RUANG kreativitas tanpa batas PRESERVASI VOLUME 2: AKSI

RUANG kreativitas tanpa batas

PRESERVASI

08 | 2014 V O L U M E

2 :

A K S I

RUANG

PEMBUKA ”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

2

ISI

vol.2: Aksi the rightfulness of preservation

esai Kenta Kishi

intervensi budi lim untuk kota tua

lukisan M. Ichsan Harja Nugraha

a historic legacy, former forts in indonesia today

esai Cor Passchier

conservation in singapore

esai Johannes Widodo

event space as a solution for kota tua

esai Daliana Suryawinata & Diana Ang

mencari arsitek konservatoris esai Yusni Aziz

yori antar: perjuangan untuk nusantara

wawancara Yusni Aziz

RUANG editor: ivan kurniawan nasution mochammad yusni aziz web-blog: www.membacaruang.com tumblr: ruangarsitektur.tumblr.com email: [email protected] 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. Lukisan pada sampul depan oleh Sri Suryani Lukisan pada sampul belakang oleh M. Ichsan Harja Nugraha 3

edisi #8: Preservasi. volume 2: Aksi

Pintu masuk dari sisi utara Plaza Fatahillah, anta sejumlah karya seni dan monu - Moch. Ichsan 4

ruang | kreativitas tanpa batas

ara gedung Kantor Pos dan Gedung Jasindo, dengan umen berlantai kaca di tengahnya. Harja Nugraha 5

‘R i g h t f u l n e s s o 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 benefit 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 benefit 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 benefits 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 influx 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 find an alternative definition and meaning of preservation. As such, the notion of the ‘right preservation’ today can be understood as a realization of ‘themeparked identity’. However, we must imagine and discuss possibilities of alternative concept of the ‘rightfulness’ in urban preservation.

f P r e s e r v a t i o n’ by Kenta Kishi 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 difficulties 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 fitness 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 specific site.The project emphasizes on their system of self-organization, as well as to “how the identity is sustained”.


Sample of “micro-project” at Kampung Ketandan (top) and Kampung Ampel (bottom). ©Orange House Studio

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 officials, academic societies, business, civic groups and mass media. ‘Master Planning’ seems to be considered as exclusive method of investigation that carried out by a specific 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 first phase of project, ‘micro-projects’ were gathered. Diverse facts and possibilities of the connections and relationship were analyzed and translated into visual information. Daily 8


Icons for ‘micro projects’ (top). Visual interface of Kampung’s ecosystem (bottom) ©Orange House Studio

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 specific icon was given for each ‘micro-project’, and their specific relationships were carefully mapped in, so called, the landscape photo. 9


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 officials, 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. The exhibition became a platform to recognize, consider and share critical issue of our built environment. We wanted to stress that this “refugee” is not necessarily negative or tragic terms, as we imagine that in order to survive in the future city, a person will be forced to produce positive actions and search for various possibilities. This exhibition delivered a message to all residents in Surabaya that everybody should be an active producer instead of being an active consumer. 10


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

A poster of exhibition ©Orange House Studio 11


Audiences from Kampungs at movie screening by local cultural organization ‘Kinetik’. ©Orange House Studio

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 conflicted with ‘master-planning’ of Surabaya, particularly in this transition period. Specific 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.

12


Public discussion with residents of Kampungs and other cooperators, such as students, designers, architects, educators, government officer, journalists, owner of broadcasting company, and etc. ©Orange House Studio

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 defined 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.

13


a historic legacy, former

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 significant 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 specific reminder, only a picture and a history book remained. Probably it was a governmental policy to skip the era of German occupation out of the people’s minds; a form of urban planning by destroying, creating a ”correct” environment without any tangible uncomfortable memorial. It sounds like an ultimate post-colonial issue, pointing a question like: is the architectural-urban historic legacy from the colonial past logically and automatically accept as heritage by the former colonised people as well? 14


forts in indonesia today

by Cor Passchier

Fort Otahiya, Gorontalo (±1590) (photo: Cor Passchier/PDA)

With reference to the example of the destroyed German bunker, I tend to affirm 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 fit the conservation policy of the government, which envisaged the image of a fashionable seaside resort. Where does the term preservation stands for? At least it should be based on a question like: ”what are the challenges for the building or structure today” and how we intent using it? By ignoring such, there is hardly any prospect for a historic building to survive. 15


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 significance to human existence and conditions for hope in the future. Considering modernity as the opposite of historic is to me just a created forced contrast, tomorrow we will define today as yesterday. Obviously, in the first decades of the young state Indonesia, the architectural- urban environment

Fort Van den Bosch, Ngawi (photo: Cor Passchier / PDA)

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 flush 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 16


arose often reflecting 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 offices 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”.

Fort Willem, Ambarawa (± 1835) (photo: Cor Passchier/PDA)

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 first two built in 1921 and the last in 1939. Mention ”Jakarta” and one will respond with ”Monas”, ”Jalan Sudirman” or ”Kota”; the first 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. 17


Bunker from Second World War,Tarakan (photo: Cor Passchier / PDA)

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 reflection of the turbulent history. The project ”identification 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 field survey, we operated with two teams, supported and assisted by the local offices 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 fortifications 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. 18

Makassar – Fort Rotterdam (±1670) (photo: / PDA)

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 fortifications. 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 significance and strategic defences were more dispersed, while the older forts


Cor Passchier

Model Fort Rotterdam (image: Cor Passchier / PDA)

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 fixed 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 significance 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

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 find 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. 19


Yokyakarta - Fort Vredeburg (±1760) (photo: Cor Passchier / PDA)

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 finds here the regional museum Galigo, the inner space is a fairground for the city dwellers and the branch office 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. 20


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 benefits and integrating in urban planning. 21


Sketsa ini menggambarkan konsep ‘perlambatan jalan’ yang diterapkan tahun 2008 pada segmen utara Jalan pos, pe gedung Museum Senirupa yang menyimpan koleksi lukisan Dengan memperbaiki kondisi di sekitar Museum, JOK berh kreatif yang diharapkan bisa me - Moch. Ichsan 22


g awalnya direncanakan JOK (Jakarta Old Town Kotaku) untuk ersis di sisi timur Plaza Fatahillah. Di latar belakang nampak n dan keramik karya seniman-seniman terkemuka Indonesia. harap bisa menjadikannya sebuah ikon bagi kalangan pekerja enghidupkan kembali kawasan ini. Harja Nugraha 23


conservation in singapore* by Johannes Widodo

“While Singapore continues to transform, it is important to enhance our sense of identity and identification 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 financial 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 24


Singapore street market in 1960s (Source: old postcard of Singapore)

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 gentryfiyng 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 townhouses 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 redevelopment was so large, until finally the government realized the irreversible loss of tangible cultural heritage and intangible identity of place especially in the central area. Therefore since 1990s the conservation plans have been drafted and implemented, to save the remaining stocks of this valuable urban heritage – although it was mainly driven by the tourism industry and the speculative property re-development schemes. Many old shop-houses were given second lease of life by ”adaptive re-use” approach, from empty

25


buildings they were turned into new shops, restaurants, cafés, hotels, or offices. 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 weatherproof 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 specifically 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 2

26

URA & PMB (1993), p. 12

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 defines ”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 significant 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 floor(s) and roof. This enables the lower elements of the building to be repaired or replaced without affecting the existing structure. The benefits from this construction method are: the building remains structurally


