Questioning Jakarta’s Public Spaces:

The Power Struggles between State, Civil Society and Corporate Economy
By. Elisa Sutanudjaja, ST., M.Arch.

The Capital city is a centre of the modern society’s conflict: whether it’s social, politics, economy
or culture tangled and negotiated one into another. Jakarta is a living proof that any
negotiations of conflicts could begin and end in public spaces. There will be no separation
between the discussion of society and architectural spaces. Spaces in Jakarta are no longer
being seen as byproducts of social correlations, but furthermore, as the re-production parade of
the social correlations.
Nowadays, the development pattern of Jakarta follows the market demands, which is polluted
with the politics that pays no attention to the social and cultural problems. There is a huge void
in social meanings in Jakarta’s spaces that affected on public space design. A ruptured and
scattered space occurred, not just in the term of physical space and surface but also turned into
a further social and cultural gap and disintegration.
As political change is accomplished and shifted, the sustainability of public spaces thus is
depended on the outcomes of power struggles between state, civil society and corporate
economy. There will be three public spaces in questions: Monas, Bundaran Hotel Indonesia and
Taman Menteng – each of them will argue their own roles in shaping of Jakarta’s spaces and
societies in the modern era.
Keywords: Jakarta, public space, public sphere, consumerism, urban design politics

Political Culture and Urban Space in Jakarta

Build up Jakarta as beautiful as possible, build it as spectacularly as possible, so that
this city, which has become the center of the struggle of the Indonesian people, will be
an inspiration and beacon to the whole struggling mankind and to all the emerging
forces. If Egypt was able to construct Cairo as its capital, Italy its Rome, France its
Paris and Brazil its Brasilia, then Indonesia must also proudly present Djakarta as the
portal of the country. (Soekarno, 1962: The Transformation of Djakarta Raya)
Look at New York and Moscow, look at any state capital, East and West it makes no
matter, and you will always find the centers of nations’ greatness in the form of
buildings, material buildings to be proud of. (Soekarno, 1962)
Jakarta has a long journey since the early year of Hindu settlement into Dutch colonization and
secured its independence in 1945. Nowadays, Jakarta is the capital and the largest city of
Indonesia. It is the economic locomotive and the cultural mecca for Indonesia.
In the early of independence days, Jakarta was a representation of ‘beacon of the emerging
nations’. The first president, Soekarno, was ambitious upon Jakarta’s roles among its Asian and
Africans peers. During his presidency, Jakarta’s urban design had been characterized as
representative of the competitive (inter)national order of the time (Kusno, 2000).
Unquestionably, Jakarta became a legitimatized product of an authoritarian regime. He adopted
modernist architecture to visualize its grand projects in order to put Jakarta on the map of world
great cities.
International style represented the modern part of Jakarta and it was intended to raise the self
esteem after a long period of colonization. By it means, Soekarno denied any colonial
representation’s archetype and typology such as Indic-Javanese architecture. On the contrary,
Javanese idea of centralism reappeared as narration of continuity to previous Indonesia’s glorious
past: Majapahit era. The idea of center appeared on Independence Square site plan and Bundaran
Hotel Indonesia (Hotel Indonesia roundabout, figure 1.). During this era, Soekarno created
Jakarta’s parks and squares, but he did not treat them as civic space for the people, but rather for
people to meet him as part of his populist political strategy.

