Konsisten Menjaga Tata Ruang

Konsisten Menjaga Tata Ruang

06.07.2009

Tempo interaktif - Langkah Pemerintah Provinsi DKI Jakarta menyegel rumah-rumah yang disulap menjadi tempat bisnis patut didukung. Alih fungsi ini jelas melanggar tata ruang Ibu Kota. Hanya, penertiban harus dilakukan secara konsisten dan tidak tebang pilih.

Sikap tegas aparat pemerintah terlihat ketika menertibkan rumah-rumah di kawasan Pondok Indah, Jakarta Selatan. Mereka menyegel rumah yang telah berubah menjadi kafe, tempat kursus, salon, atau bengkel mobil. Bahkan pemilik rumah yang melawan dengan membuka paksa segel diancam dilaporkan ke polisi.

Penertiban juga bakal merambah kawasan lain, seperti Kebayoran Baru, Tebet, Menteng, dan Cempaka Putih. Di daerah itu banyak pula rumah warga yang telah berubah fungsi. Tebet, misalnya, yang lima tahun lalu masih sepi, kini menjadi pusat kuliner dan tempat gaul baru. Di tempat itu bermunculan banyak kafe kecil, distro, salon, serta spa, yang hidup sampai tengah malam.

Masalahnya, penertiban sering dinilai tidak adil karena tidak berlaku di semua wilayah. Untuk Kemang, Jakarta Selatan, contohnya, pemerintah daerah justru berencana mengubah permukiman ini jadi kawasan komersial. Rencana ini akan dimasukkan dalam revisi Peraturan Daerah Nomor 6 Tahun 1999 tentang Tata Ruang Jakarta.

Kemang seolah mendapatkan dispensasi. Padahal proses berubahnya kawasan ini menjadi lokasi bisnis sama seperti yang terjadi di Pondok Indah dan Tebet. Mula-mula hanya satu-dua rumah yang berubah menjadi toko atau kafe. Karena dibiarkan, lama-lama pelanggaran tata ruang merajalela. Beberapa tahun lalu, kawasan Kemang juga sempat ditertibkan dengan menyegel sejumlah rumah yang telah beralih fungsi. Tapi belakangan, penertiban seperti ini tak terdengar lagi.

Publik tentu mempertanyakan, jika Kemang boleh berubah jadi lokasi bisnis, kenapa kawasan lain tidak. Inilah yang perlu dipikirkan pemerintah daerah dan DPRD Jakarta. Peraturan tata ruang bukanlah kitab suci, yang tidak bisa direvisi. Tapi Gubernur DKI Jakarta dan anggota Dewan harus mempunyai alasan yang kuat untuk mengubahnya.

Berkompromi dengan pelanggaran tata ruang sungguh berbahaya karena akan membuat wajah Ibu Kota semakin amburadul. Lihat saja data Dinas Pengawasan dan Penataan Bangunan DKI Jakarta. Menurut instansi ini, sepanjang 2008, muncul 3.402 bangunan yang melanggar tata ruang. Ini berarti setiap hari rata-rata berdiri sembilan bangunan bermasalah.

Pelanggaran harus ditertibkan karena akan mengoyak harmoni tata ruang. Ekologi dan fasilitas pendukung, seperti drainase, tempat parkir, dan jalan raya, bagi daerah permukiman jelas berbeda dengan untuk kawasan bisnis. Tanpa ada perencanaan, perubahan fungsi kawasan akan menimbulkan kekacauan, misalnya lalu lintas jadi macet. Itulah pentingnya menjaga tata ruang di seluruh wilayah Ibu Kota dan bukannya gampang menyerah kepada keadaan.

PENATAAN RUANG, SOLUSI ATASI KONFLIK PEMANFAATAN RUANG

Sumber : www.pu.go.id

Konflik pemanfaatan ruang, khususnya tumpang-tindih penggunaan lahan merupakan masalah yang kerap terjadi. Seperti konflik pertambangan dan kehutanan. Untuk mengatasinya, Penataan Ruang harus mampu mensinergikan berbagai kepentingan dalam ruang yang bersifat terbatas.

Demikian disampaikan Direktur Penataan Ruang Wilayah I, Bahal Edison Naiborhu mewakili Dirjen Penataan Ruang, Imam S. Ernawi dalam Diskusi Panel Rancangan Peraturan Pemerintah tentang Wilayah Pertambangan, di Jakarta (20/8).

