Posts Tagged ‘permukiman’


29 Mar 2011

Pameran dan Diskusi Sayembara Terbatas StrenKali Surabaya

Rujak Center for Urban Studies, bekerja sama dengan Universitas Pelita Harapan, Arkom Jogja dan Paguyuban Warga Strenkali Surabaya menyelenggarakan Pameran dan Diskusi Sayembara Terbatas Stren Kali Surabaya.

Pameran: 4-15 April 2011 di Gedung B, Universitas Pelita Harapan

Diskusi Peran Arsitek dalam Komunitas

8 April 2011, 13.00 WIB, MYC MultiPurposeRoom

Lantai 1 Gedung D, Universitas Pelita Harapan

(more…)

Comments Off

Topics: , , , , | Agent of Change: Urban Poor Consortium |


24 Apr 2010

Pluit Village: Berapa Hijaukah Pengembang Kita yang terkenal itu?

Gunawan Tanuwidjaja
(Dari milis Green Map Jakarta)
Beberapa saat yang lalu, diadakan Sustainable Jakarta Conference, yang memang merupakan upaya untuk membuat Jakarta lebih berkelanjutan.[1] Ada sebuah pengembang terkenal yang mengajukan konsep Green Master Plan. Tetapi mirisnya ternyata pengembang ini hanya menjual konsep “Green”-nya yang kosong dan tidak menerapkan dalam bisnisnya.

Pengembang tersebut terlibat dengan sebuah di proyek Kawasan Jakarta Utara, Pluit Village.
Ternyata pengembang ini tidak mempraktekkan “Green and Responsible Water Resource Management.”

Pertama, Pengembang diduga telah “menkonversi badan air menjadi komersial, helipad dan jalan internal (melanggar UU Tata Ruang no 26 tahun 2007 dan UU Sumber Daya Air no 7 tahun 2004)”. Selain itu pengembang ini diduga telah mengganggu sistem polder yang ada dengan menutup saluran air yang masuk ke dalam Danau Pluit dan meninggikan lansekap di sekitar Danau tsb. Sehingga terjadi genangan di kawasan perumahan di Utara dan Selatan. Sungguh pengembang ini diduga tidak memiliki “kesatuan kata dan perbuatan.”

Terbukti pada 2008 – 2010, Warga Pluit telah menikmati beberapa serangan “Rob.” Padahal tadinya warga sempat merasakan aman dari Banjir Besar 2007 karena Polder Pluit yang berjalan dengan baik.

Mungkin sebuah sentuhan baru yang ditawarkan oleh Pluit Village.[2] Dari tinggal di dalam polder seperti di Belanda, menjadi “tinggal di Venesia, Italia, (alias setengah terendam banjir ketika hujan atau pasang laut datang). Jadi konsepnya dengan pengembang biasa yang menjual promosi BEBAS BANJIR. Mungkin judulnya silahkan tinggal di kawasan yang PASTI BANJIR!

Kalau kami boleh mengutip sebuah kata-kata bijak “Janganlah memutarbalikkan KEADILAN, janganlah memandang bulu dan janganlah menerima suap, sebab suap membuat buta mata orang-orang bijaksana dan memutarbalikkan perkataan orang-orang yang benar. ” Kmemang mengakui bahwa pengembang ini mampu mengatasi segala birokrasi untuk mewujudkan keinginannya di atas. Tetapi apakah hal ini tidak berlawanan dengan cita-cita mulia dan pelayanan Bpk James Riady,[3] bos besar pengembang ini. Apakah memang halal untuk merusak sistem lingkungan orang lain demi kepentingan ekonomi semata-mata?

Jika ada pertanyaan atau tanggapan silahkan baca dulu artikel kami di website kami dengan link sbb:

http://greenimpactindo.wordpress.com/2010/04/24/challenges-in-creating-sustainable-urban-polder-in-developing-countries-case-study-development-of-pluit-polder-jakarta/

Atau dapat kontak lewat email saja gunteitb@yahoo.com atau telpon ke 0812 212 208 42.

