Promoting Spatial Diversity as A Tool to Improve Neighborhood’s Livelihood through

Informality: Case of Keparakan District, Yogyakarta - Indonesia

Jimly Al Faraby, ST

International Joint Master Program SPRING

TU Dortmund, Germany – Ardhi Unversity, Tanzania

Email: jimlyalfaraby@ymail.com

OUTLINE

Background

Basic concepts

Results

Discussion

Background

Basic concepts

Results

Discussion

BACKGROUND

Diversity as a nature of big cities and as an ideal condition to keep urban neighborhood vibrant.

http://skepticlawyer.com.au

BACKGROUND

Emergence of efficient urban development model, such as:Compact City and Smart Growth:

High density,;

High degree of land use;

Diversity in activities;

Efficient transport system

http://www.tceq.texas.gov

http://www.gatewayplanning.com

Mixed-use Development

“More dense, more close, more diverse more vibrant”

http://fc05.deviantart.net

http://www1.aedas.com

Expectation (in developed countries)

Source: andryanwikra.com

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk

Reality (in developing countries)

“More dense, more close, more diverse more??”

YOGYAKARTA’S KAMPUNG

Most common type of urban settlement;

Resulted from an organic and informal process over the time;

Unique spatial pattern;

Representation of compact settlement :

population density;

mixed activities.

Is spatial diversity future urban development strategy for Yogyakarta?

QUESTIONS:

How are spatial diversities used to promote local potentials in urban neighborhood?

Applicability of spatial diversity in developing countries?

BASIC CONCEPTS

Diversity in physical urban form simply refers to mix of high and low rise building structures encompassing a range of architectural style (Fainstein, 2005);

Jacobs (1961) referred diversity to various enterprise activities and mixed use in urban neighborhood.

‘As a physical principle, diversity in neighborhoods ensures that destinations are close at hand and that the shared institutions of community are integrated. It also implies an architecture rich in character and streetscapes that vary with place and use’ (Calthorpe and Fulton, 2001, p. 46).

Study area

Keparakan District, Yogyakarta, Indonesia

Solid-void variations, and building mass

Block size:Relatively small block size.

Connectivity:Internal connectivity in Keparakan District is relatively high (0.81).

Land use:Mixed district

Economic Activity:4 potential zones.Each potential zone is managed by each kampung.

Kampung Pujokusuman, as Art and Cultural Zone

• The presence of NdalemPujokusuman which is the centerof the arts.

• Ndalem Pujokusuman has traditional style building, consisting of a main building hall and several houses surrounding it.

• Artistic training and performances are conducted almost every day in the hall.

Kampung Dipowinatan, as Tourism Zone

• It offers the atmosphere and the reality of social life of the community as tourism attraction (blusukan).

• Several home-stays can be found easily in Dipowinatan, because the residents transform their houses as home-stays for tourist accommodation.

http://dipowisata.blogspot.com

Kampung Keparakan Lor, as Culinary Zone

• it is well-known for its various culinary products

• The residents started thinking to produce something to take benefit from their abundant free time.

• Over time, these products are growing and becoming large home industry.

Kampung Keparakan Kidul, as Handicrafts Industry Zone

• Almost 65% of the population are craftsmen.

• The products have been already exported to other countries, such as the Netherlands, Thailand, China, and UK.

• In addition, the products are often offered to the tourists coming to this district.

http://harianjogja.com/

Scale of Economic Activities (1)

Number of Industries in Keparakan District in 2012Source: District Profile, 2012

Scale of Economic Activities (2)

Number of Industries in Keparakan District in 2012Source: District Profile, 2012

DISCUSSION

Creating diversities through informality

Organic spatial configuration;

House as place to work as well as to live;

Organizing activities (tourism, art, home industry, etc)

Role of community’s participation

Recognizing diversity and potentials that can be generated (for instance: Pujokusuman and Dipowinatan);

Initiating innovations;

Managing and organizing diversity;

Being creative and innovative

DISCUSSION

Implication on planning practice

Informality;

Flexibility;

Creativity

CONCLUSION

In general, Keparakan District has taken benefits from spatial diversity, and created spatial diversities through its own way.