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 classification was defined 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 classification 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 significance. 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 first introduced in 1995 to replace the previous award. In 2003, the awards category was 27


URA façade classification & Stylistic description (Source: URA, 1995)

further refined: ”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 purification 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

28

generations. Buildings and elements from various cultures and influences 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


Former Shop Houses in China Square after redevelopment

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 affirmative 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: 5

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 significance of the structure(s) in the conservation work, 4) understanding of technical issues of conservation/restoration in interpreting the structure’s significance, 5) appropriate use or adaptation of the structure, 6) interpretation of the cultural, social, historical and architectural significance of the structure(s) in the conservation work, 7) understanding of the technical issues of conservation/restoration in interpreting the structure’s significance, 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 final product contribute to the surrounding environment and the local community’s cultural and historical continuum, 11) influence of the project on conservation practice and policy locally, nationally, regionally, or internationally,

Refer to UNESCO Asia Pacific Awards for Culture Heritage Conservation criteria. Detail information about the awards can be found in: http://www.unescobkk.org/culture/our-projects/empowerment-of-the-culture-profession/asia29 pacific-heritage-awards-for-culture-heritage-conservation/


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 finalized 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 6

significant buildings. It is multi-dimensional, to include buildings, road patterns, streetscapes, open spaces and vistas; demands multidisciplinary involvement across local and national levels; and incorporates all stake holders (users, owners, heritage-supporters, decision makers) of the conservation process. Besides specific 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 significant 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 identified with the conserved area. 6) Beyond efficiency, 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:

MND (2002), Parks & Waterbodies Plan and Identity Plan - Subject Group Report on Old World Charm, p.8 30


keeping blocks of public housing architecture and townships that encapsulated the range of 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.

Living heritage: traditional trades in the shop-house in Serangoon area (“Little India”)

31


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 Pacific, 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-Pacific 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 Pacific. Four Singaporean conservation projects have so far won UNESCO Heritage Awards: the Thian Hock

32

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 finally 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 first 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 significant steps towards better approach to preservation and conservation of heritage. In Singapore both land and heritage are scarce. These constraints should drive better and more effective conservation strategies and methods so that the full positive impact of conservation may contribute to strong economic development, nation-building, and a sense of home. In working towards these ends, it is essential to form a civic coalition, a community network and an alliance among all stakeholders to maintain a balance between conservation and development, and to ensure an orderly and healthy evolution of the built environment and the community that lives within it.


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.

“A nation must have a memory to give it a sense of cohesion, continuity and identity.The longer the past, the greater the awareness of a nation’s identity” *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 References 1. Engelhardt, R. (editor). ”Asia Conserved: Lessons Learned from the UNESCO Asia-Pacific 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

33


Sebuah ilustrasi yang menggambarkan penerapan lain dari upaya perlambatan jalan oleh JOK pada segmen Jalan Pintu Besar Utara (sisi barat Plaza Fatahillah) untuk mendorong tumbuhnya keramaian. Perlambatan jalan ini dicapai dengan menerapkan lajur zig-zag pada jalan yang dahulunya lurus dan ramai. Bollard (batu pembatas) dan bangku yang didesain dengan artistik turut menciptakan karakter unik dari segmen ini. - Moch. Ichsan Harja Nugraha -

34


35


event space as for kota t

by Daliana Suryaw

Town Hall Renovation in 1973 (photo: James Cobban)

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 first 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 insufficient 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 36


s the solution tua jakarta

winata & Diana Ang

Visualization of Kali Besar after revitalization plan 1973. (source: Cobban, 1985)

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 benefits, 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 efficiency and flexibility. 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. 37


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 Office building into Museum of Contemporary Art and Visitor’s Center, to be opened in March 2014.9

Jakarta Old Town Reborn Program Archipunctural Strategy 2013-2014. (source: JOTRW Curatorial Team )

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 difficult 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, 38

Second, creative festivals act as catalyst to revive the soul of Kota Tua. Beyond gaining substantial tourism and redefining the image of the city, festivals can be a powerful tool to cultivate the communities of interest Kota Tua aspires to accommodate and be identified 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 filmmakers celebrate with a backdrop of elegantly decaying historical buildings and canals. Jonker Walk, a popular tourist area in Malaka, started with regular weekend festivals


from 18.00-24.00 initiated by the Malaysian 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 benefit 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

can greatly affect the authenticity of the 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 reflections 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).

Art Biennale, Arsenale,Venice (photo: AudreyH) 39


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 benefit 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.

Jakarta Old Town Kotaku 2004 plan to “revive kota for artist & creative community within walking distance” (source: JOK document) 40


Evolution of Preservation 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 mummified for tourism, but allowed

to flourish into genuine culture by having 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 beneficial 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/filming), and leisure (biking, playing chess outdoors) that create a heterogeneous space unique to Kota Tua. Although the preservation of Kota Tua will be mostly judged in the success of the revitalization of its physical spaces, the process to reach such state involves many aspects

41


Kali Besar Timur (photo: Diana Ang)

Interior of Rumah Akar (photo: Diana Ang)

Interior of Former Tjipta Niaga (photo:Windo Salomo)

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. . [2] Tambun, Lenny. “A New Hope for Jakarta’s Kota Tua.” Jakarta Globe [Jakarta] 24 Feb. 2013, Web. 21 Feb. 2014.. [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. . 42


Visualization of Fatahillah Square during Kota Tua Creative Festival 2014. (source: KTCF Curatorial Team) [6] “Kota Tua Akan Dijadikan Kawasan Ekonomi Khusus.”Kompas [Jakarta] 26 Apr. 2013, Web. 21 Feb. 2014. . [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. . [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 first 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. . [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. [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. . [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. . [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 43


44


Bangunan ini berlokasi di Jalan Pintu Besar Utara di sisi barat Fatahillah. Desain teralis dari besi tempa-nya sangat cantik dan menarik, menjadikannya satu dari beberapa bangunan disini yang disukai para fotografer. jendela di lantai kedua dihiasi kaca patri dan menggambarkan simbol-simbol kota yang dikuasai Belanda. - Moch. Ichsan Harja Nugraha -

45


‘MENCARI ARSITEK KONSERVATORIS’ oleh Yusni Aziz

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. 46


Kiprahnya dalam dunia konservasi diawali pada tahun 1980-an ketika Uskup Agung 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. 1. Tulisan dapat ditemukan dalam Prosiding Seminar Nasional Perkembangan Teknologi VS Konservasi Arsitektur. Jurusan Arsitektur Universitas Merdeka Malang, 28 Agustus 2008. 47


Bangunan kolonial di Kota Tua Jakarta rubuh di awal tahun 2014 karena kurangnya sentuhan konservasi ©YusniAziz

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. 48


Lantas, 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 sini muncul beberapa tindakan arkeologis yang sangat fundamental. Pada tahun 1907 hingga 1911, tim pimpinan Theodoor van Erp melakukan restorasi pertama Borobudur. Kemudian tahun 1902, van Erp juga mengawali pemugaran candi Prambanan, yang akhirnya terselesaikan tahun 1953 di bawah pemerintah Indonesia4. Borobudur sebelum proses restorasi Theodoor van Erp. (Sumber: Borobudur, Periplus Editions HK Ltd. 1990) 2. Surat terbuka dapat dilihat di: http://resources.ber trandgoldberg. o r g / O p e n - L e t t e r- t o - M a y o rEmanuel_Prentice_08.29.12.pdf 3. Surat terbuka untuk preservasi rumah Konstantin Melnikov dapat dilihat di: http://www. a r q u i t e c t u r av i v a . c o m / m e d i a / Documentos/melnikov_heritage.pdf 4. Lihat “Momen penting dalam pergerakan konservasi arsitektur Indonesia” di akhir halaman 49


