2 HISTORY OF URBAN PLANNING IN INDONESIA, 1900-2020 Christopher Silver Introduction The culture and practice of urban planning is, in all nations, a product of strategies derived rough global networks but applied in unique ways depending on local values and political stitutions. Indonesia is no exception to this. So, to comprehend the character and impact of urban planning in Indonesia since 1900, it is essential to examine both external and cernal influences. Historians uniformly agree that Indonesia's modern planning practices nd key contemporary institutions have roots in the half-century of colonial rule after 1900 Abeyasekere 1989; Cowherd 2005; Kusno 2000; van Roosmalen 2005; Silver 2011). Policy anges emanating from the Netherlands sought to rebalance relations with the Indigenous spulation after centuries of exploitation but also to make urban life more attractive to the owing European population choosing to settle permanently in the East Indies. As Cowherd . 171) put it, the Dutch sought “to apply the national moral values of the Netherlands its largest colony”. The so-called “Ethical Policy” enunciated by Queen Wilhelmina in 901, discussed in detail below, triggered several decades of urban reforms and institutional -velopments that persisted into the post-colonial era. Although these interventions brought Sw immediate benefits to the Indigenous population and were used, in part, as a counter-in- gence strategy to thwart a nascent independence movement (see Toer 1997), Indonesia Ww upon select colonial precedents to address urban challenges after the Dutch rule finally erminated. The post-colonial period brought a flood of new planning models from the global com- unity to help the new nation guide what became a runaway urbanisation process. The ewo governing regimes that controlled and shaped the planning responses to urban devel pment from 1950 through the end of the 1990s borrowed extensive from global planning tices but implemented urban programmes within an indigenous political framework chat granted unquestioned authority to governing elites to decide what to do and how to do it. Both the Sukarno and Suharto governments embraced a centralised planning model but within distinctly different ideological frameworks. Sukarno sought to rub out all ves~ ges of the colonialism in its cities and embraced a modernist framework that easily drew n the conflicting values of his Russian and United States benefactors. The Suharto New DOK: 10.4324/9781003318170-3 15Christopher Silver composed of an amalgam of socially and economically coherent communities much like the neighbourhood unit design gaining popularity in Western urban planning at that time (Bogarers and Ruitjer 1986). Housing reform was also on the planning agenda. The Social Technical Society sponsored the First National Housing Congress in 1922 and a second one in Batavia in 1925, during which the delegates discussed enactment of a national housing law, improved building regula- tions, and developed strategies to encourage low-income residents to undertake self-help hous- ing construction. Delegates warned that these self-built houses should use improved building materials rather than the tradition of palm leaves for roof and bamboo for the walls (Silver 2011). The most salient outcome was the decision of Batavia to authorise a limited liability company to undertake housing construction. These housing companies (NV Volkshuiswsting) soon appeared in cities throughout Java and in Palembang on the island of Sumatra over the next several years. By 1930, 13 cities on Java, and 16 overall, had a housing company. The financial arrangement was that “municipalities and the central government owned respectively 25 and 75 percent shares of the public limited companies for housing” (van Roosmalen 2005, 3) with profits fom housing sales to finance further production. These companies produced roughly 2,500 homes by 1932 before the global economic crisis crushed the local housing market (Colombijn 2011). This expanded urban housing supply benefitted both European and native populations, although the volume of low-cost housing addressed only a fraction of the need. In Semarang and Batavia, the housing reform efforts also included studying conditions in the kampungs. A Native Housing Congress in 1925 recommended improving conditions within existing settle- ments through added infrastructure rather than replacing traditional dwellings with new con- struction. This improvement initiative would form the strategy of the Kampung Improvement Program that would be the low-cost housing programme for Indonesian cities during the 1970s and 1980s, Throughout the 1920s, Karsten nurtured support for urban planning through presentations and through his practice in most of Indonesia's cities. He put these