Back to Medieval Cities: A new trend in multiethnic cities

Discourse 1-1 Proceedings The 4th Quality in Research Seminar on Urbanization in the Information Age:

New Perspectives on the Transformation of Fast Growing Cities in the Pacific Rim, Universitas Indonesia & The University of Melbourne, Depok, 22-23 August 2001

Back to Medieval Cities: A new trend in multiethnic cities

Danang Priatmodjo Department of Architecture – Tarumanagara University

Jalan S. Parman 1 – Jakarta 11440 E-mail: [email protected]

Preface

It was in 1850’s when old cities in Europe simultaneously destroyed their city walls inherited from the medieval era. The power shift form aristocracy to democracy has influenced cities’ appearance. City walls and gates were considered as inappropriate for democratic cities. Settlements outside the walls were linked in an integrated structure to those in the old city. Since then – except those in communist countries, the cityscapes are more determined by economic power rather than by political power. The livability of cities is created by the provision of urban spaces, in the form of open and public places in which people feel secure and convenient being together with the principle of equality among all citizens.

Astonishingly, 150 years later the trend of building protection walls for our recent cities has been emerging. High fences, barricades, gates with security guards can be seen in any parts of the city. Housing complexes are formed as exclusive enclaves, which can only be accessed by their own inhabitants and selected guests using ID-card system. Such visions are found in Indonesia’s multiethnic cities, as reaction to the riots – which led to the destruction of buildings – that happened more often lately in those cities.

It is, indeed, an exaggeration comparing our recent situation to that in medieval cities. However, the trend of erecting structures to protect people reminds us of medieval cities in almost a thousand years ago – cities that fully fortified to protect their inhabitants from the possible attack of enemies from other cities. To day, “enemies” do not come from other cities but from any place in the city. They come with sudden attack as a result of any dispute between anyone in any place. All protection structures are built to anticipate these unpredictable riots. Background

Attempts to “fortify” cities become popular after cases of city destruction in the riots resulted from ethnic or political conflicts. Jakarta and Solo are among Indonesian cities that suffered from severe destruction in the riots in May 1998, the days of the fall of Suharto. Solo was destroyed again in October 1999, when Megawati – the leader of the party who won the general election – failed to be elected as the new president. Both in Jakarta and Solo (and other towns and cities that suffered from the same destruction), the “trigger” of a riot could be anything but the “result” was always the same: destruction of Chinese-descents’ shops and settlements. Later, the cases were not always between Chinese and Non-Chinese, but also between any ethnic members and between followers of religions.

The city of Ambon was almost totally destroyed by the “civil war” between Moslems and Christians as a growing conflict between the Ambonese and new settlers coming from Buton, Bugis and Makassar. In Kalimantan, the towns of Sambas, Sampit and Pangkalan Bun became the places of battles between the Dayaks and the Maduras. Sometimes the Malays (Melayu) were involved in the conflict. Poso (Central Sulawesi), Batam (Riau) and cities in North Maluku also become “battlefields” of ethnic conflicts. Moreover, cities in Aceh and Papua – two regions in which many people struggle for their independence – are also facing problems with battles in the city, either between groups in the region or between the police/army and the rebels.



Riots and Destruction

Riots – resulted from ethnic conflicts – are not only happened in Indonesian cities, but also in many cities in North America. It was in 1992 that Los Angeles – one of major cities in “the most democratic country in the world” – shocked us with the “Rodney King case” that resulted in the severe riots in the city. Beginning with the conflict between “black” and “white”, the riots grew further to the attack to Chinese and Korean descents. Similar case has just happened few months ago (April 2001) in Cincinnati, Ohio. The death of Timothy Thomas, a black man who was shot by a white policeman, was also followed by racial riots in Cincinnati. Multiracial conflicts in North American cities are evident that the search for a new pluralism is still revolving [1].

In the UK, a severe riot has exploded in Bradford (320 km north of London, city of 500,000 inhabitants, with 100,000 of them are south Asian people) just days ago (July 7, 2001). A clash between white and south Asians (migrants from India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Srilanka) – and later involved the police – has ended with burning and destruction of cars and buildings in the city.