Mayoritas arsitek sendiri pada saat itu lebih terfokus untuk mengenalkan modernisme, atau berusaha melakukan sintensis dengan kearifan lokal. Di era pemerintahan Soekarno, mereka semakin sibuk dengan arsitektur modern sebagai usaha penciptaan identitas baru bangsa Indonesia. Hingga akhirnya di tahun 1970an, konservasi semakin terangkat di kalangan arsitek ketika Ali Sadikin mempelopori revitalisasi kota tua Jakarta. Namun pendidikan arsitektur di perguruan tinggi pada saat itu masih belum memberikan pendidikan konservasi. Alhasil, arsitek Indonesia yang mendapatkan proyek konservasi cenderung belajar secara otodidak seperti Han Awal. Dewasa ini, beberapa universitas sudah mengenalkan ilmu konservasi bangunan, meski masih dalam ranah mata kuliah pilihan. Konservasi seakan masih belum menjadi hal krusial dalam dunia pendidikan arsitektur Indonesia. Nadia berpendapat, “Karena pemugaran itu engga popular. Mereka lebih suka desain kan? Bangunan tingkat tinggi, atau yang kompleks. Daripada bangunan tua itu.” “Mata kuliah sejarah arsitektur juga cenderung di anak tirikan oleh mahasiswa karena buat mereka engga keren.” “Tapi menurut saya ya engga salah kalau mahasiswanya kaya gitu, lah dosen-dosennya juga banyak yang engga paham.” Alhasil mayoritas arsitek muda kurang memiliki kesadaran dan wawasan konservasi yang diperlukan dalam dunia arsitektur. Jika hal ini terus berlanjut, praktik konservasi terancam akan selalu didominasi oleh arkeolog. Arya mengatakan dominasi ini juga berdampak besar pada kinerja dokumentasi depdikbud, dimana data gambar yang sudah ada cenderung masih prematur untuk kebutuhan kerja arsitek. Ini menjadi salah satu alasan untuk mendirikan PDA sebagai institusi independen pada tahun 2002. Sebagai salah satu pendiri, Arya menyatakan PDA berusaha menjembatani perdebatan antara arsitek dan arkeolog. PDA juga melakukan pekerjaan esensial melalui kegiatan penelitian dan dokumentasi isuisu arsitektur dan cagar budaya Indonesia. “Kalau bikin ‘Pedoman’ terlalu formal, itu urusan negara dan pemerintah, akhirnya dinamakan ‘Panduan’. Panduan itu pun pada saat mau dicetak kita pikir harusnya dibuat oleh instansi yang berwenang. Makanya saya rubah judulnya jadi ‘Pengantar Panduan’. Dan istilahnya sangat di-appreciate oleh pihak pemerintah.”, ujar Han Awal. ©YusniAziz 50


Sebagai arsitek konservatoris, Han Awal merasa mendapatkan dukungan luar biasa dengan adanya PDA. Dia juga merasa PDA telah melakukan sebuah gerakan signifikan dengan penerbitan “Pengantar Panduan Konservasi Bangunan Bersejarah Masa Kolonial” di tahun 2011. Buku ini mencoba memberikan pemahaman dasar konservasi dari sudut pandang arsitek. Sesuatu yang belum pernah ada sebelumnya. Dengan adanya buku ini untuk publik, Han berpesan, “Saya yakin setiap arsitek bisa melakukan konservasi, asal ada sikap ingin tahu dan hati-hati.” * Selain pendidikan, kebijakan pemerintah juga berdampak besar pada praktik arsitek konservatoris. UU Cagar Budaya no. 11 tahun 2010 mengamanatkan bahwa setiap pemerintah kota harus memiliki tim Ahli Cagar Budaya untuk mengusulkan penetapan atau penghapusan BCB. Arya memandang ini sebagai sebuah langkah yang positif. Dia kemudian menegaskan bahwa TSP DKI Jakarta telah berdiri jauh sebelum terbitnya kebijakan tersebut, dan bahkan fungsinya telah merambah ke ranah perijinan. Dengan ini, setiap arsitek yang menangani proyek tentang BCB atau KCB di Jakarta harus berdiskusi dengan TSP, yang anggotanya mencakup arsitek, arkeolog, planolog hingga budayawan. Arya berpendapat bahwa diskusi ini dapat membantu mencari solusi terbaik untuk proyek konservasi yang cenderung memiliki grey area yang sangat tebal. Apa yang sebaiknya tidak dilakukan di bangunan satu mungkin dapat menjadi sebuah rekomendasi ke bangunan yang lain, tergantung dari berbagai pertimbangan arsitektural dan konteks pada saat itu. Meski demikian, dukungan pemerintah dirasa masih belum optimal. Masih banyak juga kebijakan yang cenderung menjerat praktik arsitek konservatoris. “Serba sulit kalau kita kaitkan dengan aturan proyek pemerintah. Proyek itu ditenderkan, komponen penilaian tender lebih banyak biaya daripada teknis. Sementara kalau bicara konservasi, justru masalah teknis didahulukan”, komentar Arya. Insentif untuk konservasi juga masih belum ada sehingga arsitek dan pemilik bangunan tidak terlalu tertarik untuk mengusulkan konservasi. Arya menambahkan, “Pada waktu bekerja di konservasi, sebetulnya kita kerja double. Sebagai arsitek dan peneliti. Namun jika itu proyek pemerintah, kita dibayar seperti proyek pemerintah yang lain. Dan sialnya juga terkadang pekerjaan itu disebut sebagai pekerjaan rehabilitasi!” Standar gaji untuk pekerjaan rehabilitasi memang cukup minim, ujar Han Awal. Membuat konservasi cenderung menjadi pekerjaan sampingan seorang praktisi, demi hobi atau idealisme dalam berprofesi. Hal ini tentu membuat banyak orang berpikir dua kali jika ingin mendalami konservasi. Membuat kita terancam untuk selalu kekurangan arsitek konservatoris.

51


Namun akhirnya tantangan yang luar biasa besar, tidak membuat para penggiat konservasi menyerah. Perlahan tapi pasti, dengan optimis, perjuangan Han Awal, Arya Abieta, Nadia Purwestri bersama rekan lain untuk mengangkat praktik konservasi semakin menunjukkan masa depan yang cerah. Kesadaran pemerintah kota dan masyarakat akan pentingnya bangunan bersejarah semakin meningkat. Tim Ahli Cagar Budaya sudah dibentuk di Surabaya, Solo,Yogyakarta, dan beberapa kota lainnya. Mimpi Ali Sadikin pun dilanjutkan kembali lewat sebuah langkah yang patut dicontoh melalui kerjasama pembentukan Jakarta Old Town Revitalization Corporation (JOTRC). Konsorsium ini berinisiatif untuk menghidupkan kembali kawasan Kota Tua dengan membeli 85 bangunan dan merenovasinya kembali. Ini berarti juga membuka jalan lapang untuk pekerjaan konservasi bersama dengan pihak privat hingga setidaknya 20 tahun kedepan, sesuai target operasi mereka.

