0 8 | 2 0 1 4
V O L U M E 2 : A K S I
2
”Preservasionis” adalah seseorang pragmatis yang sadar akan tugas ”waktu” untuk memakan umur sebuah bangunan atau kebudayaan, sementara ”konservasionis” adalah seorang romantis yang ingin menghadirkan sisa masa lalu dalam kemasan yang baru. Dua-duanya harus sadar dengan apa yang dilakukan serta konsekuensinya terhadap kota, arsitektur, serta penghuninya.
Setelah “Abstraksi” menawarkan konsep, nilai, atau pemahaman tentang ”Preservasi”, kini ”Aksi” akan membuka pencarian, aktualisasi, dan implementasi dari nilai-nilai tersebut melalui tujuh buah kontribusi. ”Aksi” akan dibuka oleh Kenta Kishi yang akan berbicara mengenai “preservasi” sebagai hak dan representasi identitas mayoritas pada wajah kota lewat “The Rightfulness of Preservation”. Kemudian hal-hal teknis mengenai aktor, biaya dan fungsi terkait sebuah warisan arsitektur kolonial, khususnya benteng, akan dibahas dalam “A historic legacy, former Forts in Indonesia today” oleh Cor Passchier. Restorasi (konservasi) bangunan dan kawasan kolonial yang dapat membentuk identitas sebuah kota akan dibahas oleh Johannes Widodo lewat “Conservation in Singapore”. Adapun solusi alternatif melalu strategi urban akupuntur untuk mengaktivasi kawasan Kota Tua yang telah mati, diusulkan oleh Diana Ang dan Daliana Suryawinata lewat “Event Space as a Solution for Kota Tua Jakarta”. M. Ichsan Harja Nugraha akan mengilustrasikan beberapa ide intervensi Budi Lim dalam upaya mengaktivasi Kota Tua. Yusni Aziz kemudian berusaha menggali realita arsitek konservatoris di Indonesia dalam artikelnya “Mencari Arsitek Konservatoris”. ”Aksi” akan ditutup oleh sebuah pencarian dalam usaha mempreservasi arsitektur tradisional dalam “Yori Antar: Perjuangan untuk Nusantara”.
Pada akhirnya, seperti seleksi alam, yang bertahan dan terus dimaknai akan tinggal, yang lain akan menjadi reruntuhan bahkan terkubur dalam-dalam. Kita sendiri yang akan memaknai preservasi. Dan pada gilirannya, apa yang seseorang preservasi akan memaknai dirinya sendiri, begitupula apa yang dipreservasi di kota akan memaknai penduduknya.
“If you don’t know where you’ve come from, you don’t know where you are.” (James Burke)
Selamat menikmati ruang | kreativitas tanpa batas ruang arsitektur
3
the rightfulness of
preservation
Kenta Kishi
intervensi budi lim
untuk kota tua
M. Ichsan Harja Nugraha
a historic legacy,
former forts in
indonesia today
Cor Passchier
conservation in
singapore
Johannes Widodo
event space as a
solution for kota tua
Daliana Suryawinata & Diana Ang
mencari arsitek
konservatoris
Yusni Aziz
yori antar:
perjuangan untuk
nusantara
Yusni Aziz lukisan
esai
esai
esai esai
esai
wawancara
RUANG
editor: ivankurniawannasution mochammadyusniazizweb-blog: www.membacaruang.com tumblr: ruangarsitektur.tumblr.com email: akudanruang@yahoo.com twitter: @ruangarsitektur
segala isi materi di dalam majalah elektronik ini adalah hak cipta dan tanggung jawab masing-masing penulis. penggunaan gambar untuk keperluan tertentu harus atas izin penulis.
4
edisi #8: Preservasi. volume 2: Aksi
Pintu masuk dari sisi utara Plaza Fatahillah, antara gedung Kantor P
sejumlah karya seni dan monumen ber
5
antara gedung Kantor Pos dan Gedung Jasindo, dengan
a seni dan monumen berlantai kaca di tengahnya.
-‘R i g h t f u l n e s s o f P r e s e r v a t i o n’
Rightfulness and Two Questions
In many case of ‘preservation’ in the city, there are controversies of the application of ‘rightfulness’ as fundamental condition required for the attitude towards preservation, as well as its implementation. As such, the ‘rightfulness’ needs to be answered by many ‘questions’, for example, “what can be preserved?”, “why it needs to be preserved?” and “how it should be preserved?”.
However, in order to understand the ‘rightfulness’, we need to identify the nature of those questions. One of the ways is by categorizing them into two broad types. Some related to ‘the questions about meanings’ (for example, “What is the preservation?” and “Why do we preserve things?”). The others related to ‘the questions about values of instrument and
purpose’ (for example, “What is the purpose of preservation?” and “What beneit can be
expected by preservation?”).
In the ‘questions about meanings’, we can recognize diverse types of question asked in order to construct a common vision of a city. For example, in the context of urban (re)development, people will ask about the meaning of ‘preservation’ based on their own experiences and interpretations of the history of the built environment. However, in reality, the ‘questions about values of instrument and purpose’ are more often asked. It is practical. And it seems to represent the desire of the ‘majority’ in the society who shares similar identity and interest. Nevertheless, the bases of such questions are opportunistic, i.e. how much contribution and
beneit that preservation can give to the ‘majority’.
When historical buildings and/or urban spaces are recognized as social resources by the public, memories and experiences are celebrated nostalgically in order to reinforce the ‘rightfulness’ of the majority’s identity. At the same time, the ‘rightfulness’ will also be recognized as a tool
to generate beneits for the ‘majority’. Preserved landmarks/landscapes, and its nostalgic and
glorious images, will create opportunity to (re)develop its surrounding areas, while expecting
new and massive inlux of people and money from outside the area. The answer for the
‘questions about values of instrument and/or purpose’ in urban preservation acts as medium that directly connects the majority’s identity and their economic activity. Yet, such premise
does not considering to ind an alternative deinition and meaning of preservation. As such,
Some references should be introduced. One example is the redevelopment of shop-houses area in Chinatown in Singapore that re-applies colorful paintings on building facade and constructing huge weatherproof canopies in between buildings. For Chinese descent citizens who are the actual majority of Singapore society, such attitude is accepted as the ‘right one’ that reinforces majority’s identity and brings economic advantages. This also supported by tourists as global consumers. However, for minorities who are not sharing same background and behavior, such preservation project seems to propose ‘empty urban space’ where none of them able to project their identity onto it. Another example of the ‘right’ preservation could be found in small local cities in Japan. In order to revitalize economically depressed city, an idea of “Retro-Town Program” is applied into the planning strategies of redevelopment project. The effort to revive urban environment is supported by ‘rightfulness’ for majority, but minorities, such as both foreign and domestic migrants and recent generations, perceive
dificulties to maintain and sustain this ‘someone else’s history’. In fact, they are the ‘prisoners
of unreal past’.
Through understanding above references, we can recognize a similarity between practical way of preservation that answers the ‘questions about values of instrument and purpose’
and ‘master planning’-type of urban (re)development. Both have a tendency of itness for
purpose and exclusiveness. Yet, on the contrary, city has been (re)produced organically and sustainably by accumulation and network of small actions of people’s daily life. For such condition, what is the ‘rightfulness’ of preservation?
Micro-Projects vs. Master-Planning
In recent years, I have been focusing on the urban settlement in Asian cities as important reference to answer those questions. If we step into any settlement, we will be able to recognize small actions of residents that are constantly performed to maintain and improve the quality of their daily life. Even though most of the residents in those settlements are belong to lower-middle class, the place is rich with realities and dynamics.
