Pasar Tanah Abang Project

Case study of Grogol: the rise and fall of Neighborhood Unit Development (NUD) Concept

Background 17C 18-19C 1920s 1950s 1960s Asian Games Sport Complex ST Kampung Improvement Non Europe Quarter Chinese Quarter 17C: the Old Batavia, surrounded by Chinese Quarter C: the New Batavia and Non European Quarter, the railway network 1920s: the first planned residential area Menteng and the first kampung improvenment program 1950s: the first new town Kebayoran Baru Colonial period Post-colonial period Mid 1950s: a planned residential area Grogol 1960s: Soekarno’s urban projects: Asian Games Sport Complex 1962, Thamrin-Sudirman Main Boulevard, Jakarta Inner Ring Road 1960s-1970s: several planned residential areas: Pejompongan, Tebet, Cempaka Putih Problem: nowadays the planned residential areas in inner city started to decline.

Research Questions 1 Why did the modern planned urban neighborhood in inner city of Jakarta start to decline? What were the primary causes of the change and the decline? Is it a local process or more by external forces? 2 In the context of Indonesian cities, can we arrive at a model of neighborhood change and decline? 3 What can be done to improve the quality of urban neighborhood?

Theoretical Reviews City, Residential area and Neighborhood: (Rossi, 1982) the residential districts are not so much subordinated to one another as relatively autonomous parts; their relationships cannot be explained as a simple function of dependence but seemingly respond to the entire urban structure. Concept of Neighborhood kinfolk, friendship and neighbor neighbor/the role, neighboring/activities, neighborhood/geographical space (Porteus, 1977) Neighborhood Life Cycle: (Metzger, 2000) Stage 1: Healthy Stage 2: Incipient Decline Stage 3: Clearly Decline Stage 4: Accelerating Decline Stage 5: Abandoned

Theoretical Reviews 1. memperhatikan sebaik-baiknya letak lingkungan dalam rencana kota untuk memudahkan perjalanan penghuni ke tempat kerjanya 2. untuk menghindarkan kemacetan di jalan, maka lalu lintas berkelebihan di jalan besar harus dicegah dengan cara mencukupi kebutuhan anak-anak (sekolah) dan ibu-ibu (toko sehari-hari) di dalam rukun tetangganya dan lingkungan sendiri 3. ditempatkan sebuah poliklinik, sebuah balai kesejahteran ibu dan anak, sebuah tempat bersalin dan apotik di tiap lingkungan. perlu diadakan tempat penitipan anak-anak kecil, dimana anak-anak dapat dititipkan secara mingguan, apabila ibunya sakit dan ayahnya perlu pergi kepekerjaannya. (children care unit) · 4. (disamping perhitungan standard fasilitas pendidikan formal) bagi rakyat yang ingin memajukan pengetahuannya perlu disediakan tempat latihan pertukangan, perpustakaan teknik dan sekolah-sekolah untuk orang dewasa (ide “social capital”). Neighborhood Unit Concept versi prof. K. Hadinoto ditulis bersambung di majalah Insinjur Indonesia 2-3 (1962): “Pembangunan Perumahan Rakjat Didalam Alam Sosialisme Indonesia”.

Theoretical Reviews 5. bagi orang-orang tua yang tidak mempunyai keluarga yang menanggungnya dibangun sebuah gedung perumahan orang tua, sehingga hari tua setiap warga terjamin. 6. kepadatan maksimal 300 jiwa/ha, bebouwd opperlak (building placement) 20%, rumah susun 4 lantai untuk keluarga, dan torenhuiz (housing tower) 8-10 lantai untuk keluarga muda tanpa anak dan bujangan, toko koperasi di tiap rukun tetangga. Untuk mewujudkan cita-cita tersebut, Prof. Hadinoto juga menuliskan perlunya komponen pendukung: prefabrikasi industri bahan bangunan, penjelidikan (eksperimentasi) teknologi bangunan, dan juga peningkatan skill pekerja melalui ide ‘brigade pembangunan’. Sebenarnya ada satu artikel lagi pada periode yang sama yang juga sangat menarik: “Perumahan Buruh”, 2 artikel bersambung dalam majalah Insinjur Indonesia 9-10 (1962) karya ir. Liem Siang Hok dari Lembaga Penjelidikan Masalah Bangunan, DPUT Neighborhood Unit Concept versi prof. K. Hadinoto ditulis bersambung di majalah Insinjur Indonesia 2-3 (1962): “Pembangunan Perumahan Rakjat Didalam Alam Sosialisme Indonesia”.

