Content uploaded by Soheil Sabri
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Soheil Sabri on Jan 04, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
Available via license: CC BY-NC-SA 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
115
1. Introduction
Gentrification, according to Ruth Glass’s seminal definition, refers, on
the one hand, to the displacement of certain groups by wealthier ones
in central and working class areas, and, on the other, to the material
rehabilitation of those areas (Lees et. al, 2008). A far broader concept
of the process emerged in the late 1970s and by the early 1980s,
scholars have linked it with the processes of spatial, economic and
social restructuring (Lees et. al., 2008). Current literature suggest
that, as gentrification has mutated over time, its characteristics as well
as the term used to described and explain gentrification also evolved
(Shinwon & Kwang Joong 2011; Less et. al., 2008). Recently,
literature on gentrification in developing nations has also grown
extensively showing that the phenomena have gone beyond Western
cities context (Lees, 2011; Shinwon & Kwang Joong, 2011; Hulten,
2010; Slater, 2010; Lees et. al., 2008). A good debate about
gentrification in Western cities has been made for a long period of
time, however, its different actors and forms in developing nation
context are not particularly well known (Shinwon & Kwang Joong,
2011).
In Malaysia, expectedly, as other developing countries, the signs of
gentrification also began to emerge. The desire of national urban
policies, local redevelopment, regeneration and revitalization strategies
as well as the real-estates agents is seen to strongly initiate the
occurrence of gentrification process (Sabri 2012; Sabri et al. 2012).
This study was developed to examine the emergence of its signs in
Iskandar Malaysia. Basically this paper sought to provide a
comprehensive review about the expansion of gentrification as a basis
to construct a conceptual framework to analyze what is happening in
Iskandar Malaysia.
The paper begins with exploring the issue raised from the expansion of
gentrification. Part two will described the details on methodology of
literature review giving the precise delimitation and sources used to
derive the key literature regarding gentrification. Part three
summarizes the evolution of gentrification and emergence of new
forms over time exploring some cases of developing countries. Then,
the conceptual is presented to analyze the Iskandar Malaysia
developments based on our understanding in the final part of this
paper.
2. Literature Review and Methodology
Following Lees (2000), we have considered thematic review as the
methodology to organize the gentrification literature. Thematic
reviews of literature are organized around a topic or issue, rather than
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BUILT ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABILITY
Published by Faculty of Built Environment, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
Website: http://www.ijbes.utm.my
IJBES 2(2)/2015, 115-124
Conceptual Framework for Gentrification Analysis of Iskandar Malaysia
Rabiatul Adawiyah Abd Khalil1, Foziah Johar1*, Soheil Sabri2
1Department of Urban and Regional Planning
Faculty of Built Environment, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
2Former Staff of Center of Innovative Planning and Development
Faculty of Built Environment, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
Email: b-foziah@utm.my
ABSTRACT
Gentrification is generally defined as the transformation of a working class living in the central
city into middle-upper class society. It has both positive and negative consequences.
Gentrification caused loses of affordable home, however, it is also beneficial because it
rejuvenates the tax base as well stimulates mixed income. Question arises whether the
characteristics of gentrification in developing countries will appear to be the same or varies to
those in developed countries. Because of this research growth, a review of the body of
literature related to the mutation of gentrification, i.e. type of gentrification and its
characteristics is believed necessary. This will serve as a basis for a conceptual framework to
analyze what is happening in Iskandar Malaysia (IM). As globalized urbanization area, IM offers
a particularly interesting case as there are already signs of gentrification due to its rapid
urbanization. In the residential market, house price in IM shows a rapid and continuous
increment. Many foreigners are attracted to the new residential area in IM being promoted as
exclusive while promising a quality lifestyle. The locals meanwhile face difficulties in owning a
home because of the upward spiraling of house price. In certain area, the local low income
people are displaced by middle and upper income group. The identification of such
characteristics and the associated attributes which is the second phase of the study will
determine to what extent IM is in the process of gentrification. The paper finally concluded
that the sign of gentrification in IM is similar to the other developing countries.
History:
Received: 10 November 2014
Accepted: 20 April 2015
Available Online: 30 May 2015
Keywords:
Gentrification, Iskandar Malaysia, developing nations
Contact Number:
+60-7-5537360 (Foziah)
116
the progression of time. We find that this method is quite easy to gain
understanding. We begin to search for the reference by using
‘gentrification’, ‘gentrifying’ and ‘gentrified’ as the main keywords.
This led to the compilation of 3,944 reference relevant to gentrification
itself. From the 3,994 references, about 36 of them were utilized to
build a basic understanding of what gentrification is about. Internet
search was the main method of collecting reference. There are two main
databases to look for the reference which are http://
www.sciencedirect.com/ and http://www.scopus.com/.
Next, from the readings, we build a suitable keyword and term
combination to develop the theme use as a basis to analyze what is
happening in Iskandar Malaysia. (refer to Figure 1).
