check my child clinic

A therapy centre for autistic children and other special needs children at Kayuputih, East Jakarta. The programme comprising various therapeutic programme for special needs children: sensory integration, occupational therapy, physiotherapy, as well as the spaces for various support activities: magazine publications for parents, classes and courses.

house at raffles hill

An extension of a house for Mr Basaruddin’s family at Raffles Hill, Cibubur. The development of the space is defined by the expanding programme of the family life and the potentials of outdoor space at the back of the house.

roosseno center

A project for a design competition of an extension of Civil Engineering laboratory facilities at the University of Indonesia.

reconsidering ‘out of place’ elements

Street Vendors as ‘Out of Place’ Urban Elements
Yandi Andri Yatmo

Published in:
Journal of Urban Design Volume 13 No 3 (2008)

Abstract

The existence of street vendors has become a problematic issue in many countries. Despite various arguments that either support or reject their presence in urban environments, street vendors generally have been accused of disrupting the order of the environment and therefore should be removed. The arguments in this paper reconsider the position of street vendors in Indonesian cities, drawing on Mary Douglas’ theory of ‘out of place’. Such a reassessment of street vendors as the ‘out of place’ urban elements offers a theoretical basis for the practice of urban design and planning in dealing with certain unwanted elements.

living on the wall

An alternative concept for housing in the 21st century city
Awarded Kenneth H. Murta Prize, University of Sheffield in 2001 for excellence in design and construction.

This is a project proposal for an alternative concept of living in the 21st century city; responding to issues emerged in relation to the new way of living in the city; exploring the issues of an ‘on-off city’, ‘front-back facades’ and ’sky-ground-surface’ an attempt to ‘light up’ the city centre at night and to revive the back facades.

operations: station to station

A project for a design competition for new train stations at the University of Indonesia.

by the lake

A student canteen for Faculty of Economics, sitting by the beautiful lake at the University of Indonesia campus.

an expression of materials

an expression of building elements

an expression of linearity

responding to site, revealing the truth of building materials and elements, creating boundaries, defining the space inside, extending the space outside

house – body action

House Project [ 2000 ]

A house for an individual in everyday urban life; the exploration of the ‘body action’; the human body as an active body; the same pattern of activities everyday

society needs to know more about environment

The Jakarta Post, 13 December 2007

Opinion and Editorial
Yandi Andri Yatmo and Paramita Atmodiwirjo

Environmental education is a key issue in responding to climate change. There have been countless efforts to spread the awareness of climate change into society. Information is everywhere about global warming and its impacts on our life. However, we cannot simply expect that after knowing the facts on global warming, everybody would voluntarily join environment-friendly attitudes in their everyday life. The question is: Do people really know what they need to know to respond to current environmental issues?

There are two types of knowledge relating to climate change and its relationship to our life. The first type is the knowledge delivered through massive spread of information on the facts of climate change. This is the knowledge we most often find in the media everyday. It tells people on the factual status of our earth, the increasing temperature, the melting of snow and the rising of sea levels, as well as the worrying situation of our forest, water, and wildlife. These are all the facts that are primarily empirical, based on quantitative findings to illustrate the current situation of our environment.

On the other hand, there is another type of knowledge informed to our society as a plea to lead more environment-friendly way of life. Such information usually appears as a series of suggestion to reduce
electricity use, to cycle or walk to work, to reduce the use of plastic, to plant trees, to avoid littering and to manage garbage. Some suggestions are even very extreme, persuading people to turn off the lights in the evening or to completely avoid plastic stuffs and wooden furniture.

These two types of knowledge represent two different aspects of information related to environment. The first type primarily intends to inform the facts, while the second encourage people to act. The first may inform the facts that happen somewhere else — in the arctic, in another country, in the middle of the jungle. The second type suggests some practical things for everyday life. Both types of information have been used for the sake of educating people.

Nevertheless, an important thing to consider in environmental education is how these two types of knowledge are related to one another. It is very important to ensure that people really understand to what extent their acts of planting trees could be related to reducing carbon emission.

This becomes particularly important when environmental education is implemented in basic education levels. It is mandatory that the knowledge on the environment is delivered correctly to our future generation.

So far there are two choices. We may tell them numerical facts of global warming and its impact which currently occur somewhere else, or we may teach them some practical things that they could apply immediately in their own home, school or neighborhood.

Some of the information, especially those related to practical things, is not necessarily new, since they can be found in most primary and secondary school textbooks. Most pupils have known the popular jargon that taught them not to litter (Buanglah sampah pada tempatnya). Textbooks mention a lot about recycling, the difference between organic and inorganic garbage, and the importance of using electricity wisely. Even primary school first-graders have learned about the criteria of a good home environment, which should have enough trees, ventilation, window, rubbish dump and water drainage.

Unfortunately, most often these aspects of environment are taught partially. There were no attempts to encourage the children to think about the connections among different environmental aspects.