In 2010-2011, I directed an urban study project ‘Camp-on Kampung’ in Surabaya, Indonesia. This project covers living environments of Kampung–urban settlements that spread throughout the city. It focuses on social structures, living environments and local daily activities
of the settlement at speciic site. The project emphasizes on their system of self-organization,
as well as to “how the identity is sustained”.
8
edisi #8: Preservasi. volume 2: Aksi
We observed many small programs done by the residents to maintain the continuity of the built environment, which I call ‘micro-projects’. We considered them as strategic materials for an alternative way of urban re-production. Furthermore, through the study of possibilities of linking and networking of the ‘micro-projects’, we tried to propose ‘methodology of urban design system and/or urban management that can contain a potential of complexity of urban ecosystem’. As such, we hoped that the analysis would be able to overcome the risk of negative impact and singularity of the quality of the built environment in ‘master-planning’-type of urban development, which rapidly growing in many Asian cities recently.
For the purpose of this study, it was necessary to understand the potentials and possibilities of Kampung and the city itself. Instead of depending on objective analysis of measurable data of the city, we went through various cooperative study activities with diverse local
actors from Kampung, government oficials, academic societies, business, civic groups and
mass media. ‘Master Planning’ seems to be considered as exclusive method of investigation
that carried out by a speciic team, while we opt for cooperative method that can suggests
an open-system process to explore possibilities of spontaneous and dynamic urban activities.
Preservation: Visual Interface of City
In the irst phase of project, ‘micro-projects’ were gathered. Diverse facts and possibilities of
the connections and relationship were analyzed and translated into visual information. Daily
9
life activities in Kampung were diverse; and their complementary forms were also complex. In order to understand the complexity of Kampung’s system, we developed a technique to
visualize the urban information. A speciic icon was given for each ‘micro-project’, and their speciic relationships were carefully mapped in, so called, the landscape photo.
10
edisi #8: Preservasi. volume 2: Aksi
The visual information was not a tool to understand physical and measurable information of an environment, but rather a tool to recognize the quality of an environment. For us, it was important to step back from the conventional attitude of using measurable urban data that can be applied for ‘master planning’.
Preservation: Cooperative Behaviors
In this phase, this urban study project was geared to design and apply a Kampung’s urban system to an actual city. A public exhibition was operated by various participants (Kampung
residents and their communities, government oficials, academic societies, business, civic
groups and mass media). It was considered as a prototype of alternative way of urban preservation.
The theme and title of the exhibition is ‘Refugees of Future Cities’. In this time of massive economic growth of Asian city, we tend to imagine a future vision of city with ‘master-planning’. But should we challenge to look for a new future vision of city instead of compromising ourselves to choose and live in a ‘master-planned’ city, we might end up become refugees of a future city. All residents in this world have a potential to be a refugee in the future.
11 Icons for ‘micro-projects’ (image: Orange House Studio)
A military tent was provided by city government and it used for a main exhibition space ©Orange House Studio
12
edisi #8: Preservasi. volume 2: Aksi
The aim of this exhibition was to provide a public space to share and discuss the possibilities of urban system of Kampung. It consisted of three parts: architecture, design and art. Each part offered various activities, such as art exhibition, performing arts, movie screening, craft workshop and conference. The structure of program was produced through an extensive and comprehensive discussion among the stakeholders of the city. In a way, it was also an experiment to apply urban systems of Kampung into public and social activities.
Three Kampungs in the city joined as the main collaborators of this exhibition. These
Kampungs are facing different types of critical issues that conlicted with ‘master-planning’ of Surabaya, particularly in this transition period. Speciic problems of each Kampung were
introduced to the public through various activities that offer the participants to consider these problems as their own problems. Each activity in the exhibition was programmed as a ‘micro-project’ in Kampung. Each exhibition meant to be independent, yet had a certain connection and intersection to each other.
13
In the end, the collaborators and participants realized that the quality of exhibition would depend on a degree of their participation. They also recognized how much hidden problems and possibilities of city they could found, if they were deeply committed to cooperate in urban activities. Such interactive experience should be considered and even suggested as a methodology to re-produce our built environment, as it also suggests us to try to apply ‘questions about meanings’ for both social and physical environment of city in order to discover ‘rightfulness’ of preservation of city.
The city that encompasses variety of issues and area of expertise can be deined as a
platform to receive simultaneous issues to be considered. As long as the investigation and study are proceeding by the proper induction technique, urban activity can be a public intellect, and it should be a clue to preserve a motivation of urban residents, hoping for the future of the city and encouraging participation in their own built environments.
14
edisi #8: Preservasi. volume 2: Aksi
a historic legacy, former fo
The meaning of urban-architectural heritage
I was born and grew up near the sea side of the village Noordwijk in the Netherlands. On one day, in 1951 and six 6 years old , I stood on the beach, watching a spectacular blow up of a big German ”Atlantic wall” bunker located at the south side of our boulevard; just a month
later there was only a sand dune left. A signiicant evidence of German occupation in the
Second World War was vanished completely and years later it felt to me as I was robbed of a
speciic reminder, only a picture and a history book remained.
15
Fort Otahiya, Gorontalo (±1590) (photo: Cor Passchier/PDA) by Cor Passchier
With reference to the example of the destroyed German bunker, I tend to
afirm such; although the perception may have a different emotional load.
The preservation of the German bunker might have contribute to the collective memory of later generations as a memorial landmark on the sea
side, but apparently it did not it the conservation policy of the government,
which envisaged the image of a fashionable seaside resort.
Where does the term preservation stands for?
16
edisi #8: Preservasi. volume 2: Aksi
got not immediate affected by modernity; the young state at the start suffered under political and economic instability. The capital, Jakarta, was undergoing a tremendous grow in population and the answers were found in an enormous increase and condensing of inhabitants captured within the limits of the colonial city Batavia. Simultaneously combined with the power and the
lush of independence which causes a creative whirlpool, where politicians, writers, painters
could launch their statements in an overwhelming and optimistic mainstream.
Meanwhile, dealing with the reality, the government focused to transform the archipelago in one nation; common symbols were needed with a clear and straight message, strengthen the national awareness of the people. They create an Indonesian layer over the colonial town, street names were changed, sculptures from the colonial era removed and new symbolic sculptures
Fort Van den Bosch, Ngawi (photo: Cor Passchier / PDA)
Preservation is a logical part of the urban planning process, a holistic approach dealing with the characteristics determining the identity of the city, considering the physical and economic possibilities and opportunities for survival; these in balance with growth and expansion plans of the city including the related infrastructure. The latter is not meant as a pure technocratic statement, there is more. Probably the main reason for the presence of architectural heritage on the agenda is enclosed in the thesis that ”historic and modern buildings are both an exponent
and product of the same dynamic society”. The mix of continuity and change give signiicance to
human existence and conditions for hope in the future. Considering modernity as the opposite
17 arose often relecting the struggle of freedom and independence. For instance, in Jakarta the
former Koningsplein (Kings square) became Medan Merdeka (Freedom square), making it clear, the times were a changing.
The architectural-urban legacy, after regime change, could not suddenly disappear or
demolished, the latter seemed quite unrealistic. Former colonial ofices got overcrowded by
more employees than ever and the new elite went to live in the homes of the former colonial elite, while some Jakarta people (until the present) called themselves ”orang Betawi”.
Streets, squares, parks, buildings and all that together, create the environment and décor, which is known as ”identity”.
