T
HE CREATIVE KAMPUNG
:
B
RIDGING THE GAP
A creative placemaking approach to
empower poor Bandung
communities
I
NSTITUTION:
U
NIVERSITY OFA
MSTERDAMD
ATE:
20
TH OFJ
UNE2014
T
HESIS PROJECT:
U
RBAN POVERTY&
I
NEQUALITYC
ODE:
734301370Y
T
UTOR:
D
R.
D
ENNISA
RNOLDN
AME:
V
ALÉRIE VANL
IESHOUTS
TUDENTID:
10216073
E
MAIL:
VALERIEVANLIESHOUT11@
GMAIL.
COMM
OBILE:
0031636149330
A
DDRESS:
D
RIEHOEKSTRAAT80
1015
GL
T
ABLE OF
C
ONTENTS
Acronyms ... 4
Introduction ... 5
1.1 Urban inequality in Bandung ... 5
1.2 A time for change? ... 7
Theoretical framework ... 10
2.1 The urban divide ... 10
2.2 Bridging the urban divide - placemaking ... 12
Placemaking ... 12
Public space ... 14
Social capital ... 15
The participatory citizen ... 15
2.3 Bridging the urban divide - creative opportunities ... 18
The creative city ... 18
Different perspectives ... 20
Creative placemaking ... 22
Research design ... 24
3.1 Structuring creative placemaking implementation ... 26
Placemaking strategies ... 26
Different tasks ... 28
Supporting factors and actors ... 29
3.2 Structuring program outcomes ... 31
3.3 Data collection ... 34
Findings & results ... 36
4.1 Kampung Dago Pojok ... 36
4.2 Project analysis ... 38
Komunitas Taboo ... 39
Bandung creative city forum ... 42
Batik Fractal ... 47
4.2 Project results analysis ... 51
Impact on physical environment ... 51
Impact on social capital ... 55
Impact on economic values ... 59
Impact on political empowerment ... 62
Discussion ...Error! Bookmark not defined. Conclusion ...Error! Bookmark not defined. References ... 69
Appendix I: List of Creative Cities Network members ... 73
Appendix II: Project location map in Dago Pojok ... 74
Appendix III: Kampung Kreatif implementation ... 75
A
CRONYMS
3Ts Talent, Tolerance and Technolgy AAM American Architectual Foundation BCCF Bandung Creative City Forum BFC Batik Fractal Cooperative BJR Bandung Jakarta Region CCI Cultural and Creative Industry CCN Creative Cities Network CCPs Creative City Policies
ITB Bandung Institute of Technology MIT Massachusetts Institute of Technology NGOs Non Governmental Organizations KBU Government Business Funding Group PKBM Community Learning Centre
PPS Project for Public Space PPPs Public-Private-Partnerships
UNDP United Nations Development Programme
UNESCO United Nation’s Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization USCM United States Conference of Mayors
I
NTRODUCTION
1.1
U
RBAN INEQUALITY IN
B
ANDUNG
Bandung is an Indonesian city located on the west bank of Java near to the capital Jakarta. Its core population counts over 2.5 million inhabitants. Due to massive urban growth, the city is increasingly incorporating surrounding settlements, comprising a total of 4.15 million people (Widyarini Hapsariniaty et al., 2013). Like many cities nowadays, Bandung is subjected to the urban divide, which is: ”a fragmentation of society underlying to the way in which space and
opportunities are produced, appropriated, transformed and used” (UN-Habitat, 2008). Bandung’s
Gini-index of 0.52 reveals an unequal income distribution, in comparison to 0.33 in Europe. Unequal income opportunities of Bandung’s inhabitants have many different causes. Some are obvious and some are still unknown. Neoliberal urban development, mega-urbanization, the Asian crisis and political decentralization explain the underlying trends of Bandung’s urban divide.
Neoliberalism in the global South did not happen according to the growth guidelines of Northern institutions as conceived by the World Bank and United Nations. The post-colonial development state was based on the idea that the state had to play important roles in economic development and that Southern states should cooperate with each other to achieve progress of ‘underdeveloped’ countries. “The development state is a political economy that combines
elements of both market and planning to generate a more egalitarian distribution of income and wealth” (Radice, 2008). It is not before Suharto’s presidency in the late 1980s that neoliberalism
and deeper integration with global capitalism, fitting within the development state discourse, started showing results. A decline in poverty and improvements in other welfare indicators such as infant mortality rates and education became visible during this period (Booth, 2005). Such
Comment [Kv1]: Difference South &
North??
Comment [Kv2]: Meaning what?
socioeconomic developments have accelerated rural-to-urban migration in Indonesia, resulting in mega-urbanization (McGee, 1995). The Bandung Jakarta Region (BJR) counted over 32 million people in 2004 (Firman, 2009). Urban development of this region emerged in line with neoliberal strategies in which the needs of global capital have mainly defined the urban landscape. Upper and middle class new towns and emerging businesses besides infrastructural developments characterise this.
However, neoliberal urban development leads to uneven distribution of benefits in which poor communities are often completely missed out (Douglass, 2000). Neither the market nor the government have been able to provide basic needs to all the Bandung citizens. After political decentralization, local authorities gained more autonomy, which resulted in bureaucracy and corruption instead of strong implementation of development policies (Takeshi, 2006). Another factor that has triggered uneven distribution of benefits is the Asian financial crisis in the 90s. The crisis decreased the government ability to implement pro-poor policies resulting in an urban crisis (Firman, 1999). High unemployment rates, decreased government revenues, and weak spatial development planning have amplified urban poverty and thus urban inequality.
As poorer groups do not have resources or power to access formal urban development systems (registered employment and tax-paying housing), they have got trapped in informal job circuits and unattractive neighbourhoods with poor living conditions. Social exclusion and the urbanization process have led to the development of urban slums alongside railway tracks, riversides, and graveyards in Bandung. Many of these slum villages, called ‘kampungs’, lost their rural character and have transformed into poor urban areas in which government policies largely failed to meet the basic needs of its residents. Besides emerging kampungs, a growing middle class, on the other
Comment [Kv3]: What?
hand, started to segregate themselves in gated communities and new towns to avoid crime and enjoy security and convenient living conditions (Widyarini Hapsariniaty et al., 2013).
Even though the government has not succeeded in enforcing pro-poor urban planning policies, there have emerged theories to so to say “bridge the gap”. Concepts like ‘the inclusive city’ and ‘the right to the city’ aim to equalize social, economic, political, and spatial opportunities from a bottom-up perspective (UN-Habitat, 2012). A not much deliberated concept that is based on elements of the above-mentioned concepts is creative placemaking. Community empowerment is the main emphasize of this concept.
