Watch the GAPS - Improving design for better public housing liveability and health
More than 3 million people live in public housing across the country. In Klang Valley alone, at least 25% of the population lives in public housing, albeit not all are in PPRs. Malaysia is recognised for its success in preventing slums and housing its people. Nevertheless, the global shift from focusing on shelter to liveability has placed a spotlight on the quality of these housing solutions and their impact on the lives and livelihoods of the communities.
While absolute poverty has been kept at bay, in many circumstances, current public housing conditions and practices have been shown to negatively impact its residents’ health and quality of life.
One aspect of public housing which demonstrates the impact on quality of life is its function, design and layout. Public housing in Malaysia today falls short of being able to create an environment where all residents can live with dignity and thrive. For example, a lack of recreational facilities gives rise to non-communicable diseases and poor health as the opportunity for physical and social interaction is reduced. Playgrounds in public housing are oftentimes underutilised given their poor design, location or lack of maintenance. Some simply lack benches for guardians to keep watch over their children, posing safety risks and discouraging use. Others can be found next to garbage disposal areas infested with rodents, exposing children to diseases.
Uta Dietrich, Think City adviser and urban health expert explained that the current one-size-fits-all model for public housing is no longer feasible, as society continues to progress and evolve. With that, their needs and wants change too.
According to Uta, the current and future community’s demographic composition and socio-economic needs must be considered when developing housing policies to improve liveability and support poverty exit. Currently, poor access to public transportation directly hinders the community from accessing services, schools and employment.
“We need to look at how PPRs can be planned and designed to promote Green spaces, Active spaces, Pro-social spaces and Safe spaces, also known as the GAPS framework introduced by the Centre for Urban Design and Mental Health, to improve liveability for the community,” she added.
A thoughtful approach to utilising spaces
Uta highlighted the strong connection between the built environment and the state of people’s health, wellbeing, learning access and abilities, welfare access, economic opportunities and more. As such, while GAPS was developed at the city planning level in mind, it can equally be applied to the planning, development and improvement of public housing.
To start with, existing PPRs which largely comprise high-rise, smaller units with long corridors can be improved with better space utilisation. For example, creating little gardens along the walkway to activate underutilised space, which could also serve to connect people as spaces become more inviting.
“Additionally, pro-social public spaces can be added inside buildings. There are opportunities near lifts for example to create seating and even notice boards that will encourage people to stop and it makes them talk to each other,” she suggested.
When social interaction increases, it instils a sense of belonging and this connects the community. It reduces the incidence of crime as people know each other and look out for each other. It also increases social networks and creates a support system within the community, so people feel less isolated and lonely.
Along the lines of creating more pro-social public spaces, Think City introduced a pilot intervention initiative at a PPR located along the Klang River, whereby the community were guided and encouraged to setup up gardens and walking tracks along the river. An outcome of the pilot saw friendships created among community members from varying age groups, genders and ethnicities leading to a strengthening of community ties and a sense of belonging.
Strengthen policies to improve liveability
For public housing to realise the full potential of the GAPS framework, an impact-focused cross-sector collaboration among key stakeholders within the public housing ecosystem is called for. This involves engaging relevant ministries in the policy development process to create a public housing task force that considers the development co-benefits of health, education, welfare, environment and economy, as each issue is interconnected.
It must also address the emerging threat of climate change, requiring all relevant stakeholders to start looking at how public housing is built from materials to reduce heat, with awnings preventing sun and rain from coming in and promoting stormwater absorption. For future builds, it needs to look at alleviating flooding concerns which are common due to the location of public housing in poor real estate areas.
“Inclusion of spaces for micro-businesses and shared facilities for economic gains like communal kitchens or spaces where people can operate their micro businesses are particularly important for single mothers who need to make a living on site,” Uta pointed out.
She noted that personal retrofitting should be encouraged with a guiding framework to create a sense of belonging.
“Resident upgrading and retrofitting could be encouraged through benefits such as rent reduction so that there is a bit of balance. When the residents upgrade and retrofit themselves, they usually invest more than the rent that has been reduced and this helps in reducing the burden on the management of the public housing,” she pointed out.
Uta also opined that the burden of maintaining public housing should not merely be with the government but called for co-development partnerships or sustainable financing models with private sectors so public housing can achieve the changes required to facilitate better liveability.
Empowering the community through participation
To change public housing liveability for the better, the model must pivot from the welfare model with little inclusion of the community to a more participatory model with resident empowerment.
“Currently the model does not build the community’s capacity to help themselves, but a human development model is needed with stronger democratic participation of various groups within public housing in decision-making and management. This in turn can provide local employment such as in maintenance, gives a voice to the community and overall respects their dignity more,” Uta explained.
She said this would allow the residents to design and influence the space towards their needs and empower them to raise the funds by applying for grants themselves. Policy changes for such participatory governance are critical and it must also include minorities within the housing estate and encourage the participation of young people.
