Tuesday, 17 July 2007

Grand Kemang Hotel



PROJECT DATA

Project Name
Grand Kemang Hotel
Location
Kemang Raya 2A, Jakarta, Indonesia
Status
70 per cent of total area completed
Expected Completion
End of 2007
Site Area
12,820 m2
Gross Floor Area
30,384 m2
Number of Rooms
200
Storeys
5
Client/Owner
PT. Kemang Jaya Raya
Architecture Firm
Joseph Hengky Associates in collaboration with PT. Pasifik Design Strategy
Principal Architect
Joseph Hengky
Main Contractor
PT. Cakrawala
Mechanical & Electrical Engineer
PT. Jaya Teknik
Civil & Structural Engineer
PT. Cakrawala
Images/Photos
Joseph Hengky




When the time came for the five-storey Grand Kemang Hotel to undergo a revamp, the directive for the architectural team from Joseph Hengky Associates and PT. Pasifik Design Strategy was to give the building a clear and distinctive overhaul, not just a superficial makeover.

Following that, the architects came up with innovative design elements that not only added a new dimension to the hotel’s façade but also enhanced its current functions and increased the interaction between the building and the people. Additionally, the transformation also gave the hotel a more modern appearance, more in keeping with the urban district of Kemang.



One of the added features is a new terrace attached to the side of the hotel, which creates additional space for greater air flow around the structure, more greenery and al fresco seating for patrons of the new café. The green terrace was also an attempt to help reduce the overall building temperature. The architects had wanted to create more green areas around the hotel to combat the effect of heat on the structure but whatever available space was already utilised for parking.

Relocated to the right-hand side of the building and marked by a bold and black façade, the main entrance and lobby for regular hotel guests now occupy a more prominent position, which allows for greater accessibility and interactivity. A separate side entrance, tucked away from the main lobby,was designed to allow service apartment guests a more direct access to their apartments. Besides convenience, this new feature also allows hotel staff to give longer staying guests more personalised services.



Other design elements that helped make the Grand Kemang Hotel stand out include the huge curve that appears from the top of the side wing (used to hide the function rooms) and the illuminated glass box sticking out at the centre of the building (which is actually the end of the guest room corridor).

The architects had a tight budget, which was a major constraint that affected their original installation plan and choice of materials. So the alternative solution was to use more affordable materials to renovate major parts of the building and the pricier ones to add accents to certain areas. The use of materials was also affected by the age of the structure; most parts of the existing hotel were built over 30 years ago. Thus, more attention was given to the load capacity of the building, which resulted in the use of a combination of dry wall system (gypsum board with hollow metal frame) for installing internal parts and lightweight concrete blocks for external parts. –Erwin Maulana/Candice Lim



© Copyright 2007 FuturArc. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.

Read More.....

Monday, 16 July 2007

Restoring Java’s Big City



Local residents of a town in Java are at risk of losing their heritage, but the real challenge is in making them aware of the value of their loss


by Erwin Maulana and Prapti Widinugraheni

Regret and sorrow were etched on the face of Debashish Nayak, an urban heritage conservation advisor at the Ahmedabad Municipal Council in India, when he saw a joglo—a traditional Javanese house—being taken apart in Kampung Karang Duren village one day last February. He was concerned this would change Kotagede and he knew that if such practices continued, the people of Kotagede would soon lose a valuable piece of their heritage.

Similar emotions were felt by Prof. Dr. Ismail bin Omar from Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM). Both were in Kotagede—a town literally meaning ‘big city’—as speakers at the 3rd International Symposium on Asian Heritage Post Disaster Mitigation and the 4th International Field School for Asian Heritage (IFSAH) on February 17-25, 2007.

Amongst the many World Heritage sites and cultural properties in and around Yogyakarta, Kotagede has been one of the most neglected and difficult to manage। This was a concern to members of the Centre for Heritage Conservation at Gadjah Mada University (UGM) and the Jogja Heritage Society, who then decided to provide the IFSAH secretariat with information in the hope the IFSAH program could be structured around the theme of finding solutions to the complex issues pertaining Kotagede’s heritage properties and their restoration.



