Chance for Survival: Should Moving Forward Mean Disconnecting with the Past?

Widya Suryadini Department of Urban & Regional Planning Institut Teknologi Nasional (Itenas) Bandung, INDONESIA E: widya@itenas.ac.id; wsuryadini@gmail.com

Paper Presented in Track 10 (Urban Culture, Heritage, and Urban Design) at the 3rd World Planning Schools Congress, Perth (WA), 4-8 July 2011

Chance for Survival: Should Moving Forward Mean Disconnecting with the Past? ABSTRACT: As a colonial city, Bandung is unique compared with other cities in Indonesia, both in its history and appearance. However, a field survey to identify the existence of Dutch colonial buildings conducted in 2003 showed that around 20% of the building in the major part of the old city had been destroyed or heavily altered beyond recognition. Similar survey in 2009 showed that, in only six years, this number had been doubled to almost 50% of lost building. However, this survey also noticed another interesting phenomenon. A significant number of buildings had been revitalized, repaired, or tended with delicate cares. Some other buildings had survived with newer extensions and changed into non-residential uses, taking full advantage of large land parcels and strategic locations. This paper discusses a broad range of issues in addressing the captured phenomena within the context of heritage as a paradigm. The discussion will show that urban heritage in a colonial city pose different complex issues, due to differences in the social, cultural, and historical factor. This knowledge is important to put into consideration in planning this unique city of Dutch legacy, as well as educating the next generation of planners. Keywords: colonial buildings, heritage, Bandung Introduction Urban heritage had become the interest of many discipline, from architecture to urban planning to the social sciences, and later, the interdisciplinary approach hence the emergence of spatial anthropology. Not only these discipline concerns the physical aspects of urban heritage, it also pointed out the connection between citizen with urban heritage as artefact or material culture. It is the contextuality between human and their spatial environment that creates heritage (Stoica, 2006 [2005]), amidst the different settings and cultural backgrounds. It is important to distinguish urban heritage from the archaeological term of heritage. Heritage is the present past or the presented past (Breglia, 2006), or whatever presents choose from imagined pasts for contemporary use and for bequeathing for the use of imagined future (Ashworth, 2005). In an archaeological sense, heritage would contain artefacts from a long lost past, usually in a monumental form, and in a way is dissociated with the present culture or traditional. Thus, criteria such as minimum intervention, reversibility, and recognisability is important in marking what heritage and what is not through the act of conservation (De Marco, 2005). On the other hand, urban heritage deals more with a lived-in inheritance. While the spaces were created in the past, the meanings were more of the interpretation of the present occupants. In this sense, urban heritage contemporary use would be the present culture, and the interpretation of it would be not of authenticity, but more of experience, or what Lefebvre called the production of space (Breglia, 2006). This leaves room for paradoxes and complexities concerning urban heritage

which manifested in the form of questions such as what constitute urban heritage, what should we do with it, who should do what there is to do, as well as the question of ownership and interpretation. From the existensialism point of view, urban space is an existensial space; human existence is dependant of the mental image of urban space, which should be coherent and offer a multitude of senses and interpretations at different level of understanding (Stoica, 2006 [2005]). Urban heritage that occupy a piece of urban space is the proof of existence from a time passed by, but in the same time also become the proof of existence of present generation because of their relation to it. The dynamic dialectic between the two had become more interesting lately, for people start to question their understanding of their own urban environment, and began their own interpretation toward it. From a constructivist point of view, heritage should be regarded as a social construction produced within discourse. The construction of heritage is affected by and entangled with political goals, scientific discourses, nationalistic trends and other factors. Heritage has often been used for social and political reasons, for example to promote and disseminate social values, ideas and ideologies, to control people and legitimize political practices (Ashworth, Graham, & Tunbridge, 2007). If place identity is expressed through aspects of the material built environment, Ashworth & Graham (2005) pose an important question of what happens then to this environment when identities alter because of the dynamic of social change through time. Urban area all over the world is experiencing fast change, especially in physical terms such as in form and structure, design and architecture, transportation and land use, to accommodate the growing population. Urban activities are also growing, getting more varied in term of size and type, expressing a social change that is characterize the latest fashion of globalization and postmodernity. The same case applies to Bandung, the capital city of West Java Province in Indonesia. With a growing 2.5 million inhabitants, and an influx of tourists every weekends and holidays, this fine colonial city is undergoing a transformation to meet the challenge of demand for services. This growth upset the original plan for Bandung as a resort city, and later, as the quiet capital of the Dutch Indies, designed to meet the need for a mere 500.000 inhabitants. Although the administrative area had been doubled since 1987, the growth concentrated mostly in the more desirable area from the city centre northward. This older part of the city is favourable perhaps because the fine quality of its urban environment, built mostly in the heydays of the Dutch Colonial in 1930s. The concentration of change in this area presents a case for urban heritage development, which can be used to introduce
2