ideas and experience into practice during the 1920s and 1930s when he created his own planning consultancy, As a member of the East Indies City Planning Commission, he drafted the 1938 Town Planning Act for the Urban. Municipalities on Java. As Cobban. (1994, 260-261) remarked, Karsten did not bear the sole responsibility for planning in the East Indies. By all accounts, however, the most influential planner was Karsten and one might say that his was the dominant role in the exportation of European planning to colonial Indonesia. Legal Basis for Indonesian Planning Spatial planning first appeared in a 1926 Nuisance Ordinance intended to determine the location of industrial installations in Batavia. Following the Japanese occupation of the East Indies ftom 1942 to 1945, the Dutch government codified the 1938 Act in the City Planning Ordinance (Staadvorming Onfonnantie) and a subsequent implementation ordinance (Stadvorming Verordening) promulgated in 1949. The 1948 ordinance provided guidance on rebuilding the war damaged cities, including regulations on building construction and a mechanism to pay for the process (Rukmana 2008; Winarso 1992), Although the Dutch soon relinquished authority, the 1948 law governed planning in the newly independent Indonesia until a new planning law was enacted in 1992. In reality, the 1948 ordinance exerted relatively little impact on the 18.History of Urban Planning in Indonesia, 1900-2020 ground since actions emanated largely from presidential and ministerial decrees that addressed planning needs without the direct force of regulating specific spaces. In 1976, the first of a series of presidential decrees stipulated planning processes in Jakarta, Batam Island, Puncak and certain urban development types such as industrial estates, housing, and tourism zones. In 1987, the Ministry of Home Affairs issue a revised set of guidelines for preparation of urban spatial plans for cities. In 1992, Indonesia's Spatial Planning Law (Law 24/1992) set forth the plan making process, plan implementation, and development controls shat codified a series of ministerial decrees from the 1980s. Ie set forth planning processes shat had lacked the force of law. The rights of the citizens co participate in planning and to be ensured of compensation when their property was acquired for public use was added in a December 1996 regulation (Peraiuran Pemerintah 69/1996) that gave force to the 1992 law. The 2007 Spatial Planning Law (26/2007) enacted under decentralisation in the post-New Order = strengthened the responsibilities of provincial and local governments. Under the 1992 law, planning that crossed provincial borders remained the responsibility of the national government. By secking a “clean break” from the authoritarian New Order regime, the 2007 law placed she responsibility for coordination at the provincial level, with zoning and spatial planning ‘permits issued by local governments (Woo 2014). To address the environmental conditions in Sedonesian cities it included a requirement that urban areas have at least 30 per cent of their ‘eed in open space, much of it to be in public use. The law also included opportunities to sslise incentives and to impose disincentives to help implement plans. According to the Indonesia Constitution of 1945, “land, water and natural riches contained SSercin shall be controlled by the State and shall be made use of for the people” (Winarso 1992, 33). Based on this provision, Indonesia enacted in 1960 the Basic Agrarian Law that gave Se scate the right to govern and control all land. It distinguished two types of land, private- owned land and state-owned land, and four basic rights to land, as well as limitations on how och land a single individual could possess. Among the many components of the Basic Agrarian ‘Ley was the ability of a person or persons to obtain “location permits” (MOHA regulation 5 1974 and 3/1987). The location permits empowered local and provincial leaders, depending = the size and location of the land, to grant development permission so long as the owner/ Sevcloper agrees to compensate landowners or accommodate them in the new development ==2 © conform to the local plan. The location permit process gave free rein to developers to Sepolitan plan had not programmed any construction let alone a massive new town with sesdeanal, commercial, and industrial uses. As Dorleans (2002) notes, a similar arrangement ‘SGeSeted development of the new towns by the Lippo development group (see Chapter 24 ‘@= scent new town development in Makassar). aChristopher Silver Circumventing the planning process became standard practice during the halcyon economic growth era under the Suharto government. Cowherd (2005) notes that Suharto used presi- dential decrees to exempt projects for his