Issues on Kost Rental Housing Community for Low-to-Middle Income Single People in Jakarta, Indonesia

Diah Wasis WULANDARI

Candidate for the Degree of Master Supervisor : Suguru MORI

Division of Architecture and Structural Design

1. Introduction The dense population of Jakarta partly due to urbanization leads to high housing price. On the other hand, 2010 National Socio-economic Survey showed that Indonesia was one of the countries with highest relative minimum wages in the world with percentage reaching around 65% of the average wage of salaried workers. These lead to the condition in which people from middle-to-low income level have difficulties in getting or renting houses, and it is common that singles or couples stay in rental facilities first before their economic capability increases. Due to changes in stages in life, the need for additional income and the lack of cheaper housing options especially for people from outside Jakarta or people who stay far from their place of activities, the households re-arrange their domestic space to be shared with the tenants. Kost facilities, private housing with rented rooms mostly created spontaneously by house owners, shows transformation in housing and dwelling pattern in Jakarta. Various planning considerations of house owners develop special characteristics of kost. Moreover, kost’s spatial occupation and arrangement changed habitants’ living pattern. 2. Rental Facilities in Indonesia Rental facilities in Indonesia come in several types, include private rental house, dormitory, rusunawa (public rental flat), and kost. Private rental house was not discussed in this research because of the different

nature of the facility, contract type, payment duration, and living environment condition. On the other hand, dormitory was not discussed neither due to different nature of the facility and limitation to eligible tenants. Rusunawa (public rental flats) is the closest type to be studied with kost, since it is generally open for anyone instead of only for people related to certain group or organization. (Table 1) Facing the city development issues such as land constraints and high land price for housing development in Jakarta led to one of the alternative housing solutions which is the vertical development, or commonly known as flats construction. Since 1994, the city administration commissioned the Department of Housing and Residential Development to conduct the construction of simple rental facilities aimed for low-to-middle income communities. But with so many problems that arise in the management and leasing of residential towers, starting in 2001 the city administration decided to build public simple rental flats (rusunawa), facilities funded by state and / or regional budget. 3. Kost Rental Housing Kost is an alternative form of private rental accommodation in which tenants are lodged together in one or more rooms with other tenants. In some cases owners share the space with tenants, while in other cases they are completely separated. Currently most kosts tend to be profit-oriented but informal and not registered, although several laws apply for kost since 1987 in Jakarta.

Table 1:Differences between dormitory, rusunawa and kost

DORMITORY RUSUNAWA KOST

DEFINITION Temporary housing for people with certain similarities

Multi-storey public housing in rental basis

House used partly or all as a source of income by its owner by accepting tenants to stay for at least one month

OWNER Organization Government Private

TENANT Relevant person Anyone (who fit the criteria) Anyone (who fit owner’s criteria)

RELATIONSHIP O = owner T = tenant S = staff

3.1 Survey Method The research is supported by on-site survey on October 2011 to kost facilities which were selected based on 2 main residential areas surrounding Jakarta city center; Tomang area in West Jakarta and Sunter area in North Jakarta. The process included space layout mapping, situation observation, and interviews to kost owners and housekeepers. Facility accessibility and locating process were the main constraint during the survey. In this case, the research is limited to facilities accessible for the researcher, and intended for female only or mix gender. In this research, firstly, a comprehensive on-site survey on kost facilities was conducted to understand the characteristics of kost. Secondly, the way space within kost is used was investigated. Finally, interview to owners and housekeepers provide understanding on living condition, owner’s considerations and varied kost arrangement. 3.2 Classification of Kosts The kost facilities surveyed shows two main conditions, which are owner and tenants living together, and owner and tenants living in separate houses. In addition, it was observed that there are facilities in which owner and tenants live together with layout plan adjustment and no significant adjustment. Based on this finding, kost is classified in this research mainly into three categories based on space defined by owner for tenant (Table 2). In the first type (type A), the tenants live together with owners in the same house. In this type, there is no space plan adjustment purposely done to create space for

tenant. In the second type (type B), the tenants also live together with owners in the same house, but owner purposely adjusts the space plan to create space for tenant. In the third type (type C), the tenants don’t live together with owner. Owner purposely creates space to lend for tenants. There are 3 owner-tenant main separation methods found in type B, which are vertical separation, horizontal separation, and mix separation, each shows different level on how owners tolerate intrusion to their privacy. In kost type A, the percentage of private area tends to be much higher than tenant area. The shared area includes activity areas in which owner-tenant active interaction is possible to occur. On the other hand, type C shows the opposite tendency, with percentage of tenant area being much higher than private area. The shared area in type C is mostly areas of generally inactive interactions with owner. (Figure 2)

