Berikut ini visi yang pernah diajukan pada “Imagining Jakarta, 2004″ hasil kolaborasi antara seniman dan arsitek.

Lapangan MONAS dan Kota Bukittinggi

Medium: kayu, kaca

Marco Kusumawijaya, Hedi Harijanto

Lapangan Merdeka (dan sesungguhnya: seluruh Jakarta) perlu belajar dari Kota Bukittinggi tentang: ukurannya sendiri, keragaman dalam kepadatan melalui mixed-use, ekologi, topografi yang berbukit-bukit dan skala yang manusiawi.

Hampir seluruh inti-kota Bukittinggi muat di dalam Lapangan MONAS. Dengan topografi Bukittinggi, Lapangan MONAS (dan Jakarta) akan memiliki permukaan hijau yang lebih luas. Bukit akan juga menciptakan oase yang hening di lembah dan lereng dalamnya, melindunginya dari bising jalan di sekitar. Waduk raksasa berbentuk Ngarai Sianok akan menyimpan air. Topografi akan memberikan rentang probabilitas pengalaman yang tak terbatas. Dengan peningkatan kapasitas ekologis ini, maka ke dalam Lapangan MONAS dapat dimasukkan stasiun kereta api khusus dalam-kota yang sangat dibutuhkan oleh seluruh Jakarta, dan sebaliknya akan membuat Lapangan MONAS dapat dijangkau secara murah dan mudah oleh seluruh lapisan masyarakat.

Imagining Jakarta is a collaboration in 2004 by architects, urban designers/planners, poets, graphic designers, photographers, sculptors, and multi-media artists, to “imagine” visions for some urban spaces and issues in Jakarta. It was conducted through a series of  workshop in 2004, and the results were exhibited at Gallery Cemara in December 2004. The participants are: Marco Kusumawijaya, Adi “Mamo” Purnomo, Dewi Susanti, Bonifacius Djoko Santoso , Yuka, Irwan Ahmett, Paul Kadarisman, Erik Prasetya, Enrico Halim, Akhmad “Apep” Tardiyana, Gregorius Supie Yolodi, Hedi Hariyanto, Budi Pradono ,Yuka Dian Narendra and David  Setiadi.

Bagaimana kalau Lapangan Monas berkontur Bukittinggi? Dengan ngarai untuk menampung air, dan bukit serta lembah-lembah sebagai ruang mikro yang lebih dapat dinikmati daripada keadaan sekarang.

Ruang pameran: sepadat dan sehiruk pikuk metropolis Jakarta. Bundaran HI (kini HIK) yang permukarannya diturunkan, dengan stasiun MRT di bawahnya, suatu visi yang kini mau tidak mau akan/harus terwujud segera.

For more pictures, see: http://www.flickr.com/photos/rujak/sets/72157620952348995/

Here are some statements.

Press Release: Is Jakarta a failing metropolis?

Imagining Jakarta feelss that Jakarta has never been given a chance to succeed. Her potentials, including even ones that might arise from her problems, if understood correctly, have yet to be given ample space and momentum, vis-à-vis a way of developing that lacks discourses, perspectives, imaginations, and participations. The existing plans and “projects” tend to avoid the heart and the true scale of the matter.

Jakarta is not failing; rather, it has never been given a chance to succeed.

Although she has made many people frustrated, Jakarta metropolis is still offering cosmopolitan opportunities, providing sources of hopes to increasingly more people who will invariably depend on her in many aspects of their life: work, market, public, power, lover, limelight and hide-outs, existence and anonymity, edu- and infotainment, illusion and disillusion, victory and remorse. People never stop hoping. The problems and, at the same time, the potentials of this city lie exactly in the energy derived from the ever increasing hopes that people place on her. The hopes are based on imaginations, be they individual or collective. Perhaps it is also imaginations that are needed in order to able to realize these hopes.

Imagining Jakarta believes that imagination is the springboard to fly higher up in order to gain wider perspectives, and simultaneously to dive deeper in order to see what lies under the surface. Imagination is the passport to allow possibilities and potentials to have their chances. Imagining Jakarta manages shadows of possibilities: “What if all of those possibilities are really given their chances?”

Imagining Jakarta tries to present into the public sphere personal imaginations about the collective hopes for Jakarta. Imagining Jakarta offers an alternative method to experience Jakarta; one that not only serves as a source of ideas, but also as a space for interdisciplinary dialogues, among writers, artists—graphic designers, photographer, sculptors—and architects, all of them are from the younger generation. Twice a month, from morning to evening, June to August, they meet in a series of workshops. They explain their preliminary ideas, they give critiques and references, whether in the forms of examples of projects, works of others, or data collected from other institutions or data that are specifically collected for Imagining Jakarta.

As its initial standing stone, Imagining Jakarta believes in the programmatic density (and is against the mere volumetric cramming that ignore diversity), wishes Jakarta to be a “city of life” (and is against the negative power that turns her into a mere “city of work”), hopes for her spaces to become creative spaces, considers mobility as social, cultural, and economic rights, and aims for the environmental sustainability as a goal.

Imagining Jakarta asks us all to imagine other possible Jakarta’s. Therefore, it also entreats that all projects about Jakarta be disclosed before the public, so that these projects can enter the process of collective imaginations and be realised with the participation of the public. Imagining Jakarta wishes to reveal dialogues about the values that emerge along with the process of producing the artifacts of the city.

Imagining Jakarta: Suddenly Dusk, Suddendly Dawn…

by Marco Kusumawijaya

Imagining Jakarta started when Rifky “Goro” Effendy caught me straddling out of Cemara 6 Gallery one evening when night was approaching. He asked, “What if we make an architectural exhibition?”

As a personal activity, I have always been imagining Jakarta all the time, at least since 1998, when I was writing my master’s thesis on the city[1]. In the period of 1993 – 1995, I attempted to provoke the Arsitek Muda Indonesia (Indonesian Young Architects club) to channel their energy to works for the public, instead of merely holding exhibitions promoting themselves or some architectural styles—which invariably appears too late in Indonesia anyway. A term was born, “Kotak-Katik Kota Kita”—or “Tinkering with Our City”. Preparations took place. It remains unclear, however, why the effort eventually ceased. My presumption: There was not enough self confidence, due to doubts about technical matters, and not enough motivation, either, as in their early twenties or thirties, in the beginning of their career, people will desire more to promote themselves.

Working on the city, for architects, is indeed a step taken at the senior level. Ironically, however, after a long period of silence, in the 1980s Indonesian architects started to learn again to design cities precisely outside the cities—i.e. in the “new cities” or “new towns,” a term in the market to refer to the “sub-town” or the “sub-urb”[2]. The word “new” was indeed considered as having its own charm or power, after development has, in reality, created a dystopian image to the “old” town.

The “new-town” has nothing to do with the New Urbanism, either semantically or (even more so) ideologically. In approximately the same period of time, New Urbanism was blooming in the United States. New-towns in Indonesia are a logical step in the capital expansion to produce some added values to the existing space through a wider and deeper power over the spatial structure. This is achieved through the ability to self-arrange land-use and its infrastructure, so that price is actually no longer determined by competition in the open market, but instead by holders of vast amount of land. “New-towns” are also a special achievement in the cooperation between the capital and the state[3].

The (old) towns, meanwhile, are operated and arranged by the state, through the hands of the officials and staff of the Department of the Public Works and other related departments. This was true especially until the beginning of the 1990s, when the capital expansion started to widen and deepen its grip on the spatial structure at the heart of the city—usually with the justification that the developing of super blocks would enable the integration and efficiency of infrastructures. Naturally, what was implied but never stated was the ease for the capital to control the operating margin solely by itself, without meaningful interference from external parties, except by the state, which has in turn been assured to trust everything in the hands of the capital owner, presumed to be more responsible and professional.

The expansion of the capital and the state (which has become its puppet) over the city is far wider (and deeper) than what we can possibly imagine. “Trusting the hands of the market,” we increasingly realize, turns out to be the choice of the power holder with no true awareness and real knowledge about the market. The reason for such choice, it turns out, is due to their profitable ignorance—ignorance that, deliberately or not, has profited the persons holding the power to give license to build[4].

The marginalization of the housing areas, not only for the poorest but also for the middle class, is the result that will be most harmful in the long run. Only the capital owners and the uppermost class will enjoy this situation—because, just as their capital, they are not spatially-bounded: they are not attached to a place, and can seemingly fly wherever they want, alighting later always with the free options to stay or to move again.

