Jumat, 30 Oktober 2009

CULTURE, A COMMUNITY HETEROGENITY BONDING

Informal Settlements and Affordable Housing
Meeting and Conference, Semarang 22nd – 23th February 2007
147
CULTURE, A COMMUNITY HETEROGENITY
BONDING
CASE STUDY : KAMPUNG TAMAN, YOGYAKARTA
Sidem Tetuko
Student of Regional Planning Doctoral Program
Universityof Diponegoro (UNDIP)
(Email: tetuko_sidem@yahoo.co.id )
Abstract
The unbalance of people amount with the amount of house making a hard
competition with the property agent an supplies of home for the society.
Government agent, private agent even the public it self. This competition cause in
price fighting and marketing strategy. A variable price influence of home,
including land, in global or local; as a cause of the price rise. What happen is a
home price getting unreachable for the poor peoples. Only reach peoples who
dominate in owning home and land. Poor peoples getting eliminate from the
dream to owning of house. Actually a poor peoples has a right to own a home, but
its hard for realization. A ware with this condition, a property agent try to provide
a home which the price “reachable”. Although in a reality its still difficult in
realization. What supposed to be done is a simplicity in quality of building
materials and quality house it self. Until in smalling the dimention of house so
with the economics countings, a house producted affordable with reachable to
poor peoples and keep giving a economic profit for those agent.
The demotion of the material building quality, a house quality and
dimention cause to the space dimention needs. Which connected the sum family
member. This contradiction is a dilemma for them. What needed is the space
amount with a reachable price for poor peoples or fulfilling an ideal space
dimention to life. What happen is first idea, so property agent can produce a
house which suit with the consumer the sum of market. But the fact is problem is
never stop when a house getting a lot of provided. The next question is how a
peoples (as individual or community) in their settlement adapted with the basic
need and their social life community ? Become a houses at moment is not just as a
house but as a home. So in house supplies not just a product, but as development
process.
Keywords : house needed, affordability, living space, poor society.
I. INTRODUCTION
As much as a sum of the peoples, the fact is getting bigger the problem to
fulfill the house amount for society. The property agent does not effort to shorten
this problem. Only 20% from the sum of house needs which can provided by
property agent, while 80% gaven to the peoples (Kusuma, 2003; Silas, 2005). In
spike of with the way to build a various house which suit with the actor who play
a role an house production (Short, 2001). Process of building a house was
programmed 20% because its controlled by the property agent which housing a
good work systematic. While 80% doesn’t have a good program because its
Informal Settlements and Affordable Housing
Meeting and Conference, Semarang 22nd – 23th February 2007
148
influenced by individual condition/each family and not connected each others.
Because having a good work systematic having a role 20% to the property world
and the variable-variable which exist in side of their environment.
II. LIVING SPACE AND THE AFFORDABILITY
One of the problem that never been solved is about the house price which
contrary with the capability affordable for poor society. This contradiction is
supported by bad sad of the economics of the country with cause rise the price of
the the other materials. While the income of the peoples not having a significant
rise. The rise of the material price is supported with the huge of land price. In
kualitatif, poor peoples in Indonesia is more a lot than a reach people, but having
of house and land more dominated by a peoples who has a good buying point. So
poor peoples getting far away from their right for belonging a house.
A property agents can’t release from the rise of material and land price. If
they produce a house with a good quality and dimention, so price which decided
cannot reach for poor peoples. But if the price is reachable for poor peoples and
idealisme of house dimention, so the price is unreachable for poor peoples. What
the property agent done is to substract the quality of the materials and quality of
the house it self. The result is matematics idealisme which connected with the sum
of family member and the plenty space will not fulfill. Dimention of ideal house
living has although a change and its suited with price problem.
So the requairement of ideal house living needs is 6-7 m2 per person can’t
be conducted. In 1950 was held Kongres Perumahan Rakyat, one of important
thing is production housing which has dimension minimum 36 m2 plus
development area 17,5 m2 (Silas, 2005). It means that with those minimum wide,
the sum of family member minimum 5 peoples with assumption old people (father
and mother) and 3 kids. So a house with dimension 36 m2 it will lasting until
those kid adult.
