Passage Territories: Reframing Living Spaces in Contested Contexts

Main Article Content

Published Jul 30, 2018
Issue Volume 1 Number 2 (2018)
Section Articles

Kristanti Dewi Paramita Tatjana Schneider

Abstract

This paper investigates the concept of ‘passage territories’ (Sennett, 2006), de ned as living spaces constructed from one’s passage of movement from one separate space to another, and how it extends the discussion of interiority in contested contexts. Through observations of living spaces and the narrative accounts of dwellers’ in Kampung Pulo and Manggarai neighbourhoods of Jakarta, this study draws attention to the interiority of dispersed and layered spaces occupied by the kampungs’ dwellers. In this context, passage territories are driven by a) a limitation of space that, in turn, triggers the need to acquire more space; b) the occupation of a dweller that necessitates different types of space; and c) the limited access to infrastructural resources that influence the extent of a living space’s dispersal. Through the use of drawings, this study reveals the complete interiority of living spaces consisting of spaces with diverse spatial ownerships and scales. The boundaries of passage territories tend to be de ned by the frequency and length of time needed for an activity instead of the relative proximity between certain spaces. Furthermore, the way objects are placed also shapes the boundaries of passage territories, both for permanent and temporary use of space. This paper then discusses the impact of this knowledge on the interiority of passage territories, proposing to use mechanisms of ‘patches’ and ‘corridors’ to shape the interior of territory that cross, share, and change into one another.

Keywords: territory, movements, infrastructure, kampung, Jakarta

Article Details

Author Biographies

Kristanti Dewi Paramita, Universitas Indonesia, Indonesia; University of Sheffield, United Kingdom

Kristanti teaches architecture in Universitas Indonesia since 2010 before appointed full-time lecturer in 2012. She obtained her MA in Architectural Design in 2009, and has just recently submitted her PhD by Design thesis, with both programs have taken in School of Architecture at University of Sheffield, UK. Her current research takes particular interest in spatial connectivity based on knowledge of practices, and how such knowledge shapes architectural design methods that emphasise emergent spaces and resource network. Prior to studying PhD, she has worked extensively in action research projects and educational environment design, developing design models of both domestic and civic spaces and constructing them together with the variety of stakeholders, from autistic children, local kampung dwellers, to public school institutions.

Tatjana Schneider, University of Sheffield

Tatjana Schneider lives and works between England and Germany. Current work focuses on global challenges and the changing role of architects and architecture in contemporary society, (architectural) pedagogy and spatial agency. She is interested in employing and implementing theoretical, methodological and practical approaches that expand the scope of contemporary debates and discourses by integrating political and economic frameworks that question normative ways of thinking, producing and consuming space. Her publications include Spatial Agency. Other Ways of Doing Architecture and Agency: Working with Uncertain Architectures. She also was the founder member of the workers cooperative G.L.A.S. (Glasgow Letters on Architecture and Space), which aimed to construct both a theoretical and practical critique of the capitalist production and use of the built environment.

References

Alexander, C. (1965). A city is not a tree. Architectural Forum, 122(April), 58–62.

Atmodiwirjo, P., Yatmo, Y. A., & Ujung, V. (2015). Outside interior: Traversed boundaries in a Jakarta urban neighbourhood. IDEA Journal, 78-89.

Attiwill, S. (2011). Working space: Interiors as provisional compositions. In T. Meade (Ed.), Occupation: Negotiations with constructed space (pp. 1-8). Brighton: University of Brighton.

Dierwechter, Y. (2002). Six cities of the informal sector—and beyond. International Development Planning Review, 24(1), 21-40. https://doi.org/10.3828/idpr.24.1.2

Dovey, K., & Polakit, K. (2009). Urban slippage smooth and striated streetscapes in Bangkok. In K. Dovey (Ed.), Becoming places: Urbanism/architecture/identity/power. London; New York: Routledge.

Forty, A. (2004). Words and buildings: A vocabulary of modern architecture (First Paperback Edition). New York: Thames and Hudson Ltd.

Gouverneur, D. (2015). Planning and design for future informal settlements. Retrieved from http://globalurbancommons.org/planning-and-design-for-future-informal-settlements/

Graham, S., & McFarlane, C. (2014). Introduction. In S. Graham (Ed.), Infrastructural lives: Urban infrastructure in context (pp. 1–14). Abingdon, Oxon ; New York, NY: Routledge.

Habraken, N. J. (2000). The structure of the ordinary: Form and control in the built environment. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Hollis, E. (2018). Unreliable guides: Introducing, mapping, and performing interior. Interiority, 1(1), 21–35. https://doi.org/10.7454/in.v1i1.6

Kärrholm, M. (2007). The materiality of territorial production. Space and Culture, 10(4), 437–453. https://doi.org/10.1177/1206331207304356

Massey, D. (2005). For space. London; Thousand Oaks, CA.: SAGE Publications.

Petrescu, D. (2012). Relationscapes: Mapping agencies of relational practice in architecture. City, Culture and Society, 3(2), 135–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ccs.2012.06.011

Pimlott, M. (2018). Interiority and the conditions of interior. Interiority, 1(1), 5–20. https://doi.org/10.7454/in.v1i1.5

Pink, S. (2012). Situating everyday life. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.

Poot, T., Van Acker, M., & De Vos, E. (2015). The public interior: The meeting place for the urban and the interior. IDEA Journal, 2015, 44-55.

Sennett, R. (2006, November). Housing and urban neighbourhoods the open city. Urban Age.

Smith, C. L., & Ballantyne, A. (2010). Flow: Architecture, object and relation. Architectural Research Quarterly, 14(1), 21–27. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1359135510000540

Smitheram, J., & Woodcock, M. (2009). Affective territories. IDEA Journal, 2009, 8-19.

Soranart, S. (2011). Local flows: Rom Hoob’s phenomena of transition. In A. Ballantyne & C. Smith (Eds.), Architecture in the Space of Flows (pp. 135-143). Abingdon, Oxon, England; New York, NY: Routledge.

Yatmo, Y. A., & Atmodiwirjo, P. (2013). Spatial strategies for domestic service activities in urban kampung houses. International Journal of Technology, 4(1), 24-33. https://doi.org/10.14716/ijtech.v4i1.98

Yatmo, Y. A., Atmodiwirjo, P., & Paramita, K. D. (2013). Whose waste is it anyway? Journal of Urban Design, 18(4), 534–552. https://doi.org/10.1080/13574809.2013.824364