Coincidentally, the 4th IFSAH was preceded by the unfortunate event of the May 2006 earthquake, so the international symposium was also dedicated to discussing post-disaster mitigation of heritage entities. Apart from learning from the experiences of other countries and discussing urban planning/design strategies on this issue, the symposium sought strategies to formulate a post-earthquake master conservation plan for Kotagede Heritage District.

Mr. Nayak said establishing an understanding within the community was important in the conservation of locallyowned heritage; this should be carried out continually. He said Kotagede’s development could be geared towards the local community for economic, social and tourism purposes. Without conservation, the face of Kotagede as an ‘old city’—the centre of the old Islamic Mataram Kingdom—would change and become like any other city.

Located 10 kilometres southeast of Yogyakarta City, within Yogyakarta province, Kotagede is home to various jewellers and is renowned for its silversmith industry. The town was once the capital of the Islamic Kingdom of Mataram, which was founded in the 16th century by Panembahan Senopati. The town embodies the older Hindu-Buddhist tradition and Islam, which arrived more recently; this can be seen from the legacy of mosques and graveyards in the town and temples in the region.



The townspeople of Kotagede are known to be hard workers. The original inhabitants of Kotagede were artists, creating woodcraft and silver and gold jewellery. Most of them came from the Hindu Kingdom of Majapahit in East Java and Bali and were commissioned by the Islamic Mataram Kingdom to fulfil its artistic needs. Kotagede’s past glory can still be witnessed today, such as in the houses belonging to the Kalang people. Woodcarvings engraved in the frameworks of buildings owned by the Kalang show touches of past luxury.

In the 1700s, the Kalang community became very rich because of their work as traders and manufacturers of silver handicrafts; the architecture of their luxury houses followed the Javanese Hindu tradition. In the following period—around the 1800s till the 1900s—Javanese joglo houses (uniquely Javanese architecture) appeared; these had Arabian ornaments and a prayer room attached. An important change happened around the 1920s to 1930s, when the Kalang community—monopolised by the Dutch colonial government—handled pawnshops and diamond and opium trade. During this period, the Kalang built luxury houses with Baroque European architecture. Examples of this can be found today in Kemasan Street.

Local houses in Kotagede are arranged in the typical village style known as the kampung alun-alun (town square village). These houses are built close together, pushing one another into the crowded streets, which then become more like paths because roofs and buildings overlap.These villages are inhabited by traditional silversmiths whose creations lend credence to Kotagede’s image as a hub for silver handicraft.



Prof. Omar from UTM saw similarities between the problems faced by Kotagede and several sites in Malaysia. Even before the earthquake there were many issues faced by joglo houses in Kotagede; these included, among others, instances whereby houses were the object of inheritance distributions; or were empty or vacated by their occupants. He said it was a shame when locals solved the problem by selling the joglo to people living outside the area because the houses end up being the ‘lost heritage’ of Kotagede.

He was also unable to see any regulations from the regional government that could help rescue Kotagede’s heritage. To make matters worse, Kotagede is geographically divided between two different regencies, so there is the possibility of differing, if not conflicting policies between the two. Mr. Omar, who is an agrarian, said he also saw that many joglo houses did not have land certificates; in fact, there were those whose data were lost and went unrecorded by the government land agency.

An alternative solution to Kotagede’s various problems has been the formation of a local body—consisting of representatives from the government, community groups, academia and other relevant parties—tasked with creating a guideline on the management of joglo houses and providing these guidelines to local owners. This gives owners an idea of the value of their heritage and assists them with maintenance.



The coordinator of the Organisation for Heritage Management in Kotagede, M. Natsier, said around 20 percent of pendapa (traditional gazebos) or joglo in Kotagede had recently been sold off by their original owners. This was because joglo or pendapa owners lacked funds to repair the residences which were seriously damaged in last year’s earthquake. Ironically, the government has not carried out the concrete steps needed to save the cultural asset—and it has been up to foreign organisations and overseas assistance to come to the rescue. Mr.Natsier said he recorded more than 20 heritage-listed joglo as having been sold by their owner to outsiders.