The next development proved that to provide a house for poor peoples has
been done at way to cut the dimension of building wide into size 21 m2, an
several house living who run by Perum Perumnas provide size 18m2. This steps
adapted with buying point of poor peoples. Although many way has been done,
the problem between house price and buying point of poor peoples it cannot to be
handle in good way for a moment.
III. URBANIZATION AND COMMUNITY HETEROGENEITY
A fast growing peoples amount, especially in big city, cause by three
things, are the natural grown (born and death), migration and reclassification
(Firman and Soegijoko, 2005). From these three variable, a natural people grown
giving a contributor 1/3, while 2/3 came from migration and reclassification
(Short, 2001). The big proportion is come from other city. A various background
each individu who doing migration takes a different characters. This heterogeneity
eventually influences to the property production.
Migration peoples from village to town, long time ago, pointing as a cause
and a process grouping of poor peoples in city. They, as individu or group, places
in restrict area for living with all limitation living facilities. Finally it happen slum
area. With economics power which low and unstabil, group of peoples try to
survive. So it is in a Metro manila city 25% peoples live in slum area (Drummond
and Bunnell, 2002). It’s difficult to overcame this problem, because the effort in
repairment in slum area always faces with financial problem, may of live and
Informal Settlements and Affordable Housing
Meeting and Conference, Semarang 22nd – 23th February 2007
149
heterogeneity society. Heterogeneity very sensitive to the social problem. The
cause is poverty and a difference print of view to the several things. Some conflict
which happen its about a problem between individual or group. The cause is the
existence between personal is not harmonis. Usually a new comer peoples its hard
and doesn’t want to interaction with social activities of origin peoples (Yunus,
2006).
IV. PROBLEM
Process of property production by a property agent bring a new
understansing that the house as a fisic appearances with the function as a place.
The building shapes of tipical house (architecture, elements of building, esthetics
and building structure) provided for all peoples with various background. It has a
point of view that haouse is connected with peoples culture (house owner) and
even the location (Rapoport, 1969).
Life in this case is propagation process of human life. So life indentic with
fisic propagation, quantity, quality and phsicologist. Based on this meaning so the
reality that house building tipically always changes and adaptation with desire and
the owner needs. This phenomena can find a lot in housing environment with the
community which low income. What happened is a various of building shapes
match with the various character community. So the environment that shapes not
own a clear character.
Connected with the effort in provide a cheap house with reachable price, a
problem became dilemma and it is not easy to get solve. Basic statement is now to
create a house and the environment which having reachable price for poor peoples
and solving a problem-social problem which cause heterogeneity society ?
V. LEARNING FROM KAMPUNG TAMAN - YOGYAKARTA
The main problem is, first, strategy an making a house with reachable
price, remembering a economic limitation. Strategy which meaned connecting an
providing a land, as element with price relative more high compare with the
material. Second, giving a limitation about design of the building concord with the
character of the owner. Third, heterogeneity cannot terminate into homogeneity,
but its needed important variable which play role as united katalisator for society
to minimalist heterogeneity. From the three steps we can learn from Kampung
Taman which include sites about Tamansari culture in Yogyakarta palace area.
VI. DEVELOPMENT OF YOGYAKARTA CITY
To understanding of Tamansari and Kampung Taman cannot separated
from a history of Yogyakarta development. Because at the beginning Tamansari
was not a settlement but one of facility in palace area. Although some of palace
servant (abdi dalem) has a house not far from Tamansari and it’s a beginning
appearance of Kampung Taman. Living process happened and migration around
Tamansari so create a village with the name Kampung Taman.
