A City Without Memory: Negotiating Urban Memory in the Development of Depok City (A Case Study of the Depok Lama Area)

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.30998/j5j0ce88

Keywords:

Depok Lama, Historic Urban Area, Spatial Transformation, Urban Memory, Urban Morphology

Abstract

This study examines how urban memory is negotiated within the contemporary metropolitan expansion of Depok City through a case study of Depok Lama. Using a qualitative case-study approach, the research integrates historical map analysis, urban morphological assessment, and field observation to trace spatial, functional, and symbolic transformations from the late colonial period to the present. The findings reveal that urban development has prioritised economic intensification and land-use optimisation, resulting in the gradual fragmentation of colonial spatial structures and the weakening of their social coherence. Although several colonial artefacts remain physically intact, their integration within the contemporary urban system is increasingly discontinuous, producing a disjunction between form, function, and meaning. Depok Lama thus illustrates a condition that may be termed survival without continuity, where material persistence does not ensure symbolic endurance. The crisis of urban memory in this metropolitan periphery is driven not by physical erasure alone, but by the erosion of relational continuity between spatial structure, social practice, and collective meaning. This study positions urban memory as an active framework for understanding and guiding transformation in historic urban areas undergoing rapid metropolitan change.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

[1] J. Pendlebury, “Heritage and Policy,” in The Palgrave Handbook of Contemporary Heritage Research, E. Waterton and S. Watson, Eds., London: Palgrave Macmillan UK, 2015, pp. 426–441. doi: 10.1057/9781137293565_27.

[2] S. Jones, “Wrestling with the Social Value of Heritage: Problems, Dilemmas and Opportunities,” J. Community Archaeol. & Herit., vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 21–37, 2017, doi: 10.1080/20518196.2016.1193996.

[3] N. Salim and N. Rahman, “Politicization and Commodification of Tourism: Implications for George Town World Heritage Site,” Int. J. Acad. Res. Bus. Soc. Sci., vol. 12, 2022, doi: 10.6007/IJARBSS/v12-i12/14916.

[4] E. Waterton and S. Watson, “Heritage as a focus of research: Past, present and new directions,” in The Palgrave handbook of contemporary heritage research, Springer, 2015, pp. 1–17.

[5] C. DeSilvey, Curated Decay: Heritage beyond saving. 2017.

[6] UNESCO, “Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape. Paris, 10 November 2011,” no. November, pp. 68–70, 2011, [Online]. Available: https://korumakurullari.ktb.gov.tr/TR-133320/arkeolojik-mirasin-korunmasina-iliskin-avrupa-sozlesmes-.html%0Ahttps://whc.unesco.org/uploads/activities/documents/activity-638-98.pdf

[7] A. P. Roders and L. Kong, “Reshaping Urban”.

[8] F. Bandarin and R. Oers, Reconnecting the City: The Historic Urban Landscape Approach and the Future of Urban Heritage. 2014. doi: 10.1002/9781118383940.

[9] E. Yung and E. Chan, “Implementation challenges to the adaptive reuse of heritage buildings: Towards the goals of sustainable, low carbon cities,” Habitat Int., vol. 36, pp. 352–361, 2012, doi: 10.1016/j.habitatint.2011.11.001,.

[10] G. J. Ashworth, B. Graham, and J. E. Tunbridge, “Pluralising Pasts Heritage, Identity and Place in Multicultural Societies,” 2007.

[11] M. De Calle-vaquero and C. Yubero, “Cultural Heritage and Urban Tourism : Historic City Centres under Pressure †,” 2017, doi: 10.3390/su9081346.

[12] R. K. Yin, Case study research and applications: Design and methods, vol. 53, no. 5. 2018. doi: 10.1177/109634809702100108.

[13] J. W. Creswel, “Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches,” Man. Ther., vol. 16, no. 1, p. 103, 2014, doi: 10.1016/j.math.2010.09.003.

[14] M. R. G. Conzen and M. P. Conzen, Thinking about Urban Form: Papers on Urban Morphology, 1932-1998. Peter Lang, 2004. [Online]. Available: https://books.google.co.id/books?id=ykYsc8Uy3LQC

[15] J.W.R. Whitehand, “British urban morphology : the Conzenian tradition,” vol. 5, pp. 103–109, 2001.

[16] A. V. Moudon, “Urban morphology as an emerging interdisciplinary field,” Urban Morphol., vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 3–10, 1997.

[17] K. Kropf, The Handbook of Urban Morphology. in The Urban Handbook series. Wiley, 2018. [Online]. Available: https://books.google.co.id/books?id=Glw6DwAAQBAJ

[18] F. Vafaie, H. Remøy, and V. Gruis, “Adaptive reuse of heritage buildings; a systematic literature review of success factors,” Habitat Int., vol. 142, p. 102926, 2023, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2023.102926.

[19] V. Braun and V. Clarke, “Using thematic analysis in psychology,” Qual. Res. Psychol., vol. 3, pp. 77–101, Jan. 2006, doi: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.

[20] M. R. G. Conzen, “Alnwick, Northumberland: a study in town-plan analysis,” Trans. Pap. (Institute Br. Geogr., no. 27, pp. iii--122, 1960.

Published

2026-03-31

How to Cite

A City Without Memory: Negotiating Urban Memory in the Development of Depok City (A Case Study of the Depok Lama Area). (2026). Lakar: Jurnal Arsitektur, 9(1), 101-112. https://doi.org/10.30998/j5j0ce88