MATERIALISE THIRDSPACE THROUGH SOCIO-SPATIAL INTEGRATION (Cases of Study: Thamrin 10, Jalan H. Agus Salim, Jalan Percetakan Negara, and Jalan Kramat Raya)

Urban informality is a phenomenon of everyday life in Jakarta but has not been extensively discussed, especially in spatial design practice. Previous study shows that informal space in the city is shaped by economic activities and urban opportunities heavily influence the flow of urbanisation in Indonesia. The study aims to examine the materialisation of Thirdspace through the forms of socio-spatial integration using Henri Lefebvre’s Production of Space (1991) and Edward Soja’s Thirdspace (2010). The use of theory connects the case study with other bodies of work in architecture that are looking to develop understandings of how spatial, social, and other urban contexts might be challenged and intertwined in urban informality. Using their respective body of work, the study is conducted in the four selected objects of study: Thamrin 10, Jalan H. Agus Salim, Jalan Percetakan Negara, and Jalan Kramat Raya. The findings reveal that the concrete abstraction of Thirdspace emerges in everyday life through urban informality, materialised by informal actors. The materialisation of Thirdspace is possible due to (1) participation of informal actors, (2) space occupied by informal actors, and (3) activities conducted by informal actors. As abstraction will become true in practice, socio-spatial integration of urban informality is an abstraction that becomes true through social and spatial practice.


INTRODUCTION
Urban informality begins with materialisation, such as using architecture as a tool to informalize formal space and carry out their activities. The materialization process, from planning to designing, is not an activity that is exclusively carried out by the state, but also citizens and informal enterprises can participate (Roy & Alsayyad, 2003). On the other hand, planning regulations and practices are also the originators of informality (Martínez, 2021). Of the many practices of informal architecture, street vending is the most visible materialization of the informal economy (Recchi, 2020). Street vending demonstrates how urban space is produced (Cross, 2000) and helps create the liveliness and attractiveness of today's urban environment (Torky & Heath, 2021). This means that street vending is consequently in-charge of turning space into Thirdspace, an integral dimension between social and spatial, a space as lived and experienced.
Socio-spatial integration of urban informality arguably explores the vernacular, expressive, and porous architecture we thought only existed in traditional architecture. Architecture without architects, as argued previously by architect Rudofsky (1964), also happens in today's context in the sense of the trialectic model shown by Soja. Public space beyond home (Firstspace) or work (Secondspace) can occur when we enforce the abstract of everyday life, where adulthood and childcare unite pop culture, sports, and hobbies into concrete. When we foster a connection and integration of space between the formal and informal, this can potentially bridge the gap between formal and informal politics, socials, and culture. Taking cases in the centre of Jakarta, we will observe the materialisation of Thirdspace through these objects of study: Thamrin 10, Jalan H. Agus Salim, Jalan Percetakan Negara, and Jalan Kramat Raya.

LITERATURE STUDY: INFORMALITY CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT
Urban informality is a complex phenomenon. There is no single approach to informality in any given discipline. Instead of assuming the concept of informality as ambiguous, here, the author will describe the evolution of the concept of informality from time to time to reveal its richness from a multidisciplinary perspective. The study of informality was first carried out to explain separating economic activities that occur outside the formal sphere (Hart, 1973;ILO, 1972). This approach views that informal socio-economic practices will disappear under certain circumstances, and the urban poor will gradually be absorbed into the formal sector (AlSayyad, 2004;Devlin, 2010Devlin, , 2019Roy & Alsayyad, 2003). However, the current study of informality is still limited in the fields of economics and sociology (de Soto, 1989;Hart, 1973;ILO, 1972;Levenson & Maloney, 1999;Portes et al., 1989;Rakowski, 1994). Recent studies have shown the binary views of informality and have confirmed that informality is not evidence of underdevelopment (Palat Narayanan, 2019;Perlman, 1976) or associated with poverty, decline, danger, and crime (AlSayyad, 2004;Devlin, 2018aDevlin, , 2018bRoy, 2005Roy, , 2009). As we reject the binary view, informality can now be understood as its own. Informality is associated with soft rules, a more relaxed atmosphere, and the rearticulation of spatial control, rather than the absence of rules and control per se (Devlin, 2010;Guerreiro, 2021;Tucker & Devlin, 2019).
The urban informal approach is mostly concerned with the ways in which informal practices produce new urban forms that do not follow the formal system of urban development. Roy (2005) used the term "urban informality" to indicate an organizing logic as an informal society governs its own space. Urban informality is multidisciplinary and located to access jobs and housing opportunities (Kamalipour, 2016;Kamalipour & Dovey, 2020), ranging from informal settlements to informal trading and transport (Dovey, 2013). While Roy (2005) stated that planning is implicated in the enterprise of informality, Dovey (2013) and Guerreiro (2021) argued that integration (of urban informality) arises to explain the degree to which certain variables, including social, spatial, cultural, and aesthetic issues, are accommodated or not in practice. Such spatial integration would eventually manifest with materialisation, such as using architecture as a tool, and consequently, spatial integration of urban informality would materialise thirdspace.