Say ”Bandung” and one will react ”Gedung Sate”, ”ITB”, ”Hotel Homann”, the irst two built
in 1921 and the last in 1939. Mention ”Jakarta” and one will respond with ”Monas”, ”Jalan
Sudirman” or ”Kota”; the irst two are after war references, but the last dated from the early
days of the founding of the colonial town. That’s the way people react proudly and in their own way. It is my town; I live here identify myself with the décor, which stands for my neighbourhood – or town. Even expressions of nostalgia became famous and already subject of heritage itself. In my mind comes up the song Bandung selatan di waktu malam, the original by Ismail Marzuki (1948), I do regard it as an ultimate expression of intangible heritage.
18
edisi #8: Preservasi. volume 2: Aksi
Forts in Indonesia
An article is necessarily limited in size, also in content; I will spend some attention to a particular legacy and heritage, the many forts built in Indonesia in the course of the centuries
are a relection of the turbulent history.
The project ”identiication and inventory of
Forts” (2007-10) in Indonesia is developed by the NGO’s PDA Indonesia and PAC the
Netherlands; behind both NGO’s were
the governments of Indonesia and the Netherlands. This ambitious project covered the entire Indonesia archipelago. In the
ield survey, we operated with two teams, supported and assisted by the local ofices
of the Ministry of Culture and Tourism, in cooperation with several local universities and heritage organizations, support by numerous volunteers. Soon we experienced, the legacy
of historical forts and fortiications in Indonesia
was of an exceptional extent. Originally, the government hand over a list about 270 forts but soon we discovered and determined more than 440 and numbers additionally built objects, such as small bunkers, etc.
In the Indonesian archipelago, forts and remains are everywhere. From the 15th to the 18th century, the Portuguese and the Spanish, followed by the Dutch and English and also
the local rulers had their fortiications. Forts
were built at strategic locations, usually at the sea, with some smaller forts in the hinterland protecting trade routes. Except as defence against enemy attacks, forts also served as warehouses of herbs and spices. Within the walls lived soldiers-, merchants- and artisans, often an inner garden and a small hospital, sometimes a church were built. Forts were as foreign stations in the country and storage places of merchandise; spontaneous settlements arose around such sites. Coastal forts have often become the cradle for the establishment of later big cities.
The later forts, from the 19th century served more strictly military purposes, while in the 20th century, the fortress as a defence bastion
lost its signiicance and strategic defences
were more dispersed, while the older forts
Bunker from Second World War, Tarakan (photo: Cor Passchier / PDA)
19 dam (±1670) (photo: Cor Passchier
forts are used in various ways, sometimes they are slowly demolished and the old brick reused by the people. Also a large number of forts are placed on the national- regional lists of monuments. A very few are still in use as military barracks, others having a new function like: museum, cultural centre, or as leisure and tourist objects.
In Gombong, central Java, the octagonal fort (about 1820) has undergone a technical maintenance; nowadays it is now used as a sort of amusement park. In the immediate vicinity
of the Fort, one can ind are all kind of funfair
attractions, even plastic dragons; above on the octagonal wall drives a small fair train on rails; they actually did not make any meaningful use of the building space and structure and I guess this kind of function will not prove being sustainable.
In Banten, west Java, the remains of the former Fort Surosowan (around 1680) undergone a consolidating restoration and is as part of the landscape an archaeological park.
only served as military barracks. Forts were built according to European functional military regulations and an architectural style is no question; except perhaps in the gatehouses, where sometimes an architectural accent is shown, baroque, classicism we may encounter.
Nowadays, there are many forts disappeared or merged in nature, certainly this applies to the former wooden blockhouses- and beach reinforcements. However a number of forts survived often felt into decay, losing their original function since long. About some we only know they exist ones and some ruins are
preserved as a ixed in stone as a memorial
of history.
In the history of the Indonesian built heritage like former forts occupy a special place. They are tangible reminders of the past and still
of signiicance in everyday life. Sometimes
the built environment is part of the identity in the everyday decor, sometimes to found far away from human settlement. Ancient
20
edisi #8: Preservasi. volume 2: Aksi
In Makassar, Sulawesi, the big Fort Rotterdam (about 1670) is since centuries the identity carrier of the town on the seaside. It is recently
restored and has a main cultural function; one inds here the regional
museum Galigo, the inner space is a fairground for the city dwellers
and the branch ofice of the ministry of Education and Culture is
established here.
In Ambon, the small tower fort Amsterdam (about 1633), is restored to its former glory, on beautiful location near by the sea; unfortunately one did not paid serious attention to establish a new meaningful function after the rehabilitation; so for some time it was still an empty witness of history.
21 Recommendations and conclusions
It is clear that the national and regional governments are willing to invest in the conservation and reuse of built heritage, such as forts. However, not all stakeholders, architects and investors, have knowledge and information about the conservation and reuse of old forts. In November 2013, an international European conference (ArtFort) was held and also an Indonesian delegation participated. The information exchange regarding to the reuse of this category built heritage was considered as very positive and it is an actual subject of thoughts to organize such an international workshop also in Indonesia. Which I would highly recommend; beside the share of information, it may broaden the scope how to treat historic Forts as useful heritage,
how to organize the approach and with references to economic beneits and
22
edisi #8: Preservasi. volume 2: Aksi
Sketsa ini menggambarkan konsep ‘perlambatan jalan’ yang aw
diterapkan tahun 2008 pada segmen utara Jalan pos, persis di sisi timur Plaza F
gedung Museum Senirupa yang menyimpan koleksi lukisan dan k
Dengan memperbaiki kondisi di sekitar Museum, JOK berhar
23
ang awalnya direncanakan JOK (Jakarta Old Town Kotaku) untuk
persis di sisi timur Plaza Fatahillah. Di latar belakang nampak
ang menyimpan koleksi lukisan dan keramik karya seniman-seniman terkemuka Indonesia.
JOK berharap bisa menjadikannya sebuah ikon bagi kalangan pekerja
apkan bisa menghidupkan kembali kawasan ini.
-24
edisi #8: Preservasi. volume 2: Aksi
“While Singapore continues to transform, it is important to enhance our sense of identity and identiication with our city. Singapore is our home. People must feel
this in themselves and in their surroundings. URA’s role is to make Singapore a city with character and identity through our physical landscape. So far, more than
6,500 buildings and structures across the country have been conserved, despite our limited land and a relatively short history. Retention of our identity through conservation will become more important as more of our city becomes developed
and redeveloped to cater to the needs of a larger population.” 1
The Central Role of the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA)
Soon after the separation from Malaysia and became an independent nation, Singapore was in a dire condition physically and economically. Two most important institutions were set-up in 1965 to deal with the most pressing physical and economics issues and to develop Singapore, namely the Housing Development Board (HDB) and the Economic Development Board (EDB). In 1967 the Urban Renewal Department (URD) was set up under the HDB to tackle the physical, social, and economic regeneration of the Central Area, until 1974.
On 1 April 1974 the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) was created as an independent statutory board under Ministry of National Development (MND) to take over the URD responsibility, with primary task to redevelop the Central Area and resettle residents affected by the redevelopment. Within the period of 1967-1989 a total of 184 hectares of land were cleared, assembled and sold under the URA Sale of Sites Program, resulting in the development of 155 projects. Through this program, Central Area was transformed from an area of slums and
squatters into a modern inancial and business hub
In 1980 URA prepared a comprehensive long-term plan for the Central Area including the development of Marina City on 690 hectares of reclaimed land. Three years later in 1983 the Urban Design Plan for the Central Area was created and aimed to guide ”an orderly transformation of the city skyline and the creation of an environment interwoven with the historical, architectural and cultural heritage of the older parts of the city”, followed by the announcement of Central Area Structure Plan in 1985. Thus URA was exercising its power to ”develop” and at the same time to ”conserve” the central area of Singapore. Although the URA’s
1 From the speech by Mr Mah Bow Tan Minister for National Development at URA Corporate Plan Seminar
conservation in
singapore*
25
conservation policy seems comprehensive in adhering good conservation principles, but in reality the results are not satisfying. It focuses too much to the physical and economic
aspects of gentryiyng most of the remaining
heritage buildings in the central area, and not giving enough attention to preserving the existing community or social-cultural fabric.