The distortion in the price of the land and the house, making them even more unreachable for the majority of the people, is only one of the results. Pollutions, environmental damages, and traffic jams are other examples of how the individual profit of the capital is harmful to the wider public. Bundaran HI, or the Hotel Indonesia roundabout, with the potential to be a public space, is precisely set for the interests of private cars and create a feeling of self-assurance on the part of the capital. Consumptive messages pervade the spaces in the city intensely[5].

Taking over the public space is a form of awareness on the part of the citizenry, requiring interdisciplinary sophistications. There needs also be a blurring of the boundary between thinking and material production. What Imagining Jakarta is doing is to blur out the distinction between free critical discourses and the activities to produce, to take part in the market.

In the activities of Imagining Jakarta, taking over the public space has come to mean two things: 1)to  actually take over the physical space of the city in order to create imaginations over it for the public interest in the long run, and 2) to take over the public attention toward the proposed alternatives. Taking over the public space also means taking over a piece of the market of ideas. We don’t know whether this will be successful or not; it is, however, an adventure considered as necessary, conducted with concerns and responsibility.

***

Indeed, Jakarta is built always one step behind the aspirations of her dwellers. We tend to remember only one moment when the development of this city was quick enough to respond to the needs of the public—that was the moment of Ali Sadikin. In all honesty, however, he was also late when compared with what should actually take place—but this was not commonly felt considering the absence of previous examples and because of the harsh condition of the time. The problems of Jakarta today is piling up, because after Ali Sadikin’s moment expired, there had been no meaningful initiatives that had an ample time before the next dusk arrived.

All of a sudden it’s nighttime, when new works are just started. All of a sudden it’s morning time, the sun wakes us up, when plans are just beginning to be thought up. Changes rush in intensely, pressurising also the integrity of the decision makers.

The rush often entails recklessness, and this has been the characteristic in the management of the city of Jakarta for four decades. And such is life in the city, too. “When I look into the mirror-map of Jakarta—a creation of Dewi Susanti in the exhibition of Imagining Jakarta—I find my own face, in the size of one municipality,” said one visitor to the exhibition.

Such was the process of the workshop and the production of the exhibition. We thought the time between June and September would be enough. There were three workshops, two days each, between June and August. These were meant to provide a space for a process of understanding, to exchange views, to imagine Jakarta. All of a sudden it was already morning, we had to wake up, to produce an exhibition. Indeed, the current reflection has been: Do people have to work hard at night as well in this ever-rushing metropolis? Isn’t there appropriate time to stop for a while, to reflect about what is right and what is wrong, to let the experiences settle, before we start to produce again the next day?

Imagining Jakarta, through the four-month time of togetherness, expects to give ample time for a group of architects, sculptors, writers, photographers, graphic workers, and composers, to dwell in her problems. But we still woke up with the feeling of “suddenly dawn.” And when we started to work to build our imaginations, again we faced the fact that it was suddenly dusk. Night and day times are very short in this city—especially because we spend three hours on the road, and three more hours in front of the TV.

The city has never had time to settle her problems, applying real actions, as all of a sudden there will be new issues, new problems, or a new governor. The city has never had enough time to reflect about her future, to sublimate her experience, as all of a sudden she will have to rush again when the morning comes.

In such situations, Imagining Jakarta, therefore, becomes a kind of meditation amid the crowd and haste.

The participants in “Imagining Jakarta” realize that their imaginations must compete with other imaginations. The situation of the workshop was often carried away with the pressured atmosphere when we realized about the domination of the imagination by the power of money and politics, providing no breathing space for the imaginations of the public and the common people—or even of the experts. Advertisements, for example, are all but a campaign to form public opinions. Look at the houses in the style of “Little Spain,” “Little Italy,” and so forth. Such advertisements build the images that slowly become the “norm.”

Some of the participants, therefore, felt that they had to meditate on the realities of the metropolis, delving below the surface, without the pretension to offer any construction at all. Others viewed Jakarta as one total, integrated network. Imaginations, indeed, are like a springboard, enabling us to reach for a higher point in order to gain a wider perspective, if not a whole one, and then delving deep below the surface.

Imagining Jakarta was begun not with a strong belief about what it would achieve. What we were certain of was merely that as an experiment, this was worth trying. Architects in Jakarta (or in Indonesia) has never been truly involved in a collaboration with artists, especially by taking a city such as Jakarta as the subject—this was an ambition that had seemed a bit overconfident. Jakarta, however, has triggered so much emotions and it seems appropriate to turn them into some creative energy. What is soothing for us, at the end, is a comment from one of the audience to the exhibition: “Most of what has been imagined here someday will come to be, as that is precisely the direction of history and the inescapable fate of a metropolis. The problem is whether we want to anticipate such changes or not; proactively to plan them or not; to be able to gain the biggest possible advantage for the public and to sustain this advantage—or are we going to ‘let things work by themselves,’ let the market decide, and consequently weaken the bargaining position of the public and the future generations?”

Suddenly it’s morning time, and before our eyes we see the latest examples of public policy such as the busway and the monorail; neither of which is truly planned as an early, anticipative, and proactive public policy. Instead, these policies are more due to the pressure from certain NGO’s, and the result of the calculations of the private sectors. Fortunately, however, these policies are eventually realized, although still with such rush and recklessness.

Collaboration such as in the Imagining Jakarta means a working together on the part of different groups and in several stages and layers. Such collaboration takes place starting from by merely accepting inputs from, and giving inputs to, other participants; asking for reactions and contributions in terms of ideas, words, and substances from fellow participants; collaboration in executing the ideas; up to the level of truly working together, developing the concept up to the execution stage. There are also collaborations along the process, among the participants thinking that their ideas can be worked on together, or among the participants who thought that they needed others’ expertise. Often there were changes or developments away from the original plans of each of the participants, as other participants in the process influenced them. The prevalence of such changes and doubts precisely shows the success of the collaboration process among the participants.

Indeed, not everything that Rifky and I have imagined has been realized. There are, however, new imageries that we have not thought of before. Even the composition of participants changes. Some cancelled their participation, and some new participants came. We do miss the participants who had cancelled their involvement in the project, and are thankful to new participants who had come forward.

Personally, I have fulfilled one of my selfish goals when I designed the program since the very beginning—that is, I want to learn as much as I can from the creative perspective and expertise of each participant:

Cecil has helped me (and I think other fellow participants as well) to understand the fate and the unexpected and unlimited probabilities in the metropolis of Jakarta; to appreciate the intense varieties provided in the city, and the richness of the visual vocabulary of Jakarta.

Dewi has helped me (and I think other fellow participants as well) to comprehend Jakarta as a web—is there a femme fatale in it? This is indeed what the fate of a city should be: the intense communication and mobility.

David has helped me (and I think other fellow participants as well) to acknowledge the desperation of the heritage movement to conserve the old city, and the futility of the existing plans due to their pretentious denial of the real depth of the problem.

Joko has helped me (and I think other fellow participants as well), with an acute sense of humour and irony, to understand the chaos of the metropolis due to the solitary nature of the individual islands, they being humans or other elements of the city, which at the same time provide the richness of the city. Individuals in the metropolis—human being or not—are at the same time overexposed and confined as lonesome fragments.

Yuka has created a new folder in my mind (and hopefully in other fellow participants’ as well) for a new program of experimentations: the history and the traces of the sounds that are often not considered as a “form” in the daily life of the metropolis; and the history and the trace of the music about Jakarta, as an expression of hate and love toward this step-mother that is the city.

Supie has invariably made me (and others, too) realize the differences about architectural and artistic approaches, and why architecture must seek solutions.

Mamo helps me (and others as well) to see the possibility to treat the city as a loved subject, challenging our autonomous sincerity to give, without being dependant on the structure and the government; to see them “who fill the city,” and not the city itself. Hopefully I don’t have to be a vegetarian to be able to have the capability of the 40 Hz wave in the Spiritual Intelligence of Mamo’s. Why, I wonder, hasn’t the idea come up from me, one who is often considered an anarchist[6]?

Apep helps me (and certainly other fellow participants, too) to see in all certainty that the problems of Jakarta are actually common and classic in the history of the cities—they are not out of control at all; it is only our capability that has been out of date, and the existing solutions that are let to take place (trusting it all to the market, they say) are moving us away from the real natureof the city, and are banal and superficial.

Eric leisurely shows me (and other fellow participants) the intense happenings and feelings taking place in the frame of the moment of 1/30 second (or less?). Looking at his pictures, we feel at once framed and frozen in the moment. My spirit of activism that is often seething meets the question: “Isn’t it true that not everything needs to be changed, and we only need to live in it, giving no judgement?”

