Proceedings International Seminar The Knowledge City: Spirit, Character, and Manifestation

INTERNATIONAL SEMINAR

The Knowledge City:

Spirit, Character and Manifestation

13

th

_-14

th

_{NOVEMBER 2007}

MEDAN

–

INDONESIA

Scientific Committee:

Abdul Ghani Bin Saleh, Prof., BE, Bsc, PhD. (USM) Julaihi Bin Wahid, Assoc. Prof., BArch, MArch , PhD. (USM) Gunawan Tjahjono, Prof., Ir., MArch, PhD. (UI) Alip Bin Rahim, Assoc. Prof., Bsc, MSc, PhD.(USM) Tjuk Kuswartojo, Ir. (ITB)

Edited by:

Morida Siagian, Ir., MURP Syamsul Bahri, Ir., MT Dwira Nirfalini Aulia, Ir., M.Sc Basaria Talarosha, Ir., MT Imam Faisal Pane, ST., MT Novrial, Ir., M. Eng Salmina Wati Ginting, ST., MT Beny O.Y. Marpaung ST, MT

Published by:

Departement of Architecture

University of Sumatera Utara

Gedung F

Jl. Universitas No. 9, Kampus USU Medan, Indonesia

Telp. 061-8213737; Fax 061-8213737 Kunjungi kami di:

http://usupress.usu.ac.id 07

Hak cipta dilindungi oleh undang-undang; dilarang memperbanyak, menyalin, merekam sebagian atau seluruh bagian buku ini dalam bahasa atau bentuk apapun tanpa izin tertulis dari penerbit.

ISBN: 979 458 313 8

Perpustakaan Nasional: Katalog Dalam Terbitan (KDT)

Proceeding International Seminar The Knowledge City: Spirit, Character, and Manifestation 13th-14th November 2007. Medan--Indonesia; Edited by Morida Siagian [et.al]--Medan: USU Press, 2007

xvi, 483 p.: ilus.: 24 Bibliografi

ISBN: 979-458- 313-8

No. Name Nationality Organisation

1. Agus Budi Purnomo Indonesia Trisakti University Research Center : Jalan Kiai Tapa, Grogol, Jakarta Barat; Telp.0215663232 ext 141-144; Email: agusbudi@dnet.net.id

2. Ari Rahadini Indonesia Majoring in Architecture , Civil and Structural Engineering Department, Semarang State University, Kampus Sekaran Gedung E2 Lantai 1 Gunungpati, Semarang, Central Java, Indonesia; Phone. (024) 8508102; Fax. (024) 8508102;

Email: ayik12@yahoo.com;

Home address: Srondol Bumi Indah K14, Semarang;

Mobile phone: 08562668344

3. Arya Ronald Indonesia Department of Architecture and Planning, Faculty of Engineering, Gadjah Mada University, Jl. Grafika 2, Yogyakarta 55281; Email: aryaronald@ugm.ac.id,

arya211143@yahoo.co.id, aryaronald@yahoo.com; Mobile phone: 08156887829

4. Astuti Indonesia Research Centre for Human Settlement; Bukit Idaman Kav 72 Bandung 40142; Phone: 022 2002144 (Home); (Mobile): 0816616751; Email:

sasti@bdg.centrin.net.id

5. Azizah Hanim Nasution Indonesia Email : adeanasti@yahoo.com

6. Budi Arlius Putra Indonesia Pengurus Ikatan Arsitek Indonesia Daerah Jambi, Pegawai PU Kabupaten Bungo, Dosen Luar Biasa FT UNBARI Jambi, Jl. Slamet Riyadi, Jambi 36122

7. Dedes Nur Gandarum Indonesia Department of Architecture, Faculty of Civil Engineering and Planning Trisakti University, Jl. Kiai Tapa no.1 Grogol, Jakarta Barat 11440;

Tel/Fax 021 5684643; Email: Dedesng@yahoo.com

8. Dhani Mutiari Indonesia Department of Architecture, Engineering Faculty of Surakarta Muhammadiyah University ; Email:

dhani_mutiari@yahoo.com

9. Dwira Nirfalini Aulia Indonesia Magister Architecture of Engineering, School of Postgraduate Study, University of Sumatera Utara, Medan, Indonesia; Email : citina @ indosat.net.id

10. E. Edwards Mckinnon Singapore Asia Research Institute, NUS; Email: <ramasintas1@attglobal.net>

11. Galih Widjil Pangarsa Indonesia Email : galih.wp@gmail.com

12. Gerarda Orbita Ida Cahyandari Indonesia Department of Architecture, Faculty of Civil Engineering, AtmaJaya Yogyakarta University; Jl. Babarsari 44, Yogyakarta 55281; Tel.(0274) 487711 ext.1153; Email: idach@mail.uajy.ac.id

Christian University, Jl. Siwalankerto 142-144, Gd. P. LT 6, Surabaya 60236; Telp (031) 8439040, 8494830-31, 2983372; FAX. (031) 8417658; Email:

handinot@peter.petra.ac.id

14. Hendaru Sadyadharma Indonesia Email : hendarusadyadharma@yahoo.com

15. Henry Sitorus Indonesia Email : sitorhen@yahoo.com

16. Hinijati Widjaja Indonesia Lecturer of Landscape Architecture Trisakti University Indonesia ,Address: Jl. Kenari I A 6/ 22 Pondok Sejahtera Tangerang 15000 Indonesia; Telephone and fax: Office (62 -021) 5663232 and Fax : 021- 5602575; Mobile (62-021) 70105039; Email: hinijatiwidjaja@plasa.com

17. Dr., Huzili Hussin Malaysia Email: huzili@unimap.edu.my

18. Ida I. Gede Raka Indonesia Email: raka@bdg.centrin.net.id

19. I Made Benyamin Indonesia Dosen Fakultas Ekonomi, dan Ketua Program Studi Ekonomi Sumberdaya, Program Pascasarjana,Universitas Hasanuddin, Makassar;

Alamat : Jalan Panampu 2, Lr. II, No.A-4, Makassar, 90211, Sul-Sel; Telp./Fax. : 0411- 453475; Email :

imadebenyamin@yahoo.com

20. Dr. Izaidin Abd. Majid Malaysia Centre for Languages and Human Development, Universiti Teknikal Malaysia Melaka; Karung Berkunci 1200,75450, Ayer Keroh, Melaka, Malaysia; Tel: 606-2333071; Fax: 606-2333144; Email: izaidin@utem.edu.my

21. Irwansyah Harahap Indonesia Phone : 08126050625 / 081631163414; Email : suarasama@yahoo.com

22. Jansen H. Sinamo Indonesia Email : jansensinamo@cbn.net.id

23. Johannes Widodo Indonesia Email : jwidodo@nus.edu.sg

24. Laksmi Gondokusumo Siregar

Indonesia Department of Architecture, Faculty of Engineering, University of Indonesia, Kampus UI - Depok 16424; Tel. : [021] 786 3512; Fax: [021] 786 3514; Email: laksmisiregar@yahoo.com

25. Lita Nasution Indonesia Program Doktor Pengelolaan Sumberdaya Alam dan Lingkungan SPs USU. Address : Jln. Karya Setuju No. 22 Medan, Medan. Telp. (061) 6614021/081361682949

26. L. Edhi Prasetya Indonesia Department of Architecture, Pancasila University; Jl. Srengseng Sawah, Jagakarsa, Jakarta Selatan; Telp.(021) 7864730 ext. 15/30; Fax (021) 7270128; Email: prastyan@yahoo.com

27. Prof. Dr. Mohd. Taib Hj. Dora Malaysia _{Universiti Teknikal Kebangsaan Malaysia} Locked Bag 1200,Ayer Keroh, 75450 Melaka, Malaysia; Tel: +606 233 3371; Fax: +606 233 3369;

Mobile: +6 012 603 3700 ; Email: mohdtaib@utem.edu.my

30. Nurmaidah Indonesia Staf Pengajar Universitas Medan Area; Email: midah_zizi@yahoo.com

31. Nurtati Indonesia Department of Architecture, Institut Teknologi Nasional-Bandung; Email: nts_80@yahoo.com

32. Ngakan Ketut Acwin Dwijendra

Indonesia Lecturer of Engineering Faculty, Architecture Department, Udayana University – Bali; Email: acwindwijendra@yahoo.com

33. Qomarun Indonesia Architecture Department, Faculty of Engineering, Muhammadiyah University of Surakarta, Indonesia; Jl. A. Yani Tromol Pos 1, Kartasura, Surakarta 57171; Phone: 0271-717417 Ext 225; Email:

qomarun@ums.ac.id

34. Rini Raksadjaya Indonesia Program Studi Arsitektur SAPPK ITB, Jl. Ganesha 10 Bandung 40191, Lecturer. Architecture Design Research Group. Ph. 022 2504962; Fax 022 2530706; Email address: rinirr@rad.net.id

35. Rudolf Sitorus Indonesia Email : sitorusrudolf@yahoo.com

36. Samuel Hartono Indonesia Departement of Architecture, Faculty of Civil Engineering and Planning, Petra Christian University, Jl. Siwalankerto 142-144, Gd. P. LT 6, Surabaya 60236; Telp (031) 8439040, 8494830-31, 2983372; FAX. (031) 8417658; Email:

samhart@peter.petra.ac.id

37. Sismudjito Indonesia _{Phone : 08163116344}

38. Soni Pratomo Indonesia Dosen Tetap Fakultas Teknik Universitas Batanghari Jambi, Jl. Slamet Riyadi, Jambi 36122; Phone: 0741668280;

Fax:074165598; Alamat: Jl. A. Thalib RT 08 No. 55 Jambi 36124; HP. 08127477535; Email: sonipratomo@yahoo.com

39. Suharman Hamzah Indonesia Construction Management Laboratory, Civil Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering, Hasanuddin

University,Makassar, South Sulawesi; Telp. 0411-587636, Fax. 0411-586015; Email: suharmanhz@yahoo.com