The ”demolish and rebuild” policy during the 1970-1980s has cleared or destroyed a large stock of old shop-houses and town-houses in a vast area of the central area of Singapore, and its communities have been displaced from the historic mixed-used settlement areas and dispersed elsewhere. Some of the reasons for demolition and population-removal policy were to sanitize the social diseases (like overcrowding, prostitution, gambling, gangsters), to improve the environmental problems (bad utilities, unhygienic sanitation, structural dilapidation), and to reclaim unproductive area for new
commercial development with much higher values and returns. Vast shop-house area inside the old central area, like Kampong Glam, Middle Road, and Kereta Ayer areas were re-developed and replaced by high-rise housing-cum-commercial blocks to house some of the existing inhabitants, and the original communities have been relocated somewhere else.
The extent of demolition and
re-development was so large, until inally the
26
edisi #8: Preservasi. volume 2: Aksi
buildings they were turned into new shops,
restaurants, cafés, hotels, or ofices. Mayor
changes in the interior space to adapt the new functions and to comply with stringent building safety regulations were permitted, while façade features or style should be kept. The original white-indigo lime-based plaster was removed and replaced by stronger PC-based plaster, often with new weather-proof and colorful exterior paints. The dying traditional craftsmanship and the usage of traditional building materials are not revived, but replaced by modern contemporary technology and materials, and resulted in the loss of authenticity and discontinuity in the production of material culture.
URA Conservation Plan was announced in 1989. Historic districts like Chinatown, Little India, Kampong Glam, Singapore River - including Boat Quay and Clarke Quay - as well as residential areas like Emerald Hill, Cairnhill, Blair Plain, and secondary settlements like Joo Chiat and Geylang were given conservation status. The naming or labeling of these areas followed the Singapore Tourism Board “branding” strategy to sell Singapore, which turned the central areas of the city into “theme parks”.
URA Early Conservation Approach
In 1993 URA together with the Preservation of Monuments Board (PMB) published ”Objectives, Principles and Standards for Preservation and Conservation”. Here it is stated that the objectives, principles and
standards have been speciically written with
the Singapore context in mind, and they are derived from local experience, and where appropriate are drawn from international sources (among others are Venice Charter 1964, Burra Charter 1988, etc.).
URA prescribes ”3R Principle”: maximum
Retention, sensitive Restoration, and careful Repair. This principle is further elaborated as: 1) Building should not be altered, or parts of it demolished, if they can be preserved in their original condition.
2) When upgrading and adapting a building to a new uses, the existing structure must be retained. This can be done through strengthening and repairing the structural elements in the most sympathetic and unobtrusive way, and using original methods and materials, wherever possible
3)Selective replacement should only be considered when absolutely necessary.
4) Total reconstruction goes against accepted international conservation practices
5) A thorough research of the conservation building will also facilitate the proper execution of works on site.
6) The technical aspects and process of the various activities must be documented at every stage.
To implement the principles, URA deines
”7 Levels of Conservation Activities” and ”Top-Down Approach”. The seven levels of activities are: 1) Maintaining the essential character of the building, 2) Preventing further deterioration, 3) Consolidating the fabric of the building, 4) Restoring the building to original design and material, 5) Rehabilitating the building without destroying its character,
6) Replacing missing signiicant features of the
building, and 7) Rebuilding severely damaged parts of the building.
The ”Top-Down” Approach literally means that works start from the top (roof) and progress downwards, while retaining the
loor(s) and roof. This enables the lower
elements of the building to be repaired or replaced without affecting the existing
structure. The beneits from this construction
27
stable, the work can proceed under all weather conditions, and deterioration due to weather is minimized.
In shop-house conservation, URA endorses “facadism” and prefers to retain the façade and allows alteration of the rest of the
building. To facilitate this façade classiication was deined according to linear periodization,
with meticulous stylistic description of its parts:
1) Early Shop house style (1840-1900) 2) First Transitional Shop house style (early 1900s)
3) Late Shop house style (1900-1940) 4) Second Transitional Shop house style (late 1930s)
5) Art Deco Shop house style (1930-1960)
Similar stylistic classiication and approach was
applied to different conservation areas, like Chinatown, Kampong Glam, and Little India, with some adjustments to match with the special ”theme” assigned for those particular areas. Three books elaborating the historical background of the place and special physical features of shop-houses typology for each conservation area, with very little attention
given to the existing social-cultural signiicance.
To encourage and to give incentive to private conservation initiatives, The Architectural Heritage Awards was created.3 It was started in 1994, when URA gave ”Good Effort” Award for well-restored buildings. The annual
”Architectural Heritage Awards” was irst
28
edisi #8: Preservasi. volume 2: Aksi
further reined: ”Category A” for national
monuments and fully conserved buildings, and ”Category B” for old buildings with new, innovative and sensitive interventions. The judging is conducted by an Assessment Committee appointed by the URA.
The policy and the guideline are profoundly inclined towards physical conservation of multi-racial, colonial, and national heritage of Singapore – while the conservation of social fabric of community is noticeably missing. It became apparent later that the conservation policy which is focused mainly on the tangible aspect has created problems in the intangible aspect of heritage.
Holistic Urban Heritage Conservation and Regeneration
Cultural puriication and elimination of parts
of our layered or hybridized identity which have been formed for generations are not truthful to our own history and to our future
generations. Buildings and elements from
various cultures and inluences from past to
present have become indispensable parts of our cultural heritage, and it will continuously evolve into the future. Inhabitation aspect is always related to the articulation of the built forms or the material culture. When the social fabric (community, inhabitants) is gone, then building and settlement will turn into empty shells where deterioration will take place. In this critical stage, the choices are demolition or re-development, especially when it takes place in the central urban prime locations.
Conservation, preservation, restoration, revitalization efforts of our material and living heritages should be aimed towards the community cultural continuum. The community’s cultural continuum can be kept and nurtured by preserving the community’s tangible and intangible cultural heritages through faithful and careful restoration, and through sensitive and sensible care and URA façade classiication &
29
interventions. The dying or missing traditional skills and craftsmanship can be revived and restored through training and education, and to be updated with the current technological advancement. Following the principles of traditional medicine to cure the sickness by invoking good energy for holistic healing process of body and soul, effective and
afirmative actions can be developed in the
spirit of good will and good faith in order to preserve our memory and identity through conservation of our cultural heritage in entirety and holistically.
The community should be empowered by technical skills and sustained by economic and institutional infrastructure, through holistic conservation and preservation strategy in mobilizing all stake holders. Recognitions such as awards and status should be aimed to generate greater impacts towards a more sustainable and effective heritage policy, planning, and management of the community’s tangible and intangible cultural heritages, and not for the sake of marketing or branding for the sake of mass-tourism money.