In the area of city’s architecture, conflicts in multiracial cities resulted in the formation of high walls and fences, barricades, enclaves of houses, gated-communities, and solid facades. It is inevitable that our cityscapes have been changed into kinds of “fortified” cities and sometimes also look “horrible”. The formation of “walled communities” and “gated communities” in multiracial city – as described by Nan Ellin (1997) – is an expression of an “architecture of fear” [2].

In Indonesia – whether caused by friction of political groups or by ethnic conflict – the riots are usually followed by destruction, burn and pillage of Chinese shops, Chinese residences, offices & other business entities, entertainment buildings, government buildings (police stations, DPRD, kabupaten), and cars both on the streets and on parking grounds. Sometimes, cases of rape were also found in the riots.

Fig. 1 - Ruins of buildings and burnt cars on a street in Bradford (UK) after the riot on Saturday, July 07, 2001. It is reported that 120 policeman were injured in a clash between south Asians and white people.

Bradford is the fourth city in the UK (after Burnley, Leeds, and Oldham) that within the last weeks was shocked by riots resulted from racial conflict. (source: KOMPAS, July 9, 2001)

Fig. 2 - An army on the foreground and burnt cars on the main street of Solo, after the riots in May 1988, one day after the resign of Suharto. The loss of buildings and cars within these two days destruction was 600 billion rupiahs (± 50 million US $). Because of this trauma, the owners of destroyed buildings in Solo were waiting for about two years before they reconstruct their buildings. (Reproduced from the Exhibition of Solo Tragedy, Solo, 1999)



Division and Defensiveness

As protection to the possible attack in the riots, people create many forms of defensive strategy. The first type of protection is the division of residential area into clusters of housing, each equipped with a certain security system. Both dwellers and guests are controlled in a single gate for entering and leaving the cluster. Sometimes high wall or fence surrounds the cluster. Other types of protection are construction of gate or crossbar on the ends of roads in residential area, and barricades of barbed wire. In addition, public buildings like shopping malls have reduced their glass façades and replaced them with solid façade.

Alam Sutera housing estate is an example of residential area that applies the principle of division into clusters. A circuit road connects some nineteen clusters of housing – each contains hundreds of housing units. The cluster can only be accessed from a single entrance (cluster’s gate) located on the main road.

Fig. 3 - Map of Alam Sutera housing estate, located between Serpong & Tangerang, consists of clusters of housing. Each cluster is surrounded by walls and fences, and served by a single gate for security-check.

Housing cluster

Public facilities

“Sutera-Kirana” housing cluster

Gate

Fig. 4 - “Sutera Kirana”, one of housing clusters in Alam Sutera estate. The cluster consists of 471 housing units, with size of lots varies from about 100 m2 to 1000 m2 (redrawn from developers fliers)

(redrawn from developer’s fliers)

Fig. 5 & 6 - The gate (above) and the wall (below) of Sutera Kirana cluster



Where residential area is not divided into clusters, gates and crossbars (and sometimes also barricades of barbed wire) become important means of protection. Pictures below (taken from Puri Indah, Bintaro Jaya and Cengkareng Indah) reflect daily situation we can find in Jakarta and other cities that has experienced the destruction of the city that resulted from riots.

Fig. 7 – Gate on the main access to Puri Indah housing estate Fig. 8 – Gate on a local road in Puri Indah

Fig. 9 – Crossbar on a local road in Bintaro Jaya Fig. 10 – Barricade of barbed wire in Cengkareng

Fig. 11 – Solid façade of Puri Indah Mall Fig. 12 – High fence surrounds the Blok-M Plaza

Reducing glass enclosure – and replacing it with solid façade – as shown in the picture of Puri Indah Mall has been the trend in reconstruction of destroyed buildings in Solo and Jakarta Kota. As a result, huge buildings appear like fortifications in the middle of the city. Added by the presence of protection devices like walls, fences, gates and barricades, the cityscape has changed drastically. Cities are like in emergency or in a war situation. Instead of providing secure feeling, these “warfare” equipments scare people in the city. Moreover, crossbars and gates in residential local roads become obstructions that destruct the accessibility in the area.



Back to Medieval Cities?