Sektor pertambangan merupakan sektor pembangunan penting di Indonesia. Namun, dari segi lingkungan hidup, pertambangan juga dianggap sebagai kegiatan eksploitasi sumberdaya alam yang “merusak”, karena dapat mengubah bentang alam, merusak vegetasi dan menghasilkan limbah. “Oleh karena itu, Penataan Ruang harus bersifat netral dalam memberi matra spasial pembangunan, untuk mewujudkan ruang yang aman, nyaman, produktif dan berkelanjutan,“ tegas Edison.

Seminar yang dihadiri oleh anggota lima asosiasi bidang geologi dan pertambangan, yaitu IAGI (Ikatan Ahli Geologi Indonesia), MGEI (Masyarakat Geologi Ekonomi Indonesia), PERHAPI (Perhimpunan Ahli Pertambangan Indonesia), IMA (Indonesia Mining Association), APBI (Asosiasi Pertambangan Batubara Indonesia) ini bertujuan untuk menjaring masukan bagi RPP tentang Wilayah Pertambangan.

Ketua IMA mengatakan, Wilayah Pertambangan (WP) merupakan hal penting bagi kelangsungan industri pertambangan. Namun, konflik muncul ketika WP bersinggungan dengan Undang-Undang Penataan Ruang (UUPR) dan Undang-Undang Kehutanan. Oleh karena itu, diperlukan sinergi antara kedua UU tersebut dengan UU Pertambangan Mineral dan Batubara.

Dirjen Planologi Kehutanan Sutrisno menjelaskan, berdasarkan fungsi pokoknya, hutan ditetapkan sebagai hutan konservasi, hutan lindung dan hutan produksi. Lebih lanjut dijelaskan, penggunaan kawasan hutan untuk kepentingan pembangunan di luar kegiatan kehutanan hanya dapat dilakukan di dalam kawasan hutan produksi dan hutan lindung, dengan tanpa mengubah fungsi pokok kawasan hutan. Terkait kegiatan pertambangan, penggunaan kawasan hutan harus dilakukan dengan mempertimbangkan batasan luas dan jangka waktu serta kelestarian lingkungan. “Penambangan terbuka dilarang dilakukan di hutan lindung,” imbuh Sutrisno.

Pada kesempatan yang sama, Kepala Badan Geologi Departemen Energi dan Sumberdaya Mineral (ESDM), R. Sukhyar mengemukakan harapannya agar penataan ruang dapat menjembatani berbagai kepentingan. “Multiple use dalam ruang dapat dilakukan sebagai upaya solusi optimalisasi pemanfaatan sumber daya alam”, imbuh Sukhyar.

Menurut Sukhyar, Wilayah Pertambangan, Wilayah Usaha Pertambangan dan Wilayah Pencadangan Negara seharusnya boleh berada pada Kawasan Lindung maupun Kawasan Budidaya. Pihaknya juga berharap agar konversi lahan dapat dilakukan pada Kawasan Lindung dengan mempertimbangkan risk and benefit analysis.

Menyorot dari sisi hukum, Kepala Bagian Hukum dan Perundangan-undangan Ditjen Mineral, Batubara dan Panas Bumi Departemen ESDM, Fadli Ibrahim mengatakan, Undang-Undang Pertambangan Mineral dan Batubara banyak bersinggungan dengan UUPR. Pihaknya berharap, kegiatan pertambangan dapat berjalan tanpa melanggar UU Kehutanan dan UUPR.

Sementara itu, Kepala Dinas Pertambangan dan Energi Provinsi Nusa Tenggara Barat (NTB), Heriyadi Rahmat dalam kesempatan yang sama memaparkan kasus-kasus konflik pemanfaatan yang dihadapi NTB dalam implementasi UUPR No. 26 Tahun 2007 dan UU No. 4 Tahun 2009 tentang Pertambangan Mineral dan Batubara.

Heriyadi juga mengeluhkan masalah pertambangan tanpa izin (PETI) yang masih marak terjadi di NTB. Salah satunya karena adanya larangan untuk penambangan golongan A dan golongan B di Pulau Lombok, sebagaimana diamanatkan dalam Perda NTB No. 11 Tahun 2007 tentang Rencana Tata Ruang Wilayah (RTRW. Pihaknya berharap, RTRW dapat mengakomodir semua kepentingan sektoral, termasuk pertambangan dalam bentuk zonasi yang paling optimal sesuai dengan potensi yang dimiliki untuk mewujudkan kesejahteraan masyarakat.