Good conservation projects and practices are those which successfully demonstrating the following points:
1) articulation of the heritage values in order to convey the spirit of place through conservation,
2) appropriate use or adaptation of the structure,
3) interpretation of the cultural, social,
historical and architectural signiicance of the
structure(s) in the conservation work,
4) understanding of technical issues of conservation/restoration in interpreting the structure’s signiicance,
5) appropriate use or adaptation of the structure,
6) interpretation of the cultural, social,
historical and architectural signiicance of the
structure(s) in the conservation work,
7) understanding of the technical issues of conservation/restoration in interpreting the structure’s signiicance,
8) use of appropriate materials,
9) how well any added elements or creative technical solutions respect the character and inherent spatial quality of the structure(s), 10) manner in which the process and the
inal product contribute to the surrounding
environment and the local community’s cultural and historical continuum,
11) inluence of the project on conservation
practice and policy locally, nationally, regionally, or internationally,
5 Refer to UNESCO Asia Paciic Awards for Culture Heritage Conservation criteria. Detail information about the
30
edisi #8: Preservasi. volume 2: Aksi
12) ongoing socio-economic viability and relevance of the project, and provision for its future use and maintenance, and
13) technical consistency, complexity and sensitivity of the project methodology.
Changes in Singapore Urban Conservation Approach
Recognizing the need to involve the community in the urban planning process URA started to embark on public consultations exercise in the urban planning process since the drafting of Concept Plan 2001 (Aug 2000 – May 2001). The ideas and feedbacks from public were gathered through public forums, exhibition, and public dialogue before the Concept Plan
was inalized at the end of 2001. In 2002
similar process was repeated again when Master Plan 2003 was drafted. Three Subject Groups were appointed by the Minister of National Development to study proposals on: 1) Parks & Water-bodies Plans and Rustic Coast, 2) Urban Villages and Southern Ridges & Hillside Villages, and 3) Old World Charm. The ideas and recommendations were to be incorporated into the draft of Master Plan 2003.
The Subject Groups comprise professionals, representatives from interest groups, and laymen. They felt that a shift in the balance between conservation and re-development is required, and a new framework is needed for holistic conservation – an integrated, synergistic approach that goes beyond physical structures to include communities and activities that contribute to the old world charm. Holistic conservation encompasses the whole neighborhoods, including contemporary and less architecturally
signiicant buildings. It is multi-dimensional, to
include buildings, road patterns, streetscapes, open spaces and vistas; demands multi-disciplinary involvement across local and national levels; and incorporates all stake holders (users, owners, heritage-supporters, decision makers) of the conservation process.
Besides speciic recommendations for
different places across Singapore, the Subject Groups also suggested the following proposals to take conservation efforts in Singapore to the higher level:
1) Valuing the priceless: conserving areas with rich heritage, charm, and social value, even though there may be loss in development potential at the local level.
2) Different levels of conservation: conserving
signiicant exteriors, interiors, and details of
selected buildings; and controlling the use of selected buildings with strong social and historical values.
3) Act fast: preparing a comprehensive list of buildings for safeguarding.
4) A Network of heritage assets: linking up areas of the conserved area with the new developments that serve as heritage connectors.
5) Differential expectations and planning: adopting different performance and planning standards that are sensitive to the urban
fabric of areas identiied with the conserved
area.
6) Beyond eficiency, embracing new
solutions: exploring alternatives to widening of roads within the conserved area, and exploring the use of different transportation modes.
7) Recognizing our heartland heritage:
31
public housing from the 1950s to the present.
8) Wish list: retaining more built heritage for future generations, including the more recent building that depicts the history of Singapore’s path towards independence and efforts in nation building process.
9) Heritage economy: recognizing conservation’s contribution to the economy by providing funding for conservation initiatives and efforts.
10) Money talks: introducing more incentives for owners of conservation buildings 11) Private sponsorship: encouraging the setting up of a privately-run heritage trust. 12) Getting insights: commissioning a study on property value of conserving buildings 13) Promote traditional trades: developing ways to recognize owners of traditional trades that are valued by the public.
14) Active citizenship: precipitating the formation of local business improvement groups. 15) Renaissance people: developing a heritage education program that takes a more active and concerted form to inform, educate, and inspire people about their city.
32
edisi #8: Preservasi. volume 2: Aksi
Recognitions and the Future of Conservation in Singapore
In October 2007, Singapore rejoined UNESCO after 22 years of absence. But even before this historic turning point, UNESCO had given Singapore three awards in recognition of the achievements of individuals, private sector organisations and public-private initiatives in successfully restoring and conserving heritage structures in this small city-state.
UNESCO aims to promote the stewardship of the world’s cultural resources, including the built heritage which constitutes our collective cultural memory, and the foundation upon which communities can base their future.
In Asia and the Paciic, UNESCO supports
conservation activists at all levels, and particularly seeks to encourage the role of the private sector in preserving the region’s
cultural heritage. The UNESCO Asia-Paciic
Heritage Awards for Culture Heritage Conservation is one of the regional initiatives that support the organisation’s global strategic objective of promoting the localisation and empowerment of the culture profession to develop and implement the best conservation standards.
Since 2000 the Heritage Awards committee has received more than 300 entries from across Asia. Many of the entries have set technical and social benchmarks for conservation in the region, while simultaneously acting as catalysts for local preservation initiatives. Over the years, the projects illustrate the increasing momentum and level of conservation in
Asia and the Paciic. Four Singaporean
conservation projects have so far won UNESCO Heritage Awards: the Thian Hock
Keng Temple (Honourable Mention Award in 2001), the Convent of Holy Infant Jesus (Award of Merit in 2002), Old St. Andrew’s School (Honourable Mention Award in
2006), and inally the Hong San See Temple
restoration project won the highest Award for Excellence in 2010.
On the community level, recently some individuals have registered themselves to become individual members of ICOMOS,
which is the irst important step towards the
formation of ICOMOS National Committee. Government is also interested to look into the possibility of submitting some sites in Singapore for UNESCO World Heritage listing. Although these developments seem preliminary and still very early to generate
real impacts, but these are signiicant steps
towards better approach to preservation and conservation of heritage.
33
We are obliged to prolong the lifecycle of our tangible and intangible heritages for the sake of the future generation, to ensure the link with their roots and the transmission of memory from the past into the future. Conservation means nurturing the community’s cultural continuum. By prolonging the life of our heritage for future generations, we can ensure their link with their roots and the transmission of memory from the past to the future.
References
1. Engelhardt, R. (editor). ”Asia Conserved: Lessons Learned from the UNESCO Asia-Paciic Conservation
Awards”. Bangkok: UNESCO, 2007
2. ICOMOS Charters, http://www.international.icomos.org/charters.htm
3. Ismail, Rahil, Shaw, Brian & Ooi Giok Ling (editors). ”Southeast Asian Culture and Heritage in a Globalizing World – Diverging Identities in a Dynamic Region.” Surrey: Ashgate, 2009
4. MND (2002), Parks & Waterbodies Plan and Identity Plan - Subject Group Report on Old World Charm, Ministry of National Development, Singapore
5. MND (2002), Parks & Waterbodies Plan and Identity Plan - Subject Group Report on Urban Villages and Southern Ridges & Hillside Villages, Ministry of National Development, Singapore
6. Tan, Sumiko (1999), Home.Work.Play, Urban Redevelopment Authority, Singapore
7. URA & PMB (1993), Singapore - Objectives, Principles and Standards for Preservation and Conservation, Urban Redevelopment Authority & Preservation of Monuments Board, Singapore
8. URA (2004), Architectural Heritage Singapore - Architectural Heritage Awards 1994 to 2004, Award Winning Projects by Singapore-registered Architects, Urban Redevelopment Authority, Singapore
9. URA (1995), Chinatown Historic District, Urban Redevelopment Authority, Singapore 10. URA (1995), Little India Historic District, Urban Redevelopment Authority, Singapore
*This paper was presented at the serial talk on Capitals’ Archaeology: Urban Origins and Conservation, organized by The Southeast Asian Ministers of Education Organization Regional Centre for Archaeology and Fine Arts (SEAMEO-SPAFA), 29 April 2011, at Siam Society, Bangkok, Thailand. It was then published in SPAFA Journal Volume 21, Number 3, September-December 2011 (ISSN 0858-1975), published by the
“A nation must have a memory to give it a sense of
cohesion, continuity and identity. The longer the past,
34
edisi #8: Preservasi. volume 2: Aksi
36
edisi #8: Preservasi. volume 2: Aksi
Jakarta as a capital city suffers many aspects, yet it beholds hidden treasures such as Kota Tua. Especially on the subject of Kota Tua, there has been a high level of desperation. For
more than four decades since the irst preservation program commenced in 1970s1, several revitalization plans have failed to be implemented, resulting in piecemeal projects that have fallen short to create substantial positive impact.
