Download - Gated communities in Indonesia

Cities, Vol. 19, No. 5, p. 341–350, 2002 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd.Pergamon

All rights reservedPrinted in Great Britain

0264-2751/02 $ - see front matterwww.elsevier.com/locate/cities

PII: S0264-2751(02)00042-2

Gated communities in IndonesiaHarald Leisch*The Uplands Program, Vietnamese–German Center, Technical University Hanoi, 1 Dai Co Viet, Hanoi, VietNam

The style of gated communities in Southeast Asia may be copied from those in the UnitedStates, but the function is different. In contrast to the United States, where Blakely and Snyderdifferentiate between lifestyle, prestige and security zone communities, most gated communitiesin Southeast Asia show a mixture of the three types. Resulting from the socio–economic andcultural background, security always seems to be the basis for such developments. However,with the growth of upper middle classes, prestige and lifestyle become more and moreimportant, and are also used for marketing. As examples from Indonesia show, land developerspartly create the tastes of the customers and, almost without interference from the government,form new landscapes, with elements that often have more symbolic meaning than practicaluse. 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Indonesia, Land development, Urban marketing, Governance, Symbolism

Introduction: gated communities – a newphenomenon?

When talking about gated communities one usuallyfocuses on the US, where this “new” phenomenoncomes from. But for people in Central Europe, whocan still see the remains of walls and gates from theMiddle Ages, or even antiquity, in their towns, it isevident that this phenomenon is not really new. Inparts of Asia, people have much the same experience.When walking through Old Delhi, one can find gatedcommunities with a longer history than any in the USthat are still being inhabited. The Indian caste systemrequired spatial segregation, which resulted in a blindalley system with walls around a block of 5 to 60houses, with a gate to the main road (Hofmeister,1991). When looking at modern gated communities,many parallels to the Indian structure can be found,as will be shown below.

In the colonial cities of Southeast Asia, living areashave always been separated, between those of theEuropeans and those of the indigenous population,and both groups have been separated by Chinesequarters. Many enclaves have also been protected bywalls, as was the case in Old Jakarta (Abeyasekere,1989). Although concrete walls were not to be foundeverywhere, some virtual walls between the quartersexisted, which the residents respected and did not pass

∗Tel.: +84-4-868-2574; fax:+84-4-868-2574; e-mail: [email protected]

341

without legal reason. Religion, social status, culturaland/or geographical origin are often the reasons forspatial segregation within a city—but what is the rea-son for a wall? At a first glance it is a question ofsecurity: a wall can provide privacy for people whowant to be alone and do not want to meet people ofanother religion, culture or social status in their livingarea. People are afraid of strangers and feel moresecure in a homogenous neighbourhood. “Don’t playwith the street urchins!” is not only an old literaryquote from Germany, it is also the prevailing opinionin most cultures of the world, though many peoplewould not discuss this fact openly.

While groups and individuals try to protect them-selves, this is frequently symbolic rather than practi-cal—many walls are nowhere near high enough forreal protection. Thus, a family home with a wall ora fence is analogous to a gated structure. This is intro-duced to show that the basic idea of such communitiesis hardly new, can be found in many cultures, andSoutheast Asia is no exception. However, as will beshown later, it is also evident that modern gated com-munities are virtual imitations of those in the US,which means that those in Southeast Asia can be seenas a mixture of societal needs, modern design ideasand capitalist imperatives. Their knowledge of socialhistory is the basis for land developers creating newliving environments, and this will be explained indetail.

Gated communities in Indonesia: Harald Leisch

Background of gated communities inSoutheast Asia

Although walls and fences surrounding living quartersare not new, the development, structure, organisation,and extent of today’s gated communities differ fromtheir antecedents. They have been developed since the1980s, and must be understood in the socio–economicand cultural context of this period.