heritage as a totally different paradigm from preservation. Heritage and development is not contradictory ideas, but preservation and development are by definition contradictory processes (Ashworth, 2005), and some act of the so-called preservation/conservation can even remove the essence of heritage it was supposed to retain (Wan Ismail & Shamsuddin, 2005).

Objective This paper shall present findings from two field surveys conducted in 2003 and 2009 on the changing appearance of the old part of Bandung city, comprises of changes in land use, buildings appearance, and attitude toward colonial heritage buildings. This survey result serves as the point of departure for a theoretical discourse on the topic of urban heritage and heritage development.

Methodology Field Survey were used to collect data from 150 corridors in the north-to-east quarter of Bandung. We surveyed 5686 land parcels in the area, recording data such as land use (residential, commercial, office, vacant lot, other), building type (colonial, non-colonial), and building appearance (facade, annexes, additional feature, other). Unless available data suggested otherwise, we draw on several assumptions during the data collection process as follows: 1. All recorded buildings had been initially intended as residential; 2. When non-colonial buildings type were recorded, their original type were regarded as colonial; 3. When vacant lots were recorded, their previous land use were residential with colonial building type; 4. All buildings in the area were considered as built before 1950. For the purpose of identifying the pattern of land use change, we classified the 150 corridors in three categories namely main corridors, connecting corridors, and wing corridors. The main corridors are the important main street in the city, 8-16 meter wide; the connecting corridors link one main street to another, serve as secondary to the main streets, 5-12 meter wide; the wing corridors is the narrowest, only 4-7 meter wide, being branches to the connecting corridors suggesting a wing-like arrangement, and serve mainly the neighbourhood. Consequently, the size of land parcels in each categories of corridor are also

vary, from 1000-3000sqm in the main corridors, 400-600sqm in the connecting corridors, to a mere 100-300sqm of land parcel in the wing corridors. The result of the surveys are then used as the departing point to discuss a broad range of issues within the context of heritage as a strategy for development. As the survey results show the changes and positive sides on the use of heritage concept, the discussion will present the downsides to the over-exploitation of heritage area in several main issues concerning the construction of collective memory, the struggle for urban identity, economic versus cultural productivity, the interpretation of heritage, and the issue of ownership. This paper will end with a conclusion of how to live with the past in our present, as well as how to project the present to the future.

The Politics that is Heritage It is almost impossible to provide a comprehensive definition of heritage because of its multidimensional facets. First and foremost, heritage is, and will always be, politics. It is a social discourse in which many interest come into play, but many see it in power/knowledge relationship (see Duineveld & Van Assche, 2011; (Ashworth & Graham, 2005); (Smith, 2006). Something becomes heritage because people and organizations define it as it is, and many factors influence the process. Not only the construction of heritage is subject to social and political influences, heritage can also be used as means for social and political motives and goals, for example to persuade social values, ideas and ideologies, to control people and legitimate political practices. (Ashworth, Graham, and Tunbridge 2007). Second, heritage is personal. It is about interpretation, and it is for the present. While heritage often associated with the past, it is actually about the present. It means that heritage might deal with criteria like consensus, inclusiveness, and accuracy (De Marco, 2005). Consequently, the definition of heritage as something personal will cover a broad range anything that we value and want to hand on to future generations, be it something tangible or intangible. And since it is personal, the ownership of heritage present an everlasting debate about who should decide which one is heritage and what should we do about it. In his dissertation about the Dutch policy system concerning heritage protection Duineveld (2006) has elaborated on this dilemma from a more political point of view. He concludes that the values of archaeological experts are dominating in this partially closed archaeological heritage policy system. Professional archaeologists, civil servants, commercial archaeological organisations, local administrations, provinces and national governmental bodies determine what archaeology is. Non-experts can exert little influence on this system and their heritage is
4

