I

n revisiting one of kampungs surveyed a generation earlier, I asked Palmerah subdistrict residents randomly, '€œwould you want to live in Rusun [low-cost apartments]?'€ Almost all said '€œno way, we Indonesians want to be close to our land and our neighbors'€.

The Kampung Improvement Program (KIP) recognized Jakarta'€™s urban kampungs as unique and improved them on site.

Begun in 1969 under then governor Ali Sadikin and later supported by the World Bank, the city government recognized these local communities as permanent low income settlements, and became concerned about their deterioration.

This meant that the policy of on-site upgrading or improvement of the physical and socio-economic environment of the existing kampungs, with minimum displacement of residents was the cheapest and most humane way of dealing with Jakarta'€™s stock of affordable housing.

The KIP has improved local physical infrastructure (such as roads and local drainage, water supply, sanitary facilities, solid waste management, etc.), leaving it to the residents to improve their own dwellings according to their means and needs.

World Bank support later addressed social and community participation components during the 1980s and 1990s.

However, most facilities were provided on a relatively homogeneous basis in a massive '€œpublic works'€ approach. The KIP made no attempt to grant legal title to land, or to carry out direct cost recovery.

Evidence of the success of KIP is that, in many of Jakarta'€™s kampungs, the Mohammad Husni Thamrin (MHT) program is both remembered and facilities are still used.

For instance, Pak Makmood (head of community unit RW 003, Tanah Tinggi kampung) not only recalled KIP but felt it was very helpful in his community.

Urban kampong dwellers respect diversity and learn to become more tolerant.

A second argument supporting our thesis that Jakarta'€™s kampungs are '€œunique'€ relates to the very definition of the word, namely an adjective which states that a particular object is '€œexceptional'€ or '€œone-of-a-kind'€.

I believe that there are at least three unique characteristics of many of the city'€™s kampungs.

First, in physical appearance, they are close-knit viable neighborhoods close to the ground (generally one- or two-story story houses). The kampungs are relatively compact (high density) with residents also use their houses to run businesses.

Access to the houses is usually through footpaths, rather than roads wide enough to handle cars.

Second, regarding socio-economic characteristics of kampung residents, although generally poor, many of these areas are actually quite diverse in ethnicity, income, religious affiliation, etc. Thus, urban kampung dwellers respect diversity and learn to become more tolerant.

A final unique characteristic of many of Jakarta'€™s kampungs is that their lifestyle is an informal one that many Jakartans feel comfortable in, one where gotong royong (mutual assistance) still functions, in which poverty and wealth are still to some extent shared.

Evidence of these unique features can be found in several of the kampungs in which I conducted my original research a generation ago. Palmerah kampong, for example, continues to fit this unique model. While incomes have increased (more motorcycles, TVs, better toilets, etc.), residents there still like their close-knit, diverse kampung and reject the Jakarta administration'€™s failure to involve them in planning the city.

However, a counter-argument can be made that KIP is now obsolete because incomes have risen and besides land prices have risen as well. This is because many Jakarta administration officials are advocating the policy option of clearance, resettlement and Rusun.

Evidence for this can be shown in some of the kampungs which I originally surveyed for my PhD dissertation in the late 1970s/early 1980s. Take Kebon Nanas where there was much change. Close to the Permata Hijau area, large houses have replaced the earlier '€œkampung'€ feel beyond recognition.

This rapid change was largely caused by development of a new main road, ITC and Belezza properties in the area. These schemes triggered rapid increases in land prices and '€œgentrification'€.

But in many other kampungs, the same unique features '€” compact, close-knit urban neighborhoods, diverse socio-economic characteristics, and informal lifestyle which most poor -middle class Jakartans are comfortable in '€” can still be found. It seems that a large number of kampung residents still recall Program MHT and still support efforts by local government to upgrade infrastructure through better access, local drainage, improved water and sanitation and solid waste disposal.

Strong evidence for this is that the vast majority of big city residents (70 to 80 percent according to one expert) live in kampungs. It is argued that the combined efforts of both government and the private sector can only fulfill 15 percent of total housing need. The rest is up to kampung dwellers through their own labor.

In conclusion, we return to our main thesis: that Jakarta'€™s KIP recognized these informal residential areas not with the negative label of '€œslums'€, but as viable neighborhoods worthy of upgrading.

Solutions along these lines must be affordable, can be financially sustainable, can build good community morale and pride, and should be part of a larger urban development strategy.