Socio–economic developmentSince the early 1960s, the economies of many Sou-theast Asian countries have been growing with almostbreathtaking speed. Apart from Singapore, Indonesiashowed the highest GDP growth, followed by Malay-sia and Thailand. The per capita GDP in those coun-tries trebled between 1960 and 1990. The per capitaGNP in 1997 (adjusted to the purchasing power) was10,920 US$ in Malaysia, 6,590 US$ in Thailand and3,450 US$ in Indonesia (Booth, 1999).

Although the income gap has widened in somecountries with the rapid economic growth, as moreand more wealth has been accumulated by the upperclass, a previously unknown middle class has alsodeveloped. It is characterized by high levels of con-sumption, in contrast to the working class. Thismiddle class is still fragile and economically vulner-able, as could be seen during the crisis which com-menced in July 1997, but their impact on spatialdevelopment should not be underestimated. Middleclass families tend to have fewer children and,especially in Thailand, are the ones who show thehighest participation in family planning programmes.Since such families are satisfied with having one ortwo children, they can spend more money to satisfyother desires, such as a car, a house, or holidays. Pres-tige plays an important role in their consumer behav-iour and many goods they buy have a larger symbolicmeaning than a practical use, as for example a secondcar, which in many cases is superfluous. After havingbought the second car, many families then buy asecond house as an investment. For Indonesia, Robi-son (1996) states that the wealth which is generatedby industrial growth spreads beyond the corporateworld and increasingly embraces a growing middleclass, which can be seen in the “mushrooming newhousing estates ranging from the comfortable to theluxurious, all replete with security guards and variousforms of enclosure” . Further, he points out that“ increasing wealth has also generated a demand forquality urban housing” (Robison, 1996).

Cultural diversityEthnicity, geographical origin and religion can all bereasons for living separately. In Malaysia, Thailandand Indonesia, two main ethnic groups can be dis-tinguished: the indigenous population and the ethnicChinese. In all these countries, the Chinese are domi-nant in the economic realm, although not all Chineseare rich. The proportion of the Chinese population is

342

quite different in these three countries: in Malaysia,it forms almost 30% of the population (Koon, 1998),in Thailand 10% (Vatikiotis, 1998), and in Indonesiaabout 3% (Somers Heidhues, 1998). But in the cities,the percentage of the Chinese population is usuallyfar higher, for example, it is about 10% for Jakarta.The attitude of the indigenous population towards theethnic Chinese, and vice versa, is rather different inthe three countries. For a long time now, the Chinesein Thailand have been assimilated. The relative close-ness of the Chinese and Thai cultures opened a wayfor admixture. The Chinese are not only active econ-omically but also successful politically, at regionaland even national levels. In Malaysia, Chinese canmaintain their cultural identity, but they have almostno opportunity to work in public administration andthey are forced to collaborate with the indigenouspopulation (bumiputera) if they want to run their ownbusiness. Until recently, the situation was even worsein Indonesia, because the Chinese were almost com-pletely forbidden to maintain their culture, whichconsequently meant no use of Chinese characters andno Chinese festivals. They were strongly advised touse Indonesian names and hardly had any opportunityto work in the public sector.

The Chinese in Indonesia collaborated with theDutch colonial rulers and thus their quarters havealways been close to the European settlements in OldJakarta. Thus, ethnic segregation stems from colonialtimes. At that time, the reason for separation mighthave been political, but later on, security becamemore and more important. The Chinese population inIndonesia, especially in Jakarta, has frequently beenthe target of attacks from the indigenous population(pribumis), most recently during the severe riots in1998, when Chinese quarters were destroyed, shopslooted and burned and people attacked. Thusunderlining that the fences and walls that surroundthe Chinese quarters are not there without reason.

