Jakarta Post, Opinion and Editorial, March 18, 2006
When was the last time you were in a public space in Jakarta? If you don't use public transportation and hardly walk or bike on the streets of Jakarta, you might start thinking about malls, dining places or other entertainment places inside offices, hotels and other commercial complexes. Or you might think about parks, sports facilities, or other public areas including the streets inside your housing or apartment complexes.
You may want to think again, because all of these places may not be true public spaces, in the sense that they are not accessible to everyone. In other words, most malls, offices, hotels and other commercial complexes are privatized public spaces. Even when you spend hours of your time on Jakarta's congested streets inside your car -- you are in private property in a public space.
True public space in Jakarta is rarely frequented by members of the upper (or middle) class, while privatized public space is exclusive. The result, I am afraid, is further demarcation between the upper and lower classes of Jakarta.
Bestuzhev-Lada categorizes public space for leisure activities as "places for contemplation (religious buildings, parks, embankments), places to obtain new information (museums, libraries, exhibitions), places for creative activities (clubs, daily centers, etc.), places for sports activities (stadiums, sports centers), places for entertainment (dancing/concert halls, theaters), and places where public holidays are celebrated (squares, streets)" (Bestuzhev-Lada, 1972, in Gabidulina, 1994). Nowadays, it is questionable which of these places have remained true public space, as some, if not most of them, have been privatized.
What makes a public space privatized? Margaret Crawford reveals that the designs of most malls attempt to "create essentially a fantasy urbanism devoid of the city's negative aspects: weather, traffic, and poor people". She adds that malls are heavily patrolled to ensure safety of their homogeneous clientele by exclusion of others (Crawford, 1992).
Trevor Boddy, in arguing against privatized skyways, specifies that "two forms of policing kept the skyway system a haven of middle-class propriety: formal, by police officers at key entrance stairs and security guards in lobbies, and informal, through the visual codes and cues indicating that anyone not dressed appropriately or behaving in an acceptable manner is unwelcome" (Boddy, 1992).
The fast growth of malls in Jakarta after 1998 is linked by Abidin Kusno with "looseness" of power which triggers the feeling of insecurity among the formerly protected upper-middle class of Jakarta (Kusno, 2004). Malls have become safe havens for the upper-middle class, and I would include all privatized public space in this category.
Even when the upper (and some middle) class leave home (inside a housing or apartment complex), they are most likely moving around Jakarta in a private car, going from one private property to another without being part of public space. Being in the car, they are physically separated and psychologically removed from the activities and the people on the street by sheets of tempered glass and galvanized metals.
The car windows become screens though which the city is passively viewed, rather than a space in which we can actively participate. The city, the streets and the people outside become images, not too different perhaps from what we have seen on other screens like computers, televisions, movies. The public space is seen and experienced as visual stimuli -- the unwanted aspects we can both consciously and unconsciously filter or ignore.
Children from upper (and some middle) class who are born post-1998 are most likely growing up within homogeneous communities. They could become unaware of, insensitive toward and immune to lower-middle classes that are excluded from places they encounter in their daily lives. Nowadays in Jakarta, the only possibility for interaction among different socioeconomic groups of children are organized by schools under the umbrella of community work.
The way we design, use and experience Jakarta's public space has remarkably influenced our social interactions, and will surely have social implications. If we maintain the present conditions, we can only imagine the effect on the growing class division.
Monday, July 17, 2006
Fortress mentality leaves Jakartans isolated, fearful
Jakarta Post, Opinion and Editorial, January 21, 2006.
A home should be a safe abode, thus security is important. A common solution to the security of Jakartan houses is to put bars on the windows facing the street. After the May 1998 riots, the use of security bars has proliferated, with all open spaces being covered, making their occupants feel caged in their own homes. Housing complexes that have been developed over the past ten years are more likely to be surrounded by three-meter walls, and can only be entered through secured gates.
Older middle-upper housing complexes, on the other hand, are not gated. I will argue that it is precisely this openness and inclusivity towards other racial, social and economic groups, that has strengthened social security.
Gated communities aim to exclude "others". Most of them don't allow street vendors and those who "don't belong" to enter the complexes. Caged-in houses can even be found within these complexes. It seems that the fear of "others", traditionally addressed towards those of a different race, social or economic status, has extended itself to become a generalized fear of everyone, period. The implication of gated communities is that they create pronounced social, economic and, in most cases, racial enclaves, that are in fact far more likely to trigger resentment and thus cause insecurity.
Mike Davis in City of Quartz (1990) suggests two reasons for explaining the phenomena of house fortresses in Los Angeles. "In the first place, the market provision of 'security' generates its own paranoid demand. 'Security' becomes a ... prestige symbol. Secondly, as William Whyte has observed of social intercourse in New York, 'fear proves itself'. The social perception of threat becomes a function of the security mobilization itself, not crime rates." Post-1998 housing complexes in Jakarta reveal similar paranoia, with security becoming a commodity rather than a real need against crime.