The problems in Kota Tua are layered and intertwined. Dilapidated infrastructure and polluted environment have created an undesirable living and working environment, encouraging businesses to move out and squatters and street vendors to move in. Those interested in
investing in the area are quickly discouraged by the rigid yet insuficient heritage building
regulations, lack of incentives, and lack of priority and coordination within the government to carry out the revitalization plan. Not to mention that the master plan has not been made public or accessible. There are 182 heritage buildings2 in Kota Tua, most of which are located
Town Hall Renovation in 1973 (photo: James Cobban)
event space as the so
for kota tu
37
within the core area of Fatahillah Square.3 For privately-owned buildings, which comprise 70% of building ownership (Tambun, 2013), the cost of renovating and maintaining a heritage
building outweighs its beneits, while for state-owned buildings; the condition is further
restricted by limited lease duration to private investors.4 While the owners are waiting for a promising change, the centuries old buildings continue to decay and fall apart.
Recently, however, the current city administration takes Kota Tua revitalization plan into its 12 Priority Programs 2013-20175 and announced that Special Economic Zone be planned starting 2014.6 The SEZ will allow for the 160 hectares historic area to be managed by a
single authority to ensure eficiency and lexibility. While the Special Economic Zone may
take several years to be formed and the master plan 20 years, this has shed a new hope for the area.
Visualization of Kali Besar after revitalization plan 1973. (source: Cobban, 1985)
ace as the solution
38
edisi #8: Preservasi. volume 2: Aksi
which involves notable international and local architects and landscape architects7 to collaborate with local government and building owners to reprogram 6 heritage buildings and 1 landscape area located along Kali Besar and Fatahillah Square.8 At the same time, Jakarta Old Town Reborn Corporation has pioneered a pilot project of
the conversion of Post Ofice building into
Museum of Contemporary Art and Visitor’s Center, to be opened in March 2014.9
Second, creative festivals act as catalyst to revive the soul of Kota Tua. Beyond gaining
substantial tourism and redeining the image
of the city, festivals can be a powerful tool to cultivate the communities of interest Kota Tua aspires to accommodate and be
identiied with. In The Death and Life of Great
American Cities,10 Jane Jacobs states that ”a city’s very wholeness in bringing together people with communities of interest is one of its greatest assets, possibly the greatest.” Creative festivals in Kota Tua can be the center where the city’s young and creative minds come together.11
Learning from Venice and Malaka
Venice is Europe’s largest car-free urban area. Tourists come for its architectural-urban spatial quality, and mostly the festivals. In the 1980s, the Carnival of Venice was revived and the city has become a major centre of international conferences and festivals.12 Venice hosts three of the world’s most prestigious festivals: The Venice Art Biennale, The Venice Architecture Biennale, and the Venice Film Festival where all the world’s
greatest artists, architects and ilmmakers
celebrate with a backdrop of elegantly decaying historical buildings and canals. Jonker Walk, a popular tourist area in Malaka, started with regular weekend festivals
Immediate and collective actions
In the meantime, two agents of change are needed to complement the long-term plan. First, a group of pilot projects that can acts as exemplary urban magnets for the area. This needs to be done immediately as the heritage buildings are becoming increasingly
dificult to save with time, and collectively,
so that the diversity of owners, users, and programs create engaging, vibrant points of interests and communities within the area. Such initiative is being proposed through the Jakarta Old Town Reborn Program led by Rumah Asuh and Erasmus Huis,
39
cultural aspect of the district.
Kota Tua Creative Festival (KTCF), supported by Indonesian Diaspora Network, the City of Jakarta, and the Ministry of Tourism and Creative Economy, aspires to be a festival that brings contemporary creative affairs and engage them with the social and physical spaces of Kota Tua. The event is proposed to take place in 2014 as the revitalization program commences. Held in open public spaces and decaying heritage buildings around Fatahillah Square and Kali Besar, the festival programs are designed to provoke discussions and
relections in broad disciplines, as well as
propose alternative ways of enjoying spaces in the city. The program of the festival tests the long-term plan to turn the district into creativity and innovation center.13 Arts and culture programs have been enduring aspect of the masterplans, evolving from proposed traditional handicrafts outlet in 1973 (Cobban, 1985) to proposed Museum of Modern Art Jakarta, contemporary galleries, and relocation of Institut Kesenian Jakarta (IKJ) in 2004,14 to the realization of Museum of Contemporary Art in 2014 (Ida, 2013). government. Soon, it became a new tradition.
Even though urban critics point out that Jonker Walk has become overtouristic and overcommercialized, it has achieved several points in preservation with a new spirit.
Kota Tua can foresee a revival by means of great festivals with contemporary affairs that measures up to international standards. Jakarta has already regularly hosted such events, only they are typically held in shopping malls or conference centers. Festivals such as Jakarta Food and Fashion Festival, Jakarta International Film Festival, Jakarta Architecture Triennale, and Java Jazz Festival
can beneit from relocating to the abundance
of diverse public and private spaces in Kota Tua.
It is important to note that festivals, if to become a powerful tool in reconstructing the identity of a district, must include participatory and community building aspects to it in instead of only accommodating spectators and consumers. Today, there are regular festivals taking place in Kota Tua, but most are traditionally themed and geared towards spectatorship. In the long run, this
40
edisi #8: Preservasi. volume 2: Aksi
KTCF also works with LWG DMO Kota Tua (Local Working Group & Destination Management Organization)15 to develop programs that engage the existing creative communities in Kota Tua. The festival hopes to create for its participants a sense of openness and involvement in the larger revitalization program. As mentioned in The Image of the City by Kevin Lynch, ”moving elements in a city, and in particular the people and their activities, are as important as the stationary physical parts. We are not simply observers of this spectacle, but are ourselves a part of it, on the stage with the other participants.”16 The revitalization of Kota Tua can beneit from ideas and responses of its diverse citizens and visitors that feel a sense of belonging to the historic district.
City as Event Space
In The Manhattan Transcripts, Bernard Tschumi states that ”architecture is not simply about space and form, but also about event, action, and what happens in space.”17 Architecture and urban spaces are inseparable from events that take place within it. Millions of events construct the daily narratives and meaning of citizens’ lives in a city,18 and architecture and urban space are underutilized tool to construct events that can bring vitality to the city. Festivals are just one form of this. While Jakarta has recently witnessed a rising number of public events, the city could tap into this and use events as a tool to improve the social and physical conditions of dilapidated spaces in a city. For example, the city could establish a policy where incentives are given for events that take place in the places designated for urban change within a given time.