hardly taken into account. De Marco (2005) also noticed similar case where interpretations of heritage can always be associated with some of the most important historic and political seasons. However, an opposing view was posed by Clark (2005) with her description about the process of capturing the views of general public on which heritage should the lottery funding be allocated for. And third, there is nothing univocal about heritage. It is individual and collective in the same time. As most constructivist believe in personal experience in interpreting human relationship with his surroundings, it is individual and communal values and perception that shaped heritage. The value assign to heritage depends on the stand point of each individual, whether as insider-outsider (Chang, 2000), or in the context of local-global cultural exchange (Ismail, Shaw, & Ling, 2009). But for some, human endeavour to heritage should be managed in such a way that enable proper institutionalized instruments to guide the process of meaning-making central to heritage (Smith, 2006).

The Chance for Survival Bandung had been designed and built as a colonial city. Once designated as the capital of the Dutch Indies, Bandung retained her charms and splendour to the ultimate level. Her nickname, Parijs van Java (Paris of Java), suggested the exquisite beauty of this city in its heydays in 1930s was on a par to Frenchs Paris. The features of this city were European in style, with smart modification to adapt to the tropical climate and a slightly different culture. The result was an interesting eclecticism, combining the best of both worlds, and became the zeitgeist or the spirit of the time. But that was in the good old days. In the last five years, this citys appearance had undergone a tremendous change, both for the good and the bad. As facilities in the city attracts many people to reside in pursue of higher education, or better jobs, or simply better environment than the neighbouring big cities such as Jakarta or Bogor, it also become the magnet for short-time visitor on weekends and holidays. For some in favour of city development to meet the latest demand, not necessarily in basic services, but in amenity and technology, this city offer a fine example on the possibility to make it in one among many Indonesian big cities. Of course, there is something to pay in exchange for all those so-called development. Urban blights in some part of the city, or the uncontrollable dispersion of economic activities, are among many problems resulted from such development. But so far, the biggest threat are for the urban structure and urban architecture, or rather in the land use change that are out of hand. This implies more threat to the urban environment, largely
5

comprises of heritage buildings, because land use changes are always in need of space which sometimes can only be provided by demolishing existing buildings, to give way to a newer, more spacious building that can suit better to the newer need. This part shall give better insights on how these changes took place in Bandung, we present the results from two field surveys in 2003 and 2009 in three consecutive part about the changing in land use, the changing face of the city, and the changing attitude toward heritage building.

The Changing Land Use The growth of this city witnessed a significant land use change, especially from residential to non-residential uses, in the large part of the old city. The dispersion of commercial activities in the last 5 years perhaps is the largest push-factor for this change, as well as the development of large shopping malls, apartments, and other activities which act as a magnet that attract other commercial activities, thus pushing out residential activities elsewhere. This indication of economic penetration in Bandung had been recorded earlier by Suryadini and Risdianto (2001) which concluded with the potential of several corridors to experience economic penetration in the future based on the pattern of existing changes and criteria such as transportation characteristics, land use, and urban services. Lack of funding had also been identified as one of the reason for replacing old building with new one or to retain its function as a residence (Wan Ismail & Shamsuddin, 2005), since it is economically impractical to keep old building as residence in such high land price and taxation. However, the working forces behind this changes was not within the scope of our survey.
Table 1: Non-residential Use of Land 2003 2009 Type of Corridor No. of bld % No. of bld Main 378 13.4 1733 Connecting 99 17.2 208 Wing 348 17.4 467 TOTAL 825 15.3 2408 *Percentage is from total number of building or land parcels Changes 2003-2009 1355 109 119 1583

% 59.1 32.3 22.1 44.5

Table 1 presents the number of buildings which occupied by non-residential activities. And since we assume residential uses as initial activities, this non-residential uses can be considered a penetration of function or land use change. It is important to note that in the 2003 survey, we identified non-residential land use penetration in only 135 corridors, while
6

the 2009 survey showed that it had happened in all 150 corridors. A striking number of land use change occurred in the main corridor, contributing to almost 86% of all land use change in this part of the city within only 6 years.