40. Suparti Amir Salim Indonesia Lecturer, KK-PP / SAPPK-ITB; Prodi Arsitektur-ITB, Labteks IX, Jl. Ganesa no. 10, Bandung; Phone: (022) 2504 962; Fax: (022) 2530 705; Home Address: Kopo Permai III, Blok F12 / 13, Bandung 40239; HP: 0812 2182 389; Email :

bupar@bdg.centrin.net.id; bupar@ar.itb.ac.id

41. Syafiatun Siregar Indonesia Staf pengajar UNIMED;

Email : syafiatunsiregar@yahoo.co.id

42. Teguh Utomo Atmoko Indonesia Department of Architecture, Faculty of Engineering, University of Indonesia, Kampus UI - Depok 16424; Tel.: [021] 786 3512; Fax: [021] 786 3514; Email: tiua552003@yahoo.com

Kampus UI - Depok 16424; Tel.: [021] 786 3512; Fax: [021] 786 3514; Email: gotty@eng.ui.ac.id

44. Wan Burhanuddin Malaysia Email: wburhan@alum.mit.edu

45. Widiastuti Indonesia Udayana University, Kampus Bukit Jimbaran, Bali; Perum Padang Galleria No. 67, Denpasar Bali; Phone: (0361) 734312; Mobile: (081) 557 669 12; Email: Wiwied@ar.unud.ac.id dan syamsul_alam_paturusi@yahoo.fr

46. Wirsal Hasan Indonesia Lecture, Fakultas Kesehatan Masyarakat, Universitas Sumatera Utara; Jl. Universitas Kampus USU; Program Doktor

Pengelolaan Sumberdaya Alam dan Lingkungan SPs USU; Jl. Mustafa 18 Medan ; Telp. 061-6611627; HP. 0819863979; Email: wirsal@yahoocom

47. Wiwik D Pratiwi Indonesia School of Architecture, Planning and Policy Development

Institut Teknologi Bandung; Alamat :Jl. Ganesha 10 Bandung 40132; ph.+62 22 2504962 fx.+62 22 2530705; Email : wdpratiwi@ar.itb.ac.id

48. Yohanes Basuki Dwisusanto Indonesia Department of Architecture, Faculty of Civil Engineering and Planning Parahyangan University; Jalan Sariwangi 14A Parongpong Kabupaten Bandung; Telp 022-2017932; HP. 08122350359; Email: jbase@home.unpar.ac.id

The progress of urban planning and urban design in most textbooks and seminars in Indonesia has relatively hardly discussed cities from spiritual point of view. This view is a perspective that goes beyond intellectual and technical aspects, transcends commercial and economical dimensions, and surpasses the material and sensorial features.

The spiritual approach has to do with meaning, vision, and values that held dear by those who are involved in designing a city, and especially for those

who are destined to live there. Spirituality makes us stronger since it’s relating

us to the vital element of this life, more visionary since it’s connecting us with the

glorious dimension of this universe, more affectionate because it’s resonating us

by the loving grace of our Creator –The Great Designer, and wiser because it’s inspiring us by the wonder of His creation that spread out with enchant.

In this perspective, the work of designing a city – like all other professions –is a sacred duty or God’s calling for us, not a mere side job, let

alone a ‘rush –rush project’.

The spiritual poverty has brought our cities into the trap of banal egoism and brutal commercialism that breeds violence and all kinds of urban criminals. There have been so many cities, very successful in increasing their local revenues, but very poor in terms of space quality, cultural heritage appreciation, and respect for people. Developing a city is so often treated as merely drafting a city plan or urban design, building industrial complexes or business centers and land expansion or sea reclamation. This phenomenon is getting worse because of the poor understanding of the spiritual dimension that mentioned above.

The spiritual approach would provide spirit to the knowledge we commonly use in designing a city. Now, it is not just the knowledge driven by mathematical intelligence, but also the knowledge that considers even adopts philosophical and religious concepts, emotion and aspiration understanding, as well as culture and urban anthropology.

Having understood this new knowledge, then the design process can be proceed to the making step, that is how a city is made and produced. Without this knowledge, a city will fail to express something civilized that have a character laden with spiritual values. A city might functions as a machine of living, an artefact of culture, a production place, or a social entity. But more than that, a city should have a character and honour of its own since they are the reflection of the soul and aspirations of its dwellers. Futhermore, as a cultural product, a city should be able to facilitate the development and growth of its people behaviour towards nobility.

This seminar is held for those noble purposes. With colleagues from all fields of knowledge, we collect ideas, concepts, and experiences to develop and spread the idea of “knowledge city “ wishing the idea of this seminar can donate the discourse of urban planning which finally improve the quality of human life.

The organizing comitee of International Seminar “The Knowledge City: Spirit,

Character, and Manifestation”,

INTERNATIONAL SEMINAR ‘The Knowledge City: Spirit, Character, and Manifestation’

Medan, 13th _{- 14}th _{November 2007}

DAY 1 : Tuesday, 13th _{November 2007}

08.00 – 08.30 Registration 08.30 – 09.00 Welcoming Speeches:

Chairman

Rector of University of Sumatra Utara Governour of North Sumatera Province

: Morida Siagian, Ir , MURP

: Chairuddin P. Lubis, Prof., DTM & H, SpAK

: Rudolf Pardede, Drs. 09.00 – 09.30 Key Note Speech: Sri Sultan Hamengku Buwono X

09.30 – 10.00 Coffee Break

10.00 – 10.45 Presentations of Invited Speeches (1)

10.00 – 10.15 Johannes Widodo, Dr.

10.15 – 10.30 Jansen H. Sinamo

10.30 – 10.45 Galih Widjil Pangarsa, Dr.

Moderator : Abdul Ghani Bin Saleh, Prof., BE, Bsc, PhD. 10.45 – 12.30 Discussion Time

12.30 – 13.30 Lunch Break

13.30 – 14.00 Presentations of Invited Speeches (2)

13.30 – 13.45 Wan Burhanuddin, Prof.

13.45 – 14.00 Ida I. Gede Raka, Prof. Dr.

Moderator : Julaihi Bin Wahid, Assoc. Prof., BArch, MArch , PhD. 14.00 – 15.00 Discussion Time

15.00 – 15.30 Coffee Break

15.30 – 16.00 Presentations of Invited Speeches (3)

15.30 – 15.45 M. Ridwan Kamil, ST. MUD.

15.45 – 16.00 Rudolf Sitorus, Ir. MLA.

16.00 – 16.15 Irwansyah Harahap, MA.

Moderator : Rithaony Hutajulu, MA. 16.15 – 17.00 Discussion Time

17.00 – 17.30 Resume

Paralel session “Call for Paper”

Member will be divide become 2 parallel groups with schedule below:

Group I Group II

08.30 – 09.00 Registration 09.00 – 12.00 “Call for Papers”

09.00 – 09.15 Topological Comparison of Palace City of Mataram and Aceh in the 17th

Century

Agus Budi Purnomo

Jogjakarta and Cakranegara: An Initial Study on Two Capitals of the Last Kingdoms in the Archipelago (Until the 18th

Century) Which were Designed Based on the Local Traditional City Planning

Handinoto and Samuel Hartono 09.15 – 09.30 Symbolism: The

Configuration of A City

Arya Ronald

Re-Emphasize Urban Linkage Continuity as An Effort for Conservating Panggung Krapyak Yogyakarta

L. Edhi Prasetya, Dharma Widya

09.30 – 09.45 Civic Buildings and Public Places as Reflection of the Human Spirit of

Togetherness

Teguh Utomo Atmoko

Transformation of Spiritual Concepts in Urban Space

Widiastuti

09.45 – 10.00 Discussion Discussion

10.00 – 10.15 Transformation of Classical Chinese City Planning: Case on Surakarta and Bandung

Dhani Mutiari, Nurtati

The Existence of Balinese Traditional Culture Value on Denpasar City Development

Ngakan Ketut Acwin Dwijendra 10.15 – 10.30 An Organism Named Solo

(The Concept of City as Genetics)

Qomarun and Arya Ronald

A Study on Residential Preference in Suburban Areas of Medan, Case Study: Kelurahan Gedung Johor Kecamatan Medan Johor Kota Medan and Kelurahan Delitua Kecamatan Namorambe Kabupaten Deli Serdang

Syafiatun Siregar 10.30 – 10.45 The Influence of Cultural

Sensitivity Toward Human Development Ecosystem

Astuti

Characteristics Study Resident Living of Slum Settlement on River Bank, Case Study: Asahan River, Tanjung Balai, North Sumatera

Development Ecosystem: Exploring the

Characteristics of An Entrepreneurial Region

Izaidin Abdul Majid, Mohd. Taib Dora, Prof. Dr., Kamariah Ismail, Dr., Huzili Hussin.

