Claim Missing Document
Check
Articles

Found 2 Documents
Search
Journal : CSID Journal of Infrastructure Development

Uneven Development and Circular Causation Devina, Amanda; Gamal, Ahmad
CSID Journal of Infrastructure Development Vol. 2, No. 1
Publisher : UI Scholars Hub

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar

Abstract

This paper discusses the uneven development and detects the circular causation that occurs in the Kalibata area. Uneven development occurs between the street vendor trade area and Kalibata City trade area. The research method we use are: 1) literature study as theoretical basis to understand the uneven development theory and the occurrence of circular causation; 2) data collection by conducting interviews, observation, and direct mapping; 3) information processing where we used the data obtained to compare the differences in production processes between two regions. Kalibata City (formal area) and street vendor trade area (informal area) have different potential that generates the difference in production process. This article found that: 1) street vendor’s consumer facilities is simpler than Kalibata City; 2) street vendor area doesn’t have legal permit, thus making them susceptible to eviction, 3) street vendor is limited to the area beside the railway, 4) the tools used by the street vendors are less sophisticated than Kalibata City, and; 5) the street vendors have limited skills than the workers in Kalibata City. We also found there are 3 types of production of street vendors: low, mid, high complexity. Meanwhile, production process in Kalibata City is ran in a more structured and organized way. These differences trigger the developmental differences between these regions. Circular causation makes it worse. Kalibata City will continue to be able to develop its area, while PKL will be difficult to develop because its limitations.
Urban Form Beyond Density: Shape Compactness Matters Putri, Galuh Anisa; Gamal, Ahmad
CSID Journal of Infrastructure Development Vol. 8, No. 2
Publisher : UI Scholars Hub

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar

Abstract

Urban compactness has traditionally been measured through density, with population per area used as a core indicator of urban form. However, this method creates a limited view of what compactness means. Research shows that a compact city is not always a high-density city, and that increasing density does not automatically result in compact development. Compactness also involves the shape and structure of urban footprints, which influence how land is used and how a city functions. This paper presents a conceptual distinction between density and shape compactness, arguing that both are necessary to understand urban form. A qualitative literature review was conducted to examine how cities with similar density levels can show major differences in spatial structure and performance. The findings suggest that density and shape are separate components of urban form. This paper proposes a broader measurement framework that includes both factors, which can improve spatial planning, urban design, and policy decisions.