Theoretical Reviews Forms of Neighborhood Change: (Grigsby, 1987) SocialPhysical 1. Resident3. Dwelling 2. Other institutions and organizations 4. Other structures and spaces 3 Main Theories of Neighborhood Change: [1] Ecological (Burgess, 1925; Grigsby, 1987) Neighborhood change is naturally and inevitable result of competition of market + changes in real income [2] Sub-cultural (Firey, 1945; Gans, 1972; Suttles, 1972; Peterman, 2000) Influence of residence confidence, commitment and social networks in neighborhood change. + community initiative and role ethnic identity [3] Political-economy (Logan and Molotch, 1987; Pitkin 2001) Neighborhood change as a result of social, economic and political conflict: + land as commodity and object of speculation + urban coalitions (political & capital powers)

Framework of Analysis Category of ChangeChangesCauses Resident Succession to lower economic class or other social group of new residents Changes in real income (E) Attractiveness of outskirt urban area (PE) Other institution and organizations Intensity of social activities and events Type of social problems Level of community initiative Changes in social pattern (SC) Changes in key actors (PE) Function of neighborhood organization in city level (PE) Dwellings Level of maintenance Degree of additional building Abandoned buildings Intrusion non residential use Property tax Behavioral factors (E, SC) Land and property status (E) Building restriction (PE) Market forces (PE) Exploitation of space (PE) Other structure and space Level of public facilities occupation Level of maintenance Intrusion different scale and function of facilities Changes in surrounding area (E) Changes in residents perception and preferences (SC) Unsuitable between market demand and supply (PE) Less priority of inner city program and policy (PE) Global Capital flow (PE) Note: E= Ecological theory SC= Sub-cultural theory PE= Political economy theory

Case Study: Grogol, West Jakarta Origin 122 hectares total area based on income group segregation 5 planned neighborhood blocks Growth and Changes By 2004: 27,900 residents: 40 % at planned area and 60% at unplanned area 2000 students; new urban infrastructures 2 reserved blocks, but later occupied by low res. marketplace public facilities public parkwater park/flood control public transportation node squatter non residential use abandoned dwellings enlarging bus station student living fuel station

Grogol 1960s Grogol 2004 Case Study: Grogol, West Jakarta

First National Housing Workshop 1972 Institutionalization of housing policy in the 70s: + Minister of Housing; + National Housing Agency (Badan Koordinasi Perumahan Nasional) + National Urban Development Corporation ( Perumnas) which has responsibility to provide low-cost hosuing + National Mortgage Bank (BTN) Further, the Association of Indonesian Real Estate Developers (REI) was also established to organize private housing developer. Indonesia Influent Event and Housing Intervention Dutch Colonial Legacy from ethnic separation to social-group segregation Healthy Social Housing Congress 1950 local government role minimum housing standard housing fund agency Outline Plan 1957 and Master plan Jakarta 1965 Inner city area concept Neighborhood Unit Development Concept

Case Study: Grogol, West Jakarta Distribution and variation land parcel (origin)

Case Study: Grogol, West Jakarta Current land use Note: [I] block of houses, [II] residential use, [III] public facilities, [IV] commercial, [V] neighborhood park, [VI] street and utilities, [VII] open space: district park, polder & park, [VIII] green area as railway and river boundary, [IX] bus station, [X] total area. Original land use

Case Study: Grogol, West Jakarta Districtpopulation total area (ha) gross density (p/ha) property tax (IDR/ha) Grogol m Jelambar m Tanjung Duren Utara m Tomang m Jelambar Baru m Wijaya Kusuma m Tanjung Duren Selatan m