Although a mixture of Chinese and pribumis existsin Indonesia, the Chinese have always been excludedor segregated themselves. Similar behaviour can berecognised in Malaysia, whereas in Thailand separ-ation is much less common. The religious structure israther different in the three countries: in Thailand 90–95% of the population are Buddhist, about 5% Mus-lim and the rest Christian, Hindu or others. In Malay-sia 50–60% are Muslim, 30% Buddhist, 7% Hindu,6% Christian and a few percent others. In Indonesiaabout 87% are Muslim, 10% Christian, 2% Hindu,1% Christian and some others (Stahr, 1997). Thaisociety in general is very tolerant as regards geo-graphical origin, ethnicity, or religion. Buddhism pre-dominates and the few Moslems are geographicallyconcentrated in some southern provinces—accord-ingly, there is little spatial separation within the cities.In Malaysia, there is segregation within the country,with the most fundamentalist Moslems in the east ofPeninsular Malaysia and the Buddhists mainly in theregions that border Thailand. As for the Christian Chi-


nese, they live more or less among the Moslems inthe cities. In Indonesia, there is also a relationshipbetween religion and ethnic origin, since the Chinesehere are mainly Christians too. Segregation by reli-gion can also be found, but it seems that it is notreally the main determinant, and sometimes it evenseems to be a uniting factor, since Chinese and prib-umis are more likely to live together in the same areaif the pribumis are Christians. The rhythms of every-day life mean that it is easier for people of the samereligion to meet, work and live together.

Summarising the issue of spatial segregation inthese Southeast Asian countries, it can be said that:

1. The growing accumulation of wealth leads toincome gaps, that result in resentment and theconsequent danger of burglary and robbery.Accordingly, the affluent tend to protect them-selves, either by private or common “ fortification”and security guards.

2. People belonging to the upper or upper middleclasses emphasise prestige in their consumer andspatial behaviour. They want to be part of the“modern” world, which they associate with theUnited States. Accordingly, many of those peopletry to copy all the new trends from the Americanmodel.

3. The Chinese population in general differs from theindigenous population, partly because of a greateraccumulation of wealth and partly because of reli-gion. This is mainly the case in Indonesia, wherethe Chinese are a real minority.

Land and housing development in IndonesiaA prerequisite for new, gated communities is theopportunity for land development. For Jakarta, as inother cities, this is a necessity, since it can no longerprovide enough space for all the immigrants. Themain phase of land development around Jakarta didnot start until approximately 20 years ago. UsingGoldblum and Wong’s phrase, it is “haphazard urban-isation” (Goldblum and Wong, 2000). They state that“ to a certain extent, [large property projects] develop-ment falls within the jurisdiction of the JabotabekMetropolitan Development Plan of 1981, from whichthe Master Plan of Jakarta DKI 1985–2005 isderived” (Goldblum and Wong, 2000). Most newdevelopments, even the largest, have not been gener-ated within the regional planning process. Forexample, the new town Lippo Karawaci, describedlater, cannot be found in any development plan.

Land development has become big business inIndonesia. Mainly Chinese conglomerates, like theLippo, Salim, or the Ciputra Groups, have discovereda new and growing market. It is evident that all thebig land developers have created new demand forhousing. In particular, the Lippo Group tries to “edu-cate” people and direct them to a new way of life, for

343

which they need the products supplied by the group.For that purpose, the developers initially acquiredhuge areas of land for a very low price. “One of theconsequences is that many of the land areas that hadbeen acquired for a long time, but have not beendeveloped, become idle, creating unutilised land(tanah tidur ‘sleeping land’ )” (Firman, 2000).Between 1991 and 1993 alone, about 58,000 ha ofagricultural land have been converted to residentialuse. “By the mid-1990s, there were 25 large subdiv-ision projects in the Jakarta Metropolitan Area, rang-ing from 500 to 30,000 ha in size, and there werehundreds of small projects of under 500 ha” (Firman,1997). In the street map of Jakarta/Jabotabek, one canfind more than one thousand real estate sites listed.The bigger the developers, the easier it is for them todo as they please. If the developer is generous withdonations, and has good connections to local govern-ment, land can be developed first and the resultsshowed to the government for approval later.