As mentioned above, the comparison between the situation of our recent cities and that in medieval cities is exaggerated. The formation of city walls and gates in fact was begun long before the Middle Ages. But, it is obvious that defense was the first reason in building new towns the medieval cities, besides other reasons such as agriculture and trade [3]. The word bastion (known as city’s fortification) itself came from the word bastide (new town in the Middle Ages). It was also evident that the defense system of cities grew more “sophisticated” in the medieval era. For example, in 14th century, European cities reinforced their circuit wall by addition of second wall, so that “double curtain” (two layers) of city wall was created [4]. Moreover, the gateways in medieval era were flanked by strong towers and protected by mechanisms like the portcullis and the barbican [5].

Related to what we can see today, one can say that to a certain extent the situation in Indonesian cities recently reminds us of that in medieval cities. Walls and gates reappear. Of course, everything is improved like gates using electric power to open and close, and electronic card or other sensor system as tool for selecting people. In short, protection becomes the main reason in shaping the cities, just like situation of fifteen to twenty centuries ago.

Fig. 13 - Aigues-Mortes (France), a fortified medieval city Fig. 14 – “Double curtain”city wall (source: Kostof, 1991) (source: Kostof, 1992)

Fig. 15 - Mantua (Italy) in medieval era Fig. 16 - S. Giovanni Gate, Rome, built in 1574 (source: Bacon, 1975) (source: Kostof, 1992)



Conclusion: A need to develop multicultural cities

Today, when the war between cities does not exist anymore, there is no need to fortify our cities. The existence of many cultures should enrich the city with many “ambiences” such as Chinatown (as we can find in San Francisco, Sydney, or other world cities), Arab quarter, Portuguese quarter (as we can see in Melaka, Malaysia), etc. However, many cities are still facing the problems with multi-ethnicity. Instead of enriching the cityscape, the differences are causing the conflicts in the city, which eventually are exploding in the form of riots that destroy the city. To cope with this problem, a multi-ethnic city should avoid the prominence of ethnic identity. The diversity has to be “packed” into a form of harmonic “multiculture”.

In the area of architecture, the concept of “hetero-architecture” can be applied as one of alternatives of the solution. As stated by Charles Jenks, “hetero-architecture” accepts different voices that create a city, suppresses none of them, and makes from their interaction some kind of greater dialogue [6]. The presence of architecture that accommodates diversity – not a kind of “mono-architecture” – will help a city creates a multicultural expression through architecture.

Safety and security should be achieved by providing humane spaces in the city. Fortification in our cities is “too primitive” as solution of safety and security. Moreover, it denies the spirit of urbanism today, as declared in the Charter of the New Urbanism, which one of the statements is: “The revitalization of urban places depends on safety and security. The design of streets and buildings should reinforce safe environments, but not at the expense of accessibility and openness” [7]

Learning from the case of New York, it has been understood that a multiethnic city – like Jakarta – could never serve as a “melting pot” for its inhabitants coming from different ethnic. Such city is called as a “salad bowl” that allows its people exist with their differences. Unfortunately, these differences are like time bombs that anytime can be exploded in the form of riots. It is a challenge to maintain such diversity by creating a kind of hetero-architecture, which can accommodate the expression of differences, so that people do not need to express them in riots. If this works, the presence of high walls, fences, gates and barricades of barbed wire in our cities can be eliminated.

Reference

[1] Isaacs, Harold R., Pemujaan terhadap Kelompok Etnis, Yayasan Obor Indonesia, Jakarta (1993) pp. 269-287, translated from “Idols of the Tribe: Group Identity and Political Change” (1975)

[2] Ellin, Nan, “Preface” in Nan Ellin (ed.), Architecture of Fear, Princeton Architectural Press, New York (1997), pp9-11

[3] Kostof, Spiro, The City Shaped, Thames and Hudson, London (1991) pp. 108-111

[4] Kostof, Spiro, The City Assembled, Thames and Hudson, London (1992) pp. 28-29

[5] ibid., p. 37

[6] Jenks, Charles, “Hetero-Architecture for the Heteropolis: The Los Angeles School” in Nan Ellin (ed.), op. cit., pp. 217-225

[7] Leccese, Michael and Kathleen McCormick (eds.), Charter of the New Urbanism, McGraw-Hill, New York (2000), pp. 133-140

Back to Medieval Cities: A new trend in multiethnic cities

Documents

Transcript of Back to Medieval Cities: A new trend in multiethnic cities