Figure 1. Bundaran Hotel Indonesia under construction

By the end of 1965, Soekarno’s authoritarian plan had come to end. A new political power
emerged – the New Order, led by General Suharto who later became a second president for 32
years, and changed the political view of ‘modern’ Jakarta supposed to be. During this era, series
of monumental modernist architecture was left behind, enabled the New Order to pursue its own
architectural symbolism, signature and character.
Following Sukarno’s downfall, Indonesia, under Suharto’s New Order, was about to revive
stability for nation. To achieve this, Suharto linked the new political and social order directly to
the goal of economic development. He believed the economy stability will restore some sense of
order within political and social life, while the political discourse was controlled and reserved by
the circle of Suharto. This was the new beginning of capitalist exploitation; the new face of
colonization by replicated many ideas of repressive Dutch colonial time. Similarly to Soekarno’s
point of view, the New Order abandoned previous Soekarno’s grand design and recommendation.
The previous global image that represented international style was replaced by a new paradigm
that suggests the embracing of the inevitable technological modernization under the condition
that the roots of cultural heritage have to be strong (Budihardjo, 1983).
Economic development along is not enough. Life will not have a beautiful and deep
meaning with material sufficiency alone, however abundant that sufficiency might
 become. On the contrary, the pursuit of material things on its own will make life cruel
and painful … One’s life, therefore, will be calm and complete only when its
accompanied by spiritual welfare. The direction and guidance towards that spiritual
welfare is, in fact, already in our possession; it lies in our beautiful and noble national
cultural inheritance (Suharto, 1975: The opening speech for Beautiful Indonesia in the
Miniature Park)
Jakarta in Suharto era was facing the rise of capitalism and private sector by producing a new
generation of modern Indonesians: building up elevated highways, constructing towers, and
promoting dream houses and shopping malls in every corner of the city. Meanwhile, the private
sector enjoyed the patronage of government and expanded freely as long as peace remains in
which a sign of traditionality could be traced and imagined. Being able to turn Jakarta into global
city that symbolized prosperity, safety and economic development, Suharto was also able to
claim his authority over space. Places for public were filled with the images and sighs of the state
and the corporate economy, leaving civil society with no autonomous space.
From Authoritarian Regime to Consumerism-driven
Modern Jakarta is founded by utopian dream of Soekarno era and economic-political discourse
of New Order era. Therefore the production of its space is based on rational organization that had
and has to repress the entire physical, mental and political misdemeanor that would question its
space. Jakarta lives in an age that puts history on stage, which makes a spectacle of it and, in this
respect, de-realizes reality. Jakarta has never learned the art of growing old by playing on all its
pasts. The pasts are treated as accessories of the city. Its present invents itself, from day to day,
new buildings emerged – throwing away its previous accomplishments and mistakes and
challenging the future.
The development pattern of Jakarta today follows the economic logic as the legacy of Suharto’s
era. The building of flyovers and freeways, along with the forging of new industrial and
residential areas, flourished without enough time to consider the development of a strong and
sustaining infrastructure, causing the city to expand with multiple centers. A ruptured and
scattered agglomeration occurred, not just in the term of physical space or distance but also in
time turned into social and cultural gap and disintegration, developing social and cultural
‘imaginary walls’ or fragmentation. Public spaces slowly disappeared by the privatization of
Jakarta shore areas, incoherency caused by the growth of obstructed buildings, or the shrinkage
of public space in the city, i.e. city park that could have been enjoyed by the people.
The obvious impact of this phenomenon is the life of Jakarta’s inhabitant itself, especially within
the ever growing urban spaces. Jakarta’s city-plan-infrastructure is now in a critical stage. Many
problems had to be dealt with; traffic jams, public transportation problems, public space, and
housing planning is only some of the many problems faced daily by the urban people. Where in
the ruptured development pattern had produced more and more social problems; such as the
rocketing number of migration, city waste management, air pollutant concentration, flood,
poverty, criminality, and many more which often had caused political conflicts. The rise of
cultural problems such as society’s consumption pattern and life style then became one of the
metropolis’ unique characteristic.
With the disappearance of the public place, advertising invades everything (the street, the shore.
the monument, the market, the stage, the park). It determines architecture and the creation of
super object such as gigantic questionable monument, which are literally advertising monuments
(or anti monuments), not so much because they are centered on consumption but because, from
the outset, these monuments were meant to be a demonstration of the operation of culture, of the
cultural operation of the commodity and that of the masses in movement. Today our only
architecture is just that: huge screens upon which moving atoms, particles and molecules are
refracted. The public stage, the public place have been replaced by a gigantic circulation,
ventilation and ephemeral connecting space.
Public space in the realms of public sphere
Habermas defined the public sphere as a virtual or imaginary community which does not
necessarily exist in any identifiable space. In its ideal form, the public sphere is made up of
private people gathered together as a public and articulating the needs of society with the state
(Habermas, 1989). Through acts of assembly and dialogue, the public sphere generates opinions
and attitudes which serve to affirm or challenge – or therefore, to guide – the affairs of state. In
ideal terms, the public sphere is the source of public opinion needed to legitimate authority in
any functioning democracy.
The importance of the public sphere lies in its potential as a mode of societal integration. Public
discourse – or Habermas’s communicative action, is a possible mode of coordination of human
life, as are state and market. But money and power are non-discursive modes of coordination;
therefore state and economy are thus both crucial rivals of the democratic public sphere.