By mixing economic activities in its area, Keparakan District has improved attractiveness of its area.

Some adjustments are required to create and difuse diversity, such as informality, flexibility, and creativity.

THANK YOU

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Aurand, A., 2010. Density, Housing Types and Mixed Land Use: Smart Tools for Affordable Housing? Urban Studies, 47(5), 1015–1036. doi:10.1177/0042098009353076

Boussauw, K., Neutens, T., and Witlox, F., 2012. Relationship between spatial proximity and travel-to-work distance: The effect of the compact city. Regional Studies, 46(6), 687-706.

Burgess, Rod, 2000. The Compact City Debate: A Global Perspective. In Jenks, M. and Burgess, R (Eds). Compact Cities: Sustainable Urban Forms for Developing Countries (9-23). London: Spon Press

Calthorpe, P. and Fulton, W., 2001. The Regional City: Planning for The End of Sprawl. Washington DC: Island Press.

Clifton, K., Ewing, R., Knaap, G., and Song, Y., 2008. Quantitative Analysis of Urban Form: A Multidisciplinary Review. Journal of Urbanism: International Research on Placemaking and Urban Sustainability, 1(1), 17–45. doi:10.1080/17549170801903496

Duany, A., and Speck, J., 2010. The Smart Growth Manual. New York: McGraw-Hill

Evans, G., and Foord, J., 2007. The Generation of Diversity: Mixed Use and Urban Sustainability. Urban Sustainability through Environmental Design: Approaches to Time-People-Place Responsive Urban Spaces, 95.

Fainstein, S. S., 2005. Cities and Diversity: Should We Want It? Can We Plan For It? Urban Affairs Review, 41(1), 3–19. doi:10.1177/1078087405278968

Hirt, S., 2012. Mixed Use by Default: How the Europeans (Don’t) Zone. Journal of Planning Literature, 27(4), 375–393. doi:10.1177/0885412212451029

Jacobs, J., 1961. The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York: Vintage Books.

Kelurahan Keparakan. 2012. Data Monografi Kelurahan Keparakan Semester 2.Yogyakarta

Marcus, L., 2007. Spatial capital and how to measure it: an outline of an analytical theory of the social performativity of urban form. In Proceedings, Sixth international space syntax symposium (pp. 5-1).

Montgomery, J., 2007. Making a city : Urbanity, Vitality and Urban Design. Journal of Urban Design, 3(1), 93-116

Noviani, A., Maghfira, E. A., Hilmi, H., Cahyadani, L., Faqih, M. A., Yunita, R., … Nurhanifah, S., 2013. Laporan Studio Perencanaan Kawasan Kelompok 7 Kelurahan Keparakan. (unpublished). Yogyakarta: Universitas Gadjah Mada

Owen, S., 1976. Planning Design for Diversity. Planning Outlook. 19(1-2). 19-29. doi: 10.1080/00320717608711517

Richardson, H. W., Bae, C. C., Baxamusa, M. H., 2000. Compact Cities in Developing Countries: Assessment and Implications. In Jenks, Mike and Burgess, Rod (Eds). Compact Cities: Sustainable Urban Forms for Developing Countries (25-35). London: Spon Press

Roychansyah, M.S., 2010. Kampung as Core Model of Urban Compaction Development: Yogyakarta Initiative. In Proceeding 8th Academic Forum ‘To Solve Social Problem through Art and Cultural Activities: Theory and Practice’.

Song, Y., and Knaap, G. J., 2004. Measuring urban form: Is Portland winning the war on sprawl?. Journal of the American Planning Association, 70(2), 210-225.

Song, Y., 2005. Smart Growth and Urban Development Pattern: A Comparative Study. International Regional Science Review, 28(2), 239–265. doi:10.1177/0160017604273854

Talen, E., & Knaap, G., 2003. Education and Research Regulation in Illinois. doi:10.1177/0739456X03252486

Tombari, E. A., 2005. Smart Growth , Smart Choices Series : Mixed-Use Development. Washington DC: National Association of Home Builders.

Ye, L., 2005. What Is ‘Smart Growth?’--Really? Journal of Planning Literature, 19(3), 301–315. doi:10.1177/0885412204271668