Download - Environment and Urbanization Asia 2013 Prayoga 57 71

http://eua.sagepub.com/Environment and Urbanization Asia

http://eua.sagepub.com/content/4/1/57The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/1103308813478606

2013 4: 57Environment and Urbanization AsiaI Nyoman Tri Prayoga, Landung Esariti and Diah Intan Kusumo Dewi

The Identification of Early Gentrification in Tembalang Area, Semarang, Indonesia

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

National Institute of Urban Affairs

can be found at:Environment and Urbanization AsiaAdditional services and information for

http://eua.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://eua.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://eua.sagepub.com/content/4/1/57.refs.htmlCitations:

What is This?

- Jun 26, 2013Version of Record >>

at Universitas Diponegoro PARENT on November 17, 2013eua.sagepub.comDownloaded from at Universitas Diponegoro PARENT on November 17, 2013eua.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://eua.sagepub.com/


http://eua.sagepub.com/content/4/1/57

http://eua.sagepub.com/content/4/1/57



http://www.niua.org/

http://www.niua.org/

http://eua.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://eua.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://eua.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://eua.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

http://eua.sagepub.com/content/4/1/57.refs.html

http://eua.sagepub.com/content/4/1/57.refs.html

http://eua.sagepub.com/content/4/1/57.full.pdf

http://eua.sagepub.com/content/4/1/57.full.pdf

http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtml

http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtml





The Identification of Early Gentrification in Tembalang Area, Semarang, Indonesia

I Nyoman Tri Prayoga, Landung Esariti and Diah Intan Kusumo Dewi

AbstractThe authors study the effect of development in Tembalang post relocation of the Diponegoro University in 1995, and establish that social, economic and physical changes occurring demonstrate establishment of gentrification in the city. The study also assesses the effect of gentrification. The study uses quantitative and qualitative methods, applied on 130 dwellers as sample unit, and utilizes Discriminant Analysis to clas-sify the gentrification characteristic, both using questionnaire and observation. The authors conclude that development in Tembalang demonstrates gentrification that is identified based on social change, changes in population, tendency of segregation, and area’s revitalization. Socially, gentrification has made Tembalang become more crowded; differences in dweller’s behaviour of home rented-newcomers and homeowner-newcomer and declining level of morality in Tembalang’s youth are also studied. Economically, effects of gentrification is demonstrated in over 65% population as economic condition have improved due to increase of business opportunities, rapid growth in trade and service activities in the main street cor-ridors. The authors also show that gentrification leads to increased congestion and increased criminal activities. Physically, gentrification has decreased available green space although improvement in aesthetics in terms of architecture, cleanliness, and building permanency are observed. Disparity in infrastructure services distribution is also observed on account of gentrification.

1995 Diponegoro Tembalang

130

Tembalang

Tembalang Tembalang

65

KeywordsGentrification, neighbourhood’s revitalization, settlement, suburban

Introduction

Gentrification is a phenomenon of the shifting population of a region to another region and of a pressure to improve environmental quality in the local area (Clerval, 2006). Though, it has not been widely

Article

Environment and Urbanization ASiA 4(1) 57–71

© 2013 National institute of Urban Affairs (NiUA)

SAGE PublicationsLos Angeles, London,

New Delhi, Singapore, Washington DC

DOi: 10.1177/1103308813478606http://eua.sagepub.com

at Universitas Diponegoro PARENT on November 17, 2013eua.sagepub.comDownloaded from



58 I Nyoman Tri Prayoga, Landung Esariti and Diah Intan Kusumo Dewi

Environment and Urbanization AsIA, 4, 1 (2013): 57–71

investigated in Indonesia, but the term gentrification has been common since the 1970s. Ruth (1963, in Sabri, 2008) defines gentrification as an entry process when an upper secondary population expands into areas inhabited by the lower middle. A similar opinion was expressed by Johnston (1981) that gentrifica-tion is a slum take-over process by people who are more capable and transform the region into areas of higher value and cause changes in social status. This opinion is supported by Webster (in Sabri, 2008) that, gentrification is an improvement process that accompanies the entry area of the upper middle to a deteriorated region and often causes the release of poorer residents. Gentrification is still a controversial case seen from the positive and negative impacts. It is argued that gentrification can occur naturally or self-related processes that occur naturally in the community, but gentrification may also occur as a delib-erate political measure or regulation of the government to improve the quality of an area.