Menanggapi hal tersebut, Edison menegaskan, RTRW merupakan hasil konsensus yang harus dipatuhi oleh semua sektor, agar konflik pemanfaatan ruang tidak terjadi. Zonasi peruntukan lahan diatur dalam RTRW, sementara peraturan sektoral sebaiknya hanya mengatur manajemen dan pengelolaannya, tandas Edison. (sha/ibm)

BASIS DATA PERKOTAAN YANG AKURAT DASAR PENYUSUNAN KEBIJAKAN PEMBANGUNAN PERKOTAAN

Jakarta – Perkembangan kawasan perkotaan di Indonesia sangat pesat, terutama dilihat dari proporsi penduduk perkotaan dengan tingkat pertumbuhan 2,8% per tahun. Diperkirakan pada tahun 2025, penduduk di kawasan perkotaan akan mencapai 68,3% dari total penduduk Indonesia.

Selain faktor penduduk, masih terdapat faktor-faktor lain yang perlu diantisipasi dalam pembangunan perkotaan. “Diperlukan basis data perkotaan yang handal dan akurat yang mempertimbangkan berbagai faktor, selain faktor kependudukan, sebagai dasar perumusan kebijakan dan strategi pembangunan perkotaan. Faktor-faktor tersebut seperti geografis, kultural, dan ekonomi,” ujar Ir. Iman Soedradjat, MPM, Direktur Penataan Ruang Nasional saat membuka seminar Pemutakhiran Basis Data Perkotaan pada Rabu, 20 Mei 2009 di Hotel Bumi Karsa, Jakarta Selatan.

Beragamnya faktor yang perlu dipertimbangkan dan diantisipasi berimplikasi pada tingginya kompleksitas yang dihadapi pada proses perumusan kebijakan. Sehingga ketersediaan basis data yang handal dan akurat mutlak diperlukan agar pembangunan infrastruktur perkotaan dapat dilakukan secara efektif dan efesien, tandas Iman.

Perkotaan merupakan wilayah yang sangat dinamis, yang terdiri dari pusat perkotaan (urban centre) dan kawasan pinggiran (urban fringe). Kedinamisan itu terlihat dari adanya hubungan tarik menarik yang saling mempengaruhi antara urban centre dan urban fringe. Hal ini juga turut berpengaruh dalam pembangunan infrastruktur perkotaan. Perlu disiasati agar jangan sampai terjadi diseconomic of scale terhadap seluruh kegiatan di perkotaan tersebut.

Sebagai contoh pada Kawasan Perkotaan Jabodetabekpunjur. Kebijakan yang dilakukan di DKI Jakarta akan mempengaruhi dinamika sosial-ekonomi di wilayah sekitar, demikian pula sebaliknya. “Pembangunan perkotaan yang kurang mempertimbangkan keterkaitan antara center-periphery akan berdampak pada inefisiensi skala ekonomi,” tegas Iman di hadapan para peserta seminar yang berasal dari berbagai instansi dan akademisi.

Basis data perkotaan ini merupakan bahan penting bagi para pengambil keputusan dalam perumusan kebijakan pembangunan perkotaan. Oleh karena itu, tantangan dan permasalaan ketersediaan basis data yang handal dan akurat harus segera dijawab.

Di samping itu, Ir. Sri Adhyaksa, MT, Sekretaris Bappeda Kota Surakarta menambahkan, bahwa Kota Surakarta (Kota Solo) mengutamakan pengembangan data perkotaan sebagai basis praktek pembangunan Kota Solo. Ketersediaan data dalam aspek prasarana perkotaan sangat diperlukan dalam pembangunan. Untuk kepentingan tersebut, Kota Solo sedang melakukan inventarisasi terhadap berbagai fasilitas perkotaan, ujar Adhyaksa.

