Comparing Jalan tuanku abdul rahman and Central hong kong by Tan Wen Hao 0319923

1. Name: Tan Wen Hao
Student ID: 0319923
Project Title: Comparative analysis essay
Module: Theories of Architecture & Urbanism (ARC61303)
Course: Bachelor of Science (Honors) in Architecture Tutor:
Mr. Nicholas Ng

2. Comparing Jalan Tuanku Abdul Rahman and Central Hong Kong : Similarities and
dissimilarities
Human sculpted space, and space sculpted human. Both see each other as indispensable in
architectural placemaking, especially in urban development. Kuala Lumpur and Hong Kong
were once colonised by the same ruler and both shared similar architectural traits
(shophouses). After their independence, they saw an inevitable modernisation process that last
throughout the century. Hong Kong is a clear definition of life as center of attention, and Kuala
Lumpur delivered life as simply the byproduct of urbanisation. The intentions later sculpted
different social, cultural, and intellectual outlook of both cities. Let’s take the set to Jalan TAR
and Central Hong Kong to observe human lives on a closer shot and identify the
resemblances, differences of the two and their effects according to Jan Gehl.
On a social perspective, one can see that in Central HK, public spaces go hand in hand with
daily activities but similar approach is not seen in Jalan TAR. The former can be identified
typically in Graham street and Pottinger street, where street market dates back to centuries
ago. Street markets below office towers and bloom of SOHO complexes? One significant trait
about Central HK is of its blurred boundary in zoning and spatial planning, from Finance
Center, City Hall (office zone), Queen’s Road central (office-commercial zone), Caine Road
(commercial-residential zone) and residential zone (high-rise apartments) in Mid-Level district.
This reflects land shortage and population density of Hong Kong. To make things clearer,
Central HK remains its daily activities (human scale) at a ground level and the result of
urbanisation above ground, the high-rises (urban scale). This is to say social activities are
therefore not limited to public spaces, but spaces between buildings or districts, in this
situation. However, the latter follow the framework of urbanisation - a natural process of urban
Figure 1 – Strait eclectic style shophouses with five-foot
walkway in Jalan TAR
Figure 2 – 3 to 4 storeys Tong Lau with five-foot walkway in
Central HK

3. growth, shophouses made way for urban development, surrender for road expansion in
answering the soared traffic, clear separation of commercial, office and residential area. Public
spaces were specified and planned but daily activities were left to figure out themselves in a
place-form city. This type of “specific function at specific area” indirectly suggesting a you-
don’t-have-a-choice type of scheduled daily routine and least possibilities in coming across with
the public, social circles like the ones easily formed and identified in Central Hong Kong. The
resultant of urban pattern in both sites is the varying degrees of contact intensity. So to speak,
spatial planning affects public movement. In Central HK, there are possibilities in trying out new
routes, meandering around the alley and market, and a high chance of encountering different
social group and maintain already established contacts. However, in Jalan TAR, necessary
activities happens within individual group, with mere passive contacts with other social groups,
and a seasonal night market that bring all walks of life together, artificially.
Figure 3 – Human scale and urban scale coexist in Central HK Figure 4 – Human scale disrupted by urban scale in Jalan TAR
Figure 5 – Urban planning of Jalan TAR (clear seperation) Figure 6 – Urban planning of Central HK (blurred boundary)
Office
Residential
Commercial
Office
Office
Public space
Office
O
ffice-C
om
m
ercial
C
om
m
ercial-Residential
Residential
Public space

4. Interaction between lives also relies on the quality of physical environment, this brings us to
our next point: the cultural side of the cities. Hong Kong is rated as a “city without ground”, both
physically (no ground planes) and culturally (diverse, high-permeable pedestrian environment
and public transport network) in addition to a ever-slow traffic (congested), the frequency of
occurrence of outdoor activities is high as an extensive network of neighbor contacts are
developed, from streets to streets, districts to districts, and indoor to outdoor. Variety of shops,
wide pavement shaded by high-rises, informal booths, and conversations from different walks
of life stimulate the “see and hear” experience. In contrary to this, pavement is well developed
with greeneries and benches in Jalan TAR, but the formula just doesn’t work anymore. Firstly,
The busy 3-lane road bordered with railings tells another story from inviting shophouses with
one-sided pedestrian walk. The combination of two is merely an invisible barrier for street
permeability. Secondly, The neat array of colorful textiles may seems inviting looking from
outside in, but repetitive manner coherently along the street no longer serves the intention.
With sidewalks exposed to harsh weather, it diverts the crowd into the narrow five-foot
walkway. You need a number of people to walk on the sidewalk, to begin with, so that it
initiates next level of contact and social activities. Therefore, the benches did not do its job in
enhancing optional activities even though it faces the sidewalk. The main attention here is
given to the incoming traffic, whether or not Jalan TAR played its role in bringing people in from
suburban to city centre (as a major access) and on a side note, making the street pedestrian
friendly like what other countries did to their cities, neglecting the role of Jalan TAR as an
commercial district. We can simply conclude that Central HK took more on a relevant “life
between building” approach and Jalan TAR as “life in building”.
Figure 7 – Pedestrian environment in Jalan TAR
(exposed to sun, unshaded, one sided,), array of
textile shop
Figure 8 – Pedestrian environment in Central HK (shaded by trees
and high-rises, two sided, diverse system (street/walkway),
informal booths