Furthermore, Warde (in Smith, 2002) also pointed out that gentrification is an inhabitant process with richer people replacing the original population, creating new patterns of social segregation. Gentrification creates the transformation of buildings and environments that enhance the aesthetics and function called a region or revitalization. Smith (2002) reconfirmed this based on his research; gentrification is not limited to occur only in the city centres, but the suburbs as well. In addition, Smith stated that the key point of gentrification is the change in the population area. Gentrification may provide benefits on a home or land owners through increased property values (Smith, 1979; Hammel, 1999). Following are the positive opinions mentioned about an advantage of the gentrification. That gentrification is considered to decrease the concentration of poverty of an area, decrease crime, increase property values, increase public and private investment, develop the retail sector, and increase urban services such as facilities and infrastructure (Berrey, 2005; Duany, 2001; Kasinitz, 1988). On the other hand, it points out that gentrification leads to the housing sector becoming financially difficult to reach, the original inhabitants, the poor, are particularly vulnerable to move forcibly because of the inability to adjust to the increase in neighbourhood value (Lyons, 1996; Robinson, 1995), as well as a change of identity from the environment (Brown-Saracino, 2004).

Original residents who have lived long with low economic circumstances are more likely to not sup-port gentrification because they are less able to reach an increase in the value of the lease, property, taxa-tion and regional economic conditions (Bostic and Martin, 2003). However, according to Sullivan (2007), the patterns are not always same in every place as in some cases, if the native people can adapt, they are able to accept the gentrification as it improves their neighbourhood and their welfare condition.

The effect of gentrification in the social situation of the area is quite large. Knox stated (1982: 137), that in the process, gentrification will lead to mixing of the activity of the upper class and lower class. Knox (1982) added, in several studies conducted in various places, that there are two possibilities that may occur. In some cases, rejection of the original population of immigrants may occur because of the inability of the newcomers to join the original population. On the other hand, if the invasion of the pres-sure flow of migrants is very large, then it is more than likely, that the original residents will be forced to move out because of a mismatch in view of social change. Price or value of land is also closely related to gentrification. Land price is the value of capital or assets of a unit of land, or the amount actually paid for a legitimate unit of land (Bourne, 1982: 124). Bourne (1982: 126) also argued about the factors that influence the price of land, among others: location advantages, environment, availability of good facili-ties and easy access to work. A linkage with the gentrification of land prices is the tendency of increase in land prices in tandem with the gentrification process. Improvement or increased quality of the environment or the area becoming the most influential factor in the increase of land prices in relation to gentrification (Smith, 1979). In gentrification, the upper middle region gentry consider it their strategy to gain occupancy and property at a price that is cheap and then renovate or convert the type of property




The Identification of Early Gentrification 59


so that it will be worth more to them (Knox, 1982: 136). Associated with the urban fringe, Bourne (in Knox, 1982: 138–39) defined the phenomenon that happens on the outskirts of settlements related to the presence of urban renewal or gentrification. Judging from the physical changes, the dominant dwelling type is single-family or more than one family at a shelter but a small number of family compositions. Physical changes also indicate the level of intensity categorized by construction height. Seeing from the point of social change, population density is generally low but continues to rise, the family structure is dominated by young families who are also affected by high levels of migration. It can be added that areas experiencing gentrification will be dominated by people with higher social status than before. Another change is the number of development projects undertaken in the suburb.

The same phenomenon happened in the city of Semarang, more precisely since there was an expansion of Diponegoro University (UNDIP) to adjust to the student capacity and development needs of the future. Initially UNDIP was located near the Central Business District area, relatively small but strategic and acces-sible. Later on, it was moved to the suburbs in the southern city of Semarang, called Tembalang. It caused Tembalang to become an area that had mix-use activities between urban and rural areas that grew fast, physi-cally and economically. This condition is considered as one of the impacts of the existence of Diponegoro University (UNDIP) as a national service scale for education that strongly attracted other activities to agglom-erate nearby. As stated in the Detailed Masterplan of Semarang City 2010, Tembalang had been planned to have its main function as settlement area. Besides this, Tembalang area also planned to be a place for educa-tional activities which is marked by the presence of UNDIP, that has affected the growth of Tembalang so much. It is evidenced with Antara News Jateng (2010) stating that the increase of land value in Tembalang because of UNDIP has reached 625–1750 per cent within these 10 years and it is the biggest change of land value in Semarang. Thus, we can say that early gentrification is happening in Tembalang. The prediction is that new residents choose to settle in Tembalang because they are interested in the rise of the economic activ-ity and they can make good investments in land or property. By those descriptions, then, this article will explain: ‘What are the characteristics of gentrification happening in Tembalang and what are the influences of the gentrification on the social, economic and physical condition of Tembalang?’

Data and Methods

The current paper presents findings based on both a quantitative survey from statistical reports and qualitative data from questionnaire distribution. There were 130 respondents as the sample of this research that have been living in Tembalang, both as native people or as newcomers. It was taken from 10 points of observations. The questionnaire was formed based on indicators depicted in the literature review process (see Table 1). These variables were used for Discriminant analysis to classify gentrification’s status in Tembalang.