Table 2:Examples of Kost Type A, Type B, and Type C Based on Space Defined by Owner for Tenant

Figure 2: Kost Spatial Occupation Distribution

3.3 Enclosed Space and Access The term ‘enclosed space’ here refers to the conventional space defined by walls creating space not to be shared with strangers. In type A, enclosed space pattern tends to be irregular, creating open space used as space for less private activities and circulation area. Type B and type C show similar pattern, which is less open space but more enclosed space. 3.4 Territory Extension to Public Space Personal territory extension of tenants to public space was noticed in kost type B and C, mainly because of lack of space in the room. This condition was not found in type A as type A’s public space is either owner’s space or space to be shared with owner. In this case, owners tend to prohibit such extension affecting their daily living space. (Figure 3)

3.5 Interview Data Owners’ considerations and kost arrangement were investigated through interview. It was found that availability of extra space in the house due to changes of occupancy or due to changes of stages in life is the main reason for owner to have kost type A. Type B and C show reason mainly related to income source. It was found that each kost provide different combinations of services and facilities from one another. Many facilities don’t provide sufficient public areas for less private activities. Tenants are expected to do most of their activities in their rooms, following the culture acceptable in that kost. The existence of kost facilities influences the neighborhood as well. Kost, which accommodated a lot of people in limited space tends to affect the noise level crowding, and security of the surroundings. The flexible and informal way of kosts in accepting tenants also creates worries to the neighborhood. Rent price increases in accordance to room area and the availability of attached bathroom and/or A/C system. However, it was found that as the room area increases, the rent price shows the decreasing tendency. In this case, other factors involve in determining the room value (Figure 4).

4. Conclusion Due to changes in stages in life, the need for additional income and the market demand, house owners re-arrange and lend out their private space to be shared with the tenants. The processes of occupational modification, spatial alteration, and building with intention, combined with various owner-tenant separation levels and owners’ planning consideration develop different types of kost facilities. Kost’s spatial occupation and arrangement changed habitants’ living pattern. Due to lack of space for less private activity, a shift in the way habitants utilize the space compared to the order of space in houses was noticed, including territory expansion to public space. The arrangement and rules in kost are flexible, giving a lot of options of living conditions depending on tenants’ preference. On the other hand, the monthly-basis payment gives ease for tenants to pay, and flexible occupancy period, as well. Investigation to tenants’ point of view and living behavior will be done for future research in order to get more information about tenants’ profile, living pattern, experience, and preference. In addition, other options of rental facilities will be studied as comparison. References 1. DPGP (Housing Department) DKI Jakarta, Rumah Kost, Retrieved from http:// rumah-gedungjakarta.org 2. Funo, Shuji. et al., 2002. Typology of kampung houses and their transformation process. Journal of Asian Architecture and Building Engineering Vol. 1, No. 2: pp.2_193-200. 3.Hidayah, R. and Shigemura, T., 2005. Domestic space arrangement of the private rental housing: A case of urban village housings of Yogyakarta, Indonesia. Journal of Asian Architecture and Building Engineering Vol. 4, No. 1: pp.137-142. 4. Indonesian Law No. 28 Year 2009, Retrieved from http://www.jakarta.go.id 5.Kusumaputra, R. A. (2011, April 7). Cosmas Batubara: Remajakan Jakarta Dengan Rusun. Harian Kompas. Retrieved from http://properti.kompas.com 6.OECD. 2010, OECD Economic Surveys: Indonesia, OECD Publishing.

Figure 3: Territory Extension to Public Space

Figure 4: Room area and rent price relation