Revisited

Rini Raksadjaya

11.15– 11.30 Invaluable Cultural Heritage at Risk: An Appeal for the

Conservation of Important Archaeological Sites at Kota Cina & Deli Tua

E. Edwards Mckinnon

Community’s Green

Behavior Management to Sustainable City

Azizah Hanim Nasution and Hendaru Sadyadharma

11.30 – 11.45 The Relation of Urban Ecology of Symbolism in Morphology (City Shape and Structure) of Semarang City

Ari Rahadini

Historical Background of City Establishment and Some Problems Underlying Its Development Process

Sismudjito

11.45 – 12.00 Discussion Discussion

12.00 – 13.00 Lunch Break 13.00 – 16.15 “Call for

Papers”

13.00 – 13.15 The Jambinese Melayu Settlement Pattern

Soni Pratomo, Budi Arlius Putra

Urban Ecology

Lita Nasution

13.15 – 13.30 Pembangunan Perumahan dan Permukiman Nasional: Permasalahan, Harapan dan Tantangan

Mindo Siagian

Understanding the Dualism in City Planning

Laksmi Gondokusumo Siregar 13.30 – 13.45 Urban Social Diversity,

Urban Self Image, and Inquiry Paradigm Approach

Dedes Nur Gandarum

Design as An Instrument to Improve the Quality Life of the Poor: Issues for Research

Suparti Amir Salim 13.45 – 14.00 Discussion Discussion

14.00 – 14.15 City as An Urban Social

Diversity: A Case Study of

Rukun Tetangga in Kuala

Lumpur and Selangor

Prof. Dr. Mohd. Taib Hj. Dora, Dr. Izaidin Abd. Majid, Dr. Raja Roslan Raja Abd. Rahman, Norliah Kudus, Zawiah Mat, Noor Maslian Othman

The Knowledge City: Whose Knowledge? A Case Study of Jakarta

Triatno Yudo Harjoko

14.15 – 14.30 Identification of Denunciating Consumers to Developer After Housing

Materializing

Environmentally Oriented City*

14.30 – 15.00 Understanding Urban Kampong in Indonesian Urbanity, Case Study:

Kampongs in the City Center of Bandung

Yohanes Basuki Dwisusanto

Multicultural Heritages in A City as Productive Tourism Places

Wiwik D Pratiwi

15.00 – 15.15 Discussion Discussion

15.15 – 15.30 Gated Community as A Social Segregation in Housing Estate in Medan

Dwira Nirfalini Aulia

Spirit Acculturation of Tangerang City Existence

Hinijati Widjaja 15.30 – 15.45 Traditional Fort of Keraton

Yogyakarta and Sacred Axis Influenced Social and Political Development in Colonial and Modern Period

Gerarda Orbita Ida Cahyandari

Slum Area on Deli River Bank

Wirsal Hasan and Edhy Mirwandono

15.45 – 16.00

Functional Transformation in Fort of Yogyakarta Palace, A Case of Occupying Adaptability in Historical Area

Dina Poerwoningsih and Pindo Tutuko

16.00 – 16.15 Discussion Discussion

16.15 – 16.30 Reviewings & Conclusion

16.30 Closing The

Page List of Contributors

Preface Introduction Programme Contents

iii vii viii ix xiii Part One: THE KNOWLEDGE CITY: SPIRIT, CHARACTER,

AND MANIFESTATION

1. The Cosmopolitan Spirit and its Manifestation in Southeast Asian Cities

Johannes Widodo

2. Manusia, Kota dan Etos Pembangunan

Jansen H. Sinamo

3. Towards A Nusantara City

Galih Widjil Pangarsa

4. The Production of Knowledge City

Wan Burhanuddin

5. Developing City with Character: What A University Can Do?, Case of Indonesia

Ida I. Gede Raka

6. Alam, Meramu Kota: Spice Creates the Space

Rudolf Sitorus

7. Huta dan Kota: Apa Maknanya untuk Kita?

Irwansyah Harahap

Part Two: CITY AS A COSMIC SYMBOLISM

8. Topological Comparison of Palace City of Mataram and Aceh in the 17th _Century

Agus Budi Purnomo

9. Symbolism: The Configuration of A City

Arya Ronald

10. Jogjakarta and Cakranegara: An Initial Study on Two Capitals of the Last Kingdoms in the Archipelago (Until the 18th _Century) Which were Designed Based on the Local Traditional City Planning

Handinoto and Samuel Hartono

11. Re-Emphasize Urban Linkage Continuity as An Effort for Conservating Panggung Krapyak Yogyakarta

L. Edhi Prasetya, Dharma Widya

1 13 22 34

57 65 74

91 100

114

12. Civic Buildings and Public Places as Reflection of the Human Spirit of Togetherness

Teguh Utomo Atmoko

13. Transformation of Classical Chinese City Planning: Case on Surakarta and Bandung

Dhani Mutiari, Nurtati Soewarno

14. Transformation of Spiritual Concepts in Urban Space

Widiastuti

15. The Existence of Balinese Traditional Culture Value on Denpasar City Development

Ngakan Ketut Acwin Dwijendra

Part Four: CITY AS A HUMAN DEVELOPMENT ECOSYSTEM

16. An Organism Named Solo (The Concept of City as Genetics)

Qomarun and Arya Ronald

17. The Influence of Cultural Sensitivity Toward Human Development Ecosystem

Astuti

18. City as A Human Development Ecosystem: Exploring the Characteristics of An Entrepreneurial Region

Izaidin Abdul Majid, Mohd. Taib Dora, Prof. Dr., Kamariah Ismail, Dr., Huzili Hussin.

19. Invaluable Cultural Heritage at Risk: An Appeal for the Conservation of Important Archaeological Sites at Kota Cina & Deli Tua

E. Edwards Mckinnon

20. The Relation of Urban Ecology of Symbolism in Morphology (City Shape and Structure) of Semarang City

Ari Rahadini

21. The Jambinese Melayu Settlement Pattern

Soni Pratomo, Budi Arlius Putra

22. Pembangunan Perumahan dan Permukiman Nasional: Permasalahan, Harapan dan Tantangan

Mindo Siagian

23. A Study on Residential Preference in Suburban Areas of Medan, Case Study: Kelurahan Gedung Johor Kecamatan Medan Johor Kota Medan and Kelurahan Delitua Kecamatan Namorambe Kabupaten Deli Serdang

Syafiatun Siregar

24. Characteristics Study Resident Living of Slum Settlement on River Bank, Case Study: Asahan River, Tanjung Balai, North Sumatera

Nurmaidah

143

151 162

178

193

206

217

230

239 252

252

265

26. Community’s Green Behavior Management to Sustainable City

Azizah Hanim Nasution and Hendaru Sadyadharma

27. Historical Background of City Establishment and Some Problems Underlying Its Development Process

Sismudjito

28. Urban Ecology

Lita Nasution

Part Five: CITY AS AN URBAN SOCIAL DIVERSITY

29. Urban Social Diversity, Urban Self Image, and Inquiry Paradigm Approach

Dedes Nur Gandarum

30. City as An Urban Social Diversity: A Case Study of Rukun Tetangga in Kuala Lumpur and Selangor

Prof. Dr. Mohd. Taib Hj. Dora, Dr. Izaidin Abd. Majid, Dr. Raja Roslan Raja Abd. Rahman, Norliah Kudus, Zawiah Mat, Noor Maslian Othman

31. Identification of Denunciating Consumers to Developer After Housing Take Over

Suharman Hamzah

32. Understanding Urban Kampong in Indonesian Urbanity, Case Study: Kampongs in the City Center of Bandung

Yohanes Basuki Dwisusanto

33. Gated Community as A Social Segregation in Housing Estate in Medan

Dwira Nirfalini Aulia

34. Traditional Fort of Keraton Yogyakarta and Sacred Axis Influenced Social and Political Development in Colonial and Modern Period

Gerarda Orbita Ida Cahyandari

35. Understanding the Dualism in City Planning

Laksmi Gondokusumo Siregar

36. Design as An Instrument to Improve the Quality Life of the Poor: Issues for Research

Suparti Amir Salim

37. The Knowledge City: Whose Knowledge? A Case Study of Jakarta

Triatno Yudo Harjoko

38. Materializing Environmentally Oriented City*

I Made Benyamin

39. Multicultural Heritages in A City as Productive Tourism Places

Wiwik D Pratiwi

40. Spirit Acculturation of Tangerang City Existence

Hinijati Widjaja 297 306 313 321 334 346 354 366 379 390 397 407 425 438 454

42. Unctional Transformation In Fort of Yogyakarta Palace, A Case of Occupying Adaptability in Historical Area

Part One:

THE KNOWLEDGE CITY:

SPIRIT, CHARACTER, AND

THE COSMOPOLITAN SPIRIT AND ITS

MANIFESTATION IN SOUTHEAST ASIAN CITIES:

THE RISE, THE FALL, AND THE REVIVAL

Dr. Johannes Widodo

Department of Architecture & Asia Research Institute (Asian Cities Cluster) 4 Architecture Drive, Singapore 117566, Republic of Singapore

jwidodo@nus.edu.sg

Abstract

Southeast Asian cities have been developing since the

beginning of the first century around the “Mediterranean of Asia”,

where great civilizations mingled, interchanged, and mixed, creating locals and yet interrelated Cosmopolitan hybrid culture in both intangible and tangible forms. This harmonious coexistence and its coherent manifestations in the built forms were the character of our Southeast Asian cities, continuously sustained even during the long period of European imperialistic rule with their divisive politics – although seeds of fragmentations and conflicts had been sown onto the cities and regions since the beginning of their arrival in our coastal cities. The segregation, fragmentation, and contestation in our cities have been intensified since the end of Second World War, when Modernism is being used as vehicle for the Nationalism, Socialism, and Rationalism spirit against the dying old Colonialism, especially during the Cold War period. Ironically the Modernist idealism to liberate the city and its population was failed to deliver good results: the cities become a harsh place for contestation and conflict between the rich and the poor, the formal and the informal, the powerful and the powerless. Across Asia, the conflict is getting worse today. Conservation, Preservation, and Revitalization of urban heritage have become increasingly important today, in order to retain and to revive the inclusiveness and cohesiveness of cosmopolitan spirit. Perhaps it is the only hope for us to reverse the destructive forces in our cities today. We may use it to stop the erasure of memory, to bridge the gaps between communities, to connect fragments of the city, to rebuild the cohesive community spirit, and to make a city a better and sustainable place for present and future generations.

A. The Rise of Southeast Asian Cosmopolitan Cities

Located right at the cross-road of world trading routes, Southeast Asia has been very open towards various influences from outside: India, Arab, Persia, China, Europe, Japan, and the

rest of the world. All of those influences were peacefully and harmoniously absorbed and adopted into local culture, then expressed into unique but yet closely linked culture, language, architecture, and artifacts. Diverse, eclectic, fused, adaptive, tolerant, inclusive, integrative, can perhaps describe the complex nature of Southeast Asian architecture and urbanism.

