Perpres Jabodetabekpunjur
Perpres 54 Tahun 2008 Tentang PENATAAN RUANG KAWASAN
JAKARTA, BOGOR, DEPOK, TANGERANG, BEKASI, PUNCAK, CIANJUR
Naskah perpres_54_2008_jabodetabekpunjur
Peta Struktur dan Pola Ruang jabodetabekpunjur_1_50_a0_strukturpola
Making Capitalism More Creative
By Bill Gates
Time, Thursday, Jul. 31, 2008
Capitalism has improved the lives of billions of people — something
that’s easy to forget at a time of great economic uncertainty. But it
has left out billions more. They have great needs, but they can’t
express those needs in ways that matter to markets. So they are stuck
in poverty, suffer from preventable diseases and never have a chance
to make the most of their lives. Governments and nonprofit groups have
an irreplaceable role in helping them, but it will take too long if
they try to do it alone. It is mainly corporations that have the
skills to make technological innovations work for the poor. To make
the most of those skills, we need a more creative capitalism: an
attempt to stretch the reach of market forces so that more companies
can benefit from doing work that makes more people better off. We need
new ways to bring far more people into the system — capitalism — that
has done so much good in the world.
There’s much still to be done, but the good news is that creative
capitalism is already with us. Some corporations have identified
brand-new markets among the poor for life-changing technologies like
cell phones. Others — sometimes with a nudge from activists — have
seen how they can do good and do well at the same time. To take a
real-world example, a few years ago I was sitting in a bar with Bono,
and frankly, I thought he was a little nuts. It was late, we’d had a
few drinks, and Bono was all fired up over a scheme to get companies
to help tackle global poverty and disease. He kept dialing the private
numbers of top executives and thrusting his cell phone at me to hear
their sleepy yet enthusiastic replies. As crazy as it seemed that
night, Bono’s persistence soon gave birth to the (RED) campaign. Today
companies like Gap, Hallmark and Dell sell (RED)-branded products and
donate a portion of their profits to fight AIDS. (Microsoft recently
signed up too.) It’s a great thing: the companies make a difference
while adding to their bottom line, consumers get to show their support
for a good cause, and — most important — lives are saved. In the past
year and a half, (RED) has generated $100 million for the Global Fund
to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, helping put nearly 80,000
people in poor countries on lifesaving drugs and helping more than 1.6
million get tested for HIV. That’s creative capitalism at work.
Creative capitalism isn’t some big new economic theory. And it isn’t a
knock on capitalism itself. It is a way to answer a vital question:
How can we most effectively spread the benefits of capitalism and the
huge improvements in quality of life it can provide to people who have
been left out?
The World Is Getting Better
It might seem strange to talk about creative capitalism when we’re
paying more than $4 for a gallon of gas and people are having trouble
paying their mortgages. There’s no doubt that today’s economic
troubles are real; people feel them deeply, and they deserve immediate
attention. Creative capitalism isn’t an answer to the relatively
short-term ups and downs of the economic cycle. It’s a response to the
longer-term fact that too many people are missing out on a historic,
century-long improvement in the quality of life. In many nations, life
expectancy has grown dramatically in the past 100 years. More people
vote in elections, express their views and enjoy economic freedom than
ever before. Even with all the problems we face today, we are at a
high point of human well-being. The world is getting a lot better.
The problem is, it’s not getting better fast enough, and it’s not
getting better for everyone. One billion people live on less than a
dollar a day. They don’t have enough nutritious food, clean water or
electricity. The amazing innovations that have made many lives so much
better — like vaccines and microchips — have largely passed them by.
This is where governments and nonprofits come in. As I see it, there
are two great forces of human nature: self-interest and caring for
others. Capitalism harnesses self-interest in a helpful and
sustainable way but only on behalf of those who can pay. Government
aid and philanthropy channel our caring for those who can’t pay. And
the world will make lasting progress on the big inequities that remain
— problems like AIDS, poverty and education — only if governments and
nonprofits do their part by giving more aid and more effective aid.
But the improvements will happen faster and last longer if we can
channel market forces, including innovation that’s tailored to the
needs of the poorest, to complement what governments and nonprofits
do. We need a system that draws in innovators and businesses in a far
better way than we do today.
Naturally, if companies are going to get more involved, they need to
earn some kind of return. This is the heart of creative capitalism.
It’s not just about doing more corporate philanthropy or asking
companies to be more virtuous. It’s about giving them a real incentive
to apply their expertise in new ways, making it possible to earn a
return while serving the people who have been left out. This can
happen in two ways: companies can find these opportunities on their
own, or governments and nonprofits can help create such opportunities
where they presently don’t exist.
What’s Been Missed
As C.K. Prahalad shows in his book The Fortune at the Bottom of the
Pyramid, there are markets all over the world that businesses have
missed. One study found that the poorest two-thirds of the world’s
population has some $5 trillion in purchasing power. A key reason
market forces are slow to make an impact in developing countries is
that we don’t spend enough time studying the needs of those markets. I
should know: I saw it happen at Microsoft. For many years, Microsoft
has used corporate philanthropy to bring technology to people who
can’t get it otherwise, donating more than $3 billion in cash and
software to try to bridge the digital divide. But our real expertise
is in writing software that solves problems, and recently we’ve
realized that we weren’t bringing enough of that expertise to problems
in the developing world. So now we’re looking at inequity as a
business problem as well as something to be addressed through
philanthropy. We’re working on projects like a visual interface that
will enable illiterate or semiliterate people to use a PC instantly,
with minimal training. Another project of ours lets an entire
classroom full of students use a single computer; we’ve developed
software that lets each student use her own mouse to control a
specially colored cursor so that as many as 50 kids can use one
computer at the same time. This is a big advance for schools where
there aren’t enough computers to go around, and it serves a market we
hadn’t examined before.
Cell phones are another example. They’re now a booming market in the
developing world, but historically, companies vastly underestimated
their potential. In 2000, when Vodafone bought a large stake in a
Kenyan cell-phone company, it figured that the market in Kenya would
max out at 400,000 users. Today that company, Safaricom, has more than
10 million. The company has done it by finding creative ways to serve
low-income Kenyans. Its customers are charged by the second rather
than by the minute, for example, which keeps down the cost. Safaricom
is making a profit, and it’s making a difference. Farmers use their
cell phones to find the best prices in nearby markets. A number of
innovative uses for cell phones are emerging. Already many Kenyans use
them to store cash (via a kind of electronic money) and transfer
funds. If you have to carry money over long distances — say, from the
market back to your home — this kind of innovation makes a huge
difference. You’re less tempting to rob if you’re not holding any
cash.
This is how people can benefit when businesses find opportunities that
have been missed. But since I started talking about creative
capitalism earlier this year, I’ve heard from some skeptics who doubt
that there are any new markets. They say, “If these opportunities
really existed, someone would have found them by now.” I disagree.
Their argument assumes that businesses have already studied every
possible market for their products. Their attitude reminds me of the
old joke about an economist who’s walking down the street with a
friend. The economist steps over a $10 bill that’s lying on the
ground. His friend asks him why he didn’t take the money. “It couldn’t
possibly be there,” he explains. “If it were, somebody would’ve picked
it up!” Some companies make the same mistake. They think all the $10
bills have already been picked up. It would be a shame if we missed
such opportunities, and it would make a huge difference if, instead,
researchers and strategists at corporations met regularly with experts
on the needs of the poor and talked about new applications for their
best ideas.
Beyond finding new markets and developing new products, companies
sometimes can benefit by providing the poor with heavily discounted
access to products. Industries like software and pharmaceuticals, for
example, have very low production costs, so you can come out ahead by
selling your product for a bigger profit in rich markets and for a
smaller profit, or at cost, in poor ones. Businesses in other
industries can’t do this tiered pricing, but they can benefit from the
public recognition and enhanced reputation that come from serving
those who can’t pay. The companies involved in the (RED) campaign draw
in new customers who want to be associated with a good cause. That
might be the tipping point that leads people to pick one product over
another.
There’s another crucial benefit that accrues to businesses that do
good work. They will find it easier to recruit and retain great
employees. Young people today — all over the world — want to work for
organizations that they can feel good about. Show them that a company
is applying its expertise to help the poorest, and they will repay
that commitment with their own dedication.
Creating New Incentives
Even so, no matter how hard businesses look or how creatively they
think, there are some problems in the world that aren’t amenable to
solution by existing market incentives. Malaria is a great example:
the people who most need new drugs or a vaccine are the least able to
pay, so the drugs and vaccines never get made. In these cases,
governments and nonprofits can create the incentives. This is the
second way in which creative capitalism can take wing. Incentives can
be as straightforward as giving public praise to the companies that
are doing work that serves the poor. This summer, a Dutch nonprofit
called the Access to Medicine Foundation started publishing a report
card that shows which pharmaceutical companies are doing the most to
make sure that medicines are made for — and reach — people in
developing countries. When I talk to executives from pharmaceutical
companies, they tell me that they want to do more for neglected
diseases — but they at least need to get credit for it. This report
card does exactly that.
Publicity is very valuable, but sometimes it’s still not enough to
persuade companies to get involved. Even the best p.r. may not pay the
bill for 10 years of research into a new drug. That’s why it’s so
important for governments to create more financial incentives. Under a
U.S. law enacted last year, for example, any drug company that
develops a new treatment for a neglected disease like malaria can get
a priority review from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for
another product it has made. If you develop a new drug for malaria,
your profitable cholesterol drug could go on the market as much as a
year earlier. Such a priority review could be worth hundreds of
millions of dollars. It’s a fantastic way for governments to go beyond
the aid they already give and channel market forces so they improve
even more lives.
Of course, governments in developing countries have to do a lot to
foster capitalism themselves. They must pass laws and make regulations
that let markets flourish, bringing the benefits of economic growth to
more people. In fact, that’s another argument I’ve heard against
creative capitalism: “We don’t need to make capitalism more creative.
