5 minute read

Observation of Public’s Playground

Next Article
Interface Center

Interface Center

Background

DKI Jakarta government created a program called Child-Friendly Integrated Public Space (RPTRA) to addressed the issue of the lack of safe public space for the community, especially for children. As with many public spaces developed by the government, there was a guideline standardization of what RPTRA should have. Each RPTRA would have a hall and office for community organization and events, at least one sporting court, children’s playground, and wellness space. However, it is a typology that interpreted differently by the government as guideline maker, the architects who designed and built the space, and the community who utilize it. These difference created a different response to the environment so the variations of behavior might not be the same in each location.

Advertisement

The most famous RPTRA built at that time was RPTRA Kalijodo which became the poster child of the RPTRA project success story. A revitalized area from slums and illegal activites, that particular urban park is big in size. However, most of RPTRA built in dense community from spare spaces usually an upgrade of local community center (Puskesmas, Karang Taruna, etc) and they are usually not big. These small urban parks were the RPTRAs chose for observation; RPTRA Bahari, RPTRA Taman Sawo, and RPTRA Belimbing. These three RPTRA are located in South Jakarta and chosen due to proximity, environment, size, and spatial programming based on the standardization. The observation was done for each on one of weekday and one of weekend with the help of time-lapse video.

Time-Lapse Observation

The time-lapse method used in the observation was actually inspired by writer, urbanist, and sociologist William H Whyte in his well-known book/documentary movie called The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces (1980). In the first part of the documentary, there was a time-lapse sequence of a square in front of the Seagram Building in New York. The time-lapse showed how human’s activity and behavior changed over the course of time together with the sun movement. Companioned with the book, Whyte quoted the statement from Philip Johnson, one of the architect who assisted Mies van der Rohe in designing Seagram, “We designed those blocks in front of the Seagram Building so people could not sit on them. But, you see, people want to so badly that they sit there anyhow. They like that place so much that they crawl, inch along that little narrow edge of the wall. We put the water near the marble ledge because we thought they’d fall over if they sat there. They don’t fall over; they sit there anyhow.” The statement intrigued Whyte that human use space with their own imagination. It is something no architect, urban designer, or planner could dictated.

Actor-Network Theory

Retrospective

This was the moment realize that I want to do more with Urban. When I made all of those studios project I kept hesitating and rewind questions in my head; Will this model make sense for people? How would people use this? Is the A or B will related to people’s behavior somehow? Meanwhile, my studio-mates had moved on to another steps of design making yet often found myself in this sort of bad habit of too much contemplation. However, that is what it is. I am fascinated at people’s behavior. I guess at the core this is what move me to wanting to learn more about Urban. Therefore, it is natural for me to choose this topic which is in the middle between how architecture defines space and usafe with urban as the wider context. As this is part of my thinking process in understanding urban, I think this fits inside my portfolio.

In 2017, I wrote a bachelor thesis about a kind of typological public space in Jakarta. It was urban parks associated as the work of governor at office at that time called Ruang Public Terpadu Ramah Anak (Child-Friendly Integrated Public Space), abbreviated as RPTRA.

The phenomenon that Whyte’s observed is what could be described in Actor-Network Theory (Latour, 2005). It is stated in Actor-Network Theory that all human (actor) activites came from responses to spatial program that is served by the place (actant). Actors subconciously follow the existance of actant for their activities. However, their behavior based on subjective past experiences. The way an actor behave can affect another actors behavior, which is called the Network. It is why many people who are random and don’t know each other, could do the same kind activites at the same time.

Observation of these three RPTRA in Jakarta used actor-network theory as a way to observe variations of behavior from RPTRA’s user. From the observation, it was found that variations of behavior had difference. The difference shown were actor’s age, how big and comprised the network is, and how the adjustment made when actors were interacting with each other. The observation found networks between toddler actor and adult actor, school kid actor with school kid actor, and adolescent actor with adolescent actor.

Table of actant usage from each age classified actors:

A = Toddlers

B = Children

C= Teenagers

D= Adults

Observation and Retrospective Conclusion

From the three RPTRAs, it showed different kinds of actors. However, each has the dominant actors who use actant the most. RPTRA Bahari, which built from empty spaces in the middle of dense housing, has many kids actors yet does not have enough space to accomodate all their activities and movements and they have to share spaces with much older kids and adults who often held community activities because the flat wide space seemed work better for them. RPTRA Taman Sawo, repurposed from community park with basketball ground already has a wide sporting court that can be altered for different sports. However, without proper seating places, kids had to sit on the ground next to the court yet it created a unique kinds of sitting style. The small hall made adults actor sprawled to different area. RPTRA Belimbing is an RPTRA that follow the regulated typology the most yet underused by adults actor that kids dominated the activities there with adults only there to supervised the kids.

The observation showed that the government had moved to the right direction in developing safe spaces for children. Kids are going to be kids. They need their own space. However, it showed regardless of its multifunctional purposes, the kids or children are the main actors. They are the one who use the space almost every time. Meanwhile, adult actors use the space for community activities but not every community is active. The conclusion that I wrote on my thesis were to have bigger playground and flat surfaces for children, give parents or adults a comfortable space to supervise the kids other than the community center, and that there should be covered from environment exposure such as harsh sunlight and rain.

I guess at that time my observation found the actor-network imbalance from what is purposed to be to what it is used for majority. As it has been explained before, most RPTRA were actually a local community center repurposed or some spare small space. However, it also means that RPTRA is not exclusively for children. It is there as part of community facility but it is also not exactly a “child space” as the government tried to promote. It is just a public space for community at the lowest level. The reason, I assume, is the lack of space. Jakarta is after all have open public space crisis. It was a good move try to make the local community to have and take care of its own public space but to call it as child friendly space but in small area is not it.

This article is from: