The Role of Historical Settlement

THE ROLE OF HISTORICAL SETTLEMENT

IN GENERATING CITY'S IDENTITY

By

Widya Fransiska F Anwar1, Ismail Said2, Dilhsan Remaz Ossen3, Moh. Hisyam bin Rasyidi4

Email:

Abstract

As an old historical city, Palembang has experienced some changes in its urban structure. Initially founded at Musi riverside, the founder built their places of living along the riverside. The community in Palembang consists of natives; the Malay Palembang and the non-natives: the Chinese and the Arabs. All of them developed their culture in daily life including the way they expressed their identity on their settlement. However, the modernization threatens these communities' relationship with their ethnic settlements. It leads to question on how these historical settlementsare able to represent the ethnic's identity as a part of city identity in current context. The study is aimed (1) to investigate the people-place relationship at historical riverside settlement in Palembang, (2) to investigate the imageability of the old elementsof these settlements based on residents' perception (3) in order to examine the role of historical settlement in rebuilding the city's identity. Regarding this, the study asked further on how thesesmall elements in urban setting such as old settlement can be utilized in generating the city's identity. This is done by comparing the results of questionnaire from twosurveys. There are three methods used for statistical analysis; frequency distribution, factor analysis and crosstabulations. The major finding suggests place attachment towards an old element along with its scale in an urban settingdetermines its ability in generating the distinctiveness of historical riverside settlement. Findings also suggest that in order to be recognized as a representativeelementfor city identity, the old urban elements within the micro urban settingsuch as settlements must beexisted and perceived as a unity withintheneighbourhoodsand city scale.

Keywords: riverside, settlements, Palembang, place attachment, city's identity

1.Background

1.1City and its element

City is formed by its elements. The element represents the identity of the city as it shows the city distinctiveness. An element of a city can be as an object located at a certain place. Saleh (1998) coins that the identification of an object describes the uniqueness and the individuality of a place. Later, it becomes the object's physical identity along with other elements. Therefore it is a need to understand the urban elements in investigating the city's identity.

Some scholars have defined the urban elements; physically and non-physically. They mention the city elements are (1) buildings, plots and streets (Conzen, 1960), (2) paths, edges, district, nodes and landmarks (Lynch, 1965), (3)land use, building mass and form, circulation and parking area, open spaces, pedestrian path, activity support and Signage (Shirvani, 1985),(4)squares, centre, streets and institutional buildings, people's economical activities and capital entity (Kostof, 1995), (5) spatial configuration and people's movement (Hillier, 2001) and (6) physical and wireless infrastructure (Fattahi and Kobayashi, 2009).

In details, some studies on Asian cities such as in Indonesia and China reveal that urban structure is the life and functional activities of the people. Traditionally, the urban structure of old cities such as Yogyakarta, Semarang, Kotagede and Suzhou is formed based onthe philosophy of life and culture that are accommodated by physical elements of the city and patterned on a certain ordering system.Therefore, the formation of the old Asian citiesconsists two main aspects; the key elements and the setting. The key elementsconsist of four types of urban elements; (1) governmental building such as palace and administrative buildings, (2) public amenities such as open space and commercial buildings, (3) religious building such as mosquesand (4) settlement(Wikantyoso, 1997; Ikaputra et.al, 2000; Pang, 2006. Zahnd, 2008). Usually, the first three onesare the urban center and have big in size and service scale while the last one is the other way around. All of them are situated in urban setting according to certain layout principle or ordering system such as axial and grid system (Widyatasari, 2002; Handinoto, 1999).

1.2Elements representing city's identity

The founder of the city had built the city in order to serve the community. Therefore, the city consists of some elements that serve the people in different scale of service. The city hall, religiouscentres, open spaces and major streets are some of elements that serve the city community in a big scale of service, whilst the settlements accommodate the life of the residents in a smaller one. Based on the climate, culture, social, economic and religious factors, the founder designed the settlements as a unique urban form and structure (Saleh, 2004).In Palembang, the settlements along the Musi River included Chinese, Malay and Arab communities. As native, Malay applied the philosophy of their life based on the cultural value. As non-native, the Chinese and Arab brought their genuine socio-cultural value and adapted to the nature of the social - culture of Palembang. Therefore, the ethnic settlement along the Musi River reflects the multi ethnic adaptation. This adaptation is a kind of genius solution that were sourced from the social routines of the residents and formed into the physical and spatial structuresof the villages. The reflection of the identity of Palembang as an historical river city is shown by these ethnic settlements.

However, the life in riverside area is changed, demanded by modernization. It threatens the ethnic's riverside settlement, physically and socially. The modern value demands the new physical and spatial structure and tends to neglect the old value reflected by the old structure. Then, the appreciation towards the old urban structure of riverside settlements are decreasing. It eliminates the recognition of them as a part of Palembang's identity. This leads to research question: to what extent the existence of the existing buildings in the settlement contributes to represent the identity of each ethnic as well as the city's identity in the modern context.

Place can represent the identity from its physical environment and social categorization of its people (Relph, 1976). The physical environment is the reflection of the identity, whilst the social meaning of the place is the reflection of the categorization or identity of people lived at the place physical and social aspects of its people.