The development of Yogyakarta city can’t release from a process of
modernization, industrialization, komersialization and education which happened
and center of big city and become main factor in change and urbanization and
citizen migration (Suryo in Colombijn, 2005). An urbanization process influence
to citizen increase of Yogyakarta city. Because of the changing subject in using a
land are human, so its more higher a rise of the citizen it will more bigger also the
Informal Settlements and Affordable Housing
Meeting and Conference, Semarang 22nd – 23th February 2007
150
changing and it shown to the more a lot of the demand about space to live (Yunus,
2001). The citizen development can seen from the table of physics development
of Yogyakarta in below :
Table 1 Development of Yogyakarta 1756 – 1996
Pemekaran Fisik Kota Yogyakarta
Tahun Luas
(Ha)
Periode Lama
Waktu
(th)
Tambah
Luas
(ha)
Rata-rata
Kecepatan
Pemekaran (ha/th)
1756 359,55 1756 - 1824 68 764,59 11,24
1824 1.124,14 1824 – 1959 135 760,69 5,63
1959 1.884,83 1959 – 1972 13 751,59 57,81
1972 0.636,42 1972 – 1987 15 2.025,79 135,05
1987 4.662,21 1987- 1996 9 2.025,78 225,09
1996 6.687,99 1996 -
Sumber : Suryantoro, 2002
The development of Yogyakarta area in the next step not just cause a
problem which connect to a city land limitation which more a lot the amount of
the peoples, but it also a problem to the building and city element which having
historical and culture value. This case shown in the center of Yogyakarta city in
north part. Which is limited by Tugu Pal Putih trough to the north square. This
area experience degradation meaning because the appearance of domination
“rational” through to the historical value (Purwanto, 2006).
VI. 1 YOGYAKARTA - 1756
At the beginning Yogyakarta growth in linier follow the imaginair line
fuse which is north-south. Because the old shape of Yogyakarta at the first time is
the fuse of this imaginair. And the next growth of Yogyakarta is east-west linier
follow the potential line as connector between Yogyakarta with the other region.
Meanwhile this line much oriented to east-west, such as a road joint to the
Surakarta (Khairuddin, 1995).
A map of Yogyakarta, 1756 shown a roadthat already shape at that
moment, palace area surrounded by fortress with fire gates and there is no
explanation which connecting with condition and the environment. The exact map
and can figure the condition of the environment around palace is the map of
Yogyakarta the sources from kasto, 1976. This map show the position of
Yogyakarta and around at there are farm area. Although in this map doesn’t
mention a settlement area besides palace area. A farm area surrounded palace, it
show that when palace found, a land an around it not as a forest, although after the
border line of farm area doesn’t show the function of the other land.
It show clear that moment palace area become a center of Yogyakarta.
None of explanation about living location in around palace, an spite of based to
the history Kota Gede as one of the part from the historical journey of the
Kongdom in Java, because Kota gede has ever become a center of Kingdom
before mataram Kongdom moved to Kartasura. While Ambarketawang location
which became a temporary living place Sri Sultan Hamnegku Buwono I before
palace found also didn’t appear in the map (Purwadi, 2005).
Informal Settlements and Affordable Housing
Meeting and Conference, Semarang 22nd – 23th February 2007
151
VI. 2 YOGYAKARTA, 1765
Yogyakarta in 1765 showing by a map of Yogyakarta 1765 not
experience much changing in the road. At that moment, the position of the road
not experience a change since 1756. For about 9 years Yogyakarta didn’t change
in town structure. But it happened development in location of land around the
palace and there are two main location of settlement which near with Tugu pal
Putih area.
In the map of Yogyakarta in 1765 show there are to function of the land an
around of palace, which is village and surround with farming area. This village
was spread sporadisly in some of the city so it couldn’t be track physicly. The
other land function is farming area which existing in second circle after farming
area places in several village.
That’s why there is no description which explain the existing and the name
of those village. In the north location of palace there are two location of
settlement, near to the Tugu pal Putih area. In the map whisch sources from
Bappeda Yogyakarta, those settlement placed in around Growongan and Jlagran.
VI. 3 YOGYAKARTA, 1790
For about 25 years since 1765 into 1790, Yogyakarta getting growing up
more wide, although the land function not experience a more function. Farming
area and village getting wider until Code river in the east palace. Besides more
wide the farming land. There are more location of settlement in the north of
palace. With increasing area of settlement so more growing up too the road line as
a main road for peoples to activity and relate with other area.
Jero Beteng area more crowded with housing which mean the settelement
of palace people and abdi dalem. Some of old house in jero beteng area are
Kemitbumen, Suranatan, Panembahan, Pesidenan, Nagan, Taman, Gamelan and
Siliran. Besides a housing which place in jero beteng a north area of palace
growing also as a housing area, which are Pakuningratan, Gowongan, Jlagaran,
Dagen, pajeksan and Wirabrajan area.
