URBANIZATION IS a global phenomenon which results in the lack of housing provisions and settlements in the cities. The huge and unceasing demands for housing cannot be met. In the developing countries, the problem is more complex because the population growth in such countries is faster than that in the developed countries. The capability of the government or the private sectors to provide housing formally, for example in the form of real estate and housing developments, is highly limited and touches merely people from the upper and middle classes. Meanwhile, the low-income people remain untouched and are left to fend for themselves. This results in the mushrooming of informal housing areas—called ‘kampong’ in Indonesian—with the characteristics of being crowded, dirty, not following formal regulations, and whose inhabitants are mostly poor.
In 1969, 60% (or at least three millions people) of the 4.8 millions inhabitants of Jakarta lived in dirt-poor settlements. Confronted with such a problem, the city government then launched a kampong improvement program called the Muhammad Husni Thamrin Project, which had been a success until 1999. Finally, there was a solution to the problem of the paradigm that saw kampong as a source of problems—this solution was what Turner called ‘urban as solution’,[1] a development model known as the participatory development as it applied the approach of involving the community.
However, in 1985 the Government of the Special Capital Territory of Jakarta changed their housing policy. They then employed a city rejuvenating program and developed high rises. Since 1993, more high rises were developed by tearing down slum areas and building high rises on the sites. Such approach is known as the technocratic development approach. Here, the community is not involved and there are no comprehensive studies. Meanwhile, the urban settlements in Jakarta grew rapidly at the beginning of the 1970s—annually, the city saw an increase of 100- 150 hectares of new kampongs alongside the crowded slum areas that had already existed before.[2] With such a growth, the need for housing cannot be met by using the model of providing finished products.
The policy of developing high-rises had been magnified between 2000 and 2006, consuming an expense of not less than one trillion rupiahs, and this policy is still applied to this day. This invites some questions: Can the technocratic approach handle the problems of slums and poverty? Can the policy of providing finished products (supplies) eliminate poverty as according to the target of 11 Millennium Development Goals? Does this approach befit the principles of sustainable development? There are two models of housing developments that we can choose: the model of participatory development, or that of the technocratic one.
The 21st century, the century of the city
At the beginning of the twenty-first century, urbanization level in the world reached 50%, which means that half of the world’s inhabitants are living in the urban areas. In Indonesia, whose urbanization level has reached 42% and is predicted to increase up to 50% in 2010, cities will be more crowded and full of problems.
In 1976, Southwick wrote, “Since the birth of Christ until the seventeenth century, or for 1600 years, inhabitants of the world have increased by two-folds; the following two-fold increase took place in 200 years; and then another two-fold increase took place only in 80 years. The last two-fold increase, from two billion to four billion, happened in a mere 45 years, in 1975. It is expected that the next two-fold increase will take place in 38 years, or around 2013.”[3] Southwick’s prediction turned out to be right: the world’s population growth will be more rapid and inevitable.
Urban problems then arise, aside from the gap between the housing demands and supplies, because the policy makers are not aware of the need of the poor, and neither do they care about these low-income city dwellers. Informal settlements become neglected, especially in terms of city services. “Generally, slums are the product of a failed policy, bad governance, corrupt practices, red tapes, malfunctioning land market, unclear financial system, and weak political will.”[4]
There have been many opinions regarding the causes of urbanization, and especially about the causes of migration. Douglass thinks that the huge difference between the wage of a village worker and that of a city worker is one of the reasons why villagers are flocking to the city.[5] Meanwhile, De Soto writes his opinion on migration: “It does not matter whether it is right or wrong: these people made the decision to migrate because they are sure that migration would benefit them.”[6] The International Labor Organization is in the opinion that cities create more work opportunities compared to the villages. Therefore, we can conclude that the presence of the migrants, generally considered as having no capitals and education, must be accepted as a fact, because at the end of the day they will be able to solve their problems themselves. They settle and create opportunities, without anyone’s help. Ironically, however, they often become the victims of narrow-sighted policies such as eviction (packaged as ‘legal raid’). Social considerations have been trampled by the practice of using force for managing problems of population, in the name of ‘Security and Order’, which is often discriminative.
The kampong improvement program
The Muhammad Husni Thamrin Project (MHT) grew from 1969 until 1999. International agencies such as the World Bank and UN Habitat thought of it as a successful, low-cost project that had improved the quality of life in the slums. This approach had benefited no fewer than 5.5 million inhabitants of Jakarta. Nationally, at least 15 million people living in more than 400 urban areas of Indonesia had been similarly benefited.