1.2
A
TIME FOR CHANGE
?
Nowadays, placemaking is a common tool for community and urban development. What began in the 1960s as a reaction against auto-centric planning and bad public spaces has expanded to the inclusion of concerns about healthy living conditions, social justice, community-capacity building and economic revitalization (Silverberg et al., 2013). Placemaking projects can differ from place to place but their general characteristic is their emphasis on creating positive change for communities through the transformation of a physical, mainly public space. David Harvey’s concept of the right to the city is a key foundation for the placemaking movement of today as well as Jane Jacob’s theories about the use of public space (Harvey, 1989; Jacobs, 1961).
The topic of this research however is creative placemaking. Creative placemaking is gaining more significance as a bottom-up development tool these days by incorporating elements of the creative economy. The case of Bandung offers an interesting opportunity for poverty reduction based on creative placemaking (UN-Habitat, 2008).
Comment [Kv4]:
Comment [Kv5]: Beetje vaag nog
Bandung’s selection in 2008 to become member in the Creative Cities Network (CCN) formed by the United Nation’s Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) stimulates its creative economy. This strategy is based on attracting creative professionals and offering education in the creative sector in order to create a vibrant and profitable creative economy. The creative economy is based on the production of ideas and the exploitation of the human mind (Hawkins, 2002). This sector currently comprises seven percent of Bandung’s GDP. Unfortunately, due to a weak socioeconomic status and a lack of opportunities (what kind of opp?), many poor communities struggle to get included into this based “creative” system. These market-based systems are exactly what Jacobs, Harvey and Lefebvre are criticising. However, creative placemaking does offer interesting opportunities to enhance the production of value and community life in poor neighbourhoods (Markusen & Gadwa, 2010).
Creative placemaking is a brand-new concept that emerged less than ten years ago. As the creative economy becomes more significant and urban inequality continues to grow, creative placemaking should be explored more. This research therefore aims to explore: how creative
placemaking in a poor Bandung neighbourhood serves as a bridge for the urban divide. This will be
explored through the following sub-questions:
1. ”Which creative placemaking projects exist in kampung Dago Pojok in Indonesia? 2. How have they been implemented?
3. Did they improve physical, social, economic and political conditions to empower the community?”
Before the results of the research are revealed and elaborated on the literature review will provide the relevant themes, concepts and critiques around the topic of creative placemaking. The theoretical framework is built up as following: the first part goes deeper into the urban divide and
Comment [Kv6]: Dit is the
rechtvaardiging van je werk: moet sterker!
Comment [Kv7]: Kromme zin
how it is visible in Bandung. This is relevant because creative placemaking derives from unequal empowerment opportunities in urban environments. The second part describes the placemaking concept in detail. Placemaking is a rather extensive concept wherefore all the relevant concepts where it is based on are given as well including their critiques. The third and last section of the framework explains the creative dimension of creative placemaking in detail and why it is relevant in today’s world. This section will emphasize why Bandung in particular is the right place for creative placemaking, according to literatures. After the literature review, the research design explains what research strategies, operationalizing and method is chosen in order to answer the research question.
Chapter 1 describes ….
Chapter 2 focuses on … blablabla. In 5 min herschreven!
T
HEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
2.1
T
HE URBAN DIVIDE
The urban divide is ”a fragmentation of society underlying to the way in which space and
opportunities are produced, appropriated, transformed and used” (UN-Habitat, 2008). The
separation of uses and degrees of prosperity are so obvious in the developing world that the middle incomes class lives in well-serviced and well-built neighbourhoods, whereas the poor are confined to inner city or peri-urban settlements and slums. As mentioned in the introduction, Bandung’s urban divide and urban crisis have several causes. This section will elaborate on one underlying cause in particular: the neoliberal urban development in the context of Indonesia.
Neoliberal urban development has a big accountability in Bandung’s urban divide due to its “survival of the fittest” character and limited success opportunities for people with informal backgrounds (Douglass, 2000). Neoliberalism has infiltrated both commercial and housing sectors. Before Bandung turned into a service city in the 90s it was well-known for its manufacturing businesses and enormous outlet stores, attracting many visitors from all over Java. However, privatization and soaring land prices have pushed manufacturing businesses to the countryside. The shift towards the service economy became visible in inner city office and commercial developments, which has limited room for local businesses (Firman, 1999). International investors took over the housing sector. This is visible in new towns and gated communities that have largely failed to serve those who are in need most. The shortage of adequate and affordable housing resulted in slum formation (Leisch, 2000). These forms of neoliberal development are mainly serving the needs of global investors who in most cases (not all) do not distribute benefits evenly among local urban communities (Harvey, 2012; Peck, 2005; Ross 2009).
The urban divide is present in every city and visible in many different domains. In economic terms, enormous income gaps are visible in Bandung (Reerink, 2006). Social inequality can be found in the numbers of school dropouts in poor communities (Anderson et al., 2010). Many cases about corruption reveal the political inequalities (Takeshi, 2006). The most visible divide within Bandung is the space divide. The space divide in the developing world is characterized by the separation of uses of urban space. Invisible and visible borders divide well-built settlements from urban slums. Gated communities, which are segregated areas where higher middle classes concentrate, emerged as a result of increased income gaps (Widyarini Hapsariniaty et al., 2013). On the other side, there is a rise of urban kampungs, which are villages that lost their rural character and developed into poor neighbourhoods in unattractive urban areas. Many kampong communities have a high incidence of crime, have deteriorated living conditions, are socially excluded from formal urban systems, and lack social interaction (UN-Habitat, 2008).
Public space is a tool to enhance social cohesion and cooperation among community members, which will become clear in the next part. However, in many poor communities public space is lacking in quantity as well as in quality. Public space in Bandung is increasingly scarce as private parties are occupying the space for commercial developments. Less public space means a decrease of Bandung’s public life and opportunities for social interaction. This resulted in an on-going negotiation between government, private enterprises, and citizens at all levels of society for the right to use that space (Conrad et al, 2008). As a reaction against the space divide, the Bandung Creative City Forum (BCCF) founded two public spaces, which aim to serve the general public and creative community: ‘Simpul space #1 and #2’ (BCCF, 2013).
2.2
B
RIDGING THE URBAN DIVIDE
-
PLACEMAKING
Academics, professionals and government officials realise that the (socioeconomic?) conditions of poor communities, even within the same city, vary much. An effective way to address poor situations in communities is to empower them. Empowerment is a process through which individuals, as well as local groups and communities, identify and shape their lives and the kind of society they live in. “Empowerment means that people are able to organize and influence change
on the basis of their access to knowledge, political processes and financial, social, and natural resources” (Slocum et al., 1995). Placemaking is a community empowering strategy based on the
joint development of urban public space. This chapter shall first describe the concept of placemaking and how it has developed overtime. It will then discuss the themes related to placemaking, involving: public space, social capital, and the participatory citizen.