Gedung Arsip Nasional dan Wae Rebo, pemenang penghargaan tertinggi, “Award of Excellence” dari UNESCO AsiaPacific Heritage Award. (Sumber: kiri: ©Henrivandeputte; kanan: ©florestourism.com)

Proyek konservasi kita juga sering mengangkat dunia arsitektur Indonesia di mata internasional. “Award of Excellence” dari UNESCO Asia-Pacific Heritage Award pernah diberikan kepada proyek Arsip Nasional pada tahun 2001, atau Wae Rebo dari Rumah Asuh pada tahun 2012. Wae Rebo juga pernah terdaftar dalam shortlist untuk Aga Khan Award 2012. Semakin banyak juga kerjasama dengan pihak internasional terkait dengan pergerakan cagar budaya mulai dari International Committee of the Blue Shield, UN-Habitat, UNESCO, dan dengan Pemerintah Belanda, seperti program Jakarta Old Town Reborn dan Inventarisasi benteng di Indonesia. Namun perjalanan masihlah panjang. Masih banyak mimpi yang ingin dicapai. Nadia berharap, “Saya inginnya makin banyak arsitek yang melek konservasi. Supaya bangunan-bangunan kita bisa lebih lestari.” Arya juga merasa bahwa hal itu sangat penting, sehingga dunia arsitektur bisa menjadi lebih ideal. Arsitek konservatoris bisa bergerak secara independen atau mendukung arsitek lain dalam proyek konservasi. Kerjasama ini sangat penting sehingga usulan akan menjadi kreatif dan tetap dapat dipertanggungjawabkan dalam kaidah konservasi. Untuk dunia konservasi yang lebih progresif, tidak selalu didominasi oleh pendekatan arkeologis. 52


Dalam dunia pendidikan, Nadia berharap dalam waktu dekat sebaiknya semua universitas bisa mewajibkan mahasiswa arsitektur untuk mengambil mata kuliah konservasi, minimal satu semester. Arya juga mengusulkan sebaiknya mulai dipikirkan mendirikan S2 khusus konservasi, mengingat beberapa universitas sudah memiliki sumber daya yang memadai. Han Awal menambahkan, “Undangundang dan peraturan yang ada perlu dielaborasi. Dan janganlah konservasi itu dianggap sebagai kerjaan rehab. Skala fee-nya itu tidak banyak. Kalau ada peraturan yang lebih baik, dan insentif mungkin orang akan lebih tertarik.” Pemugaran gedung Jasindo oleh Arya Abieta dalam proses konstruksi. JOTRC akan melanjutkan dengan 85 bangunan lainnya ©YusniAziz

*

Tanpa terasa, kopi susu saya sudah hampir habis. Langit juga sudah mulai gelap.Ternyata sudah satu jam lebih saya bercengkrama dengan Han Awal. Menjelang akhir, Han Awal menekankan dia tidak pernah berekspektasi macam-macam dalam berprofesi sebagai arsitek konservatoris, meski pengakuan semakin sering datang dari berbagai pihak. Seperti Professor Teeuw Award dalam bidang pemugaran yang diberikan kepadanya di tahun 2007; dan Satya Lencana dari Presiden SBY yang dianugerahkan atas perjuangannya dalam konservasi di tahun 2013. Ketika saya tanyakan apakah ada keinginan untuk mendapatkan penghargaan UNESCO untuk proyek Jakarta Kota Tua, dia menjawab, “Saya lebih mementingkan, bagaimana saya bertanggung jawab kepada isu sejarah. Kalau saya dapat memperkaya tanpa mengganggu jejak sejarah, its okay. Bahwa itu nanti dihargai macam-macam, itu bonus.” “Yang penting, saya bertanggung jawab. Dan itu satu poin yang juga harus dipegang arsitek terutama yang muda, beranilah bertanggung jawab!” Begitu banyak ilmu yang dia dapat dari bekerja sebagai arsitek konservatoris. Mulai dari kearifan masa lampau, hingga cara pandang baru yang lebih menghargai setiap peran dalam proses pembangunan sebagai mitra sejajar, baik klien, kontraktor ataupun para pengrajin. Untuk semua ini, Han Awal berkata, “Saya sangat berterima kasih. Luar biasa kayanya. Dan saya ingin kerja terus sampai akhirnya engga bisa.” 53

edisi #8: Preservasi. volume 2: AksiPERGERAKAN KONSERVASI ARSITEKTUR INDONESIA MOMEN PENTING DALAM

1900

1910

1920

1930

1940

1950

PENGHARGAAN

PROYEK KONSERVASI

19 Siw te Pe

1902 - 1903: Restorasi bagian dasar Candi Prambanan oleh Theodoor van Erp 1907 - 1911: Restorasi pertama Borobudur oleh Theodoor van Erp 1918 - 1926: P. J. Perquin (Oundheidkundige Dienst) melanjutkan restorasi Prambanan 1926 - 1930: De Haan melanjutkan restorasi Prambanan 1931 - 1942: V.R. van Romont merestorasi Prambanan

PROGRAM & ORGANISASI

1901: Commisie in Nederlandsche-Indie voor Oudheidkundige Orderzoek op Java en Madura (Komisi Penelitian Arkeologi di Hindia-Belanda)

1951 Diens Purba

1913: Oudheidkundige Dienst in Nederlandsche-Indie (Dinas Purbakala Hindia-Belanda)

19

UNDANG UNDANG 54

Monumenten Ordonantie no. 238 tahun 1931 Monumenten Ordonantie no. 21 tahun 1934


1960

1970

1980

1990

2000

2010

2000: UNESCO Asia-Pacific Heritage Awards: “Honorable Mention” untuk Restorasi rumah Charles Prosper Wolff Schoemaker, Bandung

2020

2012: UNESCO Asia Pacific Heritage Award: “Award of Excellence” untuk Wae Rebo; IAI Jakarta Award kepada Swiss Ambassador Residence

2001: UNESCO Asia Pacific Heritage Award: “Award of Excellence” untuk Arsip Nasional, Jakarta 2003: UNESCO Asia-Pacific Heritage Awards: “Award of Merit” untuk Jembatan Chen-Tek, Medan. 2006: IAI Jakarta Award kepada Konservasi Gedung Eks Imigrasi Bataviasche Kunstkring 2007: Soedarmadji Damais, Wastu Pragantha Zhong & Han Awal mendapat penghargaan Teeuw Award untuk pemugaran. 2011: IAI Award untuk Wae Rebo

953: Restorasi Candi wa, Prambanan erselesaikan di bawah emerintah Indonesia

1971 - 1984: Restorasi kedua Borobudur oleh Pemerintah Indonesia 1977 – 1987: Restorasi Candi Brahma, Prambanan 1982 – 1991: Restorasi Candi Wisnu, Prambanan

2004 - 2010: Konservasi gedung eks Imigrasi, Jakarta 2006 - 2008: Konservasi gedung bank Indonesia, Jakarta 2009: Pelestarian Wae Rebo 2010: Konservasi gereja St Leo, Padang & Rehabilitasi Jam Gadang, Bukittinggi

1987: Pemugaran gereja Katedral, Jakarta

2014: Renovasi gedung Jasindo & Kantor Pos, Jakarta

1997 - 1998: Restorasi Arsip Nasional, Jakarta 1959: Lahirnya Ikatan Arsitek Indonesia (IAI)