The targets of the land developers are householdsbelonging to the middle and upper classes. Expatriatesare, of course, included and are usually most welcomeas customers, bringing other expatriates with them.The new town Bumi Serpong Damai in Tangerang,west of Jakarta, for example, tries to attract expatri-ates, with its German International School and itsGerman Centre for Industry (www.germancentre.co.id).The new town Lippo Karawaci co-operates withKorean companies and thus attracts expatriates fromthat nation. Indonesian Chinese households areimportant customers for the more exclusive newtowns, as fewer pribumis have enough money toinvest in such areas. The Indonesian middle and upperclasses had enough money for investment in newtowns until the beginning of the financial crisis in1997; during the ‘Asian contagion’ , numerous smalland medium land developers went bankrupt. Only thebig ones survived, but many of them were left withproblems.

Most of the new land developments are gated withmore or less effective security measures. There areresidential areas surrounded by walls and fences butwith an open gate and sometimes no security guards.However, even in these places, most people respectthat there is a boundary, which they should not passwithout reason—thieves, of course, have reasons oftheir own. The security aspect is very important whenmaking the decision to buy a house. Residents of Jak-arta always appear to be anxious. In the upper classquarter of Menteng in central Jakarta, which was firstinhabited by the Dutch colonial rulers and later bythe Chinese upper class and acolytes of the formerpresident Soeharto (also a resident), the walls havegrown with the years from less than two to more thanfour metres in height today. Whenever a thief man-aged to get in, the wall was extended. The gates areonly opened for the few seconds when cars pass andall houses are guarded by private security. This luxuryis not affordable for middle class people, therefore a


gated community is the best alternative for them. Thefact that the neighbours can see each other in a gatedcommunity, which is hardly possible in Menteng,could theoretically lead to a better neighbourhood,which seems to be more likely in less exclusive settle-ments.

Lippo Karawaci and Bumi Serpong Damai(BSD) – case studies in the agglomeration ofJakartaResearch methodsTo learn more about the residents of modern gatedcommunities in Indonesia, a survey was conducted inthe new towns Lippo Karawaci and Bumi SerpongDamai, both located in the Tangerang district in thewest of Jakarta. The survey was done between Augustand November 1999, using a standardised question-naire in the Indonesian language. 754 residents intotal were interviewed, each living in different quar-ters (taman). Since the study was focused on the lifeof middle class people, only middle class quarterswere chosen for the survey. This could be done easilysince the social classes are clearly separated. Studentsof the University of Lippo Karawaci went to thehouses and interviewed the residents, but only one ofthe family, or the person who rented a room in thehouse (usually students). If the residents did not wantto be interviewed, they had the chance to keep thequestionnaire until the following day, when the stud-ent collected it again. Further data were collected inthe land development companies. Both companiesgenerously supported the research and through closecontact to the management it was possible to get more

Figure 1 Central area of Lippo Karawaci (sketch not to scale). Source: PT Lippo Karawaci, changed

344

details. In order to learn more about the life of theresidents, their daily activities and their view of theirown lives, the author lived with families in bothtowns, and conducted some in-depth-interviews withthe residents.

Physical structure of the new townsThe development of Lippo Karawaci(www.lippokarawaci.co.id) started in 1992, that ofBumi Serpong Damai (www.bsdcity.com) in 1989.The first has developed about 500 ha as the centralarea and 2,800 ha altogether and the latter 1,300 ha of6,000 ha so far. Lippo Karawaci counts almost 10,000residents and BSD about 40,000. Lippo Karawaci inparticular shows a very clear physical structure (Fig.1): the central living area is surrounded by a fenceand can so far only be entered via one main street.Later it will be a ring road with two entrances. Thismain street, however, is more or less public. Thereare barriers that are never closed and the only securityguard has the function to supervise and to deterpeople from entering. No one has to stop there andusually no one is forbidden to enter the area. Withinthis area are the gated communities, or as they aretermed, the totally protected zones (TPZ). The golfcourse forms the centre of the living area. On andaround the course are the most expensive spots withprices for land decreasing with growing distance fromthe golf course. In the centre security is the best, andthe gates are the most impressive (Fig. 2).