Findings

The Change of Land Use for settlement in Tembalang as semarang’s suburb

From the perspective of land use change in Tembalang, it can be seen that the building density increased yearly due to the need for new housing. From 2006 to 2010, there has been a significant increase of 90.83






per cent from 1582 houses to 3019 houses in the study area. This improvement is in accordance with the improvement of the population in Tembalang and Bulusan, from 7957 inhabitants in 2006 it increased by 18.7 per cent to 9443 inhabitants in 2010. Figure 1 shows the comparison of the building density improve-ment and population increase from 2006–2010.

The decreasing of open space and green space up to 6.33 per cent (2006–2010) also supported this phenomenon. In 2006, the green open space was approximately 267.37 hectares and this reduced to 250.43 hectares in 2010. On the other hand, the built environment has increased to 321.86 hectares in 2010 from 305.56 hectares in 2006. The increase of built environment is because of the fast-growing new residential area constructed by the developer, namely, Grand Tembalang Regency in Gondang, Permata Hijau housing complex and Bukit Diponegoro housing complex. The growth of new houses is because of the opportunity for a potential market spread for houses that offer the best view, in a quiet and com-fortable neighbourhood. Yunus (2008) mentioned that over time and as the urban population continues to grow, it would always be followed by an increase in the demands of life in the political aspects of economic, social, cultural and technological areas. The development of the region eventually also led to an increased business climate in the Tembalang economy that impacted on the appearance of buildings for commercial functions, trade and services on the roadside.

The chronological growth of the Tembalang from 2006 to 2010 also is indicated by changes in land use; land that been vacant before were turned into public facilities. Several examples of the development of public facilities are the presence of gas stations on Jl. Prof. Soedharto, widening of the main road corridor as a consequences of UNDIP development, the allotment of waste collection points and other facilities. It is undoubtedly UNDIP that has had a significant influence on the growth and development of Tembalang, associated with land use change for residential and other supporting activities.

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

3500

3000

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0

Houses in Tembalang

Houses in Bulusan

Total of Houses

10,000

8,000

6,000

4,000

2,000

0

Total population

Population of Tembalang

Population of Bulusan

Figure 1. The Comparison between Houses and Population in Tembalang and Bulusan Years 2006–2010.

Source: Municipality Statistical Data, 2010.






The developments of residential density in Tembalang are associated with the preferences of people living in the suburbs of Semarang. As once noted by Spencer (1979, in Warsono, 2006), there are several reasons that affect population movement into the suburbs. The first reason is the tendency of the use of land for settlements in the central city of Semarang is more optimized for a commercial function that shifts the function of occupancy to the suburb. A second reason is an increase in the number of inhabit-ants of Semarang. If population increases then the demand for housing will also increase, as it happened in residential suburbs of Tembalang. The third reason is the accessibility and the ease of transportation means to the area, so it supports peoples decisions to settle in suburban Tembalang. The fourth reason is the emergence of the mindset of people living in the urban centre to move to a suburb as it offers safety from the flood that occurs periodically in the urban centres of Semarang. Therefore, the competition of land use for residential benefits trigger the vast development of Tembalang, compared to other suburbs in Semarang. The last reason is the presence of a government plan encouraging people to move to the Tembalang suburb. It is stated in the Zoning Regulation in the Detailed Master Plan of Semarang 2010–2030, Tembalang is to be used for residential area development in the middle to high density range.

Gentrification Characteristics in Tembalang as semarang’s suburban

In general, most of the gentrification happens in the city centre or nearby. Hamnett, in Knox (1982: 136), mentioned that the downtown area has actually been prepared for the upper middle people, but over time the region has decreased in quality. Then at a certain stage, the region had improved, thus it is gentrifica-tion. As has been expressed by Smith (2002), gentrification is not merely the spatial intrusion in the city centre. It is only because many scholars discussing gentrification have taken the city centre as an exam-ple, so the city centre development is usually connected to gentrification. Supported by the opinion of Sullivan (2007), the process of gentrification does not always occur together in every place, so is the process, its effects, including its location is always different. Gentrification is not limited to only happen in the city centre, but can also occur in locations such as suburbs, border areas, or even rural areas, as long as the location of symptoms or factors of gentrification exist (Smith, 2002). Based on these refer-ences, the researcher obtained variables to identify the gentrification, which are categorized in Table 1.

In this study, Tembalang is classified into 10 points of observation, namely, (a) Perumda Tembalang Baru; (b) Sirajudin; (c) Baskoro; (d) Banjarsari; (e) Banyuputih; (f) Grand Tembalang Regency; (g) Gondang Timur; (h) Timoho Barat (i) Timoho Timur; and (j) Perum Korpri Bulusan (as seen in Figure 2). In each of the observations, the researchers took 13 respondents who were given a questionnaire.