The physical form of the elements of a place becomes the evidence of the distinctiveness or uniqueness of a place that differentiate it from other places. In other words, the existence of thisevidence creates a specific character of a place known as place character.Gospodini (2004) posits thatphysical elements both in forms of built heritage and avant garde design are able to generate place identity. Furthermore, Lewicka (2008) suggests that the physical elements can be an urban reminder that is a physical trace that describes a place and influencespeople’s memory of the place. This also means that the physical elements reflect the memory of place distinctiveness or identity. Identity of a place exists through the continuous existence of the elements whereas disruption of the elements leads toits identity loss (Ross and Uzzell, 1996). Dovey et.al (2008) posits that the term of place character is related to place and people, and implied an identity of a certain authenticity or distinction. Thus, as it represents a certain identity, the place character must be physically formed and recognized well by the people.

Studies on people and identity of place are directly linked to the concept of place attachment. Place attachment is a bonding of people and their environment (Altman and Low, 1992) resultinginto memories and perceptions towards a place and its identity. As the times goes by, the experience towards the place is continuing. It leads to stronger attachment to the place (Smaldone, 2006). By having this situation, the people's memory and perceptionlead to the creation of identity as these become generic in the society. In turn, this identity becomes a part of city's identity and recognizes as one of assetsfor the city(Inn,2004). From these two studies, it implies that understanding how people being attached to their environment is related to the recognition of identity. At the historical area, the people-place relationship has been existed for a long time. Therefore, the recognition of its identity should be stronger that it was used to. However, this assumption is debatable. The modern life is preferred to be the most suitable lifestyle in modern context. Meanwhile, the old settlements were based on the old way of life, which to some extent is not appropriate in modern context. This condition leads to the change on the physical spatial structure of the old settlement as well as the people perception toward it.Here, the research gap is arisen.

This research investigates the role of historical settlement in contributing the rebuilding of Palembang's identity.Considering the small scale units owned by the buildings and open spaces in the settlements, it is expected that there will be an explanation in utilizing the historical settlement for creating and rebuilding identity. In order to achieve the aim, we developed three objectives: (1) to investigatethe people general perception on the character and identity of Palembang represented by the elements of the city, (2) to examine residents attachment and perception toward the urban elements located at the riverside area of the city, and (3) to identify residents appreciation towards the old city's elements that represent the city's identity.

The study observed the physical and social aspects of six selected old settlements that are located along the Musi River and occupied by three main ethnics, Malay, Chinese and Arab, in Palembang. The first two villages to be observed were known as old Malay villages, Sekanak and Suro Village. The second two were the old Chinese villages, Kapiten and Klenteng. While the last two villages were old Arabian villages, Bahrak and Al Munawar.

In observing thephysical aspects, this study investigatedresidents' perception on the city elements that may consider as memorable ones. While for observing the social aspects, this study examined the residents' sense of attachment towards their places in dealing with the identity of the city.Moreover, the study compared the two aspects to obtain the pattern of the general perception towards the Palembang historical elements. It is expected that the two aspects will be similar in confirming the urban elements that represent the identity of the Palembang. Finally, the extent of the historical settlement and its elements contributing to the city's identity are defined.

2. Method

2.1 Study Site

Palembang is situated at the southern part of Sumatera Island, Indonesia. It is an old city with a long history which was well known as the location of an international hub since the era of Sriwijaya Empire.Musi River divides the city into two big areas, Ulu and Ilir (Figure 1). Historically, Palembang was ruled by several eras of rulers[1].Found as a river city, Palembang's identity as river city can be traced as early as 1600s in the era of Palembang Sultanate.For each era, Palembang experienced urban structure change as a result of different urban policy that led to the change in urban structure. For example, in the era of Sultanate, foreigners were prohibited to build their settlements on the land. Thus they stayed in floating houses on the Musi River. During Dutch colonization, the foreigners were giventhe right to build their settlements on the land. This led to the change of urban structure at Musi riverside.

Figure 1: Map of Palembang illustrating the Musi River that divides city into Seberang Ilir and Seberang Ulu

In the independence era, one of important policiesaffecting the urban structure was the building of the Ampera Bridge as war compensation from the Japanese. The completion of the bridge in 1965 connectedthe Ilir and Ulu. Topographically, Ilir is higher than Ulu and it provides better physical advantages for accommodating the modern activities. It led to the domination of physical development at Ilir. Before 1990s, the Ilir dominates the city landscape more than Ulu as well as neglecting the riverside area.In the late 1990s, the local authority of Palembang started to re-emerge the city historical potency by rehabilitating many historical monumental buildings and the riverside settlements. Currently, the local authority puts its effort to rebuild the unique character of river city of Palembang as a part of the city'sassets. The development includes the building of the promenade and rehabilitation of Kuto Besak Palace area for tourism purpose.

2.2. Pilot Study

2.2.1. Respondent

In order to see how people perceived the historical riverside area of Palembang, a pilot study conducted in June 2010 using questionnaire with five main questions to 19 respondents. Respondents consisted of the university students; locals (42 %) and long stay visitors (58%), with the range of age from18 to 22 years old which represented the young generation. Overall, the respondents knew the city well (Table 1).