INFORMALITY IN SOCIO-SPATIAL PERSPECTIVE
To understand (the materialisation of) thirdspace, we must begin by referring to Henry Lefebvre's 'triad of space', which consists of three different concepts of space (see Figure 1). The concept of concrete abstraction brings together the most vital elements of his theory of the production of space (Lefebvre, 1991a(Lefebvre, , 1991b(Lefebvre, , 1996. Lefebvre once stated that space is a concrete abstraction (Lefebvre, 1996) and space is the result of social production and the result of the reproduction of social activities (Lefebvre, 1991b). All forms of social experience are produced in and through space, and vice versa. Space is produced through the activities that occur in it. Lefebvre articulated spatial analysis and proposed a theory of socio-spatial unity, which builds a theoretical unity between three fields, namely physical (nature), mental (logical and formal abstraction), and social. Lefebvre articulates three aspects of the experience of producing social space, which can then be read in the context of the reproduction of urban space, namely (1) spatial practices, (2) representations of space, and (3) representational spaces. Lefebvre argued that the dialectical relationship between socio-spatial practices and the meanings embedded in them. The dialectical perspective means that the space of social life is thus simultaneously a field of action and a basis for action (Lefebvre, 1991b The theoretical works of Lefebvre (1991;2004) served as the foundation for the definition of these three concepts. According to Lefebvre, three aspects of space should be distinguished. The first space is a 'conceived space', the second space is a 'perceived space', and the third space is a 'lived space'. The first space is the result of the individual's interaction with the real space and their conception of this space. The second space is the result of the representations of the individual's perception. Thirdspace is the lived space. which is the result of the person's life in a space. At the same time, this space includes two other aspects of spaceconceived and perceived spaces. Lefebvre's conceptualization of space, which can be called the trialectics of space, has paved the way for other space theorists, such as Edward Soja.
Soja develops his concept of Thirdspace (1996) on Lefebvre's work --an extended and politicised way to look at space, where space is not only seen as a stage for historical and social processes but as something that is shaping our thoughts and actions; a social space that includes and goes beyond the material Firstspace and the mental Secondspace (Soja, 1996). He defines the Thirdspace as another way of understanding and acting to change human spatial life and bring new significance to the balance between spatiality (space), historicity (time), and sociality (existence of an individual) (Soja, 2009). According to Soja, here a trialectics between the three aspects of space is coherent. It is obvious that this three-sided relationship between the three aspects of spatiality cannot be understood without the other two aspects: historicality and sociality. Soja's thinking emphasis lies on the Thirdspace as space lies in, "everything comes together in Thirdspace: subjectivity and objectivity, the abstract and the concrete, the real and the imagined, the knowable and the unimaginable, the repetitive and the differential, structure and agency, mind and body, consciousness and the unconscious, the disciplined and the transdisciplinary, everyday life and unending history" (Soja, 1996). In his own words, Soja thinks that the concept of Thirdspace encourages us to think differently about the meaning and indicator of space, which constitutes the spatial side of human life and is related to the concepts formed. Thirdspace is a postmodern and transcendent concept that continues to evolve to include the "an-other" (Soja, 1996), thus enabling the contestation and renegotiation of cultural boundaries and identities, as urban informality has always done in its own terms as it has social, historical, political, and spatial dimensions. Soja described Thirdspace 'retains the multiple meanings Lefebvre persistently ascribed to social space. It is both a space that is distinguishable from other spaces (physical and mental, or Firstspace and Second space) and a transcending composite of all spaces.' (Soja, 1996)