2000: Lahirnya JPPI 2002: Berdirinya Pusat Dokumentasi Arsitektur

1: Oudheidkundige st menjadi Dinas akala

1970an: Revitalisasi Jakarta Kota oleh Ali Sadikin

953 - 1957: ATAP

1991: Balai Studi dan Konservasi Borobudur. Pada tahun 2006, berubah menjadi Balai Konservasi Peninggalan Borobudur

2003: Lahirnya Piagam Pelestarian Pusaka Indonesia. 2004: Lahirnya BPPI

TAHUN PUSAKA INDONESIA 2003

2007: OMAH UGM, Inventarisasi benteng seluruh Indonesia (hingga 2010); Berdirinya Jakarta Old Town Kotaku 2008: Berdirinya JKPI; Rumah Asuh; dan Indonesian Committee for Blue Shield

Akhir 1980an: Lahirnya Arsitek Muda Indonesia (AMI)

2012: P3KP / Kota Pusaka Heritage Planning 2013: Lahirnya JOTRC

TAHUN PUSAKA INDONESIA 2013 & JEFORAH UU Cagar Budaya no. 5 tahun 1992

UU Cagar Budaya no. 11 tahun 2010

Sumber: Pusat Dokumentasi Arsitektur, BPPI & Berbagai Sumber 55


YORI ANTAR : PERJUANGAN UNTUK NUSANTARA oleh Yusni Aziz 56


Siapapun yang pernah mengunjungi kantor Han Awal & Partners pasti terhenyak saat datang pertama kali. Selamat tinggal suasana kantor yang tipikal, karena apa yang ada lebih mirip sebuah rumah peristirahatan dengan kolam renang dan area untuk bersantai. Bahkan saat datang kesini, David Gianotten dari OMA pun berujar, “We should have an office like this!”. Bangunan yang sama juga menjadi markas Rumah Asuh, yayasan pertama di Indonesia yang bergerak dalam preservasi arsitektur nusantara. Sore itu, saya, mewakili RUANG, datang untuk berdiskusi dengan Yori Antar mengenai pergerakan tersebut. Sebuah langkah baru dan berani untuk dunia arsitektur Indonesia. Bagaimana sebetulnya Rumah Asuh (RA) didirikan? Saya sering melakukan perjalanan, baik di dalam maupun di luar negeri, untuk melihat obyek-obyek arsitektur. Dari arsitektur modern, seperti Le Corbusier atau Mies van de Rohe, hingga arsitektur tradisional yang dibangun masyarakat setempat. Setelahnya, saya refleksikan terhadap keadaan Indonesia. Seringkali saya menemukan fakta-fakta baru.

Semua foto ©RumahAsuh

Salah satu perjalanan yang terpenting adalah ketika ke negeri Tibet. Kami mengunjungi 3 wilayah Tibet: Tibet Cina, Tibet Nepal, dan Tibet India. Pada tahun 2003, perjalanan kami menghasilkan buku berjudul Tibet di Otak. Iseng-iseng kami meminta kata sambutan dari Dalai Lama, mengejutkannya ia membalas kurang dari 2 minggu. Tulisannya menggerakan saya untuk lebih mengetahui negeri sendiri.

Apa yang sangat berkesan dari kata sambutannya ? Saat kami di Tibet Cina, Dalai Lama sudah terusir ke India. Kami katakan bahwa kami mendapat banyak pengalaman yang luar biasa di negeri Tibet. Tidak banyak orang Indonesia yang mengenal negeri anda, karenanya kami ingin menuliskannya dari kacamata orang Indonesia. Dia membalas, walaupun bangsa Indonesia tidak mengenal negeri Tibet. Sebaliknya, sejak berdirinya negeri Tibet sampai sekarang kami selalu mengenal Indonesia. Guru besar kami seorang India bernama Atisa Dipamkara. Ia berguru selama 11 tahun kepada seorang Lama – pemimpin tinggi Budha – bernama Serlingpa. Lama itu berasal dari Golden Islands, atau tepatnya tepatnya Sumatra. Di sana dia dikenal sebagai Dharmakirti. 57


Hal itu menjadi pelajaran wajib murid-murid Budha Tibet. Sedangkan, orang Indonesia sendiri engga tahu Dharmakirti dan peninggalannya. Perjalanan penting lainnya ketika kami ke Kamboja untuk melihat Angkor Wat, yang ternyata sangat mirip dengan Prambanan dan Borobudur. Ternyata dinasti Jayawarman I, yang memimpin pada masa itu, berasal dari dinasti Syailendra yang juga membangun Borobudur. Angkot Wat adalah kerajaan yang didirikan oleh dinasti Syailendra dalam pelariannya ke Kamboja. Indonesia telah menginspirasi sekelilingnya di masa itu, namun orang Indonesia kurang mengenal negeri sendiri. Buku-buku yang menceritakan sejarah Indonesia malah ditulis oleh orang asing. Bahkan, masak candi Borobudur yang menemukan Raffles? Kan Aneh? Udah ada dari dulu, kenapa dia yang nemuin! Pengetahuan sejarah yang blank, membuat kita amnesia sejarah. Dari sana, saya ingin lebih mengenal Indonesia, karenanya kami melakukan perjalanan rutin keliling Nusantara. Sejak 2003, kami sudah mengunjungi Nias, Toraja, serta desa-desa adat yang sulit dijangkau. Pada tahun 2008, kami bertandang ke NTT, tepatnya wilayah Flores dan Sumba. Dua perjalanan itu sangat penting untuk kelahiran RA. Di Sumba, kami bertemu seorang rohaniwan, fotografer, dan pecinta budaya Sumba bernama Pastor Robert Ramone. Kelak dia akan menjadi motor pembangunan program-program RA di Sumba, di Katenggaro, Waenyabo, dan Baetabula. Apa bapak Robert adalah orang asli Sumba? Iya. Hidupnya juga diserahkan untuk melestarikan budaya Sumba. Bersama pak Robert, RA melakukan pembangunan rumah-rumah dan desa adat yang terus berjalan hingga sekarang. Lain halnya dengan Flores, kami menemukan Wae Rebo. Awalnya, kami tidak mengetahui lokasi Wae Rebo. Satu-satunya informasi yang kami miliki adalah bangunannya, yang bisa memuat 100 orang, terancam punah. Tanpa arah yang jelas, kami mencari ke Manggarai. Setelah dua hari tanpa hasil, kami memutuskan untuk menghentikan pencarian.

58


2008 Semua foto ©RumahAsuh

Dalam perjalanan pulang, kami mampir di sebuah rumah makan yang ramai dengan orang asing. Kami terkejut oleh foto Wae Rebo di dindingnya. Namun, pemiliknya tidak tahu, hanya menunjuk rombongan turis yang akan menuju Wae Rebo dan menyarankan seorang supir yang bisa mengantar. Kamipun membuat janji dengannya untuk berangkat ke Wae Rebo jam 10 malam. Namun, ia tidak datang, dan digantikan oleh temannya. Sayangnya ia juga hanya mengerti bahasa Manggarai. Kami pasrah, dan tetap berangkat.