At the dawn of Southeast Asian urban maritime civilization, the vessels from the north (China, Japan, and Ryukyu) sailing to the south made use of the northern monsoon between January-February, and returning home by the southern monsoon between June-August. Indian and Arab ships went eastward by the southwest monsoon between April-August, and returned by the northeast monsoon from December. During the cyclone periods or the changing monsoon seasons, these traders stayed in Southeast Asian ports and inhabited the markets, while waiting for their trading partners from the other parts of the world.

These exchanges took place mostly in and around the South China Sea, Java Sea, and Melaka Strait – which could be perceived as the “Mediterranean of Asia” – lying between two great sub-continents (China and India), and between two great oceans (Pacific and Indian). Since the first century the coastal regions and their hinterlands therefore became fertile grounds for the growth of new civilizations, new blends of urbanism and architecture, new settlements and cities. They are formed by complex layers of various cultures, ideologies, economies, and ecosystems (e.g. native-vernacular, Hindu, Buddhist, Islamic, Chinese, Colonial, Modernist, Nationalist, Communist, Corporate, etc.), manifested in the hybrid urban morphology and architectural typologies. Southeast Asian urban societies and cities are characterized by rich cultural collage/interweaving of community diversity, hybridity in the built-forms and material culture, persistence and permanence of urban patterns and artifacts.

The city is like a boat or a vessel, loaded by people, goods, activities, rituals, and symbolism – a vessel of civilization sailing across history, from the past heading towards the future. The trading ships and immigrant boats were not only carrying people and goods, but also conveying cosmological and geometrical memories from its original places into the new landscapes, implanting new layers in the new lands. The different layers from different cultures have been super-imposed, adapted, and undergone process of indigenization along its history, forming a truly blended cosmopolitan urban morphology and culture, manifested in the myriad of forms and artifacts in different localities.

In 1980s, Sutan Takdir Alisyahbana – an Indonesian esteemed scholar – proposed a geographical term for this dynamic region, that is “Bumantara” (literally means “region in

between”), located at the centre of international maritime, commerce, and exchange corridors. It was continuously shaped and enriched by Indian, Islamic, Chinese, and European cultural layers and elements – constantly nurtured and developed along its history.

Mediterranean of Asia

Figure 1. Mediterranean of Asia (image source: Google Earth)

In Southeast Asia cultural and geographical “boundary” is always blurring, overlapping, or intersecting, and has never been clearly defined. People in different places, islands or continents are keep moving, communicating, and intermingling from past till present, influencing each other and producing hybrid, fused, diverse architecture and material culture. Diversity, eclecticism, fusion, acculturation, adaptation, can perhaps describe the nature of Southeast Asian architecture and urbanism from the past into the present and future. Never ending process of layering, transformations, and hybridization, is probably the best to describe its dynamic and sustainable characters. For more than two millenniums of its urban history, many cities in Southeast Asian region have been demonstrating their ability in preserving its primary elements and basic morphological patterns, and by this is clearly demonstrating its tangible and intangible traces and connections along transformation process.

B. Fragmentation of Contemporary Southeast Asian Cities Modernization is not developed in a vacuum, but in different aspects of specific contexts – natural, environmental, social, cultural, physical, and historical. Modernization is a structural process in formal, environmental and cultural sense. It is a continuous social-cultural process of transplantation,

adjustment, adaptation, accommodation, assimilation,

hybridization, and materialization – manifested in the myriad forms architectural production and reproduction. In Southeast Asia – the ancient and the modern, the Asian and the non-Asian, have mingled and merged for centuries producing multi-layered and wealthy variations of living architecture, which evolved and developed from the past into the future. Diversity, variety, unpredictability, all of this is the basic nature of Southeast Asian urban culture and its materialization for centuries.

The Europeans has started to expand their hegemonic ambition since late 15th century, initiated by the Portuguese (to India, Melaka, Java, eastern Indonesia, Philippines, Taiwan, Japan), followed by the Dutch (to India, Melaka, Indonesia, Taiwan, Japan), British (to India, Malaya peninsula, Bengkulu, Java, China), Spanish (Philippines), French (to Indochina, China), and German (to China). They introduced many new typologies into the urban infrastructures, urban design, and architecture, such as boulevards, streetscapes, façade, building techniques, and new functions (military establishments, public buildings, churches, urban squares and plazas, markets, railroads, stations, plantation houses, and many more).

Initially the Europeans built the fortified trading posts in the existing port cities as their first strongholds in Southeast Asia. It was located on the most strategic place in preexisted city, near the old harbor and market right at the river mouth, easily accessible from the sea. The reason for this was to have an effective control over the whole city inward. The fort made of masonry structure was aimed to protect the European dwelling compounds and warehouses inside, and in most cases the forts were equipped with defense towers and military barracks. The pre-existed city outside the trading post generally had the characteristic of a cosmopolitan town consisted of a developed Chinese area well connected to the native settlements or enclaves by the market. The Chinese had been the main player in the regional and domestic market, and soon they built a mutual relationship with the European traders as middlemen. The Chinese acted as the mediator between the European and the other population groups.

When the European had managed to secure their position and started to extend their hegemony, the trading post was soon replaced by larger castle with European typology, surrounded by

when the European population increased, and they had enough strength to control the other population groups. In addition to residential function, the castle also had military function to defend themselves, to threaten the city and other enemies, and for the base for territorial expansion. European type town was built inside this large castle, completed with a church, open central square, administration and military buildings, warehouses, and dwellings. It looked like a medieval European walled town but with more military personnel, more commercial functions, and less civilian population. Outside the castle normal urban activities of the pre-existing city went on and even further enhanced by the rising international commercial activities. The harbor facility would soon be upgraded, accommodating the rising export of commodities to Europe.

Figure 2. Sociologic model of Melaka (Malaysia) in 18th-19th centuries (©jw)

In the colonial cities of the later period, segregation policy of dwelling areas according to different races was implemented almost in all colonial cities of Southeast Asia. By law the urban population was racially and their settlements were physically

segregated: European, Chinese and other foreigners, and native population. Normally there was no clear physical boundary which separated the different racial zones, although in some cases there were rivers, walls, or roads which functioned as the physical boundaries. Nonetheless the non-physical legal boundaries had caused internal densification process within each restricted zones especially on the ethnic quarters. The over-densification would in turn lead into the environmental disasters and public health deteriorations of the whole city. The European area was allowed to develop freely to all directions. But the deterioration of urban environmental condition had forced the municipality governments to abandon their restrictive policy and to launch improvement programs in urban sanitation and utilities for the benefit of all population groups. On the other hand the European area freely developed and expanded, forming elegant European-style city in the tropics. But the worsening environmental condition had forced the colonial municipality governments to abandon their segregation policy, and launched housing and infrastructure improvement programs in inner cities.

Since the beginning of the twentieth century, rapid modernization process had been taken place, started by the revolution on transportation and urban infrastructure, in order to cope with the rapid population, commerce, and industrial growth. Transportation revolution, started by the construction of railroads followed by the introduction of automobiles and the construction of wider roads had opened all isolations and breaking up physical segregations. In a very short period of time the technological revolutions in many aspect of daily life such as electricity, gas, telephone and telegraph, newspapers, banks, post office, public transportation, etc. had transformed the colonial towns into a more modern and functional cities. The rationality of function and the logic of economy had gradually replaced the politically and culturally motivated racial policy in the planning and design of Southeast Asian cities. Municipal governments introduced building codes and regulations, in order to improve sanitation condition and public safety in the inner city. New building typology had been introduced and old building typology was improved following the new regulations to provide pedestrian arcades, open backyard with utility functions, fire escape, etc.

In early twentieth century the colonial governments’ policies shifted to a more ethical approach towards their colonies, parallel to the rise of ethics and socialist movements in Europe. New housing areas were planned and developed inside and around the city, to accommodate the rapid increase of urban population. Infrastructure and housing improvement programs were implemented to improve the well being of all segments of the urban population.

Figure 3. Morphologic model of Semarang (Indonesia) in early 20th century (©jw)

Harbors were enlarged or upgraded, some industrial estates were developed, and the central business districts in the city centers were rejuvenated. Trade fairs were organized to accommodate the rapid growth in local and international commerce and trade. Many fresh ideas from modern urban planners and architects were manifested into city plans, urban designs, and architectural styles – blended with the elements from the local, natural and cultural contexts. The port cities in Southeast Asia had grown up to the level similar to other modern port cities in the world of that period. Some cities across Southeast Asia such as Penang, Singapore, Medan, Batavia, Semarang, Surabaya, Makassar, and Manila were linked to the modern international maritime trade networks and developed into the major regional growth and distribution centers.

A lot of idealism and hopes were put into the transformation and the future of the cities in Southeast Asia, but the global economic recession and the World Wars which raged in the first half of twentieth century had terminated these dreams.

New political movements for independence and urban riots against the colonial establishments had proliferated all over the region. The economic recession and social-political instability had stopped some urban development projects and had left many parts of the city deteriorating and dilapidating. The Second World War and the invasion of Japanese Imperial army to East Asia and Southeast Asia gave the final blow to end the colonialism history in Southeast Asia, and changed the course of urban history and morphology of this region. Almost 300 years of European colonization history had to come to an end. A new chapter of the Southeast Asian urban history would soon begin to emerge, riding the waves of decolonization and the spirit of national independence.

Soon after the War newly independent countries were appearing across Southeast Asia. For around two to three decades since 1945, the countries in Southeast Asia were struggling to overcome the past legacies of colonialism – such as divisions and poverty - and at the same time trying very hard to re-build the nation politically, socially, economically, and physically. During the so-called “Cold War” period between 1945 -1965, especially after the 1st Afro-Asia Conference in Bandung in 1956, in the newly independence nations of Asia (“new emerging forces”) new architectural manifestations using the Modernist’s International Style language were applied across Asia (e.g. Soekarno’s Indonesia, Nehru’s India, Sihanouk’s Cambodia, Ho Chi Minh’s Vietnam, etc.) as tangible sign of breaking away from the colonial past.