Relevant statements
Emergent themes Formulated meaning Space is the result of social production and the result of the reproduction of social activities. (Lefebvre, 1991) There is a dialectical connection between space and social relations The Thirdspace is materialized through the integration of urban informality. Thirdspace occurs when there is a balance between spatiality, historicity, and sociality. Everything comes together in the Thirdspace (Soja, 1996).
Integration between space, time, and individual existence

METHODOLOGY
In his works, Lefebvre went to the material dimension of dialectics, an important aspect we'll discuss more in this study. In his respective view, the activity of production, like street vending, resulted in space, that is, a materiality. This 'space' he mentioned possessed its own dialectical moment. Using Lefebvre's theory, including the spatial triad, requires a theoretical engagement of the case rather than just a description. Therefore, the study also includes Edward Soja's work, which has urban study capacity, to explore the collective theme of "lived experience" and "materialist interpretation of spatiality." In this way, the use of theory connects the case study with other bodies of work in architecture that are looking to develop understandings of how spatial, social, and other urban contexts might be challenged and intertwined in urban informality.
The purpose of this study is to examine the materialisation of Thirdspace through the forms of socio-spatial integration of urban informality. First, the study will conduct a field observation at four selected objects of study: Thamrin 10, Jalan H. Agus Salim, Jalan Percetakan Negara, and Jalan Kramat Raya. The study will record whether (1) there is a dialectical connection between space and social relations, and whether (2) there's an integration between space, time, and individual existence. The answers to these preliminary questions are very helpful and highly associated with how the third question, which is the research question, would play out: is Thirdspace materialised in the object of study? Since Soja's work emphasises possibility and everchanging dynamic as the main aspect of socio-spatiality, consequently, a comprehensive and critical examination is needed to read each context of the objects of study.

RESULTS and DISCUSSION
These street blocks have the spatial integrity previously mentioned by Lefebvre to understand the production of space: physical, mental, and social space. As public facilities, these three objects of study have an important phenomenon that leads to space becoming a social spaceinformality. The transition from concrete space to abstract space, or the manifestation of physical space to social space, results from abstraction from the identification of informal spatial characters. Developing these more straightforward abstract concepts leads to more concrete forms and concepts. From a spatialized reading of today's situation, where street vendors occupy the street and negotiate their spatial rights, the conversation between the formal forces and informality's negotiations keeps serving the traditional views of informality (Hart, 1973;ILO, 1972) and associating them with marginalization (Perlman, 1976). The informal space is established as Thirdspace as an outcome of the street as the access and the edge of Firstspace and Secondspace. Soja's Thirdspace allows us to reduce our binary thinking and "crack them open". This allows the rejection of traditional views of informality, allows a multidisciplinary perspective of informality to come to light, and sees informality as both a problem (Soja, 1996(Soja, , 2009) and a possibility. On the other hand, Lefebvre (1991) uses it to rebalance history and sociality by introducing spatiality. This is Soja's first use of Thirdspace and is fundamental to my reading of how power is inscribed and acted out in and through space. Space should not be viewed as a stage for historical and social processes, but as a productive force: on the one hand, our actions and thoughts shape the spaces around us, but on the other hand, the larger collectively or socially produced spaces and places in which we live shape our actions and thoughts in ways that we are only beginning to understand (Soja, 2000). We will see how spatial integration is a powerful tool that turns space occupation by informal actors into Thirdspace. Thamrin 10 is a formal intervention in life that has lived in the block for a long time. To relocate many street vendors on the block of MH Thamrin, the local city government proposed to create a social space in a city parking lot in the middle of the most prominent neighbourhood in the city. Thamrin 10 is designed and built based on the idea of Thirdspace, as a social space that comprehends both material and mental dimensions of spatiality. Thamrin 10 was planned and built by the local city government without local community assistance or negotiation. As the result shows, the city fully controls the Thamrin 10 land and its management. For the typology of kiosks that tend to be homogeneous and fully managed by the city government, the space shows the lack of resistance and obstacles and the passive contribution of the community and informal workers within it. The production of the coveted social space, which is expected to move from the surrounding roadblocks, is yet to be seen in Thamrin 10. Thamrin 10 intervenes in everyday life that has long-lived and dominates the block of Jalan H. Agus Salim and its surrounding area. In this case, we are dealing with a perspective involving actions limited to certain points or areas of intervention. Social action, not reasoning exclusively on the informal but on the relationship this place has with the formal, is trying to recompose the city territory.