There was a dominance of literature related to gentrification in
developing nations. In relation to the keyword ‘Gentrification and
Developing Country’, we found a total of 763 references. For the ‘New
-build Gentrification’, a total of 934 references were located, for ‘State-
led Gentrification’ and ‘Gentrification Wave’, a total of 101 and 435
references were found respectively (refer to Table 1)
3. Transformation of Gentrification Characteristics
3.1 The Emergence of New Gentrification Actors
Based on the literature over the past four decade, it reveals that
gentrification is a dynamic and multi-layered process in which the roles
of different actors and components continuously change over time and
space (Mathema 2013). The explanations of gentrification have involved
a variety role of actors. The actors range from economically marginal,
young educated, builders, landlords, mortgage lenders, tenants,
corporate investor, developers, real estate agents, bank and government
agencies (Rérat et al., 2009; Shaw, 2008; He, 2007). In addition to the
growing interest in the gentrifiers, recent studies shows scholars have
focused on the role played by the states and local government (policy-
makers) as the main actors driving the changes in urban area (La Grange
& Pretorius, 2014; Doucet, 2014; Shinwon & Kwang Joong, 2011;
Maloutas, 2011; Kuyucu & Unsal, 2010). Hackworth & Smith (2001)
summarize the evolving gentrification process and the changing role of
the actors within the three waves of gentrification since the 1960s.
The first wave was characterized by sporadic and state-led
gentrification; the second wave has seen both expansion of and
resistance to gentrification; third wave gentrification comes after the
recession in the early 1990s and characterized by strong state
intervention (La Grange & Pretorius, 2014; Shinwon & Kwang Joong,
2011; Lees etl al., 2008). Hackworth & Smith (2001) argue that states’
role in gentrification became stronger due to the devolution of power
from the federal to the state and local governments. Decrease in federal
funds put enormous pressure on local governments to increase their tax
bases and were therefore attracted to pursue strategies to increase their
revenues. They invested in projects that improved the tax bases by
revitalizing their neighborhoods to attract middle-income residents
(Mathema, 2013). Large redevelopment projects have an important
role as they provide a great opportunities for investment, mostly
through direct state action, highly profitable spaces (such as old
industrial zones, waterfronts and inner-city slums) that have not been
economically fully exploited (Kuyucu & Unsal, 2010).
Accordingly, the fourth-wave gentrification also began to emerge as
Lees et. al., (2008) argue that the current stage model is somewhat
outdated. In the fourth-wave of gentrification identified by Lees et al.,
(2008), the gentrification was tightly coupled with national and global
capital market. The nations have developed strategies to achieve the
global status and attract more capital from transnational companies.
Therefore, gentrification was driven by the new urban policies
Figure 1: Framework of Theme Development
117
formulated by the states as well as large developers who are aligned with
the government to spur the redevelopment and regeneration in the cities
(Sabri et al., 2012). In the United States, referred as ‘redevelopment’
and ‘social mixing’, gentrification was seen as a practical solution to
tackle concentrated poverty (Doucet 2014; Lees 2008). Paton (2012)
stated that middle-class-driven gentrification can be the savior of the city
because ‘it offers a cultural solution to fix economic and structural issues
of poverty, unemployment and the decline of the built environment
(Bridge et al. 2013) . In developing countries, the role of state policies
and local Governments are also confirmed as gentrification drivers (Sabri
et al., 2012; Lees, 2011). Hence, gentrification in no longer seen as a
problem for policy-makers, but to be seen as a solution. The concept is
underscored by the ways in which gentrification is widely promoted in
urban policy (Doucet 2014). Since then, gentrification is declared as a
global urban strategy.
3.2 The Changing Forms of Gentrification
When the transformation of commercial and retail areas also appeared in
the gentrification literature, scholars go for a broad definition of
gentrification that includes ‘renovation and redevelopment on both
residential and non-residential sites’ (Shaw, 2008). As cases of
gentrification are increasingly documented across the globe, researchers
have also begun ‘to no longer restrict the term to processes located in
the city center’ (Maloutas, 2011; Visser & Kotze, 2008 ;Shaw, 2008;
Slater et al., 2004; Lees, 2002). “The process of gentrification has
mutated over time” (Lees et al., 2008), the spatial focus of gentrification
now includes rural locations, infill housing, brownfield developments
and the construction of newly built luxury housing developments in city
centers.
Hackworth & Smith (2001) in their assessment of the progression and
spread of gentrification had analyzed and introduced many new types of
gentrification arisen during the third phases which began in the early
1990s. The third wave gentrification has four characteristics: it was
primarily developer, rather than household-led, the role of
governments was strengthened, anti-gentrification movements became
more marginalized and it was spreading to neighborhoods outside the
city center (Doucet, 2014 ; Shaw, 2008 ; Lees et. al., 2008 ; Bounds &
Morris, 2006 ; Hackworth & Smith, 2001). They citing examples of
luxury new-build condominiums in Long Island City, Queens,
developer-led loft conversions in DUMBO, Brooklyn and the removal
of municipal policies aimed at preventing gentrification and
displacement in the Manhattan neighborhood of Clinton as third wave
gentrification (Doucet 2014).
Among the types of gentrification in third waves which often debated
by scholar is relates to new-build gentrification (Doucet, 2014; He,
2010; Shaw 2008; Visser & Kotze, 2008; Lees et al., 2008). New-build
gentrification indicate the transformation of old industrial brownfield
sites into high-end, new-build developments (Marquardt et al., 2012;
He, 2010; Rérat et al., 2009; Lees et al., 2008; Davidson & Lees,
2005). Most commonly, new-build gentrification is manifested in the
form of the development of large-scale luxurious apartment blocks and
their consumption by the middle classes (He, 2010; Davidson, 2007;
Davidson & Lees, 2005). It brings both direct and indirect
displacement, e.g. exclusionary displacement and price shadowing.