Since the economic boom (following the “oil boom”) around the 70s and 80s, rapid economic growth has accelerated the cultural and physical transformation process, very often leading to the fragmentation and destruction of old urban fabrics and architectural heritages, resulting in “cultural amnesia” and loss of identity. The layers of urban history and shared heritages which kept the shared memory of the whole community for many generations and centuries had been forgotten and even erased completely, to be replaced with totally new forms alien to the long lasting pre-existing cultural and morphological contexts. In many contemporary Southeast Asian countries, many fine buildings from the colonial period and historical urban fabric have been being destroyed because of anti-colonialism sentiment or to give

way to the speculative and commercially motivated

developments. The urban communities and academics in Asia are often powerless and clueless in facing the fragmentation and rapid transformation of their cities. The long standing culturally sustainable in Southeast Asia is undergoing very serious threat.

C. Restoring and Reinventing the Cosmopolitan Spirit of Our Cities

The current trend of internationalization and reductionism has caused alienation, conflict, amnesia, and loss of identity in different cities, not only in the developed world but also in the newly independent countries. In the current age of economic globalization, trans-national consumerism, and the emergence of global culture, the city is physically fragmented, socially divided, and spiritually dried. Cities became look alike, because of similar design, similar fast-food outlets, similar brand-name shops, and similar urban culture. The contrasts between the formal and informal urban social fabrics, between core and peripheries, between big cities and rural settlements, are widening and often conflicting. These negative trends have triggered reactions in different levels of society, from governments to local communities. They have similar intentions to invent local identities, to re-discover their unique characters, re-compose the fragments of the urban fabric, to re-build the sense of community, and to regain their self-esteem. The motivation is not just economic gain as tourism or investment, but also cultural and political as well.

Top-down approach, which considers the people as object of development with little choices, has failed to satisfy the diverse aspiration of the community and individuals. There were lots of examples of conservation projects from the past which disregarded the original community and merely focused into the physical or commercial aspects of the building. Large segments of the old urban fabric were taken over by government or developers, the original inhabitants were evicted, and then the empty building shells were re-used or converted into commercial uses – or even worse: the whole old structures were razed to the ground, then replaced by totally new functions and new buildings.

Various community movements and non-government

organizations are mushrooming in different places across the regions to rebuild the community ties, to heal social and racial divisions, to regain control over their own aspirations, and to protect their own heritages. To strengthen their efforts, various heritage organizations and movements have formed alliances and networks, and even partnerships with government institutions. International organizations actively supported them – as individual groups or through the networks – to empower these alliances. We have gradually abandoned the top-down or bottom-up approaches, and moved towards promoting a more equal partnerships and cooperation among different stake-holders.

In 2003 UNESCO Asia Pacific Awards for Culture Heritage Conservation gives a Merit award to Virtuous Bridge project in Medan, Indonesia. This project is initiated by Sumatra Heritage Trust. Albeit the object itself is simple and looked small, but this restoration project has given great contribution towards

the healing process of social divisions which lingered for more than three decades in Indonesian urban communities including Medan. It stands as a moving testimony to the unprecedented cooperation between the multi-racial multi-religious residents, businesses, and government agencies. The restoration process is based on careful historical research, rediscovering the forgotten role and legacy of the city’s founding fathers and harmonious inter-racial relationship in the past. The bridge becomes a vehicle to uncover an important chapter in their shared history and to awaken a new consciousness about their local heritage. The newly restored bridge has become a unique symbol of the city’s multicultural cosmopolitan legacy, and a model for future community-initiated efforts in conserving local heritages throughout the region.

Figure 4. Virtuous Bridge, Medan, Indonesia

The city is a sum of the memory of the people, the accumulation of creative contributions of its community all along its historical timeline. It is materialized in urban patterns, architectural objects and other artifacts – passed from the past generation to the present generation as heritage, in the form of urban tradition. A person is part of a family, and a family is part of the community. The experience of the individuals are shared by the community, and embedded into the collective memory of the inhabitants of that particular place. Locality or “home” is supposedly the most important place for every human being, where they feel secured, contented, and proud of. We can associate home with a house, a neighborhood, a district, a city, or even a country. Sense of home is formed through process of familiarization, when a person becomes accustomed to the articulation of space by inhabitation. The daily ritual of living, working, and playing – which constitutes the ordinary life of a person – shapes his or her cognition and affection towards the built forms and space.

We have come into the realization that the survival of the human race and humanity depends on how well we look after the environment, and how good we maintain harmonious relationships with the others. Ecological-, economic-, social-, cultural- sustainability becomes our main concern nowadays, to ensure continuity from the past into the future. Conservation, preservation, restoration, revitalization efforts of our material and living heritages are aimed towards the community cultural continuum. We are obliged to prolong the lifecycle of those heritages for the sake of the future generation, to ensure the link with their roots and the transmission of memory from the past into the future. In doing so, it is essential to form a civic coalition, a community network and alliance among all stake holders, to maintain a balance between conservation and development, and to ensure an orderly and healthy evolution of the built environment and its community who lives within it.

Time factor is crucial. Familiarity of the ordinary develops over time from infancy into maturity. Sometimes it needs several generations to ensure maturity and familiarity until it is rooted into the collective memory. In the contemporary “fast-food” and instant culture, things change very fast, including the built environment. Immediate enjoyment and instant gratification have pushed rapid changes and amnesia, discontinuity and total detachment from the past. Demolition, redevelopment, rebuilding, become the order of the day. We should return to the “slow-food” mode, to allow the “fermentation” process to develop naturally. By slowing down the process of change, we will allow time to reconnect the past with the present, to allow maturity process to happen again, and to cure the loss of memory.

The architecture of our cosmopolitan cities has many layers: morphological, sociological, and symbolical (form, function, and meaning). It is in the intersection of many disciplines from art to science, from philosophy to engineering. Therefore disciplinary approach is necessary in this complex and inter-related matter. To ensure continuity and sustainability we need to empower the ordinary members of the community through training and education. The vanishing or dying craftsmanship and traditional skills should be revived and revitalized, and have to be updated with the current technological advancement and contemporary innovations. Architects, academics, scholars, trainers, professionals have special role as facilitator in community education through various ways. They should help the community to respect and to be sensitive to their own legacy, to teach them in understanding the existing ordinary fabrics and artifacts, to train them in discovering their own heritage, and to maintain the tradition and to promote the contemporary appropriation of their own inheritance. In this sense, conservation means nurturing community cultural continuum for the present

and future generations, also means restoring and reinventing the cosmopolitan spirit of our cities and citizens.

References

Alisyahbana, Sutan Takdir (1987). Bumantara – The Integration of Southeast Asia and its Perspectives in the Future. Jakarta: Center of Southeast Asian or Bumantara Studies, Universitas National.

Rossi, A. (1984). Architecture of the City. Cambridge: MIT Press. Widodo, J. (2002). “Southeast Asia – Architecture”. In

Encyclopedia of Modern Asia, edited by David Levinson, David and Karen Christensen, et.al. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, pp. 148-152.

Widodo, J. (2004). The Boat and The City – Chinese Diaspora and the Architecture of Southeast Asian Coastal Cities. Singapore: Marshall Cavendish Academics.

Widodo, J (2007). “Contributing to the Community’s Cultural Continuum”. In Asia Conserved – Lessons Learned from the UNESCO Asia-Pacific Heritage Awards for Culture Heritage Conservation (2000-2004), 46-50. Bangkok: UNESCO Bangkok Office.

MANUSIA, KOTA, DAN ETOS PEMBANGUNAN

1 Jansen H. Sinamo

To change life, we must first change space - Henri Lefebvre, French writer

jansensinamo@cbn.net.id

Meskipun Homo sapiens sudah jadi spesies unggul sejak 40.000 tahun yang silam tetapi kota sebagai bentuk organisasi sosial baru muncul kurang dari 10.000 tahun yang lalu. Sebelum itu, manusia hidup sebagai kelompok-kelompok nomaden yang terus bergerak sebagai pemburu dan pengumpul hasil-hasil alam untuk makanan mereka. Kelompok-kelompok itu belum memiliki pemukiman karena mereka belum sanggup melumbungkan surplus makanan secara memadai. Hidup mereka sangat marjinal: bertahan hari lepas hari melulu oleh kemurahan alam.

Namun selepas itu, di berbagai wilayah di dunia, gejala kota akhirnya muncul juga ketika jumlah anggota kelompok-kelompok nomaden itu terus bertambah dan mulai bermukim. Hal ini dimungkinkan oleh tiga faktor: ketersediaan pangan di wilayah itu, bertambah baiknya pengorganisasian kerja di dalam

kelompok-kelompok itu, dan berkembangnya pertukaran

komoditas atau perdagangan antarkelompok.

Ketersediaan pangan di berbagai wilayah yang disebut di atas terjadi karena iklim Bumi semakin hangat. Sesudan zaman es terakhir – diperkirakan usai sekitar 13.000 tahun silam – tanah terus menghangat sehingga memunculkan banyak tumbuhan baru, khususnya berbagai jenis tanaman pangan. Inilah awal

zaman pertanian. Lumbung-lumbung dibangun untuk

menampung surplus pangan itu. Hewan-hewan liar dijinakkan dan diternakkan, terutama kambing, domba, kuda, kerbau, dan sapi. Teknologi pengolahan tanah berkembang dengan memanfaatkan tenaga hewan-hewan itu. Semua itu menyumbang terhadap surplus pangan lebih lanjut. Akibatnya, pemukiman semakin berkembang dan semakin terjamin (sustainable), jumlah penduduk bertambah karena semakin cukup makan, dan ragam pekerjaan non-petani pun bertambah pula seperti seniman, ahli bangunan, ahli irigasi, tukang, pedagang, dan lain-lain. Singkatnya, proto-kota pun lahir.

