If youâve ever taken a late afternoon stroll through the back alleys of Jakarta or Bandung, youâve probably brushed past a chaotic charm that feels uniquely Indonesian â rows of tightly packed kampung houses, the occasional warung blasting dangdut music, and tangled power lines hanging like jungle vines. But beneath this urban character lies something far less charming: a housing crisis thatâs been simmering for decades.
Related: Woman develops lump in her legâCan't believe what doctors discover
Most young Indonesians today grow up in shared rented rooms (kos-kosan) well into their 30s, while dreaming of the holy grail of adulthood: owning a rumah subsidi or a modest cluster home in a far-flung suburb. Problem is, even that modest dream is becoming increasingly out of reach.
Letâs talk numbersâbecause the housing crisis in Indonesia isnât just a vibe, itâs a verified problem:
Now factor in urban migration, where people leave villages for dreams in the big cityâand boom, youâve got pressure on an already crumbling system.
Take Yanto, a 34-year-old ojol (online motorcycle driver) in Tangerang. Every day, he zips through housing estates delivering meals to families who live in the very types of houses heâs triedâand failedâto own. He and his wife applied for a subsidized mortgage (KPR Subsidi) three times. Rejected each time. Income too low, documentation âincomplete,â and onceâbelieve it or notâbecause their electricity bill was too cheap to prove residency.
Now, they rent a tiny kos for Rp900,000/month. It leaks when it rains. They hang clothes next to the rice cooker. And their 5-year-old daughter has asthma, likely worsened by the moldy walls.
This isnât an isolated case. Itâs life for millions
Indonesiaâs housing crisis didnât appear overnight. Itâs the lovechild of decades of mismatched priorities and reactive planning. Back in the 1970s and â80s, cities like Jakarta and Surabaya exploded with growthâbut not much guidance.
Jakarta, for instance, grew faster than it could plan. Policies prioritized highways over homes, malls over public housing. Meanwhile, kampungs organically filled in the blanks, often without permits, sewage, or road access. What shouldâve been guided development turned into patchwork survival.
Surabaya fared slightly better under more progressive mayors, but even then, zoning laws lagged behind the cityâs actual growth. Result? Urban sprawl that forced lower-income residents further out, where infrastructure is still playing catch-up.
If cities were living beings, Jakarta would be that older sibling who tried to wing adulthood without a planâand is still trying to sort it out.
Post-1998 Reformasi brought democratic reformâand a whole lot of speculative real estate investment. Developers went wild. Skyscrapers, apartments, gated housing clustersâmany priced for foreigners or the upper crust of Indonesiaâs elite.
And while GDP grew and the middle class expanded, housing affordability didnât keep pace. Wages stagnated. Housing prices ballooned. The dream of owning a home drifted further from reach for ordinary Indonesians, especially in the cities.
A middle-income worker in Jakarta might earn Rp6â8 million per month, but even a basic subsidized home now costs around Rp180â250 million. Add transportation, childcare, groceries, and youâre left with⌠well, nothing.
In short: The market grew, but it didnât grow with the people.
Walk through any urban edgeâBekasi, Medan, Makassarâand youâll see structures that arenât on any architectâs portfolio: tin-roofed huts balanced on riverbanks, staircases made of crates, windows fashioned from banner ads.
This is Indonesiaâs invisible housing sector. Not counted in official data. Not protected by law. And yet, vital to the economy.
These informal dwellings serve as housing for construction workers, street vendors, small factory employeesâthe very engine of urban life. But they remain in constant threat of eviction, flooding, and social exclusion.
Call it âsurvival architecture.â Because when the system fails to build homes for you, you build your own. Even if itâs on stilts above a ditch.
Letâs talk about the big gun: FLPP, or Fasilitas Likuiditas Pembiayaan Perumahan. Itâs a mouthful, but in theory, itâs a government-backed low-interest loan program to help low-income folks own homes. Sounds great, right?
In practice? Itâs⌠complicated.
Hereâs how it works:
On paper, it looks generous. In reality, many people canât even qualifyâespecially informal workers without payslips or bank history. And even if you do, the location of these FLPP houses is often miles from jobs, schools, or public transport.
As one frustrated buyer put it:
âI finally got approved, but the house was in the middle of nowhere. I spend more on fuel than the mortgage.â
â Reni, 29, Bekasi
And donât get us started on the developer quality. Think paper-thin walls, zero ventilation, and cracked tiles by month three.
Then thereâs TAPERA â Indonesiaâs version of a mandatory savings scheme for housing. Essentially, 3% of your salary is auto-deducted, half from you, half from your employer. The government promises that one day, this fund will help you buy, build, or renovate a home.
Thatâs the theory.
In reality, TAPERA has triggered massive public backlash. People are already dealing with BPJS, taxes, and unstable incomes. Now another deduction?