We just need governments to stop interfering with it.” There is
something to this. Many countries could spark more business investment
— both within their borders and from the outside — if they did more to
guarantee property rights, cut red tape and so on. But these changes
come slowly. In the meantime, we can’t wait. As a businessman, I’ve
seen that companies can tap new markets right now, even if conditions
aren’t ideal. And as a philanthropist, I’ve found that our caring for
others compels us to help people right now. The longer we wait, the
more people suffer needlessly.
The Next Step
In june, I moved out of my day-to-day role at Microsoft to spend more
time on the work of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. I’ll be
talking with political leaders about how their governments can
increase aid for the poor, make it more effective and bring in new
partners through creative capitalism. I’ll also talk with CEOs about
what their companies can do. One idea is to dedicate a percentage of
their top innovators’ time to issues that affect the people who have
been left behind. This kind of contribution takes the brainpower that
makes life better for the richest and dedicates some of it to
improving the lives of everyone else. Some pharmaceutical companies,
like Merck and GlaxoSmithKline, are already doing this. The Japanese
company Sumitomo Chemical shared some of its technology with a
Tanzanian textile company, helping it produce millions of bed nets,
which are crucial tools in the fight to eradicate malaria. Other
companies are doing the same in food, cell phones and banking.
In other words, creative capitalism is already under way. But we can
do much more. Governments can create more incentives like the FDA
voucher. We can expand the report-card idea beyond the pharmaceutical
industry and make sure the rankings get publicity so companies get
credit for doing good work. Consumers can reward companies that do
their part by buying their products. Employees can ask how their
employers are contributing. If more companies follow the lead of the
most creative organizations in their industry, they will make a huge
impact on some of the world’s worst problems.
More than 30 years ago, Paul Allen and I started Microsoft because we
wanted to be part of a movement to put a computer on every desk and in
every home. Ten years ago, Melinda and I started our foundation
because we want to be part of a different movement — this time, to
help create a world where no one has to live on a dollar a day or die
from a disease we know how to prevent. Creative capitalism can help
make it happen. I hope more people will join the cause.
MENTAL BLOCK PENATAAN RUANG
Sebelum saya memulai tulisan yang insya allah bakal singkat ini. Ijinkan saya menyampaikan motif saya menulis tulisan ini bukanlah untuk menghujat alumni satu sekolah tertentu ataupun menghujat satu jenis profesi tertentu. Tulisan ini dibuat sebagai otokritik buat kita semua penata ruang (serta elemen yang menyertainya) dan mencoba mencari solusinya bersama-sama. Tulisan ini hanya menoca memaparkan sebagian permasalahan penataan ruang. Kata orang sih mengetahui persoalan itu setengah dari pemecahan masalah.
Saya pelaku penataan ruang, walau saat ini tidak banyak bergelut lagi di kerjaan bidang tata ruang. Tapi background sekolah memaksa saya untuk memliki concern besar terhadap penataan ruang.
Penataan ruang di Indonesia itu sangat erat dengan pembangunan kota yang berjalan selama ini. Fatsoen nya apabila pembangunan kota berjalan sesuai dengan penataan ruang maka sebuah kota akan berjalan dengan baik. Bener gitu?????? Ini bukan pertanyaan sinis. Ini sebuah pertanyaan serius yang harus kita ajukan kembali ke diri kita masing-masing. Apa benar kalo penataan ruang berjalan dengan baik maka sebuah kota akan sejahtera dan baik.. For those of you who work on this field, it must be 100% correct.. tapi apa yang ada di kepala masyarakat kita. Masyarakat di sini tidak identik dengan masyarakat (what so called) kecil, termasuk di dalamnya investor dan lain sebagainya.
Mungkin fatsoen tersebut benar adanya dan secara teoretik sudah dibuktikan oleh para perencana kota di berbagai belahan dunia (note; eropa dan amerika). Tapi kemudian kita lihat apa yang terjadi kemudian di lapangan tidak seindah yang dibayangkan bukan. Pembangunan kota berjalan dengan atau tanpa sebuah penataan ruang yang baik. Tapi yang jelas satu hal, ternyata penataan ruang di Indonesia lebih banyak kondisi negatifnya dibanding positifnya.
Beberapa Realita permasalahan yang terjadi di penataan ruang Indonesia menurut saya saat ini adalah
1. Tidak akuntabelnya rencana tata ruang
“Accountability is a concept in ethics with several meanings. It is often used synonymously with such concepts as answerability, enforcement, responsibility, blameworthiness, liability and other terms associated with the expectation of account-giving. As an aspect of governance, it has been central to discussions related to problems in both the public and private (corporation) worlds.” (Wikipedia)
Apa yang terjadi apabila sebuah dokumen public tidak dipercaya oleh Pelaksana dan masyarakat. Bagaimana sebuah rencana tata ruang dapat terlaksana apabila ada sebuah keraguan mengenai ketepatan, kesahihan dan validitas dokumen rencana tata ruang. Keraguan yang saya lihat ternyata tidak hanya di masyarakat, tetapi terjadi pada level pelaksana dari dokumen rencana. Implikasinya??? Jelas besar… tidak salah apabila pembangunan tidak sejalan dengan rencana tata ruang, kalau sudah ada ketidakpercayaan terhadap produknya.
Kondisi ini bisa disebabkan dua factor. Faktor pertama adalah proses penyusunannya yang tidak dipercaya. Entah itu metodenya yang using, penyusunnya yang tidak dipercaya, data yang gak valid, naskah yang copy paste dari daerah lain dan banyak lainnya yang membuat orang selalu mempertanyakan keabsahan sebuah produk tata ruang. Factor kedua adalah masyarakat tidak cukup dilibatkan dalam proses penyusunan rencana tata ruang. Proses penyusunan rencana tata ruang yang berorientasi teknokratis dan TOP DOWN (seperti Dewa menurunkan Sabda ke pengikutnya), menurunkan tingkat kepercayaan masyarakat terhadap produk yang dihasilkan.
2. Minimnya kapasitas SDM pelaksana penataan ruang
Saya bukan bermaksud mengecilkan profesi lain atau sekolah orang. Tapi ini riil di lapangan, manakala rencana tata ruang yang complicated, rumit dan sophisticated kemudian harus diterjemahkan oleh orang-orang yang tidak memiliki kompetensi di bidang tata ruang. Akhirnya yang kemudian terjadi adalah pelanggaran (yang disebut) kaidah-kaidah tata ruang dalam pelaksanaan pembangunan. Ya jelas lah dilanggar, orang gak ngerti istilah dalam Buku rencana tata ruang. Ini persoalan mendasar di era desentralisasi, dimana banyak pos yang tidak ditempati the right man on the right place. Ini sebuah persoalan yang harus di atasi, karena kalau tidak banyak orang akan masuk penjara karena pelanggaran tata ruang bukan akibat keinginan untuk melanggar. Tapi akibat ketidak tahuan dan ketidakmengertian terhadap produk rencana tata ruang itu sendiri
3. Tidak membuminya penataan ruang sebagai wacana publik
Penataan ruang itu hanya milik lulusan sekolah perencanaan?? Mungkin harusnya tidak. Kenyataannya?? Terminology-terminologi yang melangit dengan dokumen rencana yang kompleks ternyata mengakibatkan ketidakpahaman terhadap penataan ruang. Yang kemudian terjadi tidak pernah ada diskusi di ranah public mengenai penataan ruang yang tuntas. Implikasinya proses check and balance terhadap penataan ruang sebuah wilayah hanya wacana sesaat dan “anget2 tai ayam”, yang tidak pernah tuntas.
Sebenernya lebih banyak lagi persoalan di penataan ruang.tapi gak tega membukanya secara detil karena takut menambah pesimisme kalangan pelaku penata ruang (terutama generasi muda dan mahasiswa).
Anyway, apa yang menyebabkan persoalan ini?? (jawaban standar) Banyak sekali factor yang menyebabkan hal ini terjadi di kemudian. Tapi ada satu fenomena yang saya amati yang saat ini terjadi di kalangan penata ruang. Fenomena itu saya sebut Mental Block Penata Ruang.
Mental block itu adalah kondisi psikologis manusia yang menghalangi seseorang manusia utuk mencapai tujuan. Hal ini biasanya terjadi manakala inidividu memiliki sebuah “program” dalam pikirannya untuk tidak melakukan satu hal.
Salah satu contoh yang saya kutip dari situs salah seorang psikolog sebagai ilustrasi mental block itu sebagai berikut;
Ini dari kasus klinis yang pernah saya tangani. Ada seorang wanita, sebut saja Rosa, cantik, ramah, cerdas, pintar cari uang, dan mandiri tapi sampai saat bertemu saya, usianya saat itu 35 tahun, masih jomblo alias single, belum dapat jodoh.
Rosa juga bingung mengapa ia sulit dapat jodoh. Ada banyak pria yang suka padanya. Namun setiap kali pacaran dan jika sudah masuk ke rencana untuk menikah, selalu muncul masalah sehingga hubungan mereka akhirnya putus.
Setelah dicari akar masalahnya, saya menemukan program pikiran, di pikiran bawah sadarnya, yang sangat baik namun justru bersifat menghambat dirinya untuk bisa dapat jodoh.
Apa itu?
Ternyata ayah Rosa meninggal saat ia masih kecil, usia 7 tahun. Sejak saat itu ibunya yang bekerja keras menghidupi keluarga mereka. Bahkan pernah sampai jatuh sakit dan hampir meninggal.
Nah, pas saat ibunya sakit keras,Rosa berdoa dan mohon kesembuhan untuk ibunya. Dan dalam doanya ia berjanji bahwa ia akan membalas semua pengorbanan ibunya, setelah ia dewasa kelak, dengan selalu menyayangi dan mendampingi ibunya.
Janji ini ternyata masuk ke pikiran bawah sadarnya dan menjadi program. Benar, sejak saat itu dan hingga ia dewasa Rosa adalah anak yang begitu sayang pada ibunya. Selama ini program pikirannya telah sangat membantu Rosa dalam menjalani hidupnya. Rosa bekerja keras, menjadi anak yang sangat mencintai ibunya. Dan ibunya juga begitu bersyukur dan bahagia karena mempunyai anak yang begitu menyayanginya. Nah, program yang sangat positif ini tiba-tiba berubah menjadi program yang menghambat (baca: mental block) saat Rosa ingin berkeluarga.