friends, family, and business associates from planning controls or even competition from other developers. Two of the most egregious cases (but not the only ones) include the 20,000-acre waterfront Kapuknaga Beach Tourism Development in 1995 that benefitted Suharto’s business partner despite objections by local authorities and several ministries. The Bukit Jonggol mega-project (30,000 hectares) for his son Bambang would pave over one of the key locations of ground water recharge for all of Jakarta, encompassing an area larger than the entirety of Indonesia's second largest city, Surabaya (Cowherd 2005; Rukmana 2017). According to the environmental NGO, Walhi, nearly 10,000 acres of land designated as “green areas” in Jakarta’s 1985-2005 plan became shopping malls, commercial buildings, and residences. Jakarta validated these new uses in the 2000-2010 plan to obfuscate the violations of the previous plan (Rukmana 2017; Khalid 2009). Housing the Masses A persistent challenge carried over from the colonial cra was accommodating the masses migrating to Indonesia's big cities. The lack of success during the 1920s and 1930s to expand the supply of affordable urban housing (as noted above) became a bigger problem after inde- pendence, The European social housing model gained a following during the Sukarno era (led by Vice-President Mohammed Hatta). The absence of a national housing agency to expand low-cost housing until the creation of Peruminas in the 1970s meant that those in the informal sector, a segment representing between 60 and 80 per cent of the urban population, needed to provide for chemselves. Jakarta's Governor Ali Sadikin, appointed by Sukarno but serving the bulk of his tenure under the New Order government, inherited a plan prepared in the early 1960s by three Indonesian students sent to Copenhagen (with United Nations funding) to study the European social housing model. The plan to build a self-contained community of thousands of affordable housing units within walking distance of a community business and civie centre (a modernised kampung served by water and sewer) reflected the aspiration of the Sukarno regime to emulate Western models fitted to Indonesian domestic styles (Kurniawan et al. 2020). Cash-strapped Jakarta Governor Sadikin inherited the project but ultimately accepted the advice of private developers to shift the focus to the middle-income housing market, Pulo Mas was built and remains an affluent inner-city community, but not the social housing experiment that was originally envisioned. For the poor that could not benefit from a community like Pulo Mas, Sadikin resurrected a colonial-era initiative that he called the Kampung Improvement Program (KIP). This wes not just a coincidental reference to the programme of the 1920s. As Sadikin admitted in later years, he got the idea from an uncle who had lived in one of the Batavia’s initial kampung improvement areas. He recognised this as an affordable way to improve kampsing conditions because much of the labour (and hence the cost) was done by the community itself, What began as a Jakarta initiative expanded to a national programme with support provided by the World Bank. By the late 1980s, Indonesia boasted KIP units operating in 292 localities (Dice 1995). The KIP represented in practice the closest thing to an integrated urban infrastruc ture programme. Bank staff actually nicknamed their [UIDP (Integrated Urban Infrastructure Development Programme) projects as ‘citywide KIP’ and structured lending to support further use of it in Urban Development Projects covering East Java-Bali, Sulawesi-Irian Jaya, Surabaya, Semarang-Surakarta, and Kalimantan (Dice 1995). 22History of Urban Planning in Indonesia, 1900-2020 Regulating Urbanisation in the Megapolitan Region Under Decentralisation In May 1998, Suharto, early into his seventh term as president, abruptly resigned and turned over leadership of the government to his Vice-President Habibie, Indonesia was in the midst ofa severe economic crisis that shut down an economy that had been booming for more than a dec- ade. Throughout the 1990s, efforts to encourage the Indonesian government to reduce its tight control over local and provincial budgets and to grant authority to sub-national governments comparable to the Western model of local finance and governance became a major priority of key donors. Under Habibie’s government, the processes of decentralisation and ultimately democratisation began what amounted to a political revolution and wholesale transformation of urban planning, In June 1999, the Indonesian legislature enacted the first two components of the decentralisation scheme, Law 22/99, that separated the functions of local governments from central controls and with substantial new responsibilities. Law 25/99 