VI. 4 YOGYAKARTA, 1824
Map 1824 show that development of farming area and village was in some
part which are Panggung Krapayak area, patang puluhan area and Surakarsan area
until Kota Baru. A farming area in the north side palace getting crowded by
housing, especially in along Malioboro road. The development area of Yogyakarta
show a increasing in renovation 11,24 ha/years. At the beginning 1756 the wide of
Yogyakarta 359,55 ha. In periode of 1756-1824, for about 68 years the wide of
Yogyakarta become 764,59 ha. The development of Yogyakarta area for about
those times was bigger than the development of Yogyakarta in two times of those
each 760,69 ha and 751,59 ha (Suryantoro, 2002).
The settlement is more growing in area of Malioboro street to south way.
Crowded housing especially in the north side palace in around Vredeberg fortress
and Beringhardjo market through the train track (Tugu Station). If we see from the
structure of Yogyakarta, development of Yogyakarta was influence by
transportation way which connect center the only way that connection of center
Yogyakarta with the other city is Kyai Mojo street until Urip Sumohardjo street
trough to Surakarta. Because this road is the only one external access and a way to
palace from north direction is Malioboro street, so it surely that the first grow of
Yogyakarta is in Malioboro street trough to Palace.
Informal Settlements and Affordable Housing
Meeting and Conference, Semarang 22nd – 23th February 2007
152
Based on histories and the other description, we understand, the old
settlement growing from Tugu Pal Putih to Panggung Krapyak. Khairuddin, 1995,
said, Yogyakarta grew as imaginary line (northsouth) and then east-west line. The
economic area have been impact this growth, especially the road to Surakarta.
There are five area of the old settlement :
1. At the north palace.
The settlement was growing are Pakuningratan, Gowongan, Jlagarn, Dagen,
Pajeksan and Wirabrajan.
2. At jero beteng.
The settlement was growing area Suranatan, Kemitbumen, Panembahan,
Pesidenan, nagan, Kampung Taman, Gamelan and Siliran.
3. At the south palace.
The settlement was growing at the south palace and outside palace area
Suryadiningratan, Mantrijeron and Jogokaryan.
4. At the west palace.
The settlement was growing at the west of palace and outside of palace is
Patangpuluhan.
5. At the east palace.
There is Sukarsan
Before 1978, there are a lot foreign who living inside of palace (jero
beteng). They bought land. To happen the take over of ownership lang process. So,
on Pebruary 1978, Sri Sultan Hamengku Buwono IX to prohibit the foreign for
live in palace (Marwito, 1995).
VII. TAMANSARI AND KAMPUNG TAMAN
The part of Yogyakarta culture to form structure of Yogyakarta city. But
now, the culture is change of function and the meaning. Tamansari is important
elemen of palace. It have been a tour place for the king family (Hendro, 2001) and
exclusive place, so, the community forbided to live in Tamansari (Khairuddin,
1995). But at 1881, the all of Tamansari buildings are damaged by earthquake and
it’s not to use for the king’s family
(http://www.tembi.org/keraton_yogja/tamansari.htm). Until 1881, Tamansari to
open for community. But since 1799 there are community (abdi dalem) living in
Tamansari.
At the present tamansari be function for tourism place. In Yogyakarta. It
given impact for Kampung Taman people. They have job as guide and making
batik and puppet (wayang). They sale it to tourist. Tourism activity in Kampung
Taman give impact for settlement grow up. Based on this description we
understand about Tamansari was built for king’s family and then it growing be
settlement of abdi dalem and then for plural community. The change homogenity
to heterogenity community being a part from the change of function of Tamansari.
Urbanization is the one impact to change society of Tamansari and than can make
reshaping of society (Susanto, 1979). The change of Tamansari is settlemen
phenomena.
