changed to various residential types. The kampung in the 1930s currently comprises
50% urban village type and 10% rural type and a total of 60%. Hence, we assume
that more than half of the colonial kampungs continue to exist as
kampungs. Contrastingly, approximately 40% of all the kampungs seem to have
been altered into a different residential type or developed into nonresidential facilities. Figure 4.10 illustrates the kampung’s continuity in the colonial period; the left
panel depicts the distribution of colonial kampungs, and the right shows the
kampungs that persisted as the urban village or rural types. In comparison, a
significant disappearance of the kampung is observed only in the circled area
(Fig. 4.10a), which is called the Golden Triangle; this area was developed as a
financial office center during the Suharto regime during the 1970s–1990s. This
development probably caused the removal of kampungs. Apart from this area,
there is no area where kampungs have disappeared in large numbers, and it can be
said that the spatial structure of the kampung during the colonial period has been
relatively well inherited over the years. Thus, a comparison of the classification of
residential areas and the past land-use pattern clarifies that the residential landscape
of megacity Jakarta has been established within a strong continuity with the spatial
structure of the colonial period.
4.5 Discussions
By applying the classification method, we identified four residential types: urban
village, rural, regular form, and high-rise types and depicted their distribution in the
Jakarta Metropolitan area (Fig. 4.5 and 4.7). Comparing the proportions of the four
types in each municipality, we can recognize their differences. For example, the
proportion of regular form type is higher in DKI Jakarta and western municipalities
Fig. 4.10 Kampung in the 1930s (a) and an area that remained an urban village type or rural type in
2010 (b)
4 Diversity and Historical Continuity of the Residential Landscape of a. . .
61
50% urban village type and 10% rural type and a total of 60%. Hence, we assume
that more than half of the colonial kampungs continue to exist as
kampungs. Contrastingly, approximately 40% of all the kampungs seem to have
been altered into a different residential type or developed into nonresidential facilities. Figure 4.10 illustrates the kampung’s continuity in the colonial period; the left
panel depicts the distribution of colonial kampungs, and the right shows the
kampungs that persisted as the urban village or rural types. In comparison, a
significant disappearance of the kampung is observed only in the circled area
(Fig. 4.10a), which is called the Golden Triangle; this area was developed as a
financial office center during the Suharto regime during the 1970s–1990s. This
development probably caused the removal of kampungs. Apart from this area,
there is no area where kampungs have disappeared in large numbers, and it can be
said that the spatial structure of the kampung during the colonial period has been
relatively well inherited over the years. Thus, a comparison of the classification of
residential areas and the past land-use pattern clarifies that the residential landscape
of megacity Jakarta has been established within a strong continuity with the spatial
structure of the colonial period.
4.5 Discussions
By applying the classification method, we identified four residential types: urban
village, rural, regular form, and high-rise types and depicted their distribution in the
Jakarta Metropolitan area (Fig. 4.5 and 4.7). Comparing the proportions of the four
types in each municipality, we can recognize their differences. For example, the
proportion of regular form type is higher in DKI Jakarta and western municipalities
Fig. 4.10 Kampung in the 1930s (a) and an area that remained an urban village type or rural type in
2010 (b)
4 Diversity and Historical Continuity of the Residential Landscape of a. . .
61