41
In Kota Tua, the concept of preservation has always been motivated by tourism. A supporting motive may also be ”not so much of what is being preserved as fear of what will replace it”,19 since several of Jakarta’s beloved historic urban fabrics, such as Senen, have given way to modern developments insensitive to its unique economic and cultural history. The preservation concept of Kota Tua has evolved from a focus on adaptive reuse buildings for tourism in 1973 (Cobban, 1985) to include a place to live and work in 2000s (JOK, 2004), to become ”a town of creativity and innovation” in 2012 (Ministry of Tourism and Creative Economy of the Republic of Indonesia, 2013). Although the implementation of the master plan(s) has been painstakingly slow, the evolution of the concept is positive. A city district should
not be mummiied for tourism, but allowed
communities whose livelihood revolves in the area and overseen by urban managers.20
While the guidelines concerning preservation in Kota Tua are constraining and may need
revisions so it can be beneicial to the district
revitalization in a timely manner, the most important aspects that need to be preserved and allowed to evolve are the unique intangible qualities that is not commonly found in many public places in Jakarta, such as diversity of users (tourist, students, locals), cultural
activities (photo-shoots/ilming), and leisure
(biking, playing chess outdoors) that create a heterogeneous space unique to Kota Tua.
42
edisi #8: Preservasi. volume 2: Aksi
that are not architectural, mainly in creating systems to simplify complex bureaucracy, provide incentives for building renovation and target groups to occupy the district.
Hitting its fourth decade of revitalization attempt, it is too early to say this time the attempt will not fall short. Yet, so far, positive changes have rapidly taken place in the past year, namely the reorganization of street vendors, creation of LWG DMO, formation of Jakarta Old Town Revitalization Corp, Jakarta Endowment for Art and Heritage, inclusion in city administration’s 12 Priority Projects 2013-2017, the plan to create Special Economic Zone, the upcoming completion of Jakarta Contemporary Arts Museum, and the upcoming Kota Tua Creative Festival.
Meanwhile, complex problems need creative solutions. Perhaps the problem of Kota Tua itself is one episode in the city that allows for diverse community with common interest to come together and join forces: all stakeholders, from the building owners to street vendors, from government bodies to architects and urban designers.
References
[1] Cobban, James L. “The Ephemeral Historic District in Jakarta.”Geographical Review. 75.3 (1985): 300-318. Web. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/214487>.
[2] Tambun, Lenny. “A New Hope for Jakarta’s Kota Tua.” Jakarta Globe [Jakarta] 24 Feb. 2013, Web. 21 Feb. 2014.<http:// www.thejakartaglobe.com/archive/a-new-hope-for-jakartas-kota-tua>.
[3] Sugiantoro. Appendix 2: Jakarta Case Study. 1st ed. Mandaluyong: Asian Development Bank, 2008. 105-162. Print. [4] Anderson, Charles, and Jennifer Blake. “Saving Batavia.”Jakarta Globe [Jakarta] 4 Apr 2009, weekend ed. Print. [5] Sak. “12 Program Prioritas Jokowi-Basuki 2013-2017.”Ahok. 4 Dec 2013. Web. 21 Feb 2014. <http://ahok.org/berita/ news/12-program-prioritas-jokowi-basuki-2013-2017>.
Interior of Rumah Akar (photo: Diana Ang)
Kali Besar Timur (photo: Diana Ang)
43 [6] “Kota Tua Akan Dijadikan Kawasan Ekonomi Khusus.”Kompas [Jakarta] 26 Apr. 2013, Web. 21 Feb. 2014. <http:// megapolitan.kompas.com/read/2013/04/26/15291755/Kota.Tua.Akan.Dijadikan.Kawasan.Ekonomi.Khusus>. [7] The architects and urban designers include Dutch architecture practices OMA, MVRDV, KCAP, Niek Roozen + Wageningen University, and Indonesian architecture practices Han Awal & Partners + SHAU, Andra Matrin Architects, Djuhara + Djuhara,and Citra Konsulindo Utama.
[8] Jakarta Old Town Reborn Workshop Curatorial Team Document (2013)
[9] Nurcahyani, Ida. “PT Pembangunan Kota Tua Jakarta diluncurkan.” Antara News [Jakarta] 13 Nov 2013, n. pag. Web. 21 Feb. 2014. <http://www.antaranews.com/berita/404742/pt-pembangunan-kota-tua-jakarta-diluncurkan>. [10] Jacobs, Jane. The Death and Life of Great American Cities. 1st Vintage Books ed. New York: Random House, Inc. , 1992. 119. Print.
[11] The idea of Kota Tua as a center for creative industries was irst proposed in 2000s. Source: Jakarta Old Town Kotaku (JOK) Document (2004)
[12] Ciancio, Antonella. “New “kings” of Venice revel in carnival.” Reuters [New York] 20 Feb 2012, n. page. Web. 21 Feb. 2014. <http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/20/uk-italy-carnival-idUSLNE81J00T20120220>.
[13] “Old Batavia revitalized through Destination Management Organization (DMO).” Ministry of Tourism and Creative Economy of the Republic of Indonesia, 21 Apr 2013. Web. 21 Feb 2014. <http://www.indonesia.travel/en/news/ detail/940/old-batavia-revitalized-through-destination-management-organization-dmo>
[14] Jakarta Old Town Kotaku (JOK) Document (2004)
[15] Pratawisari, Fitri. “Pengembangan Pariwisata Perlu Peran Warga Sekitar.” Kompas [Jakarta] 10 Apr 2013, lipsus n. pag. Web. 21 Feb. 2014. <http://lipsus.kompas.com/gebrakan-jokowi-basuki/read/xml/2013/04/10/11505024/ Pengembangan.Pariwisata.Perlu.Peran.Warga.Sekitar>.
[16] Lynch, Kevin. The Image of the City. 1st ed. Cambridge: Joint Center for Urban Studies, 1960. 2. Print. [17] Tschumi, Bernard. The Manhattan Transcripts. 2nd ed. London: Academy Editions, 1994. Print.
[18] Livesey, Graham. “Deleuze, Whitehead, the Event, and the Contemporary City.” Event & Decision: Ontology & Politics in Badiou, Deleuze, and Whitehead. Calgary: University of Calgary, 2007. 18. Web. 21 Feb. 2014. <http:// whiteheadresearch.org/occasions/conferences/event-and-decision/papers/Graham Livesey_FinalDraft.pdf>.
[19] Semes, Steven W. The Future of the Past: A Conservation Ethic for Architecture, Urbanism, and Historic Preservation. 1st ed. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2009. 140. Print.
[20] The idea of “urban manager” was mentioned by Jakarta Old Town Kotaku (JOK) members during a meeting related to workshop held in Erasmus Huis in December 2012
44
45
-46
edisi #8: Preservasi. volume 2: Aksi
Waktu tidak dapat meruntuhkan semangatnya. Meski telah aktif berprofesi sejak era pemerintahan Sukarno, Han Awal seperti tidak mengenal kata berhenti. Di usianya yang ke-83, Ia masih tetap aktif berprofesi sebagai arsitek konservatoris. Belum lagi beberapa tanggung jawab lainnya, seperti anggota dewan pengawas Pusat Dokumentasi Arsitektur (PDA) dan yang terkini, sebagai anggota Board of Advisor dari Jakarta Endowment for Arts and Heritage (JEFORAH).
Tiga hari setelah perayaan Imlek, saya berkunjung ke rumahnya bersama puluhan pertanyaan akan realita arsitek konservatoris di Indonesia. Profesi yang bergerak khusus dalam konservasi bangunan bersejarah ini seperti masih belum banyak memiliki peminat. Han Awal yang berpengalaman selama lebih dari dua dekade tentu akan memiliki cara pandang tersendiri terhadap hal ini.
Sore itu, Ia menyambut saya di pintu ruang tamu. Mengenakan kemeja batik merah dan celana kain hitam, Han Awal langsung mengundang saya duduk di teras belakang.
“Rumahnya bagus pak”, ujar saya spontan melihat rumahnya yang sangat hangat, khas garis desain Han Awal.