Table 1: Respondent's profile for pilot study

Description / %
Age / 18-22 years old / 100
Occupation / University's students / 100
Length of stay / 2-5 years / 58
> 10 years / 42
Place of stay / Palembang / 53
Surroundings Palembang / 47
Type of residency / Citizen / 42
Long stay visitors / 58

2.2.2. Instrument and Design

For the pilot study, we aimed to see the people perception, particularly the young generation, on Palembang's identity represented by its urban elements. We designed a questionnaire composed of five main questions. The questions are related to how people perceived the city as follows:

• What is the city's element that comes into your mind when hearing the word Palembang?
• What arethemost memorable historical buildings and historical area in Palembang?
• In your opinion, what is the landmark of Palembang?
• Do you recognize the traditional riverside settlement?
• What are urban elements in Palembang that you are most proud?

The questionnaire was distributed in a university during the class and conducted in 20 minutes. The questionnaire was open ended questions so that the respondents could give more than one answer for each question. Descriptive statistic was done to get the percentage value for each mentioned urban element based on the frequency of responses and the total responses to each question.

Table 2: The result of pilot study

Question / Urban elements / %
The first city element come into mind when hear the word of Palembang / Sudirman Street / 33
Demang Lebar Daun Street / 22
Atmo Street / 11
A.Rivai Street / 8
Merdeka Street / 8
Talang Semut Street / 8
Veteran Street / 5
Great Mosque / 2
The most memorable historical building(s) / Benteng Kuto Besak / 55
Ampera Bridge / 20
Museum Siput / 10
Monpera / 5
Kapiten Village / 5
Talang Semut / 5
The most memorable historical area / Talang Semut / 60
Kemaro Island / 26
Siguntang / 7
BKB / 7
City’s landmark / Ampera Bridge / 80
BKB / 5
Fountain Bunderan / 5
Stadium GS / 5
Monpera / 5
The most memorable traditional settlement / 7 Ulu Village / 60
Arab Village (not specified) / 33
Sekanak Village / 7
Pride for city's elements / Ampera / 88
Stadium Gelora Sriwijaya / 6
Great Mosque / 6

2.2.3. Result of pilot study

As shown in Table 2, the largest percentage of respondents (33 %) perceived that the main city corridor, the Sudirman Street, as the most memorable city element. The street was known as Tengkuruk river canal that had been reclaimed by Dutch from 1900 to1920. On the other hand, the largest percentage of respondents (80%) recognized the Ampera Bridge as the city’s landmark.Moreover, 60% of respondents recognized Talang Semut, a Dutch settlement, as the most memorable historical area. It shows that they preferred land-historical settlement area more than the riverside ones. They only acknowledged Benteng Kuto Besak and Kemaro Island as historical areas leaving six other settlements. The result suggests that the people of Palembang preferred land city element as memorable identity.

In addition, the result illustratesthat the peopleperceived different ways to the riverside area. Location and construction of the historical area become the important points to determine people’s preference in memorizing and choosing the urban elements that representthe city's identity. The people preferred urban structures which are constructed from concrete and steel more than the traditional structures which are constructed from timber.

2.3 Field Survey

2.3.1Respondent

As a continuationofthe pilot study, a field study was conducted at the riverside to investigateon how locals are attached to the physical setting.It was conducted at six study villages:Kapiten, Klenteng, Bahrak, Al Munawar, Sekanak and Suro as well as atfour other villages located near to them. These four villages are chosen to complement the survey of residents' attachment towards riverside living environment at a broader scale. The other riverside areas were 5 Ulu, located next to Kapiten , 12 and 14 Ulu, located next to Al Munawar, and Kuto, located at the opposite side of Al Munawar. As shown in Table 3, the largest percentage (77 %) of respondent was residents.

Table 3: The distribution of respondents (n = 144)

Description / Number of respondents / Percent
Village's name and location
Kapiten 7 ulu / 26 / 18.1
Klenteng 9/10 ulu / 17 / 11.8
Bahrak 9/10 ulu / 19 / 13.2
Al Munawar 13 ulu / 9 / 6.3
Sekanak 26 Ilir / 20 / 13.9
Suro 30 Ilir / 20 / 13.9
Total percentage of residents of study site
12/14ulu / 111
6 / 77
4.2
5 ulu / 10 / 6.9
Kuto / 17 / 11.8
Total respondent / 144 / 100.0
Age
<20years old / 20 / 13.9
21-30 years old / 55 / 38.2
31-50 years old / 53 / 36.8
> 50 years old / 16 / 11.1
Length of stay
<5years / 5 / 3.5
6-20years / 22 / 15.3
21-30years / 58 / 40.3
31-50years / 42 / 29.2
>50years / 17 / 11.8

Eighty six percent of respondents were adults and the majority of them are more than 20 years old. More than 80 % of them stayed longer than 20 years at the site. This profile suggests that the respondents are reliable sources to elicit their sense of attachment towards the villages.

2.3.2 Instrument and Design