Paul, who is such a quiet person, subtly shows his unsettling and cynical feelings about the city. From a highly “objective” art form such as photography, Paul’s works are the most subjective among other works in the exhibition. We not only see Paul in his photographs, but also hear him. He creates his own personal and subjective saying, without having to utter any new word, but only by taking and composing the visual words he finds in the reality. Photography becomes a loud medium—as loud as it possibly can be—for Paul’s quiet personality, who is quietly… unsettling the curators!

Hedi (the runner up in terms of quietness) helps me (and other fellow participants) in critical times to at once remember the real dimension, to withhold decisions that are too concrete, unifying, and freedom-threatening. In other words, he prevents us from becoming fascists, reminding us about the natural right of art as the main actor and main claimant of creativity and spontaneity. At the same time, Hedi is also a realist. Therefore: “Just be careful when you’re eating!”

Rico reminds me that there is always a challenge to be more idealistic (and “why not?”); which means that there are always more home works to do and to strive for. There should be no words of tiredness and contention.

Iwang helps me (and other fellow participants as well?) to be alert to see something that is… (without words), and let our mind to be stirred up by perspective and way of thinking that demand the installation of other operating system in our brain. The logo of Imagining Jakarta that he designs has an interesting history:

“I have made more or less 300 alternatives for the logo. I became confused making all those circles. There was something interesting that happened when I was making the logo. My right hand suddenly unceasingly made artistic circles, taking composition much into account. It should be more spontaneous. I tried using my left hand, it turned out that the result was ‘chaotic’ enough, but there was still some aesthetic feelings left. Hmmm… My last resource was making circles with my eyes closed… the result was ‘not bad’ and always surprised me when I opened my eyes. It was like how I am surprised every day when I see Jakarta. Oh, and in the alternative of 1 and 4, in the middle of it there was a peeping eye, accidentally made. That reflects our condition now, as the ‘Peeping Toms’ of Jakarta. Hopefully this will be beneficial to the nation and the country.”

Budi makes me (and others, too) aware of the meta-physics of data. Together with Iwang, he has inspired the idea to create a City Corner, in the shortest possible time, which will publish the data of the city in the series of “Citizen’s Book,” combining the graphic and the text which might hopefully function as an eye-opener for the citizens of Jakarta.

Amy helps me (and all other fellow participants will never deny it) to see the fact that metropolitan urbanite likes being served with data.

***

In the last few years, there was truly an increase in the discourse on the city outside the professions that have been conventionally thought of as having the competence to hold such discourse—architecture, among others[7]. Several activities with the theme of urbanity recently took place among the artists and intellectuals. The photography exhibition “Urban Horizon” during May 11 to June 12, 2004, in Jakarta, truly gave an alternative perspective and approach, much needed in order to understand continuously the reality of the metropolis, which is always metamorphosing and pregnant. There was also the exhibition of sculptures, titled “Six Urbanites” during April 13 – April 21, 2004, in Yogyakarta, looking at the symptoms of urbanization and its baggage,  including the pathology, which might not seem as real as we need them to be in order to conduct some critical evaluation. Twenty intellectuals from various disciplines were invited on July 21, 2004, by the Foundation of Science, Aesthetics, and Technology (SET Foundation), led by Garin Nugroho the film-director, which for its seventeenth anniversary was holding a panel discussion called “Saving the Public Space as the Means for the Culture of Democracy.” Although the public space does not invariably relate to the city and exist as a material space, there are naturally various urban dimensions that are involved here. Much early on, in December 19 – 21, 2003, there was the event of  Urban Literature, the meeting of the Jakarta literati. Discussed in the December event were the issues of urban history, conflicts, and the symptoms of suburbanity.

Aside from what has been discussed above, there might be still other events that I don’t know of. In the year 2005, it is already heard, there will be an art event with the theme of the urban.

The various examples above, and the increasing intensity of the news on the city in the mass media due to the frequency of the urban events (from bombs to gossips of marriage and divorce among the artists; from the natural disasters to the cases of mis-management of the city developments) in the increasing free space, show that there has been an increase in the awareness and the discourse about the city. This is a meaningful progress compared to, say, ten years ago. This is precisely the capital that we need to amass in order to promote the quality of our urbanity and urban civilization. This is a success that we need to keep creating in its various forms, by engaging  the public through exchanges of information, negotiation, and discourse making.

It is actually strange for, as far as I know, there has been no exhibitions about the design and planning of an Indonesian city, open to the general public—except those for marketing purposes by the developers.

Probably the problem is on which level a discipline must process the issues. The city, for architects, has been a “practice,” a problem solving “project” that needs to be requested either by the state or by the private sectors as their clients. Without requests, it seems that there would be no process. Therefore the HI Roundabout is designed after there was a request, as is also the case of the sidewalk along Thamrin-Sudirman. Without the request, there is no initiative to take the problem into the level of an alternative discourse—much less in the level of participatory or imaginative discourse. The problem lies in several stages. To be able to talk with the multi-stakeholders and multi-disciplinary public, architecture and the practice of urban planning needs to elevate themselves or getting down (depending on how we view it) to the level of concept, or even briefs[8], whose formulation needs to be understood by and engage the general public. In public projects, when the owners and users of the projects are actually the people—although formally the task-giver is the government—the role of the architect becomes greater, indeed, and also more to the source: taking a role in processing the draft of the brief. In the methodological level, architects must find a way and language to communicate with the public and with other disciplines. At the most basic level, the (urban) society itself must have the desire not to give the brief and the concept solely to the architects, although still respecting the architects as the competent professionals who will help and lead the process to make the brief and the concept materialise.

——————————————————————————–

[1] Marco Kusumawijaya, “Thamrin Sudirman Avenue, Jakarta: A Case Study in the Problem of Modernisation in a Developing Metropolis,” Department of Architecture, Urban & Regional Planning, University of Leuven, Belgium, September 1990; unpublished thesis.

[2] “Sub-kota” (literally means “sub-town”) is a better term in Indonesian to refer to the “sub-urb,” as the two consecutive consonants at the end, “-rb” are not common in the Indonesian language. The two terms, meanwhile, have the same meaning.

[3] My four year experience working as a professional on the side of the capital owner, i.e. as a director in a developer company, has provided me with many experiences in terms of the cooperation between the state and the capital—and these experiences and stories are worth telling in another occasion.

[4] Recently, the governor of Jakarta has repeated the argument that seems to be pro-market: “The developer who wants to develop malls has naturally calculated that there is a sufficiently-big market for malls…”

[5] The recent history of the reform movement also includes efforts to take over the spaces of the city in order to convey public messages. The private billboard at the northeast corner of the Bundaran HI was often draped by giant banner of the NGO coalitions, conveying public messages such as the corruption in the drawing up of the budget of the city of Jakarta. Several walls of the buildings, such as the sidewall of the Hotel Indonesia, had been taken over, too, as well as the pedestal of the “Selamat Datang” (Welcome) sculpture. There was an interesting dialogue that took place at the secretariat of the Urban Poor Consortium, when they were discussing whether or not they would ask for permission to drape the billboard with the banner. The poet Afrizal Malna commented, “When they built the billboard over there, they didn’t ask for our permission. Why should we now ask for theirs?” Although it sounded (deliberately) naïve, such comment shows the fundamental dissatisfaction that is thoroughly legitimate about how a public space should be managed.  In reality, the banner draped over the billboard turned out to be very beneficial to the public: For the first time, the middle class and the poorest of Jakarta were unified in the awareness about the corrupted budget of the city of Jakarta, and about other issues. In another place, near Borobudur temple in Central Java, the musician Tanto Mendut protested, “Hey, why are we always pushed to ask the Governor about things? Why isn’t the Governor requested to ask me things for a change?”

[6] For the meaning of anarchism, I refer to Marco Kusumawijaya, “Anarkisme: Sebuah Utopia Lagi?” (“Anarchism: Another Utopia?”) in KOMPAS, opinion page, May 2000.

[7] I don’t view “urban planning” as a scientific discipline; rather, it is a practise that harnesses a variety of disciplines such as architecture, sociology, economy, mathematics, statistics, and others.

[8] Brief, or the TOR (Terms of Reference) is the basic information from the task-giver (client) to the architect about the program, goal, and direction to be able to start working on the design.

Thamrin-Sudirman

Medium: digital print di atas vynil, akrilik, dll.

Gregorius Supie Yolodi, Marco Kusumawijaya, Achmad Deny Tardyana

Satu-satunya cara memperbaiki Jalan Thamrin Sudirman (dan sesungguhnya: seluruh Jakarta) adalah meniadakan penggunaan mobil pribadi di jalan tersebut dengan membangun sistem angkutan umum yang baik, dan menyediakan hunian berbagai kelas sosial ekonomi sesuai dengan komposisi pekerja di sepanjang jalan itu, dalam jarak jangkauan berjalan kaki dari gedung-gedung perkantoran yang sekarang ada.