“Ini rumah gaya lama kok. Hahaha”, jawabnya ramah.
Kami berhenti di depan meja kayu bundar yang dikelilingi kursi-kursi plastik berwarna putih. Kicauan burung peliharaan bersama bising suara pembangunan apartemen di dekat rumahnya mengiringi kedatangan kami. Beberapa saat kemudian, satu cangkir kopi susu dan piring kecil makanan ringan diantarkan oleh seorang wanita paruh baya. Setelah Han Awal meminta satu cangkir lagi kopi susu untuknya sendiri, kami segera memulai diskusi.
‘MENCARI ARSITEK
KONSERVATORIS’
47
menawarinya memperbaiki kerusakan pada gereja Katedral. Han Awal yang saat itu tidak pernah mempelajari ilmu konservasi, tetap kukuh untuk mencoba dan belajar secara otodidak.
Kelak hal itu membuatnya tersadar bahwa di praktek konservasi profesi arsitek dapat disamakan dengan seorang dokter. Han Awal harus melakukan diagnosa terhadap penyakit bangunan dengan sangat hati-hati. Melalui riset mendalam terhadap sejarah, teknis dan metodologi cara membangun pada masa itu.
“Lama-lama akhirnya menjadi passion. Bukannya saya tergila-gila, tapi saya sangat empati dengan pekerjaan saya. Seperti ada kekayaan yang terpendam. Sesuatu yang tadinya tidak tahu akhirnya jadi memahami bahwa di belakang itu ada semacam kearifan. Tidak analisa bangunan saja, tetapi juga jiwa dan cara membangun pada masa itu. Ini luar biasa.”
Dia melanjutkan dengan pentingnya pemahaman sejarah. “Saya yakin bahwa kearifan sejarah perlu kita miliki. Karena di situ kita banyak gali jejak sejarah kita sendiri, untuk akhirnya sampai ke masa kini. Berpijak pada apa yang diberikan oleh sejarah.”
“Sejarah yang mana?”, tanya saya.
“Entah itu tentang kolonial, Majapahit atau bagaimana pedagang Islam masuk kesini. Tidak usah menolak diri, karena itu kenyataan untuk bangsa. Dan tanpa kenyataan itu, kita tidak akan timbul budaya seperti sekarang.”
“Kita juga harus melihat masa kolonial membawa sesuatu yang positif, tidak selamanya negatif. Memang banyak penindasan, tapi juga banyak yang dikenalkan seperti cara berpakaian. ‘Masak kita jadi bangsa sarungan?’ kata Soekarno. Akhirnya, bangsa Indonesia baiknya menata masa depan dari kearifan lokal seperti Soekarno”, lanjutnya
Bangunan bersejarah memang seperti sebuah laboratorium hidup. Mereka menyimpan kearifan masa lalu dan sejarah secara gamblang, terbuka untuk interpretasi lebih lanjut. Dokumentasi melalui buku tidak bisa menggantikan suasana ruang, bukti aplikasi teknologi terhadap lingkungan, dan jejak autentik sejarah yang hadir di sebuah bangunan. “Pemahaman ini sangat penting untuk dimiliki para mahasiswa dan praktisi arsitektur”, ujar Han. Sehingga semakin banyak arsitek konservatoris yang bergerak aktif, semakin banyak ilmu dan memori bangsa yang akan terselamatkan untuk kita dan generasi mendatang.
Namun kenyataan berbicara lain. Franky Liauw dalam “Konservasi masih Minoritas1”
menekankan bahwa kegiatan konservasi masih belum memiliki banyak peminat di Indonesia. Manfaat konservasi telah banyak dikemukakan, tetapi banyak yang masih melihat konservasi sebagai penghambat kemajuan. “Kemajuan” masih diidentikkan dengan membangun bangunan modern yang ada di negara “maju” dalam kecepatan tinggi. Yang jika diteruskan akan merusak budaya dan identitas sebuah kota, membawanya menjadi semakin generik.
48
edisi #8: Preservasi. volume 2: Aksi
Franky juga berkata tuntutan ekonomi juga lebih mendorong para pemberi ijin meloloskan penghapusan bangunan bersejarah. Mayoritas arsitek sendiri masih belum terlalu peduli terhadap pentingnya mereka,. Terlalu sibuk mencari nama dengan menciptakan sesuatu yang baru dan berani, dan kurang menoleh ke belakang.
Padahal arsitek-arsitek besar yang menciptakan pembaruan juga adalah sosok yang sangat menghargai pekerjaan konservasi dan sejarah. Kurator Vennice Biennale 2014, Rem Koolhaas, memberikan tema “Fundamentals”, yang akan mencoba mengangkat evolusi arsitektur nasional sebuah negara dalam kurun waktu 100 tahun. Pada tahun 2012, delapan pemenang Pritzker Prize, dan beberapa arsitek ternama lain mengirimkan sebuah surat terbuka2 kepada walikota Chicago, Rahm Emanuel, untuk menghentikan penghancuran Rumah Sakit Prentice karya Bertrand Goldberg, yang akan digantikan oleh bangunan riset medis Universitas Northwestern.
Setahun kemudian, Rem Koolhaas, Peter Eisenman, Steven Holl, dan beberapa nama besar lainnya juga menandatangani surat terbuka3 untuk preservasi rumah Konstantin Melnikov di Moskow, Rusia. Surat tersebut menyatakan pentingnya preservasi rumah tersebut untuk menjadi sebuah museum publik. Segala dokumentasi tentang Melnikov juga sebaiknya dikumpulkan di sebuah museum yang terletak dekat dengan rumahnya, dan terbuka untuk pembelajaran arsitek, akademisi dan masyarakat.
49
kenapa kita seperti masih kekurangan arsitek konservatoris? Apakah kita butuh lebih banyak arsitek konservatoris? Bagaimana sebetulnya realita yang terjadi di Indonesia?
Kementerian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan (Kemdikbud) merupakan kementerian yang bertanggung jawab terhadap pelestarian Bangunan Cagar Budaya (BCB) dan Kawasan Cagar Budaya (KCB). Nadia Purwestri, direktur PDA, menyampaikan kondisi yang sedang terjadi, “Nah, Kemdikbud itu didominasi arkeolog. Mereka memperlakukan bangunan yang bukan candi seperti candi. Akhirnya bikin dead monument, bukan living monument.”
Menurut Arya Abieta, anggota Tim Sidang Pemugaran (TSP) DKI Jakarta, realita yang terjadi ini bukan sesuatu yang salah. Namun memang sering terjadi perbedaan pola pikir dalam pelaksanaan konservasi. “Sederhananya, teman-teman arkeolog ingin mengajak masa kini ke masa lalu. Kita arsitek ingin mengajak masa lalu ke masa kini.”
Konservasi bangunan di Indonesia memang dipelopori oleh profesional di bidang arkeologi. Pada era kolonial, banyak masyarakat Eropa yang tertarik kepada kebudayaan nusantara. Karena hal ini dapat mengangkat nama Belanda di mata internasional, akhirnya Commisie in Nederlandsche-Indie voor Oudheidkundige Orderzoek op Java en Madura dibentuk tahun 1901, untuk mengelola warisan budaya Indonesia.
Komisi ini akhirnya menjadi Dinas Purbakala Hindia-Belanda (Oudheidkundige Dienst in Nederlandsche-Indie) di tahun 1913. Secara undang-undang, Monumenten Ordonnantie no. 238 tahun 1931 juga ditetapkan untuk melindungi dan mengelola cagar budaya, yang menjadi dasar pembentukan UU Cagar Budaya no 5 tahun 1992.
Dari sin
