Abstract
Nowadays, lots of people live under pressure and tend to protect themselves from others. These people tend to care about themselves without taking consideration about the others matter. These kinds of phenomena mostly happen in urban area. In short, this is what we call “individualistic”. Since those urbanist lacks of others help and fewer friends, hence, materialistic always come across with individualistic. So, the ill society tends to break down the whole system and become sick. The whole condition is not allowing people to interact each other and end up with “solve it themselves”. These modernism thinking block the whole community development at the same time, loss local identity in living demand. Public building or community facilities in our society nowadays are not conducive enough for us to proud on it. Malaysia, is one of the classic example of a multi-ethnic society. The country proud with the multiracial culture which make him be a model to others country. The ubiquitous community hall on the Malaysian landscape, as it stands now, has long passed its use-by date. Even though labelled in different name like dewan serbaguna, dewan orang ramai or even balai raya. But as it stands today, the community hall in our midst is nothing more than a large empty space used for games like badminton, ping pong and the occasional event. The changing modern Malaysian society demands more of this simple outdated facility, there must be a place for the various ethnic groups to meet and fulfill modern needs such as family days, health checks, child‟s play, music lessons and many more. The idea of an all-functioning room dates back a century ago to Mies van der Rohe‟s universal space‟s idea. This was logical, attractive and simple: put up a long span of space with no interior columns and make it high enough to suit functions such as sports and community gatherings. The problem with this idea is that the room is valid for two purposes only: a community gathering that occurs once in a blue moon and a weekly badminton game. For other functions, it means a waste of air conditioning and light energy. So just because of one function “ to be able to play badminton “ the building fails to provide for other functions and perhaps even makes it difficult to hold a gathering. This paper try to re-look at how such spaces can be redesigned to make them truly relevant to today‟s Malaysian Community.
Keywords: Community centre design, spatial use, modern community.
INTRODUCTION
Malaysia country is one of the classic examples of a multi-ethnic society. The country proud with the multiracial cultures which then be a role model to others country. The ubiquitous community hall on the Malaysian landscape, as it stands now, has long passed its use-by date. This paper try to re-look at how such spaces can be redesigned to make them truly relevant to today‟s community. Call it what you will: dewan serbaguna, dewan orang ramai or even balai raya. But as it stands today, the community hall in our midst is nothing more than a large empty space used for games like badminton, ping pong and the occasional event. The changing modern Malaysian society demands more of this simple outdated facility, there must be a place for the various ethnic groups to meet and fulfill modern needs such as family days, health checks, child‟s play, music lessons and many more. The present dewan serbaguna (multipurpose halls) are, to my mind, in dewan serba-tak-guna (unused halls). The idea of an all-functioning room dates back a century ago to Mies van der Rohe‟s universal space‟s idea. This was logical, attractive and simple: put up a long span of space with no interior columns and make it high enough to suit functions such as sports and community gatherings. The problem with this idea is that the room is valid for two purposes only: a community gathering that occurs once in a blue moon and a weekly badminton game. Try playing chess in a big hall. The high ceiling is only for one function: to enable people to play badminton. For other functions, it means a waste of air conditioning and light energy. So just because of one function “to be able to play badminton” the building fails to provide for other functions and perhaps even makes it difficult to hold a gathering.
This paper strives to identify and do some analysis on some architectural problems of current community centre in Malaysia with the focus on its spatial and space usage. The discussion will consist of four (4) major parts which are community centre development in Malaysia, type of Community Centre in Malaysia, some case study of the situation of current community centre in Malaysia and architectural problems in Malaysian Community Centre. It is expected that this paper can give a clear picture on problems in Malaysian Community Centre with some consideration and framework to develop a new scheme in the future.
COMMUNITY CENTRE DEVELOPMENT IN MALAYSIA
After getting its independence for more than 50 year, its just little development can be seen (in term of architectural spaces) in the building called community centre in Malaysia, however these developments still exist a little change from past. Place who behave as the first community centre in Malaysia not akin community hall which we can found now. Generally, Malaya populations divided according to race which is living under British Colonialization. At that time, sacred places such as mosque, surau, temple and other more become the place of gathering. Under British policy, different race should not be met each other to avoid unity that can challenge the master. Population only can come together and meet each other in their own settlement areas. Place of prayers have become a gathering place apart from practising religion.