The success of the public sphere depends upon: (Rutherford, 2000)
1. The extent of access (as close to universal as possible)
2. The degree of autonomy (the citizens must be free of coercion)
3. The rejection of hierarchy (so that each might participate on an equal footing)
4. The rule of law (particularly the subordination of the state)
5. The quality of participation (the common commitment to the ways of logic)
The forms of social integration become a manifest in the structures of public spaces. Does the
specific type of integration in a particular society correspond to the degree of its complexity? Or
do public spaces betray the pathological traits of either anomie or repression? In modern
societies, one particular public space, namely the political public sphere of a democratic
community, plays an especially important role in the integration of citizens.
Public space is not understood agonistically as a space of competition for acclaim and
immortality among a political elite nor corporate economy; it is viewed democratically as the
creation of procedures whereby those affected by general social norms and collective political
decision can have a say and a participation in their formulation. The public sphere comes into
existence whenever and wherever all affected by general social and political norms of action
engage in a practical discourse, evaluating their validity. Therefore public space is the place of
public participation and its needs to be sterile.
Contemplating from Indonesia’s political journey, the viability of the public sphere in Jakarta is a
big question. Although the government claims Indonesia is a democratic nation, the culture of
government and the multiple culture of nation itself have put democracy in jeopardy. These
unique idiosyncrasies have shaped Jakarta’s public spaces in controversy and ambiguity. For
Jakarta, Habermasian public sphere need to be re contextualized, considering there are many
layers involved, politically, socially and economically.
A Profession for Blind and Mute
Friedmann (2007) proposes that places refer to socio-spatial patterns of affectively valued
relations (no economic values or price) that are embedded in a physical environment. Therefore
it is a space that entails cultural quality and local attachment. Place emerges spontaneously from
within civil society, therefore they are a purely social creation, not planned or designed by
architects or urban planners.
Lefebvre (2003, [1970]) criticizes the role of urbanism as ideology because it establishes a
repressive space that is represented as objective, scientific and neutral. The architects and urban
designer captured their plan and block plan by composing the abstract space of vision. They’ve
shifted from lived experience to the abstract, projecting this abstraction back onto lived
experience. It may appear to be illuminated but is in fact blind. Furthermore he argues architect
and urban designer is hidden beneath technical arguments and professional skill without the
rebellion of lives experience of the everyday life; and in the end they are unaware that their so-
called objective space is in fact ideological and repressive.
Furthermore, Lefebvre (1991, [1974]) states that architectural discourse imitates the discourse of
powers, and space suffers from architectural delusion that obtained from ‘objective’ knowledge.
Within the spatial practice of modern society, the architect situates himself in his own idea of
space. The representation of space itself bound with the product of the architect, making the
space become abstract and vivid. On the contrary, the public (user) space is lived not represented.
When compared with the abstract space of the architects and urban planners, the space of
everyday activities of users is concrete and subjective.
The role of architects and urban planners are once questioned by Jane Jacob (1961). She
examined the failure of city planning and rebuilding in the United State. In particularly, she
showed how the destruction of original neighborhood led to disappearance of many acquired
characteristic of city’s life.
It might conclude that the real of public place often escaped the attention of architects and urban
planners. Faced with city’s complexity, they were inspired to take objective, practical and
theoretical initiative for detaching from the current context without necessarily proposing
solutions.
On the contrary, the users of public space do not speak up against the state and designer’s
decision. And if they want to speak up, who has the rights to represent them? This phenomenon
could be called as the passivity, the lack of participation. The users, the public are delegating
their interests to their representatives. Political representatives have not always played their part
and compromised for everything. While the experts can confer it, but the experts either work for
themselves alone or else they serve the interest of bureaucratic, financial or political forces.
Bundaran Hotel Indonesia (Hotel Indonesia Roundabout)
The State is the public authority (Habermas, 1989), in contrast to everything ‘private’. It owes
this attribute to its task of promoting the public or common welfare to its rightful members. The
servants of the state are public persons, they are incumbent in some official position, their
official business is public and government buildings and institutions are called public. The
authorities are contrasted with the subjects excluded from them: the former served, so it was
said, the public welfare, while the latter pursued their private interest.
Bundaran Hotel Indonesia (HI) is the perfect example of conflict between public and private
interest. Previously built as one of a landmark during Soekarno’s authoritarian regime and later
beautified as the economic showcase during Suharto’s New Order. In the New Order era, the
function of Bundaran HI changed significantly. On the sides was built the Mandarin Hotel, far
more luxurious than Hotel Indonesia, which was Soekarno’s pride. The Grand Hyatt hotel
followed together with upper-class shopping center. Bundaran HI was previously designated as
‘a beacon of emerging nations’ during Soekarno’s era, now it had shifted into a beacon of
capitalism.
Under Suharto’s regime – when civil society in Indonesia has been politically dormant, the lack
of sterile civic space and the high patrol of government and military made civil society
movements fail. This condition happened for decades until the 1997 economic crisis hit
Indonesia, gave an opportunity for public in questioning and challenging the New Order. The
state’s places were radically transformed to be the people’s places, including Bundaran HI which
had turned into major place for public resistance and protest (figure 2). Nowadays it still served
and designated as one of most popular public sphere.
 Figure 2. Bundaran HI occupied by thousands of students during 1998 protests series (doc .Bona Manurung)