Off the main road are the gates to all gated com-munities, which usually have one entrance only andare not connected to the neighbouring settlements.The streets inside are ring roads or blind alleys. Here


Figure 2 Gate to Taman Golf in Lippo Karawaci. Photo: H Leisch

Figure 3 Middle class quarter in Lippo Karawaci. Photo: H Leisch

the similarity to the structure of the caste quarters inIndia becomes evident. Along the main road, in frontof the totally protected zones, are big single houseswith their own walls or fences and sometimes theirown security guards. But even inside a TPZ, everyhouse is surrounded by a low wall or fence (Fig. 3).The physical structure in general is almost the samein BSD, but without the radial system.

Both new towns have a more or less completeinfrastructure with hospital, shopping mall, cinemas,bowling centre, sport and golf club, restaurants,schools and a university. Almost all of these publicfacilities are located outside the gated residential area.In Lippo Karawaci the schools are inside the residen-tial area, one outside of the gated quarters and oneinside. Accordingly, all public facilities are open tothe public. In Lippo Karawaci, a regulation exists thatno business is allowed within the gated quarters, incontrast to BSD. However, the inner city public trans-

345

portation constitutes a lack of security, since every-body can enter the housing quarters using the min-ibus, which would be impossible with a private car.In both new towns, the living quarters have differentstandards for the houses and usually also for thesecurity measures. Therefore, minibuses in LippoKarawaci do not enter the more expensive livingareas.

Marketing, maintenance and governanceThe influence of marketing experts is evident for bothnew towns: Bumi Serpong Damai literally means“Peaceful World of Serpong” (Serpong is the nameof a town and the area) and Lippo Karawaci (whosename is a mixture of the name of the Lippo Groupand the area name Karawaci), was first named LippoVillage because Karawaci had a negative connotationamong the population whereas “village” shouldimpart calmness, security and the communal aspect


of the new town. For the names of the living quarters,it is similar. A quarter in general is named taman,which means garden or park. The names of the tamanare often close to nature, like Taman Himalaya,Taman Bromo (Bromo is a volcano in East Java),Taman Danau Biru (Blue Lake). Others reflect thearchitectural style of the quarter like Taman Ubud(Ubud is an artist village on Bali Island), TamanParis, Taman Hollandia, Taman Osaka and so forth.And most remarkable is the name of the most expens-ive area in Lippo Karawaci: Taman Imperial. Suchnames fit well with the desire of the customers to liveclose to nature or to prove their Western orientation,their new, modern, lifestyle or their importance.

The maintenance of the high quality of life is achallenge for the developers of the new towns. Forthis reason, Lippo Karawaci has its own town man-agement, working with the motto: “We take greatercare of YOU.” So far, the maintenance of Lippo Kara-waci is superior—which can be explained by itsimportance for marketing. There are clear restrictionsfor the residents but so far without a legal basis. Inany case, the residents can ask the district governmentfor approval and thus can bypass the regulations ofthe town management. The town manager, who is vir-tually a private governor, is not elected by the resi-dents but employed by the company. In none of thenew towns do the residents really participate in anyplanning process. Sometimes they try to create self-governing groups but all they can do is send proposalsto the company, which might take them seriously, ornot. The developers are not interested in giving theresidents any right of governance. The companies donot have a legal right to act in that way and are stillfighting for a transfer of governmental power. While

Figure 4 Religion of residents in Lippo Karawaci (LK) and Bumi Serpong Damai (BSD). Source: own enquiry

346

the residents of Lippo Karawaci have not acceptedthe regulations of the town management, at the sametime they know that the quality of life would be farlower without them, and they therefore obey them.There is no town management in BSD and althoughthe maintenance is still good, the difference is visible.

Lippo Karawaci and BSD are positive examples formaintenance in general. Usually developers do notcare at all about the maintenance of their develop-ments after all the land is sold. Consequently, roadsand other parts of the infrastructure are in a very badcondition after only a few years. Only Lippo Kara-waci and BSD have a concept for a self-sustained newtown, which is a big advantage in the competitionwith others. Since they offer a more or less completeinfrastructure, and maintain it, the houses are not onlybought for investment but also to live in.