Informal Settlements and Affordable Housing
Meeting and Conference, Semarang 22nd – 23th February 2007
153
Diagram 1
The Historical of Tamansari
Sejarah
Kerajaan Mataram
Kraton sebagai
pusat mikrokosmos/
Negara/inti kota
Proses pembangunan
dan perkembangan
Kota Yogyakarta
Konsep
kosmologi
Fasilitas Kampung
Pemerintahan
dan politik
Toponim
TAMANSARI
Eksklusif
Penurunan fungsi
Tidak berfungsi Inklusif Kampung Abdidalem
Warisan
Permukiman terbuka
Urbanisasi
Mutasi
Pariwisata
Kampung
Wisata/
Kampung
Taman
Tahun 1755
Tahun 1765
Tahun 1790
Tahun 1881
Tahun 1971
Sekarang
Informal Settlements and Affordable Housing
Meeting and Conference, Semarang 22nd – 23th February 2007
154
NOTE :
1 SUMUR BANDUNG
2 GERBANG PAGELARAN
3 GEDUNG JAGASATRU
4 GEDUNG PECAOSAN
5 PENGECORAN BESI
6 BASTION/BALUWER. TEMPAT MERIAM
7 GEDUNG SARAGENI
8 GEDUNG GAPURA AGUNG
9 KOLAM PENGOCORAN PEMANDIAN
10 GEDUNG LOPAK-LOPAK
PASANGGRAHAN UMBUL BINANGUN
12 GEDUNG SEKAWAN
13 GEDUNG GAPURA AGUNG
14 GEDUNG TEMANTEN
15 GEDUNG PENGUNJUKAN
16 GEDUNG TEMPAT LATIHAN MENARI
17 KOLAM LATIHAN BERENANG
18 GEDUNG GANDEK
19 GEDUNG PENJAGAAN
20 GERBANG/GAPURA KENARI
21 GUMUK PEMANDENGAN
22 REGOL SEKEGT EUNNTUK PIKET
23 GEDUNG MALANG PECAOSAN ABDI DALEM PENANDON
24 KOLAM PEMANDIAN
25 GAPURA TAMAN UMBULSARI
26 KOMPLEKS PASANGGRAHAN TAMAN LEDOKSARI
27 GEDUNG MADARAN/DAPUR
28 GERBANG/GAPURA CARIK
29 GEDUNG GARJITO
30 PEMANDIAN GARITO
31 PASIRAMAN NDALEM UMBULSARI
32 PEMANDIAN NOGOLUNTAK
33 GEDUNG DANDOS
11
RUANGAN BAWAH TANAH
TEBING
POHON
SLOKAN
BAK KONTROL
TANGGA
POT
TEMBUSAN PAS. KRAPYAK LEWAT
URUNG2 JALAN BAWAH TANAH
34. KORI BUTULAN
35. GERBANG PEKSI BERI
36. GEDUNG DANDOS
37. PONGANGAN PEKSI BERI
38. PINTU AIR
39. BANGSAL PANGGUNGSARI
40. PINTU GERBANG SUMUR
G E M U L I N G
41. KOLAM TLOGO MEMBLENG
42. GEDUNG PERAHU
43. URUNG-URUNG
44. PULAU SUMUR GEMULING
45. PULAU PANEMBUNG
46. SEGARAN
47. PONGANGAN
48. JEMBATAN
49. GEDUNG KENANGA
50. GEDUNG PERAHU
51. GEDUNG PATEHAN
52. GEDUNG DAPUR
53. REGOL SEGARAN
54. REGOL PELENGKUNG
55. PENJAGAAN
56. MERGI INGGIL
57. GERBANG PULAU P A N E M B U N G
58. JALAN
43
40
49
46
47
42
41
44
50 52 53
54
51 50
55 55
54
38
38
37
56 57
39
45
12 15 13 58 18
27
19
19
14
14
15
12
12 12
5 8 10
77
7
11
4
4
3
32
1
6
6
28
29
30
33
34 34
35
3632
31
26
16
17
22
25
24
23
50 M
Segaran
Urung-urung
dibawah permukaan air
Kebun Kelapa
Skala 1 : 1000
Perkampungan abdi dalem
Suronoto
Perkampungan abdi dalem
Bugis
Kebun Mangga
dan Duku
Pandanwangi
Kebun Sere & Sayuran
Kebun Sirih
Kebun
Kebun Duren
Kolam Tandon Air
Kebun Nanas
Kebun Bunga
Kebun Sirih
Kebun Sirih
Kebun Sukun
K e
b u n
M a
n
g g a
&
N a
m -
n a
m a
n
Kebun cengkeh,
mricopolo,kemukus
Kebun Sayuran
seberang
Pondokan abdi dalem taman
Pondokan abdi dalem taman
Pondokan abdi dalem taman
Pondokan abdi dalem taman
Pondokan abdi dalem taman Pondokan abdi dalem taman
58
48
20
TAMANSARI AS A FACILITIES OF PALACE
Sumber : perpustakaan Kraton Yogyakarta, 2006
Informal Settlements and Affordable Housing
Meeting and Conference, Semarang 22nd – 23th February 2007
155
REFERENCES
Colombijn, Freek etc, 2005, Kota Lama Kota Baru, Sejarah Kota-Kota Di
Indonesia, Ombak, Yogyakarta.