Terimakasih
Gunawan Tanuwidjaja
Pemerhati Pluit

Pro: Kami juga minta dukungan semua pihak agar Sistem Polder Pluit bisa direvitalisasi, Dan 14 Pompa yang dibeli dan dikonstruksi oleh PU DKI Jakarta bisa dipakai untuk operasi Polder Pluit dengan perencanaan yang baik “bukan merusak sistem polder yang sudah ada.”

Footnote
1 – Mr Gordon Benton OBE, architect and urban planner, giving lecture `The future of urban development in Jakarta and role of private developer’ in Sustainable Jakarta Convention, http://www.sjconvention.com/Downloads/Sustainable%20Jakarta%20Seminar%20Speakers.pdf

2 - http://www.lippokarawaci.co.id/retailmalls/pluitvillage.aspx

3 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Riady
http://www.grii.org/
http://www.ladangtuhan.com/komunitas/jadwal-acara-gathering/seminar-ekonomi-antisipasi-krisis-global-bagi-indonesia/

No Comments »

Topics: , , , , , , | Agent of Change: none |


30 Mar 2010

Shelter for All: Sine Qua Non, not a Chimera

By Muamar Vebry

Last week I went to one of the biggest housing and land development project in Serpong, trying to identify a potential house to buy. The result was depressing; it was way above my purchasing power — by far. Sadly, despite the splendid infrastructure and its impressive greenery, my dream house was out of reach.

This week, I went to check out several RUSUNAMI (high-rise and low cost apartment) in Eastern Jakarta. Surprisingly it was still beyond my reach. One question struck me, how on earth can low income and middle income earners in Jakarta afford a decent house if the price of the properties are way above their heads. Whilst Government interventions in affordable public housing through mass production of RUSUNAMI, which supposedly targeted the low-mid income groups with income less than 4.5 million per month, apparently is not affordable enough. The price of one RUSUNAMI unit is capped at IDR144 million maxima, which by whatever means would hardly be purchased by people in the low-income group.

Besides the price, another consecutive question struck me, one that relates to the compatibility of high-rise forms of low cost housing targeted for the low income. This question came from my earliest observation of 3 (three) Rumah Susun in Jakarta, one in Bendungan Hilir, one in Kebon Kacang and the other one in Tebet, regardless of the fact that Rumah Susun — which is also a low-cost housing introduced in 1990 — and RUSUNAMI is not an apples to apples comparison. Perhaps I am being very subjective here and made an over simplistic conclusion, but my lay mans observation is that the higher the Rumah Susun raises, the lower the maintenance.  That does tell me something:  the low-cost high-rise housing model in Indonesia is not working.

It should be noted that our beloved country has never had glimmering success stories in the provision of adequate shelter and secure tenure for the low income group. Despite the rosy programming, many low cost housing projects or Government’ funded programmes have failed to yield tangible results. The situation has worsened since developers became disinterested in low cost housing, simply because they could not milk a good profit out of it.

It’s been reported that many developers have terminated the development of RUSUNAMI and are no longer offering a subsidized low-cost apartment. Consequently, the price of RUSUNAMI has increased from the previously capped IDR 144 million maxima to a new ceiling capped at IDR 200 million — more that 25% increased in ballpark estimation — which now targets the mid-income group. The Deputy of Formal Housing for the Ministry of Housing confirms that many developers have terminated their commitment to develop subsidized apartments due to an increase of production cost (materials etc…). The Deputy pontificates that this could not be avoided as there is no legal binding clause between Government and Developers that says developers must develop subsidized housing. The Deputy also points out that it should be looked on from the bright side, in return; many apartments for mid-income earners are being developed and soon will supply the housing market (KOMPAS daily newspaper, February 27, 2010). Once again it shows a policy failure — low-income groups are left out in the cold.

In a nutshell, lack of political will to serve the low-income housing sector is one of the many causes, not to mention that a systematic, properly designed and well-targeted social housing program has never been considered as a top Government priority. What has happened is scattered and sporadic initiatives, poorly planned and managed interventions, and spread thinly on a piece meal approach.