New-build gentrification was first examined in British cities, however it
is now common in other countries in both the Global North and Global
South (Doucet, 2014). Davidson & Lees (2005) outlined four reasons
why new-build developments should be considered part of the
gentrification process: reinvestment of capital; social upgrading;
landscape changes; and displacement (Rérat et al., 2009). New-build
gentrification fits in the framework of third wave gentrification, as it
emphasize a strong role of the state in term of both public policy and
investment (Doucet, 2014; Shinwon & Kwang Joong, 2011; Less et.al.,
2008).
Another form of gentrification in third wave is super gentrification
(Doucet, 2014; Shaw, 2008). Super-gentrification or financification is a
further level of gentrification which is superimposed on an already
gentrified neighborhood (Lees et. al., 2008). Super-gentrification is
described by Butler & Lees (2006) as a process that includes a
significant step change in social class composition and evidence of social
replacement (rather than displacement) with a significant
transformation in community relations. Here, the already gentrified
upper middle class neighborhood is transformed again into an even
more exclusive and expensive enclaves. Super-gentrification involves a
higher financial or economic investment in the neighborhood. It is only
likely to happen in neighborhood in global cities that are easily
commutable to global financial headquarters such as the City of London
and San Francisco (Lees et. al., 2008).
Meanwhile, in the fourth wave gentrification argued by Lees et. al.
(2008), there are two elements distinguish the fourth wave from the
third wave. First, the financialisation of housing and the second is a
consolidation of the pro-gentrification policies which dominated the
third wave (Doucet, 2014; Shaw, 2008; Lees et. al., 2008). New
policies, which both favor the most affluent households and dismantle
social welfare programs, have created the context for this new phase of
gentrification. In this instance, gentrification is used as a policy tools to
create affluent housing in a low-income neighborhood (Bridge et al.,
2013). Here, the restructuring of housing estates capitalized by large
developer and facilitate by the state, either on the periphery of cities or
in more central areas is seen as another part of gentrification process
(Doucet, 2014). Gentrification has been evident in this large-scale
housing redevelopment process to promote home-ownership for more
Theme Authors
Gentrification (Maloutas, 2011); (Lees, 2011); (Lees,
2000); (Phillips, 2004); (Shaw, 2008);
(Shaw, 2011); (Lees, 2002); (Lees, et. al.,
2008); (Slater, et al. 2004); (Hackworth &
Smith, 2001); (Hyra, 2012); (Hulten, 2010).
Gentrification and de-
veloping nation:
i.e. Shanghai, Seoul, Istan-
bul, Semarang (Indonesia),
South Africa
(He, 2010); (He, 2007); (Wang & Lau,
2009); (Lim et al., 2013); (Shinwon &
Kwang Joong, 2011); (Visser, 2002); (Visser
& Kotze, 2008); (Harris, 2008); (Ergun,
2004).
State-led Gentrification (Visser & Kotze, 2008); (La Grange & Preto-
rius, 2014); (Kuyucu & Unsal, 2010); (Agus,
2002); (He, 2010); (He, 2007); (Davidson,
2008); (Doucet, 2014).
New-build gentrifica-
tion (Marquardt et al., 2012); (He, 2010); (Visser
& Kotze, 2008); (Davidson & Lees, 2005);
(Rérat et al., 2009).
Gentrification wave
theory (Murphy, 2008); (Bounds & Morris, 2006);
(Nash, 2013); (Rousseau, 2011); (Shinwon &
Kwang Joong, 2011).
Table 1: Reference Allocation by Theme
118
affluent residents, which is facilitated by the state as an urban strategy
for economic and urban growth. Elite decision-makers have devised the
urban policies to encourage gentrification. Then, these pro-
gentrification policies create optimal conditions for the private sector to
invest in deprived neighborhoods (Shinwon & Kwang Joong, 2011).
In China for instance, a new form of housing redevelopment, has been
shaped to meet the desire of local state and private developers to
generate the physical and economic expansion (Shinwon & Kwang
Joong, 2011; Wang & Lau, 2009; He, 2007). In Korea also, the local
government actively facilitated housing redevelopment and urban
renewal projects to improve housing conditions and to increase the
housing stock in big cities, especially in Seoul. Old inner city
neighborhoods have often been completely demolished and rebuilt into
high-end commodity housing in which the capital is provided by
developers. In most cases, the government’s housing redevelopment
result in gentrification (Shinwon & Kwang Joong, 2011). Fourth wave
gentrification however, received less attention than Hackworth and
Smith’s three wave. This is because the idea of fourth wave
gentrification is seen as the extension or modification of existing
policies, rather than as a bold departure from existing urban forms and
spatial locations (Doucet, 2014).
4. Gentrification in the Developing Nations
4.1 Istanbul, Turkey
Gentrification in Istanbul is not related to de-industrialization. Early
gentrification occur through the evacuation of non-Muslim population
(ethnic minorities) from some part of the city in the 1940s. These ethnic
minorities left their neighborhood by moving out of the country. Soon
after, rapid industrialization and urbanization process have led to the
massive influx of immigrants coming from the rural parts of Turkey
(Islam, 2005; Ergun, 2004). Meanwhile, in 1980s, the inward-oriented
development policies of the former period were replaced with neo-
liberal ones, which led to the greater opening of Turkey’s economy to
world capital flow. In some part of Istanbul, Ortakoy area for instance,
gentrification was driven by the uncontrollably expanding nuisance of
night-life activities (Islam, 2005). As a result of gentrification, the
provision of world brand boutiques, new shopping centers, giant
hypermarket, night clubs and the organization of international festivals,
theatre, music, jazz and art were adapted extensively since 1980s.