P
LACEMAKINGPlacemaking emerged as a critique on the top-down approach to shape and built the urban environment and to overtake public space by private parties, which belonged to the citizens before. Lynch (1960) and Jacobs (1961) were one of the first urban sociologists that began questioning how public space was appropriated and for what purpose. Jacobs wrote: “there is a quality even meaner
than outright ugliness or disorder, and this meaner quality is the dishonest mask of pretended order, achieved by ignoring or suppressing the real order that is struggling to exist and to be served”. These
critiques emphasize the importance of community involvement in the transformations of physical space and how this can be achieved through right to transform space (Silverberg et al., 2013).
One of the first organizations engaging with place-based and community-centred approaches to urban planning is the ‘Project for Public Spaces’ (PPS), which was founded in 1975 by Fred Kent. Together with William H. Whyte, Kent worked on the ground breaking ‘Street Life Project’ in which
the real needs and aspirations of people in New York communities were first discovered. PPS was one of the first organizations to define placemaking: “placemaking is about how we collectively
shape our public realm to maximize shared value, which is rooted in community based-participation”. According to PPS, effective placemaking exploits the local community’s assets,
inspiration, and potential in order to create good public spaces that promote people’s health, happiness and well-being. (PPS, 2012)
The department of Urban Studies and Planning at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) completed an extensive research on placemaking in 2013. Placemaking evolves on different scales and through different strategies. Diverse local conditions and situations generate many approaches to implement placemaking strategies. However, all are based on the same principles: emphasizing flexibility; embracing temporariness; sharing information; and drawing on innovative sources of influence (Silverberg et al., 2013). Another emphasis is the importance of process over product. Where ‘product’ refers to the place that is being transformed, the ‘process’ is about the making the place. It is due the process that connections are built, civic engagement occurs and citizens can be empowered. The MIT research states the following: “eventual success derives from
successful social capital building, in which communities are enabled to form identities and a sense of community. This happens through the collective making of place” (Silverberg et al., 2013). Point
of critique is that, like all democratic processes, the reality is much more chaotic. Opinions clash, motives contradict, strong personalities dominate, and politics, money, or bad media stories can sidetrack the entire process. Good places still take years to become great places. Placemaking is a collective act that happens in the public space.
P
UBLIC SPACEAt its core, placemaking is a return of public space to people. Among public spaces we understand streets, sidewalks, squares, public buildings, parks, beaches, waterfronts, public markets. Lefebvre’s (1991) work on urbanisms and the creation of space argues that people have a fundamental right to the city and its public space. Why is public space so important to people? As Harvey (1989) wrote: “the right to the city is far more than the individual liberty to access urban
resources: it is a right to change ourselves by changing the city.” Moreover, Harvey refers to public
space as a common right since the transformation is based on collective power to reshape urbanization processes. Another vision on public space is Oldenburg’s (1999) concept of ‘third places’. Third places are places of social gathering and community get-togethers. According to Oldenburg, community connections and life-experience exchanges happen in urban public spaces. With regard to placemaking, social interaction often occurs in third places over the comforts of home (Mehta, 2007).Some other authors (who? Otherwhise delete sentence) refer explicitly to the enhancement of community sentiment within public space.
Carr et al., (1992) argue that public space is “the common ground where people carry out the
functional and ritual activities that bind a community”. Swanwick et al., (2003) mention how
community spirits are created through social interaction between all sectors of society. This interaction should happen on neutral, thus public ground. Rivlin (1971) stresses the symbolic interaction that residents have with the physical environment. He describes ‘place attachment’ as: “a positive affective bond or association between individuals and the environment.” The public space serves as a means for communities to attach to places and to form identities. Besides, it fosters social relations and the exchange of knowledge and experiences of community members, which nurtures social capital.
S
OCIAL CAPITALInvolvement in community life has a positive impact on the well-being of individuals and leads to community empowerment and the ability to preserve it (Ahlbrandt & Cunningham, 1979). Social capital building is the key success factor in community empowerment. It is a widely discussed concept and used in many different fields. Bourdieu (1983) gave one of the first definitions: “social
capital is the aggregate of the actual or potential resources which are linked to possession of a durable network of relationships of mutual acquaintance and recognition.” Field (2003) also
reflects on social capital theory as a relationships matter: “social networks are valuable assets that
enable people to build communities, to commit themselves to each other, and to knit the social fabric”.
The sense of belonging, trust and tolerance, he argued, brings great benefits to people. In relation to public space, Putnam’s (1993; 2000) writings are very influential. He launched social capital as a popular focus for research and policy discussion. The term is central in his arguments on the reclaim of public life by civil society. According to him, civic and personal health was at risk in North-America from decreased community activity. He describes social capital as: “the connections among individual’s social networks and the norms of reciprocity
and trustworthiness that arise from that.” Putnam (year) makes a distinction between ‘loose’
and ‘strong’ connections between people. Strong ties are connections between community members. Strong ties sustain in community sentiment and identity formation for example. A community however needs loos ties with other communities and institutions in order to enable an influx of outside sources or approvals that help communities to advance (Putnam, 2000). Placemaking cannot evolve in communities that lack connections with supporting parties such as funders, designers or government institutions (Silverberg et al., 2013). Without a favourable institutional and democratic context in which citizens are enabled to participate in transforming space, placemaking could not happen.
T
HE PARTICIPATORY CITIZENThe participatory citizen has become almost synonymous to a decreased citizen dependence on social services and other welfare arrangements (Marinetto, 2003). Participatory or active citizenship requires people to take personal responsibility for employment, health and finance for example (Borgi & Van Berkel, 2003). However also for social cohesion, safety and liveability of 15
communities, which is more relevant to placemaking (Newman & Tonkens, 2011). Governments are more and more promoting civil engagement in volunteering and community building projects (Muehlebach, 2013). However, there are some sceptics towards participation. As Twigg (2001) puts it: “the influence of participatory ideas and approaches should not be exaggerated. They
have extended their influence rapidly since the early 1980s, but the prevailing approach to development remains a top-down one”. He refers to people in power positions being reluctant to
hand over authority to the grassroots. Many organizations have called their work participatory but have not changed the substance of their approach he argues.