Kebijakan penataan ruang Kota Solo Terkait dengan urban function, yaitu sebagai PKN dengan skala nasional, pusat pertumbuhan utama di wilayah Jawa Tengah, Kota Budaya yang dikembangkan sesuai dengan kondisi sosial dan budaya Kota Solo, dan sebagai kawasan tujuan wisata. Kesemua kebijakan tersebut memerlukan basis data yang akurat. Yang pada intinya, ingin mewujudkan Kota Solo sebagai kota yang aman dan nyaman untuk berinvestasi dan bertempat tinggal, tegas Adhyaksa. (dl/ibm)

Keppres 4 Tahun 2009 tentang Badan Koordinasi Penataan Ruang Nasional

Keppres 4 Tahun 2009 tentang Badan Koordinasi Penataan Ruang Nasional

RPP PENYELENGGARAAN PENATAAN RUANG SEBAGAI LANDASAN OPERASIONAL

Rancangan Peraturan Pemerintah tentang Penyelenggaraan Penataan Ruang (RPP-PPR) diperlukan sebagai landasan operasional dalam penyelenggaraan penataan ruang. Selain itu, juga diharapkan dapat menjembatani perbedaan persepsi terhadap materi muatan UU Penataan Ruang yang dianggap masih menimbulkan multi tafsir.

Demikian disampaikan Agoes Widjanarko Sekjen Departemen PU saat membuka pembahasan RPP-PPR di Jakarta, Rabu (25/3).

Sebagaimana telah diketahui, UU Penataan Ruang telah mengamanatkan 18 substansi untuk diatur lebih lanjut dalam Peraturan Pemerintah. Namun dalam perkembangannya, untuk mengurangi tumpang tindih, dan mempermudah harmonisasi, maka ke-18 substansi tersebut disusun kedalam 6 PP. Keenam PP tersebut harus sudah diselesaikan paling lambat 2 tahun sejak UUPR disahkan.

“RPP PPR ini nantinya akan menjadi salah satu PP yang diamanatkan penyusunannya dalam UU Penataan Ruang,”ujar Agoes.

Lebih lanjut Agoes menjelaskan, pokok-pokok materi muatan yang telah dirumuskan dalam RPP ini antara lain meliputi ketentuan umum pengaturan penataan ruang serta bentuk dan tata cara pembinaan penataan ruang, perencanaan tata ruang wilayah, kriteria dan tata cara peninjauan kembali rencana tata ruang, pemanfaatan ruang wilayah, pengendalian pemanfaatan ruang nasional, dan bentuk dan tata cara pengawasan penataan ruang.

Draft RPP ini disusun dengan melibatkan berbagai pemangku kepentingan yang terkait. Materi yang termuat dalam RPP ini merupakan rangkuman dari berbagai bahan yang telah dihimpun, melalui rapat Panitia Antar Departemen (PAD), lokakarya, konsultasi publik, maupun pembahasan dengan Asosiasi Sekolah Perencana Indonesia, asosiasi profesi lainnya, Pemerintah Daerah, serta forum Badan Koordinasi Penataan Ruang Nasional.

Selain itu, Rumusan RPP ini juga telah diharmonisasikan dengan Rancangan Peraturan Pemerintah tentang Tingkat Ketelitian Peta Rencana Tata Ruang yang disiapkan oleh Badan Koordinasi Survei dan Pemetaan Nasional (Bakosurtanal).

“Mengingat UUPR mengamanatkan agar RPP ini dapat diselesaikan paling lambat 2 (dua) tahun setelah UUPR ditetapkan, maka diharapkan penyelesaian RPP ini dapat diprioritaskan untuk selesai tepat pada waktunya. Hal ini agar segala permasalahan terkait penataan ruang dapat diselesaikan sesuai dengan kaidah-kaidah yang telah ditentukan, sehingga harapan untuk mewujudkan ruang nusantara yang aman, nyaman, produktif, dan berkelanjutan dapat kita capai bersama”, tegas Agoes. (Rz/Ar)

PT. Trieka Graha Lestari
Address: Pondok Indah, Jaksel (5 minutes from PIM)

We are planning consultant company, looking for Graduates from Regional and City Planning to fill Asst.Planner positions. The vacancy is for 2 (two) persons.

Qualifications:
1. Fresh graduates are welcome
2. Have a strong commitment
3. Smart and inteligent candidates

Facility:
- Basic salary monthly
- Incentives monthly
- and any other bonus

Are you the one that we looking for?
Please send your:
- CV
- Copy of academic transcript
- Copy of Bachelor’s Degree certificate

to: trieka_graha_lestari@yahoo.com

Closing date for applications: 15 February 2009

If u have any questions, feel free to reply this message or
contact the person below.

Regards,

Fadly Haley Tanjung, S.T.