After the downfall of New Order and Suharto, the new state is aware of existence of public
spaces and the importance of these spaces in political and social mobilization. At this stage, the
state denied their role as the public authority, by attempting to legitimize its identity above public
discourse.
When the manifest protest by spatial appropriation is successful, the public space is briefly
closed down and redesigned in such a way as to discourage its continued use by the groups that
are deemed undesirable, and then it is guarded and controlled when it is reopened (Low, 2000).
Under Jakarta authority, Governor Sutiyoso ordered the renovation project of Bundaran HI in
2001.

Figure 3. The new surface of Bundaran HI

The project was undergone and supervises by Mohammad Danisworo, Professor of Architecture
and Urban Design from Institute of Technology Bandung. The renovation project changed the
surface around the fountain from a circular walking surface into a slanted, constantly wet surface
splashed by a powerful fountain (figure 3). The environment drew the perception of slippery and
dangerous condition due to electricity short circuit warning. The state tried to pursue the idea of
untouchable space for any public discourse, retaliation and protest.
The surrounding surfaces of Bundaran HI are another example of public-private struggle. When
previous latent protest by means of symbolic representation is successful, the public space
becomes a contested arena for the control of meaning in the built environment, in this case
capitalist and economic driven control. Nowadays, Bundaran HI is surrounded by big names in
consumerism world and high society profiles. From Kempinski to Hyatt, from Harvey Nichols to
Louis Vuitton, Bundaran HI is again transformed and redefined as ‘the beacon of consumerism
triumph’. Bundaran HI enabled the realization of economic-social-political contradictions in
spaces. In other words, spatial contradictions express conflict between three forces; it is only in
space that such conflicts come effectively into a play and in doing so they become contradiction
of spaces (Lefebvre, 1991 [1974]).

Figure 4. The ‘Ring of Solidarity’ for Palestinian, a recent protest at Bundaran HI (Jakarta Post, 2009)