Figure 1: Praying place as the early Community Centre in Malaysia (mosque, Chinesse and Indian Temple)
After independence, the town and countryside development are growing rapidly. It is because Malaysia is one of the member Commonwealth countries, city settlement and countryside also followed the policy applied by British government. As a result of that policy, every village or housing estate has equipped with public facility. These facilities including school, mosque or surau(small prayers hall), and community centre. Until today, community centre still found in rural areas and present by the first government community in Malaysia.
Due to increasing of population drastically after a rapid development in this country, community hall and a building which acted as community centre ' was massively being construct. Such as community centre suddenly appears in rural areas, village and town, all are expected to give a service to the local community. Community centre determination for housing estate or village is defined by the population of people and density of particular area. For rural area, community centre and community hall exist in the form of multipurpose urban spaces and town.
Government Department Which Manages Community Centre
In all government departments, there are departments enforce with community service. In Malaysia, the department liase with the matter is Jabatan Kebajikan Masyarakat Malaysia. However, if we monitor closely, this department is not only focus on giving services for certain community, even more to aid protection, recovery, prevention, development and integration for certain particular group only. This target group intended is children, disabled person, senior citizen and family (family which poor and family with domestic violence experience) only. To be exactly, this department had a less focus to the others community development especially the development of the community centre and neighborhood activity.
COMMUNITY CENTRE DESIGN IN MALAYSIA
In Malaysia, community centre construction is under the Public Work Department or Jabatan Kerja Raya (JKR) law. According to JKR guideline, the different between all three community centres is the functional aspect, population density and its surrounding facility. In site planning, community centre should be were in place to be visited easily by local community. To the local community, this community centre should be positioned nearby the others public facilities such as surau(snall prayer hall), field, clinic or health centre and others. From accesibility aspect, community centre' location should be were in place equipped by the public transport. Furthermore, community centre placement is permitted if the location does not conflict with other activity around. Community centre development should be in accordance with Propposal and Development Strategy in Local Program and Layout Plan under local authority‟s jurisdiction. According to the report, community centre‟s design and arrangement should be symbolizing a local culture in using local material instead (Report and JKR Guideline). Other than suitable with function and activity, community centre design should be easy modified and flexibel for various local social benefits. Apart from that, community centre should be equipped with support facilities such as adequate parking area and landscape with low maintenance (Report and JKR Guideline). Community center structure should emulate contour and minimize „cut and paste' work and integrated with natural landscape. Furthermore, this community centre building material also advised to use longlasting material. According to Standard Public Works Department, different community centre may be divided according to the following criteria:
Table 1 The standard size in for community centre based on JKR‟s law
COMMUNITY CENTRE TYPOLOGY IN MALAYSIA
After a few years after the independence, generally, there are 3 type of community centre in Malaysia; Community Centre, Community Hall and Multi-purpose Hall. Community centre usually located in rural areas, village or town, while Community Hall and Multi-purpose Hall located in urban and city. However, there is no guideline to differentiate these three facilities. As stated at the previous chapter, the functions of these three halls is for social activity, service and interaction place between government and society as well to be a recreation place.
Community Centre
Community centre usually was in rural area, village or town aim to satisfy the people needs (Garis Panduan Perancangan Kemudahan Masyarakat). Community centre main function was to provide a place or area to gather and social gathering. From the writer ' observation, existing community centre now function as place for local committee (village or town) for a meeting. After rapid urbanization lately, the community centre builds up along the town surrounding area in order to meet needs of the local community. According to Malaysian Public Works Department report, community centre contains a hall, store, oratory and toilet. Lot area for community centre is among 0.1 hectarage to 0.4 hectarage and minimum size building is 74 sq metres. Radius for one community centre is 200 – 1,000 persons in village area or 1,000 – 3,000 persons in urban. Distance 52 pedestrian maximum is 400 metres or 10 minute.
Maximum duration for drive a car is about 10 minutes.
Community Hall
Figure 2 Balai Raya Taman Nira, Batu Pahat, Johor
More or less the service given by community hall and community centre are same, but accommodate more population in the radius. Community hall usually was found in urban, especially in apartment area (apartment) and housing area. From the writer‟s observation, existing community hall recently more less are same with each others. Local values and local culture barrenness cause community hall established without distinctive identity. According to Malaysia Public Works Department Report, community hall contains a stage, internal hall and playing court except low ceiling badminton match. For others playing court was placed outside the building. Lot area for community hall is among 0.1 hectarage to 0.6 hectarage and minium size building is 185 sq metres. Capacity for one community hall is 3,000 – 10,000 persons. Maximum distance for pedestrian is 800 metres or 15 minutes. Maximum time drive a car is 15 minute (Garis Panduan Perancangan Kemudahan Masyarakat).