Program ini mensabotase setiap upaya Rosa untuk mendapat pasangan hidup. Saat saya berdialog dengan “bagian” (baca: program) yang tidak setuju bila Rosa menikah, saya mendapat jawaban yang jelas dan lugas. Ternyata “bagian” ini khawatir Rosa tidak bisa menepati janjinya, menyayangi dan mendampingi ibunya karena bila menikah, menurut pemikiran “bagian” ini, Rosa harus mengikuti suaminya dan meninggalkan ibunya sendiri. “Bagian” ini tidak setuju dengan hal ini.
http://www.pembelajar.com/wmview.php?ArtID=1184&page=1
Untuk konteks penataan ruang, Mental block telah terjadi di kalangan penata ruang. Fenomena ini mengakibatkan terjadinya stagnansi dalam proses penataan ruang yang menyebabkan penataan ruang tidak progressif. Terlalu kasar?? Mohon maaf, mungkin memang saya terlalu hiperbolik. Tapi saya kesulitan untuk menemukan kata yang lebih halus untuk menggambarkan kata yang ada saat ini.
Fenomena mental block di kalangan penata ruang diindikasikan oleh beberapa hal
- Tidak Progresif
Metode dalam menata ruang dari semenjak saya sekolah sampai saat ini tidak banyak berubah. Inovasi-inovasi dalam merencana ruang sangat minim sekali terjadi. Struktur dalam rencana ruang (walau memang sudah dipersyaratkan dalam pedoman penataan ruang) ternyata sudah sangat lama sekali digunakan tanpa ada inovasi dari para pelakunya. Yang kemudian terjadi adalah copy paste rencana ruang dari satu kota ke kota lain, dari satu kabupaten ke kabupaten lain. Kenapa?? Karena hal itu sangat dimungkinkan. Perencana ruang tidak di tuntut untuk melakukan inovasi. Mereka di tuntut untuk menghasilkan rencana ruang at all cost. Tidak seperti bidang pekerjaan lain dimana para pelaku berlomba-lomba untuk melakukan inovasi karena berkaitan erat dengan pekerjaan yang akan diambil, di penataan ruang inovasi adalah hal yang jarang disentuh. Padahal sebagaimana kita ketahui bersama, inovasi lah yang menentukan hidup matinya sebuah profesi dan bidang ilmu. Tanpa inovasi maka akan terjadi stagnansi intelektual yang berujung pada dekadensi kompetensi dan kualitas pelakunya (ini contoh penggunaan bahasa planner, sangat berbunga-bunga). Pelaku penata ruang tidak bersemangat untuk melakukan inovasi diakibatkan tidak adanya insentif untuk melakukan itu. Inovasi tidak mengakibatkan didapatkanya pekerjaan baru atau naiknya pendapatan. Penggunaan metode yang selalu sama ternyata mengakibatkan kebosanan di kalangan pembaca dokumen rencana tata ruang.
Hal ini ditambah tidak munculnya tokoh2 baru dan muda dalam penataan ruang yang diakibatkan tidak ada pengaruh terhadap muncul atau tidaknya mereka dalam tataran konstelasi penataan ruang. Akibatnya hanya segelintir orang yang terus menerus untuk dijadikan referensi penataan ruang. Akhirnya pula yang kemudian terjadi wacana yang ditawarkan pun tidak beragam dengan landasan pemikiran yang dibangun tidak oleh orang banyak.
- Latah Wacana
Pernahkah kita mendengar isu penataan ruang sebagai sebuah isu sentral dan hangat dibicarakan?? Pernahkan isu penataan ruang menjadi konsumsi kampanye para calon pilkada??
Isu penataan ruang hanya hangat dibicarakan oleh orang banyak manakala terjadi Banjir di Jakarta. Itupun hanya menjadi side issue yang dibicarakan 1-2 minggu. Pelaku Penataan ruang saat ini latah dalam melakukan wacana public. Isu penataan ruang hanya muncul tatkala ada isu lain yang lebih heboh terjadi. Tidak ada mainstreaming isu penataan ruang.
Penata ruang hanya bersifat follower isu semata dan tidak berhasil menciptakan isu-isu penataan ruang ke ruang publik untuk didiskusikan dan diwacanakan. Kita pun tidak berminat untuk melemparkan wacana public karena merasa itu tidak ada respon. Padahal apabila berbicara di kalangan internal, semua pelaku penataan ruang merasa penataan ruang adalah hal paling penting yang harus dipikirkan republik ini. Tapi ketika di luar forum, isu-isu seperti itu tidak pernah muncul. Sorry to say, saya lebih banyak mengatakan para pelaku penataan ruang sebagai Jago Kandang saja. Walau saya tidak menutup mata terhadap usaha-usaha beberapa perencana ruang yang mengekspose wacana keruangan di masyarakat. Mungkin usaha mereka belum optimal, karena masalah packaging issue yang kurang seksi
- Kesenjangan Informasi
Seperti yang sudah saya sampaikan sebelumnya. Banyak perencana ruang yang berawacana di tataran langit dan melupakan apa yang ada di Bumi. Melihat masalah secara komprehensif lebih diutamakan daripada melihat persoalan secara riil. Yang kemudian terjadi adalah eksklusivitas pemikiran dan intervensi dalam proses penataan ruang yang mengakibatkan terbatasnya sumbang pemikiran dari luar. Istilah-istilah yang scientific dan tidak responsif terhadap masyarakat mengakibatkan public tidak memahami pengaturan ruang dan implikasi terhadap kehidupan mereka. Terdapat kesenjangan informasi dan akses yang oleh para penata ruang “sepertinya” dibiarkan begitu saja akibat ketakutan apabila semua mengerti tata ruang maka hegemoni mereka sebagai perencana pun diragukan. Mungkin ini nature sebuah ilmu yang tidak memiliki backbone , sehingga mudah untuk di masuki
Mental block menghalangi kita penata ruang untuk melakukan inovasi dan progresif. Hal ini kemudian yang menyebabkan tidak adanya progresivitas dalam perencanaan ruang. Bila hal ini dibiarkan berlanjut maka saya bisa bilang ada sebuah kekhawatiran dunia ini sendiri akan mengalami penurunan kualitas.
Sehingga tidak heran bisa kita katakan bahwa kondisi penataan ruang yang sedemikian ini merupakan akumulasi “dosa” para penata ruang, termasuk saya dan rekan-rekan sekalian.
Solusinya?? Maaf saya baru bicara masalah.. solusi saya lanjutkan di edisi lain
-catur-
Tulisan ini juga dimuat di http://catuy.blogspot.com
Back to the Future of the Creative City: Amsterdam’s Creative Redevelopment and the Art of Deception
Merijn Oudenampsen
February 2007
Source : www.RadicalUrbanTheory.com
Sometimes it is necessary to dig into the past in order to illuminate the present. In this case, contrasting Amsterdam’s ongoing Creative City hype with a utopian precursor will hopefully shed some light on the contradictions inherent in the fusion between creativity and industry. For being a hype, the Creative City policy has shown remarkable vigour and life span. Not unlike well known ageing rock bands, even at old age it has been able to maintain its spell on groupies and adherents at local city governments around the western world.(1) However, I do not intend to argue that when it was still young and fresh, Richard Florida’s Creative Class Rock rang any truer; only that all along the line, a different tune is being played than the lyrics imply. I will argue that Amsterdam’s Creative City policy - far from intending to make the city’s entire population more creative - is predominantly a branding exercise, an expression of a much more general shift towards entrepreneurial modes of city government; a shift that is presently being played out in an impressive urban redevelopment of Amsterdam.
The comparison between sociologist Richard Florida - author of two books on the rise and flight of the Creative Class - and a rock star is not unusual. Google ‘rock star’ and ‘Richard Florida’ and you will find dozens of descriptions of performances by the ‘rock star academic’ responsible for introducing pop sociology into regional economics. Amongst the urban policy do’s and don’ts he prescribes, ‘lacking rock bands’ even figures prominently amongst the reasons why a city could lose out on the economic development race(2). But this article is not about the interesting fusion between pop culture and social science, rather about the utopian claims that are being made for the creative economy. Florida has pronounced creativity to be a ‘great equaliser’, pleading for a ‘New Deal’ of the creative economy. Likewise, Cohen - the mayor of Amsterdam - has pronounced Amsterdam to be a Creative City that will ‘foster the creativity of all its inhabitants’(3).
In retrospect, these claims can be seen as somewhat distorted echoes of an earlier utopian project that alluded to the revolutionary rise of creativity. Let’s take a short leap back in history, back to the future as imagined by the Dutch avant-garde, and more specifically the Dutch artist Constant Nieuwenhuys. Constant was one of the founders of the Dutch experimental art group Reflex, which later became part of the international COBRA current. Discontented with the limitations of the world of art and ‘the individualistic nature’ of painting, he abandoned painting in 1953 to focus on the more promising use and of metal and architectural techniques. In 1957 he became a co-founder of the Situationist International (SI), writing with Guy Debord the now well known tract on Unitary Urbanism. Till his resignation in 1961, he would play a essential role in the formulation of a Situationist perspective on the city and a critique on modernist urbanism.