Lapangan Monas and Monumen Nasional (Monas Square and National Monument)
Undoubtly, Monas (National Monument) was Soekarno’s monumental legacy. It was erected in
the center of colonial park, Koningsplein, once the main square of colonial Jakarta. The square
was renamed Independence Square as a commemoration of the independence struggles in which
Soekarno himself acted as the supreme leader. Soekarno conceived Monas like the Eiffel Tower
in France. The form of Monas was inspired by the ancient Indic form of linggam-yoni as ancient
symbols which denote eternal life. Linggam represented a positive principle, while yoni a
negative one. Linggam is the pestle-like ‘tugu (tower)’ which soars high up into the sky, and
‘yoni’ the mortar-like bowl-shaped hall.
Rather than being a public park, The Independence Square (Lapangan Merdeka) was an idea. All
temporary structures were demolished in order to provide a perfect perspective for Monas. It
embodied the eastern myth of power and politics, idealism of the leaders, apparently tried to be
freed from slavery of capitalism and colonialism. The appearance of the ‘mass’ entity, abolishing
the aim of buildings in favor of an unpredictable ideological leveling, has in fact demonstrated
the defeat of the programmatic functionality of the architectural process. It was again become
another tools for a populist leader.
In the middle of New Order era, the state decided that the capital city (Jakarta) was no a longer
place for the poor, and they are were to slow for the economy which should move faster. Under
Governor Ali Sadikin during New Order era, Lapangan Merdeka (now Monas Square) and
Monas had undergone massive ‘cleanings’ from grass and traditional market (Gambir Square).
He stated that Lapangan Merdeka, as a foreground of the Presidential Palace should had a
modern look, dignity and ‘marketable’. He argued that “Who would trust and be willing to invest
their capital in Jakarta if this condition (filthy, full of ruins, coarse grass) is exposed in front of
the city hall, in front of Palace ….I really feel that the economic should more faster in order to
accommodate the city which itself has increased in density” (Sadikin, 1992).
Public space behind gates
Lefebvre offers three social spaces, one of them are the space of social practice: spatial practice,
representations of space, and representational spaces. Representations of space are tied to the
relations of production and to the ‘order’ which those relations impose, and hence to knowledge,
to signs, to codes, and to ‘frontal’ relations. This is dominant space in any society (or mode of
production - institution). Monas Square is the product of relations of politics and a conception of
space. It is also a production of a social space by political power, and during Governor Sadikin
era, Monas Square was transformed to space for the service of economic goals.
Returning to the analysis of public space as a site of protest, there are a certain condition
happened: when manifest protest by demonstration is too successful – that is, it threatens the
state – the public space is closed, sometimes gated and policed (Low, 2000).

Figure 5. Students protest on Monas Square

During 1998 society resistance, Monas Square (figure 5), together with Bundaran HI, shared a
transformation from the state’s space and symbol into a ‘genuine’ public place when it became
one of the most favorite places for demonstration and public retaliation. Monas Square turned
into public sphere, where the people themselves came to see the public sphere as a regulatory
institution against authority of the state (Habermas, 1989). This a perfect example of the study of
the public sphere centers on the idea of participatory democracy and how public opinion
becomes political action.
Under the Reform Order, following the downfall of New Order era, Governor Sutiyoso
determined to discipline the public space by built high fences and put security guards at each of
its two major entrances. By renovating this square, the state did not simply make this public
space cleaner and more orderly, but also directed its redesign against its use for legitimate
protests.

Figure 6. Monas gates and fences

Voyeurism of the eye

To be lifted to the top of Monas (figure 7) is to be lifted out of the city’s grasp. The body is
completely separated from the rumble of surrounding traffic, grayness of sky and intimated
surroundings. The elevation transfigures people into voyeurs. It puts peopleat a distance, to be
looking down like a god.
The desire to see the city preceded the means of satisfying it. Some of old maps of Batavia
represented the city as seen in a perspective that no eye had yet enjoyed previously. The
totalizing perspective imagined by the mapmakers and the painters of earlier time’s lives on in
our achievements. Being on top of the ‘world’ construct a story that creates fictions to readers
makes the complexity of Jakarta readable, and immobilize its opaque mobility in a transparent
text. This is the condition when people are detached from their social roles.
The experience on the top of Monas stimulates the transformation of the urban fact into the
concept of a city. The concept itself gives rise to a particular figure of Indonesia’s history:
Soekarno’s regime. Although, linking the city to the concept never makes them both identical,
but it plays on their progressive symbiosis: to experience the city.
 Figure 7. View from the top of Monas

Taman Menteng (Menteng Park)