Figure 3 Community Hall at Jalan Reko, Kajang, Selangor
Figure 4 Kampung Baru Community Hall, Batu 11, Cheras, Selangor
Multi-Purpose Hall
Such as community centre and community hall social function, multi-purpose hall also give a similar social services such as providing a place for the community interaction and providing place to have a marriage feast. According to Malaysian Public Works Department report, the different between multipurpose hall and community hall is only the existing of badminton court in multi-pupose hall.
Eventhough the unclear information given, however, there are still many differences between multi-purpose hall with community hall. Based on our survey, there are almost simmilar community hall nationwide, while multi-purpose hall have a unique design and built up upon the requests from the local community. Furthermore, multi-purpose hall often give wide space or area and more congenial to carry out a social activity and community activities. Multi-purpose hall which successfully in Malaysia is Dewan Serbaguna Presint 8, Dewan Serbaguna Presint 9, Dewan Serbaguna Presint 11 and Dewan Serbaguna Presint 16. Such as others community halls, multi-purpose hall also providing a stage, internal hall and playing court such as badminton court with high ceiling. Lot area for multi-purpose hall is among 0.1 hectarage to 0.8 hektar and minimum size building is 315 sq metres. Minimum capacity for one multi-purpose hall is 10,000 people. Pedestrian ' maximum distance is 800 metres or 15 minute. Maximum duration for drive a car is 15 minute (Garis Panduan Perancangan Kemudahan Masyarakat).
Figure 5 Precincts ' Multipurpose Hall 8, Putrajaya, Kuala Lumpur
Figure 6 Precincts ' Multipurpose Hall 9, Putrajaya, Kuala Lumpur
COMMUNITY CENTRE PROBLEM IN MALAYSIA
“Dewan-serba-tak-guna” or Not Useful Hall as stated by Mohamad Tajuddin Mohamad Rasdi is a one new word to explain sociology and community state nowadays in Malaysia. This word directly has vested a vivid picture how serious local neighbourhood community celebration on facilities was provided. Observing the “Multipurpose Hall” and “ Community hall” in Malaysian housing areas, almost all this facility fenced and clinched all day long without public presence in the building. Indirectly this kind of facility was created as a waste to society.
Figure 7 Most of the entrance Community Hall gate was locked
Figure 8 No maintenance for the public facilities
Figure 9.Badminton match in community hall
Figure 10 Temporary community centre
Figure 11 Facility but without activity
Figure 12 No proper maintenance for the facility
Apart from that, shortage of activities held also make the community centre in Malaysia do not get good respond. There is no proper maintenance for the facility. Fugginess becomes more serious as this thing happen in Malaysia after catipalism phenomenon rampant in society. According to Mohamad Tajuddin Mohamad Rasdi, yet, still unavailable programme which aims racial integration beside place for gathering when there is an election or business discussion.
Facilities prepared by society and community is failed to be developed with eternal concept (self sustaining concept), furthermore this just focus on sports activities and physically only. As an architect, with the existence of need to carrying out responsibility social and get a method of solution (beside the study of form making and the design form of a column and beam) which enables particular community made eternal, capable to handling by itself, discuss issues and problem by the community and decide to solve it which brings valuable lesson to overall community. An architect should take the role as a professional or intellectual person by sharing knowledge and understanding values owned by the society.
“How does an architect see himself? This isn’t about corporate identity, but an evaluation towards the produced architecture: whose game are we playing? Is it our own? Is it the capitalists, philanthropist or corporate powers’? Do we serve priests and bishops, or bow to the power of governance and politics, or are we turning towards local organization, individual dwellers and the relationship between them? It is this question that will most influence the design of everything built and lived in compared to the efforts of the architect himself.”
Lucien Kroll, 1986
According to the fact above, clearly showed that architects act as a professional role model in order to bring satisfied demand and social needs of the community. As come into view on present community centre in Malaysia, certainly not about it‟s architecturally, but only just a building. Architecture sociology says society not just building, but the only architecture needs to meet human demand and psychology. What occurs in Malaysia now for community centre only just the only wide building and seldom been used. Thus, this situation showed some suitable activities games like badminton, tennis table 15 and part of festival activities. Nowadays, the present local community insist no longer just like this building construction only.