Community empowerment and participatory citizenship in Bandung have been enabled after decentralization of the political regime, which improved bureaucratic efficiency to enhance the quality of community life and effective citizen participation at the neighbourhood level (Takeshi, 2006). The 2003 Consultation on Planning and Development Activities have introduced higher levels of engagement in decision-making by locals and participatory planning. This means a shift from citizens making a ‘wish list’ to citizens taking action. Cooperation between civil society and the local government has become the main driver for local governance reforms. Takeshi (2006) recognizes flaws in these bottom-up mechanisms: (1) it is not clear how each citizen gets involved, (2) activities of higher levels do not always meet people’s necessities and (3) they are not always transparent and accountable.
This part of the literature review showed the importance of understanding public space, social capital and the participatory citizen in relation to placemaking. As has become clear from the above sections public space is the core of placemaking for several reasons: (1) it is the space being transformed for the advantage of the community, (2) it serves as a identity generator that the community can relate to and (3) it fosters social connections among community members. Social
connections can generate trust and reciprocity on which social capital is based. Social capital underlies to placemaking because: (1) it fosters community sentiment, which is crucial to achieve community capacity to execute placemaking projects and (2) it generates the exchange of knowledge and experience that can help in defining the community’s needs that that are addressed with placemaking. Where social capital fosters mutual relationships within a community, the participatory citizen concept shows the importance for communities to foster connections that surpass the boundaries of the community. In relation to placemaking this is important because placemaking projects involve people from different background and scales that cooperate with each other.
2.3
B
RIDGING THE URBAN DIVIDE
-
CREATIVE OPPORTUNITIES
The previous section described how placemaking involves public space, social capital and the participatory citizen. In order to create opportunities for community empowerment. Moreover, placemaking is about exploiting local resources and human capacity. According to Soemardi (2006): “It is important to understand how specific local knowledge regarding human creativity
and lived-experience from different cultural contexts can contribute to urban community life”. This
section will elaborate on Bandung’s creative city status and how this offers opportunities to include cultural and creative activities in placemaking projects in Bandung.
T
HE CREATIVE CITYMany cities in the world have adopted Creative City Policies (CCPs) to encourage economic growth based on cultural potential. UNESCO’s Creative City Network (CCN) has defined seven categories on which cities can base their CCPs: literature, film, music, crafts, design, media arts and gastronomy. Bandung is currently opting to be designated as City of Design (BCCF, 2013). Appendix I shows a list of all the designated creative cities by UNESCO (UNESCO-UNDP, 2013).
Florida (2002) was the first to write about the importance of the creative class within a city. Florida’s creative core includes: scientist, engineers, professors, poets, artists, entertainers, actors, designers and architects. These creative individuals that drive the urban economy are perceived to be highly mobile and are attracted to creative places based on: Talent, Tolerance and Technology (3T’s). Tolerance refers to openness, inclusiveness and diversity to all ethnicities; Talent is based on the number of bachelor degrees of people within a city; and Technology refers to innovation and high-technology concentrations. Successful cities score high on all three T’s (Forida, 2004). Research on Bandung as creative city has shown the presence of Talent. More than 70% of Bandung’s population is below the age of 30 and they are provided with a good creative
infrastructure. The city counts over 40 universities that teach various creative courses (Anderson et al., 2010). Tolerance is applicable as historically Bandung is a very mixed social and ethnic city that lived together for over hundreds of years. Technology is the least present because all the knowledge-intensive businesses concentrate in nearby Jakarta, which serves as the business and financial hart of the country (BCCF, 2013).
The creative city concept as it has been presented by Florida has many critiques. Jamie Peck (2005) for example argues that: “stratification and displacement are intrinsic to the creative city as the
interests of certain residents and city parts are being advanced over others”. Public and private
funds flow into certain areas in which a talented minority commands huge premiums, while others get stuck in unstable labour markets and low-end service jobs. Dolowitz (2003) and Harvey (1989) pointed to the failure of policy transfers from the Western world to developing countries. Uninformed, incomplete and inappropriate transfers are the basis for policy transfer failures. As a result, Bandung citizens, professionals, creative people and government officials have diverging ways to describe the aim of the Bandung CCPs, which have been adopted since 2008. Soemardi (2006), for example, adds the need for better understanding on how local knowledge of creative communities in developing countries, particularly the informal sector, contributes to the continuing discourse of community-based creative cities.
Bandung got involved with creative city strategies in several ways. After Bandung got selected to become a creative city by UNESCO in 2008 it was recognized for two things: (1) as a creative hub that promotes socio-economic and cultural development and (2) as a socio-cultural cluster that connects socio-culturally diverse communities to create healthy urban environments. Besides that the British Council selected Bandung as the research site for a three-year pilot project on creative cities in Asia and it has been named as the home of Indonesia’s Young Entrepreneurs twice
(Anderson et al., 2010). The Indonesian government identified the following 15 cultural sectors since then: advertising, architecture, art markets, handicraft, design, fashion, visual industry, interactive games, music, performance art, print publishing, software, radio & television, research & development and the culinary industry (Kelompok Kerja Indonesia Design Power, 2008).
The Cultural and Creative Industry (CCI) in Bandung has been present for a long time. However, since the political decentralization, creative industries have been triggering a new wave of cultural movements with the collaboration of artists, the local government and international agencies. An example of this is the founding of the Bandung Creative City Forum (BCCF) in December of 2008. This cross-community and cross-profession independent organization and platform provides the larger (creative) community of Bandung with an educational approach towards creativity, planning and city infrastructure improvements. It is aiming to support the development of the creative economy by empowering creative entrepreneurs as well as communities as a whole. The ‘Helar Festival’ is one example of this. This annual event incorporates 15 creative industries celebrates the cultural and creative economy in the region, while knowledge and experience about cultural and creative activities is being shared among people (Aritenang, 2012).
D
IFFERENT PERSPECTIVESAnderson et al. (2010) explored different viewpoints of people on what role the CCPs in Bandung have. The authors came up with four diverging visions including critiques. Most government officials and some creative professionals see the creative policies as a way to create a regional creative centre and a hub of creative minds. The promotion of great architecture and design to attract creative workers fits in this perspective. This vision is most in line with Florida’s theory and, thus, criticizes that certain creative groups are excluded from participating.
Others saw the primary focus of the creative city policies as a tool for addressing the loss of textile manufacturing jobs in Bandung. In other words: as a strategy to encourage economic development and increase employment, especially in the T-shirt production. This vision of creative policies is most similar to other cities in developing economies. A critique on this vision is the failure to examine the economic impacts on the informal industries. The economic benefits for kampung dwellers are ignored in this vision. Only via trickle-down impacts, such as the improvement of public space, the poor communities are reached.