Image is everything (Baudrillard, 2003). In its escape from the fear of both dead and nature, the
Apollonian western eye seems to have come to an extreme compromise. Everything is image.
Aestheticising reality in its own simulacrum through the advertising system, the invasion of
television screens and their bi-dimensionality has in fact accelerated the process of flattening
reality to the point of entirely annihilating the distance of the gaze.
Menteng Park (figure 8) is the utopian image and vision, and perceived by the idealism of
Governor Sutiyoso, who was dying to groom the capital city along with other meaningless city
beautification project: the construction of fountain and statue on Jl. Diponegoro and the shifting
of the Kartini statue from Jl. Diponegoro to the Monas Square. Menteng Park now is the ‘house’
for a hotel chain, urban centre (restaurant chains and Starbucks), playground, and plaza for
visitor, basketball field and most importantly: parking space. According to government official,
the parking area that would take up space in the park was necessary to reduce chronic traffic
congestion in that area.
 Figure 8. Menteng Park during holiday season

The 55,5 billion rupiah project was rejected by many layer of society, from residents of
surrounding park to fellow architect and urban designer. The conversion was controversial, since
Menteng Park occupied the space of the old soccer stadium park. The stadium was one of the
country’s first modern city parks and was designed by Dutch architect in 1910. Ironically, the
stadium had a gubernatorial decree for the preservation of heritage buildings. The status as a
historic site classified the stadium, originally called by the Dutch name Voetbalbond Indische
Omstreken, or Viosveld, as an historic site.
Menteng Park has been criticized by many people who assume a hidden agenda on the part of the
administration to develop the area for commercial purposes, in addition objections from heritage
lovers. The whole Menteng is a conservation area, so it does not make sense that government
conserve all of Menteng, but then gradually take away every spot of green space to expand urban
centre.
The consumption of Déjà vu and the sign of object
The announced spectacle, eventually demonstrates that the experience of Disneyland is mostly
intended for adults, who try to combine the categorical imperative of entertainment with the
necessity to assign some sense to participating in an experience in a state of never-ending
'induction'.
It is a question of identity, 'One goes to Disneyland to demonstrate that s/he has been there, and
thus provide the proof. It is a sightseeing to the future perfect that finds its reasons later, when
one shows to relatives and friends, commenting on them, the photographs that the child took of
his/her father while he was filming him/her, then his/her father's film, as a crossed proof.'

