By Ar. David Teoh, Director, PAB Architecture Sdn Bhd.
Malaysia’s skyline is increasingly defined by complex integrated strata developments, but beneath the glittering facades lies a ticking time bomb of maintenance disputes, escalating fees, and operational failures. At the recent REHDA Institute Strata Management Seminar 2026, sharing the stage with esteemed colleagues—Mr. Chris Tan of Chur Associates, Datuk Ar. Ezumi Harsani Ismail of Arkitek MAA, and Assoc. Prof. LAr. Dr. Nor Atiah Ismail of ILAM—crystalised a vital realisation: we can no longer design for product launches and short-term sales; we must consider the full lifecycle of our buildings.
Building a strata development is never a straightforward exercise. It is about designing a community—a vertical, interdependent village. When a developer completes a project, the operational baton is passed to a Joint Management Body (JMB) and eventually the Management Corporation (MC), often comprised of layperson volunteer residents. Having served as an MC Chairman myself, I know firsthand the heavy burden this places on a community. If a building is inherently flawed in its design and parcelisation, these volunteers inherit an absolute administrative nightmare.
My time as MC Chairman has influenced how I approach architecture practice. At my office, we strive to design with altruism and a deep conscientiousness. For an architect, it is profoundly satisfying to witness how our work positively impacts the daily lives of those who occupy our buildings long after completion. My experience across multiple stratified projects has taught me one undeniable truth: safeguarding a building’s viability and preventing future disputes requires a dual focus. An architect must anticipate the broad operational needs of the community, while applying in-depth technical precision to resolve the intricate details of strata design.
Here is how I think the industry could rethink its approach to strata development:
Maintainability must be our ultimate priority. Yet, development teams frequently get bogged down in the immense complexity of strata parcelisation—intricately carving out Main Parcels, Accessory Parcels, Common Property, and Limited Common Property .
Overcomplicating these divisions distracts architects from creating a fundamentally good product. In strata schemes, Share Units (SUs) determine voting power, maintenance contributions, and overall influence within the Management Corporation (MC). In integrated developments, misalignment in share unit allocation is a constant basis of disputes. For example, an office parcel may depend on a retail parcel’s loading bay, or a hotel component may require a dedicated entrance. When developers attempt to cleverly manipulate common property boundaries for short-term gains, or fail to accurately apportion these interdependencies, it almost always backfires into bitter disputes, financial imbalances, and a tarnished brand reputation.
Furthermore, we must critically re-evaluate the scale and variety of facilities offered in modern strata housing. Do we truly need a swimming pool, a gym, sports courts, and a multipurpose hall in every single project? Beyond this standard list, we often find novel ‘innovative’ amenities that look exceptional in a sales brochure, frequently end up underutilised. A decade later, as maintenance costs inevitably inflate, these spaces transition from selling points to severe financial burdens for the MC, often forcing communities to shut down or repurpose them just to save money. Instead, developers have a prime opportunity to buck this trend. There is a strong case for offering ‘no-frills,’ highly efficient living options, or pioneering a neighborhood model where a centralised, privately managed sports facility is shared among several adjacent strata communities.
At the seminar, it was also suggested that developers could also seamlessly integrate purpose-built commercial units—such as a ground-floor cafe or convenience store—and designate them as common property for the MC to manage. The rental yield actively defrays maintenance costs and bolsters the building’s sinking fund. This creates a powerful Unique Selling Proposition (USP). A development with a self-sustaining maintenance fund potentially commands premium pricing, sells faster, and heavily boosts the developer’s Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) credentials.
To achieve the best results, a rigorous, multidisciplinary workshop is indispensable. By convention, coordinating land surveyors, engineers, and landscape architects to navigate the complexities of strata parcelisation has always been included in the architect’s basic services. However, to truly comprehend the operational intricacies that arise post-completion, we must also include building managers in the advisory team. Their input provides the critical “boots-on-the-ground” perspective of a living building, allowing architects to facilitate a more holistic design that anticipates actual usage rather than just theoretical boundaries.