Mr. Natsier said the number of joglo houses in Kotagede was recorded at around 170 in 1985 and 150 in 2005. During the earthquake, 25 joglo collapsed while others were heavily damaged; these required immediate restoration so as not to allow ownership to change hands or physical locations altered. Ironically, the market price of a joglo is much lower than its historical value. “Rather than spend hundreds of millions of rupiah on restoration, owners prefer to sell a pendapa for several million rupiah,” said Mr. Natsier. Most of the time, owners sell the joglo for inheritance money.

Yukio Nishimura, a professor of urban engineering from the University of Tokyo, said the redevelopment of Kotagede should have a positive impact on the town’s local community. Planning of the region could be adapted to the requirements and needs of tourism, for example, but it should continue to firmly take into account the micro layout of the region, so changes to buildings or land functions that violate building regulations and feasibility studies do not occur.

The task is not one that can be accomplished overnight, Program Coordinator of the Jogja Heritage Society, Dr. Laretna T. Adhisakti, estimated the time needed to accomplish this feat at more than 20 years.



© Copyright 2007 FuturArc. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.

Read More.....

Tuesday, 5 June 2007

Kuningan Central Station



PROJECT DATA

Project Name
Kuningan Central Station
Location
Jakarta, Indonesia
Status
Design Development
Expected Completion
2008 (Green Line);
2010 (Blue Line)
Gross Floor Area
2,700 m2 (includes stairs, bridge, concourse and platform)
Client/Owner
PT. Jakarta Monorail
Architecture Firm
Baskoro Tedjo in association with Hepta Design and PDW
Principal Architect
Baskoro Tedjo
Main Contractor
PT. Adhi Karya
Mechanical & Electrical Engineer
PT. Adhi Karya
Civil & Structural Engineer
PT. Adhi Karya
Images/Photos
Hepta Design




Jakarta’s two-line Monorail system is part of a multi-pronged effort to alleviate congestion in Indonesia’s capital city. The planned Monorail consists of two lines: the green line will circle the business and trading district; the blue line will cross that same area of the city. Once operational, the system is expected to carry some 120,000 passengers on a daily basis.

The design for the green line’s Kuningan Central Station is driven by two main factors: first, it will take on a significant visual role in the city’s streetscape; and secondly, as an open structure, it has to consider Jakarta’s tropical climate. As one of the larger stations in the two-line monorail system, it will also act as a prototype for other stations along the line.

The monorail at Kuningan Central Station is elevated above Rasuna Street in the business district, with the station occupying the space above a median strip separating traffic lanes. At 16 metres high and 60 metres long, the station must compete visually with the area’s large buildings. With that in mind, the designers sought to reduce the size of the building mass, making it as transparent and light as possible.



As the stations are really more shelters than enclosed buildings, the designers also wanted to make sure that the station itself, the waiting areas and the access bridges were all open and incorporated into the street to not change the character of street life.

They sought inspiration for the structure from a tree, with the design filtering out sunlight and creating shade at street level. A layered roof functions as the top of the tree, cooling down the hot air as it flows through the building. (To reduce costs, other stations will have a different roof structure.)

The station’s structure is made of light concrete and steel to occupy as little space as possible while also being earthquake proof.

Construction of the Monorail is slated to start in the first quarter of 2007. The green line is expected to be operational in 2008; the blue line in 2010. –Erwin Maulana/Christen Jamar

© Copyright 2007 FuturArc. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.

Read More.....

Jakarta’s Transportation Future



Now that the Jakarta bus rapid transit (BRT) system is deemed a success, the government looks to other transportation systems to create a comprehensive city network that takes the pressure off the city’s overloaded roadways.

Monorail
Construction on the Monorail project is to start in 2007. The system will comprise two lines, designated by colour, that aim to alleviate congestion in Jakarta’s business district. The Blue line will run for 13.5 kilometres and have 15 stations; the Green Line will circle the district for 14.3 kilometres with 16 stations.

MRT
Construction is slated to start in 2010, running along the north-south corridor of the city. The subway train will run for 19 kilometres and will have the capacity to carry 45,000 passengers per hour, each direction.

Waterways Transport
Jakarta has over 13 rivers that are wide enough to be used for waterway transport. This transport development is hoped to stimulate the city’s waterfront spaces and attract tourism, while preserving Jakarta’s rivers and canals. There are currently plans for six main waterway lanes, providing 61 kilometres of transport.