2008

Dari Ruteng, kami bermobil dari jam 12 malam hingga 5 pagi, namun belum terlihat tandatanda Wae Rebo. Setengah 6 pagi kami sampai di sebuah desa bernama Denge, yang merupakan perhentian terakhir ke Wae Rebo. Kami bertemu dengan seorang guru bernama Blasius Monta. Ia kaget dengan kehadiran kami. “Mau ke Wae Rebo? Deket, tinggal jalan kaki. Tapi makan dulu, jalannya agak berat.” Kami ber15 dikasih makan mi instan dan nasi. Setelahnya, pak Blas memanggil dua orang guide untuk membimbing kami. Kami berjalan tanpa jalan setapak dan menyeberangi sungai setinggi pinggang. Setelah 3 jam masih belum sampai, saya semakin deg-degan. Dua kali saya ingin kembali karena tidak ada kejelasan. Perjalanan semakin berat. Kami tidak lagi berjalan dengan kaki; merayap bahkan pakai pantat, bermodal nekat. Setelah berjalan lima jam, pada jam 3 sore, kabut tiba-tiba terbuka. Terlihatlah siluet empat rumah bundar. Kami berteriak senang, bertepuk tangan. Sementara Wae Rebo membalas dengan gonggongan anjing. 59


Rupanya masyarakat sadar dengan kedatangan kami dan keluar rumah. Dua pihak yang samasama asing bertemu. Buat saya, itu adalah pertemuan bersejarah. Kami adalah orang Indonesia pertama yang masuk ke Wae Rebo! Kami menemukan desa yang nyaris punah. Berdasarkan data pak Blasius, ada ratusan turis tapi tidak satupun orang Indonesia. Saat itu, ada 8 mahasiswa dari Taiwan yang sudah seminggu menginap, dan 2 antropolog dari Amerika yang perempuannya sudah menetap selama 1,5 tahun. Desa ini seperti jendela dunia. Di tempat itu kami menemukan berbagai bangsa. Orang Wae Rebo menganggap orang dari Jakarta adalah orang tua mereka. Saya katakan bahwa saya datang dari Jakarta yang justru tidak punya akar. Saya datang untuk belajar dari akar arsitektur Indonesia. Kemudian sampai kapan kita hanya jadi penonton, padahal banyak potensi dari arsitektur nusantara. Anggaplah kita seorang dokter. ada pasien yang sakit, kita hanya melihat, merekam, dan memfoto penyakitnya, tapi jika tidak berusaha menyembuhkan, sama saja kita melakukan dosa profesi. Jadi, jangan menunggu siapa-siapa lagi, ini tugas kita! Kami mengenal seseorang dari Wae Rebo bernama pak Martin. Ia pernah bercita-cita menjadi pastur di Filipina, tetapi tidak jadi. Namun, positifnya dia belajar bahasa Inggris. Pak Martin menjadi juru bicara Wae Rebo yang membawa keluar-masuk turis asing. Seperti duta besar. Dan yang paling penting, kami bertemu pak Frans, kepala tukang yang pernah memperbaiki Wae Rebo. Saya undang pak Blasius, pak Martin, dan pak Frans ke Jakarta. Dahulu ada tujuh rumah, sekarang tinggal empat, kata mereka. Saya bertanya, “Kalau misalnya dicarikan dana, mau engga kalian bangun lagi?” Mereka bilang, “Oh, itu engga pernah kita pikirkan pak. Buat kami, memperbaiki saja udah lebih dari cukup. Kami miskin, engga bisa mengambil kayu dari hutan karena hutan itu sudah termasuk kawasan hutan lindung.” Jadi, karena desa tersebut termasuk kawasan hutan lindung yang tidak boleh ada manusia di dalamnya. Pernah desa itu disuruh pindah. Mereka bingung, lah mereka sudah ada sebelum Indonesia merdeka kenapa disuruh pindah? Akhirnya mereka harus beli kayu-kayu di pasar, dan harganya mahal sekali. Padahal kayunya juga dari hutan mereka. Itu ternyata juga permasalahan utama rumah adat dimana-mana! Dari situ saya pertemukan mereka dengan ibu Tirto, dari Aqua, yang saya ajak menjadi donatur. Awalnya, ibu Tirto masih belum tertarik, namun, ketika bertemu dan melihat kejujuran mereka. Ia pun terketuk dan berjanji membantu. Kami membuat program pembangunan satu rumah di Denge. Semacam perpustakaan dan museum kecil, tempat dokumentasi pembangunan itu. Kemudian di Wae Rebo, pembangunan dimulai. Menariknya, saat membangun, satu rumah yang sudah agak rusak dipretelin untuk dipelajari dan diperbaiki. Setelah paham, mereka dapat membangun kembali dengan cara mereka sendiri. Dari situ saya mendapatkan formula! 60


Pertama, cara mempelajarinya adalah dengan membiarkan mereka membangun dengan cara mereka seasli-aslinya, karena itu rumah adat bukan rumah modern. Saya juga melihat luar biasanya upacara, budaya, kehidupan sosialnya sebagai sebuah kegiatan yang sangat berharga, sebagai living culture. Bahkan yang sudah mulai punah, hidup lagi. Jadi sebetulnya bapak tidak mempertahankan monument tapi living culture-nya? Iya. Buat saya, itu adalah living museum. Setelah rumah itu selesai, bu Tirto tambah lagi satu. Namun, rumah mereka masih empat karena yang lama dibongkar lagi dan membangun lebih cepat. Saat pembangunan rumah kedua, saya mengirim dua mahasiswa dari UI dan UNS untuk merekam prosesnya dari awal sampai selesai. Selama satu bulan lamanya. Tanpa pernah pulang. Data itu menjadi buku Pesan dari Wae Rebo yang menghasilkan tiga rumah lainnya. Lengkaplah rumah Wae Rebo menjadi tujuh. Selanjutnya, kami kirim lebih banyak mahasiswa. Mereka mendokumentasikan melalui tulisan, gambar digital, foto, dan video. Data-data ini akan merubah pendidikan arsitektur di Indonesia, karena untuk pertama kalinya kita punya bahan arsitektur nusantara. Prof Josef Prijotomo bahkan berani menulis, “Kebangkitan Kembali Arsitektur Nusantara”.

Semua foto ©RumahAsuh

Wae Rebo menjadi bahan kampanye saya ke perguruan tinggi dan pemerintah. Depdikbud tersadar bahwa saya mengurusi living culture, sementara mereka mengurusi dead monument. Seharusnya kita menyelamatkan living culture, bukan dead monument. Dengan membuat museum, 61


