Read more…

Let us remember that once this was a scenic view, people go there to enjoy the man-made lake, that was built by the Dutch in the 40s, to have fun with their family and the land surrounding it were easily sold as having good view to the water.

But, it was not necessarily legal, because even though the local government gave out permission to build houses and buildings, the area it self was not recommended to be a settlement, especially those on the brink of the reservoir.

As we could logically place into mind, the vast water body also hold potential of misgivings. The structure was old and even though it was built by the Dutch, it has been used to a maximum limit.

So the question lays: was it the nature being mad at us? Or was it us making wrong doings to nature that created this chaos?

And us, architects, builders who played as gods putting our labors into buildings, we shared the concequences. We should have warn them! Next time a costumer arrive at your door, don’t forget to ask what the surroundings were, if it is considered a high risk area to live in, suggest them to move out and sell the property. At least that what we could do…

-Prananda Navitas

Three towers stand tall, cranes still attached to them, unfinished.While directly next to the three towers, a shopping-center-to-be stands. These projects are only two among many abandoned projects in Surabaya; eyesores in the metropolis. They stand as if monuments of economic mis-management, and the powerlessness of our urban authorities against private investors and project developers. What can be done about these unfinished structures?

Urban Authorities

Being the citizens’ representatives, urban authorities should invite project owners to discuss the future of these abandoned buildings, and whether they will re-commence construction/development.

Project owner says “yes”: authorities should define the strictest of deadlines, and apply taxes that multiply each time the project exceeds the agreed deadline. Failure to pay these taxes give urban authorities the right to seize the project and put it on auction.

Project owner says “no”: authorities may charge him with disturbing the public right of vista (will be discussed further in this post), and bring the case to the court of law.

Project has been seized by banks: urban authorities charge the bank with disturbing the public right of vista and apply a (very large) fine. Should the bank refuse to pay, then authorities may bring the bank to the court of law. Failing to pay the fine or show up in court may result in the bank having its permit revoked and its assets seized by urban authorities.

Regulating Large Construction Projects

It is an inevitable fact that cities must have regulations concerning large construction projects. Then it is also a must that cities have regulations concerning city beautification; protecting the citizens’ rights of vista. In its implementation, and to put pressure on investors and developers, multiple taxes should be applied to large projects, and that those taxes multiply even more if the project exceeds the deadline.

A Little Something for Investors and Developers

If a new project is proposed, then it might be a good idea that urban authorities force developers to continue abandoned projects. Should they refuse, developers may be charged with disrupting the public right of vista.

Examples

A new shopping center can occupy the abandoned Carrefour structure. All developers need to do is finish the building; most of the infrastructure has been provided.

A new hotel or apartment may come out of the abandoned Adistana towers. Same as the afore mentioned, all developers need to do is finish the building!

In The End

This message goes out to designers and developers: we should consider finishing an unfinished project as a challenge. We all know that conceiving something totally new is much easier at times rather than to build on what is already there. It’s up to us all to make our cities a pleasant place to live in; thus it’s our responsibility to beautify it.

Indonesia had almost 9 million motorized vehicles in 1990, of which 70% were motorcycles and 15% were cars. The motorized vehicle fleet increased in line with the urban population. There were 5 motorized vehicles for every 100 persons in 1990. The percentage of urban households owning a non-motorized vehicle in 1989 was only slightly higher (35%) than those owning a motorized vehicle (29%). By 2015, it is forecasted that about 2.5 million cars and 1.2 million motorcycles will crowd the roads of Jabotabek.

-BPPT, 1992

Rapid increases in car and motorcycle ownership in Surabaya over recent years (are) creating serious and widespread traffic congestion. In the future, if no action is taken, conditions will deteriorate still further. It is estimated that a journey to work that takes thirty minutes now, will take up to one hour by the year 2010.

-Surabaya Integrated Transport Network Planning Report No. B3, “Traffic Demand Management”, 1998

Introduction

Congestion, not only is it troublesome for the individual motorist in terms of delay, stress, and uncertainty, but it is also a problem that confronts society as a whole. Not to mention, the impact congestion has upon the environment in terms of higher emissions, noise, and visual intrusion, thus also implicating for public health and safety. When referred to the data that BPPT issued in 1992, congestion also has a role in increasing economic pressure due to high fuel demand.

Various parties play different roles in society, each contributing in their own way to congestion whether they realize it or not. Even the financial sector (banks) contribute greatly to congestion by providing automobile mortgages; empowering people to own private vehicles. Motor vehicle manufacturers are also greatly responsible for providing society with incredibly affordable vehicles. This article does not convey that it’s wrong to have your own motor vehicles, its only asking readers to think about their contribution to society, and asking readers to take a look at the possibilities to help reduce the economic pressure that we face when we commute daily in our private vehicles (fuel demands, maintenance costs, insurance, etc.)

The solution to this matter that makes the most sense is of course public transport or urban mass transit. As one professor in Shanghai, China, once mentioned:

The earlier urban transit system is developed, the greater the possibility to avoid congestion issues.