Worse, the mechanism is opaque. How are the funds managed? Will the returns match inflation? What if you never qualify for a house?
Many young workers joke:
âTAPERA is like a piggy bank Iâm never allowed to open.â
Until thereâs more transparency, TAPERA feels less like a lifeline and more like another bureaucratic mystery box.
Launched with flair in 2015, the One Million Houses Program (Program Sejuta Rumah) aimed to build â surprise â a million homes per year.
And it nearly did. By 2022, the government proudly claimed over 6.9 million homes had been built under the initiative.
đ Sounds impressive. But letâs look deeper.
Many of these houses were:
Itâs a classic case of quantity over quality. Politically popular, but socially questionable.
If housing were a restaurant, this program served up one million dishes⌠but forgot the seasoning, plates, and sometimes, the food itself.
Indonesiaâs housing policy is a sprawling spiderweb of overlapping ministries and agencies:
All of them have some say. None of them have full control.
The result? Policies that sound promising on paper but unravel in execution.
You might have a subsidized housing project approved by the central government â only to have it delayed for 2 years because the local district office hasnât issued a land certificate.
Or you get stuck in this all-too-familiar bureaucratic loop:
âFor the land permit, go to the housing office. Oh wait, it needs a stamp from the finance unit. Oh but that stampâs only valid with a local environmental assessment. And that? Thatâs in a different office altogether â good luck.â
Itâs the real-life version of Monopoly, except no oneâs winning.
Letâs not ignore the elephant in the room: developers. Theyâre supposed to be the builders of dreams, right? But many are also savvy players of the subsidy game.
Some chase FLPP and Sejuta Rumah projects not because they want to help the poor, but because the government guarantees sales. Imagine selling 1,000 units in bulk to the state, zero marketing needed.
It becomes a numbers game. Cheap land, cheaper materials, fast turnover. And if they cut corners? No oneâs really watching. After all, government audits are rare, and housing complaints often go nowhere.
Behind the facade of social housing lies a subtle tug-of-war between:
Housing policy here isnât just urban planningâitâs a quiet battlefield of competing agendas.
One of the strangest things in Indonesiaâs housing policy is the term âlayak huniâ â âfit for living.â
According to the official guidelines, a livable house must have:
Simple, right?
But hereâs the twist: Thereâs no standard enforcement. In some regions, cardboard walls and squat toilets still pass. In others, the same houses fail inspection for âlack of green space.â
Itâs like trying to bake a cake when the recipe changes every time you open the book.
To a developer, âlayak huniâ might mean âjust enough to pass.â
To a family of four, it might mean âsomewhere safe where my kids can sleep without rats.â
And thatâs the problem. No oneâs asking the people who actually live there.
Youâd think getting a subsidized mortgage (KPR Subsidi) would be easier than buying a private house, right? Itâs meant for low-income people, after all. But try asking the thousands whoâve gone through the process â and youâll hear the same story: stress, dead ends, and absurd paperwork.
To qualify, applicants must:
Sounds fair, until you realize:
No, really. Banks sometimes use your electricity bill to estimate whether youâre âseriousâ about applying. If itâs too low? Suspicious. Maybe youâre just squatting. Rejected.
Itâs a cruel irony: The more frugal you are, the more suspicious the system becomes.
Letâs say you do manage to qualify. Awesome, right? Not so fast.
Thatâs when the âbiaya-biaya nggak jelasâ start appearing:
Sometimes, these costs are bundled quietly by the developer or agent. Other times, theyâre whispered under the table.
And then thereâs the notorious âuang rokokâ â unofficial tips expected by certain parties to âsmooth things over.â Not mandatory, of course. Just⌠expected. Wink wink.
People desperate for housing often just pay. Because whatâs the alternative? Another year of waiting in a moldy kos?
Hereâs another weird twist: Even when there are houses available through government programs, theyâre often in places no one wantsâor can affordâto live.
Many subsidized homes are:
Imagine getting your FLPP approved only to find your new house is in the middle of a former rice field with no access road. You live there, sureâbut now you spend 4 hours commuting and double your fuel budget.
One woman we spoke to called her subsidized home:
âmurah tapi menyiksaâ â cheap but torturous.
In trying to solve the housing crisis, weâve often just moved it to the middle of nowhere.
Forget concrete jungles. Imagine a home thatâs:
This isnât science fiction. Startups in places like Yogyakarta and Bandung are piloting modular housing modelsâwhere homes are assembled like Legos, drastically reducing cost and time.
Meanwhile, co-living spaces (think dorms for adults, but cooler) are popping up in urban hubs like Jakarta and Bali. These offer:
Co-living isnât just a fad â itâs a potential solution for the young, single workforce priced out of traditional housing. And 3D-printed homes? Well, one project in Denpasar built a prototype for under Rp70 million. Yep, you read that right.