Hub Station
Dukuh Atas in South Jakarta will become the city’s main integrated transportation hub, interfacing with the LRT (the existing commuter train), MRT, Monorail, Waterways and Busway.

(Taken From: http://www.futurarc.com/this_edition/busway_moves.cfm)
© Copyright 2007 FuturArc. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.

Read More.....

Busway Moves



Jakarta’s bus rapid transit system offers hope for the rest of the city’s gridlocked transport network


By Erwin Maulana and Christen Jamar

Getting around in Indonesia’s capital city Jakarta can take so long that web sites have sprung up giving tips on what you can do while stuck in traffic: read or learn a foreign language are among the suggestions. Still others offer advice: make sure you have plenty of water; if you are with children, take some entertainment.

With driving speeds averaging less than 15 kilometres an hour during peak times, and average commutes taking well over an hour, it is no wonder people are looking for ways to kill time.

The city suffers from problems experienced in developing urban centres not only in Asia but worldwide. As the focal point of the Indonesian economy, a combination of urban migration and growing access to cars have created a nasty snarl of traffic as Jakarta’s nearly 9 million residents try to get around the city. Bring in the out-of-town commuters, estimated to swell the city’s population on a daily basis by three million people, and you’ve got the makings of an incessant and impenetrable traffic jam.

Among the many unwelcome side effects of such an unsustainable transportation network are a depressed quality of life, lower productivity and, most importantly, unhealthy air quality.

“Jakarta’s transportation conditions today are approaching crisis level,” asserts Sutanto Soehodho, chairman of the Jakarta City Transportation Council (DTK-J), an urban transport stakeholder organisation, in an interview with FuturArc. He says that Jakarta's main form of public transportation—the city bus system—is currently utilized by only two percent of the population. That is because the buses are over-crowded and uncomfortable; the other form of public transport, a light rail, provides dismal service and an inconvenient network. As a result, most people prefer the solitude and personal space of their cars, even if it means waking up earlier

There have been regular efforts to expand the road network, but ultimately, transport experts say, energy should be directed at cutting down the number of cars. According to Sutanto, the length of the road network increases by one percent each year, while vehicle use is climbing 11 percent annually. If they continue at that rate, he says, “Jakarta will totally collapse in traffic” by 2014.

Finally, in 2004, the government released a blueprint for Jakarta transportation planning, called the Jakarta Macro Transportation Scheme (JMaTS). The plan includes efforts to limit car usage, such as increasing public parking costs, congestion pricing, and the 3-in-1 system (in high-traffic zones, each car must be transporting at least three people). It also includes some road infrastructure improvements, such as widening some roads and building flyovers and underpasses. The scheme’s major infrastructure projects include light rail transit lines (the Monorail) and a subway (MRT). The government is also looking at the city’s waterways for transport.

In the past couple years, though, the city’s public transport golden child has been the TransJakarta Busway, a dedicated bus rapid transit (BRT) line operating on specific city corridors. Launched amid much criticism in 2004, the system has turned out to be an enormous success. It currently carries 100,000 passengers a day, triple the amount it was carrying when it started. Surveys have indicated that 14 percent of Busway riders used to drive; and 80 percent of people asked said they would switch to the Busway system if it was accessible.

Its popularity has led to a rapid expansion—after the first line was launched in 2004, another two started operating in 2005, and yet another four in January of this year. By 2010 the government intends to have 15 corridors in operation, covering a total length of 159 kilometres, according to the DTK-J.

The reasons for the Busway’s success are clear. First, it is an easy, and perhaps more importantly, cheap system to get up and running quickly—the construction required is limited to building shelters and physically separating the bus’s lane from the rest of vehicle traffic. The shelters are clean; the buses are comfortable and are more-fuel efficient. The system has been integrated into the light rail (LRT) coming in from the suburbs and with inter-city bus stations in Jakarta’s suburban towns. Plans are in place to integrate the system further with the monorail, subway and water-based transport systems.

Sutanto agrees the Busway is the best way of alleviating traffic quickly in Jakarta. “One bus can carry 80 people. Sixty-five cars would be needed to carry the same number of people,” he says.