Table 1. List of Variables to identify the Gentrification in Tembalang

No. Objectives Variables indicator Aspects

1 To identify the change of use of land for residential housing in the suburbs

The suburb activity development

An increase in residential and commercial activity

Economic

Land use composition The increase of built environment Physical

Table 1 (Contd.)







2 To determine the factors affecting public preference for living in suburban areas

Accessibility rate Ease of transportation means Physical

Travel cost Daily spending for transportation per family

Economic

infrastructure availability Availability of complete neighbourhood infrastructure

Physical

Range of service facilities Should be equally serve the people within neighbourhood

Physical

Work location The distance from work to home can be reached less than 30 minute

Economic

Activity points The distance from home to other locations can be reached less than 30 minute

Economic

Comfortable natural physical environment

Low level of air and noise pollution Physical

Building aesthetics interesting view, good architectural building, and clean neighbourhood

Physical

Government policy Supported government policy, that Tembalang pointed as residential services for Semarang City

Physical

Security Low level of crime Economic

3 To define the characteristics of gentrification in the residential suburbs

Revitalization

Land price The increase trend of land price Economic

Building image The improvement quality of physical condition of the buildings

Physical

Property value The increase trend of property value Economic

Segregation

Social classification The increase of luxury homes and the difference of facilities and services which demonstrate social class

Social

income level of people The increase of people income Economic

Education level of people The increase of population with higher education

Social

Population change

Total amount of population

Population growth is increasing from year to year in 5 years

Social

Population based on age increasing numbers of young people (15-24 years) and working age (15-64 years)

Social

Table 1 (Contd.)

Table 1 (Contd.)







Social change

Social relation interaction between individuals in the community increased with more frequent presence of joint activities residents

Social

Source: Results of Analysis, 2011.

Table 1 (Contd.)

Figure 2. Points of Observations

Source: Modification of administrative Maps of Tembalang Area, 2011.

According to Dillon and Matthew (1984), Discriminant Analysis helps grouping status of gentrifica-tion associated with finding variables that maximizes the ratio of the difference between groups. Based on the results of discriminant analysis, it acquired several significant variables that classify the objects as gentrified, less gentrified and not gentrified yet. Furthermore, based on the Mahalanobis distance method, it obtained the relevant variables to support the categorization of the gentrification status accord-ing to the level of influence. Those variables are environmental facilities, the perception of security, land prices 2010/2011, reason to stay, residents gathered intensity, land area and side job ownership. At the first iteration, the discriminant function obtained to determine the categorization of the gentrification status was based on individual answers on the questionnaire; the result is obtained using the formula:






Zscore = 0.023 reason to stay – 0.295 residents gathered intensity + 0.149 side job ownership – 0.380 land price 2010/2011 – 0.269 land area + 0.644 neighbourhood infrastructure + 0.349 security perception

The verification of above Discriminant Analysis predicts the accuracy of the discriminant function model at 77.69 per cent, which is considered to have sufficient classification accuracy. Then, the second round of discriminant analysis was conducted to classify the gentrified variables based on observations in 10 locations, as follows:

Zscore = – 0.419 reason to stay + 1.427 land price 2006 + 0.237 building price 2010–0.460 aesthetics + 0.403 security perception

From the appearance of the above variables, both in the society (the first round) and the regional (the second round) grouping, the variables associated with gentrification are related to the physical, social, and economic dimensions. The physical aspect is shown through the aesthetic, environmental facilities and land area. The social aspect is shown through a reason to live, residents gathered intensity. Then the economic aspect is shown through the land price of 2010/2011, 2006 land prices, building prices 2010/2011, the perception of security and ownership of a side job.

It can be seen also that based on discriminant analysis result that there is a change in gentrification justification, for example in Perumda Tembalang Baru, as seen in the Table 2. Although in the five years there has been an increase of 66.7 per cent in building value but it was not a strong determinant of gen-trification, since only 30.8 per cent of local residents were satisfied with the condition of the aesthetic environment. So, it turns from gentrified to less gentrified. The shift also occurred in Banyuputih, which was categorized as less gentrified to gentrified. The most powerful gentrification variable was the development of land price which increased by 200 per cent within 5 years. In addition, because of its strategic location, the range of service facilities in Banyuputih is also quite highly perceived by local residents.

Based on the synthesis of linkages between gentrification variables, thus it obtained factors that char-acterize gentrification in the area Tembalang. According to the relationship between these variables, four factors that appear of gentrification characteristic is revitalizing the area, social changes, changes in population, and segregation or segmentation. These characteristic factors affirm the synthesis of the theory of Smith (1979), Bourne (1982), Berrey (2005), and Warde (in Smith, 2002) as described in Table 1.