Istanbul has successfully create approximately of 100,000 new jobs and
increase the yield of import and export of Turkey. The impacts of the
gentrification also have led to the rise of gated communities in Istanbul
(Genis, 2007 ; Islam, 2005).
4.2 Seoul, Korea
Korea has undergone tremendous state-led urban change resulting in the
mass displacement of low-income households especially in Seoul. Urban
renewal projects were pursued to support continuous physical expansion
and economic prosperity for middle and upper-middle income
household rather than low-income households (Shinwon & Kwang Joong
2011). Seoul has clearly shown all the indicators of successful growth
like expanded labor force; a rising scale of retail and wholesale
commerce; intensive land development; higher population density; and
increased levels of financial activity. The opening Cheonggye Stream for
example, has successfully improved environmental conditions and
economically revitalize the area. Heejim Lim, Jeeyeop Kim, Cuz Potter
and Woongkyoo Bae, described gentrification by identifying the of land
use changes due to the Cheonggye Stream Restoration Project, a large-
scale open space megaproject in Seoul, Korea. The result of the
research shows, a total of 168 land use changes occurred since 2006
which almost half of it can be categorized as commercial, including
activities such as cafes, restaurants, bars, and retail. The broad pattern
of changes in land use stimulates a movement of more affluent users
settle in Seoul(Lim et al. 2013; Shinwon & Kwang Joong 2011).
Basically, Seoul has not undergone major urban deterioration like some
major industrial cities in developed Western countries experiencing
serious urban decay. Gentrification was challenged by an accelerated
physical expansion and growth.
4.3 Shanghai, China
In the context of Chinese cities, studies on urban restructuring always
cite urban redevelopment as one of the primary forms of gentrification
(Wang & Lau, 2009 ; He, 2007). In Shanghai, urban redevelopment
started in the late 1980s when the government attempted to renovate
the old towns. A series of measures was carried out by the state to
initiate and facilitate the process. The process of urban redevelopment
has been mostly in the form of demolition–rebuild development
involving direct displacement of residents. Large proportion of urban
population was relocated to the outskirts mostly because land was
more available with lower price comparing to the city centre (He
2010). Housing redevelopment is no longer developed by the local
state only but predominantly developed by private developers for the
purpose of economic and urban growth (He 2007). Xiesan Site at
Luwan District for instance, was leased to Hong Kong-funded Haihua
Property Company for redevelopment. About 864 original households
and 16 factory plants were relocated to give way to the development of
four 31-story high-rise, called Waixiaofang (‘house for sale to
foreigners’) (Wang & Lau, 2009). Extensive urban redevelopment has
effectively removed shabby houses and changed urban landscapes in
central Shanghai. As the state endeavours to create an image of modern
and civilised urban life in the central city, the social benefits of the
urban poor are ignored. Massive modern apartment blocks, mixed-
used commercial and green space have been built in the central area
indicating new-build gentrification (He 2010).
4.4 Tembalang, Semarang Indonesia
In Tembalang, Indonesia gentrification process occurred most likely
because of the expansion of Diponegoro University (UNDIP). The
UNDIP has been located in the Central Business District of Semarang
but later on moved to the suburbs in the southern part of the city,
called Tembalang. Land value in Tembalang has reached 625–1750 per
cent within 10 years because of UNDIP. More residents choose to
settle in Tembalang because they were interested in the rise of the
economic activity and could make good investments in land or
property (Prayoga et al., 2013). The newcomers bought house that
were constructed by developers which have been generally luxury
houses with high prices. As Smith (2002) stated that gentrification
brings a difference in residential quality, the luxury expensive houses in
Tembalang are clustered by gated communities.
The gentrification in select developing nations is summarized in Table
2.
From the example of gentrification cases in Turkey, Korea, China and
Indonesia, it can be concluded that gentrification was driven by rapid
industrialization, urbanization process, housing development and mega
project development. The responsible body behind this process was
government in collaboration with the private sector (Figure 2).
119
5. Iskandar Malaysia: Background and Sign of
Gentrification
Iskandar Malaysia (IM), the latest development in Johor, was initiated in
2006 to spur the growth of Malaysian economy. The Malaysian
government has committed a significant investments to improve
infrastructure and develop catalytic projects to attract critical mass in
Iskandar Malaysia (Xian Yang et al., 2013). As a result, IM has seen
encouraging success since its inception in 2006. The region has attracted
RM118.93 billion of cumulative committed investments in the first half
of 2013, with manufacturing as the key driver. An estimation of
386,000 jobs was created in IM in the same period (IRDA, 2007).