The Busway, he says, is a “compromising technology,” providing a solution that provides immediate relief and gives the city time and money to develop the rail-based systems gradually. “We cannot implement expensive technology in a short time. We don’t want to implement high technology if the people cannot afford the ticket,” he says. He hopes in the future that affordable rail projects will take further pressure off the roads. In fact, he says, the planned north-south MRT subway line is actually intended to replace the Corridor 1 Busway line.

But the Busway has had some growing pains. The system includes feeder buses to give access to people who are not within range of Busway corridors. However, the feeder buses are the more expensive express buses, so while the Busway itself is cheap, getting to it can be costly. Also, there are not enough feeder buses, nor do they run promptly enough, to ensure the optimal use of the Busway system. That has led some to say expansion plans should be put on hold until the feeder systems for the current Busway corridors are optimised.

Also, according to Sutanto, there remain larger, more institutional challenges to the city’s transportation planning. First, Sutanto points out that the JMaTS is only a series of recommendations at this point. “(It) has to be government policy. We need (legislation) to ensure the sustainability of transport development.” Establishing one single independent transportation authority that brings together all the stakeholders—including police, public works, city transport authorities, consumers, and users—would make planning more efficient, he adds.

Still, the TransJakarta Busway—and the rest of the JMaTS—demonstrate initiative on the part of government and the private sector to come up with creative solutions to the city’s gridlock. The system, which followed a similar transport solution in Bogota, Colombia, has become the model of improving public transportation quickly for cities elsewhere in Indonesia and Asia. Bangkok, for one, is looking into developing a bus rapid transit system.

So even though there may be some hitches in the system, the Busway offers residents hope that in the future they may not think of the daily commute as a time to catch up on old correspondence.

(Taken From: http://www.futurarc.com/this_edition/busway_moves.cfm)
© Copyright 2007 FuturArc. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.

Read More.....

Thursday, 19 April 2007

Sudiang Main Sports Hall, Indonesia



PROJECT DATA
Project Name
Sudiang Main Sports Hall
Location
Sudiang Makassar, South Sulawesi, Indonesia
Status
Under construction
Site Area
22,218 m2
Gross Floor Area
8,100 m2
Building Height
31.35 m
Seating Capacity
8,000 seats
Client/Owner
Government of South Sulawesi Province
Architecture Firm
PT. Bita Enarcon Engineering
Principal Architects
Sugeng Triyadi and Torret Koesbiantoro
Main Contractor
PT. Makassar Indah
Mechanical & Electrical Engineers
Gatot Hudijanto; Risman
Civil & Structural Engineers
Cahyo Sumeru; Andreas Hasnadi
Images
Yayan Sofyan Fauzan; Pitus K. Adikusuma
Photographs
Government of South Sulawesi Province




Though foiled in their initial design concept due to the limitations of the local contractors, the architects of the Sudiang Sports Complex’s 8,000-seat main sports hall incorporated references to the Bugis culture prevalent in South Sulawesi in Indonesia.

The sport complex’s location—near the Hasanuddin International Airport—imposed some constraints on the design, limiting the building’s height and the roof material. Also, architects had to consider the impact of airplane-induced noise pollution on the venue. It was these limitations that gave the sports hall its shape—a cylindrical building with a short-angled conical roof.

A simple, circular building, the sports hall’s exterior has triangular shapes that mirror the Bugis roof and modern interpretations of the traditional building’s staircase and stilt-like supports. In order to save energy, the building does not incorporate a mechanical air-conditioning system. Instead, air will enter the building through operable windows and move through vents located above the seats. The interior will have some natural lighting, entering through windows in the side and at the top of the building.

Using a hard synthetic floor, the stadium will be used for indoor sports such as tennis, badminton, basketball and indoor football. The entire sports complex, which also includes an outdoor stadium, a velodrome, an aquatic centre and other facilities, is located on what was previously commercial agricultural land. Water drainage will be maintained through largely grass landscaping and paved pedestrian paths.

The site is in an area that is still under development and therefore will depend on existing transportation networks. However, a special monorail and bus system will be developed by 2012 to reach the Sudiang Sports Complex from South Sulawesi’s capital, Makassar. –Erwin Maulana/Christen Jamar



© Copyright 2007 FuturArc. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.