Revitalization is the effort to increase the vitality of the region by improving the quality of the envi-ronment with the aim of improving and encouraging regional economics (Wongso, 2007). In Tembalang, this is indicated by the physical condition of the building considered to have a more aesthetic value than before, namely a change of architecture style in housing sector, trade services, and education. Following that, the range of service facilities is clearly needed for settlement daily activities. The availability and the equal distribution of service facilities are very influential in the process of gentrification there. Another physical characteristic is the fast development of land use, shown by the increase in built environment.

On the economic aspect, land prices clearly are a factor determining the increased value of land in Tembalang each year, which then lead to the increase of property value. Based on field observations, the average increase in land values in the last 5 years is approximately 167 per cent, while increasing the value of a building for 5 years on average is 114 per cent. These characteristics are in accordance with






the opinion from Warde (in Smith, 2002), that gentrification creates the transformation of buildings and environments that enhance the aesthetics and function of the area or can be referred to as revitalization. Smith (1979) and Hammel (1999) also support the suitability of the phenomenon of gentrification in the area indicated by revitalization in Tembalang based on their opinion that gentrification can provide ben-efits to the homeowner through property values increased both the value in building and or value of the land itself.

Associated with social change, the definition includes the notion of changes in society that affect social systems, values, attitudes, and behaviour patterns of individuals within the group. If associated with gentrification, a process that inserts an element changes the upscale residents infiltration into the original population of the lower class can lead to social change (Knox, 1982). In social aspects, the social relationship factors can be seen from the interaction between individuals in the community, evidenced by increased with more frequent presence of joint activities in the residential area in Tembalang. According to the findings, 95 per cent of residents in Tembalang still actively participate in the gathered resident activities held once a month. Knox (1982: 137) stated that in the process, gentrification will lead to activity mixture between the upper class and lower class. The gathered resident activities have long existed, and they are still present though many immigrants coming into the area. But only those immi-grants who own a house in Tembalang join these gathered resident activities, while the home renters do not participate.

Relating to another change in social aspect, Bourne mentioned (in Knox, 1982) that in areas experi-encing gentrification will be dominated by people with higher social status than before. The trend also shows that these newcomers bought a house constructed by developers which are generally more expen-sive than the residential location of indigenous Tembalang. According to the findings in the field, the current composition of the population in Tembalang is 60 per cent and 40 per cent representing the native people and immigrants respectively. This evidenced from the observations describing that in several points the composition of newcomers is as follows: Perumda Tembalang Baru (53 per cent immigrant

Figure 3. Variable Classification on Gentrification Characteristics

Source: Analysis, 2011.

- Number of population

Characteristic Factors of Gentrification

Revitalization

Social change

Population change

Segregation/segmentation

- Urban looks/Aesthetic- Service scale of facilities and infrastructures- Land use- Land value- Property/House value