Older middle-upper housing complexes, such as Menteng, Kemang, and Permata Hijau, have no clear boundaries with plenty of open pedestrian and vehicular access to the surrounding (kampung) areas. According to David Hutama, an architect in Jakarta, the areas of Pulomas, Kayu Putih, Taman Buaran Indah and Bintaro are also ungated, and remain this way to this day.
Occupants of these complexes, although mostly from middle and upper social and economic groups, are racially mixed. Permata Hijau is considered by many as one of the most prestigious housing areas in Jakarta. Yet, here and there, smack right up against huge, multi-billion-rupiah houses, are informal settlements ranging from low-income houses, warung, and informal businesses.
Some security measures are taken. Security posts can be found at almost every other intersection, some streets are closed off after 10 p.m., and some houses even have their own security guards. But apart from that, Permata Hijau streets are open to kaki lima and kampung dwellers, some of whom work in or provide services to these houses, while others simply hang out. Some of the streets and vacant lots are even appropriated as public space where kampung dwellers play soccer or volleyball, while others are privately used as gardens maintained by kampung dwellers.
The welcoming stance towards the kampung dwellers brings a sense of belonging to the area that in fact helps prevent crime.
Clearly, securing our homes can be done effectively without the need to live in a fortress. Jane Jacobs proposed in The Death and Life of Great American Cities (1961) that the problem of insecurity can be solved by three means.
First, there must be a clear demarcation between what is public space and what is private space.
Second, there must be eyes upon the street; eyes belonging to those who we might call the natural proprietors of the street.
And third, sidewalks must be in continuous use by pedestrians.
As most houses are gated anyway, demarcation of public and private space is already clear in most cases. However, if you happen to drive through any of the newer housing complexes, the streets are almost vacant. Gated communities create a environment that alienates and excludes others.
This is not the case in Permata Hijau, and most other older housing areas, where the inclusion of dwellers has created natural proprietors who use the streets fairly continuously, and whose "eyes" are always present.
These older complexes demonstrate that it is not necessary to exclude pre-existing and surrounding communities. Moreover, open complexes create mutual benefits for both dwellers of the housing complexes and those from surrounding communities.
A home should be a safe abode, thus security is important. A common solution to the security of Jakartan houses is to put bars on the windows facing the street. After the May 1998 riots, the use of security bars has proliferated, with all open spaces being covered, making their occupants feel caged in their own homes. Housing complexes that have been developed over the past ten years are more likely to be surrounded by three-meter walls, and can only be entered through secured gates.
Older middle-upper housing complexes, on the other hand, are not gated. I will argue that it is precisely this openness and inclusivity towards other racial, social and economic groups, that has strengthened social security.
Gated communities aim to exclude "others". Most of them don't allow street vendors and those who "don't belong" to enter the complexes. Caged-in houses can even be found within these complexes. It seems that the fear of "others", traditionally addressed towards those of a different race, social or economic status, has extended itself to become a generalized fear of everyone, period. The implication of gated communities is that they create pronounced social, economic and, in most cases, racial enclaves, that are in fact far more likely to trigger resentment and thus cause insecurity.
Mike Davis in City of Quartz (1990) suggests two reasons for explaining the phenomena of house fortresses in Los Angeles. "In the first place, the market provision of 'security' generates its own paranoid demand. 'Security' becomes a ... prestige symbol. Secondly, as William Whyte has observed of social intercourse in New York, 'fear proves itself'. The social perception of threat becomes a function of the security mobilization itself, not crime rates." Post-1998 housing complexes in Jakarta reveal similar paranoia, with security becoming a commodity rather than a real need against crime.
Older middle-upper housing complexes, such as Menteng, Kemang, and Permata Hijau, have no clear boundaries with plenty of open pedestrian and vehicular access to the surrounding (kampung) areas. According to David Hutama, an architect in Jakarta, the areas of Pulomas, Kayu Putih, Taman Buaran Indah and Bintaro are also ungated, and remain this way to this day.
Occupants of these complexes, although mostly from middle and upper social and economic groups, are racially mixed. Permata Hijau is considered by many as one of the most prestigious housing areas in Jakarta. Yet, here and there, smack right up against huge, multi-billion-rupiah houses, are informal settlements ranging from low-income houses, warung, and informal businesses.
Some security measures are taken. Security posts can be found at almost every other intersection, some streets are closed off after 10 p.m., and some houses even have their own security guards. But apart from that, Permata Hijau streets are open to kaki lima and kampung dwellers, some of whom work in or provide services to these houses, while others simply hang out. Some of the streets and vacant lots are even appropriated as public space where kampung dwellers play soccer or volleyball, while others are privately used as gardens maintained by kampung dwellers.