Again others viewed creative city policies as a tool for assisting local grassroots artists. While artists require little direct support from the government and are happy to work with ‘Do It Yourself’ philosophies, they felt the creative community would be more productive by providing certain resources. For example, empowering communities via upgrading public space but also by guaranteeing freedom of expression. Critique on the grassroots vision is that many underground creative groups do not have the desire in the first place to be incorporated into CCPs. They prefer to focus on social networking as a tool for creativity and innovation.
The last vision is based on city building. To some, creativity was primarily a tool for achieving broader city development aims in which creativity enables innovative ways to solve a broad range of urban problems. Besides increasing employment, strategies to improve public spaces in kampungs are also part of this. Critiques on this vision are mainly referring to other social problems within the city that are more important to address. People complained about financial security, the lack of public spaces and a lack in knowledge transfer to foster creative innovation.
C
REATIVE PLACEMAKINGAs discussed in the previous section, the role of creativity in urban development and city policies is contested. Nevertheless, one cannot deny culture that has become an important driving force in today’s economy wherefore it is being adopted in many city strategies (Kooiman & Vliet, 2000). Landry (2003) argues that cities are changing dramatically in ways that require a paradigm shift to solve urban problems. Human creativity has become a major urban resource, which can address urban problems while creating liveable, vibrant and attractive cities. A growing body of evidence indicates that fostering cultural and creative activity is an essential strategy in building quality of place, maximizing talent, enhancing sustainability and defining competitiveness in the knowledge economy. Creative placemaking is the tool to realise creative potential in economic and social benefits for the community.
Markusen and Gadwa (2010) worked together on the ‘creative placemaking paper’ for the United States Conference of Mayors (USCM) and the American Architectural Foundation (AAM). They defined creative placemaking as follows: “it is an evolving field of practice that intentionally
leverages the power of the arts, culture and creativity to serve a community’s interest while driving a broader agenda for change, growth and transformation in a way that also builds character and quality of place”. According to them, the involvement of the creative economy generates: (1) more
local expenditures, (2) less vacant and unutilized land, (3) higher local taxes that improve maintenance and (4) it nurtures the self-employment of artists. Bandung’s culture of everyday urbanisms provides the right context for creative placemaking on a community level. Bandung’s urbanisms are characterized by public spaces turned into ‘urban living rooms’ that foster activities for the wider community such as festivals, street markets, open-air cinemas and outdoor workshop (Soemardi and Damajani, 2008).
Comment [Kv8]: Herschrijf
Bandung’s government adopted CCPs as a means to evolve as a creative city. This part of the literature review has shown that the creative city topic is enormously broad involving different definitions, many critiques and institutions implementing the concepts in practice in different ways. Fact is that the influence of creativity and culture as a means to trigger the economy is gaining significance today (see appendix II). The different views on the concept show how this topic does not pursue a one-fits-all approach, which is where creative placemaking taps into the story. Creative placemaking has the power to define specific local cultural and creative opportunities while turning these into benefits for the community. Through the transformation of space and community involvement, both the economic needs and social goals are included.
R
ESEARCH DESIGN
The research question: ”which creative placemaking projects exist in kampung Dago Pojok in
Indonesia? How have they been implemented? Did they improve physical, social, economic and political conditions to empower the community?” This research is a combination of an exploratory
and descriptive case study. The scope of the case study is defined by the boundaries of kampung Dago Pojok (see appendix II). Dago Pojok has been the first community in Bandung where creative placemaking projects have been implemented according to specific local traits (BCCF, 2013). The scale of this research is the community level because issues are being addressed at the neighbourhood scale.
A case study according to Yin (2003) applies when the impact of a phenomenon, in this case creative placemaking, is being influenced by contextual conditions, which are bounded to the Dago Pojok community. Silverberg et al., (2013) agree on how different local conditions request appropriate strategies to tackle various problems that fit the neighbourhood’s characteristics. The first question is based on exploratory research methods and the second and third question are based on descriptive methods. The overarching theme of this research, which is creative placemaking in Dago Pojok, is highly underexposed in academic literatures. Therefore, an explanatory approach is avoided due to a lack of available data on the topic limits the opportunity to reveal causality.
The analysis of this research is structured as following. The first part deals with the first two questions. It explores which projects have been implemented and by whom. Then, a description of the implementation of creative community projects will be given. The second part of the analysis deals with the third question and defines what specific physical, social, economic and political
conditions the projects have created for the empowerment of the community. The second and third questions are both analysed trough pre-defined models. The part of the analysis that deals with the second question is grounded on the “structuring creative placemaking implementation model”, which is based on a combination of Silverberg et al. their (2013) “virtuous cycle on placemaking” and the “creative placemaking facets” as conceived by DeNatale & Wassel (2007). The part that deals with the third question is structured according to different pre-defined indicators of (1) use and activity of public space, (2) social capital and (3) economic impact as defined by MIT research on placemaking (Silverberg et al., 2013). Indicators of the fourth outcome category, (4) political empowerment, are based on Hingor’s (2010) research on “participation in placemaking”.
The relevance of this research comes to light when tapping into the global problem of urban slum formation (Hingor, 2010). Among other factors, rapid urbanisation together with a decreased ability of authorities to address the needs of the entire population calls for more self-reliance of the individual and, where possible, the community. Creative placemaking gains more significance as a bottom-up, community approach to better people’s standard of living and avoid further deterioration of living conditions (Markusen & Gadwa, 2010). The creative aspect of placemaking is relevant for two reasons. First, cultural and creative industries, which are one of the three main aspects of creative placemaking, encourage the emergence of new types of economic activity in declining local economies. Second, through the creation of sustainable jobs and the making of more attractive city neighbourhoods, creative placemaking becomes a means to serve social and territorial cohesion, which is lacking in many city neighbourhoods across the globe (Inteli, 2011).