The Changing Appearance The architectural highlights in Bandung is not on a scale of monumentality of Paris Eiffel or Bilbaos Gugenheim. Of course there are several individual buildings that stand as remarkable architectural achievements, but the true assets of heritage in this city are the residential buildings, the network of streets with old trees lining along, and the parks. In other word, it is the design of the city, and its atmosphere as the by-product, that become the signature which distinguish this city with any other city in the world. And if there is one feature that most characterize this citys appearance, it is undoubtedly the art deco buildings par excellence, whether applied to grand buildings or small residential compounds. Unfortunately, the abundance of this architectural achievement had caused it to be taken for granted, as people perceive it as something ordinary. Besides the Art Deco, other architectural style can also be found in Bandung such as the neo-classical, Indische Style, and modern-functional, as well as the eclectic combination of styles which become the signature for this city. Some literature suggested that Bandung is the laboratory for prominent architect of that time to design unique building in a variety of style (Kunto, 1986) (Wiryomartono, 1995) (Voskuil, 1996). And since the opportunity for doing so was quite open, those architects designed not only public buildings such as hotels or offices or military headquarters, they also designed residences and villas of all kinds. The economic situation was also very promising which enable individuals to commission reputable architects to design and build their residences in Bandung. However, our field survey indicated that more than 42% of residential building in this area had been demolished or altered beyond recognition. If we count the rate of demolition with just a simple math, we would come to a horrifying fact because it will show that this city demolished one building for every two days! It is like a game of now you see it, now you dont, because literally it was so. In just 6 years, 1142 old colonial buildings had been torn down, replaced with new ones, became a parking lot, or just left as a vacant lot awaiting development. Some of the vacant lots had been neglected for years, leaving behind a question of why the building had to be demolished in the first place. Sometimes the replacement building is of good architecture, designed carefully in context with the surrounding, bringing a fresher look to the neighbourhood, or even enhance the quality of environment. But sadly,
7

most are not. They put little or no consideration to the overall appearance of the neighbourhood, they built with no regard to the surrounding, their existence become a nuisance and obstruction to the quality of the environment in general. Some other buildings are not torn down, but they do get additional features in such a way that it become difficult to discern the original facade. Usually the owner/user add terraces, billboard, or other obstructing layers which leave no trace of its original overall appearance.
Table 2: Number of Demolished Buildings 2003 2009 Type of Corridor No. Of bld % No. Of bld Main 659 26.7 1409 Connecting 135 25.0 225 Wing 391 22.4 693 TOTAL 1185 21.9 2327 *Percentage is from total number of building or land parcels Demolished 2003-2009 750 90 302 1142

% 48.0 35.0 32.8 40.9

The case of demolition to accommodate land use change in the main corridors are somewhat predictable, considering the characteristics of the street and the possibility that the natural forces to land use changes can be applied in this case, albeit theoretically. However, we come upon interesting findings when cross-tabulating the number of demolished buildings with the land use occupying it. Demolition of old buildings in wing corridors which retain its original residential use was twice the proportion of those took place in the main corridors. This means that people tore down old residential building on quiet, but strategically located, street to simply reside in newer, usually larger, and more modern, building. And considering the high land price and land taxes in these areas, this act of demolition could only been done by those who have enough money to afford such act.

The Changing Attitude Despite the grim fact about demolition as presented on table 2, our 2009 survey observes a fascinating phenomenon which we overlook in the 2003 survey. Perhaps it was not common in 2003, but the 2009 survey observed a significant number of renovation, repair, and revitalization of heritage buildings, whether to be used as residential or others. These buildings were given a fresher appearance, without altering its original facade too much, to bring back its natural beauty and charms. And for non-residential uses, annexes were built with thoughtful consideration to accommodate new activities. Of course we still can find inconsiderate annexes or other additional feature, or even hollowing out old building to retain only the facade such as the practice in Malaysia (Wan Ismail & Shamsuddin, 2005). But re8

