Fragmentation of street space usage in Chinatown Village Semarang, Indonesia
Article Sidebar
Published:
Apr 1, 2022
Keywords:
Activity, Fragmentation, Gang Baru Street, Informal, Street
Main Article Content
Abstract
As a trade center, Semarang Chinatown contributes to developing the economic activities of the city. The expansion of the economic network creates various opportunities through informal activities. This is reflected in the inclusiveness of the local community, using roads as venues of economic activities, especially on Gang Baru Street in Semarang Chinatown. The street connects the neighborhood, accommodates informal activities, and serves as a traditional market. Furthermore, it has been privatized by trading activities from the shophouses and street vendors. The claim trend has commodified the formal use of the street as access infrastructure. Consequently, the differences in formal and informal activities cause the use of road space to be fragmented. Therefore, this study examines the fragmented use of Gang Baru street caused by the segmented informal activity interests. The qualitative method is used for a thorough bottom-up observation of the street’s activities. Various activities are classified based on the street user segmentation by organizational practices and spontaneous community behavior. This categorization is also based on the users’ participatory or antagonistic response to the street’s formal use. The result shows activity diversity portrays a dialectic interest representing the fragmented use of Gang Baru Street.
Downloads
Download data is not yet available.
Article Details
How to Cite
Nusaputra, Christin Purnamasari, and Yohanes Basuki Dwisusanto. 2022. “Fragmentation of Street Space Usage in Chinatown Village Semarang, Indonesia”. ARTEKS : Jurnal Teknik Arsitektur 7 (1), 33-42. https://doi.org/10.30822/arteks.v7i1.1181.
Section
ARTICLES-RESEARCH
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms: (1) Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal; (2) Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal; (3) Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.
References
Alca˘ntara De Vasconcellos, Eduardo. 2004. ‘The Use of Streets: A Reassessment and Tribute to Donald Appleyard’. Journal of Urban Design 9 (1): 3–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/1357480042000187686.
Alfanadi Agung Setiyawan, Suzanna Ratih Sari, and Agung Budi Sardjono. 2020. ‘Persepsi Atribut Pedagang Kaki Lima Terhadap Pemanfaatan Trotoar Pandanaran’. ARTEKS : Jurnal Teknik Arsitektur 5 (2): 287–96. https://doi.org/10.30822/arteks.v5i2.436.
BAPPEDA Kota Semarang. 2011. Peraturan Daerah Kota Semarang Nomor 14 Tahun 2011 Tentang Rencana Tata Ruang Wilayah Kota Semarang Tahun 2011-2031. Indonesia. http://jdih.semarangkota.go.id/ildis_v2/public/pencarian/499/detail.
Capulong Reyes, Rowena. 2016. ‘Public Space as Contested Space: The Battle over the Use, Meaning and Function of Public Space’. International Journal of Social Science and Humanity 6 (3): 201–7. https://doi.org/10.7763/IJSSH.2016.V6.643.
Choironi, Rosida. 2004. ‘Karakteristik Ruang Gang Baru, Pecinan Semarang’. Universitas Diponegoro. http://eprints.undip.ac.id/12016/1/2004MTA3192.pdf.
Francis, Jacinta, Billie Giles-Corti, Lisa Wood, and Matthew Knuiman. 2012. ‘Creating Sense of Community: The Role of Public Space’. Journal of Environmental Psychology 32 (4): 401–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2012.07.002.
Han, Wang, and Jia Beisi. 2015. ‘A Morphological Study of Traditional Shophouse in China and Southeast Asia’. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 179 (April): 237–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.02.427.
Handinoto. 1999. ‘Lingkungan “Pecinan” Dalam Tata Ruang Kota Di Jawa Pada Masa Kolonial’. DIMENSI (Jounal of Architecture and Buit Environment) 27 (1): 20–29. https://dimensi.petra.ac.id/index.php/ars/article/view/15704.
Hendrawan, Christianto, and Yohanes Basuki Dwisusanto. 2017. ‘Active Concept in Pedestrian Design’. ARTEKS : Jurnal Teknik Arsitektur 2 (1): 15–32. https://doi.org/10.30822/arteks.v2i1.38.
Humanitarian OpenStreetMap Team. 2019. ‘Atlas Infrastruktur Kota Semarang’. OpenStreetMap.Id. 2019. https://openstreetmap.id/kota-semarang/.
Kamalipour, Hesam. 2020. ‘Improvising Places: The Fluidity of Space in Informal Settlements’. Sustainability 12 (6): 2293. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12062293.
Lydon, Mike, Anthony Garcia, and Andres Duany. 2015. Tactical Urbanism: Short-Term Action for Long-Term Change. Washington DC: Island Press.
Madanipour, Ali. 2010. Whose Public Space? Whose Public Space? International Case Studies in Urban Design and Development. London: Routledge.