Lowongan Junior Spatial Planner

Sekretariat Nasional Habitat Indonesia (bekerja sama dengan Ditjen Cipta Karya Departemen PU) yang bergerak di bidang Perencanaan Wilayah dan Kota membutuhkan 1 (satu) orang Junior Spatial Planner dengan persyaratan sebagai berikut : 1. Pendidikan : minimal lulus S1 Teknik Planologi / Perencanaan Wilayah dan Kota. 2. Usia : maksimal 28 tahun. 3. Pengalaman di bidang perencanaan wilayah dan kota diutamakan. 4. memiliki kemampuan menyusun laporan dalam Bahasa Inggris maupun berbahasa Inggris secara aktif (lisan & tulisan). 5. Memiliki NPWP 6. Bukan PNS/CPNS dan/atau tidak terikat kontrak kerja dengan instansi lain Bagi yang berminat melamar pekerjaan diharapkan mengirimkan CV lengkap dan dokumen lain yang berkaitan dengan persyaratan di atas, melalui pos yang dialamatkan kepada: Kepala Indonesian National Secretariat of Habitat Jl. Wijaya I No 68 Kebayoran Baru Jakarta sampai dengan 23 Januari 2009.

PERLUNYA PENEGAKAN HUKUM DALAM PENYELENGGARAAN PENATAAN RUANG

Padatnya kondisi perkotaan yang terjadi saat ini, dikarenakan lebih dari 50 persen penduduk Indonesia tinggal dan melakukan aktivitas di perkotaan. Urbanisasi yang menjadi trend issue di perkotaan dilatarbelakangi oleh terjadinya urban paradox, dimana memperlihatkan satu sisi kota merupakan motor penggerak roda ekonomi tapi di sisi lain kota juga menjadi pusat kemiskinan, ketidaksetaraan, dan pengangguran.

Konsep keseimbangan harmonis yang merupakan upaya penyatuan unsur-unsur lama dan baru, kawasan alami dan terbangun, keseimbangan ekonomi, sosial, budaya dan lingkungan perlu dikembangkan untuk mengatasi permasalahan perkotaan yang semakin kompleks. Namun, pada dasarnya persoalan perkotaan yang menjadi tantangan kita saat ini adalah meningkatnya permukiman kumuh yang tidak diimbangi dengan penyediaan sarana prasarana yang memadai, serta berkurangnya ruang-ruang terbuka hijau. Demikian disampaikan oleh Direktur Jenderal Penataan Ruang Imam Santoso Ernawi saat membuka Executive Forum Media Indonesia di Jakarta (27/11).

Forum yang dihadiri oleh sejumlah pakar, pemerhati, dan LSM bidang perkotaan pada dasarnya mencoba untuk mencari solusi yang tepat guna mewujudkan perkotaan yang berkelanjutan. Guru Besar dan Pakar Urban Design ITB Mohammad Danisworo mengatakan isu sentral dari masalah perkotaan terletak pada proses transformasi dari masyarakat rural (perdesaan) ke masyarakat urban (perkotaan).

Terkait dengan membangun konsep kota modern, maka masyarakat yang menjadi obyek juga harus dirubah pola pikirnya secara modern. Namun, dikarenakan sebagian masyarakat kita belum siap untuk menerima perubahan tersebut, maka perlu upaya untuk menyiapkan tempat agar proses transisi dari transformasi itu bisa berlangsung dengan baik.

Ditambahkan oleh Azwar Anas dari Komisi V DPR RI terkait kebijakan yang menaungi penyelenggaraan tata ruang di Indonesia, yaitu adanya pembaruan yang dilakukan pada aturan tentang tata ruang. Bila pada peraturan yang lama sanksi bagi pelanggaran tata ruang hanya berupa sanksi administratif, namun pada peraturan yang baru pelanggar tata ruang akan dikenakan sanksi pidana. Bahkan sanksi di peraturan yang baru tersebut tidak hanya berlaku bagi pelaku namun juga pembuat kebijakan seperti Pemerintah Daerah dan Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat Daerah. Langkah upaya ke depan, setelah aturan tersebut dikeluarkan maka proses sosialisasi harus intensif dilakukan kepada masyarakat untuk meningkatkan peransertanya dalam proses pengembangan kota berkelanjutan.

Pendapat lain dikemukakan oleh Direktur Walhi Jakarta terkait pelaksanaan dan penerapan Undang-undang No. 26 Tahun 2007 tentang Tata Ruang, kurangnya partisipasi masyarakat disebabkan Pemerintah Daerah masih belum transparan dalam menyosialisasikan kebijakan-kebijakan yang terkait dengan tata ruang. Padahal UU No. 26 Tahun 2007 tentang Tata Ruang mengamanatkan perlunya transparansi kebijakan akses informasi bagi masyarakat sebagai instrumen pengawasan pengelolaan tata ruang kota di masa datang.