Population structure and social lifeThe residents in both new towns are mainly youngcouples who start a family there. Sometimes they buythe house themselves or their parents buy it for themas an investment. The couples can be called modernin the way that they are often educated abroad andtend to have only two children. In contrast to the tra-ditional Indonesian lifestyle, they do not live togetheras an extended family but as a core family of parentsand children only.

For political reasons, it is not possible to ask if resi-dents are Chinese or pribumi. However, their origincan be found out through their religion—also a sensi-tive question, as the Chinese are mainly Christiansand the pribumis mainly Moslems. As Fig. 4 shows,the Christians are dominant in Lippo Karawaci, withonly a very small number of Moslems, whereas the


Figure 5 Income of residents in Lippo Karawaci (LK) and Bumi Serpong Damai (BSD). Source: own enquiry

Figure 6 Main reason for moving to Lippo Karawaci (LK) and Bumi Serpong Damai (BSD). Note: in many cases “security”was given as second answer though only one reason was asked for. In such cases the other reason was taken as answer, since itis known that security is one of the most important reasons in general. Source: own enquiry

religious groups (and the ethnicity) is more mixed inBSD, where almost one third of the respondents areMoslems.

The family income (Fig. 5) indicates that the Chi-nese quarters show a higher level than those withmore pribumis. The different standards of the quartersbecome evident, too. Taman Mediterranean, CendanaGolf and Danau Biru, which are more exclusive thanthe others, have the highest and Taman Ayu, wheremainly students live in town houses, has the lowestincomes. Unfortunately, from the numbers of respon-dents it is also clear that people with a higher incomedo not like to answer such questions.

347

Although the population structure is comparativelyhomogenous, the term “gated community” is notreally appropriate for this form of settlement. At theleast, the connotation that it is a group of people withsocial contacts is misleading. Most residents do notknow their neighbours in their own quarter and donot have any contact with them at all. The developerstry to create communities through activities such as“neighbourhood watch” . But even if this works, it isfar away from a real community, with social interac-tions. Only in BSD, where the Indonesian administrat-ive structure based on neighbourhoods is used withinthe gated communities, do residents have more con-


tact with each other. For the higher income groups,however, this is usually not the case. The walls andfences do not hinder the residents from social con-tacts. Although they do not know their neighbours,they might have friends in others. Since the car isused even for very short distances, people do notmind passing the gates for a visit to friends. Andindeed it seems that most residents like to pass thegates because the security guards usually salute them,which gives the residents the feeling of beingimportant and highly respected.

Security

A selection of answers was provided, derived from apre-test, to find out why people moved to the gatednew towns. It must be stated with emphasis that foralmost all residents, security was the main or one ofthe main reasons to move to the new towns. Andalthough only one main reason was asked for in thequestionnaire, many respondents marked security asone of two main reasons. In such cases, only the otherreason was taken as answer, since it is known thatsecurity always has a very high priority. Thus, thelow percentage of answers for security given in Fig.6 correlates with respondents who only gave securityas the main reason. Here it can be seen that securityhas a higher priority in Lippo Karawaci than in BSD,which is in fact an advantage planned by the devel-opers in Lippo Karawaci, who try to attract more cus-tomers with better security than that available in BSD.Not only the residents but also the developers areaware of the resentment of people in the neighbouringvillages. Therefore the developers allow the villagersto use already-acquired but so far undeveloped landfor agriculture and they give them food or other bene-fits to keep them out of the town.

Lifestyle and prestige

These gated communities offer the advantage of a bet-ter environment, which for many residents was onereason to move in. Municipal services are decreasingin Jakarta, where there is almost no maintenance ofstreets, streetlights, or the landscape, and there isinsufficient garbage collection, water treatment and soon. In contrast, the private companies are able to offerstate-of-the-art infrastructure and facilities.

That said, these facilities, especially in Lippo Kara-waci, are often too expensive for middle class people,who are asking for cheaper ones. Although most ofthe residents cannot afford a membership in the Coun-try (Sports) Club or the Golf Club and do not havethe money to send their children to the very expensiveprivate international school (with American Englishspeaking teachers, and some native speakers) they areproud to live in a town with such facilities, as is heardin personal interviews. Here, the importance of pres-tige becomes evident.