using heritage building and interpret it as something different is a new trend, along with attempts to evoke nostalgia by placing memorabilia from the past as romantic decor. It seems that our survey had captured the actions which might indicate a different perception toward heritage buildings, although the multilayered concept of heritage had caused people to confuse heritage with just conservation/preservation. Confusion about heritage and conservation can be seen from the example presented by Wan Ismail and Shamsuddin (2005). They observed that some old shophouses in Malaysia had been undergone transformation through upgrading and conservation as part of their heritage strategy. But lack of craftsmanship and shortage of original materials had caused a problem of originality and authenticity (or lack of it). Many would argue that authenticity lies within the context to which we decide to associate with, or merely according to whose story we want to (re)present, or as Ashworth (2005) asserted, that the only authenticity in heritage is that of the user experience. This might explain the definite concept of heritage when confronting with the strategy to used in heritage development.

The Past as Present, The Future as History In this part, we will discuss the phenomena of changes in Bandung from several perspectives, i.e. the issue of ownership, the contest between economic and cultural productivity, multiculturalism, and the construction of collective memory.

The Question of Ownership The first question regarding the changes in Bandung is the question of ownership and authority. The pattern of land use change and demolition suggesting a market-driven changes combined with absence of control and monitoring from authorities. To exploit heritage as a development strategy in planning requires sufficient knowledge in using the planning mechanism currently in practice (Duineveld & Van Assche, 2011). The ambivalence of heritage management is noticed by Breglia (2006) who argued that cultural heritage is everybodys... yet the responsibility for the protection and preservation of heritage properties seemingly falls on nobodys shoulder. Many regards heritage as public goods most of the time, but privatization had threaten to draw heritage out of public hands, leaving their fate to nobody, without any form of legal protection. The absence of legal protection regarding urban heritage also had been identified by Wan Ismail & Shamsuddin (2005) as a significant contributing factor to the disappearance of heritage buildings in Malaysia. Other factors are deterioration due to natural causes, economic pressure, traffic congestion, building
9

by-law requirements, gentrification, funding or financial problems, ownership and conflict of interest, as well as attitude and perception. In cases of lack of funding for maintaining urban heritage, perhaps it is worth noting that some mechanisms exist to serve schemes of urban heritage maintenance and management such as the Heritage Lottery Fund in UK (Clark, 2005). The pathway to recognizing this large area as one designated urban heritage area will be quite long. It will involve a delicate process yet to known in the cases of historic cities in Indonesia. Duineveld & Van Assche (2011) with the case about the contested Bulb City in The Netherland is a fine example of this particular process. For most developing countries, they began with an understanding that it is the economic aspect of heritage which act as the driving force for preservation and conservation, while European had always been preserving and conserving their cities for the sake of architecture or urban design and planning discourse, but just only recently realized its potentials to promoting economic development particularly urban tourist development (Gospodini, 2002). However, as heritage tourism being recognized to have potential economic value, it also can be damaging to livelihood of local resident of the designated area (Wan Ismail & Shamsuddin, 2005). In some cases, the disadvantages of tourism might outweigh the advantages.

Economic vs. Cultural Productivity Heritage is also about consumption, both economically and culturally, especially when we speak of heritage tourism. Heritage become the object of selective consumption, driven by fashion of the temporary. Heritage then could be exhausted without effort of constantly extending and changing its product line (Ashworth, 2005). Heritage development in Bandung exploits its heritage products, with emphasis in satisfying the demand of economic activities rather than cultural. While culture-driven activities tend to have longer impact on the local economy and urban quality, economicdriven activities take advantages of its disposability and short-lived fashion. And since economic-driven urban development priorities profit over peoples well-being, it is wise to be alert to the possibility of exploiting heritage for the sake of economic benefit only, without regard for the cultural values assigned to it. There is always the danger of overexploitation and commodification, especially when dealing with consumptive materials such as heritage.