Perlunya kekuatan hukum dalam penyelenggaraan penataan ruang harus disiapkan untuk melakukan punishment. Selain memperhatikan manusia sebagai obyek pelaku dan yang terkena sasaran, juga harus diperhatikan pula daya dukung lingkungan serta potensi-potensi yang dimiliki wilayah tersebut ke depan. Sebagai contoh, masalah utama yang melanda kota Jakarta saat ini, yaitu masalah transportasi dan banjir akibat daya dukung kota Jakarta yang tidak memadai. Selain itu faktor penyebab permasalahan tersebut disebabkan oleh banyaknya pengalihan lahan hijau menjadi kawasan perdagangan.

Hal lain ditambahkan oleh Ketua Masyarakat Transportasi Indonesia Bambang Susantono, yang mengatakan sebuah kota merupakan kumpulan dari berbagai kepentingan politik, sehingga keterlibatan politik akan selalu tampak dalam proses pembangunan kota . Diharapkan dengan adanya penegakan hukum yang kuat terkait dengan pemanfaatan tata ruang di perkotaan serta adanya ketegasan transparansi Pemerintah Kota dalam menata ruang akan terwujud sebuah kota yang lebih manusiawi dan mampu memenuhi kebutuhan penduduknya. (nik/sar)

World Town Planning Day (WTPD)

http://www.penataanruang.net/wtpd/default.asp

World Town Planning Day (WTPD) telah diperingati setiap tahun di 30 negara, walaupun belum menjadi agenda resmi internasional seperti hari-hari tematik internasional lainnya. Tahun 2007, International Society of City and Regional Planners (IsoCaRP) memperingati WTPD di Sitges, Barcelona – Spanyol, dengan puncak peringatan tanggal 8 November. IsoCaRP sebagai asosiasi global dari para perencana professional adalah NGO yang dikenal di PBB, UNHCS, the Council of Europe, serta memiliki status konsultatif formal dengan UNESCO.

Ditetapkannya Undang-Undang Nomor: 26 Tahun 2007 tentang Penataan Ruang (UUPR), April 2007 yang lalu, menjadi momentum penting untuk terus menggalang kepedulian publik dalam penyelenggaraan penataan ruang. Keinginan Indonesia untuk mencapai ruang yang lebih berkualitas melalui perubahan kultur dan etika masyarakat dalam pembangunan, pada dasarnya sejalan dengan tujuan peringatan WTPD.

World Town Planning Day (WTPD) suatu gagasan yang dicetuskan oleh Profesor Carlos Maria della Paolera dari University of Buenos Aires – Argentina pada tahun 1949. Sejak itu, peringatan WTPD secara rutin dilaksanakan setiap tahun di 30 negara, dengan maksud untuk meningkatkan apresiasi publik dan para perencana profesional terhadap upaya penataan ruang dalam menciptakan lingkungan perkotaan yang layak huni (livable environment), baik secara lokal maupun global.

Meskipun telah cukup lama diperingati di berbagai negara maju, WTPD masih belum menjadi bagian dari agenda resmi internasional yang ditetapkan berdasarkan resolusi PBB, seperti hari-hari tematik internasional: hari Bumi, hari Lingkungan Hidup, hari Habitat, hari Air, dan sebagainya.

Saat ini, International Society of City and Regional Planners (IsoCaRP) yang berkedudukan di Den Haag-the Netherlands, tengah melakukan promosi peringatan WTPD yang puncaknya ditetapkan tanggal 8 November, sebagai penghargaan atas berbagai inisiatif yang telah dilakukan sejak 1949.
Tema peringatan yang diangkat tidak sebatas pada permasalahan aktual perkotaan, namun telah meluas pada permasalahan pengembangan wilayah dan penyelenggaraan penataan ruang.