5. Nonetheless when it comes to intellectual perspective, both sites reach an agreement in public
space to be interpreted as a place that “people attract people” with no specific function, just a
recreational space. One need not tell the other where to have an rendezvous, where to take a
quick break, as we can all agree with wide steps, fountain edges, like the ones in Statue
square and Pottinger street; Field and plaza, like the ones in Dataran Merdeka and Sogo, to be
the best gathering and resting spots. When people experience people, “resultant” social
activities occur, street performances starts to take place and stimulating experiences formed.
Aside from being a social platform, public spaces in Central HK are more appreciated acting as
a solution to fine-grained urban pattern and a lack of green space to breath. City is shaped by
the resident, therefore consequently, urban development and architectural trend influences
outdoor activities as well. Both site introduced modern typology to traditional chinese
shophouses, as in Tong Lau in Central HK and strait eclectic shophouse in Jalan TAR. Ever so
often, residents call for petitions for cultural preservation but what can the governments do
when the land stands a great value and a redevelopment possibility in hand? What about future
land shortage? Central HK tells us coexist is the best solution. If we can have stalls looking
stalls and windowpanes looking windowpanes, why not have both at a different level? We can
adapt traditional shophouse typology into a modern society and anything above ground
supplements the usable outdoor spaces. This is to say, to make city as a living city, a win-win
solution. Nevertheless, when we look back to Jalan TAR, being in the same shoes, it resorts to
a different solution. “Let’s have selective preservation”. We keep the most notable and
important ones and surrender the rest to new development. This is what happened back when
Suleiman Court being demolished and made way for SOGO KL, and same goes to Pertama
Complex-Maju Junction mall belt, while some shophouses, although being labeled as
preserved property, still could not escape the fate of redevelopment. Jalan TAR looks like a
half-broken promise. Now what’s left on the street is a distortion of height and a diversity of
architectural styles. Moreover, what is said to be preserved is merely the facades, “a shell with
a hollow core”, with interior being modified and refurbished into offices, cafes or repair centres,
the street became a literal functionalism representation with a nostalgic appearance. Tong Lau
and strait eclectic shophouse both have their own charisma, but when the glossary of a
particular architectural style change, it gives different expression, whether or not it affects
outdoor activities positively or the reverse.

6. Figure 9 – Wide steps forms seating area in front of SOGO KL Figure 10 – Barrier forms seating area around water feature in
Statue Square, HK
Figure 12 – Remain of street scale in Wellington street, KL, with
signboard tailored for “human” eyes
Figure 11 – Shophouses on the left, redevelopment on the
right (Maju-Junction Mall), and road expansion
Redevelopment of
commercial district belt
Shophouses with
selective redevelopment
at the other end
Figure 13 – Current situation at Jalan TAR

