ts08f wan abd aziz musa et al 7383 ppt - international … · 2014. 7. 3. · assoc. professor dr....

Presented by:

Sr Ainoriza Mohd Aini

Vertical Living Phenomenon

in Malaysia

1

Studies of Urban & Regional Real Estate (SURE)Faculty of Built Environment

University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur

XXV FIG Congress | 16-21 June 2014 | Kuala Lumpur

XXV INTERNATIONAL FEDERATION OF SURVEYORS CONGRESS, KUALA LUMPUR, MALAYSIA, 16 – 21 JUNE 2014

SURE, UNIVERSITY OF MALAYA

RESEARCHERS

� Assoc. Professor Dr. Wan Nor Azriyati Wan Abdul Aziz (Project Leader)

� Assoc. Professor Dr. Noor Rosly Haniff

� Dr Zairul Nisham Musa

� Ainoriza Mohd Aini

� Abd Ghani Sarip

� Zafirah Zyed

� Peter Aning Tedung

2

This project is fully funded by:

National Institute of Valuation (INSPEN),

Ministry of Finance Malaysia



PRESENTATION OUTLINE

i. Introduction

ii. Vertical living in Malaysia: The Malaysian Context

iii. Research Methodology

iv. Satisfaction level of vertical living residents

v. Conclusion

3XXV INTERNATIONAL FEDERATION OF SURVEYORS CONGRESS, KUALA LUMPUR, MALAYSIA, 16 – 21 JUNE 2014


INTRODUCTION

� Urban growth in Malaysia, as in many other Asian countries, has been rapid in recent years.

� More than half of the population live in urban areas

� The rate of urbanisation in Malaysia is on the rise, from about 25% in 1960 to 65% in 2005 and is expected to surpass 70% by 2020.

� Today, 68% of all Malaysian (about 18 million) live in towns and cities, a relatively high level of urbanisation for a developing country.



VERTICAL LIVING IN MALAYSIA

� The construction of high rise development in Malaysia is obvious, especially for the limited prime land in the state such as in Kuala Lumpur, Selangor and Penang Island.

� Furthermore, the concept of high rise development has also proved attractive and popular to most of the urban dwellers.

� This can be seen in the increasing number of strata developments being planned and built in most major cities in Malaysia.



� The strata title properties in Malaysia are recognised as parcels of properties in a building to be subdivided into separate parcels.

� This concept of strata title ownership is patterned along the Australian New South Wales Conveyance (Strata Titles) Act 1961

� Control of ownership in Malaysia was first introduced through National Land Code 1965 .

� The act introduced is a new concept of strata titles or the sub-division of building into parcels.

� Ownership of such parcels are evidenced by the issuance of a subsidiary title.

6

VERTICAL LIVING IN MALAYSIATHE REGULATION



VERTICAL LIVING IN MALAYSIA…THE REGULATION

� The provisions relating to the subdivision of building under the National Land Code 1965 were amended from time to time to enhance their effectiveness

� The Strata Titles Act 1985, which was introduced on 1 June 1985, has repealed and replaced the inadequacies of the provisions in the NLC

� However, the Strata Titles Act 1985 was also argued to be inadequate and is in need of further amendments.



VERTICAL LIVING IN MALAYSIA…THE REGULATION

� In 2007, the Building and Common Property (Maintenance and Management) Act, was implemented to overcome the problem of maintaining common areas in strata developments before the setting up of the management corporation.

� This act is also viewed as not sufficient to address the issues and problems in vertical living.

� The latest Strata Management Act 2013 has repealed the Building and Common Property (Maintenance and Management) Act 2007.



VERTICAL LIVING IN MALAYSIADUTIES OF VERTICAL LIVING OWNER

� Living in a residential vertical living is now becoming a lifestyle trend among the urban professional community in Malaysia.

� As opposed to landed property, in high-rise residential developments, residents must formed Management Corporation (MC) to regulate and manage all the common amenities and facilities as stipulated in the Strata Title Act, 1985.



VERTICAL LIVING IN MALAYSIATHE MANAGEMENT BODY

� The main objective of the Joint Management Body or Management Corporation is to maintain the common property or building to keep it in an acceptable standard or in good condition.