In 1956 Constant started what would become a visionary architectural project that would stretch out over 20 years. An utopian city that went by the name of New Babylon; it consisted of an almost endless series of scale models, sketches, etchings, collages, further elaborated by manifestoes, lectures, essays and films. The project was a provocation, an explicit metaphor for the Creative City:
The modern city is dead; it has been sacrificed to the cult of utility. New Babylon is the project for a city in which people will be able to live. For to live means to be creative. New Babylon is the product of the creativity of the masses, based on the activation of the enormous creative potential which at the moment lies dormant and unexploited in the people. New Babylon assumes that as a result of automation non-creative work will disappear, that there will be a metamorphosis in morals and thinking, that a new form of society will emerge.(4)
Constant envisaged a society where automation had realised the liberation of man from the toils of industrial work, and its replacement by a nomadic life of creative play, outside of the economic domain and in disregard of any considerations of functionality: ‘Contrary to what the functionalists think, culture is situated at the point where usefulness ends’, was one of Constant’s more provocative statements(5). Homo Faber, the working man of industrial society was to be succeeded by Homo Ludens, the playful man or as Constant stated, creative man. This was the inhabitant of New Babylon that thanks to modern architectural techniques would be able to spontaneously control en reconfigure every aspect of the urban environment. Constant took the surrealist slogan ‘poetry should be made by all’ and translated it to the urban environment, ‘tomorrow, life will reside in poetry’(6). The work of Constant Nieuwenhuys thus combined a distaste for modernist functionalism with an intense appreciation of the libratory potentials of new technology. Mechanisation would result in the arrival of a ‘mass culture of creativity’ that would revolt against the superstructure of bourgeois society, in order to destroy it completely and take the privileged position of the artist down with it. A society would be created where, in accord with Marx’ vision on art in a communist society, ‘there are no painters but only people who engage in painting among other activities’(7). The work of Constant would have a direct and major influence on the rise of youth movement Provo. The Dutch Yippies proved to be an almost perfect incarnation of the Homo Ludens; through relentless provocation, happenings and playful actions, Provo would bring the authoritarianism of the Dutch 50’s down to its knees.
Life is put to Work
However, developments took an unexpected turn. Automation and consequent deindustrialisation, the outsourcing of manufacturing to Newly Industrialising Countries, did not lead to the liberation of the Homo Ludens (or maybe we should grant Homo Ludens a short and partial victory - a short interlude located somewhere in the youth culture of the 60’s - before being sent back to work). As is well known, since the sixties the total amount of working hours has grown steeply. Together with the consolidation of consumption as a leisure activity, it has led to an unprecedented amount of human activity being directly or indirectly incorporated into the sphere of economic transactions. A development Marx would have called ‘real subsumption’, the extension of capitalism onto the field of the ontological, of lived social practice.
Whereas Constant envisioned the liberation of the creative domain from the economic, right now we are witnessing - en sync with the Creative City discourse - the extension of the economic into the creative domain. This is exemplified by the transformation of the artist into a cultural entrepreneur, the marketing of (sub)cultural expressions, the subservience of culture to tourist flows and the triumph of functionalism over bildungsideal at the university. An interesting spatial illustration is that what was before a fringe economy of the arts occupied also a fringe position in the Amsterdam housing market, most notably in the squatted dockland warehouses. Now that the art economy has been incorporated and elevated towards a seemingly pivotal position in the urban economy, it has been accommodated into the city through mechanisms such as the broedplaatsenbeleid(8) or temporary housing contracts. The majority of non-functional space in the city, derelict or squatted territories, have now been redeveloped or are in process towards development. There is no longer an outside position.
What distinguishes the earlier utopian Creative City from the one referred to by Florida and the Amsterdam City Council? To start with, what’s important to note is that in the post-Fordist economy, where the Fordist factory has been decentralised and socialised, the rise to prominence of the creative sector in advanced economies is predicated upon displacement of industrial functions to low wage localities and the exploitation of cheap manual labour. This new functional divide in the global economy - and its polarised wage structure - is referred to as the New International Division of Labour(9). As part of this development, we have seen the rise of global cities whose economic success depends on the presence of high tech innovation and global control functions. These economic nodes coordinate the international flows of goods, finance outsourced production, market and design its products and maintain a monopolist control over client relations(10). The claims of the new creative city as being a ‘great equalizer’ turns, in a global perspective, into the opposite; it is based on functional inequality. Now let’s take a closer look at the city.
Amsterdam™
To properly understand the arrival of the Creative City policy and what sets it aside from its utopian predecessor, we have to place it in a larger context. The Creative City is part and parcel of a bigger shift hitting the city, causing the Keynesian management of bygone era’s to be replaced by an entrepreneurial approach. The rise in importance of footloose productive sectors for cities’ economic well being has led to increased interurban competition. Amsterdam is pitted against urban centres such as Barcelona, London, Paris and Frankfurt, in a struggle to attract economic success in the form of investments, a talented workforce and tourists flocking to the city. The ever present threat of interurban competition is continuously being rhetorically invoked and inflated. To illustrate my point, recently even the discussion on whether to discontinue a prohibition of gas heaters on the terraces of Amsterdam cafés were framed in these terms: “It’s a serious disadvantage in comparison with cities like Berlin and Paris”, according to the leader of the local social democrat party. The opinion of the city’s population itself wasn’t even mentioned in the newspaper article.(11)
The dominance of entrepreneurial approaches to city politics is the feature of a new urban regime, labelled by scholars as the ‘Entrepreneurial City’(12). With its origins in the US reality of neo-liberal state withdrawal from urban plight, it has taken some time to arrive in the corporatist Netherlands and filter through the minds of its policy makers.
In this new urban regime, independent from the colour of the party in power, the public sector displays behaviour that was once characteristic for the private sector: risk taking, innovation, marketing and profit motivated thinking. Public money is invested into private economic development through Public Private Partnerships, to outflank the urban competition. Hence the rise of urban mega developments and marketing projects such as the Docklands in London, the Guggenheim in Bilbao or the Zuid As in Amsterdam. A concern voiced by critics is that although costs are public, profit will be allocated to the urban elite, hypothetically to ‘trickle down’ to the rest of the population. To face up to this new market reality, where cities are seen as products, and the city council as a business unit, Amsterdam inc. has launched the branding projects I Amsterdam and Amsterdam Creative City. One of the first steps of the new progressive city council, once installed in the spring of 2006, was to launch a ‘Top City Programme’, aimed at consolidating the city’s ‘flagging’ position in the top ten of preferred urban business climates:
Viewed from an outsider’s vantage point, Amsterdam is clearly ready to reposition itself. This is why we’ve launched the Amsterdam Top City programme. In order to keep ahead of the global competition, Amsterdam needs to renew itself. In other words, in order to enjoy a great future worthy of its great past, what Amsterdam needs now is great thinking.(13)
Of course, ‘creativity will be the central focus point’ of this programme, since ‘creativity is the motor that gives the city its magnetism and dynamism’. However when one looks beyond the rhetoric, at the practicalities of the programme, it is surprisingly modest: sponsored expat welcome centres in Schiphol Airport, coaching for creative entrepreneurs by mayor Dutch banks and MTV, ‘hospitality training’ for caterers, ‘Amsterdam Top City’ publications in KLM flights, and the annual Picnic Cross Media week, a conference aspiring to be the Dutch Davos of creative entrepreneurs.
In arguably one of the best analysis of the Creative City theory yet, geographer Jamie Peck(14) asked himself why it is that Florida’s work proved to have such an impressive influence on policy makers around the world. He came to the sobering conclusion that it wasn’t because Florida’s creative city thesis was so groundbreaking – various authors had published on the knowledge economy before - but mostly because it provided a cheap, non-controversial and do-able marketing script that fitted well with the existing entrepreneurial schemes of urban economic development. Something city authorities could afford to do on the side, a low budget PR scheme complemented by a reorientation of already existing cultural funding. In Amsterdam, however creative branding is maybe modest in its budget but extensive in its effects, it is the immaterial glazing on the cake of an impressive physical redevelopment of the city.
For Amsterdam abounds with building works; it is facing what I have called an ‘Extreme Makeover’(15). The city’s old harbours are being redeveloped into luxurious living and working environments; in its southern belly a new skyline is being realised, the Zuid As, a high rise business district that is supposed to function as a portal to the world economy. In the post war popular neighbourhoods more houses are being demolished than ever before in the history of the city, and a significant part of the social housing will make way for more expensive owner occupant apartments. The trajectory of the new metro line – a straight line of sand, cement and continuous construction works – crosses the city from North to South and thus connects the new city with the old.
Not only is one of Europe’s largest urban renewal operations underway and has demolishment reached a historical high, the image of the city itself is also being reworked. In both the re-branding and redevelopment of Amsterdam, the creative sector plays an important role. Creative industry is supposed to function as catalyst for urban redevelopment, changing the image of a neighbourhood from backward to hip. Schemes have been put into place to temporarily or permanently house artist in neighbourhoods to be upgraded. Although modest in its budget the I Amsterdam and Creative City marketing campaigns are conceptually highly advanced (and extensively present in the public’s consciousness), for city marketing is the apex of consumer generated content, the dominant trend in marketing techniques. Creative hipsters serve as a communicative vessel for branding projects; in between concept stores, galleries, fashion- and street art magazines, the cultural economy expands itself over the urban domain and in the public realm.
The new marketing function of the creative sector is maybe best illustrated by the recent project of Sandberg, called ‘Artvertising’. It involves the facade of the Sandberg fine arts and design faculty being turned into a huge billboard filled with logo’s of predominantly major companies and also some smaller cultural projects. The sixteen thousand tiles of the facade (35×29cm each) were sold for 20 euros a piece, with the mentioning of all the business savvy people of the office park Zuid As passing on the adjacent ring road. A small blurb from the website of Artvertising:
Every self considered art or design intellectual ends up twisting his or her nose to the so-called ‘commercial world’. Art, culture, criticism is what it matters. But we don’t think so. We believe that now, more than always, the world is ruled by commercial and economical relationships. Culture defines, and most important, is defined these days by market dynamics.(16)
The Sandberg project is a beautiful illustration of the state of art in the Entrepreneurial City. Perfectly vacuous, it’s like a bubble that’s bound to burst. The genius of the project - note also its grammatical bluntness - is that it becomes at once the tool of critique and its object; the embodiment of post critical art, stretched beyond the cynical dystopias of Rem Koolhaas. It did not fail in sparking some resistance, during its one month’s existence, it was modestly vandalised by a group calling itself the ‘Pollock commando’, wanting to reclaim the facade as a ‘public canvas’ by throwing paint bombs on it(17). Besides its uncritical embrace of the new commercial role of the artist as entrepreneur, the ‘Artvertising’ project is also reflective of another tendency in Amsterdam’s creative economy. With the borders between culture and economy fading away, the assessment of the value of art and cultural practice has risen in significance.