In Indonesia, the market forces it-self plays quite a substantial role to limit the supply of low cost housing and manages to keep the housing price beyond low income’s earners purchasing power. Please don’t get me wrong, I am not against the free market I believe free market society is good. However, it somehow fails to address the needs of adequate shelter for the low income group.

To address this, a political will should be properly nurtured and intelligent Government interventions should be adopted. By learning from the past failures in dealing with low-cost housing provisions, by taking into account few facts: first, the landed property is overpriced; one could get an affordable landed property but it can be 2-3 hours driving to/from Jakarta; second, the current high-rise model for example RUSUNAMI (or probably the upcoming RUSUNAMI Version 2.0) is not affordable,  high-rises are not socio-culturally suitable for low income group and the maintenance cost is expensive and will increase incrementally over time; and third, a developer driven model has not been able to address the pressing needs of low-cost housing demand as most developers are bogged down supplying  houses to the niche market of middle income and high income groups.

***

To date, the Government is revising the regulation on subsidized housing. But I can’t see how any breakthrough will be made as it is still likely to play within the “old” context of the proven-failured-high-rise-apartment (RUSUNAMI). As highlighted in Kompas Daily in February 27, it seems the Government is merely aiming to enlarge the size of the of the unit, revising the amount of government’s subsidy and the funniest thing revising the income criteria for the targeted consumer from those earning IDR 4.5 million per month to IDR 6 million per month. This is completely misleading.

Hence, this might be a good time to challenge the Government to think outside the box and focus more on informal housing.

Construction costs are relatively small for low cost housing (landed house), whilst the land and infrastructure cost are relatively high. The Government, in this context Ministry of Housing, should play a more intelligent role in supporting other than developer driven modality such as self help modality to delivering a decent and affordable landed house or a duplex perhaps, and become a competitor in housing market — which so far has been monopolized by a developer driven approach for quite sometime.

There are various approaches which could be adopted, a possible solution could be attained through state interventions to provide matured land — either by giving a temporal right to use, providing land for free or selling it for an affordable price with reasonable repayment scheme –, and adequately equipped with basic infrastructure needs such as installed pipe-water, electricity connections and other vital basic services.

The housing delivery mechanism itself is not rocket science. It is simply utilizing a community development approach towards targeted groups by organizing and facilitating targeted low income groups to construct their own landed houses through self help modality — based on their individual needs and their financial capacity (core house or extended house). The planning and construction process could be assisted by professional/social architects, engineers and facilitators to ensure proper planning and design of the environment and that it meets the expected standard. The source of finance could vary, one possible way is to seek financing from community cooperative institutions or micro finance institutions which provides micro loans either for productive or consumptive purposes — so that the low income could avoid neck-chocking interest rates that are applied by mainstream Banks.

Thailand has successfully addressed the massive growth of slum areas in Bangkok by providing access to land to low income groups to build their own low-cost housing through participatory approach. The basic element of Thailand success story lies in the congruent approach, mutually agreed solution, high commitment coupled with strong synergy between stakeholders involved (i.e. Civil Society, Academic Institutions and the Government ultimately).

Another remarkable success was made by Enrique Peñalosa, a politician who served as mayor of Bogotá — Colombia’s capital city of 7 million — for three years (1998-2001). During his term, he bought undeveloped land on the outskirts of the city to prevent real estate speculation and ensured that it will be developed as affordable housing with electrical, sewage, and telephone service as well as space reserved for parks, schools, and greenways.

The question is now whether the Government of Indonesia is willing to give access to land for the poor and invest state funds to mature land by building the necessary infrastructure?

The Government has given access to state owned land to many developers to build RUSUNAMI, so why can’t they grant access to “well-organized low income groups”?