3.1
S
TRUCTURING CREATIVE PLACEMAKING IMPLEMENTATION
P
LACEMAKING STRATEGIESThere are several strategies to implement placemaking. Distinction can be made between short- and long-term placemaking. Short-tem placemaking has a short implementation period but its long-term effects on the community can still be significant. Investments are less high and the results can be quickly derived, which boost the community sentiment. Examples of short-term placemaking projects are community cleans ups, painting and decorating of public space and simple events such as fairs or street markets. In most cases short-term events are being followed-up by long-term events. (PPS, 2012)
Long-term strategies aim to increate long-term values within the community. It is the continuing making of place according to an iterative process. Steps of the program, which will be discussed in the next section, are being repeated continuously during long-term placemaking. It is important to reflect on programs to assure long-term results. Long-term strategies are a tool to trigger longer engagement of the community to the project. However, it can sometimes be challenging to keep the community enthusiastic. Examples are: parks, community centres, flex-work spaces, workshops, libraries, event spaces etc. Besides short- and long-term projects several other strategies can be distinguished. (PPS, 2012)
Some communities choose to implement cultural and creative activities when executing placemaking programs. Several authors refer to this as ‘creative placemaking’ (Markusen & Gadwa, 2010). Creative placemaking exists through combining the creative economy with placemaking. Figure 3.1.1 shows how the facets of placemaking (people, organizations, and places) relate to creative workers, creative industries, and creative communities: a creative dimension is being added to ‘standard’ placemaking. Creative workers refer to individual workers active in
(creative) industries that involve creative skills. Creative and cultural industries are those employing high concentrations of artists in their workforce. The creative community is linked to space. It refers to the spatial setting for art and cultural production and consumption such as: creative infrastructure, forums, and services. (Markusen & Gadwa, 2010)
Figure 3.1.1: Facets of creative placemaking (Source: DeNatale & Wassell, 2007)
Event-based placemaking is another placemaking strategy, focusing on single events. These events can range from very small events, such as book markets or open-air cinema, to bigger events, such as yearly music and food festivals. Community design for large products is a placemaking strategy that focuses on big projects, such as the development of parks and squares. This strategy includes the local community in the designing phase (Silverberg et al., 2013). A final note regarding the implementation of strategies: several strategies can be implemented simultaneously and more activities can happen at the same time depending on the scope and range of the projects.
27 People (creative workers) Businesses, organizations and entrepreneurs (cultural industries) Places (creative communities)
DIFFERENT TASKS
Placemaking has been implemented in many different places across the world using different tools, actors and strategies. These strategies resulted in many different, yet successful outcomes. The MIT department of Urban Planning and Urban Studies has put effort in designing a single model that encompasses the primary entry points into placemaking projects, which is very helpful to apply on other cases too. This model is derived from thirteen diverging case studies. The entry points, simply referred to as tasks, vary among different projects depending on contextual conditions, resources available and strategies applied. The entry points, which could be occupied by the same actor too, normally encompass: organizing, programming & budgeting; designing; funding; hosting of stakeholder events; promoting; monitoring & evaluating; and maintaining. (Silverberg et al., 2013)
(i) Organizing, programming, and budgeting are the core tasks in placemaking as they encompass the whole initiation of the project. Tasks that the local government is unable to achieve are being taken over by the community, which are determined by the organizing team. Furthermore, the situation of a community is being mapped, potential sites to improve are pointed out, the right actors are brought together and a budgeting plan is developed.
(ii) The designing is the detailed development plan of the project. The designing team decides with what means to execute plans and improve space. Several short- and long-term strategies and activities are being developed and final decisions are made regarding project sites.
(iii) Funding is another entry point into placemaking projects. Especially long-term project implementations need funding in order to survive. The amount of required funding varies depending on the costs of the planned activities and physical developments.
(iv) Hosting of stakeholder events should not be confused with the organizing phase of the projects. Once the placemaking project has been set up, stakeholders should meet to assure the execution of plans or share knowledge about progress.
(v) Promotion is of great importance for the success of placemaking projects. By promoting all the different placemaking activities, projects can achieve more community capacity (people that support the project). Promotion can happen offline via posters, pamphlets, newspapers and word of mouth as well as online via websites, blogs and social media. (vi) Monitoring & evaluation of the project is vital to achieve long-term viability. By assessing
program outcomes the success of the project can be determined. This enables thoughtful decision-making regarding future continuation of the project.
(vii) Maintaining the project is an underrated task, while it is very important to achieve the iterative character of placemaking. Without keeping the public space into good condition and the planning and organizing of new and upcoming events it is likely that the community’s will to participate will stagnate. (Silverberg et al., 2013; PPS, 2012)
S
UPPORTING FACTORS AND ACTORSBesides strategies and task, placemaking implementation also requires some supporting factors to be filled up in order to achieve successful results. These factors and actors include: institutional approval, PPPs, leadership, community capacity and supporting organizations. In all cases, the community must be actively involved as a maker. However, supporting activities can differ from case to case. All strategies, tasks and supporting tasks are mapped below in table 3.1.1.
Table 3.1.1: Structuring placemaking implementation
Placemaking model
Strategies 1. Rapid placemaking
2. Long-term placemaking 3. Cultural and creative activities
involvement
4. Event-based placemaking
Tasks 1. Organizing, programming & budgeting
2. Designing 3. Funding
4. Stakeholder events 5. Implementing & operating 6. Promotion
7. Monitoring & evaluating 8. Maintaining
Supporting factors/actors 1. Institutional approval 2. Public-Private-Partnerships 3. Community capacity 4. Supporting organizations 5. Leadership
Source: Silverberg et al., 2013; deNatale & Wassel, 2007
3.2
S
TRUCTURING PROGRAM OUTCOMES
Besides the different strategies, tasks and supporting activities that are needed to implement creative placemaking, the outcome of the program is what placemaking is all about. This research grounds in theories that are stating that community empowerment can happen through the physical change of public space. This research is aiming to assess the effects of several creative placemaking projects in kampung Dago Pojok. The change of public space and community empowerment are the main outcomes of program implementation. These outcomes have a symbiotic relationship in which they enhance each other (figure 3.2.1). This section defines the indicators for creative placemaking outcomes in Dago Pojok. Table 3.2.1 at the end of this section gives an overview of all program outcomes and their indicators.
Figure 3.2.1: Symbiotic relationship between community empowerment and physical change of space (Source: Silverberg et al., 2013; Hingor, 2010)
Creative placemaking Physical change of space Communit y empowerm ent Community empowerment Social capital building Increase economic value Increase political particpation 31
The first outcome of placemaking is the improvement of physical space. Assuming that the few accessible public spaces in the Dago Pojok community used to be qualitatively poor and desolated this research maps the change of public space according to use and activity of public space (Prasetyo & Martin-Iverson, 2013). Indicators of ‘use and activity’ used in this research are: (1) functions, (2) usage and (3) condition of the project site (Silverberg et al., 2013). A better mix of functions increases the usage and thus livelihood of a place (Jacobs, 1961). On the other hand, better conditions of the environment can also trigger more functions (Silverberg et al., 2013).