Read More.....

Thursday, 22 March 2007

Mediterania Garden Residences, Indonesia



PROJECT DATA

Project Name
Mediterania Garden Residences
Location
Slipi, Jakarta-Barat, Indonesia
Status
Completed 2005
Site Area
29,315 m2
Gross Floor Area
214,085 m2
Building Height
108 m
Storeys
32
Number of Units
2,696
Client/Owner
PT Jaya Lestari Persada, member of Agung Podomoro Group
Architecture Firm
PT Megatika International
Principal Architect
Junus Tjandra, IAI
Façade & Landscape
PT Imageqreator
Main Contractor
PT Total Bangun Persada, PT
Pembangunan Perumahan JO
Mechanical & Structural Engineer
PT Meltech Consultindo Nusa
Civil & Structural Engineer
Ketira Engineering Consultants
Photographer
Ravisyah Aditya (image 1)




The Mediterania Garden Residences’ relatively simple façade with Mediterraneanstyle decorative elements and terracotta colours is an accessible architectural motif that appeals to its target audience of students and young professionals. While the project is not an icon from a design perspective, it stands out in Jakarta for its 2,600-plus apartments on 32 storeys.

Traditional development patterns in Indonesia favour low-rise, low-density living, which-given the pace of urban migration to Jakarta-has translated into sprawl and severe transportation problems. City planners and developers are now rethinking their strategy and housing is moving upward, rather than outward.

The trend towards high-rise living was given a boost in 2002 and 2004 when severe flooding made some middle-income families re-evaluate the advantages of living higher off the ground. Now, there is a
smattering of luxury high-rise developments, but the strong-growth segment of high-density living in Jakarta is targeted at the middle class. Indicative of the appeal, the Mediterania Garden Residences sold out in the first three months of 2006.

The Mediterania Garden Residences are built on a brownfield site in central Jakarta formerly occupied by slum housing. With the objective of reducing individual dependence on the automobile, the project planners took advantage of the site’s easy access to public transportation and opted not to construct a basement car-park. The Residences are located within easy reach of the traditional city bus system, the recently opened TransJakarta Busway (a dedicated-lane bus system) and the planned Monorail. The development is also minutes away from the Tomang highway junction, one of the biggest in Jakarta.

The project consists of two L-shaped towers and two T-shaped towers that are built around central gardens and a swimming pool. The architects maintained a small built footprint to increase green spaces—the buildings occupy only 20 percent of the site.

While the apartments have airconditioning to battle Jakarta’s humid heat, the architects have incorporated operable windows with coated glazing to reduce the solar heat gain. The buildings are also of different heights to aid in cross-ventilating the apartments. As the project has been built with middle-income residents in mind, the developer kept costs down by using ceramic tiles for flooring and exposed concrete for the ceiling. –Erwin Maulana/Christen Jamar

© Copyright 2006 FuturArc. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.

Read More.....

Lessons Learned, Continued

Interview: Munichy B. Edrees, head of Indonesian Architects Association (IAI), Yogyakarta chapter

In early August, some ten weeks after the earthquake, FuturArc met with Munichy B. Edrees head of the Yogyakarta chapter of the Indonesian Architects Association (IAI), to understand what architectural and urban planning factors are relevant as redevelopment and reconstruction efforts inch forward.


FuturArc:
What factors does the IAI think are most responsible for the number of victims in the May earthquake disaster that affected Java and Yogyakarta in May? Was it because the buildings were not structurally sound and collapsed? Was it due to bad infrastructure, in that the pathways through the densely populated districts prevented rescuers getting in to help?
Munichy: In some of the collapsed houses, where there were many victims, it was because of weak building structure. When walls are made with clay bricks and badly mixed sand-cement mortar, they are not only weak but also rigid; that is, inflexible against the shift and force of an earthquake.

The impact of bad infrastructure-that the roads and streets are too narrow and the buildings too dense-also contributed to the number of victims. Many people either died or were injured when they ran to save themselves because they were hit by a fence or wall. Limited evacuation paths are also causing a delay in getting aid to the victims.