Diversifikasi sosial juga muncul. Lahirlah kelas elit: para penakluk, kaum bangsawan, dan agamawan yang memerintah dan menentukan tata kehidupan bersama dalam kelompok itu. Mereka jadi kelas penguasa atas kaum tani, penata irigasi,

1

Disampaikan pada seminar internasional The Knowledge City: Spirit, Character, and Manifestation, 13-14 November 2007, Danau Toba Convention Hall, Medan, Indonesia.

gembala, pedagang, tukang, dan seniman. Demi keperluan hidup bersama dan kelanggengan kelas penguasa itu dibangun dan diperkenalkanlah bangunan-bangunan publik, tata upacara dan peribadahan, alat tukar, sistem perpajakan, dan metoda akumulasi kekayaan.

Pasar pun lahir. Perdagangan pun marak. Kota pun kian berkembang.

Aksara juga ditemukan, demikian pula ilmu-ilmu hitung dan ukur yang dipakai dalam perdagangan, pembangunan irigasi, pertukangan, dan pembangunan kota. Ilmu-ilmu prediktif juga muncul untuk menentukan musim tanam, musim panen, hari-hari raya, dan saat untuk berperang. Lahir pula ekspresi seni dalam arsitektur kota dan bangunan-bangunan publik. Maka kota pun semakin ramai.

Demikianlah kota Yeriko muncul di wilayah Palestina yang sekarang sekitar tahun 7000 SM yang tumbuh dari desa menjadi kota dengan sekitar 3.000 penduduk.

Antara tahun 4000-3500 SM kota besar pertama dengan populasi sekitar 25.000 muncul di wilayah Mesopotamia, di lembah sungai Tigris dan Eufrat: Babel dan Niniwe. Kotanya sudah berkubu. Rumah-rumah dibangun dengan batu-bata yang terbuat dari lempung yang dibakar. Meski jalan-jalannya naik-turun-berkelok, sempit, dan tanpa perkerasan yang memadai, mereka sudah memakai alat angkut beroda.

Di Mesir, di sepanjang lembah sungai Nil, kota sudah ada sejak tahun 3300 SM seperti Tmn-Hor, Tell al-Rub, Pr-Bastet, Hwt-ka-Ptah, To-She, Akhetaten, dan Kemet. Tetapi kita lebih tahu tentang piramid-piramid Mesir daripada kota-kota di atas.

Di India ada dua kota utama, Harappa dan Mohenjo-Daro, yang muncul sekitar tahun 2500 SM. Jalan-jalannya lurus sehingga membentuk blok-blok pemukiman berbentuk segi empat. Sudah ada sistem pembuangan sampah dan air limbah. Inilah kota pertama yang menujukan tanda-tanda pembangunan yang berencana. Barat kota adalah pusat religius, politik, dan pendidikan. Petani tinggal di luar tembok kota dekat perladangan. Kelompok miskin menempati pinggir kota tetapi masih berada di dalam tembok. Pedagang dan seniman tinggal di dekat pusat kota, sedangkan bangsawan, agamawan, dan punggawa kerajaan menempati wilayah pusat.

Di Yunani kota muncul di sekitar tahun 2000 SM seperti Sparta, Thebes, Argos, Delphi, dan Olympia. Athena jadi kota utama sekitar tahun 800 SM. Struktur kotanya berbentuk lingkaran. Jalan-jalannya berpangkal dari pusat dan memencar keluar secara radial. Bagian-bagian kota juga memencar dari pusat sehingga setiap kelompok penduduk merasa tinggal dengan jarak yang sama dari pusat kota.

Di Cina kota muncul antara tahun 2000-1500 SM seperti Chang'an, Fanyang, Jiankang, Lingzhou, Xiangyang, Yinxu, dan Zhaoge.

Kota Roma dibangun antara 700-600 SM. Kelak, ketika kekaisaran Romawi semakin berjaya Roma pun menjadi kota internasional pertama di dunia.

Di Amerika Tengah (Meksiko, Guatemala, Honduras, dan El Salvador) kota-kota mulai tampak pada sekitar tahun 200 SM.

Di Eropa kota-kota bermunculan mulai abad ke-4 dan satu per satu menjadi kota industri sejak abad ke-18. Inilah permulaan kota-kota modern yang kita kenal sampai sekarang. Sesudah itu, gejala desa yang mengalami proses kotanisasi merambah dengan cepat ke seluruh dunia. Dan urbanisasi pun menjadi sebuah gejala global. Kini dunia telah memiliki ratusan kota raksasa: metropolitan dan megapolitan.

Kota Raja, Kota Tuhan

Tidak banyak kota yang diketahui siapa arsitek

pembangunannya? Hal ini wajar sebab fenomena kota sebenarnya lebih masuk akal difahami sebagai fenomena “emergence”, dimana pemukiman kecil berubah jadi desa, berkembang perlahan-lahan, dan akhirnya menjadi kota; daripada fenomena arsitektur, dimana seorang arsitek agung merancang, merencanakan, dan membangun sebuah kota dari nol sampai selesai.

Tetapi ada kekecualian. Tradisi menyebutkan kota Babel dibangun oleh raja Sargon (hidup sekitar abad ke-24 SM). Neo Babel dibangun (mungkin lebih tepat diperluas dan ditata ulang) oleh raja Nebukadnezar (630-562 SM). Kitab Daniel dalam Perjanjian Lama mencatatnya sebagai berikut: “Semuanya itu terjadi atas raja Nebukadnezar; sebab setelah lewat dua belas bulan, ketika ia sedang berjalan-jalan di atas istana raja di Babel, berkatalah raja: “Bukankah ini Babel yang besar itu, yang dengan kekuatan kuasaku dan untuk kemuliaan kebesaranku telah kubangun menjadi kota kerajaan?”

Legenda juga menyebutkan Roma dibangun oleh Romulus dan menjadikannya ibukota kerajaannya.

Catatan yang lebih dapat dipertanggungjawabkan adalah kota-kota yang dibangun oleh Iskandar Agung (Alexander the Great: 356-323 SM) dalam ekspedisi penaklukannya selama sepuluh tahun. Di setiap wilayah ia meletakkan rancangan,

memulai pembangunan, atau menata ulang kota yang ditaklukkannya sesuai dengan gaya dan selera seni dan arsitektur Yunani. Kota-kota yang dikaitkan dengan jenderal akbar ini antara lain Alexandria (Mesir), Iskandiriyah (Irak), Alexandria Asiana (Iran), Alexandria Ariana (Afganistan), Kandahar (Afghanistan), Alexandria Bucephalous (Pakistan), Alexandria Eschate (Tajikistan), dan Iskenderun (Turki).

Kota-kota kuno yang dibangun oleh atau atas perintah seorang raja mempunyai fungsi yang mirip: sebagai lumbung kekayaan, pusat kekuasaan, dan lambang kemuliaan, bahkan sebagai kota Tuhan. Babel atau Babylon misalnya, nama kota itu berasal dari bahasa Akkad babilu, yang berarti gerbang para dewa. Dalam paradigma kuno itu, raja umumnya dianggap sebagai representasi Tuhan, bahkan titisan Tuhan. Maka kota raja juga berarti kota Tuhan. Vatikan, Mekah, dan Yerusalem sampai hari ini tetap disebut kota suci bagi para pemeluk teguh agama-agama samawi.

Namun demikian, tidak banyak kota-kota kuno itu yang bisa bertahan hingga kini. Tiga kota yang disebut belakangan adalah sedikit yang jadi kekecualian. Kebanyakan telah runtuh dan terbenam dalam timbunan debu tebal dari abad ke abad

sehingga hanya para arkeolog saja yang mampu

merekonstruksinya.

Problem utama kota-kota kuno itu sehingga akhirnya ditinggalkan warganya, kosong, dan jadi reruntuhan adalah sanitasi. Tumpukan sampah dan limpasan air limbah jadi sumber berbagai penyakit menular yang membinasakan warganya. Selain itu, api yang tidak bisa dikontrol marak menjadi kebakaran besar sehingga menghanguskan seluruh kota.

Tetapi perang adalah sebab utama kehancuran kota-kota kuno. Yerusalem misalnya, dalam sejarahnya yang panjang sejak abad ke-18 SM sempat tiga kali dihancurkan: pada tahun 586 SM oleh raja Babel, Nebukadnezar; pada tahun 70 oleh penguasa Romawi di Palestina, Jenderal Titus; dan pada tahun 1480 oleh pasukan Mongol yang merambah dengan buas dari Asia Tengah. Namun Yerusalem terhitung beruntung: ia selalu dibangun kembali. Kota-kota seperti Khartago, Sukhothai, Ayutthaya, Mohenjo-Daro, Harappa, Karakorum, Akkad, Ur, Babel, Niniwe, Persepolis, Troya, Machu Picchu, dan Pompeii kini tinggal hanya reruntuhan, bahkan hilang terbenam.

Berbeda dengan kota-kota kuno, problem kota-kota modern terutama disebabkan tekanan populasi dan manajemen kota yang buruk. Soal tekanan populasi ini dapat kita apresiasi dari data berikut ini. Jika pada sekitar tahun 8000 SM penduduk dunia hanya 100 juta, pada permulaan abad Masehi masih 300 juta, tetapi sejak abad ke-19 jumlah itu meningkat dengan sangat pesat: tahun 1800 (1 milyar), tahun 1930 (2 milyar), tahun 1962 (3

2000 (6 milyar). Ketika urbanisasi berlangsung justru karena daya tarik kota itu sendiri maka pada titik jenuh tertentu tekanan populasi itu mengakibatkan komplikasi berbagai masalah bagi kota tersebut dan segenap warganya.

Kota Rakyat, Kota Publik

Era kota raja dan kota Tuhan berakhir sudah. Kini kota-kota di dunia adalah kota-kota rakyat, kota-kota publik, atau kota-kota warga. Artinya, kota adalah urusan publik, urusan segenap warga kota. Dikatakan tegas: setiap kota harus mampu memenuhi aspirasi dan kebutuhan warganya. Dikatakan lain: kota dinilai tidak lagi berdasarkan selera raja, selera penguasa, tetapi dinilai berdasarkan keterpenuhan aspirasi publik, yakni hidup yang berkualitas bagi segenap warga kota.