Enter the new guard: a wave of socially conscious architects who believe âgood design shouldnât just be for the rich.â
People like:
These architects arenât building luxury towers. Theyâre working in disaster zones, rural areas, and dense kampungsâfinding beauty in constraint.
Their work blends traditional knowledge with modern materials. Think cross-ventilation, local cooling systems, and flexible layoutsâwithout AC or high costs.
In their hands, âcheapâ doesnât mean ugly. It means smart.
Believe it or not, some of the most promising housing projects have come from unlikely pairings: government meets private sector, civil society meets business.
Take Kampung Susun Akuarium, for example. Once evicted under a harsh Jakarta administration, this informal settlement was rebuilt through a partnership between residents, city hall, and NGOsâwith residents actively designing their own flats.
Or look at CSR-driven housing from companies like BUMN (state-owned enterprises), who now develop homes near industrial zones for their workersâcutting commute time and improving productivity.
The magic happens when:
When all three align, real change becomes more than possible. It becomes sustainable.
Itâs not all gridlock and ghost permits. Some cities are breaking the mold and proving that with political will, creativity, and empathy, housing policy can actually work.
Semarang, for instance, launched:
Meanwhile, Bandung, under mayors like Ridwan Kamil, became a laboratory for urban innovation. The city experimented with:
These local initiatives might not make headlines nationwide, but for the people living there, itâs night and day.
But not every city is a Semarang or Bandung.
In many districts, getting a simple land certificate can take:
The culprits?
And letâs not forget the infamous âsurat keterangan tidak mampuâ â the poverty letter required for subsidy eligibility. Sometimes, local offices:
This bureaucracy doesnât just frustrate people. It kills momentum. Developers stall. Buyers give up. Housing dreams rot in drawers full of paperwork.
But hereâs the twist: in places where governments stall, communities often step up.
Across Indonesia, youâll find:
One standout is the Yayasan Rumah Komunitas, which has helped over 1,500 families in rural Central Java build secure, eco-friendly homes using local materials, sweat equity, and shared ownership models.
Itâs housing by the people, for the people.
Theyâre not waiting for policy. Theyâre building futures with bamboo, bricks, and belief.
Letâs be blunt: Indonesia has a flood problem. Jakarta alone is sinking at an alarming rate â up to 10 centimeters per year in some areas. And yet, we keep building there.
Why?
Because the land is cheap. Because developers are desperate. Because city planners look the other way. And because, for many low-income families, itâs either a house in a flood zone or no house at all.
But the cost of flooding goes far beyond ruined furniture:
In many subsidized housing clusters, flooding isnât an if, itâs a when. One viral TikTok even showed a woman cooking while waist-deep in murky floodwater â âas usual,â her caption read.
Disaster is being normalized.
To meet the demand for new housing, developers often seek cheap, unused land â which in many cases, means converting:
Between 2015 and 2020, over 125,000 hectares of forest were lost each year in Indonesia. Not all for housing, of course. But housing plays a part â especially on the urban fringe.
In Kalimantan and Sulawesi, new housing clusters have eaten into orangutan habitats and fragile ecosystems. Once gone, they donât come back.
The moral dilemma: Can we really call it âprogressâ if it costs us the environment that sustains us?
Hereâs the good news: Green housing isnât just possible in Indonesia â itâs ideal.
Traditional Javanese, Minangkabau, and Dayak houses were designed with:
Modern green architecture builds on these principles with:
And contrary to belief, these donât have to be expensive. Some NGOs in Central Java have helped build eco-friendly homes for under Rp60 million â far cheaper than many FLPP units.
If the government redirected just a fraction of its housing budget toward green design training and subsidies, we could tackle the housing and climate crisis in one swing.
But for now? Green homes remain the exception, not the norm.
While the global North obsesses over insulation and double-glazed windows, Indonesians have been living in homes built for the tropics for centuries.
Take the rumah joglo in Central Java or the tongkonan in Toraja â these arenât just cultural artifacts. Theyâre masterclasses in sustainable, climate-smart design:
Modern developers often ignore these blueprints, preferring copy-paste Western designs that donât breathe, overheat, and trap moisture.
But some young architects and NGOs are leading a revival â blending tradition with modern materials. Itâs tropical urbanism at its finest: homes that suit the people, the climate, and the culture.
The lesson? Design local. Build with the weather, not against it.
Hereâs something unique: In Indonesia, mosques arenât just for prayer. Theyâre also:
In some neighborhoods, masjid cooperatives (koperasi masjid) are teaming up to provide:
One groundbreaking initiative in West Java involved a network of mosques collectively funding and building a housing block for their lowest-income members. No red tape. No bureaucrats. Just people helping people, with faith as the bond.
Itâs community resilience at a spiritual level. And a reminder that housing policy doesnât always have to come from government.