———. 2017. Cities in Time: Temporary Urbanism and the Future of the City. London, England: Bloomsbury Academic.
Mberu, Yuliana Bhara, and Yohanes Djarot Purbadi. 2018. ‘The Significance of the Space of Kota Lama Kupang Street According to the Informal and Formal Street Vendors’. ARTEKS : Jurnal Teknik Arsitektur 3 (1): 79–100. https://doi.org/10.30822/arteks.v3i1.56.
Mela, Alfredo. 2014. ‘Urban Public Space between Fragmentation, Control and Conflict’. City, Territory and Architecture 1 (1): 15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40410-014-0015-0.
Micek, Michał, and Sylwia Staszewska. 2019. ‘Urban and Rural Public Spaces: Development Issues and Qualitative Assessment’. Bulletin of Geography. Socio-Economic Series 45 (45): 75–93. https://doi.org/10.2478/bog-2019-0025.
Murtini, Titien Woro, and Sri Hartuti Wahyuningrum. 2017. ‘Penggunaan Ruas Jalan Sebagai Pasar Tradisional Di Gang Baru Pecinan, Semarang’. MODUL 17 (1): 17. https://doi.org/10.14710/mdl.17.1.2017.17-21.
Pemerintah RI. 2004. Undang-Undang Republik Indonesia Nomor 38 Tahun 2004 Tentang Jalan. Indonesia. https://www.jogloabang.com/pustaka/uu-38-2004-jalan.
Pratiwo. 2010. Arsitektur Tradisional Tionghoa Dan Perkembangan Kota. Yogyakarta: Penerbit Ombak.
Purwanto, L. M. F. 2005. ‘Kota Kolonial Lama Semarang (Tinjauan Umum Sejarah Perkembangan Arsitektur Kota)’. DIMENSI: Journal of Architecture and Built Environment 33 (1). https://dimensi.petra.ac.id/index.php/ars/article/view/16273.
Rosiana, Maria. 2002. ‘Kajian Pola Morfologi Ruang Kawasan Pecinan (Studi Kasus : Kawasan Pecinan Semarang)’. Universitas Diponegoro. http://eprints.undip.ac.id/12144/1/2002MTA2026.pdf.
Setiawan, Deka. 2012. ‘Interaksi Sosial Antar Etnis Di Pasar Gang Baru Pecinan Semarang Dalam Perspektif Multikultural’. Journal of Education Social Studies 1 (1): 42–47. https://doi.org/10.15294/JESS.V1I1.84.
Teviningrum, Shinta. 2020. ‘Traditional Markets as Culinary Tourism Destinations, Case Study on Pasar Gang BaruSemarang’. In Culture, People, and Technology The Driving Forces for Tourism Cities Conference Proceedings, edited by I Made Adhi Gunadi, Devi Roza Kausar, Riza Firmansyah, and James Kennell, 287–95. Jakarta: ITSA Biennieal Conference 2020. https://www.academia.edu/45115758/Culture_People_and_Technology_The_Driving_Forces_for_Tourism_Cities_Proceedings_of_8th_ITSA_Biennial_Conference_2020.
Tyrväinen, Karl. 2015. ‘Stockholm Temporary : Relevancy & Potentials for Implementing Temporary Architecture in Stockholm’. Swedish University. https://stud.epsilon.slu.se/7575/1/tyrvainen_k_150126.pdf.
Alfanadi Agung Setiyawan, Suzanna Ratih Sari, and Agung Budi Sardjono. 2020. ‘Persepsi Atribut Pedagang Kaki Lima Terhadap Pemanfaatan Trotoar Pandanaran’. ARTEKS : Jurnal Teknik Arsitektur 5 (2): 287–96. https://doi.org/10.30822/arteks.v5i2.436.
BAPPEDA Kota Semarang. 2011. Peraturan Daerah Kota Semarang Nomor 14 Tahun 2011 Tentang Rencana Tata Ruang Wilayah Kota Semarang Tahun 2011-2031. Indonesia. http://jdih.semarangkota.go.id/ildis_v2/public/pencarian/499/detail.
Capulong Reyes, Rowena. 2016. ‘Public Space as Contested Space: The Battle over the Use, Meaning and Function of Public Space’. International Journal of Social Science and Humanity 6 (3): 201–7. https://doi.org/10.7763/IJSSH.2016.V6.643.
Choironi, Rosida. 2004. ‘Karakteristik Ruang Gang Baru, Pecinan Semarang’. Universitas Diponegoro. http://eprints.undip.ac.id/12016/1/2004MTA3192.pdf.
Francis, Jacinta, Billie Giles-Corti, Lisa Wood, and Matthew Knuiman. 2012. ‘Creating Sense of Community: The Role of Public Space’. Journal of Environmental Psychology 32 (4): 401–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2012.07.002.