Pada saat ini sekitar 16.000 mobil pribadi digunakan oleh sekitar 20 % pekerja tingkat teratas, ialah pada tingkatan eksekutif, manager dan sebagian supervisor, yang lebih dari 90 %nya tinggal di luar kawasan Thamrin-Sudirman.

Meniadakan 16.000 mobil pribadi akan membebaskan lebih dari 500.000 m2 lantai parkir yang setara dengan 10.000 unit hunian kelas menengah kebawah, atau fasilitas pengasuhan balita berkapasitas 41.000 anak, atau perpustakaan kota dengan kapasitas 10.000.000 buku, atau ruang terbuka hijau seluas 10 ha.

Selain itu jalur lambat untuk kendaraan dapat seluruhnya, yaitu selebar 6 meter pada masing-masing arah, dijadkan kaki-lima.

Empat lantai bawah bangunan sepanjang seluruh jalan dapat diperluas hingga ke perbatasan kaki-lima, dan diisi dengan kegiatan-kegiatan sosial-budaya dan kehidupan malam yang akan diperlukan oleh fungsi hunian di sekitarnya, dan menjadi mungkin dengan pembebasan dari mobil pribadi tersebut.

Thamrin-Sudirman dengan demikian akan menjadi highstreet, bukan highway seperti hampir-hampir sekarang ini.

Bundaran Hotel Indonesia

Medium: akrilik, kayu, logam, dll.

Marco Kusumawijaya, Hedi Harijanto, Cecil Mariani

Evolusi Bundaran Hotel Indonesia menjadi tempat yang hidup dengan keragaman kegiatan warga, seperti dimulai sejak gerakan reformasi tahun 1997, perlu dilanjutkan; bukan dihentikan dengan paksaan oleh bentuknya sekarang ini, yang sengaja dibuat anti-demokrasi oleh kekuasaan dan profesional yang miskin wawasan dan sakit. Menurunkan permukaan Bundaran HI menjadi suatu sunken plaza, dan membuatnya dapat dimasuki oleh pejalan kaki melalui terowongan di bawah jalan lingkarnya dari keempat sudutnya, akan menghilangkan konflik antara lalu lintas dan kehidupannya sebagai ruang khalayak. Keadaan ini akan makin meningkatkan intensitas dan keragaman kegiatan warga yang dapat terjadi di dalamnya, tanpa mengganggu lalu lintas sekitarnya.

Tetapi yang lebih penting lagi: apapun upaya mengubah ruang khayalak yang merupakan ikon Jakarta dan gerakan reformasi ini haruslah terlebih dahulu menjalani pemwacanaan yang interaktif melibatkan khalayak ramai.

Indonesian Association of Planners (IAP) – International Conference on

URBANIZATION IN CLIMATE CHANGE:

Spatial Planning as a Strategy Towards Resilient and Low Carbon Cities

http://conference-iap2010.com/

In response to the growing global concern on climate change and its impact to the cities, and hope to formulating the near ideal solution to maintain and improve the sustainability of the cities, Indonesian Association of Planners (IAP) is pleased to present international conference with the theme “URBANIZATION IN CLIMATE CHANGE: Spatial Planning as a Strategy Towards Resilient and Low Carbon Cities”. This event is an initiative of the IAP in collaboration with Directorate General of Higher Education – Ministry of Education and Makara UI (Universitas Indonesia), to be held on 19 – 20 October 2010 at Hotel Borobudur, Jakarta.

The aim of the conference is to promote a stronger collaboration among practitioners, academicians, community leaders, public and government officials, policy-makers, civic activists and other professionals from diverse disciplines and regions around the world in order to capture the benefits of urbanization, as well as mitigate and adapt to climate change and socioeconomic change and their impacts. Its objective is to share and learn from international and local experiences regarding current issues, best practices and policy implications of creative collaboration on spatial planning.

The following four suggested topic areas are intended to guide your submissions; however, they should not be viewed as exclusive which are:

1.       Climate Change Impact to Urban Infrastructure, including the topic of housing and settlement; road and other transportation infrastructure; social and economic facilities, and urban heritage building as well.

2.       The Risk of Urban Coastal Community, including the topic of vulnerability of the coastal area, the risk of economic activities, social behavior changes, and the lifestyle adaptation.

3.       Planning tools for Resilient City (adaptation), including the topic of saving resources consumption, climate governance, adapted community planning, and social capital for community resilience.

4.       Planning tools for Low-Carbon City (mitigation), including the topic of public transportation system, energy saving, green lifestyle, carbon emission, and re-urban design.

We expect the papers will come from the interdisciplinary approach which emphasize on integrating the spatial planning approach to the climate change factors.

For further information please view http://conference-iap2010.com/

Semesta transportasi Manggarai. Foto dari Lantai 5, Pasaraya.

Siapa warga Jakarta yang tak tahu Manggarai? Disitu ada Pasar Rumput, surga bagi pemburu bahan bekas, dan beken sebagai gudangnya saniter bekas. Bagi yang tinggal di daerah Bodetabek dan pengguna kereta api, pasti akrab dengan stasiunnya. Lalu di musim penghujan, kita warga Jakarta pun was-was dengan ketinggian di pintu air Manggarai, karena begitu pintu air tersebut dibuka di saat ketinggian berbahaya, maka Istana Negara pun bisa tergenang.

Manggarai pun menjadi cermin tak bercela atas sabarnya warga kota ini dan semerawutnya infrastruktur kota. Bukti bahwa warga kota sangat toleran terhadap kota ini ada pada saat kita mulai turun Stasiun Manggarai, atau saat kita menggunakan Halte TransJakarta.

Tepat didepan Halte TransJakarta, ada Pasaraya Manggarai, namun pengunjung tidak bisa dengan mudah masuk kedalam pertokoan, karena harus melewati jalan raya tanpa jembatan penyeberangan, dan mengelilingi pagar sebelum akhirnya masuk ke pintu utama.

Dengan adanya Stasiun Manggarai dan Halte TransJakarta Manggarai (dan dahulu sempat ada Waterway), Manggarai adalah bagian kota yang diberkahi segala kemudahan transportasi. Tapi benarkah demikian? Esai foto berikut menggambarkan urban hiking dari halte TransJakarta ke Stasiun Manggarai: Februari 2010.

1. Selepas turun dari bus, pintu keluar mengarah ke Pasaraya Manggarai, sementara Stasiun Manggarai berada diarah sebaliknya. Maka kita harus memutari halte, berjalan di tepian jalan – berhadapan langsung dengan kendaraan yang lalu lalang.

2. Setelah berhasil memutari maka masuklah kedalam terowongan, hati-hati karena jalur tersebut tak rata dan sempit.

Melewati terowongan. Di atasnya: rel kereta api.

3. Sebelum sampai ke ujung seberangilah jalan tersebut, dan akan berjumpa dengan ini

Ada taman kecil dipagari

4. Lalu di sebelah selatan ada ini

Panjatlah tangga ini...

dan hati-hati ketika naik ‘tangga’.

Hati-hati dengan pegangan...ada paku!

5. Setelah menaiki tangga batu, masih ada lagi yang satu ini.

hati-hati saat menuruni tangga

6.  Lalu jangan lupa untuk membayar Rp 1000 kepada bapak berbaju putih

Bayar 1000 untuk jasa penempatan tangga-tangga

7. Dan anda akan langsung bertemu dengan rel-rel Stasiun Manggarai, silakan ikuti rel untuk menuju Stasiun Manggarai. Tidak dianjurkan bagi pengguna sepatu hak. Stasiun Manggarai ada disebelah kanan.

Melintasi rel: hati-hati, tengok kiri-kanan dulu.

Setelah sampai di platform, ada tangga lagi menuju platform stasiun, dan ini adalah bagian belakang stasiun. Sehingga ada kemungkinan untuk naik kereta tanpa membeli karcis lagi.

Sesuatu yang seharusnya mudah, dibuat sulit di Manggarai. Antara Stasiun Manggarai dan Halte TransJakarta ternyata saling bertolak belakang, dan keduanya berada dalam ketinggian berbeda. Hal itu mungkin kesannya sepele, tapi menjadi masalah besar bagi keberhasilan transportasi umum di Jakarta.

Selepas Stasiun Manggarai, maka ada opsi lain jika sungkan melewati tangga, bisa juga menaiki rakit penyeberangan yang dioperasikan warga kampung Menteng Jaya.