No Comments »

Topics: , | Agent of Change: none |


23 Sep 2009

Perumahan di Pundak Generasi Muda

Oleh: Odie Banoreza

Rumah merupakan salah satu kebutuhan pokok manusia yang bersinggungan dengan arsitektur. Sehingga ilmu arsitektur turut bertanggung jawab terhadap masyarakat luas dalam menyediakan hunian yang sehat dan nyaman. Namun, jika kita melihat realita perumahan Indonesia maka data yang ada mampu memberikan beberapa kesimpulan. (more…)

2 Comments »

Topics: , , , | Agent of Change: none |


28 Aug 2009

Singgih of Magno Wooden Radio offers a New Urbanism

Singgih

Singgih Susilo Kartono among the trees surrounding Magno wooden radio workshop (August 23, 2009@Marco Kusumawijaya)

Singgih Susilo Kartono, the maker of Magno wooden radios, thinks we should grow together with our resources. He wants to prove it in his village, Kandangan, in Temanggung, only 8 km from the house where Police thinks Noordin Top hid.  Will it materialise sustainably or become a bursting utopia? Only more elaboration and testing-out will answer that question. We discussed this issue while enjoying fresh air in his workshop on August 23, 2009.

He envisions his village to develop sustainably with production, consumption and resources growing together in the same locale. He wants to literally grow resources for his factory. He has already started growing seeds of sonokeling, mahoni, and other hardwood that he uses for his products, the famous awards winning Magno wooden radios, toys and stationery. He distributes the seeds for free to his neighbours to plant them on their own lands. One slide of his powerful powerpoint presentation shows how more trees emerge and grow bigger as his production grows as well.

With demand for his products growing (creating a current backlog of one month), it is very likely that he will have to expand his production facilities soon, although he does not wish to hurry on that. His neighbours will also enjoy the desentralised distribution of benefits soon. If things go well in the next couple of years, the village vill soon experience a densification process, having new wealth that willl materialise in the “rural” space

Singgih’s vision of production based on local resources, and a fair distribution of wealth in the locale, revives our imagination of “garden city” and other utopias in the history of urbanism. Resources and production are closely linked with relationships clearly tangible and within sight. It would certainly means very low ecological footprint. Fortunately, his “inputs” of the electrical parts in his radios also come from nearby factories in Semarang, two hours by car from Kandangan, Singgih’s base.

His products are sold so far mostly to consumers abroad. MOMA in New York just started to sell them in their stylish museum shop. Can we assume that the value he added to the woods justifies the emission of CO2 of transporting them?

Need for a plan

In anticipation of the spectre of  “growth” that is lurking from behind both the demand for his products, and the needs of the village, Singgih is already thinking of  creating a “masterplan” to guide the village development into the future. A serious mapping of available assets (natural and man made) is needed. A vision of how a future growth wil also grow and nurture (instead of deplete) the assets will be an intriquing exercise of intellect, creativity and technical skills of many disciplines.

1 Comment »

Topics: , , , , , , , , , , , | Agent of Change: none |


16 Aug 2009

Hunian 4 Lantai Lebih Berkelanjutan

Erik_Catur_Low

A sustained social space under a fly-over, next to a railroad, initially facilitated by Jakarta Biennale 2009 (Photo by Erik Prasetya,2009)

Orang bilang Jakarta bukan ‘kota’ tetapi kampung besar karena di Jakarta rumah-rumah berdiri di lahan masing-masing sebagian besar dengan halaman sendiri sebagaimana rumah pedesaan. Ciri-ciri hunian kota yang multi-keluarga, yang efisien dalam penggunaan lahan, tidak umum di Jakarta, begitu juga layanan dasar kota seperti jalur pejalan kaki dan taman kota, sulit ditemui.

Memang, Jakarta pada awalnya adalah kota-kota yang beraglomerasi. Batavia dengan Meester Cornelis, belakangan dengan kampung-kampung seperti Kemang dan Condet. Diantaranya dibangun hunian modern berkonsep garden city, berkepadatan rendah, satu-dua lantai, seperti di Menteng, Kebayoran Baru, Pondok Indah, Pulomas, dan lain-lain.