As the mission and state policy currently towards to 1 Malaysia concept, with the existence of needs we will be able to give focus for architecture of community in Malaysia by builds the only multi-racial society to live in a community. There are 3 big factors to achieve the matter namely: architecture factor, programme and management factor. Architecture factor at this point refering to community architecture which capable to give an opportunity and space for society interacts and society activities. Programme factor on the other hand refering to program community cope to unite all ethnic and different culture as well as give security awareness and community feeling to all the member of the community. Last but not least, management factor is refering to order and systematic of community center‟s management.
5.0 Architecture Factor
Recently, there are forum critizise on the existing community centre in Malaysia. The hot issue outloud spoken in the newspaper on community centre such as “Dewan Orang – Tak – Ramai” instead of “Dewan Orang Ramai”, “ Dewan serba-tak-Guna”instead of “Dewan Serbaguna”.Based on architecture history of the world,community concept are based on
„universal space‟, a theory by Mies Van De Rohe. These logical theories are very interesting and easy to digest; it was: „providing a large space and a long span without any column constructed to achieve high capacity for sport activities and community group. This great idea are functioning at the others country but not in Malaysia. As a result of agreed of this idea, a large building had been constructed and this type of building are function only for badminton match or community assembly.
In this situation, the existing community centre incapable to give an opportunity for community member to interact. Try imagining the present now: play chess in this big hall or think regarding various methods to access this large hall without any seating. For badminton match, this becomes the best place indeed because of the high volume and no interior column constructed as barrier for the activity. However, for others purposes, the 7 to 10 metre ceiling volume are just a financial and electrical wastage for any celebration. On ventilation issue, the building design is not efficient for natural ventilation. As a design, this building has enough opening for ventilation used for public building. However, it‟s less (or there are several places unused) usage. In this equator countries, natural ventilation and natural lighting are two important components to be considered
in design and vernacular architecture.17 However, the opening itself are not being used and be replaced by air conditioning.
Beside of giving a good environment to play badminton, this lack of opening is not giving any benefits to the design of the building. From the passive design aspect, this building only suitable for badminton matches which more congenial to be named badminton court compare to be named as community centre. According to architecture justification and this existing design incompatible with present condition and demand, as a consequence, large assignment need to be created regarding healthy community centre typology which more suitable with current situation. This assignment rooted with a study on local community‟s demand, interest and local daily life. The local and culture activity are contribute a lot to satisfy the local needed to be exactly. Furthermore, the new community centre or new community centre typology should resolve local community difficulty by assist the local community from daily life aspect. As we know the needs and demand for each community are different and therefore a study on community centre design are very important to look deeply.
Concisely, community centre design should not only use the same building‟ typology for all place, but one suitable architecture typology for that particular society community only. Which first, community centre should be having foodcourt or stall environment. If we observe on local culture closely, it was not hard to find local community gathered on small foodcourt stall or in Indian Muslim stall. This Indian Muslim stalls are actually one capable place to allow society interact with each others. One research showed “eating” is one important culture in Malaysia.
Hence, Mamak Indian Muslim stalls as one place where local people interact by each other in a good way. Very hard to generate an activity which unite multi racial society such as in Malaysia. In Malaysia, food and foodcourt is on of the good example. Next, reading corner or library for bigger area should be located in new community centre. This reading corner is very important to help students especially student who stay in low cost housing. As we already know on that small narrow spaces of low-cost housing is not easy to provide a good reading area.
As such, one conducive area or reading corner is very important for student to discuss and read. As such, reading corner or library should be prepared in community centre so it‟s make the students feel comfortable with one wide space and condusive area for study and read. This proposal has been apply in Singapore nicely and sported by locals. This library concept is not only for student or young generation, but also for the adult group and senior citizen in the society. As we notified, reading rate in Malaysia is among the worse country in the world. Therefore, it is necessary to disseminate the passion of reading in order to increase reading habit among the society. Furthermore, a condusive childrens' playground should be located at community centre. From the current observation in Malaysia, there are less visitor at the children' playground because of the safety factor. Therefore, a safe playground and a place for parents to monitor and communicate with their child should be provided.