Since the beginning, the project was meant to be an investment for humanity, or something that Melvin Mark defined as ‘social betterment’, which is defined as a social policy or social program.[7] City managers still consider the project—which was launched in 1969 and managed to improve the reputation of Jakarta and the Indonesian government at the time—as a spot-on project in handling the problems of urban settlements. The limited funds, the myriad urban problems, and the increasing number of city dwellers were the challenges at the time and they remain so to this day. The MHT Project has not been about mere physical improvements, but about other things as well, just as Ali Sadikin, the governor of Jakarta in 1977, said, “I think that the group of city dwellers who have been forced to live in the margins of the slickly-built city are the ones who need more assistance for experiencing the products of our developments.”[8]
The launch of the MHT Project in 1969 was a milestone in city management and city planning. Just like the changes in Western Europe after the industrial revolution—i.e. the changes from bureaucracy planning to advocacy planning—the MHT Project recognized kampong settlements as a part of the urban fabric. Such informal settlements were thus complemented with urban services such as the infrastructure and amenities.
In 1980, the MHT Project received an award from the Aga Khan Foundation. During the Third Five-Year Development cycle of Indonesia, the central government adopted this approach and used it as a national policy to tackle the problems of urban housing and settlements. In the Second Habitat Conference in Istanbul, Turkey, in 1996, the project was still considered as the right project that could be adopted to manage the problems of settlements in developing countries. At the Cities Alliance launching in Washington, D.C., in 1999, the project was still mentioned as a reliable project. In 2004, Wolfensohn, the then World Bank President, announced it as the Global Best Practice. As Sach mentioned, to be able to tackle the problems of slum and poverty, basic urban services must be provided, especially the infrastructure, the sanitation, and clean water facilities. In the MHT Project, these are complemented with the development of education facilities (elementary school buildings) and health facilities (Public Health Centers).
Policy changes: From the kampong improvement to the high rise development
In 1985, the subdistrict of Tambora saw the city rejuvenation program, then the subdistrict of Karang Anyar followed, after a burning calamity stroke this area. The development of high rises aims to eradicate poverty and slums. What took place later on, in just a short time, was a shift in the targeted population. More than 90% of the people who lived in the high rises were the middle class people, and this meant that the government continuously subsidized the people who neither needed nor deserved the subsidy. High rises then became a monument of stacked-up slums, with the consequences that they were unsustainable and required continuous subsidies.
During international city management trainings, the advice given is always not to use Singapore, Hong Kong, South Korea, and Israel as a reference for housing and settlement policies, because those countries have high GNPs and a lack of land. Their social, economic, cultural, and political backgrounds are also different from those of Indonesia.
There have been no MHT Projects since 2006, while there is an increasing number of high rises. The private sectors develop luxurious housing complexes all over the city, offering modern settlements and an illusion about Jakarta’s having no urban problems. There is a huge gap between the massive attention received by formal settlements and the neglect suffered by the informal settlements. “While the works of planners and architects are meant for the people from the upper and middle classes, the poor are left to fend for themselves.”[10]
The development of a thousand high rises
Since the visit of the Vice President Jusuf Kalla and the political elites several months ago to Cengkareng, there have often been announcements about the plan to build high rises. In every city, there will be high rises for low-income people who used to live in the slums. Cities will become tidier, there will be no slums, and this also means an eradication of poverty. The high rises will be built at city centers, close to work, which will in turn result in less traffic.
At a glance, it seems to be an interesting initiative; unfortunately, it is not preceded by researches or observations on the experience of developing high rises. There is also the possibility that the Vice President had received erroneous information, especially as the object of the Cengkareng visit was the high rise that had been donated by the Tzu Chi Buddhist Foundation. It was a high rise with 1,100 units, built by Yayasan Cinta Kasih (The Compassion Foundation) on the land owned by the National Housing Agency, and the Government of the Special Capital Territory of Jakarta then supplied it with tenants. The high rise had been built to move settlers from the slums around the Angke riverbed.
After these settlers had been living in the high rise for more than two years, in-depth interviews with some of them revealed that at least 40% of the tenants had not been paying rents for three months. Meanwhile, the elderly people who had been placed in units on the upper grounds had never paid the rents. When asked how they had lived on the riverbed, they said that they used to have spaces in their house, which they could rent out. “What can we rent out now?” they complained. They received meals out of their neighbor’s pity, and from subsidies from the high rise managers. There were a lot of such tenants. On the other hand, a family whose head had worked at the National Train Company could live there happily due to the low rents, the adequate facilities, and the low cost for education, along with the subsidies in the form of free school uniforms, bags, hats, and books.