� The residents have to pay a fee for the facilities provided known as service charge.



THE FINDINGSCASE STUDY OF SHAH ALAM, SELANGOR, MALAYSIA

11

Respondents are owners & tenants of low & medium cost condominiums and apartments in SHAH ALAM, MALAYSIA

Selected based on random sampling

20%

80%

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Low-cost Medium-cost

N=150



Age

Female 53.0%

Male : 47.0%

Married : 60.0%

Single : 39.0%

Widowed/ Divorced :

1.0%0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

10

0

Percent %

Gender

Marital Status

Ethnicity

Year 31 – 40 : 21.2%

Year 51 – 60 : 9.9%

Year 41 – 50 : 22.5%

Year 21 – 30 : 38.4%

Year 60 above : 2.6%Year 18 - 20: 5.5%

Malay : 88.1%

Chinese : 6.0%Indian : 4.6%Bumiputra Sabah/ Sarawak : 1.3%

12

Part A | Profile of Respondents



13

Income Level

Diploma/Degree : 54.3%

Private : 63.9%

Retired : 3.0%

Student : 0.3%0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Percent %

EducationWorking Sector

Occupancy

Home

Owner : 58.0%

Tenant : 42.0%

Masters : 5.3%UPSR : 4.6%

PMR/SPM/STPM : 35.7%

RM10000 above : 7.9%

RM3000-RM5000 : 25.2%

RM5001 – RM10000 : 21.1%

Below RM3000 : 44.4%

Self – employed : 16.1%

Housewife : 9.8%

Unemployed : 1.0%

Government : 5.9%

Part A | Profile of Respondents



Low

-co

st

Service charge per month (RM)

Mean 54.77

Median 55.00

Minimum 50

Maximum 55

Me

diu

m-c

ost

Mean 145.82

Median 130.00

Minimum 50.00

Maximum 500.00

14

85%

15%

Who pays for the service charge?

Owner

Tenant

Part B| Service Charges



15

9,52

42,86

9,52

33,33

4,76

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Owner Tenant

Percent %

Opinion on amount of service charge paid (low-cost, n=21)

Very High

High

Reasonable

4,23

5,63

1,41

59,15

9,86

12,68

14,29

2,82

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Owner TenantPercent %

Opinion on amount of service charge paid (medium-cost, n=71)

Very High

High

Reasonable

Low

Very Low

Part B| Service Charges



16

Part B| Service Charge

95,5

78,4

9,5

4,5

6,8

5,4

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Low-cost (n=22) Medium-cost (n=74)

Percent %

Frequency of paying service charge

Others

Once in a 6 months

Once in a 3 months

Every month



17

Part C| Understanding on Acts and Procedures



18

FACILITIES PROVIDED (LOW COST)

3,84

2,48

3,193,33 2,9

3,14

1,9 1,95

3,67

2,442,56

3,11

1,75

2,89

1,67

2

0

0,5

1

1,5

2

2,5

3

3,5

4

4,5

5

Surau Playground Kindergarden Mini Market Public Hall Laundry Car Park Motorcycle Park

Owner

Tenant

Part D| Respondents’ Perception



19

FACILITIES PROVIDED (MEDIUM COST)

3,74

3,18 3,143,39

3,65

3,423,21 3,14

3,213,55

3,09 3,143,42

3,8

3,25 3,19 3,02 2,95

0

0,5

1

1,5

2

2,5

3

3,5

4

4,5

5

Mean

Owner Tenant




20

CLEANLINESS SERVICES (LOW COST)

2,48

2

2,67

2,1

2,57

2,62

2,43

2,62

1,86

2,56

2

2,11

2

2,33

2,22

2,67

2,67

1,78

0 1 2 3 4

Corridor

Lift

Road

Stairs

Lobby

Parking

Drainage

Landscape

Bin House

Mean Tenant

Owner




21

CLEANLINESS SERVICES (MEDIUM COST)

3,33

3,2

3,44

3,24

3,48

3,29

3,55

3,32

3,6

3,36

3,53

3,29

3,49

3,35

3,4

3,16

3,31

3,22

3,84

3,29

0 1 2 3 4 5

Corridor

Lift

Road

Stairs

Lobby

Parking

Drainage

Landscape

Swimming Pool

Guard House

Mean Tenant

Owner




22

BUILDING MAINTENANCE (LOW COST)