The Artificial Organic of Real Estate
In a recent article in Real Estate Magazine(18) we can read more about the strange collusion between the arts and real estate. It reads: ‘The concept of the Creative City is on the rise. Sometimes planned, sometimes organic, but up till now always thanks to real estate developers’. The article describes a round table discussion by real estate entrepreneurs on the Creative City, organised by René Hoogendoorn. She is the director of ‘Strategic Projects’ at ING Real Estate, the real estate branch of one of the biggest banking conglomerates of the Netherlands. ‘Strategic Projects’ means according to Hoogendoorn that she initiates the development of projects that need ‘soul’, in this case de Zuid As and the new development in the Northern docklands, Overhoeks. She combines this function with the advisory board of the Rietveld Art Academy, the spatial planning department of the employers federation and being one of the driving members of the Amsterdam Creativity Exchange, a club subsidised by the Creative City policy that according to its own words ‘provides an environment in which business and creativity meet’(19). Thus it is no coincidence that the last meeting of the Creativity Exchange took place in the old Shell offices of the strategic Overhoeks terrain, in that way providing already a taste of the much needed ‘soul’(20). Hoogendoorn explains that ING Real Estate invests in art and culture up to the point that it increases the value of real estate surrounding it. Interesting examples are ING Real Estate funding Platform 21, the Design museum at the Zuid As, and the sponsoring of the post squatter performance festival Robodock on the northern docklands. Hogendoorn and other real estate developers are still struggling with the question ‘how to assess up-front the net cash value of the future added value of culture’. Which shows there is still some way to go for the colonisation of culture.
Another interesting announcement in the article is that real estate developers have now come to realise the importance of ‘software’ for the successful realisation of real estate ‘hardware’. Cultural institutions and temporary art projects create ‘traffic’, and allow developers to slowly bring property ‘up to flavour’: ‘It’s about creating space! The thing not to do is to publicly announce you’re going to haul in artists; instead, give them the feeling they’ve thought of it themselves. If it arises organically, levels will rise organically’(21).
The distinction between urban ‘software’ and ‘hardware’ was initially coined as an architectural term by the pop-art architecture group Archigram, to champion the use of soft and flexible materials like the inflatable bubble in stead of modernist ‘hardware’ realised with steel and cement. Together with contemporaries such as the Italian group Archizoom and publications such as Raban’s Soft City(22), Archigram levelled a critique against deadpan modernism, putting forward a more organic conception of the city as a living organism. Urban software thus acquired its present day computer analogy, where software is the ‘programming’ of the city and hardware its ‘infrastructure’. Much like the SI - experimenting with the bottom up software approach through psycho-geography and the dérive – subjective, organic and bottom-up approaches became a focus point for utopian urbanism(23).
The recuperation of the utopian language of the sixties into neo-functionalism by real estate entrepreneurs is tragically appropriate. In the SI’s ‘Formulary for a New Urbanism’, Ivan Chtcheglov argues for a city where everyone could live in their ‘personal cathedral’. He proposed a city with districts corresponding to their inhabitants’ emotional life: Bizarre Quarter, Happy Quarter, Noble and Tragic Quarter, Historical Quarter, Useful Quarter, Sinister Quarter etc.(24) In a similar but very different vein, the present restructuring of the Dutch housing market has seen the arrival of a ‘differentiated living milieus’ fashion where planners partition existing neighbourhoods into theme areas, accompanied by a discourse of ‘consumer choice’. In the Westelijke Tuinsteden, the biggest redevelopment of social housing in Amsterdam, planners ‘re-imagined’ the entire neighbourhood into different consumer identities such as ‘dreamer’, ‘doer’, ‘urbanite’, ‘networker’, ‘villager’ etc. When consumer demand from outside of the neighbourhood failed to materialise, however, the planners had to readapt their visions, reluctantly returning to a half-hearted focus on the needs of the local population.(25)
Thus the hardware-software dialectic has become an intrinsic part of the current urban development approach. To turn to an example of entrepreneurial city hardware, we could look at the new mega development, the business district Zuid-As, and the North South metro line that will connect it to the city (together good for a few billions of public investment). A good example of software would be the new media conference Picnic ’06, that was granted almost half a million by both the city council and the national government and still managed to ask an entrance fee of 750 euros for a three day conference. Creative City schemes thus become an attempt to build competitive ‘urban software packages’; or to ‘program’ space, an expression of French urbanist Lefebvre to denote the top down organisation of space.(26) To continue with the computer analogy, the first problem with these top down approaches is that their ‘source code’ is undisclosed. Public planning and citizen participation in as well the Zuid As, the North South metro line and the redevelopment of the Westelijke Tuinsteden has been problematic, with most of the decisions being taken behind closed doors, to later be publicly legitimised by false arguments or financial ‘miscalculations’. Only when we can break that code, we can truly asses additional problems, such as the curtailment of the public sphere or social polarisation.
Multiple Personality (Dis)order
The subject of the Creative City is not Homo Ludens as imagined by Constant, but the entrepreneur in all its guises, for the creative city is an entrepreneurial city. Accordingly, in the cultural field the artist is being converted into a cultural entrepreneur. An illustrative example is the conversion of the Artist Allowance, a state scheme that before its current transformation was just a monthly allowance, but has now been made conditional on a yearly growing profit. Each year, artists have to earn more to be able to apply to the WWIK. The new Art Plan and other Creative City initiatives attempt to infuse a entrepreneurial mindset into the artist by giving them courses on administration and entrepreneurial strategies. Cultural Funding is increasingly geared to cross-over projects between the arts and the economy. Of course the great threat of competition is again invoked: “Despite big investments of the council and the national government, the cultural significance of Amsterdam, and accordingly the international position of Dutch culture, is under pressure”.(27)
A battlefield is staged in Negri & Hardt’s Empire between a creative, communicative and productive multitude and parasitic capital. In the Entrepreneurial City this opposition becomes a permanent psychological state, a multiple personality disorder. The Creative Class is at once Homo Ludens and Homo Economicus, it incorporates the drive to create, produce and socialise with the drive to appropriate those powers and passions. If we use Marx’s words, if capital is a social relation; then the entrepreneurial mindset is the interface of that relation.
Paradoxically, the consequence of Amsterdam conversion into cultural knowledge economy is that we are more and more economical with creativity. Universities await the introduction of a voucher system, a ticket system comparable to the food stamps in crisis times. Popular but not economically successful educations on the polytechnic schools will have to lower their student nr’s. An entire bureaucracy has been set up that forces teachers and students into streamlined submission to quota’s and efficiency concerns. (Dutch students, unconsciously, have already grasped that studying is now nothing more than unpaid labour, by working as little as possible).
What does it mean the Amsterdam Creative City is predominantly a branding project, a thin layer of varnish, under which resides banal economic strive? There is a Dutch expression, ‘de wens is de moeder van de gedachte’, which literally means ‘the wish is the mother of the thought’, a pseudo Freudian folk wisdom that relates well to the reality of the Creative City.
According to the marketing experts at city hall, Amsterdam is engaged in ‘a form of communicative warfare’(28) in an international competitive field of Creative Cities. As Sun Tzu stated in the Art of War: ‘All warfare is based on deception’. So here it is, Amsterdam, a city where 70% of the young population can only complete the lowest level of education, the VMBO, which is on top of that suffering from record amounts of drop outs, labelling itself as a Creative City for all.
Maybe Paolo Virno’s take on post-Fordism is better at identifying creativity beyond the Creative Class, even if it proves to be not as rewarding for everyone:
Post-Fordism certainly cannot be reduced to a set of particular professional figures characterized by intellectual refinement or ‘creative’ gifts. It is obvious that workers in the media, researchers, engineers, ecological operators, and so on, are and will be only a minority. By ‘post-Fordism,’ I mean instead a set of characteristics that are related to the entire contemporary workforce, including fruit pickers and the poorest of immigrants. Here are some of them: the ability to react in a timely manner to the continual innovations in techniques and organizational models, a remarkable ‘opportunism’ in negotiating among the different possibilities offered by the job market, familiarity with what is possible and unforeseeable, that minimal entrepreneurial attitude that makes it possible to decide what is the ‘right thing’ to do within a nonlinear productive fluctuation, a certain familiarity with the web of communications and information.(29)
Not far removed - albeit from a different political perspective - is an interesting statement from Florida that creativity according to his theory ‘is a fundamental and intrinsic human capacity’. According to Florida, in the end all human beings are creative, and all are potentially part of the creative class, but just a small part is so lucky to get paid for it(30). Here is where the precarity comes in, since the entrepreneur is precarious by definition. The investments made are speculative and risk taking is the central requirement. Thus not only the artist but the entire city turns precarious, its income dependent on the flows of de-territorialised creativity. Social nets of old, like social housing and unemployment subsidies are being slowly deconstructed. For the free lance entrepreneur social protection is market distortion, and unionisation is infringement on cartel legislation. Amsterdam’s metamorphosis towards an entrepreneurial city has worrying social consequences, while the city looks outside for investments and talent, the local population that is not productive or cannot market its creativity sufficiently becomes redundant. This surplus population is slowly displaced by the urban renewal offensive towards the region. The ‘urban facelift’ revolves around the removal of social tissue just as the physical one removes fatty tissue. The environment of the Creative City becomes a highly segregated one.
According to the French urbanist Lefebvre ‘the right of the city signifies the right of citizens and city dwellers, (…), to appear on all the networks and circuits of communication, information and exchange.’ We need to re-imagine what a real Creative City would look like. Let the first condition be that its ‘software’ runs on programming that is ‘open source’.
References
Byvanck, Valentyn (ed.). Superstudio: The Middelburg Lectures, Middelburg: Zeeuws Museum, 2005.