jangan-jangan budaya malah kita matikan supaya bisa masuk museum. Mending kita selamatkan desa-desa adat yang terancam punah. Ide ini didengar wamen, Ibu Wiendu Nuryanti, dan kami ditawarkan program rumah budaya, yang diadopsi dari RA. Program itu saya tolak, karena mindset berpikirnya proyek. Masa saya suruh jadi kontraktor. Jangan pakai metode proyek, jangan pakai tender. Ini masyarakat, kita harus bekerja bersamasama masyarakat. Kalau dijadikan proyek, mereka akan melakukan penolakan, dan akhirnya bukan milik mereka lagi. Hal ini menyadarkan Kemen PU, program mereka dalam penyelamatan rumah adat menghadapi banyak kegagalan. Rumah adatnya diganti semen, dicor, dan sebagainya. Ada satu rumah yang berhasil dibangun oleh kontraktor, tapi masyarakat engga mau pakai. Tujuannya sudah benar tapi resepnya salah. Uang segitu banyak akhirnya engga kepakai, seperti program bagi-bagi kulkas untuk rumah adat Sasak, Lombok, yang dilakukan Depdikbud . Masak rumah adat ada kulkasnya? Itu kan konyol! Itu uang hangus, karena engga ada yang jalan. Itu kan sebetulnya juga bisa memusnahkan budaya yang ada? Iya, itu kan penghancuran sistematis. Saya katakan, sebaiknya sistemnya berupa bansos, nilainya terbatas 500 juta. Itu sudah cukup! Dan untuk menerima dana bansos, masyarakat harus membuat sebuah lembaga. Memang agak rumit, tapi programnya jalan. Pemerintah membangun 2 rumah lainnya yang masih bagus, rumah yang utama dan terakhir, jadi semuanya benar-benar baru. Mereka juga membangun di Sumba. Kemdikbud sekarang bangga dan mereka mengadopsi resep RA. Yang paling penting buat saya dengan program RA ini, kita berhasil merubah mindset dunia pendidikan. Kalau merubah jalur birokrasi, sampai kapanpun tidak bisa. Mindset bahwa arsitektur Indonesia ini harus mengacu kepada arsitektur nusantara. Seluruh dunia sedang mencari green building, arsitek nusantara jelas memenuhi green building. Ada gempa dimanamana, arsitektur nusantara tetap survive. Makanya kita harus mengkinikan arsitektur nusantara. Apa proses pengkinian arsitektur nusantara itu saat ini sudah berjalan? Sudah, justru melalui perguruan tinggi. Permasalahannya adalah, selama masa kuliah hingga kini, kita tidak pernah mendapatkan pendidikan arsitektur nusantara. Buku-buku tentang arsitektur dan tokoh luar negeri hafal, tapi buku tentang arsitektur nusantara engga ada. Dari sini, mahasiswa belajar banyak dan makin banyak yang ingin ikut. Program kami di Sumpur, Sumatera Barat, malah yang bergerak satu universitas, yaitu Universitas Bung Hatta. Inilah dunia akademis kita yang baru, dan ini menjadi tugas teman-teman IAI daerah. Jadi tidak usah repot-repot, selamatkanlah semua aset budaya daerah itu. 62


Kita akan bikin buku yang akan menjadi pembelajaran. Buku itu akhirnya menjadi hak cipta kita semua. Jadi kalau ada yang minta data ke saya, saya kasih. Mari kita menuju arsitektur Indonesia dengan mindset baru. Jadi kesimpulan dari saya adalah arsitektur nusantara penting buat Indonesia, dan penting juga buat dunia. Sudah saatnya arsitektur nusantara menginspirasi dunia. Permasalahannya, siapa duluan yang mendapat ilmu itu? Kalau kita engga duluan, arsitek luar negeri yang bisa duluan menemukan formulanya. Apakah pengkiniannya juga sudah terformalisasi ke dalam institusi pendidikan? Pasti. Sekarang ini ada sayembara arsitektur nusantara yang disponsori oleh Propan, dan sebagian dari perguruan tinggi sudah menjadikan sebagai bagian dari studio atau ujian akhir. Jurinya pak Endy Subijono, Popo Danes, Prof. Josef Prijotomo. UNESCO juga pertama kalinya memberi penghargaan kepada bangunan seperti Wae Rebo. Selama ini mereka condong memberikan penghargaan kepada bangunan-bangunan yang lebih tektonik, dari batu atau bata. Mereka bilang ada dua poin yang membuatnya menang. Pertama yang melakukan adalah masyarakatnya sendiri dan kedua, terjadi proses pembelajaran kepada masyarakat adat sekaligus kepada dunia akademis. Dari sini kita mulai menerima banyak panggilan. Saya dipanggil ke Australia, Kroasia untuk bicara mengenai Wae Rebo. Wae Rebo akhirnya juga masuk shortlist Aga Khan. Itu publikasi yang luar biasa, alhasil tahun lalu jumlah turis meningkat ke Waerebo hingga 4 kali lipat, baik turis asing maupun lokal. Jadi, walau ada DNA yang hilang, yang baru yang bisa kita tambahkan ke dalam masyarakat. DNA yang baru itu kita berikan pembelajaran seperti pariwisata dan bahasa Inggris. Saya sampaikan agar mereka membuka diri untuk eco-tourism. Seperti program homestay untuk mendapatkan income. Namun, kita juga harus waspada, apakah dengan banyaknya turis ini nantinya akan merubah. Mereka punya cara sendiri untuk menyortir, saya usulkan kalau perlu dimahalin! Jadi turis yang masuk juga bukan sembarangan, seperti di Nepal dan Bhutan. Turis yang kasar dan kelakuan yang engga terpuji tidak diterima. Tapi akhirnya menurut bapak apakah punahnya itu juga karena pendidikan arsitektur modern? Secara tidak langsung, kitalah pembunuhnya, melalui pendidikan arsitektur modern. Kita diajarkan yang modern lah masa depan, arsitektur tradisional adalah masa lampau. Kita dibingungkan dengan masa depan yang bukan dari akar kita, tapi dari revolusi industri Eropa. Kita disuruh menganggap tradisi adalah bagian dari masa lampau. 63


Foto ©RumahAsuh

Kemudian apa langkah kedepan dan mimpi besar dari RA? RA bekerjasama dengan Propan mengadakan sayembara untuk perguruan tinggi, berkala setahun sekali. Sayembara arsitektur belum pernah dilakukan secara masif dalam bentuk roadshow ke perguruan tinggi. Ada 15 lebih perguruan tinggi yang kami datangi. Brief-nya adalah merancang rumah budaya dengan mengkinikan arsitektur nusantara di daerah masingmasing. Terbuka untuk mahasiswa dan fresh graduate yang maksimal 2 tahun lulus. Sayembara berikutnya adalah mendata rumah tradisional. Jadi yang dipilih adalah siapa yang bisa mendata selengkap mungkin dari Rumah Adat di daerah masing-masing. Misalnya sudah kejadian, kita akan punya data untuk dibagi. Perguruan tinggi akhirnya punya PR yang luar biasa untuk menggali budaya kita sendiri. Bahkan, saya terobsesi untuk menemukan DNA bangunan yang sudah punah. Misi saya, saya berharap tahun ini bisa membuat pameran bersama Tropeninstituut (Koninklijk Instituut voor de Tropen). Saya akan kasih semua bahan-bahan saya dari RA dengan kompensasi bahan-bahan sejarah dari mereka. Data-data antropologis kita itu sangat lengkap di Tropen Instituut dan KILTV. Kami tidak hanya mengurus data di tingkat nasional, tetapi juga internasional. Bahkan kerjasama ini juga akan sampai ke Malaysia. Saya pernah presentasi di Australia, bersama arsitek restorasi 64