- Social interaction




Tab

le 2

. Gen

trifi

catio

n V

aria

bles

Com

posi

tion

in T

emba

lang

Are

a

No

Loca

tion

Befo

re

Ver

ifica

tion

The

D

iscr

imin

ant

Ana

lysi

s R

esul

t

Phys

ical

Econ

omic

Soci

al

Urb

an

Look

s

Serv

ice

Scal

e of

Fa

cilit

ies

and

infr

astr

uctu

reSe

curi

ty

Hou

seho

ld’s

in

com

e G

row

thLa

nd U

se

Gro

wth

Land

Pr

ice

incr

ease

Prop

erty

V

alue

in

crea

seSo

cial

in

tera

ctio

nR

easo

n to

Sta

y

1Pe

rum

da

Tem

bala

ng

Baru

Gen

trifi

edLe

ss

gent

rifie

dG

ood

Less

Less

92,3

%A

vera

ge10

0%66

,7%

Goo

dC

lose

to

wor

k

2Si

raju

din

Gen

trifi

edG

entr

ified

Goo

dG

ood

Safe

84,6

%Fa

st

Gro

win

g20

0%16

0%G

ood

Follo

win

g fa

mily

to

mov

e

3Ba

skor

oLe

ss

gent

rifie

dLe

ss

Gen

trifi

edG

ood

Goo

dSa

fe61

,5%

Ave

rage

166%

144%

Goo

dFo

llow

ing

fam

ily t

o m

ove

4Ba

njar

sari

Gen

trifi

edG

entr

ified

Goo

dLe

ssA

vera

ge61

,5%

Fast

G

row

ing

233%

122%

Goo

dFo

llow

ing

fam

ily t

o m

ove

5Ba

nyup

utih

Less

G

entr

ified

Gen

trifi

edG

ood

Goo

dLe

ss84

,6%

Fast

G

row

ing

200%

100%

Goo

dBu

sine

ss

orie

ntat

ion

6G

rand

T

emba

lang

R

egen

cy

Gen

trifi

edG

entr

ified

Goo

dG

ood

Safe

84,6

%Fa

st

Gro

win

g78

,5%

100%

Goo

dC

lose

to

wor

k

7G

onda

ng

Tim

urN

ot

gent

rifie

d ye

t

Not

ge

ntri

fied

yet

Ave

rage

Goo

dSa

fe69

,2%

Fast

G

row

ing

100%

100%

Goo

dFo

llow

ing

fam

ily t

o m

ove

8T

imoh

o Ba

rat

Not

ge

ntri

fied

yet

Not

ge

ntri

fied

yet

Less

Goo

dLe

ss15

,4%

Ave

rage

150%

67%

Goo

dFo

llow

ing

fam

ily t

o m

ove

9T

imoh

o T

imur

Not

ge

ntri

fied

yet

Not

ge

ntri

fied

yet

Less

Less

Less

61,5

%A

vera

ge11

4%66

,7%

Goo

dFo

llow

ing

fam

ily t

o m

ove

10Pe

rum

K

orpr

i Bu

lusa

n

Gen

trifi

edG

entr

ified

Goo

dA

vera

geSa

fe38

,5%

Ave

rage

56,2

5%50

%G

ood

Clo

se t

o w

ork

Sou

rce:

Res

ult

of A

naly

sis

Base

d O

n Q

uest

ionn

aire

And

Vis

ual O

bser

vatio

n, 2

011.






population), Grand Tembalang Regency (100 per cent immigrant population), Timoho West (54 per cent immigrant population), Housing Korpri Bulusan (77 per cent of immigrants). The other locations are still dominated by native people namely Sirajudin (79 per cent), Banjarsari (92.3 per cent), Banyuputih (61.5 per cent), East Gondang (100 per cent), East Timoho (76.9 per cent), and Baskoro (63 per cent).

Population change is one of the important points giving clear facts of gentrification process, espe-cially of changes in population quantity. This is consistent with the theory of Smith (2002), who men-tioned that the changing population of the region as one of the key points of gentrification. The area experiencing gentrification is likely to experience increases in population due to the pull factor of improving the quality of the region. Bourne (in Knox, 1982) describes the features of gentrification shows in population density increase with the family structure is dominated by young families who are affected also by high levels of migration. This phenomenon also exists in Tembalang, when the number of residents increased by 18.7 per cent from 2006 (7957 inhabitants) to 2010 (9443 inhabitants) or increasing number of households as much as 18.6 per cent from 2006 (4210 households) to 2010 (5457 households). The population density also shows improvement from 2006 which had 14 people/hectare to 17 people/hectare in 2010.

One of the factors that characterize gentrification in the identification of Tembalang is segregation or segmentation. Segregation is the forced separation of social groups, race or ethnicity (Casmini, 2010). Gentrification has the opportunity to create segregation or segmentation of the region because the region has the potential to divide community between richer and poorer class. It can be seen that the develop-ment of the residential neighbourhood in Tembalang has created gated communities by clustering the

Figure 4. The Conditions and Relations of the Gentrification Characteristic in Tembalang

Source: Author’s own.

- 60% native people, 40% newcomers- Social interaction between native people and newcomers owned houses- Those rented houses-newcomers is less integrated with native people

- There has been a tendency to form social groups because of differences in terms of security services, the quality of water, electricity, drainage, and the quality of buildings and the area between the residential neighborhood

- There is a population increase up to 18.7% from 2006 to 2010.- 1,791 people enter Tembalang, 469 people move out from Tembalang.- The majority of newcomers are young people and working age population.

- Price of land increase ± 167% from 2006-2010- The image of the Tembalang Region bitterly develop with aesthetic value, architectural style, the permanence of buildings- The value of property increased ± 114% from 2006-2010

Social Change Population Change

RevitalizationSegregation/Segmentation

Gentrification inTembalang






richer in housing complexes built by developers. This is also affirmed by the opinion of Warde (in Smith, 2002) that gentrification brings a difference in residential quality, which can be proven by the level of service of its infrastructure. For example the water service in Tembalang provided by the government is called PDAM. Even though most of the residential areas have been connected to this service, the low quality of the water taps and water distribution encourages people to shift their water needs to other resources, namely deep wells at home. This is quite expensive, since only rich families can afford the drilling fee. Besides the issue of water, poor drainage problems are often experienced in Perum Korpri, Banyuputih, and Timoho because, after heavy rains water puddle are created. Electrical problems are also experienced in Banjarsari, where electricity blackouts happen more often than other areas. However, there seems no problem in the waste management system. Amongst 10 points of observations, all were satisfied with the services.