2,572,43

2,62 2,57

2,9

2,622,76

2,33 2,332,57

2,863

2 2

2,33 2,22

2,67 2,562,44 2,33 2,22

2,78 2,67 2,67

0

0,5

1

1,5

2

2,5

3

3,5

4

4,5

Mean

Owner

Tenant




23

BUILDING MAINTENANCE (MEDIUM COST)


3,23,42 3,48 3,3

3,47 3,553,29 3,35 3,34 3,18

3,61

3,09 3,17

3,113,42 3,44 3,47 3,53 3,35 3,37 3,33 3,31

3,13

3,84

3,27 3,38

0

0,5

1

1,5

2

2,5

3

3,5

4

4,5

5

Mean Owner

Tenant



CONCLUSION

� Satisfied with the way the current JBM or MC manage the high rise residential building

� Gain more benefits than cost from vertical living

� However, the existing acts are too difficult to comprehend and to abide.


25

Studies of Urban and Regional

Real Estate (SURE),Faculty of Built Environment,

University of Malaya,

50603 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Contact: [email protected]

THANK YOU

XXV FIG Congress | 16-21 June 2014 | Kuala Lumpur


26

EXTRAS



27

FACILITIES PROVIDED (LOW COST)


Facilities

Respondents' Satisfaction

Mean

(M)

Most

Dissatisfied

(%)

Dissatisfied

(%)

Neutral

(%)

Satisfied

(%)

Very Satisfied

(%)

Ow

ner

Ten

ant

Ow

ner

Ten

ant

Ow

ner

Ten

ant

Ow

ner

Ten

ant

Ow

ner

Ten

ant

Ow

ner

Ten

ant

Musolla 0.0 0.0 1.1 7.4 28.9 35.2 58.9 51.9 11.1 5.6 3.8 3.56

Playground 0.0 0.0 6.0 5.4 39.0 48.2 27.0 26.8 28.0 19.6 2.77 2.61

Kindergarten 3.1 7.4 11.5 9.3 37.5 44.4 45.8 38.9 2.1 0.0 3.32 3.15

Shop 1.0 3.6 11.5 10.7 39.4 48.2 44.2 37.5 3.8 0.0 3.38 3.2

Multipurpose

Hall3.8 9.1 6.7 14.5 31.7 40.0 54.8 36.4 2.9 0.0 3.46 3.04

Laundry 1.2 8.0 6.2 10.0 48.1 38.0 42.0 44.0 2.5 0.0 3.38 3.18

Car Park 11.1 19.0 50.4 52.4 17.9 12.7 18.8 15.9 1.7 0.0 2.5 2.25

Motorcycle

Parking8.5 19.0 41.0 42.9 25.6 17.5 23.1 20.6 1.7 0.0 2.68 2.4

: Owner : Tenant



28

FACILITIES PROVIDED (MEDIUM COST)


Facilities


Mean

(M)

Most

Dissatisfied

(%)

Dissatisfied

(%)

Neutral

(%)

Satisfied

(%)

Very Satisfied

(%)

Ow

ner

Ten

ant

Ow

ner

Ten

ant

Ow

ner

Ten

ant

Ow

ner

Ten

ant

Ow

ner

Ten

ant

Ow

ner

Ten

ant

Musolla 0.9 3.3 7.0 7.3 24.9 27.3 55.0 53.3 12.2 8.7 3.71 3.57

Playground 6.5 5.0 14.9 17.1 26.8 30.7 46.8 41.7 5.1 5.5 3.29 3.26

Kindergarten 3.2 3.7 9.2 13.9 33.0 34.3 47.7 38.9 6.9 9.3 3.46 3.36

Shop 0.9 4.0 11.7 13.6 32.3 29.4 46.8 45.8 8.2 7.3 3.5 3.39

Swimming

Pool1.2 3.1 11.0 7.6 23.9 30.5 56.5 51.1 7.5 7.6 3.58 3.53

Multipurpose

Hall2.5 3.0 8.8 6.7 31.3 47.0 51.1 37.8 6.3 5.5 3.5 3.36

Laundry 2.8 3.3 9.7 10 35.9 35.0 47.0 43.3 4.6 8.3 3.41 3.43

Car Park 3.7 6.1 13.3 16.9 22.9 24.9 54.3 45.1 5.9 7.0 3.45 3.3

Motorcycle

Parking4.8 6.1 11.2 15.0 29.0 27.2 48.7 44.6 6.4 7.0 3.41 3.31

: Owner : Tenant



29

CLEANLINESS SERVICES (LOW COST)