5.1 The State Policies
In Malaysia, land matters are governed by individual states. However,
Iskandar Malaysia is a joint development with two co-chairmen - the
Prime Minister of Malaysia and the Chief Minister of Johor – which
reflects the importance of this development as one of the national
priorities for Malaysia. Therefore, Iskandar Regional Development
Authority (IRDA) is set up as a federal government body which
responsible for the development of IM. IRDA is also responsible to
regulate and drive various stakeholders in both public and private
sector towards realizing the vision of developing Iskandar Malaysia into
a strong and sustainable metropolis of international standing (CDP,
2006). Although IRDA is the main statutory body, Majlis Bandaraya
Johor Bahru (MBJB), Majlis Perbandaran Johor Bahru Tengah (MPJBT),
Country Actors
Based on Lees et al. (2008)
Impacts
Forms of Gentrification Stage
Istanbul, Turkey Immigrant from rural part of
Turkey
Local government
Property developer
New-build gentrification Third
wave Eviction of ethnic minorities
Influx residents from rural area
New giant hypermarket, shopping complex etc.
Rise in gated communities
Job opportunity
Increase economic activity
Seoul, Korea Local government
Property developer
Affluent users
New-build gentrification Third
wave Displacement of low-income household
Land use changes
Improve environment
Lots of new commercial area
Increased levels of financial activity
Shanghai, China Local government
Property developer
Transnational companies
New-build gentrification Third
wave Involuntary movement to outskirt area
Mixed-used commercial area and green space
Modern apartment block, high rise residential
area
Demographic changes
Tembalang, Indone-
sia Local government
Private developers
Middle-class
Rural gentrification,
Studentification Third
wave Expansion of economic activity
Increased in land value and house price
Land use change to residential area
Table 2: Summary of Gentrification in Developing Nations
Figure 2: Conceptual Framework of Gentrification in Developing Nations
120
Majlis Perbandaran Pasir Gudang (MPPG), Majlis Perbandaran Kulai
(MPKu), Majlis Perbandaran Pontian (MPP) still play an important role in
the development of IM because the land matters falls under the
jurisdiction of local authorities. The projects to be developed in IM
region must have the planning permission approved from local
authorities first before it can be implemented.
5.2 New Development
Iskandar Malaysia is set to become southern Peninsular Malaysia’s most
developed region, where living, entertainment, environment and
business seamlessly converge within a bustling and vibrant metropolis
(CDP, 2006). The local authorities in collaboration with IRDA, believed
that it can be achieved through the provision of attractive living
accommodation facilities, environment and recreation facilities within a
‘green environment’ as well as excellent education and health facilities
(IRDA, 2007). As a result, more places in Iskandar Malaysia have
undergone development and upgrading process in terms of both physical
and socio-economic purposes. Johor Bahru’s urban form reflects more
spontaneity than planned regulated growth. Speculative and massive
estates of more than 15 stories mushroom randomly from a formerly
low rise built environment made up of linked houses and two/three-
story buildings (Rizzo & Khan, 2013). In Iskandar Malaysia, more luxury
and exclusive residential area promising a quality lifestyle is built.
Horizon Hills, East Ledang, and Ledang Heights are the example of gated
low-rise residential area provided for the wealthy (Rizzo & Glasson,
2012).
In particular, the bulk of the investments are concentrated in Nusajaya, a
new green field settlement which have been set up as a new major
growth center of Iskandar Malaysia (Figure 3).
Among the new developments are health facilities (Afiat Healthpark),
education facilities (Raffles University Malaysia, Marlborough College
Malaysia, University of Southampton etc.), and tourism facilities
(Legoland Malaysia, Johor Premium Outlet, Hello Kitty Town etc.)
The target is to attract companies, institutions and knowledge economy
professionals (ICT industries, R&D firms, universities, professionals,
etc.) to raise the value chain in Iskandar Malaysia (Rizzo & Glasson,
2012). Besides, the existing new developments, there are also several
upcoming catalyst project to be built in Iskandar Malaysia such as
Gleneagles Medini Hospital, Motorsports City, Afiniti and Avira
Wellness Resort, Ascendas-UEM Land Technology Park and Angry
Birds Theme Park (Xian Yang et al., 2013).
5.3 Residential Sector
Table 3 shows the price of houses located in Nusajaya area increase from
2010 to 2011. The house price for 2-storey terrace in Horizon Hills,
Nusa Bestari and Bukit Indah are range from RM 216,000 – RM
321,250 in 2010 and RM 260,000 – RM 367,000 in 2011. Gated and
guarded security and better management remained the main features for
better popularity (Property Market Report 2013, 2013). Meanwhile,
houses outside the area of Nusajaya showing decreasing in price.
In the residential sector, high rise condominiums continued to be
popular, aimed at Singaporeans and Malaysians who work in Singapore
(Property Market 2013, 2013). As shown in Figure 4, not only high rise
condominium. Landed property in Nusajaya area also become the main
area for the Singaporeans buyer.
5.4 Involuntary Relocation and Social Disruption
Bunnell (2002) has highlighted how the process of developing new
federal administrative center of Putrajaya and Cyberjaya has resulted in
Figure 3: New Development Concentrated in Nusajaya
Sources : http://www.iskandarmalaysia.com.my/our-development-plan
121
evacuation of Indians ethnic residents living in the Ladang Perang Besar
and several other farms elsewhere (Rostam et al., 2011). A similar story
is today replicated in Nusajaya, the new major growth center of Iskandar
Malaysia. Rostam et al. (2011) stated that due to the Iskandar Malaysia
development, the land owned by villagers was taken. Most of the
agricultural land involved traditional villages. Kampung Baru, Gelang
Patah which consists of 400 household was evacuated (Figure 5). Several
families in eight traditional Malay villages namely Tiram Duku, Pekajang,
Tanjung Adang, Kampung Pok, Tanjung Kupang, Ladang, Pedas Laut and
Paya Mengkuang also had to move elsewhere. Some people were
relocated to new settlement such as Taman Perintis I. Villagers and
aboriginal fishermen communities are being relocated elsewhere in
Johor Bahru, including to the periphery of the metropolitan region, to
facilitate Iskandar development (Rizzo & Glasson 2012).