7. When it comes to bringing in an influx of crowd, urban planning decisions influence activities
pattern, with the first contact point being transit stations like metro or railway. Both sites,
distinctively, have their stations away from pedestrian system and public spaces. Central
station in Central HK turns out to be an unexpected low intensity contact point. Situated below
a 5-way crossroad, possible reasons of the unusual phenomena being the strategic location
that serves as edge separating the districts, and a pre-isolation of crowd at several
underground exits directed at office blocks in all directions. The result is a dispersion of all
walks of life with passive contacts and an inhibition of next level interaction. Similar manner
happens in Jalan TAR with the exception of Bandaraya station being above ground and two
exit options: one overhead bridge to malls, offices and another to ground level. Similarly, both
stations did not take advantage of transit station being a potential high intensity social hotspot.
Therefore, both act as merely a circulation node with no stimulation in human interaction, as far
as this cities trying their best in introducing social activities, it still respect the living on their
daily activities as center of life. Further urban planning decisions, such as making alleys fully
walkable or exposed to vehicular traffic, also affects human behavior. In Central HK, there are
side of a busy city with busy traffic during peak hours, and a fast paced city with a slow pace
life during working hours, when the dads go to work, the mums begins their day too. Attention
of crowd is diverted into market stalls in alleys like Pottinger Street, Graham street and Li Yuen
Street where are the mum’s favorite go-to spots during the day and for foreigners to witness
(see and hear) local people and their daily activities, so that they are conscious of where they
are and whether or not, they land themselves on the “right place”. Same goes to Jalan TAR on
Jalan Bunus 6, Jalan Bunus, and Lorong Tuanku Abdul Rahman junctions textile streets, aside
from times where this alleys are converted into night market, they are fully vehicular accessible.
Traffic just doesn’t go well with market when it requires observation and stimulation of senses
on foot, hence the number of visitors has seen greatly reduced. The alleys were simply treated
as shortcuts in traffic ingress and egression to avoid congestion in Jalan TAR during peak
hours.
Figure 14 – Bandaraya LRT station exits at street level and
walkway directed at office blocks and shopping mall
Figure 15 – Pre-isolation of crowd at underground Central
Station HK (A-F exits)

8. Technologies remove the needs of meeting people, therefore cities have their duties to
enhance social activities, making sure they cross path with daily life. A good city does not need
barkers to advertise to their residents, with a “life-as-center-of-attention” principle written all
over the city, things can never go wrong, just take Central HK as role model. However, with life
as a byproduct of other “main” consideration, the result can be counterproductive. Hence, what
are the future aspects for both long-discussed cities? With possible land shortage and urban
influx of new demographics in no time, Jalan TAR in 50 years is in favor of following the
footstep of Central HK. It’s definitely appropriate for Jalan TAR to adapt the “coexist” concept
especially the area has a diverse ethnicity and has a strong sense of identity at a street scale,
the textile and the night market alleys, to be exact. Can Jalan TAR be a place with “ethnicity
without groups"? That is built upon what the architecture has to contribute to tie the people
together to the site.
Once and for all, City reflects the identity of a country and its people.
“Cities forces growth and make people talkative and entertaining, but they also make them
artificial” – Ralph Waldo Emerson.
Do we want a life with infinite possibilities or a life with a fixed routine? That depends on what
the city encourages you to.
Figure 16 – Vehicular accessible market street and monotonous
(neat) textile arrangement, low “see and hear” opportunities
Figure 17 – Traditional up-the-slope Pottinger Market, stalls
are close to each other, high “see and hear” opportunities
Figure 18 – Give the
people what they what.
Do they appreciate a
modernised city (two
sides), or city for
human (center) more?
The answer is clear

9. References:
1. Teams, M. (n.d.). About Little old-fashioned road - Jalan Tuanku Abdul Rahman. Retrieved
June 28, 2017, from http://www.malaxi.com/about_jalan_tuanku_abdul_rahman.html
2. Kuala Lumpur/Tuanku Abdul Rahman. (n.d.). Retrieved June 29, 2017, from
http://wikitravel.org/en/Kuala_Lumpur/Tuanku_Abdul_Rahman
3. Rosly, S. M. (2004). Jalan Tuanku Abdul Rahman: "a street revival" (contemporary batik
gallery). Skudai: Universiti Teknologi Malaysia.
4. Samadi, Z., Mastura, N., & Mohammad, N. (2012). An Urban Outdoor Environment in the
‘Textile District’ of Jalan Tuanku Abdul Rahman, K. Lumpur. Procedia - Social and Behavioral
Sciences,35, 659-663. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.02.134
5. Apple yard, Donald .(1981). Livable Street, Berkeley:University of California, Press.
6. Bently, I. et. al. (1986). Responsive Environment. Oxford Press.
7. Lynch, Kevin. (1960). The Image of the city, MIT Press, Cambridge, Technology Press &
Harvard. University Presses.
8. Gehl, J. (2011). Life between buildings: using public space. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
9. Ingham, M. (2007). Hong Kong: a Cultural History. Oxford: Oxford University Press, USA.
10. Lampugnani, V. M., Pryor, E. G., Pau, S., & Spengler, T. (1993). Hong Kong architecture:
the aesthetics of density. New York, NY: Prestel.
11. Zhong, H. (2009). Urban transformation of Central District: as a place of living. Hong Kong:
Conservancy Association Centre for Heritage.