Padahal kepadatan (density) adalah kata kunci bagi kota. Asumsi umum mengatakan semakin padat maka semakin efisien, ini terkait mahalnya lahan dan pengadaaan layanan kota—air bersih, saluran pembuangan, jaringan listrik, dan lain-lain. Tetapi, kota adalah wujud eksistensi sosial-budaya manusia, bentuknya tidak cukup ditentukan skala ekonomi lahan dan jaringan infrastruktur.

(more…)

3 Comments »

Topics: , | Agent of Change: none |


30 Jul 2009

Cohousing: Inisiatif Warga Jakarta untuk Membangun Perumahan Ramah Lingkungan

4_Anggota Komunitas Rumah Bersama modified

Oleh Armely Meiviana.

Ada ratusan kawasan permukiman yang tersedia di Jakarta dan sekitarnya, mulai dari rumah sederhana hingga rumah mewah. Semuanya menawarkan berbagai kelebihan, seperti harga murah, lokasi strategis dekat tol, bebas banjir, desain mengikuti bentuk rumah di Eropa atau AS. Belum lagi fasilitas olahraga dan rekreasi keluarga,  fasilitas perkantoran, sekolah, rumah sakit serta pusat perbelanjaan yang mudah dijangkau. Belakangan pasar properti bahkan diramaikan oleh proyek hunian baru yang mengklaim dirinya berwawasan lingkungan.

Lalu apa yang kurang? Apa yang membuat sekelompok warga Jakarta yang menamakan diri Komunitas Rumah Bersama, berupaya untuk mengembangkan konsep cohousing, jenis permukiman yang didesain oleh komunitas? (more…)

3 Comments »

Topics: , , | Agent of Change: none |


14 Jul 2009

Ekologi Jakarta: Potensi yang Terancam

Ekologi Jakarta terancam punah. Penduduk penghuni dalam kota Jakarta berkurang, menurun setidaknya dalam 10 tahun terakhir. Keragaman berkurang, bukan saja dalam arti fungsi (terutama dengan menghilangnya hunian di tengah kota), tetapi juga dalam arti keragaman strata ekonomi. Kelemahan terletak pada tidak adanya koherensi antara kebijakan perpajakan, pembangunan perkotaan, tata ruang/kota, dan konservasi. Bahkan kawasan perumahan berkualitas tinggi (setidaknya dulu) seperti Menteng pun sedang mengalami penurunan. 

 

(Lihat studi pada http://rujak.org/2009/07/loe-loe-gue-gue/ dan http://rujak.org/2009/07/visioning-the-future-of-jakarta-imagining-jakarta/; serta artikel di  http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2009/03/21/the-plight-and-plea-menteng.html, dan http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2009/06/04/envisaging-a-mutually-beneficial039-kind-jakarta.html ) (more…)

1 Comment »

Topics: , , | Agent of Change: none |


06 Jul 2009

Living in the Bubbles

Gated prospect, by moriza

Gated prospect, by moriza

Last week’s news on Jakarta has been quite encouraging. Community initiatives such as greenlifestyle, greenmap, Indonesian Folding Bike Community, and even rujak.org received media coverage. Media were also eager to get a glimpse of the upcoming masterplan of Jakarta, which is said to be transit oriented development, and experts were enthusiastic to respond.

Among all the good news, there’s hidden a small report about a growing number of religion-based housing estate for sale in the suburbs, high in demand. And this is not just talking about the architecture style, but it goes as far as the selection of buyers and even renters. (more…)

3 Comments »

Topics: | Agent of Change: none |


04 Jul 2009

Loe Loe, Gue Gue

Andi Rahmah, Agus P. Sari, et.al., Loe Loe, Gue Gue; Hancurnya Kerekatan Sosial, Rusaknya Lingkungan Kota Jakarta, Yayasan Pelangi, Jakarta 2004.
Loe Loe, Gue Gue

1 Comment »

Topics: , , , , | Agent of Change: none |