The Effects of Gentrification on the Growth of semarang’s suburbs

Berrey (2005) and Lyons (1996) stated that gentrification has positive and negative influences and those influences are not always the same at each location. The positive influences of gentrification are the notion that it can reduce poverty, decrease crime, increase property values, increase public and private investment, as well as the promote retail sector growth and improvement of service facilities and infrastructure (Berrey, 2005; Duany, 2001; Kasinitz, 1988). On the other hand, the effects of gentrification are consid-ered negative as the residential sector is more difficult to reach financially, vulnerability of the native people with the potential to move or get displaced, and changes in environmental identity (Lyons, 1996;

Figure 5. Comparison of (A) Low Architectural Value and (B) High Architectural Value in a Tembalang Neighbourhood

Source: Author’s own.






Robinson, 1995; Brown-Saracino, 2004). Based on the above, then the influence of gentrification is considered positive if any benefit is felt by the people who inhabit or any activity in the gentrified region, in this case Tembalang. The effect of gentrification is considered negative if there is a shortage or even losses that occur due to the continuity of gentrification in Tembalang. In this case, the positive or nega-tive effect of gentrification is viewed from the standpoint of the social, economic, and physical condition of Tembalang.

Based on this observation, several positive effects of gentrification on Tembalang can be summarized. Viewed from the social aspect is the integration of homeowners–newcomers with native people encour-aging openness of the native inhabitants for new input/knowledge. Indirectly this sensitivity educates local people, thereby strengthening their self-sufficiency. In the economic aspect, as many as 65.4 per cent of the local residents felt economic conditions improved in the last 5 years, because it opens up great opportunities for entrepreneurial businesses, especially, the development of trade and services activities, in the corridors of the main roads in Tembalang (Prof. Jl. Soedharto, Jl. Sirajudin, Jl. Banjarsari, Jl. Timoho). The influence in physical aspects of the region is the increasing number of homes built for immigrants, especially the houses for small families with minimalist architectural style.

On the other hand, the gentrification also shows negative effects for example from the social point of view there is a decline in the quality of moral ethics in young people. These are due to inclusion of culture such as drunkenness, gambling or wild racing in Tembalang. There was also a perceived lack of sense of belonging for rented-home–newcomers, so that the condition of the region becomes more disorganized and tends to be a slum. The next impact is the rise of individualism among citizens or less caring towards each other. Not only that, the theft rate has also increased, especially in boarding-lodging students. Following the growth of new economic zones in several locations, gentrification also causes the emergence of new prob-lems of congestion and ownership competition of property. The last impact causes the difficulty of finan-cially accessing public housing sectors in Tembalang. House prices have soared based on the psychological price of acquiring future benefits due to the existence of UNDIP. The reduced area of green open land has become one of the negative influences on the physical sector that should be taken seriously. The last impact is the mismatch between infrastructure provisions with population increase. The population has been pro-jected to increase by 3.93 per cent in 2010 but in reality the population increased by 18.7 per cent from 2006–2010. This encourages the self-help provision of infrastructure which causes disharmony and service overlap which leads to disintegration in government planning in the future.

Figure 6. New Housing and Houses for Small Families

Source: Author’s own, 2011.






Conclusion

By looking at the distribution status of gentrification in each area of observation, it can be concluded that in general the area has undergone a process of gentrification. Several observation areas that have not gentrified will be potentially gentrified in the future by looking at the trend of the influence of variables such as the revitalization of the region, increasing the value of the area, and a change in social structure. Another conclusion is that gentrification in Tembalang is relatively positive and acceptable to local people and the Semarang city in general. Although a number of negative influences occur, these things are unavoidable as a consequence of the development of the region. One thing that should be noted is the social interaction that has been shaped between original people and newcomer should be managed better at the neighbourhood level. Optimizing neighbourhood activities such as community gathering and cleaning up the environment together and other micro-scale activities can build togetherness and encour-age a sense of belonging to control the environment.

Furthermore, the Semarang government should pay more attention to Tembalang as it has become an embryo of suburban settlement. There should be a tighter and more assertive control system from the city government about land use and land conversion in Tembalang. Considering the natural characteristics of Tembalang, which is that not all areas should be developed into built area, more important is green open space preservation.

AcknowledgmentThe authors are thankful for the Grant from the Engineering Faculty of Diponegoro University for financing this research. The paper has also been presented in Track 3 (Housing and Community Development) at the 3rd World Planning School Congress, Perth (WA), 4–8 July 2011. Several modifications have been made according to feedback and comments given in this Congress.