created a new general revenue fund (Dana Alokasi Umum or DAU) to replace the system of INPRES (Instruksi Presiden or Presidential Instructions) that central government had used to address local needs. Because of Law 25, some localities found themselves awash with new revenues when the DAU became operational in January 2001, but also with a new politically engaged local electorate watching to see how local leaders managed this new wealth and their new responsibilities Complementing the decentralisation laws, and in response to growing pressure to democra~ tise governance processes, a new urban planning approach, the Urban Development Program (Program Dasar Pembangunan Perkotaan or PDPP), introduced 2 participatory component to local capital improvements planning. In response, citizen forums sprang up throughout urban Indonesia (with active donor support) to add civil society voices to local planning (Silver 2011). The transformation of local leaders from appointees of the central government to elected offi- cials, including mayors and district heads, local legislators, and governors, finalised the process of empowering civil society: Sutiyoso, the governor of Jakarta appointed by Suharto in 1996 served until 2007 when his vice-governor, Fauzi Bowo, became the first elected chief exec ative of the capital city. Tt was also noteworthy that unlike all of his predecessors, Bowo did not come from a military background. Bowo was among future mayors of Surabaya, Bandung, and Makassar that brought the perspectives of formal training in planning and architecture into city leadership. The changed governance structure also empowered civil society to add their voices to city planning and development as a counterpoint to the still powerful development lobby (Rosser, Roesad and Edwin 2005). Despite strengthened support for public planning, Firman and Fahmi (2017) document the increased privatisation of development in the metropolitan regions’ expanding peripheral cities since 2000 undertaken without public planning oversight. Private investments fuelled the transformation of previous dormitory communities into sprawling independent settlements around Indonesia’s large cities. The pace of metropolitan expansion challenged planners to address historic inequities and to ensure private developments conformed to regional land use, environmental, economic, and social priorities, A particular concern was ongoing displacement of existing low- and moderate-income communities. In the case of Jakarta, flood mitigation interventions along its rivers resulted in removal of many established kampungs. The environ mental deficiencies that justified removal of these communities was not just a consequence of poverty but longstanding neglect by government to provide needed infrastructure as a right of citizenship. Urban-based non-governmental organisations took a stand against displacement (vee Chapter 5 on resisting displacement in Jakarta), and raised voices concerning the injustice of not providing essential infrastructure services, but lacked the means to alter the tradition of neglect. 23Christopher Silver Smart City and Sustainable City Movements The Joko Widodo presidential administration beginning in 2014 coincides with the emer- gence of the Smart City movement in Indonesia. All of Indonesia’ largest cities, beginning with Jakarta and Bandung, and extending to Surabaya, Makassar, Medan, and the emerging urban enclaves that make up the Jakarta’s metropolitan region embraced the government-led 100 Smart Cities Movement. Along with Smart Cities, Indonesia also supported the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and required all local governments to include in their planning and public works programmes detailing how they are addressing them. The addition of digital technologies to the local governance through Smart City initiatives enabled cities to improve living conditions, including more effective traffic management, monitoring infrastructure operations, providing citizen-alert systems in the case of disasters, and making the city mote digitally connected to encourage economic development. In line with increased democratisation and decentralisation, the Smart City technology enabled citizens to voice con- cerns and to share ideas with local leaders. Unfortunately, Smart City devolved into walls of computer screens in city offices using surveillance technology to view critical urban locations but not greatly enhancing the analytical tools needed to improve urban conditions. Several new high tech city projects, such as the Lippo groups Meikarta city for one million residents, east of Jakarta, as well as the Bandung Technopolis project initiated by former Bandung mayor (and subsequently West Java Governors) Ridwan Kamil, represented Smart City visions