Facilities


Mean

(M)

Most

Dissatisfied

(%)

Dissatisfied

(%)

Neutral

(%)Satisfied (%)

Very

Satisfied

(%)

Ow

ner

Ten

ant

Ow

ner

Ten

ant

Ow

ner

Ten

ant

Ow

ner

Ten

ant

Ow

ner

Ten

ant

Ow

ner

Ten

ant

Corridor 7.7 11.1 19.7 23.8 23.9 30.2 47.0 34.9 1.7 0.0 3.15 2.89

Lift 14.5 14.3 24.8 31.7 23.9 23.8 35.9 30.2 0.9 0.0 2.84 2.7

Road 4.3 11.1 21.4 28.6 32.5 34.9 40.2 25.4 1.7 0.0 3.14 2.75

Stairs 10.3 11.1 22.2 41.3 36.8 31.7 29.1 15.9 1.7 0.0 2.9 2.52

Lobby 4.3 9.5 23.9 23.8 40.2 44.4 31.6 22.2 0.0 0.0 2.99 2.79

Car Park 9.4 20.6 23.1 25.4 30.8 31.7 36.8 22.2 0.0 0.0 2.95 2.56

Drainage 7.7 19.0 26.5 25.3 40.2 38.1 25.6 17.5 0.0 0.0 2.84 2.54

Landscape 10.3 20.6 21.4 23.8 48.7 36.5 19.7 19.0 0.0 0.0 2.78 2.54

Bin House 9.4 15.9 44.4 39.7 26.5 25.4 19.7 19.0 0.0 0.0 2.56 2.48

: Owner : Tenant



30

CLEANLINESS SERVICES (MEDIUM COST)


Facilities


Mean

(M)

Most

Dissatisfied

(%)

Dissatisfied

(%)

Neutral

(%)

Satisfied

(%)

Very Satisfied

(%)

Ow

ner

Ten

ant

Ow

ner

Ten

ant

Ow

ner

Ten

ant

Ow

ner

Ten

ant

Ow

ner

Ten

ant

Ow

ner

Ten

ant

Corridor 3.8 3.8 11.8 10.8 22.0 22.2 56.0 53.8 6.4 9.4 3.5 3.54

Lift 6.7 6.1 11 15 28.1 22.5 48.4 48.4 5.9 8.0 3.36 3.37

Road 2.2 2.8 7.3 11.8 28.6 25.5 55.5 51.4 6.5 8.5 3.57 3.51

Stairs 5.9 5.2 12.3 13.6 26.3 26.3 49.3 46.9 6.2 8.0 3.38 3.39

Lobby 2.7 3.8 9.9 11.8 23.4 27.4 53.5 48.1 10.5 9.0 3.59 3.47

Car Park 2.4 5.2 10.8 11.7 23.1 29.1 53.8 45.1 9.9 8.9 3.58 3.41

Drainage 4.8 4.2 8.6 12.2 22.6 27.7 56.7 47.9 7.3 8.0 3.53 3.43

Landscape 5.6 3.8 9.7 13.1 26.1 34.7 47.8 40.4 10.8 8.0 3.48 3.36

Swimming

Pool 2.8 4.6 6.3 7.7 25.0 22.3 58.7 58.5 7.1 6.9 3.61 3.55

Guard

House 1.7 1.5 8.7 13.4 28.9 26.4 50.6 50.2 10.1 8.5 3.59 3.51

Bin House 4.0 4.7 10.7 13.6 29.2 29.6 48.8 44.6 7.2 7.5 3.45 3.37

: Owner : Tenant


ts08f wan abd aziz musa et al 7383 ppt - international … · 2014. 7. 3. · assoc. professor dr....

Documents