The next outcome of creative placemaking in Dago Pojok is social empowerment, which is most significant in relation to placemaking theories (Silverberg et al., 2013; Markusen & Gadwa, 2010). Social capital is often used as social empowerment tool (Bourdieu, 1988; Putnam, 2000). Boeck et al., (2009) distinct between two types of social capital relevant for this research: ‘Bonding’ and ‘Bridging’ social capital. Bonding social capital relates to enhancing relationships between friends, family and peer groups. This can be achieved through community socializing activities and social networks. ‘Bridging’ social capital is about creating links with people outside immediate circles. This can happen through stakeholder events and cross-community socializing. The indicators used to map social capital as outcome from creative placemaking in Dago Pojok is therefore: (1) number of stakeholders involved, (2) number of stakeholder events, (3) community socializing, (4) cross-community socializing, (5) volunteerism and (6) online socializing. (Silverberg et al., 2013; Boeck et al., 2009)
Economic empowerment of the community in the light of creative placemaking is mapped according to changing values in the creative economy of the neighbourhood. Creative placemaking generates economic returns on cultural products through the involvement of creative people, businesses and places (DeNatale & Wassel, 2007). Indicators for changing economic values used in this research are therefore: (1) number of creative businesses or value generating activities, (2) number of new creative workers and (3) increase in land value.
Political empowerment in light of this research refers to how creative placemaking is fostering community participation in neighbourhood development and decision-making. Arnstein (1969) defines the degree of citizen participation according to three categories. The lowest category ‘non-participation’ is visible when those who have power manipulate those that don’t for their own gain. The middle category is called ‘tokenism’. Tokenism applies when the community does have the ability to be heard but there is no guarantee that the institution in power will be careful with this as they have the ultimate right to decide. The highest category is ‘citizen power’, that is explained as real and meaningful participation where the community has a much bigger opportunity to make decisions concerning their future. Partnerships between communities and public parties are a form of citizen power. Indicators for political empowerment used in this research are therefore: (1) citizen participation, (2) number of PPPs, and (3) political expression and social critique. This last category is defines whether the community is resisting against current power relations. All the indicators are displayed in the table below.
Table 3.2.1: Placemaking outcome indicators
Category Indicators
Improvement of physical environment Physical space:
Use & activity 1. Function of space or building 2. Usage of space or building 3. Conditions of space or building Community empowerment
Social empowerment:
Social capital 1. Stakeholders involved 2. Number of stakeholder events 3. Community socializing 4. Cross-community socializing 5. Rates of volunteerism 6. Social Network mapping Economic empowerment:
Changing economic values 1. Number of creative businesses or value generating activities 2. Number of creative workers
3. Property value Political empowerment:
Citizen participation 1. Political participation 2. Public – private partnerships 3. Political expression/social critique Source: Silverberg et al., 2013; Hingor, 2010
3.3
D
ATA COLLECTION
Table 3.1.1 and 3.2.1 are the backbone of this research, which means all data is structured and analysed according to these tables. Different sources are accessed to collect data to enhance the credibility of this case study. Documentation, literatures, interviews and physical artefacts such as pictures are the central data sources of this research. Normally, participant-observation techniques would suit a case study better in order to collect primary data. However, due to the lack of proximity, this research is limited to a desk research supplemented with one in-depth interview and 5 semi-structured interviews that have been conducted online. The data collection happened in three phases within a time span of three months (April – June 2014). The first phase was based on a desk-research devoted to collecting as much online information about the
organizations behind the creative projects in Dago Pojok. The BCCF database, some academic literature and several social network pages have assisted in defining what organizations and projects to address in the research. The second phase was finding the right people to interview. Interviewees have been approached according to a “snowball technique” (Bryman, 2004). After contacting Bandung Institute of Technology (ITB) and the Arte-polis conference board it was possible to get in touch with the following persons: a professor from the urban development and policy department; a professor from the industrial design departments; a project leader of Dago Pojok’s creative projects; the secretary of the BCCF; and two initiators of the Batik Fractal community program set up in Dago Pojok. Four semi-structured interviews were conducted in this phase to gain knowledge about project implementations and program effects of Komunitas Taboo and Batik Fractal. The last phase of the data collection resulted in the only in-depth interview that I have been able to arrange. This interview with the secretary of BCCF and industrial design lecturer at ITB was conducted in the Netherlands and enabled me to tie the story together and fill up empty spots. During this phase I also got in touch with a professional photographer that I encountered online. He provided me with the imagery of creative projects in kampung Dago Pojok. The photographer, that coincidently is a friend of the project leader has been active himself in several creative events in Dago Pojok wherefore a fifth semi-structured interview could be conducted. The list of interviewees is given below:
1. Rahmat Jabaril Project leader of Komunitas Taboo
2. Dr. Frans Prasetyo Department of regional and city planning at ITB 3. Dr. Tita Larasati Lecturer at ITB design department
Chairman of secretary of BCCF
4. Nancy Margried Initiator community program Batik Fractal 5. Muhammad Lukman Initiator community program Batik Fractal 6. Ikhlasul Amal Dago Pojok photographer
F
INDINGS
&
RESULTS
This chapter clarifies whether creative developments in Dago Pojok fit within the creative placemaking framework. Before the analysis, some background information about Dago Pojok is given. The analysis itself is divided over two sections. Section 4.2 first explores the organizations behind the project implementation before it elaborates on the project implementations according to table 3.1.1 “structuring placemaking implementations”. The analysis describes what strategies are used, what tasks are occupied and what supporting actors are involved to achieve community empowerment goals. Section 4.3 describes the program outcomes. In what physical, social, economic and political conditions have the project implementations resulted? These outcomes are analysed according to table 3.2.1 “placemaking outcome indicators”? The last sections of part 4.2 and 4.3 give a concise reflection on the findings. A final note regarding the analysis, parts from the interviews are quoted with number ranging from [1] to [6]. These numbers refer to the people listed on the previous page (page 35).
4.1
K
AMPUNG
D
AGO
P
OJOK
Kampung Dago Pojok is located in the north of Bandung within the Dago area of Bandung. The Dago area has a long history as an important hub for commerce, socializing and as transport route. During colonial times the area along ‘Dagostraat’ became resided by Dutch elites, which is still visible in the rows of Dutch colonial style heritage buildings. However, through the 19th and 20th
centuries, Dago became increasingly urbanized resulting in a mixture of different residential settlements defined by the socioeconomic status of its inhabitants and rural-urban characteristics (Sumardjo, 2012). Kampung Dago Pojok is located within the administrative zone RW 03, which houses 1512 residents within an area of 30 hectares. Appendix II shows kampung Dago Pojok
within its wider area. The wider Dago area has become an important site for rockers, punks and other youth in favour of alternative lifestyles (Prasetyo & Martin-Iverson, 2013). Furthermore it is well known for its cultural and artistic activities, which have contributed to Bandung’s creative city status. However, most kampung residents were not actively engaged with these developments until recently various organizations have started putting effort in engaging local communities within the creative economy. Residents of Dago Pojok rely on low incomes mostly derived from informal and insecure labour. Their access to education, employment opportunities, public service and modern consumption is rather poor (Prasetyo & Martin-Iverson, 2013). The Dago Pojok community can be considered a social transition between traditional and modern societies. Due to its rural characteristics, the area is full of potential in terms of traditional cultural exploitation. Especially the incorporation into the urban fabric of Bandung offers potential to exploit local culture and generate economic value.