Materialisation of Thirdspace at Thamrin 10
Although the concrete space of Thamrin 10 is an essential urban innovation, we need to carefully look at the abstract side of the production of this social space.
Total control by the city shows how it limits the spatial interaction, limiting the organic habitation the planning was longing for in the first place. The absence of physical boundaries on the street, which the states usually associate these notions with permeability and vulnerability, proves that space is instead a process. So far, Thamrin 10 has not shown its concrete contribution to the production of local environmental, and social space and resolves the spatial problems that occur around. This practical urban practice is part of the marketoriented discourse of the state. While policymakers and many people think a market-driven design like Thamrin 10 would bring many prospects, its efficacy and sustainability remain doubtful. Since Thamrin 10 was first opened two years ago, few tenants nor visitors have increased. They may have many kiosks, a large enough dining area, transit stops in front and various gathering spots. However, plenty of visitors only visit when there is a weekend event or just a short visit for dinner. Based on an interview with one of the tenants here, the desire to gather is still dominant in Jalan H. Agus Salim because of their attachment to street vendors. Meanwhile, in Thamrin 10, they feel that the place manager still has to form another strategy so that visitors want to come to this place, or this business will not last long. In other words, the dialectical connection between space and social relations inside hasn't formed yet.
From this, we can conclude that the materialization of the Third Space doesn't happen at Thamrin 10. In order to work, space needs to affect human relations. Creating social space feels still in the concept of abstraction but has not been fully realized. Physical reality is already available, but social processes still have to be produced intentionally.  Jalan H. Agus Salim, also widely known as Jalan Sabang, is what Soja refers to as a spatial turn in cultural theory. As a cultural phenomenon, this block has been known as a culinary centre for more than 50 years. Most street vendors have passed their lot and its cart to the next generation. This object arguably could be established as Thirdspace: a negative outcome of the dominating Secondspace. As a lively public space, Jalan H. Agus Salim shows strong dynamics and synergy between informal actors and people that inhabit surrounding environment. There is a power relation in the area, between business owners and the officials, but the process of negotiation wins on the half of informal actors: the individual takes charge when the state fails to deliver. One that makes the street vendors thriving for more than 50 years is that they are constantly negotiate their space through union; informal actors have been constantly collaborating and negotiating their rights to the state authorities until today. I believe this is also the reason why they can keep occupying the same space for years and pass it down to their children to keep their work. The findings in field observations also found that in addition to unions among informal workers, family traditions still exist and are well-maintained by informal parties and formal administrators. State control as the organizer of formal urban space is an essential factor, indicated by informal unions supported by the local ward. Furthermore, I would also like to point out that cultural background, migration tradition which ties with Indonesian families, and kampung-kota (urban villages) as informal settlements play in materialization of Thirdspace. Skills are passed down from generation to generation in kinship, not through formal education. Informal skills and professions eventually become synonymous with certain tribes or family villages. Ethnic-based culinary recipes, such as Sate Padang, Coto Makassar, and Soto Betawi, are passed down from generation to generation by families. Skills such as barbering, sewing, to construction, are also often identified by ethnicity because they are passed down generationally by their families.