In addition to relocation, the development of Iskandar Malaysia has
resulted in economic resources disruption of aboriginal community
living in the Kampung Simpang Arang, Kampung Bakar Batu and
Sg.Temun (Mat Nor et al., 2009). The construction of the Second Link
(linking Johor-Singapore) which involved the construction of bridge
near Kampung Simpang Arang for instance has reduced their catch.
This situation causes their income continues to decline. Development
taking place in Gelang Patah and Nusajaya has resulted in the increasing
population of the area. The increasing population has also affected the
market price. Nevertheless, the aboriginal fisherman communities do
not have the opportunity to benefit from the increased market price,
particularly from the increasing fish price as their catch has declined.
Low level of education and lack of working skill also made a difficulties
for them to find for another better jobs. Only a small number of them
have the opportunity to work as a labourer in plantations or restaurant
workers. The admission and recruitment of foreign workers in industrial
sector near to their village have further complicated their opportunities
in finding jobs (Mat Nor et al., 2009).
6. Conceptual Framework for Gentrification
Analysis in Iskandar Malaysia
The studies presented thus far provide evidence that there are variety of
elements and subjects that should be taken into consideration upon the
development of conceptual framework for gentrification analysis in
Iskandar Malaysia. The Figure 6 illustrates the overall conceptual
framework for this study.
7. Conclusions
The situation taking place in Iskandar Malaysia is much similar to the
other developing countries. The process-like gentrification was driven
by urbanization process, housing development and mega project
development. Strong state intervention in collaboration with property
developer played an important role contributing to this situation. The
development of Iskandar Malaysia has resulted in enormous physical and
socio-economic changes. Financial and economic activity, job
opportunity, population density are increased. New development taking
place in Iskandar Malaysia provide more choices of facilities and services
with better quality. Besides the positive outcomes, the negatives are
overriding especially from the social point of view. As the state
endeavors to create an image of modern and civilized urban life in the
region, the social benefits of the urban poor are ignored. Due to the
increasing population of higher income group in the region, the
neighborhood business structure inevitably changes as it does not longer
serve the low-incomes (Sabri et al., 2012). The poor are relocated to
other place giving way to the development to operate. The increasing
price of house and land value will surely burden the young from poor
family. As the conceptual framework of Iskandar Malaysia is much
similar to the other developing countries, it can be concluded that the
signs in Iskandar Malaysia match the characteristics of third wave
gentrification.
References
Agus, M.R. (2002). The role of state and market in the Malaysian
housing. pp.49–67.
Bounds, M. & Morris, A. (2006). Second wave gentrification in inner-
city Sydney. Cities, 23(2), pp.99–108. Available at: http://
linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S026427510500096X [Accessed
February 12, 2014].
Area House
Type
Average
Price
2010
Average
Price
2011
Price
Change
(%)
Within
Nusajaya
Horizon
Hill
2-story
terrace
321,250 367,000 14.27
2.5-
story
terrace
677,143 707,500 4.48
Nusa
Bestari
1-story
terrace
165,000 177,083 7.32
2-story
terrace
216,686 260,000 19.99
Bukit
Indah
2-story
terrace
278,000 325,000 16.91
Outside
Nusajaya
Permas
Jaya
2-story
terrace
202,466 172,800 -14.65
Mutiara
Rini
1-story
terrace
185,794 166,500 -10.38
Sutera
Utama
2-story
terrace
383,600 357,000 -6.93
Figure 3: House Price in Nusajaya and Surrounding Area
Figure 4 : Percentage of Singaporean Residential Owners in Nusajaya Area
122
Bridge, G., Butler, T. & Lees, L. (2013). Book Review: Mixed
Communities; Gentrification by Stealth? Urban Studies, 50(6), pp.1311–
1313. Available at: http://usj.sagepub.com/cgi/
doi/10.1177/0042098013478668 [Accessed January 1, 2014].
Bunnell, T.I.M. (2002). Cities for Nations ? Examining the City –
Nation-State Relation in Information Age Malaysia *. International
Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 26(June), pp.284–298.
Butler, T. & Lees, L. (2006). Super-gentrification in Barnsbury,
London: globalization and gentrifying global elites at the neighbourhood
level. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 31(4), pp.467–
487. Available at: http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/
abs/10.1111/j.1475-5661.2006.00220.x.
Davidson, M. (2007. Gentrification as global habitat: a process of class
formation or corporate creation? Transactions of the Institute of British
Geographers, 32(4), pp.490–506. Available at: http://
doi.wiley.com/10.1111/j.1475-5661.2007.00269.x.
Davidson, M. (2008). Spoiled Mixture: Where Does State-led
`Positive’ Gentrification End? Urban Studies, 45(12), pp.2385–2405.