Han, Wang, and Jia Beisi. 2015. ‘A Morphological Study of Traditional Shophouse in China and Southeast Asia’. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 179 (April): 237–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.02.427.
Handinoto. 1999. ‘Lingkungan “Pecinan” Dalam Tata Ruang Kota Di Jawa Pada Masa Kolonial’. DIMENSI (Jounal of Architecture and Buit Environment) 27 (1): 20–29. https://dimensi.petra.ac.id/index.php/ars/article/view/15704.
Hendrawan, Christianto, and Yohanes Basuki Dwisusanto. 2017. ‘Active Concept in Pedestrian Design’. ARTEKS : Jurnal Teknik Arsitektur 2 (1): 15–32. https://doi.org/10.30822/arteks.v2i1.38.
Humanitarian OpenStreetMap Team. 2019. ‘Atlas Infrastruktur Kota Semarang’. OpenStreetMap.Id. 2019. https://openstreetmap.id/kota-semarang/.
Kamalipour, Hesam. 2020. ‘Improvising Places: The Fluidity of Space in Informal Settlements’. Sustainability 12 (6): 2293. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12062293.
Lydon, Mike, Anthony Garcia, and Andres Duany. 2015. Tactical Urbanism: Short-Term Action for Long-Term Change. Washington DC: Island Press.
Madanipour, Ali. 2010. Whose Public Space? Whose Public Space? International Case Studies in Urban Design and Development. London: Routledge.
———. 2017. Cities in Time: Temporary Urbanism and the Future of the City. London, England: Bloomsbury Academic.
Mberu, Yuliana Bhara, and Yohanes Djarot Purbadi. 2018. ‘The Significance of the Space of Kota Lama Kupang Street According to the Informal and Formal Street Vendors’. ARTEKS : Jurnal Teknik Arsitektur 3 (1): 79–100. https://doi.org/10.30822/arteks.v3i1.56.
Mela, Alfredo. 2014. ‘Urban Public Space between Fragmentation, Control and Conflict’. City, Territory and Architecture 1 (1): 15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40410-014-0015-0.
Micek, Michał, and Sylwia Staszewska. 2019. ‘Urban and Rural Public Spaces: Development Issues and Qualitative Assessment’. Bulletin of Geography. Socio-Economic Series 45 (45): 75–93. https://doi.org/10.2478/bog-2019-0025.
Murtini, Titien Woro, and Sri Hartuti Wahyuningrum. 2017. ‘Penggunaan Ruas Jalan Sebagai Pasar Tradisional Di Gang Baru Pecinan, Semarang’. MODUL 17 (1): 17. https://doi.org/10.14710/mdl.17.1.2017.17-21.
Pemerintah RI. 2004. Undang-Undang Republik Indonesia Nomor 38 Tahun 2004 Tentang Jalan. Indonesia. https://www.jogloabang.com/pustaka/uu-38-2004-jalan.
Pratiwo. 2010. Arsitektur Tradisional Tionghoa Dan Perkembangan Kota. Yogyakarta: Penerbit Ombak.
Purwanto, L. M. F. 2005. ‘Kota Kolonial Lama Semarang (Tinjauan Umum Sejarah Perkembangan Arsitektur Kota)’. DIMENSI: Journal of Architecture and Built Environment 33 (1). https://dimensi.petra.ac.id/index.php/ars/article/view/16273.
Rosiana, Maria. 2002. ‘Kajian Pola Morfologi Ruang Kawasan Pecinan (Studi Kasus : Kawasan Pecinan Semarang)’. Universitas Diponegoro. http://eprints.undip.ac.id/12144/1/2002MTA2026.pdf.
Setiawan, Deka. 2012. ‘Interaksi Sosial Antar Etnis Di Pasar Gang Baru Pecinan Semarang Dalam Perspektif Multikultural’. Journal of Education Social Studies 1 (1): 42–47. https://doi.org/10.15294/JESS.V1I1.84.
Teviningrum, Shinta. 2020. ‘Traditional Markets as Culinary Tourism Destinations, Case Study on Pasar Gang BaruSemarang’. In Culture, People, and Technology The Driving Forces for Tourism Cities Conference Proceedings, edited by I Made Adhi Gunadi, Devi Roza Kausar, Riza Firmansyah, and James Kennell, 287–95. Jakarta: ITSA Biennieal Conference 2020. https://www.academia.edu/45115758/Culture_People_and_Technology_The_Driving_Forces_for_Tourism_Cities_Proceedings_of_8th_ITSA_Biennial_Conference_2020.
Tyrväinen, Karl. 2015. ‘Stockholm Temporary : Relevancy & Potentials for Implementing Temporary Architecture in Stockholm’. Swedish University. https://stud.epsilon.slu.se/7575/1/tyrvainen_k_150126.pdf.