Multiculturalism in Multi-temporal Setting

10

One of the highlight for this phenomena is the fact that the history of those buildings had only little to do with the generation that now occupies it. The buildings had been intended as the residences, shops, or offices for the Dutch, without any consideration whatsoever for the local people at that time. To have buildings from another era is one thing, but to have them designed with different culture in mind could pose serious misinterpretations and misrepresentations. Although multiculturalism is the norm for postmodern cities, this multitemporal setting for colonial heritage in post-colonial city had given the citizen doubts about their citys identity. Although Borer (2010) believe that it is not necessary to see the entire city if the individuals are able to recognize the symbolic representations of it and understand what they mean, mental image of a contextual surrounding might provide better interpretation. So far, the changes in Bandung consciously separate individual building from its context, thus compromising an intact mental image of the city as a whole.

The Construction of Collective Memories Collective memories can form important part of heritage. The construction of heritage has many contradictions, with tensions and conflicting objectives and interests all in one setting. Heritage can be dissonant, evoking a range of feelings from disquiet to rejection (Ashworth, 2005). But heritage can also evoke nothing, because no relationship can be established between individual and the collective memory. People of Bandung never had those buildings, nor this particular part of the city, in their history. This place was simply nonexistent. But since the past was true imagination, the romantic re-interpretation of it had taken place lately by, interestingly, the younger generation who had never experience colonialism. This is in line with Burton who noted that, in South East Asia, it is the younger generation who interested in conserving their heritage, while the elderly tend to reject the memory of their humble beginnings (Wan Ismail & Shamsuddin, 2005). As memory become a romantic imagination of a long lost past, the daily experience of the present become a reminder of a harsh reality of the direction to where this beautiful city might move forward to. Lowenthal (in Breglia, 2006) gives the term for the current interest in heritage as Heritage Crusade, and it is a modern search for origins, while in the same time we also see heritage as a kind of social relationship which is postmodern. People tend to regress to nostalgia, as the ever-unsatisfied yearning to be able to return to a past time to live and to engaged creatively in that past time, rather than just to inherit it as the received truth (Alsayyad, 2001). Nostalgia can become a collective imagination, and it establish itself on the opposite sides of the same temporal coin with collective memory (Borer, 2010). So,
11

collective memory might overlap with collective imagination when people put forward nostalgia as their base for heritage development. However, Baum (1999) had warn us about the danger in choosing nostalgia and fantasy rather than looking realistically at current conditions, because such condition will prevent planning and development. But if Baum suggested forgetting or selective remembering as a way to better planning, heritage suggests otherwise. Keeping those heritage buildings is one way to remember that we have the past as our present, and we shall plan our future accordingly. And although heritage exploitation can be used as a strategy for development, there are danger to it that present the ever dilemmatic paradoxes and contradiction in the process.

A Concluding Remark This research reveal some of the most interesting facts about the diminishing number of urban heritage building and its environment, which become an important departing point to discuss contemporary issues in dealing with urban heritage and the concept of heritage development. It is important to understand that the research was not intended to investigate the process of changes, but rather to expose the phenomena of demolition, heritage, and the dialectic in-between. With the data available to us at this moment, it is almost impossible to identify patterns of the change, or the working force behind it. The unavailability of secondary data for land records (land use, occupants/owner, land rent, etc) and building records (blueprint, type, architect, built year, etc) had also prohibited the research from tracing historical accounts of the changes over a period of time, thus hindering further studies on the anatomy of the changes. It is important to note that this paper emphasize the broader meaning of heritage as a paradigm per se, not as the limited process of preservation/conservation to which it is often confused with. Having the past as our present is the essence of heritage. This past can be used as a resource: as lessons, as fodder for identities, as connector between generations, as commemoration of a lost past, or as narratives for present and future accomplishment (Borer, 2010). To employ a context-sensitive mechanism for planning the future for our present past is essential to construct meaningful heritage. So, identifying how people interpret heritage is one of the more important factor in putting heritage in the context of the present. In this sense, the rhetoric and image of heritage could be powerful in shaping public perspective concerning heritage, otherwise the fate of our heritage will lay in only a handful of people. We are currently working on a research proposal to further investigate this interesting phenomena, with emphasis on bringing about the building owners perspective regarding this
12

issue. Its objective is to explore human socio-cultural factors affecting heritage development, particularly in a colonial city paving its way into postmodern world, and to expand our knowledge on the possibility to plan a heritage development for this area.