8. Hati-hati menuruni tepian kali Ciliwung

naik rakit untuk kembali ke halte TransJakarta

Ruwetnya Manggarai ini ternyata tidak mampu mehalangi ambisi Pemprov Jakarta. Di awal tahun 2010 ini, pemerintah bahkan menetapkan Manggarai sebagai stasiun utama komuter, bahkan saat Rujak berkunjung, pintu platform otomatis tengah dipersiapkan. Mari kita tunggu, bagaimana langkah pemprov demi mewujudkan impian tersebut. Minimal impian tersebut seyogyanya mampu membuat para pelaju (komuter) untuk mempu berjalan kaki selayaknya manusia.

Ball room, Universitas Tarumanagara, Grogol

Merombak Praktik Perencanaan Ruang[1]

Oleh Marco Kusumawijaya[2]

Selama 40 tahun, tidak satu pun kota di Indonesia yang dapat menyatakan dirinya telah menjadi lebih baik berkat perencanaan ruang yang baik. Apa artinya ini?

Tentu saja kita dapat menumpahkan semua kesalahan pada hal-hal besar yang biasa: hegemoni ekonomi dan politik. Tetapi, apakah masuk akal menyalahkan “mereka”, sementara kita tahu bahwa tiap perencanaan ruang memang harus bekerja dengan politik ekonomi dan ekonomi politik?

Saya cenderung menduga ada yang salah secara mendasar pada praktik perencanaan ruang itu sendiri. Di dalam “praktik perencanaan ruang”, selain hal-hal yang biasa dibayangkan, saya mencakup hal yang dalam konteks kekinian menurut saya harus menjadi pusat perhatian, ialah epistemologi yang mendasarinya, serta hubungan-hubungan kepentingan-kepentingan yang melingkupinya.

Kasus Rencana Tata Ruang Wilayah (RTRW) Jakarta 2010-2030 mengagetkan warga dan para profesional generasi terkini dengan berbagai latar belakang berbeda seperti arsitektur, perencanaan kota, ilmu-ilmu lingkungan, sosial politik, ekonomi dan hukum, serta para pejuang kaum miskin kota dan hak-hak ekonomi, sosial dan budaya.

Yang terutama mengagetkan bukanlah sikap pemerintah yang menganggap “semua sudah dilakukan dengan baik sesuai dengan prosedur” dan BAU (Business as Usual), yang dapat diduga sejak awal dan sangat lazim diharapkan. Yang terutama mengagetkan adalah prosesnya yang tidak partisipatif dan kualitas sangat rendah dari Naskah Akademik dan Rancangan Peraturan Daerah (RAPERDA) RTRW tersebut. Yang terakhir ini mau tidak mau menunjuk kepada para konsultan dan profesor universitas yang terlibat di dalamnya. Kalau kita beranggapan bahwa seharusnya para konsultan dan profesor itu memiliki kompetensi dan integritas akademik yang baik, maka patut diduga ada sistem operasional yang menyebabkan hasil kerjanya tidak bermutu.

Pada saat bersamaan, penting pula mencatat bahwa perjuangan Koalisi Warga untuk Jakarta 2030 sama sekali tidak (atau belum?) mendapat dukungan eksplisit dari Ikatan Arsitek Indonesia (IAI) dan Ikatan Ahli Perencanaan Indonesia (IAP), dua organisasi profesi yang paling berkepentingan tetapi—justru mungkin karena itu—paling tidak mau mendukung perjuangan koalisi tersebut. Sebagian pelaku dalam dunia perencanaan ruang Indonesia memiliki kompetensi yang didapatkan tanpa fondasi disiplin ilmu tertentu. Hal ini terjadi karena sekolah tinggi di Indonesia memperlakukan “perencanaan kota dan wilayah” sebagai jenjang S1, suatu jenjang yang seharusnya diberikan kepada “disiplin ilmu”, bukan pada “praktik” profesional tertentu seperti profesi perencanaan ruang itu.

Seorang wartawan asing berkata kepada saya, “Saya bingung bagaimana angle untuk menulis hasil wawancara dengan Anda, karena semuanya nampak begitu gamblang, jadi mengapa tidak ada perubahan, setelah 40 tahun, setelah 12 tahun reformasi?”

Hanya beberapa kemungkinan yang tersisa.

Pertama, adalah “wajar” terjadi peremehan terhadap peran perencanaan itu sendiri.  Sebab, selama 40 tahun perencanaan menjadi tidak ada gunanya. Pelanggaran-pelanggaran yang terus menerus dibiarkan atau dikecualikan dengan kekuasaan khusus (discretion) telah efektif menghapuskan kredibilitas perencanaan ruang.  Ini menimbulkan sinisme dan apatisme di kalangan masyarakat luas, dan sikap instrumentalis di kalangan birokrasi. Perencanaan ruang dianggap tidak perlu dibuat serius dan justru harus kabur dan umum sehingga mudah diubah oleh birokrasi berdasarkan keperluan pembangunan, menurut tafsir elit.

Ada epistemologi untuk membenarkan status quo di atas. Discretion yang besar  harus tetap ada pada birokrasi, yang bersama para ahli, memiliki monopoli atas pengetahuan yang benar untuk membuat keputusan-keputusan yang dianggap serba teknis, makro, dan mengabdi kepentingan lebih besar. Keputusan harus  diserahkan kepada “yang ahli”, bukan kepada “yang berkepentingan”. Kata “yang ahlinya” telah menjadi olokan yang sering digunakan untuk menyerang pencetusnya, Gubernur Fauzi Bowo. Saya tidak menggunakannya untuk itu, karena hal itu tidak penting. Saya menggunakannya sebagai suatu aikon dari suatu jaman, ketika tata ruang dianggap sepenuhnya otoritas mereka yang kompeten,  para “ahli” itu. Mereka lebih tahu gambar besar, kepentingan lebih besar, dan bagaimana rincian teknis segala sesuatu. Rakyat cukup menerima keputusan mereka yang dianggap dengan sendirinya akan adil dan benar. Tidak perlu dirinci kiranya, bahwa pemikiran yang naif ini memang berpura-pura dengan dua hal. Pertama bahwa segala hal dapat di-obyektif-kan secara teknis. Dan, kedua, para ahli dengan sendirinya obyektif, tidak punya bias dan kepentingannya sendiri. Kini, rupanya belum dimengerti benar, atau sengaja diabaikan, bahwa desentralisasi produksi ilmu pengetahuan sudah menjadi kenyataan. Selain itu, mungkin sekali ada ketakutan akan terbukanya kotak pandora, karena menyangkut kepentingan berbagai pihak, belum mampunya pemerintah melayani dan menyalurkan aspirasi serta kemampuan masyarakat membangun bersama. Hal ini terang benderang dan gamblang, tetapi untuk mengubahnya diperlukan kepemimpinan yang berani merombak.

Bahkan “yang berkepentingan” belumlah suatu konsep yang dikenal sebagai “rakyat”. Yang bekepentingan adalah pihak-pihak yang “berpengaruh”, ialah para elit, bukan rakyat kebanyakan. “Serahkan kepada yang ahlinya” adalah epistemologi khas orde baru dalam perencanaan ruang—dan mungkin dalam banyak hal lainnya—yang  dianggap sebagai masalah teknis semata, bukan masalah pilihan demokratis,  sebagai masalah “para ahli”, bukan masalah “warga yang berhak dan berkepentingan”.

Langkah awal yang merupakan kunci untuk melakukan reformasi adalah proses partisipasi warga secara penuh dan menentukan. Sebab, melalui ini, transparansi terjamin. Di bawah cahaya transparansi inilah kita bisa mengetahui persoalan lebih jelas, mana-mana yang perlu diubah, dan kita akan ubah. Untuk melaksanakan suatu perencanaan jangka panjang yang melewati masa jabatan politik, seperti RTRW Jakarta 2010-2030 ini, seharusnya dibentuk suatu Komisi dengan tugas khusus dan terbatas tetapi dengan wewenang yang luas untuk memmanfaatkan sumber daya kelembagaan yang ada. Komisi seperti ini lazim di banyak negara lain.

Berkat beberapa peraturan perundangan baru yang makin eksplisit memuat hak dan proses partisipatif, sebenarnya perencanaan ruang yang partisipatif bukan lagi sekedar aspirasi untuk masa depan, tapi sudah merupakan keharusan masa kini. Undang-undang itu antara lain adalah Peraturan Menteri Pekerjaan Umum No. 15 Tahun 2009 tentang Pedoman Penyusunan Rencana Tata Ruang Wilayah Propinsi, Undang-Undang No 14 Tahun 2008 tentang Kebebasan Informasi Publik, Undang-undang No 26 Tahun 2007 tentang Penataan Ruang, dan Undang-undang No. 32 Tahun 2009 tentang Pengelolaan dan Perlindungan Lingkungan Hidup.