FuturArc: Taking a look at urban planning, will the post-earthquake reconstruction be different from the planning before the earthquake? What is the most important change that is needed?
Munichy:
It must be different to be prepared for another earthquake. The distance between buildings and the distribution of evacuation paths will be of special consideration in order to help get help and aid to the disaster victims.

FuturArc: In terms of studies of the structure and design of buildings and building materials, are the IAI and other relevant institutions making suggestions to make buildings safer? If so, are these suggestions being considered and applied by the victims and the government when rebuilding public facilities and/or housing?
Munichy: In conjunction with the university networks, the IAI established the Jogja-Jateng Architectural Quick Response (JAR) to support housing reconstruction in cooperation with the Public Works Department. We provide designs and advice to make new buildings safer in case of another earthquake. In some places, the IAI and JAR have developed village models so that, in these villages, all the buildings are built in line with suggestions from the IAI and JAR.

It is imperative that buildings are built to meet existing building standards. That will require training so that new houses are developed and built according to the standards.

As far as building materials, even reinforced concrete materials would work, but only if made with the right formula and used correctly. Building materials need to be able to be more resistant to earthquake forces. Some examples include light steel and aluminium. Natural building materials have also become popular-bamboo is being used by some homeowners because it is cheap, easy to get, and easy to use. The kotangan system (half-brick wall/half-bamboo matting) is one of the popular choices among the victims.

FuturArc: So far what percentage of damaged buildings has been repaired?
Munichy: Up to today, less than one percent.

FuturArc: What methods are employed by the government departments and the IAI in relocating earthquake victims? How long will it take to reconstruct to a condition that is similar to the situation before the earthquake?
Munichy: When redeveloping and rebuilding housing in Yogyakarta and Central Java, several factors must be considered: resilience against future earthquakes, health, safety and ease of construction. Besides those factors, availability of resources, such as funds, construction materials, time and labour must also be considered. University studies have indicated that victims should not live in refugee shelters or tents for more than three months. We have made some temporary shelters and healthy refugee tents near the damaged houses. While the complete reconstruction process really depends on available funds, it should take more or less two years.

FuturArc: What lessons have the IAI learned from the reconstruction process to prepare for a future disaster?
Munichy: The application of building safety standards for all types of buildings-residential and other infrastructure-has been the most valuable lesson for all. Using building materials that meet safety standards will minimise building damage if hit by another disaster.

(Taken From: http://www.futurarc.com/previous_edition/discussion_lesson_learned.cfm)
© Copyright 2006 FuturArc. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.

Read More.....

Friday, 16 March 2007

Lessons Learned



A look at what lessons are being learned-and-applied-in the wake of the May earthquake in Indonesia

by Erwin Maulana and Thor Kerr

On 27 May, just before six o'clock in the morning, about 37 kilometres south of Yogyakarta, a 5.9 magnitude earthquake shook Indonesia's Yogyakarta and Central Java provinces, one of the world's most densely populated regions.

According to a preliminary report from the World Bank, the May 2006 Java earthquake was one of the world's costliest natural disasters in the past ten years, causing nearly 6,000 deaths, tens of thousands of injuries and an estimated US$3.1 billion in total damages. Damaged and destroyed houses account for over half of the total damaged value-the latest estimates from the Indonesian government show that about 330,000 houses were destroyed or badly damaged; another 278,000 suffered light damage.

While the severity of the damage has been blamed principally on the earthquake's relatively shallow depth (11.8 kilometres below the earth's surface), a general failure to properly construct buildings against earthquake forces was a critical factor.

Indonesia is no stranger to earthquake disasters: this earthquake follows the horrific 2004 tsunami; and on 17 July 2006, just six weeks after the May earthquake, another tsunami hit the coast of Java, leading to hundreds of dead and more damage.

Since structural failure was a major contributor to housing damage and human loss, FuturArc has talked to local architects and survivors to find out what building conditions existed before the earthquake and what lessons are being learned and applied to prevent another such tragedy.