Chtcheglov, Ivan. ‘Formulary for a New Urbanism’, trans. Ken Knabb, Interactivist Info Exchange, August 2006, http://info.interactivist.net/article.pl?sid=06/08/25/191240&mode=nested&tid=9
Florida, Richard. ‘The Rise of the Creative Class. Why Cities Without Gays and Rock Bands Are Losing the Economic Development Race’. Washington Monthly, 2 May, 2002, http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0205.florida.html.
________. ‘Cities and the Creative Class’, City & Community, 2.1 (2003): 3-19.
Gemeente Amsterdam: Amsterdam Topstad: Metropool. Economische Zaken Amsterdam (14 July 2006), Amsterdam, http://www.amsterdam.nl/ondernemen?ActItmIdt=12153.
________. Amsterdam Creatieve Stad, Kunstenplan 2005 – 2008, (2004), Amsterdam,
http://www.amsterdam.nl/gemeente/documenten?ActItmIdt=4750
_______. Choosing Amsterdam; Brand, Concept and Organisation of the City Marketing. (2003) Amsterdam, http://www.amsterdam.nl/aspx/download.aspx?file=/contents/pages/4629/d69_citymarket_samen.pdf
Hall, Tim and Phil Hubbard (eds). The Entrepreneurial City. Geographies of Politics, Regimes and Representation. West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons, 1998.
Harvey, David. ‘From Managerialism to Entrepreneurialism: The transformation in Urban Governance in Late Capitalism’. Geografiska Annaler 71.1 (1989): pp. 3-17.
Hellinga, Helma. Onrust in Park en Stad. Stedelijke Vernieuwing in de Westelijke Tuinsteden, Amsterdam: Het Spinhuis, 2005.
Joseph, Branden W. and Virno, Paolo. ‘Interview with Paolo Virno’, trans. Alessia Ricciardi, Grey Room 21 (Fall, 2005): 32, http://mitpress.mit.edu/journals/pdf/GR21_026-037_Joseph.pdf.
Lefebvre, Henri. The Production of Space, trans. Donald Nichelson Smith, Oxford, Blackwell, 1991.
Marx , Karl and Friedrich Engels. The German Ideology, 1845-46, New York, International Publishers edition, 1970.
Nieuwenhuys, Constant and Simon Vinkenoog. New Babylon : Ten Lithographs, Amsterdam: Galerie d’Eendt 1963.
Nieuwenhuys, Constant. ‘Opkomst en Ondergang van de Avant-Garde’. In: Randstad 8 (1964), pp 6-35.
Oudenampsen, Merijn. ‘Extreme Makeover’. Mute Magazine Vol 2. Issue 4, 2006. Available online at http://www.metamute.org/en/Extreme-Makeover
Peck, Jamie. ‘Struggling with the Creative Class’. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 29.4 (2005), pp 740-770.
Raban, Jonathan. Soft City, London: Hamilton, 1974.
Ratingen, Bart van. ‘Ik Zie Ik Zie Wat Jij Niet Ziet, Vijf Ontwikkelaars over de “Creatieve Stad”, haar Mogelijkheden en haar Beperkingen’, Real Estate Magazine, May 2006.
Sassen, Saskia. The Global City. New York, London, Tokyo. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001.
Sützl, Wolfgang and Christine Mayer (eds). World-Information.org IP City Edition, Vienna: Institute for New Culture Technologies, 2005. Available online at: http://static.world-information.org/infopaper/wi_ipcityedition.pdf.
Uitermark, Justus. ‘De omarming van subversiviteit’. Agora 24.3, (2004): pp 32-35. Also available from: http://squat.net/studenten/kraken-is-terug.pdf.
Footnotes
- Even though according to a recent investigation the creative economy in Amsterdam is experiencing decline in stead of growth, the City Council still expresses its confidence in the strategic importance of the creative sector. “ It’s beyond numbers”, according to alderman Asscher of Economic Affairs.
‘Creatieve Industrie Slinkt’, Het Parool, 25 January, 2007, http://www.parool.nl/nieuws/2007/JAN/25/eco2.html - Richard Florida, ‘The Rise of the Creative Class. Why Cities Without Gays and Rock Bands Are Losing the Economic Development Race’. Washington Monthly, 2 May, 2002, http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0205.florida.html.
- Speech delivered by Cohen at the Creative Capital Conference, 17-18 March 2005, Amsterdam. See: http://www.creativecapital.nl/
- Constant Nieuwenhuys and Simon Vinkenoog, New Babylon : Ten Lithographs, Amsterdam: Galerie d’Eendt 1963: 10.
- Constant Nieuwenhuys, ‘Opkomst en Ondergang van de Avant-Garde’. In: Randstad 8 (1964), pp 6-35.
- Not Bored, http://www.notbored.org/tomorrow.html
- Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, The German Ideology, 1845-46, New York, International Publishers edition, 1970: p 109.
- Het broedplaatsenbeleid (lit. incubator policy) is a city policy whereby subsidies are allocated to house artists below the going market rates in especially redeveloped buildings (a significant part of the policy has been targeted at legalising squats) . Like the baby chickens, the idea behind the policy is that cultural activity needs to be sheltered from the market in its initial phase; when chick finally turns into chicken, it should support itself. It is a controversial policy, also because the artists benefiting from it complain about the strict bureaucratic requirements.
Justus Uitermark, ‘De omarming van subversiviteit’. Agora 24.3, (2004): pp 32-35. Also available from: http://squat.net/studenten/kraken-is-terug.pdf. - Folker Fröbel et al., ‘The New International Division of Labour’. Social Science Information 17.1 (1978), pp. 123-142.
- Saskia Sassen, The Global City. New York, London, Tokyo. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001.
- ‘Kachels op Terras gaan aan’. Front page article in Het Parool, 23 January 2007.
http://www.parool.nl/nieuws/2007/JAN/23/p2.html. - David Harvey, ‘From Managerialism to Entrepreneurialism: The transformation in Urban Governance in Late Capitalism’. Geografiska Annaler 71.1 (1989): pp. 3-17.
Tim Hall and Phil Hubbard (eds) The Entrepreneurial City. Geographies of Politics, Regimes and Representation. West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons, 1998. - Gemeente Amsterdam, Amsterdam Topstad: Metropool. Economische Zaken Amsterdam (14 July 2006), Amsterdam, http://www.amsterdam.nl/ondernemen?ActItmIdt=12153.
- Jamie Peck, ‘Struggling with the Creative Class’. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 29.4 (2005), pp 740-770.
- Merijn Oudenampsen, ‘Extreme Makeover’. Mute Magazine Vol 2. Issue 4, 2006. Available online at http://www.metamute.org/en/Extreme-Makeover
- Artvertising, http://www.sandberg.nl:106080/artvertising
- Adbust at the Sandberg Institute, 22 December 2006, http://indymedia.nl/nl/2006/12/41476.shtml
- Bart van Ratingen, ‘Ik Zie Ik Zie Wat Jij Niet Ziet, Vijf Ontwikkelaars over de “Creatieve Stad”, haar Mogelijkheden en haar Beperkingen’, Real Estate Magazine, May 2006.
- Amsterdam Creativity Exchange, http://www.acx.nu.
- Website Overhoeks Development, http://www.overhoeks.nl/template4.php?c=209
- Ratingen, ‘Ik Zie Ik Zie Wat Jij Niet Ziet’ Real Estate Magazine, May 2006, my translation.
- Jonathan Raban, Soft City, London: Hamilton, 1974.
For a good introduction to Archizoom, see:
Valentijn Byvanck (ed.) Superstudio: The Middelburg Lectures, Middelburg: Zeeuws Museum, 2005. - See also the World-Information.org IP City Edition, for a relation between the utopian urbanism of the sixties and the present struggle against copyrights:
Wolfgang Sützl and Christine Mayer (eds), World-Information.org IP City Edition, Vienna: Institute for New Culture Technologies, 2005, http://static.world-information.org/infopaper/wi_ipcityedition.pdf - Ivan Chtcheglov, ‘Formulary for a New Urbanism’, trans. Ken Knabb, Interactivist Info Exchange, August 2006, http://info.interactivist.net/…
- Helma Hellinga, Onrust in Park en Stad. Stedelijke Vernieuwing in de Westelijke Tuinsteden, Amsterdam: Het Spinhuis, 2005: pp 143-154.
- Henri Lefebvre, The Production of Space, trans. Donald Nichelson Smith, Oxford, Blackwell, 1991.
- Gemeente Amsterdam, Amsterdam Creatieve Stad, Kunstenplan 2005 – 2008, (2004), Amsterdam,
http://www.amsterdam.nl/gemeente/documenten?ActItmIdt=4750 - ‘What should brand carriers comply with? An intrinsic descriptive name is recognisable yet less distinctive and specific for the brand it refers to: there are several artistic cities in the world so “Amsterdam city of art” or “Amsterdam the metropolis” is not quite unique and distinctive when it comes to the communication war between cities.’
Gemeente Amsterdam, Choosing Amsterdam; Brand, Concept and Organisation of the City Marketing. (2003) Amsterdam: 23. http://www.amsterdam.nl/…/d69_citymarket_samen.pdf
Another interesting detail is that the present alderman of culture, Caroline Gherels has come from the ‘I Amsterdam’ marketing team. - Branden W. Joseph and Paolo Virno, ‘Interview with Paolo Virno’, trans. Alessia Ricciardi, Grey Room 21 (Fall, 2005): 32, http://mitpress.mit.edu/journals/pdf/GR21_026-037_Joseph.pdf.
- Richard Florida, ‘Cities and the Creative Class’, City & Community, 2.1 (2003): 8
Radical Urban Theory thanks Merijn Oudenampsen for permission to publish this article (July 2008).
KRITIK DAN SARAN MASIH DIBUTUHKAN UNTUK PENYEMPURNAAN DRAFT RPP PENATAAN RUANG
Sumber : www.pu.go.id
Konsultasi Publik dengan pokok bahasan Draft Rancangan Peraturan Pemerintah (RPP) tentang Penyelenggaraan Penataan Ruang dilaksanakan Kamis (18/9) kemarin di Kampus Universitas Gajah Mada Yogyakarta. Kegiatan tersebut dimaksudkan untuk menghimpun berbagai tanggapan dan masukan dari berbagai kalangan masyarakat bagi penyempurnaan materi draft RPP.