Acknowledgement I would like to acknowledge the indispensable contribution of Reza Yanuar Perdana and Valentina Damiana, whose tireless effort and valuable hard-work had given this paper a solid foundation to depart from. This paper extensively uses their surveys results and documentations as the initial data.

References Alsayyad, N. (2001). Consuming Tradition, Manufacturing Heritage: Global Norms and Urban Forms in the Age of Tourism. London: Routledge. Ashworth. (2005). The Commodification of the Past as an Instrument for Local Development: Don't Count on It. In J. McLoughlin, J. Kaminski, & B. Sodagar (Ed.), Heritage Impact 2005: Proceedings of the First International Symposium on the Socioeconomic Impact of Cultural Heritage (pp. 81-88). Brighton, UK: EPOCH Publication. Ashworth, G. J., & Graham, B. (Eds.). (2005). Senses of Places: Senses of Time. Hants: Ashgate Publishing Limited. Ashworth, G. J., Graham, B., & Tunbridge, J. (2007). Pluralising Pasts: Heritage, Identity and Place in Multicultural Societies. London: Pluto Press. Baum, H. S. (1999). Forgetting to Plan. Journal of Planning Education and Research , 19, 214. Borer, M. I. (2010). From Collective Memory to Collective Imagination: Time, Place, and Urban Redevelopment. Symbolic Interaction , 33 (1), 96-144. Breglia, L. (2006). Monumental Ambivalence: The Politics of Heritage. Austin: University of Texas Press. Chang, T. (2000). Singapore's Little India: A Tourist Attraction as a Contested Landscape. Urban Studies , 37 (2), 343-366. Clark, K. (2005). Should We Fund It? Can We Change It? An Introduction to Heritage and Impact. Heritage Impact 2005: Proceedings of the First International Symposium on the Socio-economic Impact of Cultural Heritage (pp. 125-131). Brighton, UK: EPOCH Publication. De Marco, L. (2005). Heritage Interpretation and Authenticity in the Perspective of the Flowing of Time. 8th US/ICOMOS International Symposium Heritage Interpretation. Charleston, South Carolina. Duineveld, M. (2006). Van oude dingen, de mensen, die voorbij gaan. Over de voorwaarden meer recht te kunnen doen aan de door burgers gewaardeerde cultuurhistories. Delft: Eburon. Duineveld, M., & Van Assche, K. (2011). The Power of Tulips: Constructing Nature and Heritage in a Contested Landscape. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning , 13 (2), 1-20. Gospodini, A. (2002). European Cities and Place-Identity. Discusion Paper Series , 8 (2), pp. 19-36.

13

Ismail, R., Shaw, B. J., & Ling, O. G. (Eds.). (2009). Southeast Asian Culture and Heritage in a Globalising World: Diverging Identities in a Dynamic Region. London: Ashgate. Kunto, H. (1986). Semerbak Bunga di Bandung Raya. Bandung: Granesia. Smith, L. (2006). The Uses of Heritage. Oxon: Routledge. Stoica, R.-I. (2006 [2005]). Heterotopia Urbana: Some Conceptual Considerations of Urban Heritage. Forum UNESCO University and Heritage 10th International Seminar "Cultural Landscapes in the 21st Century". Newcastle-upon-Tyne. Suryadini, W., & Risdianto, A. R. (2001). Identification of Corridors Potential for Economic Penetration in Bandung [in Bahasa Indonesia]. 4th Symposium of Forum Studi Transportasi Perguruan Tinggi (FSTPT). Denpasar, Bali. Voskuil, R. P. (1996). Bandoeng: Beeld van Een Stad (Indonesian ed.). (S. M. Supardan, S. Sumardi, N. Darsono, & I. I. Yousda, Trans.) Bandung: Dept. Planologi and Jagaddhita. Wan Ismail, W. H., & Shamsuddin, S. (2005). The Old Shophouses as Malaysian Urban Heritage: The Current Dilemma. 8th International Conference of the Asian Planning School Association. Penang, Malaysia. Wiryomartono, A. (1995). Seni Bangunan dan Seni Binakota di Indonesia. Jakarta: Gramedia Pustaka Utama.

14