Available at: http://usj.sagepub.com/cgi/
doi/10.1177/0042098008097105 [Accessed December 11, 2013].
Davidson, M. & Lees, L. (2005). New-build “gentrification” and
London’s riverside renaissance. Environment and Planning A, 37(7),
pp.1165–1190. Available at: http://www.envplan.com/abstract.cgi?
id=a3739 [Accessed January 1, 2014].
Doucet, B. (2014). A Process of Change and a Changing Process:
Introduction to the Special Issue on Contemporary Gentrification.
Tijdschrift voor economische en sociale geografie, 105(2), pp.125–139.
Available at: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/tesg.12075 [Accessed
April 2, 2014].
Ergun, N. (2004). Gentrification in Istanbul. Cities, 21(5), pp.391–
405. Available at: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/
S026427510400085X [Accessed April 13, 2014].
Kg. Tiram
Second Link
Expressway
Kg. Simpang
Arang
Figure 5: Affected Village Due to Development of Second Link Expressway
Figure 7: Conceptual Framework for Gentrification Analysis in IM
123
Genis, S. (2007). Producing Elite Localities: The Rise of Gated
Communities in Istanbul. Urban Studies, 44(4), pp.771–798. Available
at: http://usj.sagepub.com/cgi/doi/10.1080/00420980601185684
[Accessed April 6, 2014].
La Grange, A. & Pretorius, F. (2014). State-led gentrification in Hong
Kong. Urban Studies. Available at: http://usj.sagepub.com/cgi/
doi/10.1177/0042098013513645 [Accessed April 6, 2014].
Hackworth, J. & Smith, N. (2001). The changing state of gentrification.
Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, 92(4), pp.464–477.
Available at: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/1467-9663.00172.
Harris, A. (2008). From London to Mumbai and Back Again:
Gentrification and Public Policy in Comparative Perspective. Urban
Studies, 45(12), pp.2407–2428. Available at: http://usj.sagepub.com/
cgi/doi/10.1177/0042098008097100 [Accessed April 6, 2014].
He, S. (2010). New-Build Gentrification in Central Shanghai:
Demographic Changes and Socioeconomic Implications. Population, Space
and Place, 16(July 2009), pp.345–361.
He, S. (2007). State-sponsored Gentrification Under Market Transition
The Case of Shanghai. Urban Affairs Review, 43(2), pp.171–198.
Available at: http://uar.sagepub.com/cgi/
doi/10.1177/1078087407305175 [Accessed April 6, 2014].
Hulten, A. Van (2010). Global flows , gentrification and displacement
in Melbourne ’ s Inner West.
Hyra, D.S. (2012). Conceptualizing the New Urban Renewal:
Comparing the Past to the Present. Urban Affairs Review, 48(4), pp.498–
527. Available at: http://uar.sagepub.com/cgi/
doi/10.1177/1078087411434905 [Accessed December 14, 2013].
IRDA, M. (2007). Investing in Iskandar 1st ed., Iskandar Regional
Development Authority.
Kuyucu, T. & Unsal, O. (2010). “Urban Transformation” as State-led
Property Transfer: An Analysis of Two Cases of Urban Renewal in
Istanbul. Urban Studies, 47(7), pp.1479–1499. Available at: http://
usj.sagepub.com/cgi/doi/10.1177/0042098009353629 [Accessed
March 23, 2014].
Lees, L. (2000). A reappraisal of gentrification: towards a “geography of
gentrification.” Progress in Human Geography, 24(3), pp.389–408.
Available at: http://phg.sagepub.com/cgi/
doi/10.1191/030913200701540483.
Lees, L. (2008). Gentrification and Social Mixing: Towards an Inclusive
Urban Renaissance? Urban Studies, 45(12), pp.2449–2470. Available at:
http://usj.sagepub.com/cgi/doi/10.1177/0042098008097099
[Accessed December 31, 2013].
Lees, L. (2002). Rematerializing geography: the “new” urban
geography. Progress in Human Geography, 26(1), pp.101–112. Available
at: http://phg.sagepub.com/cgi/doi/10.1191/0309132502ph358pr
[Accessed April 6, 2014].
Lees, L. (2011). The geography of gentrification: Thinking through
comparative urbanism. Progress in Human Geography, 36(2), pp.155–171.
Available at: http://phg.sagepub.com/cgi/
doi/10.1177/0309132511412998 [Accessed December 14, 2013].
Lim, H. et al. (2013). Urban regeneration and gentrification: Land use
impacts of the Cheonggye Stream Restoration Project on the Seoul’s
central business district. Habitat International, 39, pp.192–200. Available
at: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0197397513000039
[Accessed February 6, 2014].
Maloutas, T. (2011). Contextual Diversity in Gentrification Research.
Critical Sociology, 38(1), pp.33–48. Available at: http://
crs.sagepub.com/cgi/doi/10.1177/0896920510380950 [Accessed
April 6, 2014].
Marquardt, N. (2012). Shaping the Urban Renaissance: New-build
Luxury Developments in Berlin. Urban Studies, 50(8), pp.1540–1556.
Available at: http://usj.sagepub.com/cgi/
doi/10.1177/0042098012465905 [Accessed January 26, 2014].
Mat Nor, H. (2009). Mengapa kami jadi begini ? Konflik masyarakat
Orang Seletar Conflicts in the Iskandar development region : The case
of Johor Bahru ’ s Orang Seletar , Malaysia. , 2(2), pp.16–26.