Dewasa ini, sejauh menyangkut kualitas hidup warganya, Zurich dan Jenewa adalah dua kota terbaik di dunia. Demikian hasil survei Mercer Consulting yang diterbitkan pada bulan April 2007. Vancouver menduduki nomor tiga dan berturut-turut diikuti oleh Wina, Auckland, Düsseldorf, dan Frankfurt. Penilaian itu didasarkan atas tiga puluh sembilan determinan kualitas hidup manusia yang dikelompokkan dalam sepuluh kategori sebagai berikut:

1. Political and social environment (political stability, crime, law enforcement, etc.)

2. Economic environment (currency exchange regulations, banking services, etc.)

3. Socio-cultural environment (censorship, limitations on personal freedom, etc.)

4. Health and sanitation (medical supplies and services, infectious diseases, sewage, waste disposal, air pollution, etc.)

5. Schools and education (standard and availability of international schools, etc.)

6. Public services and transportation (electricity, water, public transport, traffic congestion, etc.)

7. Recreation (restaurants, theatres, cinemas, sports and leisure, etc.)

8. Consumer goods (availability of food/daily consumption items, cars, etc.)

9. Housing (housing, household appliances, furniture, maintenance services, etc.)

10. Natural environment (climate, record of natural disasters, etc.) Jika hal-hal di atas merupakan faktor penentu bagus tidaknya sebuah kota, maka dikatakan sebaliknya, secara negatif, maka kota yang buruk adalah kota yang:

1. fasilitas kesehatannya tidak memadai; 2. fasilitas pendidikannya tidak memadai;

3. infrastruktur dan fasilitas angkutan massalnya buruk; 4. jalan-jalan besarnya tidak memadai;

5. jalan-jalan kecil buat warga pejalan kaki tidak ada atau dibiarkan tak terawat;

6. kantong-kantong penduduk miskinnya banyak;

7. keamanannya rendah atau sudut-sudut kota tertentu keamanannya rendah;

8. kelompok-kelompok premannya yang memeras warga kota banyak;

9. keterlibatan warganya dalam memelihara fasilitas kota rendah;

10. ketersediaan air bersih, listrik, dan teleponnya rendah; 11. korupsi di jawatan-jawatan publik di kotapraja tinggi;

12. kotanya semrawut, tidak ada zonasi kota yang terencana dan tersistem;

13. peredaran dan penggunaan narkoba dan minuman keras tidak terkontrol;

14. permusuhan dan perkelahian antarkelompok warga kota tinggi;

15. sektor kumuhnya banyak; 16. tingkat kemacetannya tinggi; 17. tingkat krimininalitasnya tinggi; 18. tingkat penganggurannya tinggi; 19. tingkat polusinya tinggi; dan

20. wilayah lampu merah dan perjudiannya berkembang tidak terkontrol.

Pengembangan Kota dan Etos Pembangunan

Meskipun kota-kota modern kini adalah kota publik, urusan publik, dan bukan kota raja apalagi kota Tuhan, tapi secara politik warga kota kemudian menyerahkan tanggungjawab pemerintahan dan manajemen kota mereka kepada seorang walikota melalui proses pemilihan umum. Itu berarti walikota adalah orang yang menjadi wali-pemegang-amanah seluruh warga kota agar kota mereka dikelola menjadi kota yang baik.

Selanjutnya, proses, program, dan proyek untuk mewujudkan aspirasi seluruh warga kota itu secara teknis

diserahkan kepada para kontraktor pembangunan dan

pemeliharaan kota.

Tetapi secara profesional semua aspirasi warga kota di atas diserahkan kepada para arsitek. Inilah sebuah profesi yang semakin penting peranannya dalam menjawab masalah-masalah perkotaan dan pemukiman di seluruh dunia.

Tri Harso Karyono, guru besar arsitektur Universitas Tarumanagara dan peneliti utama pada Balai Besar Teknologi Energi (B2TE BPPT), Serpong, dalam artikelnya “Pemanasan Bumi dan Dosa Arsitek”, di harian KOMPAS, Selasa, 11

[pemanasan] Bumi. Kekeliruan tangan arsitek akan memanaskan Bumi dan berpotensi lebih besar membasmi manusia dibandingkan dengan kemampuan teroris.

Sedemikan dahsyat peran arsitek modern bagi kehidupan manusia sebagaimana dikatakan Tri Harso Karyono di atas, maka tidak berlebihan jika peran arsitek itu dapat saya ungkapkan bagi kehidupan sebuah kota sebagai berikut: Arsitek berperan besar dalam menentukan hitam putihnya sebuah kota. Kekeliruan tangan arsitek akan menghancurkan sebuah kota dan berpotensi membuat kota itu menjadi kota setan.

Semakin krusial peranan suatu profesi dalam

masyarakat, semakin penting pula profesi itu merumuskan etosnya, menegakkan etos itu, dan menghukum anggota profesi yang melanggarnya. Hanya dengan demikian sebuah profesi punya tempat yang terhormat dalam masyarakat. Sejumlah profesi sudah melakukannya: dokter, wartawan, dan pengacara. Ciri khasnya: mereka punya asosiasi profesi, dan dalam tubuh asosiasi itu terdapat sebuah dewan kehormatan sebagai mahkamah tertinggi dalam penegakan etos profesi itu.

Sekarang, marilah kita selidiki serba sedikit tentang etos ini. Dengan memeriksa sejumlah kamus, kita akan menemukan bahwa etos adalah sebuah kata yang memiliki banyak makna, antara lain: (a) esprit d’corps; (b) karakter, keyakinan, dan hakikat moral dari seseorang, sekelompok orang, atau sebuah institusi; (c) kode perilaku suatu perusahaan yang menentukan cara

bagaimana mereka memperlakukan karyawannya,

pelanggannya, lingkungannya, serta

tanggungjawab-tanggungjawab legalnya; (d) spirit khas suatu budaya atau era; dan masih banyak lagi.

Tapi untuk keperluan seminar ini saya memilih mengartikan etos sebagai sebuah rumusan yang disepakati bersama tentang apa yang dianggap paling penting oleh sekelompok orang untuk pekerjaan (profesi) yang mereka jalankan, dan perilaku apa yang dituntut untuk mencapai hal paling penting tersebut, termasuk apa-apa yang tidak boleh dilanggar dalam pelaksanaan pekerjaan atau profesi tersebut.

Inilah definisi etos profesi yang berlaku umum untuk semua profesi seperti keguruan, kedokteran, kehakiman, kependetaan, kewartawanan, kemiliteran, kepengacaraan, dan kearsitekan.

Dan hari ini kita berbicara tentang etos kearsitekan atau etos arsitek.

Ketika kota dirumuskan oleh panitia seminar ini – yang notabene terdiri dari sejumlah arsitek muda yang idealis, kreatif, dan berwawasan luas – (1) sebagai sebuah simbolisme kosmik, (2) sebagai manisfestasi spiritualitas manusia, (3) sebagai biosfer

hidup yang berkelimpahan, (4) sebagai ekosistem

karya-arya yang estetik, (6) sebagai wilayah kerja yang produktif, dan (7) keragaman sosial budaya manusia urban, harus diakui bahwa aspirasi ini adalah sebuah rumusan yang ideal, luhur, dan menyeluruh.

Dengan mengandaikan bahwa konsep kota di atas sekarang diterima dan dianggap sangat penting oleh komunitas arsitek di negeri ini, maka dalam bahasa etos, idealisme tentang kota di atas – di tingkat perilaku kerja – dapat coba saya rumuskan sebagai berikut:

Etos 1: Kota adalah simbolisme kosmik; maka sebagai

arsitek profesional kita wajib merancang,

membangun, dan mengembangkan kota yang mengingatkan warganya bahwa kota sebagai ruang kehidupan adalah bagian dari kosmos ciptaan Tuhan

yang punya desain, keteraturan, keluasan,

keagungan, dan keindahan.

Etos 2: Kota adalah manisfestasi spiritualitas manusia; maka sebagai arsitek profesional kita wajib merancang, membangun, dan mengembangkan kota yang

mampu membuat seluruh warganya merasa

terhubungkan satu sama lain, yang merasa menyatu dengan lingkungannya, serta memetik makna, identitas, dan kebanggaan daripadanya sehingga menumbuhkan rasa cinta pada kotanya.

Etos 3: Kota adalah biosfer hidup yang berkelimpahan; maka sebagai arsitek profesional kita wajib merancang, membangun, dan mengembangkan kota yang lapang, longgar, lancar, bersih, hijau, berlimpah dengan air segar dan udara murni, serta bebas dari sampah maupun limbah.

Etos 4: Kota adalah ekosistem bagi pertumbuhan manusia yang sehat; maka sebagai arsitek profesional kita

wajib merancang, membangun, dan

mengembangkan kota yang cukup ruang untuk bermukim, bekerja, belajar, bermain, berekreasi,

beribadah, berolahraga, berkesenian, dan

berkebudayaan.

Etos 5: Kota adalah mandala penciptaan karya-karya yang estetik; maka sebagai arsitek profesional kita wajib merancang, membangun, dan mengembangkan kota yang secara keseluruhan dinilai sebagai indah, termasuk bagian-bagiannya, unit-unitnya, dan detail-detailnya sehingga mampu memuaskan cita rasa seluruh warga kota secara sensual-indrawi, intelektual-karsawi, dan spiritual-rohani.

Etos 6: Kota adalah lapangan kerja yang produktif; maka sebagai arsitek profesional kita wajib merancang,

mampu menyediakan cukup ragam mata pencaharian bagi segenap warganya: dari jenis pekerjaan yang cuma mengandalkan otot, keringat, dan fisik sampai jenis pekerjaan yang mengandalkan imajinasi, kreativitas, dan inovasi.