Apart from that, community centre should be having a large space to have an exhibition or family day. Based on the observation at a few community centre (community centre, multipurpose community hall and hall in Malaysia), it is very important to provide a place for interaction and large space for family activities, but not compulsory for badminton court. Therefore, scale and population density is the factor to determines the need of badminton court and others facilities in the community centre. Furthermore, management office also was one of the important elements in community centre. This office also can be made for parliament member' office of that area to facilitate Member of Parliament duties. This could also help this Member of Parliament to be closed with their local community.
Tuition class also one of the very popular phenomenon among the Malaysian nowadays. However, local community also faces some problems with these growth tuition classes. The fees itself are too burden to some parents.Therefore, it is a proposal to locate the tuition centre or music class at the community hall to reduce the tuition fees while at the same time helping the community centre to generate their own money. This will make the community be able to operate with their own financial sources in order to run others activity for the locals needs.
We cannot deny of the interest of our society in monthly and yearly „biggest sale‟ shoping activity. Therefore the community centre should provide this kind of activity nearby the residential area.
From economy aspects, Malaysian economy is very small compared to other countries. If we study closely, Malaysian comsumer force is more to a small market than the big one. The best evidence was night market in Malaysia which always full and enjoyed by the Malaysian. With the existence of this demand, an empty room should be prepared for this low-scale economical activity to generate small business in the neighbourhood rather than left unoccupied. This proposal is not only to ensure that a local population will be able to buy their daily goods without going out from the neighboorhood, but also to generate a new way of business for that community.
Apart from that, recreational park should be placed at the community centre. If community centre consists of a big area, recreational park should be included in any proposal. As current situation in Malaysia, less public recreation park provided for public use. The only reason is this public facility is unprofitable to the society. However, society should think the matter for community' benefit. In approval proposal, community centre should give an area for recreational park. For small area or space, seats and table should be positioned at the surrounding to allow the community to gather and interact between each other. Hereby, community centre image could be turned into surrounded by local community instead of fencing the area to keep that community centre ' safety. With this design, community centre will be more accesible rather than closed and unfriendly for the locals.
Most of the architecture of the community centre in Malaysia is lack of identity and image. Based on the studied from the others country, all the community center had a unique design indeed of local needed. But in Malaysia It is merely building without a soul. The community centre designs are identical if not the called same. Insensitif local design does not encourage the spirit of neighbourhood in the community. Furthermore, this community centre later abandoned and left by the local community because they don‟t know how to use it. It gives a clear picture that community centre is not just a building, but a livable architecture to nurture a strong spirit of neighbourhood and interaction among local community.
Apart from that, local community centre design should fully utilize our natural resources. Due to the strategic location of Malaysia, the weather is humidity and hot along the year; therefore, the design consideration is easier from other countries. With the existence of this environemnt, a natural ventilation and lighting are available naturally without using any source of artificial assistance. Therefore, the proposed architecture should be able to interact with this natural resource. This indirectly can save the use of artificial resources such as electricity and water.
5.2 Programme Factor
To resolve the existing community centre problem in Malaysia, architecture is one of the main factors to consider. However, the programme in the community centre is also very important. With the existence of suitable weather consideration, social needs and local culture, the new community centre should be focus at community programme itself. There are two objective for the community centre programme:- first, for sharing the skill and expertise owned by individual to local community; second, to integrate between each other. Community centre should be having all data and document information about family member within their community coverage. That data should include the entire expertise and skill the community member. This is to an opportunity and chances for each member of the community to contribute their expertise and skill to help their communities. In other words, expertise and skill owned in community centre might be taught and shared within their community members and interact each others. With the existence of this programme also, the member of the community centre will feel appreciated with the spirit of neighbourhood and communal spirit. For example: a teacher could conduct an extra classes or tuition class for students in the housing estate after school hours. A retired chef can run a cooking class while the entire community member can seated around him/her where they can learn different way of cooking with others member.
The community members would share a life under one roof, unity and peacefully. The community centre programme can be intergrated with the school programme as well. Present school programme usually limited duration only (during school time); outside the school time, most of programmes does not having a high respond and it‟s not that excited. If community centre programme could be affiliated with school programme, for example cadet team in school at the same time produce security force for community centre. Indirectly, the affiliated programme prepared at the community centre can be more beneficial to the society instead of a school programme only.
The programme that held at community center should be satisfied and suitable for public of any level. It was a failure if the proggrame was focused on the youth only. Based on research, the senior citizens spend most of their time at home, followed by children and teenagers. Therefore, major programmes should be involving for senior citizen and children. Programme for senior citizen usually more to recreation and healthy life, which required less physical activity while for the adult, programme should be more to intellectual and mind development for career or social aspect. For the youth, the activity should be more to academic achievement, martial art, sport and family programme such as group singing and dancing.