Mathema, S. (2013). Gentrification : An Update Literature Review.
Poverty, Race Research Action Council, pp.1–8.
Murphy, L. (2008). Third-wave Gentrification in New Zealand: The
Case of Auckland. Urban Studies, 45(12), pp.2521–2540. Available at:
http://usj.sagepub.com/cgi/doi/10.1177/0042098008097106
[Accessed December 11, 2013].
Nash, L. (2013). Middle-Class Castle: Constructing Gentrification at
London’s Barbican Estate. Journal of Urban History, 39(5), pp.909–932.
Available at: http://juh.sagepub.com/cgi/
doi/10.1177/0096144213479320 [Accessed December 31, 2013].
Phillips, M. (2004). Other geographies of gentrification. Progress in
Human Geography, 28(1), pp.5–30. Available at: http://
phg.sagepub.com/cgi/doi/10.1191/0309132504ph458oa [Accessed
April 6, 2014].
Prayoga, I.N.T., Esariti, L. & Dewi, D.I.K. (2013). The Identification
of Early Gentrification in Tembalang Area, Semarang, Indonesia.
Environment and Urbanization Asia, 4(1), pp.57–71. Available at: http://
eua.sagepub.com/cgi/doi/10.1177/1103308813478606 [Accessed
December 31, 2013].
Rérat, P. (2009). From Urban Wastelands to New-Build Gentrifi
cation : The Case of Swiss Cities. Population, Space and Place.
Rizzo, A. & Glasson, J. (2012). Iskandar Malaysia. Cities, 29(6), pp.417
–427. Available at: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/
S0264275111000382 [Accessed December 11, 2013].
Rizzo, A. & Khan, S. (2013). Johor Bahru’s response to transnational
and national influences in the emerging Straits Mega-City Region.
Habitat International, 40, pp.154–162. Available at: http://
linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0197397513000350 [Accessed
December 11, 2013].
Rostam, K. (2011). Impak pembangunan Bandar Baru Nusajaya Wilayah
Iskandar Malaysia terhadap kesejahteraan hidup penduduk asal setempat
The development impact of Nusajaya New Town , Iskandar Malaysia on
the social well-being of the local population. , pp.14–28.
Rousseau, M. (2011). Post-Fordist Urbanism in France’s Poorest City:
Gentrification as Local Capitalist Strategy. Critical Sociology, 38(1),
pp.49–69. Available at: http://crs.sagepub.com/cgi/
doi/10.1177/0896920511405231 [Accessed April 7, 2014].
Sabri, S. (2012). A Framework For Geo-simulation of Gentrification in
Kuala Lumpur. UTM, Johor, Malaysia: Universiti Teknologi Malaysia.
124
Sabri, S., M. Ludin, A.N. & Foziah, J. (2012). Gentrification and Local
Strategies to Mitigate Displacement: Case of Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Town Plan, 4.
Shaw, K. (2011). Book review: Loretta Lees, Tom Slater, and Elvin K.
Wyly, Gentrification. Abingdon: Routledge, 2008. 344 pp.:
9780415950374, 23.99 (pbk). Loretta Lees, Tom Slater, and Elvin K.
Wyly (eds), The Gentrification Reader. Abingdon: Routledge, 2010.
648 pp.: 97. Progress in Human Geography, 35(4), pp.580–584.
Available at: http://phg.sagepub.com/cgi/
doi/10.1177/03091325110350040203 [Accessed April 6, 2014].
Shaw, K. (2008). Gentrification: What It Is, Why It Is, and What Can
Be Done about It. Geography Compass, 2(5), pp.1697–1728. Available at:
http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/j.1749-8198.2008.00156.x.
Shinwon, K. & Kwang Joong, K. (2011). The struggle to belong Dealing
with diversity in 21st century urban settings . , (July), pp.7–9.
Slater, T. (2011). Gentrification of the City. In G. Bridge & S. Watson,
eds. The New Blackwell Companion to the City. Blackwell Publishing
Ltd, pp. 571–585.
Slater, T., Curran, W. & Lees, L. (2004). Gentrification research: new
directions and critical scholarship. Environment and Planning A, 36(7),
pp.1141–1150. Available at: http://www.envplan.com/abstract.cgi?
id=a3718 [Accessed December 25, 2013].
Smith, N. (2002). New Globalism, New Urbanism: Gentrification as
Global Urban Strategy. Antipode, 34(3), pp.427–450. Available at:
http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/1467-8330.00249.
Visser, G. (2002). Gentrification and South African cities Towards a
research agenda. , 19(6), pp.419–423.
Visser, G. & Kotze, N. (2008). The State and New-build Gentrification
in Central Cape Town, South Africa. Urban Studies, 45(12), pp.2565–
2593. Available at: http://usj.sagepub.com/cgi/
doi/10.1177/0042098008097104 [Accessed March 31, 2014].
Wang, J. & Lau, S.S.Y. (2009). Gentrification and Shanghai’s new
middle-class: Another reflection on the cultural consumption thesis.
Cities, 26(2), pp.57–66. Available at: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/
retrieve/pii/S0264275109000237 [Accessed February 3, 2014].
Xian Yang, W., Li, C. & Yap, C. (2013). Real Estate Foresight.
(August), pp.1–7.