ReferencesBerrey, Ellen C. (2005). Divided Over Diversity. City & Community, 4 (2): 143–70.Bostic, Raphael W., & dan Richard, W. Martin. (2003). Black home-owners as a gentrifying force? Urban Studies,

40 (12): 2427–49.Bourne, Larry S. (1982). International structure of the city. New York: Oxford University Press.Brown-Saracino, Japonica (2004). Social preservationists and the quest for authentic community. City & Community,

3(2), 135–56.Casmini, Mimin. (2010). Segregation Education. Jakarta: Depdikbud.Clerval, Anne. (2006). Gentrification, a frontier reshaping social division of urban space in the inner Paris. Urban

Life, Boundaries and Transformations, 50th IFHP World Congress, Geneve: Suisse.Dillon, William R., & Matthew, G. (1984). Multivariate analysis: Methods and Applications. New York: Wiley

Publisher.Duany, Andres (2001). Three cheers for gentrification. The American Enterprise, 12(3, April 2001), 36–39.Kasinitz, Philip (1988). The gentrification of Boerum Hill. Qualitative Sociology, 11(3), 163–82.Hammel, D. (1999). Re-establishing the Rent Gap: An Alternative View of Capitalized Land Rent. Urban Studies,

36 (8).Johnston, R.J. (1981). The Dictionary of Human Geography. Oxford: Basil Blackwell Publisher.Kasinitz, Philip. (1988). The Gentrification of Boerum Hill. Qualitative Sociology, 11 (3): 163–82.Knox, Paul. (1982). Urban Social Geography: An Introduction. New York: Longman Inc.






Lyons, Michal. (1996). Gentrification, socioeconomic change, and the geography of displacement. Urban Affairs, 18(1), 39–62.

Rancangan Peraturan Daerah Kota Semarang Tentang Rencana Tata Ruang Wilayah (RTRW). Kota Semarang Tahun 2010–2030 (Semarang City Spatial Plan, 2010–2030). Governmental official document plan.

Robinson, Tony (1995). Gentrification and grassroots resistance in San Francisco’s tenderloin. Urban Affairs Review, 30(4), 483–513.

Sabri, Soheil & Yakkup, Ahris. (2008). Exploring urban modeling methodologies to better figure out urban gentrification dynamics in developing countries. Journal Alama Bina, 11(2), 29–43.

Smith, Darren P. (2002). Extending the temporal and spatial limits of gentrification: A research agenda for population geographers. International Journal of Population Geography, 8(2002), 385–94. 8.

Smith, N. (1979). Toward a theory of Gentrification: A Back to the city movement by capital, not people. Journal of the American Planning Association, Volume 45 (4): 538–548.

Sullivan, Daniel Monroe. (2007). Reassessing gentrification: Measuring residents opinions using survey data. Urban Affairs Review, 42(4), 583–92.

Warsono, Agus. (2006). Perkembangan Permukiman Pinggiran Kota Pada Koridor Jalan Kaliurang Kecamatan Ngaglik Kabupaten Sleman. Tesis Tidak Diterbitkan, Magister Teknik Pembangunan Wilayah dan Kota, Universitas Diponegoro, Semarang (The Development of Suburban Settlement in Kaliurang Street Corridor, Ngaglik District, Sleman Regency. Thesis, Not Published. Master of Urban and Regional Development, Diponegoro University, Semarang).

Wongso, Jonny. (2007). Strategi Revitalisasi Kawasan Pusat Kota Bukittinggi. Tugas Akhir Tidak Diterbitkan, Jurusan Teknik Arsitektur, Universitas Bung Hatta Padang.

Yunus, Hadi Sabari. (2008). Dinamika Wilayah Peri-Urban Determinan Masa Depan Kota (Dynamics of Peri-Urban Areas Determinants of Cities Future). Yogyakarta: Pustaka Pelajar.

I Nyoman Tri Prayoga is a graduate student in the Master of Urban and Regional Planning, Engineering Faculty, Diponegoro University, and a research assistant in the Laboratory of Regional Development and Environmental Management, Urban and Regional Planning Department, Diponegoro University, Semarang-Indonesia. Email: [email protected]

Landung Esariti is a lecturer and a researcher in the Urban Development Laboratory, Urban and Regional Planning Department, Engineering Faculty, Diponegoro University, Semarang-Indonesia. Email: [email protected]

Diah Intan Kusumo Dewi is a lecturer and a researcher in the Urban Design and Planning Laboratory, Urban and Regional Planning Department, Engineering Faculty, Diponegoro University, Semarang-Indonesia. Address: Jl. Prof Soedharto, Tembalang, Semarang. Email: [email protected]




Download - Environment and Urbanization Asia 2013 Prayoga 57 71

Top Related