Programme should be integrated between different group classes. Children will not go to anywhere without a guide from the adults. Therefore, programme especially for children such as children playground should be placed beside a recreation tools for the adult. Apart from that, youth programme can be an independent programme, due to their independent-free feeling of the youth group and their capacity look after theirself. The programs need to be plan nicely with a variety of aaproaches to generate one healthy and easier scheme to be received by local community. With the existence of this approaches, the programme can be accepted and attract the interest of the local people.
5.3 Management Factor
During the previous year, every area would be managed by head of the community (ketua kampung). Usually, head of the community are authorised to manage the welfare of the place given by the king (sultan). However, nowadays, the post itself does not impress and respectable by the community, and changed with different post. To manage a community centre, that centre need a management team to manage its. This management officers do not necessarily hired from other place or government servant or new generation, but can be selected from locals‟ especially enthusiastic and active old citizen in community. This not only can be pleasant for local residents to communicate with management and get better services, but also generating job opportunities to the local community.
It is advised that management officers should be managed by somebody with the background in anthropology. This is much better than possessed by politician which less sensitivity and care with local context and the need of the society. With the existence of anthropology knowledge, this officer can effectively understand and study in meticulously on all change which occurred in community. Other than anthropology other knowledge, in other fields also needed such as architecture, local sociology, psychology, management and political science. This post not merely belong to someone who have the political power or concern to clean the building only, but all the
sociological knowledge are needed so that the community members can live under one roof ,friendly and safe.
The problem is whether this community centre is important and should be take care. As we already know, community centre is the places to gather and interact between each other. If community centre is not working efficiently, a community or society will be unstable and distract one another.
6. CONCLUSION
Current community centre in Malaysia indeed owns many problems. There are lots of factors that cause it happens such unplanned community activities, the lack of respond from the community members for the activity run by the commitee, birocratic complication on the management of community centre and other cronic problems. Before deeper study on this problem, all factors and matter that cause it should be studied and identify. Generaly, problems that were faced by Malaysian‟s community centre can be divided to 3 factors which are architecture, programme and management factor. Eventough this problem is very important for the course evolution of one society; Community of architecture in Malaysia is still receiving less attention.
Furthermore, its programme also contributes to the problems. Less exciting programme with not well- managed management make the problem become worse. Apart from that, an old standard JKR also affects existing community centre development. After a further study, we found that these community centre problems could be overcome with better planned way and approaches. A detail study and observation is needed to solve the problem.
Without a detail study and observation, any approaches and treatment will not be able to overcome this problem fully. A few approaches and theories on community centre found that food and sport is key factor to mark an active community centre. Apart from that, a few case studies have found that most of an old community centre in Malaysia not designed and well planned. The existence of this community centre is just merely fulfilling the pragmatic need and government requirements. With a systematic planning, community centre could be one facility or public amenities that support the development of society and local community.
Human activity should become one of the considerations of any community centre‟s design. Apart from that, indoor program planning also become the main focus for the design process.This scheme not only desire to change current way of community centre design in Malaysia now, but also important as reference to other public facility for Malaysian design architecture development in the future. In brief, study on the community centre development is very important for the nation. Although community centre in Malaysia now not getting enough attention, deep and integrated study should be conducted in order to create a friendly and more joyful atmosphere for the good and welfare of the community.
REFERENCES
[1] Beveridge (1948) Voluntary Action. A report on social advancement, London: George Allen and Unwin.
[2] Broady, M., Clarke, R., Marks, H., Mills, R., Sims, E., Smith, M. & White, L. (Ed. Clarke, R.) (1990), Enterprising Neighbours. The development of the community association in Britain, London: National Federation of Community Organisations. 209 + ix pages. Chapters examine community associations as a people's movement; roots and influences; early days; high promise and disappointment: fifteen post war years; community associations in changing society: 1966-1980; local groups and community development; group activities and personal development; retrospect and prospect.
[3] Bryan Bell, Katie Wakeford, Steve Badaness, Roberta Feldman, Sergio Palleroni, Katie Swenson, Thomas Fisher, John Peterson, (2008), Expanding Architecture: Design as Activism. Metropolis Books.
[4] Childs, C. (1912) A Year's Experiment in Social Center Organization, New York: Social
Center Committee.