The welcoming stance towards the kampung dwellers brings a sense of belonging to the area that in fact helps prevent crime.
Clearly, securing our homes can be done effectively without the need to live in a fortress. Jane Jacobs proposed in The Death and Life of Great American Cities (1961) that the problem of insecurity can be solved by three means.
First, there must be a clear demarcation between what is public space and what is private space.
Second, there must be eyes upon the street; eyes belonging to those who we might call the natural proprietors of the street.
And third, sidewalks must be in continuous use by pedestrians.
As most houses are gated anyway, demarcation of public and private space is already clear in most cases. However, if you happen to drive through any of the newer housing complexes, the streets are almost vacant. Gated communities create a environment that alienates and excludes others.
This is not the case in Permata Hijau, and most other older housing areas, where the inclusion of dwellers has created natural proprietors who use the streets fairly continuously, and whose "eyes" are always present.
These older complexes demonstrate that it is not necessary to exclude pre-existing and surrounding communities. Moreover, open complexes create mutual benefits for both dwellers of the housing complexes and those from surrounding communities.
Malls as “Public” Places (?)
The popularity of shopping malls as hang out places may very well be a global phenomenon. Yet, in the case of Jakarta, the utilization of shopping malls as “public” places has been intensified by the growth of commercial areas, diminishing green areas, and privatization of public places.
Panangian Simanungkalit indicated that in 2005 alone, commercial areas (shopping malls, supermarkets, and trade centers) in Jakarta reached the total of 5,100,424 square meters (Kompas, 21 April 2006: 46). Meanwhile, Nirwana Joga pointed out that Jakarta’s green area has been reduced from 37.2% of total area in year 1965-1985, to 25.8% in year 1985-2005, to 13.94% in year 2010 (Joga, 2002). Currently Jakarta’s green area is merely 9.67 percent of total area according to Yayat Supriatna (2004).
Some of green areas have been converted into malls (Plaza Senayan, Mal Taman Anggrek, and Mega Mal Pluit), five-star hotel (Hotel Mulia), upper-middle housing complex (Pantai Indah Kapuk), and even government’s office (Kantor Walikota Jakarta Selatan; Joga, 2002). Even the National Monument (Monas) is no longer accessible for all citizens. The renovation of Monas surrounded it with four meter gate, making the public space inaccessible to underclass citizens – hawkers, panhandlers, and prostitutes.
Interviews conducted with 154 random visitors to five malls in Central and South Jakarta reveal that they visit the malls between two to four times a week for eating (71.43%), watching films (50%), strolling (25.32%), working out (24.68%), conducting work-related meeting (24.03%), shopping (20.78%), and people watching (7.79%). This result indicates that, firstly, shopping is actually not the main intention for most mall-goers; and as such, secondly, these activities do not have to be conducted in shopping malls. So why do people go to the malls?
My argument is because they have no better choices. Malls and other commercial areas are more profit-generating and easier to maintain for developers than culturally-oriented and socially-mixed public places. Yet, these commercial areas are targeted towards specific customers: they segregate people according to social-economical backgrounds. 57.11% of interviewees in my samples are professionals, 32.47% students, and 9.09% house wives. Only 1.23% is in the service sector, and no respondents are member of the working class or in agriculture. The malls where interviews were conducted are not targeted for these “other” classes.
In the case of Jakarta, and of Indonesia to a larger extent, the impact of homogenous and exclusive commercial areas is especially alarming. Many areas in Indonesia have, historically and repeatedly, experienced social unrest caused by clashes between different ethnic, religious, political, and social-economical groups. Casual interactions between different groups of people, including those from different social-economical classes, are often mediated by open public spaces, safe public transportation, and streets with good pedestrian sidewalks. Unfortunately none of these public amenities are available in Jakarta. Jakarta, therefore, desperately needs to re-create its public places, where people from different backgrounds – or at least those who want to – have the options to mingle.
A specific tenant within the malls, cheaper price, and traffic condition to and surrounding the area are other particular reasons the interviewees go to malls. The specific tenants are not just department stores or supermarkets, but also cinemas (50%), fitness centers (24.68%), and bookstores (14.94%). Some 13.64% mention certain ambience of the malls, and 7.14% actually conduct job-related activities in addition to 24.03% of meeting with clients. These very specific reasons indicate that some people have the desire to be culturally entertained and others to be healthy. They appreciate the design and cultural atmosphere being offered by a specific mall. Some even go to the malls to gain knowledge.