Furthermore, under the Occupational Safety and Health (Construction Work) (Design and Management) Regulations 2024 (CDM 2024), developers must now explicitly appoint a Principal Construction Work Designer (PCWD) in writing. While the scope of this role currently remains vague due to a lack of formal guidance material from DOSH, the Board of Architects (LAM) has made it clear: this responsibility sits firmly outside an architect’s basic services. Nevertheless, architects are uniquely positioned to take up this mantle.
I would suggest for architects to conduct design risk assessments directly alongside strata parcelisation workshops. In this way – a more holistic design may be developed with the inputs of various stakeholders. Eg. How will a maintenance worker safely clean windows or repaint the building? Can outdoor air-conditioning units be maintained safely? We possess the unique skills required to mitigate both health and safety risks during construction and future strata management pitfalls post-completion. Ironing out various interdependencies at the design stage prevents operational issues later.
This brings us to a reality the industry often glosses over: the architect is the unsung hero of every project. We are the first professionals engaged and the very last to leave, remaining deeply anchored through the Defect Liability Period (DLP) to untangle complex post-completion issues long after others have demobilised.
Consider the operational stakes: an ill-considered Share Unit allocation can trigger fierce resistance in JMB/MC meetings and invite crippling legal challenges. Early recalibration by the architect prevents this, avoiding costly restructuring just prior to the issuance of Strata Titles. Therefore, when developers explicitly appoint and properly remunerate architects for this expanded role to consider the building lifecycle as the PCWD, it is not merely an expense. It is the most cost-effective insurance policy available. Every operational dispute prevented at the design stage is a lawsuit avoided in the future.
However, this is a two-way street; as this scope is entirely new, architects must also play their part by being transparent with developers about the actual costs involved in executing the PCWD role. Carrying out rigorous design risk assessments and compiling the mandatory Safety and Health File (SHF) over many months is not a superficial administrative task. It requires highly experienced professionals to prepare extensive, forward-looking documentation that ensures a building is safe to maintain and clean for its entire lifespan. Proper remuneration is what empowers architectural practices to sustainably nurture and retain this specialised talent. When the right minds are driving cross-disciplinary risk management, we ultimately save the developer massive legal and reputational costs.
Today, almost every new urban development sits atop an eight-storey podium car park. However, if self-driving vehicle fleets become the norm by 2035—drastically reducing the need for personal car ownership and static parking—we are effectively locking in massive stranded assets. Bound by existing local government parking requirements, we face a fait accompli: we are forced to carve out these accessory parcels fully aware we are building towards mandated obsolescence.
We can, of course, physically design for operational adaptability. Architects can be empowered to design parking structures with flat floor plates and slightly higher clearances so these spaces can theoretically be converted into new apartments, urban farms, or community spaces. Yet, physical adaptability is crippled without legal agility. Under our current strata regime, repurposing these accessory parcels requires unanimous consent from all parcel owners. In any populated strata scheme, achieving absolute unanimous consent is a virtually impossible hurdle.
This is why the rollout of digital governance, such as the Housing Integrated Management System (HIMS) and the AI-integrated eStrata system, must be accompanied by bold legal reforms. To navigate these shifts, we need closer, continuous collaboration between REHDA and PAM. Thought leadership, backed by robust empirical research, must drive data-driven policy advisory. This unified front will help the government continuously update our laws—lowering insurmountable consent barriers for adaptive reuse—ensuring our regulatory frameworks and built environment adapt seamlessly to a rapidly changing world.
Finally, we must humbly acknowledge that true sustainability is not merely about ‘going green.’ It is the rigorous anticipation of a better way to utilise our resources—both spatial and financial—so that the vertical villages we build today remain viable, valuable, and harmonious for generations to come.
Ar. David Teoh is a Director at PAB Architecture Sdn Bhd, a KL-based multidisciplinary design firm with a mission to design healthier ecologies for people and planet. In 2023, he was named one of the 40 under 40 Emerging Architects of Malaysia by a jury convened by Pertubuhan Akitek Malaysia (PAM).
www.healthierecologies.my
PAB Architecture Sdn Bhd
Suite 7.03, Level 7, JKG Tower
282, Jln Raja Laut, 50350 Kuala Lumpur.