[5] Fieldhouse, R. and Associates (1996) A History of Modern British Adult Education, Leicester: NIACE.
[6] Fisher, R. (1994) Let the People Decide. Neighborhood Organizing in America (2e), New York: Twayne Publishers. 287 + xxiv pages. Fisher provides a good discussion of the emergence and development of community organizing in the United States. The first chapter on social welfare organizing is a discussion of the settlement and community center movement (1885-1929).
[7] Follett, M. P. (1918) The New State - Group Organization, the Solution for Popular
Government, New York: Longman, Green and Co.
[8] Harrison, J. F. C. (1961) Learning and Living 1790 - 1960. A study in the history of the Englih adult education movement, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
[9] Johnson, R. M. (1992) 'Forgotten Reformer: Edward J. Ward and the Community Center
Movement, 1907-1924', Mid-America: An Historical Review, Vol. 74 (January, 1992), 19-
35.
[10] Kelly, T. (1962; 1970; 1992) A History of Adult Education in Great Britain, Liverpool: Liverpool University Press.
[11] Kett, J. F. (1994) The Pursuit of Knowledge Under Difficulties: From self-improvement to adult education in America, 1750 -1990, Stanford, Ca.: Stanford University Press.
[12] Marriott, P. (1997) Forgotten Resources? The role of community buildings in strengthening local communities, York: York Publishing Services. Important study that explores the contribution that the 18,800 community buildings make to local life in England and Wales (used by 4.4 million people per week). Focuses on the key role that volunteers play and the lack of attention paid to their potential by policymakers.
[13] Martin, G. Currie (1924) The Adult School Movement. Its origin and development, London: National Adult School Union.
[14] Mess, H. A. and King, H. (1947) 'Community centres and community associations' in H. A.
Mess (ed.) Voluntary Social Services since 1918, London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner and
Co.
[15] Mohamad Tajuddin Mohamad Rasdi. (2007), Housing Crisis: Back to a Humanistic Agenda.
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia Press.
[16] Mohamad Tajuddin Mohamad Rasdi. (1998), Mosque As A Community Development Center.
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia Press.
[17] Mohamad Tajuddin Mohamad Rasdi. (1999), Peranan, Kurikulum dan Reka Bentuk Masjid
Sebagai Pusat Pembangunan Masyarakat. Universiti Teknologi Malaysia Press.
[18] National Federation of Community Organisations (1991) The community centre vs. the outside world, London: National Federation of Community Organisations.
[19] Pimlott, J. A. R. (1935) Toynbee Hall. Fifty years of social progress 1884 - 1934, London: Dent.
[20] Quandt, J. B. (1970) From the Small Town to the Great Community. The social thought of progressive intellectuals, New Brunswick NJ: Rutgers University Press.
[21] Ray Oldenburg. (1997), The Great Good Place: Cafes, Coffee Shops, Community Centers, Beauty Parlors, General Stores, Bars, Hangouts and How They Get You Through the Day. Marlowe & Co; 2nd edition.
[22] Shamsul A.B. (2007), Debating about Identity in Malaysia: A Discourse Analysis. Southeast
Asian Studies, Vol 34, No 3, December 1996.
[23] Stevens, E. Jnr (1972) 'Social centers, politics and social efficiency in the progressive era', History of Education Quarterly 12: 16-33.
[24] Stubblefield, H. W. and Keane, P. (1994) Adult Education in the American Experience.
From the colonial period to the present, San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass.
[25] Twelvetrees, A. (1976) Community Associations and Centres: A comparative study, Oxford: Pergamon Press. Useful research study that highlights some significant issues and questions facing community associations in the early 1970s.
[26] Twelvetrees, A. (1985) Democracy and the Neighbourhood, London: National Federation of
Community Organisations'
[27] Ward, E. C. (ed.) (1913) The Social Center, New York: Appleton.
[28] William S W Lim. (2007), ASIAN ALTERITY: With Special Reference to Architecture and
Urbanism through the Lens of Cultural Studies. World Scientific Publishing Company.
[6] William S W Lim. (2005), ASIAN ETHICAL URBANISM: A Radical Postmodern
Perspective. World Scientific Publishing Company.
[30] Willmott, P. (1963) The Evolution of a Community : A study of Dagenham after forty years, London : Routledge & Kegan Paul.
[31] Young, A. F. and Ashton, E. T. (1956) British Social Work in the Nineteenth Century, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
No comments:
Post a Comment