4.2
P
ROJECT ANALYSIS
It came about that one independent organization has been a big driving force behind the initiation of the projects. However, more organizations have played significant roles in the Dago Pojok transformation, which refers to: “the community-driven cultural and creative developments that
aim to sustain and empower the Dago Pojok community” [1]. Table 4.2.1 shows a timeline of the
involved organizations and their initiated projects that are being discussed in this research. The organizations behind the discussed projects are Komunitas Taboo, BCCF and Batik Fractal. As said before this analysis is structured according table 3.1.1. Strategies that are being discussed are long-term, short-term, creative and event-based placemaking. The task that need to be filled up according to placemaking implementation theory are: organizing, programming & budgeting, designing, funding, stakeholder & community events, promotion, implementation & operating, monitoring & evaluating, maintaining. The supporting factors that will be elaborated on are: institutional approval, PPPs, community capacity, supporting organizations and leadership.
Table 4.2.1: project timeline
< 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Komunitas Taboo
Community learning centre
Lomba mural
Dago Tea House Independence
fest
Bandung creative city forum
Kampung Kreatif project KKF* KKF
Helarfest H’fest Helarfest
Batik Fractal
Batik Fractal workshop Batik Mini *kampung kreatif fest
K
OMUNITAST
ABOOKomunitas Taboo is the big initiator of Dago Pojok’s transformation according to respondents [1], [2] and [3]. This initial art collective was set up in 2003 as a response to the exclusion of local residents from the tourist and commercial developments of the Dago area (Prasetyo & Martin-Iverson, 2013). An informal agreement was established with the local government that allowed Komunitas Taboo to set up cultural and creative activities with local residents. “The program
snowballed and resulted in the growth of the Komunitas Taboo arts collective” [2]. The
organization seeks to avoid social exclusion from Bandung’s formal creative urban developments by adopting a more democratic and grassroots approach to creative urban development. As will become clear from the initiated projects, Komunitas Taboo mainly tries to achieve this through community art programs, education, activist programs and creative events. Besides, it is building public awareness of the potential that poor Bandung neighbourhoods have in exploiting local culture and the local economy. “Through the right support the kampung is being turned into a
space for educational, cultural and economic activities over which the local community is developing independent consciousness” [1]. The following projects have aimed to realize this:
centre for community learning (PKBM), lomba mural and Dago Tea House.
PKBM is the centre for community learning, which has been recognized by the government in 2009 as a community education institution. According to respondent [2]: “the formal recognition
stimulates students to participate”. In the program art education is being conceived alongside with
reading and writing in order to stimulate children and students and to make learning more fun. The less formal activities include the more creative and cultural activities of the centre such as: jewellery craft workshops, female puppet shows but also workshops on marketing of art and craft products. The PKBM can be perceived both as short and long-term placemaking. The community centre itself is a long-term initiative and is growing every year. More students and volunteers are
attracted to become part of the projects aiming to sustain the future of the local community. The workshops bring different stakeholders together over a longer period of time. Komunitas Taboo for example gives a workshop that engages the local community with traditional instruments such as calung, gamelan and drums while helping them to do a ceremonial performance. The second project of Komunitas Taboo’s, which is one of the most significant projects, is the lomba mural. Lomba mural is the complete transformation of the physical environment of Dago Pojok through wall paintings (see figures 4.2.6 – 4.2.16). It is perceived to be a short-term strategy, according to Silverberg et al. (2013), as the process that brings people together in the making process is finished. “Nevertheless, the project still has positive influence on the desirability of the place” [1]. On top of that the paintings have formed Dago Pojok’s identity as Kampung Mural (BCCF, 2013). The third project discussed is Dago Tea House. Dago Tea House is a great example of creative placemaking. It is an existing space in Dago Pojok that is being used as exhibition space, community centre and festival site by Komunitas Taboo. “Every week different artisans from the
community and wider Bandung get the chance to exhibit their art works in the Tea House and its surrounding garden” [1]. Besides, Indonesian dishes according to typical local recipes are being
served in Dago Tea House restaurant. It shows how all three facets of creative placemaking are combined according to figure 3.1.1. Dago Tea House is offering a creative space for diverging creative activities attracting people from all over Bandung; creative workers are present on the site to run the projects and show their art works; and the running restaurant and the exhibition hall are examples of value generating creative businesses. Bandung is one a few that has added culinary activities to the creative businesses list because: “food in Bandung is very often used to
express local culture” [1].
Successful placemaking asks for a good coordination of tasks and responsibilities that come along with implementing projects (see table 3.1.1). Komunitas Taboo fills up most tasks itself, which is not surprising considering the size and scope of the organization. The organising task mainly concerns organizing all that needs to be done in order to implement & operate the projects. Komunitas Taboo decides on the goals of the projects and how they should be achieved. All the additional tasks are being designated during the organization and programming of the project. The design tasks more or less refers to what strategy is being used to achieve the goals. Komunitas Taboo clearly decided to use different ways to engage the community in exploiting local culture. Workshops, events and festivals are the main strategies that are being used to promote the exploitation of local culture. According to respondent [1] most projects are funded with help from the government. The government Business Study Group (KBU) has mainly funded the PKBM project [2]. Stakeholder events incudes brining together all involved parties before the implementation & operation starts. No data is available on this matter. However, once a month there is a reflection meeting with the government but without community members. Community members, volunteering students, artists and project leaders contribute to the implementation of the projects. Then projects and project results need to be promoted and communicated to the neighbourhood. Via social media, pamphlets and posters and BCCF advertisement efforts the community is being kept up-to-date. “Good promotion makes communities more flexible to initiate
plans and continue to explore more possibilities” [1]. The significance of Dago Pojok as well-known
creative site within Bandung has been promoted through formal and informal publications and word of mouth among journalists, academics, students and locals (Prasetyo & Martin-Iverson, 2013). The monitoring & evaluation of the project happens once a month during a reflection meeting with project leaders and the local government. The implementers use outcomes from the monthly meetings to maintain the project.
