Untitled - Api-fellowships.org

86 Panel 2“Master Planning” vs “Networking” Approaches to Solve ContemporaryUrban Crises in Asian citiesKenta KishiIntroductionAs an architect involved in design and researchprojects, I have visited many cities around the worldand observed many large urban development projects.I have noticed that when I am in cities, I often becomelost and disoriented. I have also noticed that cityresidents often refer to large urban developmentprojects around them as though they were “hit or miss”affairs. I have often asked myself: what do we reallywant of a city?The modern Western model of “master-planning” forurban development often encompasses ideas aroundcreating “ideal cities” from “ground zero”. 1 Why arethe pre-existing aspects of urban life almost neverincorporated into such projects?In recent years, I have focused on one Asian urbansettlement to investigate these questions. Uponentering the mainly lower-middle-class settlement, it isinstantly evident that residents continually performsmall actions to maintain and improve the quality ofdaily life in the area. The place is dynamic and filledwith many realities. There are many positive hints tobe found for urban development.Project BackgroundThis project focused on kampung (informal urbansettlements) in Surabaya, Indonesia’s second largestcity and the capital of East Java. It focused on socialstructures, living environments and local dailyactivities. Special attention was paid to systems of selforganizationand the maintenance of identity. Manysmall programs which I call “micro-projects” wereobserved, and some were considered as strategicmaterial for an alternative approach to urban design.By examining the possibilities of networking amongmicro-projects this study tries to propose amethodology of urban design and/or urbanmanagement that reflects the complexity of urbanecosystems. The goal is to overcome negative impactson the quality of the environment in urbandevelopment.The potentials and possibilities within the kampungand the city were investigated, mainly throughcooperative research and study activities with diverselocal players, including government employees,academic societies, business groups, civil groups andmedia. Rather than pursue an objective analysis ofmeasurable city data, such as is pursued by expertsunder the master-planning model, the study employeda cooperative method in which possibilities wereexplored spontaneously and dynamically. The city wasseen as a platform for investigation and participationin an open process.Surabaya in TransitionSurabaya’s urban environment has seen majortransition during the recent period of economicrecovery after the Asian Financial Crisis. Surabaya is ahistorical city that encompasses many kampung andincludes diverse racial and ethnic groups, including theJavanese, Madurese, Arab and Chinese. There are twolarge challenges in the city’s current configuration.Urban sprawl (suburbanization) has seen uppermiddle-class and wealthy people moving out from thecenter of Surabaya, creating an economic disparitybetween the outside and inside of the city. 2 The secondmajor problem is the extent of large developmentprojects in the central area, such as hotels, shoppingmalls and office complexes, which are erasing oldresidential areas. Both issues undermine traditionalpatterns of local urban culture and impose instead amodel of the successful city as portrayed in advancedcountries. The “new” Surabaya is becoming a typicalgeneric city of global standards. The city will mostlikely become a place to which residents will lose theirattachment, as master-planning erases its memories,history and identity.Beyond Master-PlanningThis project suggests key problems of the masterplanningapproach.The Work of the 2010/2011 API Fellows