This explains that moving the poor from the slums to the high rise will not eradicate poverty. Such development model, which is better called ‘social housing’, is not sustainable due to the continuous subsidies required. If the government is to adopt such a model, it means that we will change from the principle of the government as the enabler to the principle of the government as the provider. It means that more funds will be required. At the same time, we should consider the question of whether housing problem is the only urban problem in Jakarta and other urban areas.
Closing
If one is to move settlers from the kampong to technocratic settlements such as the high rise, one should take into account the social, economic, and cultural backgrounds, and involve the tenants-to-be in the design and planning processes. Such involvement so far tends to be neglected. A good planning process will involve the passengers, as it were, so that the driver and passengers can discuss their direction and destination. Social changes will inevitably take place, because we are not moving things, but human beings. These people come from crowded areas that are often dirty but full of such social values as camaraderie. The late Prof. Selo Soemardjan once said that living in a high rise created a distance from the neighbors, although neighbors were physically close to one another. Living in a high rise would also not be as free as living in the kampong. Damajanti writes, “The social cohesion among the low income people is stronger compared to that found among the people living in housing complexes for the upper to middle classes.”[11]
The idea of building high rises in the middle of the city incites questions as land at the city center is already full of buildings. We will need to buy lands—not evicting people—and this involves expensive lands, too, so that the cost will skyrocket. If such a high rise is targeted only for the poor, then it means that the more high rises to be developed, the bigger the subsidy; therefore, compromises will be made in other sectors.
Various researches, for example those done by the Research Institution of the University of Indonesia[12] and by the Housing Agency of the Government of the Special Capital Territory of Jakarta,[13] revealed that the poor who used to live in the crowded slums are yet to get used to living in the high rises. For them, the idea of living in a high rise is alien and transplanted from the outside. The problem is exacerbated by the fact that high rises with more than five storeys require not only stairs but also lifts. Observations on such high rises built by the Government of the Special Capital Territory of Jakarta show that a lot of the lifts no longer function, or that the tenants are not ready to use such modern facilities.
After analyzing such observations, and from the result of my own research in 2006, I advise that we should consider the following points in order to keep the social capital in a participatory and sustainable development model that is able to improve the quality of life.
• To build high rises for the upper middle class people, close to the high rises for the poor, so that cross-subsidies can be arranged.
• To provide or create work for the poor close to the location of the high rise or to the public transportation means.
• To prepare thoroughly the targeted group since they are still living in the slums, by providing at least the basic amenities, clean water, and sanitation, and wait until their quality of life has been improved and they will be able to pay the rent for the high rise. If this has been attained, then the existing settlement can be demolished and returned to its appropriate urban function.
• To plan along with all the stakeholders involved, especially with the future tenants, the government, the private sectors, the higher education institutions, and the non-governmental institute. If it is decided to take the option of rejuvenating the existing settlement, it is advisable to ask the local private sectors, such as owners of rented houses, to be involved.
• To design a settlement that can physically retain the social capital of the community, so that the development model can be sustained. Such social capital can be improved and made into a social contract for every stakeholder.
• To design an area employing three development models, i.e. a combination between kampong improvement, land consolidation, and rejuvenation. The first model retains the existing settlement that has grown well; the second, re-orders the area by building two-storey maisonettes replacing the disorderly houses; the third, rejuvenates the area by building high rises. No matter which option is taken, the participatory approach with a base in the community by involving the social capital will result in a sustainable development.
Jakarta, February 2006.
Translated by Rani Elsanti
DARRUNDONO lahir di Solo, 29 Juli 1934. Sejak 1974, ia menjadi sekretaris untuk Proyek Muhammad Husni Thamrin. Pada tahun 1980, ia mendapatkan penghargaan The Aga Khan Award for Architecture atas pengabdiannya melaksanakan proyek tersebut. Esai ini ditulis ulang berdasarkan disertasinya, yang membuatnya memperoleh gelar Doktor dalam Ilmu Lingkungan di Universitas Indonesia pada awal tahun 2007. Saat ini, ia menjadi Ketua Harian Komite Evaluasi Lingkungan Kota; suatu badan independen yang dibentuk oleh Pemprov DKI sebagai mitra kerja Gubernur, selain menjadi dosen Planologi dan Arsitektur di Universitas Tarumanagara, Jakarta.
