the concrete channels had to be
repaired and widened from time to time. This exercise sometimes reached the
building line, which resulted in buildings abutting the river. Anon. (2003) mentioned
that the engineering-driven solutions used to straighten and widen the rivers were
‘‘poorly conceptualised flood mitigation measures’’ and that they were done without
a thorough understanding of the importance of the morphology and hydrology of
the river. These facts were admitted by the Department of Irrigation and Drainage
who were in the process of proposing the re-meandering of the river and removing
the concrete wherever possible. This indicates that the natural movement of the river
affected the solution that was taken, which affects the level of contextual integration.
Buildings in the city centre that are built over the river are the LRT stations
where the river reserve was chosen to locate the LRT lines and stations because of
cost limitations, as reflected below:
This is a Federal government project and there is a limitation on cost. If it is constructed

on a big road you have to acquire the land and others, therefore, the project cannot
start. Our country is not so rich, therefore we have to make use of the space that we
have. By using the riverfront area, we do not have to pay. (LA5)
This may indicate that the government has limitations of cost and that they have to
use the available resources wisely, in this case the river reserve was to provide
infrastructure (LRT-public transportation) for the people. The river reserve is
government land and no cost is incurred for land acquisition for this purpose. Due to
the limitations of space at some very important catchment points, such stations had
to be built on top of the river (Figure 7).
6. Discussion and conclusion