Etos 7: Kota adalah wahana keragaman sosial-budaya manusia urban; maka sebagai arsitek profesional kita

wajib merancang, membangun, dan

mengembangkan kota yang mampu menyediakan ruang untuk ekspresi keragaman sosial-budaya itu, interaksi sinergis dalam pluralisme itu, serta kultur apresiatif dalam kebhinekaan itu.

Sesungguhnya perumus etos suatu profesi haruslah orang dalam profesi itu. Demikian pula etos arsitek haruslah dirumuskan oleh para arsitek itu sendiri. Orang seperti penulis makalah ini, meski pun sering dijuluki media sebagai mister etos atau guru etos, paling banter bisa berperan sebagai konsultan saja.

Sebagai penutup, izinkanlah saya meninggalkan sebuah saran: panitia seminar ini perlu sesegera mungkin berkoordinasi dengan Ikatan Arsitek Indonesia guna merumuskan sehimpunan etos arsitek yang luhur, menyeluruh, inspirasional, dan motivasional sehingga pada satu waktu nanti kita akan melihat kota-kota di republik ini sungguh-sungguh menjadi kota-kota yang “gemah ripah loh jinawi, tata tentrem karta raharja”.

Apa yang saya rumuskan di atas adalah sebuah percobaan dan harus dianggap sebagai sebuah masukan saja. Terimakasih dan selamat berseminar.

TOWARDS A NUSANTARA CITY

Galih Widjil Pangarsa

Department of Architecture, Brawijaya University, Malang galih.wp@gmail.com

Abstract

Two difficulties appear in finding out conception of a city in Indonesia. First, it is an irrefutable fact that since the 1960s,

education on planning in Indonesia ―in which the concept of a city developed and implemented― has been based on western

urban and architecture theories. The education on planning not

only the continuation of “installed” planning practices developed by the Dutch colonial government in the beginning of 20th

century, but also had had something to do with “economic” planning of New Order’s regime from 1970s onwards. Second, the specific geographical character of “Indonesia” is hardly

understood as an integral point of view, in the sense of both empirical and meta-empirical. For many academicians, as a whole reality, the empirical and meta-empirical phenomena are not unknown or forgotten: city is viewed at both as physical phenomena in the landscape and as cultural and even as mental (arte)fact. But, for the fast-changing cities of Southeast Asia, it seems that the fundamental problem emerges from basic system

of knowledge. That is, how to “read” holistically locality and

universality of the phenomena. The reading becomes more difficult due to the historical trajectory of sciences of planning and architecture, in which Eurocentric played a dominant role. It seems that the answers require new paradigms for the sake of the human as well as the nature. This would be a common (politics and) scientific platform to develop a Nusantara City. The common platform should be respected and maintained in theory, politics and policy of urban in the process of structuring and systemizing the local-heterogenic and global-opened Nusantara cities, where the territorializing and the centers determination

would create “fuzzy” territories and “dynamics” centers in

harmony.

Key words: Nusantara, city, concept

Asian Independence

Through modern education and global transfer of information since 20th century, scientific concept or notions of city has undoubtedly been spreading in English language, from

Figure 3. Urban Environmental Landscape on ex Fort.

As with condition like this, we should be ask how the existence of fort in this time have opportunity toward the effort strengthening identity of Yogyakarta City? Most of the existing building nowadays is permanent building. Result of observation show some related/relevant stereotipe with location of existence of house posed at from tables following :

Table1. Building Condition in Research Area Building Conditions

totally Permane

nt

Semi Permanent

Non Permanent

Area A 16 - - 16

Area B 14 - - 14

Area C 14 4 1 20

Area D 15 4 5 24

Area E 12 12 4 29

103 Generally the result of research shows that most dweller society ( 73% responder) is native people from environment around of Kraton Yoyakarta. Result of interview shows most dweller of strong having a mind to linger on environment of the rest FKY. Observation towards condition of house of all responder

also strengthen that mentioned above, related especially with limitation of existing site or space.

Social Characteristic of Social Culture of Dweller

Social Culture of dweller was shown by keguyuban (such kind of Tolerancy) as generally socialize Java. Observation shows social interaction existence which is very strong enough among citizen marked with activity jagongan/nongkrong in some of spot area. Physically marked with element permanen/temporer (in the form of dingklik or permanent concrete). Keguyuban is also seen from more formal social interaction for example in activity of

arisan and pengajian. Interview with citizen express that religious

activity ritual custom is also still conducted. The social activity is generally conducted in common/ public facility in meeting room hall which is exist in almost every RW in Kraton environment, besides is also conducted in one of house own citizen.

Social economics in general is shown a middle economic level downwards. There is still a lot of citizen, especially residing in region of the rest FKY in part of east which have the income to less than 500 ribu/KK. Prima facie of almost the dweller is informal sector. In West region dweller at longest show economic level of citizen which is high enough, marked by commercial activity which is dynamic enough. Related by existence of community residence on the rest FKY with the status magersari, most dweller society said that they have known about the existence of order and regulation in course of dwelling and also building.

Table 2. Percentage of Resident Perception About Kraton’s Regulation

Resident Perception About Kraton’s Regulation Number of

Responden

Knowing about existence of order and agreement

from Kraton 73 71%

Knowing about Status magersari _{90 87%} Knowing about widht area of building _{62 60%} Knowing about prohibition to developt building

vertically 96 93%

Knowing about order of semi permanent

wall/kotangan 62 60%

Characteristic of Environmental Setting and Building Setting Data indicates that most society have known existence of regulation agreed on initially by Kraton and citizen, really do not show correlation which are positive in the case of dwelling behaviour. Entire responder explained that have renovated their building about 1-2 times. Mostly the building nowadays represent

permanent building ( table 1). Building have experienced of extension horizontally by widening building up to environmental road;street, and also closed drainage/parit (inside in fort) so that the width of building reach 4 metre more. Some responder even own house more than 1 plot of land. This is showing the possibility of there will be its process sales that caused the transfer of property's statue. There are 45% the responder owning house extended vertically. Thereby practically almost entire poin from regulation have been prohibited by society. Entirely of dweller behaviour was easily earn us to understand that a modernity and population growth give pressure forcing dweller for behavioral rationalization economical.

Nevertheless other result of research show some behavioral stereotipe dweller having the character of positive, in way of strategic and compromise way. Its behaviour is very importance to be studied in order to diging aspect of spasial technically which can be rendered for the sake of environmental future of both community and environment. Finding yielded are:

1. Substitutional Setting of Activities

Substitutional Setting of activities was happened on the same place, but in a different time. Activities Setting can occur with or without changing the physical setting of space.That Spatial behaviour was shown by the case occurred on the spasial behaviuor. It can be shown by case of edge of street of Madyosuro used for berjualan with different type of merchanidise at morning (bubur merchant), daytime ( merchant bakso), and also the evening till the nighttime ( noodle merchant & wedang ronde). Other similar case was activity setting of domestic in the form of put to the sun areal at morning till the daytime, then was used for activity of social interaction (jagongan) at evening till its nighttime.

Figure 4. Case of Substitutional Setting of Activities

2. Communal Space and Fascilities

An environment permukiman which is embracing tolerance pattern called keguyuban coexistence and will be more easy to earn each other inclusively of sharing facility and space. Energy limitation of environmental supporting and also the limitation individually at this environment, pushing for the space creation which can be used together either through formal, and also informally. The facility found at facility MCK

case that is supporting domestic activity, hall RW facility for formal social activities, and also simply open space beside walk way for have the social interaction with other neighbour.

3. Multifunctional Rooms in Dwelling

Multifunctional Rooms was occured in almost all of dwelling. Limitation of site push at creation of communal space in interior. Setting of house Interior with this concept is marked by open plan, minimum partition use, having the character of transparent and is not permanent. One of case is use vestibule for the sittingroom, at one use the space to sleep, sittingroom at one use for diningroom, even the next terrace of house as the most public space is used to accomodate activities of cleaning and cooking.

Figure 5. Case of Multifunctional Rooms in Dwelling

4. Semi Vertical Building

Semi Vertical Building represent most unique case in our research finding. Building with this concept is looked into by a dweller represent the win-win solutionf in attitude prohibitation of vertically building from kraton. High of building with having 2nd floor was held in such a manner so that do not strike in the physical, even like a kind of vent of building tropical at colonial era by Dutch. Building with space " semi", mostly used as stowage space, also for sleeping room.

Figure 7. Case of Semi Vertical Building Conclusion

 Fort of Kraton Yogyakarta is facing the problem of how to keep its own existence as a historic areas, meanwhile the community living on it need a such better place to live. The best approach is to maintain fort as the city identity as possible as to understand the community living within the dynamic context of city development.

 Understanding the community living is including learning spatial behaviour of community.

 There are spatial and physical behavior of dweller having the character of win-win solution

References

Ikaputra. (1995) A Study on the Contemporary Utilization of the Javanese Urban Heritage and its Effect on Historicity. Japan. Osaka University.

Kostof, Spiro. (1992) The City Assembled. The Elements of Urban Form Through History. London. Thames and Hudson. Moore, G. (1979) Environment-Behaviour Studies dalam

Introduction to Architecture. Mc Graw Hill.

Rapoport, A. (1969) House, Form, and Culture, Prentice Hall. Inc. Englewood Cliffs , N.J.

Rapoport, A. (1977) Human Aspect of Urban Form, toward a Man – Environment Approach to Urban Form and Design. Pergamon Press.

Rapoport, A. (1982) The Meaning of The Built Environment, A Non Verbal Communication Approach. Sage Publications.

Ronald, A. (1993) Transformasi Nilai-nilai Mistis dan Simbolis dalam Ekspresi Arsitektur Rumah Tradisional Jawa. Makalah Seminar Lembaga Javanologi. Yayasan Ilmu Pengetahuan Panunggalan.

Zeisel, J., (1981) Inquiry By Design : Tools For Environment – Behaviour Research. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.