-Zhang, “Development of East Asian Cities” (lecture) Tongji University Shanghai, CAUP, 24/12/2007

Although Zhang’s statement indicates that urban transit system must be developed as early as possible in the urban development stages, it doesn’t mean that it’s too late for big cities that up until today have not properly developed urban mass transit.  The following are possible forms of urban mass transit and other possible solutions to this clog:

Busway

The term Busway refers to a form of public mass transport (buses) that exclusively occupies a lane in main arterial roads.

“.. Jakarta sejak ada busway ama masalah banjir jadi kacau banget..[..eversince we have the busway and the regular floods, Jakarta has been really chaotic..]” this is an excerpt from an email that I received from a friend of mine, D, on November 29th, 2007. In this message, he states his disappointment with the latest form of urban mass transit currently available in Jakarta. It’s not a surprise that a lot of people are disappointed with the busway system, and most people accuse the busway as the cause of further congestion as it occupies an exclusive lane in major arterial roads, thus reducing the number of existing vehicle lanes.

Railway (Rail-based Transportation)

Railways in Indonesia were built during the Dutch colonization era and were not intended to serve the intra-urban passengers. The strategic concept was clear that our suburban railway network was intended to connect large cities with smaller cities nearby e.g. Jakarta with Bekasi, Bogor, and Tangerang. Thus railways did not correlate with the urban development patterns which mainly guided development towards major arterial roads.

Surabaya has developed what is known as the commuter train, a light rail train connecting Surabaya and Sidoarjo. The idea is to serve the people who commute to and fro between Sidoarjo and Surabaya especially during rush hour. Thus ultimately reducing the volume of private motor vehicles that operate along some of the main arteries. So far, this has been the best solution since it actually reduces the amount of private vehicles on the road, and it doesn’t occupy the roads at all, but operate on its own tracks.

 Highway

The idea of developing highway systems to overcome traffic congestion has been heard of quite often. In my opinion, providing highways may be able to solve the congestion problems that a big city has, but it is nothing more than just a short-term solution, and a win-win solution for both construction contractors and the urban authorities.

IT Solutions

T, a friend of mine, suggested in a conversation some time in early December 2007, that rescheduling the public transport trajectory route and controlling congestion-risk nodes may be an efficient solution to congestion. During our conversation, T mentioned that a program which can calculate the volume and amount of public transport vehicles should be operational according to the time of the day be developed. This program will also determine the best route to be taken during certain periods of the day. Thus there is a possibility that there will be various routes going from A to B. One route perhaps with more or less stops than the other.

Closing Remarks

The solutions mentioned above are the sort that a great number of funds, thought / energy, and time. Perhaps it would make a lot of sense if authorities would simply make do with whatever it is that they have in hand at the moment. In other words, repair the existing forms of public transport facilities and improve their service quality. Not only that, urban authorities should also actively promote the use of public transport through mass media. As for the greater society, please reconsider when you board your private vehicles; nothing compares to communal needs. Not even prestige.

“It is predicted that without the 3R program, by 2012 Surabaya’s landfills will be totally paralyzed by the enormous amount of trash produced per day. Thus a zero waste solution must be devised; preferably a simple, cost-efficient, and community-based method.”

Everyone knows that trash, rubbish, garbage; whatever you want to call it, society’s refuse is a problem to practically every city in the world. A city has faced waste-related problems at least once during its existence. Failure to treat waste can lead to the genesis of an unhealthy environment, and the degradation of the city’s image. During the 1950s, Europe faced a trash crisis, which led to composting as a treatment for municipal solid waste. Surabaya faced an overflow of waste in 2001; her landfills couldn’t cope with the amount of trash that the society coughs out daily. The stench was so extreme that people living as far away as ten kilometers from the landfill can still smell its “bitter-sweet” aroma. This I know because I live more or less ten kilometers away from the Keputih Landfill!

Before the discussion develops any further, it would be best to briefly describe Surabaya, the capital of East Java province. Covering an area of about 326.36km², divided into 31 districts, and 163 sub-districts, Surabaya is the second largest city in Indonesia with inhabitants amounting up to 3.2 million during the evening, and almost twice as much during the day. From the aforementioned, one can imagine the amount of rubbish produced per day, thus, a question arises: “how much (waste-related) load must Surabaya bear?”

Surabaya produces more or less 8.700m³ of trash per day; 72% of it is made up of household rubbish. Out of the total amount of rubbish produced per day, 69% of it is piled up in landfills; 4% is incinerated; 14% is recycled by trash collectors, and only 1% is recycled by the society. This simple statistic shows how low Surabaya’s society’s awareness towards waste management is.

When discussing waste, the facts of the matter are cliché; the society still lacks the awareness to dispose of garbage in a proper manner, resulting in litter, and rivers, canals and waterways turned into landfills. To make matters even worse, sidewalk retailers

and instant marketplaces that occupy the city’s perhaps marginalized spaces contribute greatly to the added waste load that Surabaya must bear. The formal sector doesn’t seem to help much as well as most of them still use non-recyclable packaging materials. To top all the aforementioned, trash has not been professionally treated. The outcome can be easily guessed; rivers and various other waterways (including ground water) become soiled, air pollution staggers, floods occur regularly during the raining season as rivers and canals are silted. Slum areas also appear especially along river banks.