A Look to Tradition for Strength

While the earthquake's shallow depth was a major factor in its impact, the overall scale of the damage was made worse by a failure to meet safe building standards and to employ basic earthquake-resistant construction methods. The majority of homes in the area were built with low-quality materials and lacked structural frames and reinforcing pillars. Many of the deaths and injuries occurred when buildings and walls fell on the victims. While the most affected were the poor, damage was not limited to housing. Many public buildings, particularly schools, collapsed, which was also blamed on a failure to enforce building codes

Unfortunately, the government has been slow to offer assistance in reconstructing private houses, leading many homeowners to repair or rebuild their homes either by themselves or with help from the community. Reconstruction in some areas is aided by relief agencies, like the Red Cross Red Crescent.

Bimo Suryanto, who lives in the heavily hit Bantul district in Yogyakarta province, has organised local homeowners to rebuild homes. He says the reconstruction efforts must not only meet basic building standards, but also take into account that the village sits on the fault line. If these homes were built to the same standard as their previous homes, they would again be vulnerable to a future disaster. When local residents saw that modern public buildings also collapsed, they concluded that new homes must not only be earthquake-resistant, but must also be built to minimise personal injury even if they are destroyed, Mr. Suryanto says.

When evaluating reconstruction needs, people looked to the local government for guidance in planning and building. At the time of writing (on 6 August), no government reconstruction aid had been delivered to villagers in the affected regions of Bantul or Klaten. In the absence of government guidance, Mr. Suryanto says many homeowners in his village have started the rebuilding efforts on their own.



Since villagers are rebuilding with extremely limited resources, they are looking for materials and methods that meet fairly simple and straight-forward criteria: they need to be affordable and offer safety, security and basic day-to-day comfort. Given that so much damage and death were caused by collapsing brick walls, homeowners are looking to more traditional building materials, such as wood and bamboo.

Mr. Suryanto's village is one of many throughout the affected region that have restored confidence in bamboo and traditional construction methods. The proof is in the shattered landscape: five-metre-high traditional warehouses and barns made of bamboo and sugarcane leaves are still standing after the earthquake while modern buildings lay in ruins.

The small, dense village of Birit, in Klaten, Central Java is one of many examples. Before the earthquake, Birit, a typical farm workers' village, was home to more than 100 families. Single-storey detached houses of brick and tile occupied tiny sites, creating an abstract patchwork of structures. Now only a handful of those houses are still standing; the rest were reduced to brick rubble and dust during the earthquake. Between houses were alleys of one-to-three metres wide, used by the residents to escape when the earthquake began. Only two people died in Birit because rapid exit was possible from this small, dense village before the weight of tiled roofs and brick walls crashed down upon them

Now, tents have been staked amongst rubble on the foundations of old homes as villagers protect their greatest remaining asset: a concrete slab. Reconstruction works are starting on these foundations with villagers accessing relatives' funds or receiving help from relief agencies

As in Bimo Suryanto's village in Bantul, bamboo has become the structural material of choice in Birit because it is relatively cheap, available and proven to be reliable in earthquakes.

Mr. Sumanto, a Birit resident who lost his house in the earthquake, and relief workers from the foundation Yayasan Tanggul Bencana Indonesia (YTBI) constructed a temporary bamboo house in the village on the foundation of a levelled house in only two days. The 20-square-metre house is constructed of a bamboo frame, woven bamboo walls and ceiling. The roof has three layers, starting with the innermost bamboo ceiling, followed by a plastic sheet and then sugarcane leaves.

YTBI aims to build 1,000 temporary houses in six months with just five staff working in some of the poorest villages of Klanten and Bantul by supplying a basic house design, training, bamboo and other materials while villagers apply their own labour. The materials for each house cost only IDR1.6 million (US$176) and can be delivered to site within four days by suppliers from Central Java. The YTBI houses are expected to be used for up to two years, but the designer Yudhi Kartika Nugraha said the preserved bamboo could last up to five years. This may be necessary if promised reconstruction aid is not forthcoming.

Other homeowners are finding building materials in whatever they can get their hands on Aside from using bamboo, some people are recycling whatever wood framework is in good enough condition from otherwise destroyed houses. Besides using plastic and woven leaves, other roofing materials include recycled debris, clay tiles, zinc and asbestos.



(Taken From: http://www.futurarc.com/previous_edition/discussion_lesson_learned.cfm)
© Copyright 2006 FuturArc. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.

Read More.....