The loss of the Kuala Lumpur waterfront results from the changing transportation
mode and the efforts to tackle the flooding problem. The ensuing development that
tends to maximise the strategic location and high land value near the waterfront
areas has made these areas prime targets for commercial development, effectively
blocking its presence from the city centre. From a trend where buildings were
abutting the river and entrances were from the river, the ensuing development that
took place backed onto the river, thus blocking physical and visual access to the
water bodies. The water edge was treated artificially with a concrete embankment,
changing its character from a natural riverbank to that of a huge concrete drain.
Continuing pollution of the river has made the water quality undesirable for any
possible recreational use.
Figure 7. The LRT Station Masjid Jamek, which crosses above the river (refer to ‘B’ in
Figure 3).
The rapid changes in Kuala Lumpur also transformed the characteristic of the
waterfronts and the river. Most of the Light Rail Transit (LRT) facilities, which were
completed between 1993 and 1998, were erected along the river line. By 2007, the
public awareness of the importance of the river was still low and concentration of the
campaign had been on beautifying the riverbanks rather than the river itself.
Although a new RM10 million campaign was launched to educate the public about
protecting the rivers (Anon. 2007), to date no specific target has been set.
Contextual integration between the waterfront and the river occurred during the
early beginnings of the city when the river was the lifeline of the city. During the
intermediate stage, two conditions of facing and backing or ‘ignoring’ the river
occurred because it was no longer used for transportation and there was no policy to
contextually integrate the waterfront and the river. The engineering driven solutions
used to straighten and widen the rivers were ‘poorly conceptualised flood mitigation
measures’ with no thorough understanding of the importance of the morphology and
hydrology of the river (Anon. 2003). Nature’s way of fighting back was evident
through the continuous collapse of the concrete riverbanks over the years, resulting
in more money being spent for the rehabilitation process (Anon. 2003). Considera-
tion was given to re-meandering the river by removing the concrete embankments,
and where possible, to revert back to its natural form; however, it never materialised.
The latest flood mitigation measure to divert the water from entering the city centre
during heavy rainfall was launched in March 2008, known as the Smart Tunnel
project, at a cost of RM2 billion. The current development reflects a mixture of the
two situations, however, the scenario is different because the laws, policies and
guidelines to promote the contextual integration with the river were already in place.
This marks the beginning of the awareness of the importance of the waterfront to the
city, although much of the waterfront is no longer accessible to the public (Figure 8).
The situation in Kuala Lumpur repeats the story of many other waterfront cities
in other parts of the world which have undergone a waterfront transformation. The
straightening of the river to make the water flow faster was a trend during the early
twentieth-century in America, with river channellisation being a common solution at
the time throughout the world for the purpose of flood mitigation measures. The
most notable example is the Cheong Gye Cheon River in Seoul, Korea, which was
brought back from the grave after the removal of the elevated highway that covered
the river as part of its flood mitigation measures. The construction of highways
parallel to the rivers due to its linear topography in order to accommodate the
growing volume of traffic severed many cities all over the world from their
waterways. This is accompanied by the decentralisation of the city centres involving
a net shift in economic activity away from the city centre to the suburban centres,
hence reducing the activities along the waterfront. Singapore took a bold step in the
mid-1990s by implementing its master plan proposals for the revitalisation of the
Singapore River. As a result, the problems of polluted waters and squatters as well as
dilapidated development along the river were tackled, transforming the once
forgotten downtown riverfront into the most vibrant place in the city. Another
successful transformation of a river is the San Antonio River Walk. The river was
once treated as a drain with development backing onto the river, a situation that is
similar to the current Kuala Lumpur riverfront. The river was polluted and became
part of the city’s drainage system but it has now been transformed into one of the
most visited riverfronts in the world.
Figure 8. Terraced area facing the river (refer to ‘C’ in Figure 3).
The story of Kuala Lumpur and its waterfront has many lessons for other cities
in terms of the importance of having a comprehensive policy that includes the
waterfront as a public realm and open space for the city. It is hoped that with the
sustainable development agenda being pursued globally and nationwide, efforts to
reclaim the waterfront for public use can be implemented by creating more access to
the waterfront and development control policies that encourage future development
to address the waterfront in the city centre. The importance of careful decisions with
regards to policies affecting the waterfront and its effects on streets, land use, plots
and building orientation can have a significant impact on the future treatment of the
city’s waterfront in the future.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge the Universiti Teknologi Malaysia and the Ministry of
Science, Technology and Innovation of Malaysia for funding the two-year research on
developing guidelines for urban waterfront regeneration in Malaysian city centres which
includes Kuala Lumpur as one of its case studies.
References
Abdul Latip, N.S., Heath, T., and Liew, M.S., 2009. A morphological analysis of the
waterfront in city centre, Kuala Lumpur. Inta-sega 2009 Conference: Bridging innovation,
technology and tradition. Sustainable approaches to (rapid) sustainable architecture and
environment, Bangkok. ID:INTA00072-00155.
Abidin, Z., 1990. Album Kuala Lumpur 100 years as a local authority. Kuala Lumpur: Kuala
Lumpur City Hall.
Anon., 1996. Integrating environmental considerations into economic policy making processes.
Kuala Lumpur. United Nations [online]. Available from: http://www.unescap.org/
DRPAD/publication/integra/volume2/malaysia/2my04d02.htm [Accessed 10 September
2009].
Anon., 2003. Checking troubled waters. Star Online [online]. Available from: http://www.
ecologyasia.com/news-archives/2003/feb-03/thestar_20030208_3.htm [Accessed 12 March
2008].
Anon., 2006. River pollution: humans are the main culprit. Bernama [online]. Available from:
www.bernama.com.my [Accessed 7 June 2008].
Anon., 2007. New love-our-river campaign. The Star Online [online]. Available from: http://
thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file¼/2007/4/25/nation/17541919&sec¼nation [Accessed
25 April 2007].
Anon., 2008. Klang river basin environmental improvement and flood mitigation project Asian
Development Bank [online]. Available from: http://www.adb.org/documents/malaysia-
klang-river-basin-environmental-improvement-and-flood-mitigation-project [Accessed 27
May 2008].
Anon., 2010. Future city forum: WaterfrontExpo [online]. Available from: www.futurecity
forum.com [Accessed 21 October 2010].
Bird, J.H., Lochhead, E.N., and Willingale, M.C., 1983. Methods of investigating decisions
involving spatial effects including content analysis of interviews. Transactions of the
Institute of British Geographers, 8 (2), 143–157.
Boyko, C.T., Cooper, R., and Davey, C., 2005. Sustainability and the Urban Design Process.
Engineering Sustainability, 158 (3), 119–125.
Breen, A. and Rigby, D., 1994. Waterfronts cities reclaim their edge. New York: McGraw-Hill.
British Resident of Selangor, 1906. Removal of obstruction in Klang River below Market Street
Bridge. Kuala Lumpur: Public Works Department.
Butener, B., 2006. Waterfront revitalisation as a challenging urban issue in Istanbul. 42nd
ISOCaRP Congress, Istanbul. [online] Available from: http://www.isocarp.org/pub/
events/congress/2006 [Accessed 18 June 2007].
Cau, L., 1999. Tourism and recreation in urban waterfront redevelopment. A comparative
integrated approach. Thesis (PhD). Southampton University.
Chay, P., 1989. Kuala Lumpur minarets of old, visions of new. Kuala Lumpur: Foto Technik
Sdn Bhd.
Chew, D., 2001. Vision of a 21st-century public place: Giga world, KL linear city, Kuala
Lumpur. In: P. Miao, ed. Public places in Asia Pacific cities. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic
Publishers, 331–348.
Chong, P., 1977. The state of building industry over the last 10 years. A housing developer’s
view. Majallah arkitek, 4, 26–34.
Concannon, T.A.L., 1957. Building a city within a city. Kuala Lumpur: Caxton Press.
Concannon, T.A.L., 1958. New towns for old. Kuala Lumpur: The Malay Mail Press.
Davis, R.P., 1937. Annual report for the year 1937. Kuala Lumpur: Town Planning
Department (Editor).
Desfor, G. and Jorgensen, J., 2004. Flexible urban governance. The case of Copenhagen’s
recent waterfront development. European Planning Studies, 12 (4), 479–496.
DID, 2003. Guidelines on facing the river concept. Kuala Lumpur: Department Irrigation and
Drainage.
Government of Malaysia, 2010. Tenth Malaysia plan (2011–2015). Kuala Lumpur:
Government of Malaysia.
Government Secretary of Selangor, 1891. Recommends alteration of steps at market quay.
Kuala Lumpur: Public Works Department.
Greed, C. and Roberts, M., eds. 1998. Introducing urban design. Harlow: Addison Wesley
Longman.
Gullick, J.M., 1988. Kuala Lumpur 1880–1895. A city in the making. Kuala Lumpur: Pelanduk
Publications (M) Sdn Bhd.
Gullick, J.M., 1994. Images of Asia. Old Kuala Lumpur. Kuala Lumpur: Oxford University
Press.
Gullick, J.M., 2000. Monograph: a history of Kuala Lumpur 1856–1939. Kuala Lumpur: The
Malaysian Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society.
Hancock, T.H.H., 1948. Report of the Town Planning Department Federation of Malaya for the
Year 1948. In: Town Planning Department (ed). Selangor: Town Planning Department,
pp. 8.
Kamalruddin, S., 2006. A tribute to Charles Reade: redistribution schemes and Kuala Kubu
Baru Garden City Design (1921–1929). Malaysian town plan, 3 (1), 19–31.
Khoo, K.K., 2004. Kuala Lumpur from trading depot to modern metropolis. City news, 3–5.
KLCH, 1977. Comprehensive development plan: City of Kuala Lumpur. Kuala Lumpur: Kuala
Lumpur City Hall.
KLCH, 1984. Kuala Lumpur structure plan. Kuala Lumpur: Kuala Lumpur City Hall.
KLCH, 1996. Annual report. Projek sistem transit laju ringan (LRT). Kuala Lumpur: Kuala
Lumpur City Hall.
KLCH, 2004. Kuala Lumpur structure plan 2020 Vol.1. Kuala Lumpur: Kuala Lumpur City
Hall.
KLCH, 2008. Kuala Lumpur draft local plan. Kuala Lumpur: Kuala Lumpur City Hall.
Laidley, J., 2007. The ecosystem approach and the global imperative on Toronto’s central
waterfront. Cities, 24 (4), 259–272.
Lara, L.F., 2008. The rise of popular modernist architecture in Brazil. California: University
Press Florida.
Marshall, R., 2001. Contemporary urban space-making at the water’s edge. In: R. Marshall,
ed. Waterfronts in post-industrial cities. London: Spon Press, 3–14.
Ngah, N. and Roslan, S., 2008. Kuala Lumpur kota raya banjir kilat. Kuala Lumpur: Berita
harian.
Public Works Department, 1884. Report on Klang River. Kuala Lumpur.
Public Works Department, 1911. Deviation of Klang River at the Head Master’s house of
Victoria Institution. Kuala Lumpur.
Ramasamy, S., 1943. Annual report for year 1943. Kuala Lumpur: Town Planning
Department.
Rudduck, G., 1956. Town Planning in Kuala Lumpur. Kuala Lumpur: Town Planning
Department.
Salim, M., 1993. Aspects of urban design with special reference to image and identity built form:
case study Kuala Lumpur. Thesis (PhD). University of Wales.
Shahariman, M., 1977. Towards the environmental design in the new Federal Capital
Territory. Majallah arkitek, 4, 41–43.
Shamsuddin, S., Abdul Latip, N.S., and Sulaiman, A.B., 2008. Waterfront regeneration as
sustainable approach to city development in Malaysia. In: A. Gospodini, C.A. Brebbia
and E. Tiezzi, eds. The sustainable city V. Urban regeneration and sustainability.
Southampton: WIT Press, 45–54.
Shariff, S., 1989. The history of Kuala Lumpur. Kuala Lumpur: Arkib Negara Malaysia.
State Engineer Selangor, 1917. Removing of brick drain running across the riverbed to remedy
flooding in Kuala Lumpur. Kuala Lumpur: State Engineer Office.
Sulaiman, A.B., 2000. Urban design method-theory and practice: a case study in Malaysia.
Thesis (PhD). University of Nottingham.
Takahashi, N., 1998. Changes in Tokyo’s waterfront environment. In: G.S. Golany, K.
Hanaki and O. Koide, eds. Japanese urban environment. New York: Pergamon, 147–177.
TPD, 1960. Special town planning rules for growing city centre; control of building development
essential. Kuala Lumpur: Town Planning Department.

How A City Lost Its Waterfront Tracing T PDF

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

How A City Lost Its Waterfront Tracing T PDF

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

This article was downloaded by: [Universiti Putra Malaysia]

On: 11 June 2012, At: 17:18

Journal of Environmental Planning and

How a city lost its waterfront:

Available online: 11 Jun 2012

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2012.681635

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-

1. Waterfront and sustainable development

*Corresponding author. Email: norsidah@putra.upm.edu.my

ISSN 0964-0568 print/ISSN 1360-0559 online

Malay States (Cap 137) amended on 21st

of policies adopted. The analysis of the interview transcript is in the form of

3. The beginning of a waterfront settlement

4. The eﬀects of transportation mode on the river’s function

5. Eﬀect of plots and buildings in changing the water edge

5.1. Planning layout

This is a Federal government project and there is a limitation on cost. If it is constructed

6. Discussion and conclusion

essential. Kuala Lumpur: Town Planning Department.

Potrebbero piacerti anche