Waste Management

Basically Surabaya’s policy and strategy towards waste management cover the following aspects:

1. Maximizing waste reduction from its source of production; promoting 3R attempts and securing household waste, incentive and disincentive mechanisms in exploiting waste.
2. Propose active society involvement as partner in waste management; education as tool to introduce and raise awareness of waste management at an early age, and establishing social partnership between the society, women, and private parties in waste management.
3. strengthening waste management institute capacity; encouraging waste management institution form and capacity improvement according to service needs; separating bodies/regulatory and operating functions; improving cooperation and management coordination, and encouraging collective regional waste management operations; incentive and disincentive mechanisms for landfill areas.
4. Developing cooperation with private parties; encouraging an inductive climate for public-private-partnerships; facilitating public-private-partnership development.
5. Developing and improving services to achieve national aims in steps; optimizing the use of available waste treating facilities; improving just, planned, and programmed service capacity according to needs and scale of priority; improving landfill management quality and rehabilitating contaminating landfills; research and development of environmentally-oriented and effective waste management and treatment technology.
6. Application of cost-recovering principles; engineering cost recovery pattern guidelines; facilitating and assisting compilation of retribution standards that are cost recovering oriented; disseminating cost recovery guidelines to related institutes/agencies.

Improving law enforcing effectiveness; developing law by-products as foundation and guideline to waste management services; consistently implementing supervising system and sanction in establishing enforcers/officials, society, and private parties by a regulatory body/agency.

Understanding 3R

To overcome the problem, and aiming for a trash-free society, Surabaya has tried to implement a waste-reducing scheme known as 3R (Reduce, Reuse, Recycle). To explain briefly what each R means:

Reduce: waste should be reduced from the source. Ultimately this will reduce the amount of rubbish the city has to deal with in their landfills.

Reuse: waste should be reused as much as possible to avoid more rubbish input to landfills.

Recycle: a very common term, any recyclable material should be recycled so that it would not go to waste, and still has competitive resale value.

This method has been devised with a vision to focus on the environment by attempting to greatly decrease our traces in the environment through generating zero growth on the amount of garbage we produce each day. 3R is also a multi-stakeholder scheme, and a stimulant to generate economic effect. Throughout its implementation in Surabaya, an international cooperation has

been established in the form of a sister city program with Kitakyushu, Japan, treating organic waste into compost, to promote zero waste

growth; this has helped Surabaya’s citizens to better understand the appropriate methods and technology in dealing with (household) waste. Ultimately, the 3R program has encouraged Surabaya’s citizens to re-orient themselves into having a glocalized attitude towards waste.

3R: The Mission

There are a few general objectives that the Reduce, Reuse, Recycle program aims to fulfil, and they are as follows:

• To reduce organic faction until 15% by the end of the 5^th year
• To reduce non-organic faction by 5-8% by the end of the 5^th year
• Solid waste separation at the source
• To simplify solid waste management in the city
• Educating the community

3R in Surabaya

In general, 3R has been implemented in Surabaya using two different approaches; community-based decentralized waste management, and composting program.

Community-based Decentralized Waste Management

In this approach, the waste management program aims to reduce the amount of waste from its source through various community programs; Socializing garbage separation (organic, and non-organic waste) to ease further processing; organic waste will be turned into compost, whereas non-organic waste will be sold to trash collectors or recycled accordingly, and a kampong greening program. People from all stratums of society were involved in this waste management program to ensure the most optimum result is achieved. There were two main activities involved during the implementation of this program. The first being socialisation to shed some light on the proposed waste management program; aimed at raising community awareness, and changing the people’s general perspective towards garbage. Socialisation was carried out by city officials, and/or social groups, throughout Surabaya’s 163 sub-districts within 31 administrative districts. Cadres are trained to encourage environmentally aware social figures. These cadres were chosen by social groups that oversee waste management training programs in the immediate area. Continuous monitoring will be done by city officials, social groups, and the mass media. Citizens will then be assisted by horticulture and sanitary officials who cooperate with social groups such as Bangun Pertiwi, Sahabat Lingkungan, Pusdakota, BLTKI, etc. To encourage people’s spirits and interest in the proposed waste management program, sanitary equipments such as compost bins, takakura baskets, and garbage wagons were handed out to the immediate society. Compost processing plants were also built in some areas. The mass media is given a crucial role in promoting and monitoring the Green & Clean Program; Free from Garbage.

Composting Program

Composting can be used

as an alternative to landfill as concern about landfill space constantly increase. Worldwide interest in recycling by means of composting is growing since composting is a widely accepted process for converting decomposable wastes of natural origin into stable, sanitized products useful for horticulture. In Surabaya’s case, since most of the waste that occupies the landfill is organic matter, therefore a successful composting program will greatly reduce landfill load.