Pasalnya Draft RPP ini dijadwalkan harus rampung pada akhir tahun ini. Terkait dengan permasalahan tersebut Direktorat Jenderal Penataan Ruang Deparatemen Pekerjaan Umum (Dep.PU) hingga menjelang Draft RPP disahkan masih terus akan menerima berbagai kritik dan saran dari publik.
”Sebelum draft RPP ini disahkan, kami masih terus akan menerima berbagai masukan dari masyarakat. Semakin banyak masukan kami kira itu akan lebih baik bagi penyempurnaan RPP,” tegas Sekretaris Direktur Jenderal Penataan Ruang Ruchyat Deni Djakapermana usai membacakan sambutan Dirjen Penataan Ruang.
Sejak diterbitkannya Undang-Undang No.26 Tahun 2007 tentang Penataan Ruang (UUPR), penyelenggaraan penataan ruang nasional telah memiliki landasan hukum yang komprehensif. UUPR sangat penting guna terwujudnya ruang wilayah nusantara yang aman, nyaman, produktif dan berkelanjutann.
Deni menyatakan, sebenarnya UU Penataan Ruang mengamanatkan perlunya disusun 18 RPP, sebagaimana keputusan Rapat Badan Koordinasi Tata Ruang Nasional (BKTRN). Seiring dengan perjalan waktu, substansi RPP itu dipersempit dari 18 menjadi 6 RPP terkait dengan aturan penyelenggaraan Penataan Ruang dan Rencana Tata Ruang Wilayah Nasional (RTRWN) yang seluruhnya melibatkan 3 instansi pemerintah (Dep.PU, Meneg KLH, Dep.Dalam Negeri) dan 3 lembaga (Bakosurtanal, LAPAN, BPN) sebagai penanggungjawabnya.
Penyederhanaan RPP itu mengacu pada kebijakan dari Departemen Hukum dan Hak Azasi Manusia (KumHam) dan Sekretariat Negara yang bertujuan mengurangi terjadinya overlaping materi muatan pengaturan pada masing-masing RPP. Selain tujuan tersebut penyederhanaan juga dimaksudkan guna memudahkan harmonisasi dengan aturan per UU lain terkait serta agar peraturan pelaksanan suatu UU dapat disusun secara serentak tanpa harus ada yang tercecer.
Ditambahkan, Draft RPP tiga yang disampaikan peserta konsultasi publik yang jumlahnya sekitar 228 orang berasal dari berbagai kalangan ssperti asosiasi profesi, asosiasi perusahaan, LSM, Akademisi, penegak hukum dan instansi pemerintah. Selain itu, draft RPP Tiga merupakan rangkuman dari berbagai bahan, seperti lokakarya, hasil rapat Panitia Antar Depertemen (PAD) yang kedua kali serta masukan dari para nara sumber yang dihimpun tim substansi penyiapan materi RPP.
Deni berharap, selain penyusunan RPP akan memuat ketentuan secara eksplisit seperti yang diamanatkan UUPR, perlu pula dimasukkan berbagai ketentuan dari para stakeholders dalam pengaturannya. Dengan demikian dalam RPP akan tercipta suatu keterpaduan, keserasian, keselarasan, keterbukaan, keberhasilan serta keadilan dan perlindungan hukum.
Secara umum pokok-pokok materi muatan yang diatur dalam RPP meliputi enam masalah yang meliputi; bentuk dan tata cara pembinaan penataan ruang, perencanaan TRW, kriteria dan tata cara peninjauan kembali yang memuat landasan operasional. Ditambah lagi masalah, pemanfaatan ruang dan pengendalian pemanfaatan ruang nasional/ provinsi/kabupaten/kota serta bentuk dan tata cara pengawasan PR.
Kepala Bagian Hukum Ditjen Penataan Ruang, Dadang Rukmana berharap nantinya dengan tersusunnya RPP Penataan Ruang selain dapat menjadi landasan operasioanl penyelenggaraan PR oleh pemangku kepentingan, juga diharapkan bisa menjembatani perbedaan persepsi terhadap materi muatan UUPR yang dinilai kerap kali menimbulkan multi tafsir.
Dalaml Draft RPP ini penguatan aspek tingkat ketelitian peta rencana tata ruang, neraca penatagunaan ruang dan peran masyarakat di dalamnya amat sangat penting. Terkait dengan persoalan itu Dadang menilai penggalian aspirasi dari para pemangku kepentingan yang didapat melalui berbagai forum harus diupayakan. ”Upaya itu diluar dari berbagai kajian yang terkait dengan substansi pengaturan,” tuturnya.
Menjawab pertanyaan terkait dengan singkatnya waktu pembuatan RPP, Kabag Hukum Ditjen Penataan Ruang menyatakan, optimis akan selesai pada waktunya. Diakuinya, sempitnya waktu memang dirasakan sangat melelahkan. Namun aturan itu sudah tertuang dalam UUPR. Sehingga, kata Dadang Tim nya harus kerja ekstra guna rampungnya RPP ini.
Karenanya, usai pelaksaan konsultasi ini masih akan dilakukan rapat-rapat lagi bagi penyempurnaan draft IV RPP sebelum diserahkan ke Departemen Hukum dan HAM untuk proses harmonisasi, ungkap Dadang Rukmana mengakhiri pembicaran. (Sony)
Perpres Jabodetabekpunjur tidak adil’
JAKARTA: Pengembang menilai kebijakan disinsentif untuk hunian yang existing dan antipengembangan kota mandiri di kawasan Jabodetabekpunjur tidak adil karena justru menabrak aturan hukum yang sebelumnya telah mengeluarkan izinnya.
Ketua Umum DPP Perusahaan Realestat Indonesia (REI) F. Teguh Satria� mengatakan setidaknya ada dua hal yang perlu dikritisi terhadap Peraturan Presiden No. 54/2008 tentang Penataan Ruang Jabodetabekpunjur terkait dengan sudut pandang kepentingan masyarakat pengembang perumahan.
Dua hal itu, yaitu kebijakan soal kota mandiri dan disinsentif bagi hunian existing yang dinilai menabrak aturan hukum yang ada sebelumnya terkait dengan industri perumahan.
Menurut dia, adanya pasal yang menilai pengembangan realestat dalam bentuk kota mandiri merusak lingkungan jelas tidak benar.
Hal itu justru memudahkan pemerintah dan semua pemangku kepentingan melakukan kontrol lingkungan dengan menggalakkan pengembangan kawasan skala besar daripada proyek skala kecil.
Dia menilai UU No. 4/1992 tentang Perumahan dan Permukiman serta PP No. 80 soal� Kawasan Siap Bangun (kasiba) perlu diperhatikan terkait dengan Perpres tersebut.
“Jelas-jelas dinyatakan kawasan skala besar itu justru didorong dikembangkan karena bisa lebih bagus dari segi lingkungan dan tata ruang,” ujarnya, kemarin.
Fuad Zakaria, Ketua Umum Asosiasi Pengembang Perumahan dan Permukiman Seluruh Indonesia (Apersi), sependapat bahwa kebijakan antiproyek kota mandiri justru tidak bagus dalam upaya melakukan penataan ruang wilayah di Jabodetabek.
Menurut dia, harusnya implementasi kebijakan itu di bidang perumahan adalah dengan mendorong proyek hunian skala kecil melakukan konsorsium untuk membentuk kota mandiri agar bisa menciptakan lingkungan yang lebih tertata.
“Kalau saya melihatnya mestinya kebijakan baru itu mengarah pada penataan kembali permukiman yang sudah ada untuk dirancang kembali menjadi kota mandiri dengan melibatkan proyek pengembangan yang seporadis itu,” ungkapnya.
Tidak alergi
Kedua pimpinan asosiasi pengembang itu sepakat pengembang tidak alergi dengan isu lingkungan, sehingga setiap upaya yang dilakukan untuk keselamatan lingkungan akan didukung.
“Bahkan kami akan meluncurkan proyek REI Go Green untuk menunjukkan komitmen terhadap program keselamatan lingkungan,” kata Teguh.
Sebelumnya, pemerintah daerah dilarang mengeluarkan izin baru untuk proyek kawasan kota mandiri, menyusul terbitnya Peraturan Presiden No. 54/2008 tentang Penataan Ruang Kawasan Jabodetabekpunjur (Jakarta, Bogor, Depok, Tangerang, Bekasi, Puncak, dan Cianjur).
Sekretaris Dirjen Penataan Ruang Departemen Pekerjaan Umum Ruchat Deni Djakapermana mengatakan pemerintah sudah membagi daerah Jabodetabekpunjur berdasarkan tiga zona, yaitu konservasi, budi daya, dan zona penyangga.
Pembangunan suatu kota baru atau kawasan mandiri membutuhkan lahan yang cukup luas dan berpotensi menyalahi pembagian zona itu.
“Ini untuk menghindari pembangunan yang menyebar ke segala penjuru atau tidak terkendali,” katanya. (Bisnis, 8 Sept.)
Bangunan yang sudah telanjur berdiri di zona yang bukan peruntukkannya berdasarkan peraturan itu, akan dikenakan disinsentif. Misalnya, bangunan dikenakan pajak yang lebih tinggi dibandingkan dengan kawasan lain. (irsad.sati@bisnis.co.id)
Oleh IRSAD SATI
Bisnis Indonesia
CURAH GAGASAN DAN DEKLARASI GENERASI MUDA PEDULI PENATAAN RUANG
kawan-kawan muda yang mempunyai kepedulian terhadap penataan ruang, kami mengundang kawan-kawan untuk menghadiri kegiatan sebagai berikut:
Telah banyak upaya dilakukan mulai dari aspek kebijakan, program, peningkatan kapasitas dan berbagai kajian, dll, namun tidak banyak perubahan positif yang dirasakan.