Berkaitan dengan penyelenggaraan penataan ruang, Indonesia telah menetapkan Undang-Undang Nomor: 26 Tahun 2007 tentang Penataan Ruang (UUPR), sebagai pengganti UU Nomor: 24 Tahun 1992. Kebijakan yang tertuang dalam UUPR perlu terus disosialisasikan kepada masyarakat luas. Penguatan peran masyarakat yang ditetapkan dalam UU yang baru ini, menjadi momentum ideal bagi Indonesia untuk secara kontinyu mengkampanyekan peran masyarakat dalam pembangunan kota, kawasan, maupun wilayah.
Semakin menguatnya peran masyarakat dalam pembangunan, maka logika ekonomi yang hingga saat ini masih mendominasi pengambilan keputusan dalam penetapan peruntukan ruang akan dapat dikurangi, dan sebaliknya logika sosio-kultural (misal solidaritas antar-masyarakat, antar-kota, antar wilayah) dan logika lingkungan yang memiliki perspektif jangka panjang akan lebih mewarnai perencanaan pembangunan pada masa mendatang.

Kampanye yang terus dilakukan ini diharapkan membentuk kultur dan etika dalam kehidupan masyarakat Indonesia yang peduli terhadap kondisi tata ruang disekitarnya. Apresiasi yang baik ini perlu tetap dijaga agar keinginan bersama untuk menciptakan ruang kehidupan yang lebih berkualitas, yakni ruang yang aman, nyaman, produktif dan berkelanjutan, dapat terwujud.

Dalam era demokrasi dewasa ini, perubahan sikap-mental masyarakat luas yang diindikasikan oleh peran aktif masyarakat merupakan kunci keberhasilan pencapaian tujuan pembangunan. Peran Pemerintah sendiri pada saat ini telah bergeser menjadi regulator, fasilitator dan juga pembina, agar peran masyarakat sebagai subyek pembangunan dapat berlangsung optimal dalam suasana yang kondusif.

Masyarakat dan pemerintah harus berjalan dalam satu prinsip yang sama, bahwa ruang yang ada harus dimanfaatkan secara bijaksana untuk sebesar-besarnya kesejahteraan bersama, dengan moto, ”ruang bukanlah warisan nenek moyang, tetapi pinjaman dari anak cucu”.

Kesadaran, kepedulian dan tanggung-jawab atas kualitas ruang kehidupan pada saat ini dan di masa mendatang, adalah tanggung jawab semua pemangku kepentingan. Keinginan Indonesia untuk mencapai ruang yang lebih berkualitas melalui perubahan kultur dan etika masyarakat dalam pembangunan, pada dasarnya sejalan dengan tujuan peringatan WTPD di 30 negara, yaitu :

Pertama, menekankan pentingnya kontribusi penataan ruang yang baik dalam pencapaian ruang kehidupan dan lingkungannya yang berkualitas.

Kedua, mengkomunikasikan tujuan dan berbagai kemajuan yang telah dicapai dalam penyelenggaraan penataan ruang kota dan wilayah kepada masyarakat lokal dan seluruh dunia.

Ketiga, menarik perhatian dan mengajak, bukan saja para profesional yang bergerak di bidang perencanaan, namun masyarakat luas untuk berpartisipasi aktif dalam mensukseskan upaya penyelenggaraan penataan ruang.

Karenanya, peringatan WTPD untuk pertama kalinya di Indonesia, sekaligus juga menjadi peringatan Hari Tata Ruang (HTR) untuk tahun-tahun mendatang. Puncak peringatan WTPD/HTR 2008 akan dilaksanakan pada tanggal 8 November 2008.

Peringatan World Town Planning Day/Hari Tata Ruang tahun 2008 ini, mengangkat tema sebagai pengikat agar keseluruhan upaya untuk menggerakkan dan menumbuhkan kepedulian masyarakat atas kualitas tata ruang di sekitarnya dapat berlangsung secara lebih terarah.

Tema WTPD/HTR 2008 adalah :

”Bersama Menata Ruang untuk Semua”

Menumbuhkan kesadaran dan pemahaman seluruh komponen pemangku kepentingan secara lebih utuh atas perannya dalam penyelenggaraan penataan ruang sebagai bagian dari pembangunan nasional.

Menjaga kesinambungan sosialisasi kebijakan penataan ruang pasca pemberlakuan UU nomor: 26 tahun 2007 tentang Penataan Ruang.