We are then at the definitive combination of factors for the schizophrenic individual, subjected to
the fragmentation of the signifying chain as well as being incapable of distinguishing between
reality and representation. Using children as a pretext, everyone has desire to return to their
history.
We live in a determined capitalist society when desire is no longer correspond to genuine needs;
they are artificial (Lefebvre, 1991). Society becomes increasingly complex with transition from
the rural to the industrial, from the industrial to the urban, and from the colonial time to
postcolonial and democratic society. This multifaceted complexion affects space as well as time,
for the complexion of place and the objects that occupy place cannot occur without a
complexification of time and activities that occur over time. The society shift has taken society
from production to development of consumerism (Baudrillard, 1970). Baudrillard’s study on
consumerism charted the emergence of a society dominated not by commodities (needs) as such,
but by objects now consumed more and more for their image, or as Baudrillard called it, their
‘sign value’, and its value within the system of object.
Jakarta latest’ public places are shaped by the basic idea of consumerism. The ‘elite’ publics and
high class societies prefer to socialize inside consumptive spaces, such as shopping mall which
are willingly provided by private sectors. And the state is blinded by the current development of
public spaces, insisted that consumerism-public places is a common agreement.
Conclusion: who really owned the public space?
Spaces such as Bundaran HI and Monas have layers of past meanings semiotically encoded in
the spatial relations, furnishings, and architecture of the place. There meanings, embodied in the
space itself, become a subtext for the protest that occurs there, and by placing protest in the
symbolic center of the society, it captures national attention. Both of them demonstrate some of
political dynamics: when the space being repressed by a regime or being used as representation
of public sphere.
The state, on the contrary, ‘denies’ the idea of public spaces as an important arenas for public
discourse and expressions of discontent. If they are gated or redesigned in response to protest or
spatial appropriation that does not fit within the narrow cultural guidelines of the dream of
modern regime, or ‘appropriate’ behavior, then where will the proper public discourse
supposedly located? Both Bundaran HI and Monas has displayed spatial form of historical
amnesia – hidden behind preservation and renovation attempts. The growing concern over this
amnesia act is worrying, when central public spaces of Jakarta are becoming increasingly
homogenized and state-controlled representation because of similar amnesia and sociopolitical
forces.
Although politic spaces also transform absolute space, they do not become places in the specific
term sense. Bundaran HI is the example of politic space maybe designed as economic symbol, or
vice versa. It is not only symbolic of Indonesia’s political struggle but communicate a diffused
sense of economic growth and consumerism. In this sense, landmark (Bundaran HI) is very
different from place; it has become a brand for the city.
The second concern is a condition when there are so many ‘designed’ spaces are rarely used or
even remembered, while people come together in spaces that were never meant to be places at
all, and by this very act turn abstract, functional spaces into a lived space. Maybe most of
Jakartans do not need any designated public places. In some Jakarta’s area, such as Kemayoran,
Glodok, Cengkareng and Cawang life spills out from buildings onto the sidewalk, where
neighborhood places suddenly appear.
The final concern is growing for the condition where state and economic power is continue to
occupy the public space for the sake of public: the space that acts as a resemblance of civic and
public space on behalf of people but not for people. This scenario is not a new one, but goes
beyond back to colonial occupancy until now. The only difference in each period was what
‘mask’ does a space wear and what is their hidden agenda.
The big question is how public reclaim their rights over spaces? How can they ensure their
livability of autonomous public space which sometimes forgotten and ignored by the state, the
economic power and the expert (architects and urban planners)?
Lack of participation in the stakeholder levels is not a new issue for Jakarta political life. The
users of public space must end their silences if they want to reclaim their right over spaces. They
need to be pro-active. From the perspective of civil society, the key to successful resistance to
redevelopment might be to find ways for affected neighbors to participate in shaping the new
public place. It is not the era when the civil society can leave their options and choices to
government or private sector. Only when redevelopment is inevitable should government, the
experts and others seek to ensure that the physical, social and psychological damage resulting
from place-breaking will be reduced to a minimum.
Both of parties, civil society, state and politic needs to find a way to cooperated and negotiated
by subordinating the economy to social needs rather than the reverse. The state and society
should oversee the use of public space are the space for peace for both state and civil society in
exercising their relationship and interacting with daily mutual understanding.

Bibliography
Baudrillard, J. (2003), Mass. Identity. Architecture., West-Sussex, England, Wiley Academy.

Baudrillard, J. (1998), The Consumer Society: Myths and Structures, West-Sussex, England, Wiley Academy.

Budihardjo, E.(1983), Menuju Arsitektur Indonesia, Bandung, Alumni.

Calhoun, C. (1993), Habermas and the Public Sphere, Cambridge, The MIT Press.
Certeau, M. (1984), The Practice of Everyday Life, Berkeley, University of California Press.

Friedmann, J. (2007), ‘The invisible web: place and place-making in cities’, unpublished lecture to Cornell
University, New York, 26 April, http://www.scarp.ubc.ca/faculty%20profiles/place-making.doc, accessed 23 June
2008.

Habermas, J. (1989), The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois
Society, Cambridge, The MIT Press.

Jacobs, J. (1986 [1961]), The Death and Life of Great American Cities, New York, Vintage Books.

Kusno, A. (2000) Behind the Postcolonial: Architecture, Urban Space and Political Cultures in Indonesia, London:
Routledge.

Kusumawijaya, M. (2006) Kota Rumah Kita, Jakarta, Borneo Publications.

Lefebvre, H. (1991 [1974]), The Production of Space, Oxford, Blackwell.

Lefebvre, H. (2003 [1970), The Urban Revolution, Minneapolis, MN, University of Minnesota Press.

Lefebvre, H.(1991 [1947,1952]), Critique of Everyday Life, London, Verso.

Low, S. M. (2000), On The Plaza: The Politics of Public Space and Culture, Austin, TX, University of Texas Press.