Indonesiaâs kampungs get a bad rap â called messy, illegal, dangerous. But go inside, and youâll find:
Theyâre informal, yes. But theyâre also resilient ecosystems that survive where formal housing fails.
During COVID-19 lockdowns, many kampungs organized:
Compare that to many sterile apartment complexes in the West, where neighbors barely know each other.
Thereâs a lesson here: A house is just walls. But home is community. Kampungs understand that deeply. Maybe the rest of us need to catch up.
In much of the world, renting is normal. Even aspirational. In cities like Berlin, Tokyo, and Amsterdam, long-term rental is part of life â not a sign of failure.
But in Indonesia?
âMasa udah 35 tahun masih ngontrak?â
(âYouâre 35 and still renting?â)
Thereâs a deep-rooted cultural obsession with homeownership â tied to security, pride, marriageability, even religion. A house isnât just shelter. Itâs a milestone, a marker of adulthood.
This pressure warps policy. Government subsidies overwhelmingly favor ownership, not access. Thereâs little investment in safe, long-term rental housing. And renters often face:
What if we reimagined housing less as a status symbol, and more as a service â like healthcare or education? Would that change everything?
Jakarta. Bandung. Surabaya. Yogyakarta.
If you look at housing budgets, developer activity, even policy pilots â they all orbit around Java. And thatâs a problem.
Because while Java has the density, other islands have the land â and people.
But Papua, NTT, Kalimantan? They often get whatâs left over. In Kalimantan, some communities wait years for land certificates. In Papua, housing materials are flown in â tripling costs before the first brick is even laid.
This Java-first mindset is baked into infrastructure, politics, and media. And itâs creating a housing gap as wide as the archipelago itself.
Indonesia isnât just one island. And its housing strategy shouldnât be either.
Itâs easy to say informal housing is a problem. But maybe itâs actually a symptom â of something deeper.
In a country where bureaucracy is slow, corruption is real, and systems break often, many people default to DIY survivalism:
This is how entire kampungs are formed â informally, organically, communally. Itâs not laziness or rebellion. Itâs a rational response to a system thatâs failed too many times.
So hereâs a radical idea:
Maybe we shouldnât just legalize kampungs. Maybe we should learn from them.
Because whatâs more powerful than policy? People building homes with their own hands â and their own rules.
Look around, and youâll see roofs multiplying. Townhouses popping up like mushrooms after rain. Real estate ads promising âsyariah clusterâ and âKPR mudahâ on every street corner.
And yet⌠the crisis grows.
Not because weâre not building fast enough. But because weâre often building the wrong things â in the wrong places, for the wrong reasons, and for people who donât really need them.
What if we stopped measuring success in units built, and started measuring:
What if housing wasnât just a transaction, but a transformation?
Because a house is never just a house.
Itâs a foundation for health.
For education.
For safety.
For dignity.
And the real goal? Isnât just putting people inside walls. Itâs giving them the freedom to breathe, to belong, and to build a future thatâs truly theirs.
So no â Indonesia isnât just facing a housing crisis.
Itâs facing a possibility crisis.
And that, maybe, is the best place to begin again.
Living in overcrowded, unstable, or flood-prone housing has been linked to increased anxiety, sleep disorders, and even depression â particularly among low-income mothers and children. Yet mental health is rarely factored into housing metrics or policy design.
Beyond cultural pride, the rental market is unregulated, unstable, and lacks tenant protections. Many landlords offer short-term leases, and renters often face surprise evictions with no legal recourse. Itâs not just preference â itâs risk avoidance.
In many cases, yes. Kampungs naturally promote walkability, shared utilities, local economies, and low energy use. Theyâre hyper-local ecosystems that evolved over generations â something master-planned cities rarely achieve.
Indonesiaâs constitution guarantees the right to a âplace to live and to a good and healthy environment,â but in practice, enforcement is weak. Housing remains more of a developmental goal than a justiciable right.
Studies show women prioritize community safety, access to healthcare, and childcare proximity. If women shaped housing policy, weâd likely see more inclusive design, flexible housing models, and stronger support for single-parent families.
Welcome to the Age of Subsidized Square Footage When Real Estate Met Politics: A Love-Hate…
Opening the Door: Why This Conversation Matters Now Picture this: Itâs Monday morning. Youâre sipping…
A no-fluff, real-world guide to the programs, the people, and the promises behind Indonesiaâs housing…
Tulisan ini bukan hasil riset lembaga survei atau olahan statistik dari spreadsheet pemerintah. Hasil riset…
Pendahuluan: Cinta, Kredit, dan Lajang Abadi Rumah Subsidi untuk Freelancer realita pahit sumber pendapatan negara…
đ BI Checking: Alhamdulillah, Masih Polosđ§ Bonus Plot Twist: Waktu Ambil Rumah, Saya Belum Jadi…