Kita hanya perlu terus mendesakkannya sebagai hak dan kebutuhan bagi masa depan yang lestari.

Kalau kita, termasuk para arsitek, hanya bertujuan produk “RTRW yang baik”, maka kita akan terjebak pada “yang baik menurut kita, arsitek”. Malah saya dengar ada arsitek yang mengharapkan suatu RTRW yang fleksibel, sehingga nanti para arsitek punya peluang besar membuatnya lebih baik (menurut arsitek). Ini kesalahan berpikir yang patut di hindari, karena akan mengembalikan kita kepada elitisme.

Itulah sebabnya kami menganggap peran kita sebagai “warga”  lebih mendasar daripada peran kita sebagai arsitek, dalam memperjuangkan proses yang baik ini. Tentu dalam hal lain, peran kita sebagai arsitek akan menonjol dalam kesempatan yang tepat.

Kalau kita semua kompeten sebagai arsitek, sudah pasti pertama-tama kita kompeten sebagai “warga”.

Ke-arsitek-an kita adalah plus point untuk membantu warga semua mencapai tujuan bersama. Kalau kita merasa “lebih”, maka kita harus memimpin dengan mengajak dan mengangkat warga lain, bukan dengan meminta privilese dan discretion power yang lebih besar.

Kalau tujuannya hanya “rtrw yang baik menurut kompetensi arsitek”, maka memang mudah mencapainya dengan lobby di balai kota.
Tetapi, itu akan berarti kita mengkhianati rakyat kita, rakyat Jakarta, yang sama sekali tidak mendapat peluang yang sama dengan kita (karena kita sarjana) untuk juga didengar di balai kota.

Karena itu, tujuan Koalisi Warga untuk Jakarta 2030 bukanlah sekedar hasil akhir RTRW 2030 yang baik, melainkan (proses) tata cara penyusunan RTRW 2030 yang baik. Visi Koalisi Warga untuk Jakarta 2030 adalah: Warga terlibat aktif  dan sepenuhnya sebagai pemangku-kepentingan utama dalam penyusunan RTRW Jakarta 2010-2030.

Kami percaya bahwa proses yang baik akan menghindarkan hasil yang buruk. Selain itu, proses yang baik, yang intinya mengandung proses partisipatif, punya peluang besar menghasilkan kota yang baik, karena proses yang partisipatif dapat menggerakkan rasa memiliki dan tindakan bersama.

Untuk itu tiga hal perlu dilakukan (misi Koalisi Warga untuk Jakarta 2030):

1. Memberdayakan dan meningkatkan kemampuan semua pihak untuk terlibat dalam proses partisipatif  dengan baik.
2. Merombak praktik perencanaan ruang
3. Meningkatkan kesadaran semua pihak tentang pentingnya pendekatan partisipatif.

Jakarta, 15 Mei 2010.

Marco Kusumawijaya

Direktur, Rujak Center for Urban Studies (RCUS)

editor www.rujak.org

mkusumawijaya@rujak.org

www.mkusumawijaya.wordpress.com

[2] Direktur, Rujak Center for Urban Studies (RCUS); editor www.rujak.org; mkusumawijaya@rujak.org; www.mkusumawijaya.wordpress.com

Kabarnya, Rawabelong adalah pasar bunga terbesar di Asia Tenggara, dengan omset berkisar dari 15 hingga 20 milyar rupiah per bulan. Ini belum termasuk putaran uang pada perdagangan barang penunjang seperti pot, busa air, pesanan penghias pesta, dan lain-lain.

Bunga segar datang dari Malang, Bandung, Cipanas dan daerah-daerah penghasil lainnya.

Itu sekarang. Dulu Rawabelong sendiri adalah penghasil bunga segar, terutama anggrek, ialah di generasi kakek atau ayah dari penjual sekarang. Dulu sebagian besar kawasan Rawabelong masih berupa sawa dan darat yang digunakan untuk bertani bunga. Perdagangan bunga terjadi di pinggir jalan. Jaman Bang Ali sudah dibuarkan los-los pasar. Perubahan pasti mulai terjadi di tahun 1980an. Pasar yang sekarang dibangun pada tahun 1989 oleh Pemprov DKI. Perkembangan kemudian menyebabkan petani beralih menjadi pedagang, karena tanah lebih bernilai bila dijadikan bangunan, antara lain untuk kos mahasiswa Universitas Bina Nusantara (BINUS).

Di pasar sekarang ada sekitar 125 pedagang tetap yang menyewa kiosk-kiosk. Selain itu ada lebih dari 175 pedagang musiman yang membayar retribusi harian di lapak. Mawar, salah satu favorit, misalnya, terjual rata-rata 20,000 tangkai per hari.

Menurut seorang pedagang kiosk, penurunan “konsumsi” bunga belakangan ini tersebab antara lain oleh penggusuran pedagang bunga eceran di Taman barito. Gerai yang dekat dengan masyarakat, yang ingin membeli bunga tangkai demi tangkai, kelihatannya tidak bertambah. Sedang ketika keluarga Bakrie mantu, maka terjadi kelangkaan pasokan bunga, dan harga melonjak dengan persedian yang terbatas, karena jalur pasokan terputus oleh pembelian langsung ke petani atau perusahaan pengimpor. Dulu pada hari Valentine, 14 Februari, konsumsi biasanya meningkat cukup tajam. Sekarang tidak, antara lain karena adanya peran coklat untuk mengisi hari cinta-kasih itu. Hm. Dan kita melihat ada tambahan toko coklat memang belakangan ini di Jakarta.

Rawabelong adalah sebuah ekonomi yang menghubungkan kota dan wilayah. Pada saat yang sama, ia terkait dengan kegiatan di seluruh Jakarta. Karena itu, suatu perubahan di dalam kota Jakarta (misalnya berdirinya sebuah universitas di dekatnya, digusurnya pedagang bunga di Taman Barito, bertambahnya kegemaran pada coklat) akan mempengaruhinya. Pengetahuan akan “ekonomi mikro perkotaan” begini niscaya diperlukan untuk mengelola kota, ketika perubahan-perubahan diperkenalkan dengan sengaja, sehingga dampak negatif dan positifnya dapat diperkirakan dan karena itu dapat dikelola dengan sengaja, bukan hanya sebagai dampak tak sengaja yang dibiarkan begitu saja tanpa sikap. Ketika Jakarta sedang menyusun Rencana Tata Ruang Wilayah 2010-2030, adakah pengetahuan-pengetahuan seperti ini mendasarinya?

(Tulisan ini adalah hasil liputan bersama dengan The Jakarta Post)

http://rujak.org/2010/04/tedxgreenjakarta/

By: Marco Kusumawijaya

Abstract

This paper discusses experiences of participatory practices and citizens’ initiatives in city-region building in a context of recently and rapidly democratising country, Indonesia. While these experiences are rooted in specific post-authoritarian Indonesia, they nevertheless indicate some ideas that might be important for our our transition towards sustainability. The paper argues that participation and citizens’ initiatives are more than just a fulfilment of a political right, but a new way of building sustainable city-region.

Keywords: Participation, Spatial Planning, Citizens’ Initiatives, Aceh, Jakarta.

Introduction: Context and Connviction

After the Reform Movement in 1998, Indonesia has been seeing an unstoppable and unprecedented decentralising process in its history. Public participation in processing public policy has been increasingly demanded, and also relatively accomodated in new laws and regulations. But, cases of true participation in spatial planning are rare. Standards, models, skills, are just emerging. Some guidelines have been very recently formulated, but acceptance among bureaucracy, as well as understanding among society at large about detailed mechanics of participatory process, is still low.

Since 1998 I have been involved in participatory processes for different purposes: conflict resolutions[2], NGO’s strategic planning, City Development Strategy[3] and post-tsunami reconstruction of Aceh[4]. I am currently a member of Citizens Coalition for Jakarta 2030 that advocates a true partisipatory process for the spatial masterplanning of Jakarta 2010-2030[5].

My basic assumption is that to be sustainable, a city-region needs to be whole in its relationship to the environment and its intercultural society. Diversity should be encouraged for its intrinsic goodness, and to counter globalized standardisation and homogenisation. A city should grow together with its region of local resources and context, so that it would be rooted in its environment, and become a place with identity. It is actually possible for us to really imagine sustainable city-region creatively as a new way of life, a different world. It is an unlimited project beyond surviving the climate change. In effect, a new idealism. And to make it possible, space for participation needs to be created, recreated and expanded; and citizen initiatives must be encouraged, facilitated and catalysed.