Mengajak seluruh pemangku kepentingan secara bersama-sama untuk berpartisipasi aktif dalam membentuk kultur dan etika yang peduli terhadap kualitas tata ruang di sekitarnya

Membangun kesadaran publik akan pentingnya kultur dan etika yang peduli terhadap kualitas tata ruang di sekitarnya sesuai prinsip-prinsip dan norma-norma penyelenggaraan penataan ruang yang termuat dalam UUPR

Mendorong terwujudnya aksi-aksi kolektif yang konstruktif dan sinergis dari seluruh komponen pemangku kepentingan dalam menata ruang sekitarnya pada berbagai tingkatan yang berbeda, baik pada level kota, kabupaten, provinsi maupun nasional

	Sayembara dan Lomba
	Desain Tata Ruang Kawasan : Juli – Oktober Inovasi Penataan Ruang : Juli – Oktober Desain Logo Tata Ruang : Juli – Oktober
	Workshop
	Rencana Detail Tata Ruang Kawasan : September Round Table Meeting EAROPH : September Java Spatial Model : Agustus RTR Pulau Jawa-Bali : Agustus Penataan Ruang (ASPI) : November-Desember 2008 Sustainable urban development : November-Desember 2008
	Sustainable Urban Development Forum
	Round Table Meeting : September-Desember Talkshow Radio & TV : September-Oktober Deklarasi di Media Masa : Oktober
	Kampanye Publik
	Talkshow di Trijaya Network : 23 Juli – 17 Desember Talkshow di TV : Oktober – November Penyiaran ILM Radio : September – Desember
	Pameran
	Hari Konstruksi : Oktober Puncak Peringatan WTPD/HTR : 8 November
	Sosialisasi UUPR
	Di Jakarta (pusat ): Agustus Di Daerah : Agustus – Oktober
	Puncak Peringatan WTPD/HTR 2008
	Fun Bike : 8 November Pameran : 8 November Atraksi Hiburan & Pentas Dubes : 8 November Lomba Vokal Group : 8 November Lomba Lukis Poster : 9 November

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

1. 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
2. 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.
3. Speech delivered by Cohen at the Creative Capital Conference, 17-18 March 2005, Amsterdam. See: http://www.creativecapital.nl/
4. Constant Nieuwenhuys and Simon Vinkenoog, New Babylon : Ten Lithographs, Amsterdam: Galerie d’Eendt 1963: 10.
5. Constant Nieuwenhuys, ‘Opkomst en Ondergang van de Avant-Garde’. In: Randstad 8 (1964), pp 6-35.
6. Not Bored, http://www.notbored.org/tomorrow.html
7. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, The German Ideology, 1845-46, New York, International Publishers edition, 1970:  p 109.
8. 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.
9. Folker Fröbel et al., ‘The New International Division of Labour’. Social Science Information 17.1 (1978), pp. 123-142.
10. Saskia Sassen, The Global City. New York, London, Tokyo. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001.
11. ‘Kachels op Terras gaan aan’. Front page article in Het Parool, 23 January 2007.
    http://www.parool.nl/nieuws/2007/JAN/23/p2.html.
12. 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.
13. Gemeente Amsterdam, Amsterdam Topstad: Metropool. Economische Zaken Amsterdam (14 July 2006), Amsterdam, http://www.amsterdam.nl/ondernemen?ActItmIdt=12153.
14. Jamie Peck, ‘Struggling with the Creative Class’. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 29.4 (2005), pp 740-770.
15. Merijn Oudenampsen, ‘Extreme Makeover’. Mute Magazine Vol 2. Issue 4, 2006. Available online at http://www.metamute.org/en/Extreme-Makeover
16. Artvertising, http://www.sandberg.nl:106080/artvertising
17. Adbust at the Sandberg Institute, 22 December 2006, http://indymedia.nl/nl/2006/12/41476.shtml
18. 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.
19. Amsterdam Creativity Exchange, http://www.acx.nu.
20. Website Overhoeks Development, http://www.overhoeks.nl/template4.php?c=209
21. Ratingen, ‘Ik Zie Ik Zie Wat Jij Niet Ziet’ Real Estate Magazine, May 2006, my translation.
22. 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.
23. 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
24. Ivan Chtcheglov, ‘Formulary for a New Urbanism’, trans. Ken Knabb, Interactivist Info Exchange, August 2006, http://info.interactivist.net/…
25. Helma Hellinga, Onrust in Park en Stad. Stedelijke Vernieuwing in de Westelijke Tuinsteden, Amsterdam: Het Spinhuis, 2005: pp 143-154.
26. Henri Lefebvre, The Production of Space, trans. Donald Nichelson Smith, Oxford, Blackwell, 1991.
27. Gemeente Amsterdam, Amsterdam Creatieve Stad, Kunstenplan 2005 – 2008, (2004), Amsterdam,
    http://www.amsterdam.nl/gemeente/documenten?ActItmIdt=4750
28. ‘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.
29. 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.
30. 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).