Recently we had an opportunity to deliver an environmental education program to primary school children. During one of the sessions we encouraged the children to examine what happened with the rubbish in their school. After they identified the types of garbage produced in their school everyday, we asked them to explain what to do with the garbage. An answer easily came out: “Recycle them”. However, they had no idea when we inquired further what they meant with recycle and how they actually could do it. It illustrates clearly that these children were aware of the term “recycle” without really knowing what it was.

Similarly, most of them did not have the competence in explaining the relationship between “littering” and “flood”, although they knew by heart the phrase “littering causes flood”. The lack of understanding in such simple concept really worried us.

Eventually there would be similar lack of understanding when dealing with more complicated issues, in relating global warming facts with our everyday actions. Children may enjoy joining the acts of planting
trees, but if no further inquiry is taken, they would not understand the important roles of trees to our environment.

We believe that understanding environmental issues and responding to them requires certain level of abilities to think critically. Such critical thinking is necessary to understand the ideas of connections among environmental issues.

After all, environment is about connecting — cause and effects, intervention and impacts, relationship among species, places and matters. There is no point instructing our children to do certain acts, if we do not encourage them to explore the connections. We make a real big mistake if we introduce environmental knowledge to our children simply by pouring out facts, jargons and instructions.

In fact, promoting critical thinking on environmental issues should become the heart of environmental education.

The writers are lecturers of architecture at the University of Indonesia. They actively develop environmental education programs for primary school children with Education Care Unit. They can be contacted at mitayandi@gmail.com.

let city children have their say

The Jakarta Post, 20 October 2007

Opinion
Paramita Atmodiwirjo and Yandi Andri Yatmo, Jakarta

Children are city dwellers, just like adults. They have the right to live a meaningful life within urban environments.

The Child Friendly Cities (Kota Layak Anak) project that has been initiated in several Indonesian cities is an effort by the government to begin to acknowledge the rights of children in cities. Following a pilot project in five cities in 2006, the State Ministry for the Women’s Empowerment is expanding the program to another 10 cities.

A range of different initiatives may be developed to promote children’s rights in cities and give them the opportunity to live in a safe and healthy environment. One may imagine a child-friendly city, where many services and facilities for all children are available, including attention and protection for marginalized and at-risk groups of children.

A child-friendly city is a place where all children have easy access to housing, health and education. It is also the place where children can happily enjoy green and unpolluted playgrounds and a safe walk to and from school.

However, the concept of Child Friendly Cities requires much more than just the physical development of the urban environment. An important aspect in this concept is the need to promote children as active agents in their environment. This implies the active involvement of children in deciding about what happen to places where they live. This is also clearly stated in the definition of child-friendly cities, which should fulfill the rights of children to “influence decisions about their city” and “express their opinion on the city they want”.

Giving opportunities to children to have a say about their life is quite a challenge in our culture. We have been culturally educated for so long that “children are to be seen and not heard”. Thus most decisions in our society are made by the adults. Within families, schools and communities, we are used to the situation where children are only passive participants, merely following the programs or activities planned by adults.

The spirit of child-friendly cities in giving children a say also suggests how our society should change its attitudes toward children. We should begin to realize that our children possess potentials that should not be ignored. And they have the ability to express their ideas and opinions on matters that we normally consider as adult business.

A number of projects in many countries have proven the successful involvement of children in making decisions about various aspects of urban life. In London, for example, a commission worked on a project involving young Londoners in the strategy development process of the Great London Authority. A forum called Munchner Kinder and Jugendforum was established in Munich to allow children and teenagers to have a say in the planning process of their city.

There are even more attempts to involve children at more micro levels. For example, children might be asked to give opinions about public transportation, to design their own school or to participate in the revitalization of a neighborhood park.

The involvement of children in making decisions about their cities brings together a range of educational values. It helps empower the children to become active citizens. It also enhances their sense of belonging to their environment. If our cities currently have so many problems, we must try our best to educate the next generation who will eventually lead our cities.

For some time, we have organized a series of workshops for primary schoolchildren. We asked the children to imagine the future of the city where they now live, and together we built a 3D model based on their ideas.

We found that this exercise is a powerful vehicle to involve children in the planning process and to give them some freedom to express their opinion. It is a way to develop their imagination and creativity about their environment, while at the same time teaching responsibility, awareness and sensitivity to what happens in their surroundings. It also provides opportunities for the children to learn about collaboration, and the importance of working together to make our environment better.

The involvement of children in the process of planning, developing and managing our cities should be at the heart of all efforts to realize child-friendly cities. The provision of physical facilities and services may have more direct effects in fulfilling the children’s short-term basic needs, but promoting their active involvement will be a more valuable investment for the future of our cities.

So, have we already asked the children what they want? Perhaps it is a question that we all need to address before embarking into any development programs for our urban children.

The writers, lecturers of architecture at the University of Indonesia, develop environmental education programs for primary schoolchildren with the Education Care Unit. They can be contacted at mitayandi@gmail.com