Because, to achieve sustainability, changes will have to take place at multiple levels simultaneously, at practical behavioural pattern as well as at values, and at everything else in between them, including our systemic supports such as urban infrastructure, industrial complex, and democratic institutions. We need to recreate appropriate values, consensus and trust, as well as re-invent our daily life. There is a whole set of nitty-gritty works that needs our creative capacity and personal commitment to change individually and collectively.

Both our political and economic spaces have not been always successful. We must continuously and diligently feed values and will to direct both the state and the market. We cannot just relinquish too much power to both and become passive afterwards. We have to keep on working as civil society to reclaim the state to be more responsive and the economy to be more substantive, to primarily fulfil our needs, not to make maximum profits of any resource by a few.[6]

Given the inevitable frequent market failures and often inert political stalemates vested with power webs, the third sector, civil society, both as public space and as associations of active, self-organised individual citizens or groups, will have to take up those challenges. In rapidly densifying cities with diversifying diversity, those challenges could be either easier or more difficult, depending on how well civil society is re-organising, vis-à-vis the political and economic spaces.

Aspiration for sustainability of cities may make politics more complex, but also potentially more focused with a sense of urgency. It re-asserts the very basic of democratic processes, transparency and accountability, in almost scientific sense. With recent progress in technology and collaborative institutions, humankind is actually well equipped to face the challenge successfully. We can undo global warming while develop new ways of living better. However it requires that the challenge be responded collectively actively. Participation and citizens’ initiatives are key factors to successful transition.

Arguments for Participation in Decision Making Process

Broadly I would simplify “participatory ladder”[7] into three major steps:

1. Mobilisation: decisions are made by authorities and people are asked to “participate” in executing the decisions.
2. Consultation: options and decisions are drafted or made by authorities but inputs and/or consents are asked from the people.
3. Decision Making: people formulate and draft options and decisions together with or without relevant authorities.

I assume it is obvious that I mean participation by the third kind/step above. Although in certain cases and contexts this third kind can be seen as something to gradually aspire to, I would argue that it is this third kind that needs to be promoted as the ideal and useful in our transition towards sustainable city-regions.

There are much more reasons for participatory demoracy than just fulfilling a basic political right.

1. Participation of the third kind can be seen as a needed radicalisation of democracy to strengthen locales and communities vis-à-vis the radicalisation of globalisation and privatisation. Participation in daily management of urban governance is a way to give voices to the 80 % majority of  ordinary people.
2. Democratisation of knowledge production has intensely been decentralising and deconcentrating knowledge and know-how away from any center and many traditional knowledge centers such as conventional universities and/or government bodies. Think for example of the use of Internet.
3. The required changes towards sustainability call for ownership (of our common future) and personal commitments. Unless we are thinking of a revival of authoritarian regimes, a prerequisite for popular commitment is participation in decision making process as the only way to produce an ownership of any consensus. Participation is a necessity to change habitat and habitus towards sustainability. In a way, we can see this as “mobilisation” based on a true, internalised ownership and volunteerism.
4. The growth in DIY (Do It Yourself) in citizens’ initiatives and practices should also be seen as constructive and needs to be included in decision making process, as they provide invaluable experiences, lessons, and good practices, to enrich decision making process. Citizens’ initiatives are now going to even deeper levels, beyond doing actual things, such as in building catalysing infrastructure. (www.rujak.or is an example). Their organising capacity is also increasing to go beyond ad-hoc coalition, to as far as voluntary multistakeholders forum, for example.
5. The growth of knowledge on, of and by minority groups (due to growth of democratic means of sharing and communication), the previously marginalised, unseen, suppressed, oppressed, or hidden in any other way, calls for inclusive approach in decision making process made possible in certain participatory methods.
6. In newly democratising societies that have gone thorugh periods of authoritarian, elitist regimes,  participatory process is of utmost important vehicle to narrow the knowledge gaps between the political elites and the ordinary citizens, between bureaucracy and the citizens, and among different segments of society. However, we canot be naïve to believe that this would be a sufficient motivation among long-standing technocrats remaining in bureaucracy. There must be a clear political will in advance as a prerequisite.

Given the context of rapidly democratising Indonesia, the political significance of participatory democracy is that it might be perceived as a competition or alternative to parliamentary democracy. Three arguments can be forwarded to counter this misperception:

-       Participatory democratic procedure is a necessary step before entering law-making process. This way, it can be argued that parliaments are returned to its basic function as “law-making body” (legislature).

-       Many daily practices in communities do not need “laws” that wll have to go through a long and slow law-making process to draft and pass, but just “the magic of concensus”.

-       Many long term plans and commitments outlive any political term. For these, a larger, direct mandates must be obtained afresh from population at large.

On another front, the executive branch of the governments, especially at local levels, often sees participation as nuissance and threathening their discretionary power.  This negative attitude stems from a very long period (35 years) of working in isolation or in partnership only with elitist consultants with their authoritarian previlege and habitual corruption. There is apparently also a big ignorance about details of participatory approach, resulting in suspicion and disbelief in its practical benefits.

Case 1: People Driven Reconstruction of  23 Villages in Post-Tsunami Aceh

On December 26, 2004, an earthquake and tsunami hit Aceh and parts of North Sumatera. More than 150,000 houses need to be (re)built, and more than 500,000 people became homeless. After a brief voluntary work in the west coast of Aceh, helping designing a few houses and participatory mapping and planning, I worked profesionally with UPLINK, an Indonesian NGO, to reconstruct 23 villages in the  west part of north coast of the City of Banda Aceh and its western adjoining district, Aceh Besar. The 23 villages are spread next to each others along some 7 kilometers coastal line. Half of them are really urban with original high density of plots and families, others are semi-urban and a few are really rural with agricultural as dominant economy. There are 3,300 families to be rehoused on their original plots. All villages are completely destroyed. That means we had to build also all related infrastructures and community facilities: roads, sanitation, drainage, water supply, electricity, 3 mosques, 23 community centers, etc.

Actually our organisation also helps in economic recovery programmes as well as trauma healing, and  organic rehabilitation of damaged and salted farmlands. We were responsible for 30 millions USD funding.

From the very beginning, we advocated a total community participatory approach. My colleagues worked together with the survivors (a term we insist in using, instead of “victims”) to build temporary shelters on their original plots already since early February 2005, and then very quickly engaged them in re-organising themselves to revitalise their communities. A thorough and accurate digital survey was done participatorily even before the government and the World Bank came with their land-survey (and certification) programme, which was later cancelled anyway. We were the first organisation to have two complete sets of digital Total Station Survey instruments, as well as a large scale plotter machine.

The NGO’s social team had done an amazing job or community organising when I started in May 2005 to organise and lead a technical team to start planning, designing, and started the construction of the first batch of houses and village infrastructures.

The types of participation where the survivors are engaged can be listed as follows (while the inter-relation between these different types are as important):

-       Lands/plots survey

-       Village mapping (covering not just physical, but also social, economical and cultural features)

-       Village planning

-       Area planning (integrating the 23 villages and their surrounding)

-       Designing Houses

-       Construction of the houses, including tendering, execution and supervision

-       Manufacturing of building materials (iron frame, timber works, compacted soil cement blocks,…

-       Budgeting.

Modes of participation differ for different types of decisions to bemade, involving countless meetings, small and large, and with helps of many specialist experts or resource persons. There also have been special meetings for women. It was painful in the beginning, and very difficult to convince people, including many levels of authorities, of our approach.

However, in February 2007, after 18 months of constrcution, we are the first to officially deliver 3300 houses (plus most of the village infrstructures) to the survivors, outpacing all other organisations, including the World Bank, ADB, UN-Habitat and international NGO’s such as the Red Crosses. All success factors lead to one key succes factor: the participatory approach managed to channel the full potentials of the survivors themselves in different roles, making them the most efficient owners, quality assurance agents, builders, and project managers in different capacities.

The project won 2009’s Dubai International Award for Best Practices in Improving Human Settlements and Indonesian Institute of Architects’s Award for best social project.

UN-HABITAT survey ranked our villages as the best in two categories: technical quality and beneficiary satisfaction.

Case 2: Advocacy for a Participatory Process for Jakarta Spatial Plan 2010-2030

Jakarta’s Masterplan of 1985-2005 was hastily revised in 1999, one year after the reform movement, to accommodate legal and illegal changes to the plan. A new plan called Jakarta 2010 was produced.

There was a limited campaigns and protest against it, but nothing much can be saved. I was personally very much in the forefront and pioneering for this limited, very unorganised and unsuccessful campaign.