But other facilities like the shopping mall, the cin-ema or the bowling centre define the new lifestyle of

348

people living in such new towns. They prefer to buytheir daily goods in the air-conditioned supermarket,although it is more expensive than going to thecrowded bazaar. And since most of the residents havewhite-collar jobs in an office, it is easier for themto stop by at the supermarket on their way home inthe evening.

The residents like the new lifestyle. As Fig. 7shows, more than half of them want to live this way,one third would even prefer a more modern way oflife and only a small percentage would prefer to livein a more traditional way. Accordingly, when askedif they feel comfortable in the new town, almost twothirds answered yes, and many even felt extremelypositive about living there (Fig. 8). In both newtowns, more than 90% of the respondents said theyfeel “at home” .

ProspectsHowever, it remains an open question if such islandsof wealth have a future in a developing country. Aproblem is that neither new town offers many work-places, at least not for middle class people. Only 27%of the respondents in Lippo Karawaci and 17% inBSD work in the town they live in. Most of themhave to commute to Jakarta daily. But it is importantto note that both developments are almost unique forgated communities in the agglomeration of Jakartabecause usually there are no working opportunitiesat all.

Even long distances between home and work can-not stop people from living in such gated settlementsbecause, as we have seen, they want to live securelyand in a modern way. But as shown above, the com-munities have been the targets of attacks already andthey try to protect themselves through the support ofthe residents of the surrounding villages. It seems evi-dent that if the towns continue as they are, there willalways be resentment and thus a high danger ofattacks. During the crisis of the past decade, middleclass families tried not to show their wealth, e.g. theyused an ordinary car. But as soon as signs of recoverywere visible and the situation started to stabilise, theychanged back to the luxury car. This seems to besymptomatic: wealthier people enjoy the financialadvantages of living in a developing country and donot want to go without. They cannot live such a luxur-ious life in higher developed countries. Accordingly,such new towns will always have a chance to existbut at a high price. It is not probable that (upper)middle class families will change their lifestyle com-pletely just to reduce jealousy and the danger ofattacks. More likely, walls will become higher andhigher.

DiscussionFour main aspects determine the development ofgated communities in Indonesia and Southeast Asiain general:


Figure 7 Lifestyle in Lippo Karawaci (LK) and Bumi Serpong Damai (BSD). Source: own enquiry

Figure 8 Wellness of life in Lippo Karawaci (LK) and Bumi Serpong Damai (BSD). Source: own enquiry

1. The formerly fast economic development led to thedevelopment of a new middle and upper middleclass. But since the wealth has not been spreadequally, a further socio–economic polarisation istaking place, resulting in a growing income gapwith growing jealousy and a growing need forsecurity. In Indonesia, the jealousy of the pribumisis mainly directed against the Chinese, who thusrequest the best possible security.

2. Belonging to the middle, upper middle or evenupper class leads to symbolic interactions. Peopledo what they think they are expected to do. Pres-tige is important for them, especially in such stronghierarchical societies. Therefore, consumer andspatial behaviour is sometimes more a question ofsymbolism than of practicality. Big houses, two

349

cars in front of the house and an impressive gateat the entrance of the community are importantprestige factors. And prestige seems to be moredominant than ethnicity. Money makes more fri-ends than does ethnic origin.

3. Through globalisation, including globalised edu-cation, a new lifestyle has been introduced to thecountries of Southeast Asia. The plans for realestate are more or less copies of American devel-opments. People prefer to live in an air-conditionedmodern world, adopting almost everything thatcomes from the United States. But often this is an“outdoor lifestyle” only, as inside the houses thefamilies still live almost in the same way as didthe generations before them; they often do not usethe air-conditioning because of the costs, they do


not subscribe to the cable TV or do not watch theadditional (foreign) channels, they eat traditionalfood and let the housemaid wash their clothes byhand, since a washing machine is a luxury goodthat cannot be seen from outside and anyhow, lab-our is cheaper than machines.