Of five malls in my samples, the one that attracts most visitors is located in prime location, easily accessible both by using public and private transportations, and has variety of tenants which cater to different ages. A successful future public places in Jakarta will have to equal, if not exceed, these criteria while avoiding homogeneity. Yet, this may remain a utopian hope for Jakarta, if one particular stand has not changed.
Privatization of public places indicate that Jakarta’s local, regional, and national government need to, first and foremost, have the political will to put forward issues related to public needs – rather than submitting to short-term financial gain, but losing the long-term battle to realize a functional, healthy, society. If this is not a possible expectation, then citizens of Jakarta will have to wait and hope that there will be private enterprises that develop commercial sites that also put forward public concern.
This article is part of paper submitted for “Arte-Polis: Creative Culture and the Making of Place”, an international seminar organized by Institut Teknologi Bandung.
Panangian Simanungkalit indicated that in 2005 alone, commercial areas (shopping malls, supermarkets, and trade centers) in Jakarta reached the total of 5,100,424 square meters (Kompas, 21 April 2006: 46). Meanwhile, Nirwana Joga pointed out that Jakarta’s green area has been reduced from 37.2% of total area in year 1965-1985, to 25.8% in year 1985-2005, to 13.94% in year 2010 (Joga, 2002). Currently Jakarta’s green area is merely 9.67 percent of total area according to Yayat Supriatna (2004).
Some of green areas have been converted into malls (Plaza Senayan, Mal Taman Anggrek, and Mega Mal Pluit), five-star hotel (Hotel Mulia), upper-middle housing complex (Pantai Indah Kapuk), and even government’s office (Kantor Walikota Jakarta Selatan; Joga, 2002). Even the National Monument (Monas) is no longer accessible for all citizens. The renovation of Monas surrounded it with four meter gate, making the public space inaccessible to underclass citizens – hawkers, panhandlers, and prostitutes.
Interviews conducted with 154 random visitors to five malls in Central and South Jakarta reveal that they visit the malls between two to four times a week for eating (71.43%), watching films (50%), strolling (25.32%), working out (24.68%), conducting work-related meeting (24.03%), shopping (20.78%), and people watching (7.79%). This result indicates that, firstly, shopping is actually not the main intention for most mall-goers; and as such, secondly, these activities do not have to be conducted in shopping malls. So why do people go to the malls?
My argument is because they have no better choices. Malls and other commercial areas are more profit-generating and easier to maintain for developers than culturally-oriented and socially-mixed public places. Yet, these commercial areas are targeted towards specific customers: they segregate people according to social-economical backgrounds. 57.11% of interviewees in my samples are professionals, 32.47% students, and 9.09% house wives. Only 1.23% is in the service sector, and no respondents are member of the working class or in agriculture. The malls where interviews were conducted are not targeted for these “other” classes.
In the case of Jakarta, and of Indonesia to a larger extent, the impact of homogenous and exclusive commercial areas is especially alarming. Many areas in Indonesia have, historically and repeatedly, experienced social unrest caused by clashes between different ethnic, religious, political, and social-economical groups. Casual interactions between different groups of people, including those from different social-economical classes, are often mediated by open public spaces, safe public transportation, and streets with good pedestrian sidewalks. Unfortunately none of these public amenities are available in Jakarta. Jakarta, therefore, desperately needs to re-create its public places, where people from different backgrounds – or at least those who want to – have the options to mingle.
A specific tenant within the malls, cheaper price, and traffic condition to and surrounding the area are other particular reasons the interviewees go to malls. The specific tenants are not just department stores or supermarkets, but also cinemas (50%), fitness centers (24.68%), and bookstores (14.94%). Some 13.64% mention certain ambience of the malls, and 7.14% actually conduct job-related activities in addition to 24.03% of meeting with clients. These very specific reasons indicate that some people have the desire to be culturally entertained and others to be healthy. They appreciate the design and cultural atmosphere being offered by a specific mall. Some even go to the malls to gain knowledge.
Of five malls in my samples, the one that attracts most visitors is located in prime location, easily accessible both by using public and private transportations, and has variety of tenants which cater to different ages. A successful future public places in Jakarta will have to equal, if not exceed, these criteria while avoiding homogeneity. Yet, this may remain a utopian hope for Jakarta, if one particular stand has not changed.
Privatization of public places indicate that Jakarta’s local, regional, and national government need to, first and foremost, have the political will to put forward issues related to public needs – rather than submitting to short-term financial gain, but losing the long-term battle to realize a functional, healthy, society. If this is not a possible expectation, then citizens of Jakarta will have to wait and hope that there will be private enterprises that develop commercial sites that also put forward public concern.
This article is part of paper submitted for “Arte-Polis: Creative Culture and the Making of Place”, an international seminar organized by Institut Teknologi Bandung.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
