TheJakartaPost
Please Update your browser
Your browser is out of date, and may not be compatible with our website. A list of the most popular web browsers can be found below.
Just click on the icons to get to the download page.
Notes on Garuda design for new presidential palace
A great man behind such a plan and vision will never be forgotten by history and generations because it is not about his/her person but the next generations.
Change Size
T
here is no better word to summarize President Joko “Jokowi” Widodo’s choice for the preliminary design of the presidential palace in the newly established site of Indonesia’s future capital city than pomposity.
In his tweet on April 2, Jokowi defended his decision, saying the design by Bali’s prominent artist Nyoman Nuarta reflected the progress and pride of Indonesia. The President invites architects and planners to provide feedback for further developments and enrichment of the design.
Although the President might have taken into account uncountable ideas and invaluable advice from various resources such as artists, architects, engineers, scholars, bureaucrats and politicians, the last word is, undoubtedly, his own preference.
It seems nothing is wrong with this self-entitlement because he is the number one person in charge of the Republic of Indonesia. Jokowi does not want people to remember the palace only as the president‘s workplace. He wants more. The palace should remind the people of the national symbol of pride, progress and greatness.
The form of Garuda, the mythical bird vehicle of Hindu god Vishnu, is the leitmotif design of the palace with historical numbers of Indonesian Independence Day 17-8-45 on its neck, tail and wings. The structure stands tall at 200 meters in width and 76 meters in height. Following the ancient Indonesian Hindu building tradition, the palace should face the east where the Sun rises, but Hindu-Islamic syncretism transformed the orientation of the palace to the South and in front of the alun-alun (city square).
Historically speaking, only leaders with a strong sense of pomposity have built magnificent palaces, such as the Roman emperor Augustus for the Rome Palace, Pope Sixtus V for the Vatican papal palace, French kings from Louis III to Louis XIV for the Versailles Palace. Later, Adolf Hitler commissioned Albert Speer to design Germania for his great palace and the capital city of Great Germany in 1936-1942.
All these designs were not about people, nations and states but about the persons who ordered and commissioned architects, artists, engineers and builders for the self-amplification of their legacy. The buildings are the symbols and representation of those persons.
On the other hand, great leaders of humanity such as the Prophet Muhammad, Mahatma Gandhi and Nelson Mandela never needed and requested people on behalf of the greatness of ummah, nation and country to build their workplaces or residences with a splendid design.
Building a monumental palace was not the case for Washington DC either. Pierre Charles L’Enfant, a French engineer, envisioned and developed the official plan of Washington DC in 1791. The plan was commissioned by the first United States president George Washington. As a whole design, the presidential residence is not a dominant structure in the composition but the Congress House or the Capitol, where the power of people is represented.
The Washington DC plan is an attempt to unveil and represent the constellation of power in the democratic and republican United States of America. The place speaks architecturally of the check-and-balance between the executive, legislative and judiciary and the public as well as the history.
Buildings represent the offices of government while the mall and parks are for the public and media. The monument of great leaders stands for American history and legacy for republican and democratic governance. As a whole system, geometrical compositions represent the civic society with the supremacy of law and order.
Architecturally speaking, Nyoman Nuarta’s design of the Garuda palace is not about good or bad architecture. Rather it is about the face of Indonesia in the local and global context. Indonesia, in Jokowi’s mind, needs to show its progress and greatness on an international platform with glorious history and pride. The Garuda design is considered an appropriate and suitable form for this purpose.
We cannot imagine, however, the cost of energy required to feed the big fat edifice of the palace for its air-conditioning system, lighting, elevators and other utilities. Only outdated architects still make such building designs like the palace.
Moreover, no one wants to work in a workplace like that anymore because we will never have a chance to reach the emergency exit in the event of a terrorist attack or fire. The scary thing is the insensitivity of the architects of the palace to airborne transmission of viruses like the coronavirus.
The embodiment of national pride in an architectural/building form has been a shortcut of ideological representation if it is not a less subtle or metaphoric incorporation of the idea. Only less developed and sophisticated civilizations find their way of representation with a figurative form like a bird for their idea and insight. A highly sophisticated form of geometry is not needed to represent a nation-state system but a nationally sharable collective memory of the past and a commonly constructive mission of the nation state with cutting-edge technological innovation for livability and sustainability.
This thought and insight should have been working for framing and outlining the future with designs and plans that reflect self-determination of public interest.
Accordingly, the palace design is not the most important part of the whole plan and vision but the incorporation of the whole infrastructural plan of the city, as an integrated part of Indonesia’s commitment to a civil society, based on democratic and republican governance and for global engagement and participation in livability and sustainability.
A great man behind such a plan and vision will never be forgotten by history and generations because it is not about his/her person but the next generations.
What is wrong with the President’s choice of the Garuda presidential palace? The form and whole design of the city and its buildings cannot afford to ignore the person behind its design from mind to hand. The mind of the Garuda palace design shows the urge for monumental characters and greatness.
The question is why does Indonesia need to prove them with such monumental cities, buildings and avenues? All this must have been inseparable from a feeling of inferiority and lack of self-worthiness.
If the new capital city plan and building design is about Indonesia, why does Jokowi not focus on the infrastructure of the capital city and leave the architectural expression of the buildings to the next generations? Does he want to make sure Indonesian people will never forget his presidential legacy?
***
The writer is an independent scholar, architect and planner living and working in Toronto, Canada. His latest book is Traditions and Transformations of Habitation in Indonesia (Springer Singapore, 2020).