4. The development of gated communities has beenvery big business in many Southeast Asian coun-tries. Land could be bought very cheaply and soldfor a much higher price. Investment in the housingsector was seen as secure in countries with veryunstable currencies. The aspects listed 1–3 abovecome from the consumer side but they are also“produced” by the suppliers. They partly create thedesire for better security, more prestige or a newlifestyle and are successful with that strategy.

Blakely and Snyder (1999) differentiate betweenthree categories of gated communities: lifestyle com-munities, prestige communities and security zonecommunities. For the examples from Indonesia, it isevident that they are an almost balanced mixture of allthree types. But in Indonesia, security has the highestpriority, followed by prestige and lifestyle. In otherSE-Asian countries like Thailand, the ranking mightbe opposite, but it is still a mixture. Accordingly, theimportance of the social values discussed by Blakelyand Snyder is slightly different in Indonesia:exclusion is primary, stability and privatisation aresecondary and the sense of community is tertiary, ifof any importance at all.

For all who can afford to live or invest in gatedcommunities, the advantages are apparent. Concern-ing social harmony, the development is questionable,since the peace must be bought and even then it isalways uncertain. Concerning land use, there is nodoubt that huge areas are wasted on houses nobodylives in, which are only bought for investment pur-poses, or on houses which cannot be sold because ofan oversupply in the market. The low profile of publicscrutiny in Indonesia, and other Southeast Asiancountries, together with the freedom accorded to gen-

350

erous developers with appropriate friends, lead to anuncontrolled and wasteful development process,which also contributes to decentralisation away fromthe biggest cities, while it fulfils the almost artificialdesires of its consumers.

AcknowledgementsThe author would like to thank the Deutsche For-schungsgemeinschaft (DFG) for the financial supportof his research (project no. LE 1010/1-1 and LE1010/1-2).

ReferencesAbeyasekere, S (1989) Jakarta—A History, Singapore, Oxford

University Press, New York.Blakely, E J. and Snyder M G (1999) Fortress America—Gated

Communities in the United States, 2nd edition, Brookings Insti-tution Press, Washington.

Booth, A (1999) Die Wirtschaft Sudostasiens: Auf dem Weg ins21. Jahrhundert. In: Dahm, G and Ptak, R (Eds.) Sudostasien-Handbuch, Verlag C.H. Beck, Munchen, pp. 562–594.

Firman, T (1997) Land conversion and urban development in thenorthern region of West Java, Indonesia. Urban Studies 34,1027–1046.

Firman, T (2000) Rural to urban land conversion in Indonesia dur-ing boom and bust periods. Land Use Policy 17, 13–20.

Goldblum, C and Wong, T C (2000) Growth, crisis and spatialchange: a study of haphazard urbanisation in Jakarta, Indonesia.Land Use Policy 17, 29–37.

Hofmeister, B (1991) Die Stadtstruktur—Ihre Auspragungen in denverschiedenen Kulturraumen der Erde. Ertrage der Forschung,132, Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, Darmstadt.

Koon, H P (1998) Malaysia. In: Pan, L (Ed.) The Encyclopedia ofthe Chinese Overseas, Archipelago Press, Singapore, pp.172–182.

Robison, R (1996) The Middle Class and the Bourgeoisie inIndonesia. In: Robison, R and Goodman, D S G (Eds.), TheNew Rich in Asia. Mobile phones, McDonalds and middle-classrevolution, London, Routledge, New York, pp. 79–101.

Somers Heidhues, M (1998) Indonesia. In: Pan, L (ed.) The Encyc-lopedia of the Chinese Overseas, Archipelago Press, Singapore,pp. 151–168.

Stahr, V S (1997) Sudostasien und der Islam-Kulturraum zwischenKommerz und Koran. Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft,Darmstadt.

Vatikiotis, M R J (1998) Thailand. In: Pan L (Ed.) The Encyclo-pedia of the Chinese Overseas, Archipelago Press, Singapore,pp. 218–227.

Download - Gated communities in Indonesia

Top Related