Asia. Pada saat arsitek Malaysia melihat waerebo, mereka kaget, “Kami baru sadar. Ternyata selama ini kami merestorasi bangunan peninggalan Inggris! Kami ingin diajarin!” Ada rumah Dayak di desa adat Dayak Bidayuh, Kalimantan, yang bentuknya bulat yang biasanya mendampingi rumah tengkoraknya. Suku dayak ini ada di Indonesia dan juga Malaysia. Kami pelajari dari Rumah Dayak yang ada di Malaysia kemudian diaplikasikan lagi ke Dayak yang di Indonesia. Donaturnya saya yang carikan, tapi datanya dari mereka. Mereka setuju, dan lokasi akhirnya di Indonesia. Datanya nanti buat Indonesia dan Malaysia. Apa juga ada mimpi untuk membawa arsitektur tradisional Indonesia ke ranah internasional ? Jelas, mungkin itu bukan tugas saya lagi, tetapi arsitek-arsitek yang akan datang. Kami membuka jalan, dan itu sudah cukup. Tidak usah mengurusi birokrasi yang begitu rumit, cukup dengan mengubah mindset. Jadi kalau kita mau bikin perubahan secara cepat dan masif, itu harus dari mindset. Percuma berbelit birokrasi, kita kecapekan sendiri. Akhirnya, bagaimana kesan mahasiswa yang menginap 2-3 bulan di lapangan itu? Kamu bisa tanya ke mahasiswa tersebut. Mereka pernah menjawab, kami dapat harta karun, Pak! . Beberapa bilang, “ini seperti sekolah kami.” Program itu berhasil buat saya, karena saya berhasil mengubah mindset dan kecintaan mereka, dan menjadi militan. Mereka selalu menceritakan ini ke teman, dosennya, mereka jadi dikenal dan ketua jurusannya minta lagi dikirimkan. Kajur ITS sampai bilang, “saya senang sekali bapak mengirimkan mahasiswa kami ke Sumba. Setelah pulang dia berubah” “Dia lebih percaya diri” Jadi pada waktu mahasiswa dia masih bingung, sekarang dia sudah mengerti kenapa dia menjadi arsitek. Setiap kali saya ke kampus, mereka selalu tanya, “Kapan kita dikirim?” Seperti perang, “kita rebut merah putih!” Hahaha. Darah muda dan kebangsaan mereka hidup lagi. Ini hal yang patut kami syukuri, karena engga mengira dampaknya sampai kemana-mana. Dan ini bergulir terus, dan tetap menginspirasi. Bahkan Eko Alvares, yang juga dosen di Univ Bung Hatta bilang, “Yor, aku akan melakukan apa yang kamu lakukan di Waerebo, membantu rumah gadang dibangun.” Dia sudah ada pasukan mahasiswanya sendiri. Sekarang, penghuni desa adat juga merasa bangga, karena desa-desa adatnya mendapat perhatian dan mereka dalam posisi memberi. Sebuah kebanggaan untuk mereka. 65

PROFIL KONTRIBUTOR kenta kishi

Direktur dari LWL (Lab for the wonderlanscape) sejak 2003 dan CDN (Crisis Design Network) sejak 2007. Pada tahun 2010, melakukan sebuah proyek studi urban di Surabaya sebagai API (Asian Public Intellectuals) dari Nippon Foundation. Mendapatkan gelar BA di arsitektur dari Tokyo University of Arts dan M.Arch dari Cranbrook Academy of Art di Michigan, USA. Ia juga mengajar sebuah studio desain di Tokyo Zokei University.

Moch. Ichsan Harja Nugraha

He is an artist currently lives in Bandung, Indonesia __a city well-known for its heritage of beautiful old buildings. Being its lifetime resident, He develop a strong interest in urban/building conservation and since 2005 has already publish several illustrated books, contain 150-300 building sketches exclusively done in watercolor, aimed at promoting general public awareness on this issue. In 2009, He got the Asian Public Intellectual (API) Fellowship to create a similar book on Kyoto, a world-heritage city famous for its plethora of old and beautiful buildings.

cor passchier

Cor Passchier is a Dutch architect-researcher (1945), who is a honorary member of IAI (Indonesian Institute of Architects), also director of ”PAC architects and consultants”. He is actively improving cultural ties between Indonesia and the Netherlands, especially in the field of architecture. He was previously awarded with the UNESCO Asia-Pacific Heritage Award for the conservation of the National Archives Building in Jakarta, along with the architects Han Awal and Budi Lim. He was recently involved and responsible for the bilateral project ”identification and inventory of Forts in Indonesia”

narasumber

johannes widodo

Associate Professor and the Deputy Head for Administration and Finance, the co-Director of the Tun Tan Cheng Lock Centre for Asian Architectural and Urban Heritage in Melaka (Malaysia), and Executive Editor of JSEAA (Journal of Southeast Asian Architecture) at the National University of Singapore. He is the founder of mAAN (modern Asian Architecture Network) and iNTA (International Network of Tropical Architecture). He received his degree in Architecture from Parahyangan Catholic University (Bandung, Indonesia, 1984), Master of Architectural Engineering degree from Katholieke Universiteit Leuven (Belgium, 1988), and PhD in Architecture from the University of Tokyo (Japan, 1996).

daliana suryawinata

She is the founder of SHAU Rotterdam, curator of Open City Jakarta, lecturer, researcher and PhD-by-Design nestor at the Why Factory, TU Delft. She is chief officer of the Indonesian Institute of Architects, European Union chapter. Daliana is a graduate of the Berlage Institute Rotterdam (MArch) and Tarumanagara University in Jakarta (BSc). She worked at OMA, West 8, MVRDV, andramatin and Han Awal and Partners. Since 2006 she has been teaching at the Berlage Institute, the Rotterdam Academy of Architecture, and Delft University of Technology. Recently she received the ”ARCHINESIA Certificate of Appreciation 2012” and ”Indonesian Diaspora Award for Innovation 2012”. She is also an advisor to the architecture and urban design programs at the Erasmus Huis Jakarta for the period 2012-2016.

YORI ANTAR

Generasi kedua dari Han Awal & Partners yang telah aktif sejak 1970. Salah satu pendiri AMI (Arsitek Muda Infonesia) di tahun 1991 dan juga menjadi fotografer freelance untuk Aga Khan Awards for Architecture. Pada tahun 2008, Ia mendirikan Rumah Asuh yang terfokus pada preservasi arsitektur tradisional dan kolonial di Indonesia.

Yusni Aziz Alumnus dari double-degree bachelor program kerjasama antara ITS dan Saxion Hogeschool of Applied Sciences. Kemudian menyelesaikan riset di Berlage Institute pada tahun 2013. Saat ini sedang sibuk dengan riset independen.

diana ang

Diana Ang is a junior architect at Office for Metropolitan Architecture (OMA) in Hong Kong. She holds a Bachelor of Architecture from Rice University. Previously, she has worked at Tod Williams Billie Tsien Architects in New York City.

66

KOLEKSI RUANG

#1: Ruang

#2: Arsitektur Hijau

#3: Jakarta

#4: Karya Arsitek Indonesia di luar negeri

Edisi sebelumnya: #8: Preservasi Vol I: Abstraksi

#5: Arsitektur

#6: Ruang Publik

#7: Rumah

RUANG merupakan sebuah wadah menyuarakan hati dan pikiran insan kreatif yang memiliki ketertarikan pada arsitektur, kota serta permasalahan sosial disekitarnya. RUANG hadir untuk memasyarakatkan arsitektur melalui majalah elektronik arsitektur. Ingin berkontribusi? Kunjungi http://www.membacaruang.com

67

RUANG

membacaruang.com ruangarsitektur.tumblr.com facebook.com/ruangarsitektur kreativitas tanpa batas @ruangarsitektur

RUANG kreativitas tanpa batas PRESERVASI VOLUME 2: AKSI

Recommend Documents