Drummond and Bunnell (eds), 2002, Critical Reflections On Cities In Southest
Asia, Brill Times Academic Press, Singapore.
Hendro, Eko Punto, 2001, Kraton Yogyakarta Dalam Balutan Hindu, Bendera,
Semarang.
http://www.tembi.org/keraton_yogja/tamansari.htm
Khairuddin, 1995, Filsafat Kota Yogyakarta, Liberty, Yogyakarta.
TAMANSARI AS A TOURISM PLACE
Sumber : Bappeda Yogyakarta, 2006
Pulau Cemeti
Sumur Gumuling
Umbul Binangun
Pasar Ngasem
Informal Settlements and Affordable Housing
Meeting and Conference, Semarang 22nd – 23th February 2007
156
Kusuma, Sonny, 2003, Melembagakan Prakarsa Pembangunan dan Permukiman
Oleh Warga, Seminar Nasional Prospek Pembangunan Perumahan Dalam
Kerangka Otonomi Daerah, FTSP-UII, DPD Real Estate DIY, Yogyakarta.
Marwito, Tirun, 1995, Upacara Tradisional Jumenengan Sri Sultan Hamengku
Buwono X, Media Widya Manggala, Yogyakarta.
Purwadi, 2005, Upacara Tradisional Jawa, Menggali Untaian Kearifan Lokal,
Pustaka Pelajar, Yogyakarta.
Purwanto, Edi, 2006, Seminar Konsep-Konsep Makna Ruang Kota (Ruang Kota
Poros Tugu Pal Putih Sampai Alun-Alun Utara – Yogyakarta), Sekolah
Pasca Sarjana UGM Program Studi Arsitektur Kelompok Bidang Ilmu-
Ilmu Teknik, Yogyakarta.
Prawoto, Eko, 2004, Kolaborasi Design Dalam Mendukung Proses Merumah,
Simposium Nasional Arsitektur Perumahan di Indonesia, Universitas
Katholik Parahyangan, Bandung.
Rapoport, Amos, 1969, House Form and Culture, Prentice-Hall, Inc, Englewood.
Short, John Rennie, 2001, The Urban Order; An Introduction To Cities, Culture
and Power, Blackwell Publishers, Massachusetts.
Soegijoko, Budhy Tjahyati, 2005, Buku 1 : Konsep dan Pendekatan
Pembangunan Perkotaan di Indonesia, URDI & Yayasan Sugijanti
Soegijoko, Jakarta.
Suryantoro, Agus, 2002, Perubahan Penggunaan Lahan Kota Yogyakarta Tahun
1959-1996 Dengan Menggunakan Foto Udara, Kajian Utama Perubahan
Luas, Jenis, Frekuensi, dan Kecepatan Perubahan Penggunaan Lahan
Serta Faktor Pengaruhnya, Disertasi : UGM, Yogyakarta.
Susanto, Astrid, 1979, Pengantar Sosiologi dan Perubahan Sosial, Ekonomi,
Bandung.
Yunus, Hadi Sabari, 2001, Perubahan Pemanfaatan Lahan di Daerah Pinggiran
Kota : Kasus di Pinggiran Kota Yogyakarta, Disertasi : UGM, Yogyakarta.
Yunus, Hadi Sabari, 2006, Megapolitan; Konsep, Problematika dan Prospek,
Pustaka Pelajar, Yogyakarta.

Tidak ada komentar:

Poskan Komentar