Materialisation of Thirdspace on Jalan H. Agus Salim
Lefebvre contends that a culture's values and priorities direct how appropriate use of space is conceived and managed. In contrast to the object of the previous study, Jalan H. Agus Salim has a strong relationship with social, economic, cultural, and political contexts in daily practice. The dominance of the informal economy and the existence of informal unions on Jalan H. Agus Salim its relevance as a sociospatial space united by informal economy and politics. The density of situations that characterise the borders between formal and informal allows their interpretation in dichotomous terms to fall into the background. This is what happens in Jalan H. Agus Salim. However, the informal actors negotiate the intermediate space with the local authorities, as an action of informal urban design, by exploring different ways on how to produce a communal space they all can live in.
In conclusion, the materialization of the Third Space is possible due to the collective movement of informal actors rather than individual or voluntary participation in each spatial structure. The fragmentation of everyday life on Jalan H. Agus Salim reproduces social relations that are enduring and timeless. As we often see on the streets, the social structure on the road results from the mutual feelings shared on the street. Jalan H. Agus Salim is still crowded with visitors, regardless of time and physical and spatial development.

Socio-spatial integration Yes/No Description
There is a dialectical connection between space and social relations Yes The space is mainly produced by informal economy activities, resulting a dialectical connection between informal actors: sellers and buyers. There's an integration between space, time, and individual existence Yes Jalan H. Agus Salim has a strong relationship with social, economic, cultural, and political contexts in daily practice. The strongest integration factor is time, since this block has been known as a culinary centre for more than 50 years. Is Thirdspace materialised on Jalan H. Agus Salim?
Yes The materialization is possible due to the collective movement of informal actors on the block. The materialization of the Thirdspace that occurred on Jalan Percetakan Negara happens because of the realization of the three elementsspace, time, and socialitycalled Soja that must be present in a balanced way. People who live in this area approach the segments of the Jalan Percetakan Negara block, which are filled with street vendors at certain hours regularly and together, especially at the following times: during the day, during lunch break, and in the afternoon, when coming home from work. Abstraction of the block segments of Jalan Percetakan Negara as a public space for gathering outside the realm of residence and place of work occurs here. Inside the tents of street vendors, workers in the area unwind from work before returning home. On the other hand, this street block also allows for the social actualization of informal actors besides street vendors, such as street buskers, ondel-ondel, and even a product introduction from an independent brand.

Materialisation of Thirdspace on Jalan Percetakan Negara
The materialization of space cannot be separated from the contribution of the spatial integration of urban informality with the surrounding formal structures (as shown by the figure 6 and 7). Figure 6 shows a significant difference between a street vendors-friendly home and small business opposite the Salemba Prison as a very formal state enterprise. Just as formal workers still need informal businesses to fulfil their daily needs (culinary, photocopying, grocery, etc.), street vendors in this street block are visited by both prison visitors and prison workers. On the right is another block segment. Figure 7 shows a mix between formal businesses (marked in red) and informal businesses in front of them (marked in yellow). In other words, the mis between formal and informal businesses produced a a dialectical connection, through the (1) actors in the form of sellers and buyers and (2) daily activities carried by each actor. Space negotiation allows the mixing of formal and informal spaces in the same container, forming a Thirdspace through various backgrounds, such as social, political, and cultural in it. Like the symbiosis between the two spectrums of a fluid framework, the urban spatial framework also forms a series of activities that occur on it. The materialization is possible due to space negotiation which allows the mixing of formal and informal in the same container through various contexts. Like street vendors on Jalan H. Agus Salim, vendors of the Minang culinary speciality, kapau rice, on Jalan Kramat Raya have been around for decades. The street vending has informally been operating since 1970. Later, these stalls were renovated and inaugurated in 2017 by the Governor of DKI Jakarta. This culinary centre is supervised directly by the Department of Cooperatives, SMEs, and Trade of The Province of DKI Jakarta. As a culinary centre, the street vendors here are unique because they all sell the same cuisine, kapau rice. The stalls are close to each other, coexisting side by side with each other, but they do not seem to be lacking in buyers. Most of them are the next generation of the family business. Like most traditional culinary businesses, kapau rice street vendors are family-based. They carry on their parents' business, continue renting stalls, and keep regular customers. From the walk-by observation on Jalan Kramat Raya, we can see that they do not only they sell kapau rice, a traditional cuisine, they also provide nostalgia and instant connection with Minang heritage.