The reasons for failure of this campaign are obvious: civil society was not really aware of their rights on these seemingly technical issues of spatial masterplanning, given the recent shock of new-found freedom; and the bureaucracy had still a very strong hand to conduct this revision exercise behind closed doors.

Nevertheless, this case managed to bring the importance of the spatial masterplanning to the public knowledge, and hence it really launched spatial planning to become a popular subject for the press and general public.

In 2008, the review process of Jakarta 2010 was started. The goal is to produce a new, long-term (20 years) spatial masterplan called Jakarta 2010-2030. Not much is known about its process. Despite the claim by the government that several consultative meetings have been organised, there is very little coverage in the press and it was almost unknown among the population.

www.rujak.org received  and posted an “unauthorised” copy of the presentation by the masterplan consultant in January 2010. Soon it attracted attention among activists. The first attempt to get a copy of its Academic (background) Paper was turned down by city official. After we downloaded a draft bylaw on the spatial masterplan, and give on-line critiques, it was revised more than 5 times in 10 days, with the first three revisions were not properly dated.

A coalition (www.koalisijakarta2030.wordpress.com) was founded with a demand that the process be repeated in a participatory way.[8] The coalition then organised series of discussions on several topics (habitat, water, arts, mobility, particiatory methodologies,…). The government responded with organising also series of thematic discussions. The coalition sent letters to each and every discussion, stating that it is not the participatory process that the coalition advocates, and it is not that the coalition promotes itself to be invited to those unstructured “consultative” meetings with uncertain future as what to do with their results.

The Coalition discovered many formal/legal requirements are not satisfied with regards to the process. At the same time, we also discovered many silly, indeed embarassing mistakes with regards to the content of the draft bylaw.  A few examples can be mentioned.

-       The vision statement for the spatial masterplan (which is. nota bene, a long-term plan) was adopted in raw form from the Governor’s vision statement for his current term (which is, note bene a medium-term action-plan): “Jakarta is a service city that is prosperous, convenient and sustainable.” There is no reasoning about its factual and aspirational basis.

-       The Neufert standard for calculating floor space requirement is used to calculate land requirement (in effect assuming that all Jakarta buildings are to consist of one floor…?!).

-       Population projection is based on aggregated trend, while natural growth rate and migration growth rate are moving significantly in different slopes.

The coalition is now preparing a law-suit against Jakarta Government on the basis that the draft bylaw on the Jakarta 2010-2030 Spatial Masterplan has not satisfied a number of laws and regulations issued by the central governments, among others:

-       The law No. 32/2009 on Management and Protection of the Environment that requires first a Strategic Environmental Assessment be made before a spatial planning process is initiated.

-       The law No.14/2008 on Freedom to Public Information that guarantees public access to public information (in this case the Academic (Background) paper)

-       The law No. 25/2005 on Minimum Standard of Public Services.

-       The Public Works Ministrial Regulation on Guidelines for Provincial Spatial Plannning Process (no. 15/2009) that stipulates in detail public communication required to make spatial planning process a public knowledge and engagement

The coalition is currently conducting Opinion Survey (on-line and off-line) with five questions:

1. What do you think are three most important potentials or encouraging advantages of Jakarta?
2. What do you find as three most important problems of Jakarta?
3. What changes would you like to see 20 years from now?
4. How do you think we should have the changes?
5. What would you personally do to help making the changes?
6. Have you ever asked your opinions for Jakarta 2010-2030 spatial masterplan before?

The coalition will in early next month conduct a workshop to draft vision and mission statements based on the above survey. Answers to the first two questions will provide material basis for vision statement; while those to the rest will provide material basis for mission statement.

More than 1,500 questionaires have been returned. Almost all  of them mention public trasportation as number one problem. For number two and three, the most mentioned problems are waste disposal, flood, lack of green open spaces, and safety. Diversity, abundance, centrality, job opportunities, are mostly mentioned as the three most important potentials of Jakarta. It is easy to draft a responsive and measurable alternative vision for Jakarta: “Jakarta in 2030 is a city free of flood, with a sustainable management of waste disposal, and a convenient public transport for most of its inhabitants, while promoting its diversity and job creation in the process.” Sounding mundane, it is already much better than the current raft vision which is based solely on the Governor’s political mid-term vision.

Conclusion

A need for an Urban Studies Center

Participation and citizens’ initiative, while themselves are a process of knowledge generation, require continuous inputs from policy and other policy researches, as the world is changing rapidly and in abundance. Many and much urban dynamics are rapidly taking place at all levels of societies and built and natural environments, in close ties with national and global economic dynamics. Because of this, there is a huge gaps in knowledge capacity among city and regional actors. Even when there are data and knowledges, it is not always easy to identify their locations. There is a need to develop analytical capacities and frameworks that could maximize interdisciplinary and inter-sectoral exchanges that can be employed to facilitated participatory process. In the long run, there is also an apparent need to restructure urban governance in Jakarta and possibly also many other metropoles in Asia, to better serve the decentralised population and to adapt in time to global waves of changes. Local political dynamics need to reconceptualise its ties with the national and the global, especially in dealing with economic issues. Jakarta, as well as other Asian metropoles, are experiencing restructuring process of both their urban centers and peripeheries, as consequences of both internal and external pressures. At ground level, urban managers have to acquire new kills in dealing with permits, building sustainable infrastructures, in working much more with citizens, etc. to maintain consistent transition towards sustainability.

An urban studies center could serve to fulfil such knowledge gaps above, through research and training. Otherwise, participatory and citizens’ initiatives will be sufficiently informed and might be misguided.

Sustained Change

In our quest to change towards sustainability, we inevitably find that we need a sustainable change, which is possible only if there is a popular ownership and personal commitment from every one on this only planet. Mobilising sustainable change is possible only when people feel that they are not moved by any outside agent, but by their own will.   They must become the agents for change themselves. They must be the change they wish to see in this world.[9]

Participation is not without problems, and it is not a rosy road to development. It is simply a necessity for people to become the agents for changes themselves, to own and sustain changes that they want for themselves. Hence we must see difficulties and problems of participation as chalennges to be dealt with, instead of using them as arguments against them. We have experienced resitance against participation comes from either ignorance or fear of the collective energy, or a combination of both.

Given the current context of Indonesia, I see the way to advocate for participation is to nurture, facilitate and catalyse citizens initiatives as show cases of positive energy of the will to change, while at the same time influence legal framework, develop methdological practices as tools to convince authorities.

Last December, the Directorate General of Spatial Planning at Indonesian Ministry of Public Works awarded 6 grants for citizens’ initiatives which were selected competitively based on a call for proposals. The programme is called “Citizens’ Initiatives for Sustainable Cities”. The whole process is co-organised with editors of www.rujak.org as yet another citizens’ initiative.  I put this last example of citizens’ initiatives in this conclusion as an optimistic afternote, that change might be happening. But, nothing should be taken for granted, and there is no stop in doing the nitty-gritty to make democracy work in this imperfect world.

[2] In 2000 I worked with The British Council in Indonesia to conduct participatory workshops for conflicting parties in the Mollucas.

[3] I was Team Leader for City Development Strategy programme in 9 cities in Indonesia in 2001-2003. It was funded by Cities Alliance, through the World Bank and UN-HABITAT offices in Jakarta.

[4] In 2005-2007 I was involved in a number of assignments in post-tsunami Aceh. The longest one, reconstrcution of 23 villages in Aceh, is presented as a case in this paper.

[5] See Coalition’s website: www.koalisijakarta2030.wordpress.com and an article published in the Jakarta Post: http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2010/02/06/why-do-we-need-redo-jakarta-spatial-masterplan.html

[6] Karl Polanyi’s substantive economy: people acquiring material means by having an impact on the natural environment and/or through relationships of mutual interdependence in order to satisfy their various needs that arise as they engage in their day-to-day lives; and economy in formal sense: the process of obtaining the maximum effect by making the best use of a scarce means, in Makoto Maruyama, Sustainable Economy and Urban Sustainability, in Hidenori Tamagawa, ed., Sustainable Cities, United Nations University Press, 2006, p. 771-72.

[7] Referring to Sherry R. Arnstein’s 8 steps of participation (in A Ladder of Citizen Participation, 1969)

[8] See article in the Jakarta Post: http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2010/02/06/why-do-we-need-redo-jakarta-spatial-masterplan.html

[9] Mahatma Gandhi: “You ought to be the change you wish to see in this world”

The NYC knows how to get attention of citizens I guess.
http://www.nyc.gov/html/planyc2030/html/greenyc/greenyc.shtml
Unfortunately I do not remember the contents, just graphics and feeling of hope/energy from the city.