that produced changes on the ground. The decision to shift the capital of Indonesia from Jakarta to East Kalimantan, announced in 2019 shortly after Jokowi won a second term as president, intends to model the “smart green city” that existing large cities in Indonesia seem unable to emulate. Cities throughout Indonesia benefitted from the Jokowi administration’s aggressive investment in infiastructure in the transportation sector (particularly transit and airport mod- cernisations). In Jakarta, the long-awaited Metropolitan Rapid Transit system began service in April 2019 and a regional-wide light rail system moved toward completion, Other cities emulated Jakarta’s Tiansjakarta Bus Rapid Transit system begun under Governor Sutiyoso in 2004 as well as a variety of experiments in more efficient public transportation to relieve congestion, The approach to infrastructure improvements as a matter of transportation mod- ernisation resulted in neglect of other critical needs, such as expanded clean water and urban sanitation, and a viable affordable urban housing programme. A 2012 masterplan that proposed a citywide sewerage system for Jakarta by developing it as 15 separate zones was a complicated but innovative approach for a city desperate to deal with its waste and polluted waters. It was deemed too expensive and not done (Putri 2019). As a result, the main source of expanded clean water and sanitation infrastructure provided in cities throughout Indonesia came from the international donor community working with local organisations in select underserved urban communities Putri 2017; USAID 2019). Concluding Thoughts The pattern of drawing upon global support to address the underserved has been the prac tice of Indonesian planning since independence. Incremental environmental improvements in Indonesia cities over the past decade owe to an empowered civil society using voting power and support from non-governmental organisations to advance a more inclusive urban plan- ning discourse. Private development also must be credited as a generator of urban change. As Firman and Fahmi (2017, 77) point out, there is substantial evidence that current private sector initiatives “can help the government respond to regional needs for housing, jobs, shopping, 24History of Urban Planning in Indonesia, 1900-2020 educational opportunities and infrastructure”. At the same time, however, Indonesian cities must ensure that these initiatives conform to existing plans and are in line with the public policy objectives. As discussed above, Indonesian cities have notably enhanced their planning institutions over the past several decades, and operate on an agenda more inclusive and par- ticipatory owing to the new governance structure. Within the framework of decentralised and democratised government, the role of planning is to ensure that the broader public needs are translated into actions on the ground. This was the advice that Thomas Karsten offered a century ago, advice that remains just as relevant today. The well-planned city is one that serves equally all of its citizens References Abeyasekere, Susan (1989) Jakarta: A History. Revised. New York: Oxford University Press Bogarers, E. and de Ruitjer, B (1986) “Ir Thomas Karten and Indonesia Town Planning, 1915-1940,” in Nas, BJ.M. ed. The Indonesian City: Studies in Urban Development and Planning. Dordrecht: Foris Publications, pp. 71-88. Cobban, James L. (1994) “Exporting Planning: The Work of Thomas Karsten in Colonial Indonesia,” in Dutt, Ashok K., Costa, Frank J., Aggarwal, Syrinder, and Noble, Allen G., eds. The Asian City: Processes of Development, Characteristics and Planning. Dordrecht: Klawer Academic Publishers, pp. 249-264. Colombijo, Freck (2011) “Public Housing in Post-Colonial Indonesia: The Revolution of Rising Expectation,” Bijdrugentot de Taal, Landen Volkenkunde 167, no. 4: 440-441. Cowherd, Robert (2003) “Does Planning Culture Matter? Dutch and American Models in Indonesian Urban Transformations,” in Sanyal, Bishwapriya, ed. Comparative Planning Cultures, London; Routledge, pp. 165-192. Dice, Stephen (1995) “World Bank Perspective,” Suselo, Hendropranoto, Taylor, John L. and Wegelin, Emiel A. eds. Indonesia’ Urban Infiastnucture Development Experience: Critical Lesson of Good Practice. Jakarta: United Nations Centre for Human Settlements, pp. 186-204. Dorleans, Bernard (2002) “Urban Land Speculation and City Planning Problems in Jakarta,” in Nas, Peter JM. ed. The Indonesian Town Revisited. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, pp. 41-56. Firman, Tommy (2002) “Indonesian Cities in the Early Reform Era,” in Nas, Peter J.M. ed. The Indonesian ‘Town Revisited. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, pp. 101=112. Firman, Tommy and Fahmi, Fukri Zul (2017) “The Privatization of Metropolitan Jakarta’s (abodetabek) Urban Fringes: Journal of the American Planning Association 83 (1): 68-79. Friend, Theodore (2003) Indonesian Destinies. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Giebels, Lambert J. (1986) “Jabotadek: An Indonesian-Dutch Concept on Metropolian Plannin of the Jakarta Region,” in Nas, Peter J.M., ed. The Indonesian City: Smidies in Urban Development and Planning. Dordrecht: Foris Publications, pp. 101-115. Khalid, Khalisah (2009) “The Green Space Area's Policy and Eviction the Urban Poor in Jakarta: Case Seudy of the Eviction Clean Human Humane Prestigious Park (BMW), cited in Rukmana, Deden (2017) “Corruption in Spatial Planning”,” hndonesias Urban Studies, May 2, Accessed: hrep://indonesiaurbanstucies. blogpost.com/2017/05/corruption-in-spatial-planning, html Kurniawan, Kemas R.,, Silver, Christopher, Widyarta, M. Nanda, and Nureny, Elica (2020) “Pulo Mas: Jakarta’s Failed Housing Experiment for the Masses,” Planting Perspectives 36 (2): 285-308. Kusno, Abidin (2000) Behind the Postcolonial: Architecture, Urban Space and Political Cultures in Indonesia. London: Routledge. Kusno, Abidin (2013) After the New Onler: Space, Polites, and Jakarta, Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press. Lanti, Achmad and van der Hoff, Robert (1996) “The Integrated Urban Infrastructure Development Programme in Indonesia, “in Singh, Kulwant, Steinberg, Florian, and von Einsiedel, Nathan, eds. Integrated Urbans Infrastructure Development in Asia, New Delhi: Oxford and IBH Publishing, pp. 75-102. Leaf, Michael (1996) “Building the Road for the BMW: Culture, Vision and Extended Metropolitan Region,” Environment and Planing A 28: 16171635. Leisch, Herald (2002) ‘“Stractures and Functions of Private New Towns in Jabotabek,” in Nas, Peter J.M. ed. The Indonesian Towns Revisited. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, pp. 89-100. Putri, Parthiwi Widyatmi (2017) “A Decentralised Approach to Wastewater Management in the Urbanising Region: The Case of Jakarta, Indonesia,” Urbanisation 2 (2): 83-97. 25Christopher Silver Putri, Parthiwi Widyatmi (2019) “Sanitizing Jakarta: Decolonizing Planning and Kampung Imaginary." Planning Perspectives 34 (5): 803-825. Rosser, A., Roesad, K. and Edwin, D. (2005) “Indonesia: The Polities of Inclusion,” Journal of Contemporary Asia 35 (1): 53-77. Rukmana, Deden (2008) “A Historical Overview of the Spatial Planning in Indonesia,” Indonesia’ Urban Studies, September 5. Accessed: htp:/ /indonesiaurbanstudies.blogspot.com/2008/09//historical- overview-of spatial-planning html Rukmana, Deden (2017) “Corruption in Spatial Planning,” Indonesia's Urban Studies, May 2. Accessed: hup://indonesiaurbanstudies,blogpost.com/2017/05/corruption-in-spatial-planning, html Silver, Christopher (2011) Planning the Megacity: Jakarta in the Twentieth Century. Milton Park, Abingdon, UK: Routledge, pp. 63-64. Soegijoko, Sugijanto and Sugijanto, Budhy T. (1976) “Urban Areas in Indonesia as Development Catalyst,” Prisma: Indonesian Journal of Social and Economic Affairs 3 (May): 52 Sujarto, Djoko (2002) “Toward the Development of Metropolitan New Towns in Indonesia with Special Reference to the City of Jakarta and Jabotabek,” in Nas, Peter J. M. ed. The Indonesian Town Revisited. Singapore: Institute for Southeast Asian Studies, pp. 76-88, Suselo, Hendropranoto, Taylor, John L., and Wegelin, Emiel A. (1995) Indonesia’ Urban Infrastmeture Development Experience: Critical Lessons of Good Practice, Nairobi: United Nations Center on Human Settlements. Toet, Pramoedya A. (1997) House of Glass, New York: Penguin. United States Agency for International Development (USAID), WASH (2019). Accessed January 29, 2020: hueps://www.usaid.gov/actingon/the/call/stories/indonesia-wash2019 van Roosmalen, Pauline K, M, (2005) “Expanding Grounds: The Roots of Spatial Planning in Indonesia” in Freck Colombija, Martine Barwegen, Purnawan Basundoro and Johny Alfian Khusyiari, eds., Old City, New City: The History of the Indonesian City Before and After Independence. Yogyakarta: Ombek, 2005, p. 3nd. van Roosmalen, Pauline K. M. (2010) “New Times, New Needs: Town Planning in the Dutch East Indies and Indonesia (1905 — 1950). Seminar, Tranformasi Morfologi Dalam Ruang Perkotaan, Semarang, November 20. ‘Watts, Kenneth (1960) “The Planning of Greater Djakarta: A Case Study of Regional Planning,” Ekisties 10: 401-405, ‘Wertheim, W.E (1958) The Indonesian Town: Studies in Urban Sociology. The Hague and Bandung: W. van Hoeve. Winarso, Haryo (1992) Introduction to Plaming and Planning Legislations in Indonesia, Unpublished draft nunuscript, Bandung ‘Woo, Fiona (2014) “Decentralized Spatial Planning in Indonesia.” Accessed: http://power-to-the-people. net/2014/06/decentralized-spatial-planning-in-indonesia/ 26