Generasi muda diharap dapat menjadi agen perubahan yang membawa pembaharuan akan kondisi tersebut. Maka diadakanlah acara Curah Gagasan dan Deklarasi Generasi Muda Peduli Penataan Ruang.
Acara ini ingin menyampaikan ide dan gagasan dari generasi muda, berangkat dari kondisi nyata saat ini dan menuju kota yang ideal serta rencana aksi yang akan di deklarasikan.
Tema utama dari kegiatan ini adalah :
Masa Depan Kota-kota di Indonesia :
Antara Mimpi dan Kenyataan
Kegiatan Curah Gagasan dan Deklarasi Generasi Muda Peduli Penataan Ruang ini akan dilaksanakan pada :
Telah Ditetapkan Perpres Nomor 54/2008 Tentang Penataan Ruang Kawasan Jabodetabekpunjur
Sumber : www.pu.go.id
Dalam kesempatan itu, Bambang Susantono didampingi oleh Sesditjen Penataan Ruang Dep. PU Ruchyat Deni, Direktur Penataan Ruang Nasional Dep. PU Iman Soedradjat, Deputi Bidang Tata Lingkungan Kementerian Lingkungan Hidup Hermin Rosita.
Bambang menjelaskan, Peraturan Presiden ini merupakan tindak lanjut dari Peraturan Pemerintah Nomor 26/2008 Tentang Rencana Tata Ruang Wilayah Nasional (RTRWN) dimana Kawasan Jabodetabekpunjur ditetapkan sebagai Kawasan Strategis Nasional yang memerlukan perencanaan tata ruang, pemanfaatan ruang, dan pengendalian pemanfaatan ruang secara terpadu sebagai alat koordinasi pelaksanaan pembangunan lintas wilayah pada Kawasan Jabodetabekpunjur.
Melalui Perpres ini, diharapkan terwujudnya keterpaduan penyelenggaraan penataan ruang antardaerah pada kawasan Jabodetabekpunjur serta terkembangkannya perekonomian wilayah yang produktif, efektif dan efisien. “Kebijakan penataan ruang Kawasan Jabodetabekpunjur diarahkan pada keterpaduan penyelenggaraan penataan ruang kawasan dalam rangka mewujudkan keseimbangan antara pengembangan ekonomi dan pelestarian lingkungan hidup”ujar Bambang.
Strategi penataan ruang Kawasan Jabodetabekpunjur nantinya dikembangkan untuk mendorong terselenggaranya (1)pengembangan kawasan yang berdasar atas keterpaduan antardaerah sebagai satu kesatuan wilayah perencanaan, (2)pembangunan kawasan yang dapat menjamin tetap berlangsungnya konservasi air tanah dan air permukaan serta menanggulangi banjir,(3)pengembangan perekonomian wilayah yang produktif, efektif, dan efisien berdasarkan karakteristik wilayah.
Iman Soedradjat menjelaskan, Pemerintah Daerah yang tercakup dalam kawasan ini, harus menyesuaikan RTRW-nya sesuai dengan ketentuan dalam Perpres ini. Sebagai konsekuensi terbitnya Perpres ini, revisi atas RTRW Kab/Kota di Kawasan Jabodetabekpunjur harus dapat dirampungkan paling lambat tahun 2010.
Dengan telah ditetapkannya Perpres ini, Pemanfaatan ruang yang tidak sesuai, harus disesuaikan kembali dengan rencana tata ruang ini. “jika izin pemanfaatan ruang tidak sesuai dengan ketentuan, maka izin harus disesuaikan dengan fungsi kawasan seperti yang termuat dalam Perpres ini”kata Ruchyat Deni.
Dalam Perpres No. 54 tahun 2008 sudah diatur mengenai zona-zona peruntukan, sehingga dengan mudah masyarakat dapat melakukan pengawasan seandainya terjadi pelanggaran pemanfaatan ruang. Deni menjelaskan, Zona dalam Perpres ini dibagi kedalam tiga bagian yakni zona konservasi, zona budidaya, dan zona penyangga. Zona terakhir disebutnya sebagai hal yang paling penting, guna melindungi kawasan hilir yang rentan bencana banjir.
Menurut Ruchyat Deni, dengan berlakunya Perpres No. 54 tahun 2008 maka semua aturan seperti Keppres No. 114 tahun 1999 mengenai penataan ruang Bopunjur, Keppres No. 1 tahun 1997 tentang pengembangan kawasan Jonggol sebagai kota mandiri, dan Keppres No. 52 tahun 1995 tentang reklamasi Pantai Utara Jakarta, serta Keppres No. 73 tahun 1995 tentang reklamasi Pantai Kapuk Naga Tangerang tidak berlaku lagi.
PENATAAN RUANG HARUS MEMPERHATIKAN KESEIMBANGAN PENGEMBANGAN BUDAYA DAN PEMBANGUNAN EKONOMI
Sumber: www.pu.go.id
Dalam pelaksanaan pembangunan di perkotaan perlu diimbangi dengan aspek budaya dan pembangunan ekonomi kota. Oleh karena itu perlu adanya suatu rumusan konsep penataan ruang yang sensitif terhadap pelestarian budaya. Demikian disampaikan Direktur Penataan Ruang Nasional, Departemen PU, Iman Soedrajat dalam penyelenggaraan Focus Group Discussion “Pengembangan Budaya versus Pembangunan Ekonomi”, Selasa (2/9).
Kota bukan hanya sebagai tempat tinggal, bermukim, beraktivitas, dan memenuhi kebutuhan fisik melalui penyediaan prasarana dan sarana fisik, tetapi juga diharapkan dapat memenuhi kebutuhan sosial budaya untuk mengembangkan kehidupan yang lebih berkualitas. Dengan demikian pembangunan kota yang berbudaya merupakan tantangan yang harus dapat dijawab.
Penyelenggaraan diskusi ini merupakan bagian dari rangkaian kegiatan peringatan Hari Tata Ruang 2008, yang melibatkan peserta dari berbagai instansi termasuk lembaga swadaya masyarakat, akademisi, pemerintah daerah, dan pemerintah pusat. Diskusi tersebut menampilkan 3 (tiga) narasumber yakni Sarwo Handayani (Asisten Pembangunan Sekretaris Daerah Provinsi DKI Jakarta), Teguh Satria (Ketua Umum REI), dan Arya Arbietta (Pusat Dokumentasi Arsitektur) dan dipandu oleh Bondan Winarno (Badan Pelestarian Pusaka Indonesia).
Adapun topik yang dibahas dalam diskusi tersebut difokuskan pada 3 (tiga) aspek penting, yakni dari aspek kebijakan dan strategi pengembangan budaya dalam pembangunan kota, aspek ekonomi melalui peningkatan peran swasta dalam penyelamatan budaya, serta aspek budaya melalui perencanaan dan restorasi bangunan bersejarah.
Dari aspek kebijakan dan strategi pengembangan budaya dalam pembangunan kota, maka pengembangan nilai-nilai budaya dalam suatu kota diharapkan menjadikan suatu kota mempunyai makna tertentu (karakteristik tertentu) yang kemudian dimanfaatkan sebagai potensi ekonomi kota melalui pengembangan sektor pariwisata.
Pengembangan budaya dalam pembangunan kota dapat didorong melalui pemberian mekanisme insentif dan disinsentif, khususnya terkait dengan mekanisme pengenaan pajak. Misalnya, pemberian insentif pajak dapat diberikan pada pemilik rumah yang menjaga kelestarian bangunan rumahnya yang termasuk dalam kategori cagar budaya, khususnya di daerah kawasan Menteng.
Aspek ekonomi menjadi begitu penting untuk mendorong upaya pengembangan budaya diperlukan kegiatan ekonomi kreatif (misalnya factory outlet, wisata kuliner, dan sebagainya). Dengan demikian, masyarakat dapat menjadi bagian dari usaha tesebut. Namun, pengembangan ekonomi kreatif memerlukan arah kebijakan dan strategi yang jelas, sehingga pengembangannya dapat dikendalikan (red: belajar dari kasus banyaknya factory outlet yang tidak terkendali di Kota Bandung).
Sementara itu, aspek budaya merupakan salah satu aspek pembentuk kehidupan masyarakat. Oleh karena itu, pelestarian budaya hendaknya perlu dikomunikasikan kepada masyarakat, sehingga masyarakat dapat mengapresiasi budaya dan menjadi bagian dari pelestarian budaya.
Menurut Imam, hal lain yang menarik adalah perlu adanya upaya terobosan untuk “menjual budaya lebih mahal”. Misalnya dengan meningkatkan tiket harga masuk museum. Dengan adanya nilai jual budaya yang lebih mahal, diharapkan masyarakat dapat lebih memberikan apresiasi yang lebih tinggi terhadap budaya sendiri.
Sebagai kesimpulan dari diskusi tersebut adalah diperlukannya pendekatan partisipasi masyarakat dalam pelestarian budaya, pengembangan ekonomi kreatif, serta kejelasan visi dalam pengembangan suatu kota yang dapat melihat perspektif budaya dari masa kini hingga ke depan. Dengan demikian, penataan ruang hendaknya dapat memperhatikan keseimbangan antara pengembangan budaya dan pembangunan ekonomi. (Subdit Lintas Sektor, Ditjen Penataan Ruang/ind)
RTRW HARUS DISESUAIKAN DENGAN PERPRES BARU
Sumber; www.pu.go.id
Dengan terbitnya Peraturan Presiden (Perpres) No. 54 tahun 2008 tentang Penataan Ruang Kawasan Jakarta, Bogor, Depok, Tangerang, Bekasi, Puncak dan Cianjur (Jabodetabekpunjur) maka aturan tata ruang wilayah yang selama ini berlaku di kawasan tersebut perlu disesuaikan dengan Perpres yang baru ditetapkan 12 Agustus 2008 lalu. Artinya, aturan yang sebelumnya berjalan sekarang tidak berlaku lagi.
Untuk penyesuaian itu, Pemerintah memberikan masa transisi selama 3 tahun, sesuai UU Tata Ruang Pasal 76 – 77 ayat 2. Sementara itu bagi pemil