Materialisation of Thirdspace on Jalan Kramat Raya
The materialisation of Thirdspace on Jalan Kramat Raya is what happens when we move the site of interpretation from the "planners" to the "livers". Not only designed, built, and lived in, the interaction between informal actors in the culinary centre of Jalan Kramat Raya is the concrete abstraction of kapau vendors' vision (or in Lefebvre term, imagination) in selling their wares every day and their direct contact with buyers every day. The interaction is organic and planned simultaneously. Organic because shoppers don't just sit down to eat, but also hang out, busk, or just walk; and planned because the culinary centre was renovated and officially planned by the city government to support the nasi kapau business as an informal economic activity and the culinary centre as a gathering centre for the local community. In other words, representational space is directly lived space, created in the imaginations of people in their immediate contact with the world. In conclusion, the materialization of the Third Space on Jalan Kramat Raya cannot happen without the help of the informal actors' individual perceptions in experiencing the space and eventually claiming the space as their own arena to enact their lives. Through years of synergy and materialisation, the space eventually becomes representational; perceptual, and symbolic for informal actors collectively. In the context of architecture, Thirdspace carries similar themes expressed in cultural theory. Modern times show that it is far more essential to reshape urbanization of desire (Devlin, 2019) by voluntary choices rather than of need at large due to emphasis on political image, attracting major investments, or austerity. Market exchange is presented as having "an ethic in itself", translated as "capable of acting as a guide to all human action and substituting for all previously ethical beliefs." The difficulties of criticizing these mainstream approaches increase due to what Lefebvre called a "blind field," referring to ways of seeing with fragmented and specialized concepts and theories. Lefebvre has a saying about why we must move forward beyond legal issues. Moving beyond rights formalized in legal codes, the right to the city aspires to the right "to urban life, to renewed centrality, to places of encounter and exchange, to life rhythms and time uses, enabling the full and complete usage of these moments and places" (Lefebvre, 1996). It refers to the "realization of urban life as the rule of use" (of exchange and encounter disengaged from exchange value) instead of the "mastery of the economy" (of exchange value in the market and commodities). In this quote, it becomes apparent that Lefebvre is not writing about the right to the existing city but the right to the future city, to a transformed and renewed urban life. This includes the right to produce the city, transform it into what we need today and later in the future, and live in it. Going by this thinking, we can agree that informal actors have the right to determine how and what space is produced.

CONCLUSION
Urban informality is a phenomenon of everyday life, and spatial integration is necessary to materialise the concrete abstraction of thirdspace. Street vending, the most visible materialization of the informal economy, is consequently in-charge of turning space into thirdspace. This study aims to show a form of socio-spatial integration of urban informality that catalyses the materialisation of Thirdspace. It will be conducted at the four selected objects of study: Thamrin 10, Jalan H. Agus Salim, Jalan Percetakan Negara, and Jalan Kramat Raya. The production of space in these study objects exhibits a heterogenous form embedded with plural kinds of social action, which eventually leads to the materialisation of Thirdspace. This materialisation is possible when there is a socio-spatial integration of urban informality in the first place. Abstract space and abstract labour are the result of a series of economic, social, political, technological, and cultural integrations. Important works by Lefebvre and Soja show that a paradigm shift followed these developments, which are not only perceived and conceived but also lived in every day by many.
In conclusion, Thirdspace emerges in everyday life through urban informality, materialised by informal actors. The materialisation of Thirdspace is possible due to (1) the participation of informal actors; (2) space occupied by informal actors; and (3) activities conducted by informal actors. However, it does not stop here. The right to the city demands not only an economic and political revolution but also a social and cultural revolution. Street vendors have the need and urgency to produce and enjoy the space in the city just like the rest of the citizens and their respective activities. This also shows the significance of planning practice as a formal way to include informality in city planning. Planning practices are not separate from informal practices, they are rather integral parts of a single system. Urban planning, as a practice, has the function of controlling the consumption of space and habitat. However, urban planners need to be aware of many contexts that bind them, even if they appear neutral and apolitical (Lefebvre, 1991a(Lefebvre, , 1996. This brings us to Lefebvre's earlier premise. As abstraction will become true in practice, the socio-spatial integration of urban informality is an abstraction that becomes true through social and spatial practice.