SOCIAL PRODUCTION AND CONSUMPTION OF SPACE: STUDY OF PUBLIC-MARKET IN BANDUNG, INDONESIA

. This paper aims to examine the role of architecture in social production and consumption of space, using public markets –architectural artifacts with rich social contents– as cases. This research adopts Low’s (2017) concept of social production of space and Dovey’s (2010) social constructivism of place to uncover the social production and consumption of public markets’ space. Cihapit and Pamoyanan market in Band-ung, Indonesia, are selected as research cases, due to their cultural contents, appealing to consumers from middle to upper class society. It is found several roles of architecture in social production and consumption of public market space: building typology and morphology signifies historical context of development; ar - chitectural buildings contributes to formalize trading activities and elevating social class of market traders; commodities zoning is organized based on functional and socio-historical consideration; spatial intensity is determined by access and commodities zoning; informal atmosphere emerges as a distinctive advantage of public markets; and spatial quality is relative depends on governance capacity. Although normative criteria for good design can be formulated, in practice, spatial quality of public market is relative and depends on its capacity for spatial governmentality. By exploring social production and consumption of space and place provides broader perspective on the social practices of architecture, emphasizing its contribution for social and humanity studies.

Several social-constructivism approaches use term of "place" and "space" equally.Dovey (2010), influenced by Deleuze and Guattari (1987) and Bourdieu (2011), argues that place is constructed as assemblage of better future de-sire and architecture represent cultural and symbolic production of powers.Another planners and designers, influenced Lefebvre's (1991Lefebvre's ( /1974) concept about production of space, put built form production as socio-political struggles and representations (Knox, 1987;Archer, 2005).By tracing genealogical concepts of "space" and "place", Low (2017) maps various relationship between them: space separated with place each other, space inside place, place inside space, intersection, or blended.Important contribution of Low's studies is putting ethnographic approach to understand space by identifying human and architecture relationship within their social, economic, and political context.
The concept of social production of space is developed by Low to uncover social representations in space by tracing the history of development and its political economic relationship.Here, Lefebvre's concept of "Production of Space" can be more operated to be observed, to see space as social representation for class struggle and how power and economic structure shapes space.Low's thinking gives significant contributions to about socially production of space by tracing its history, political economy, production/resistance/reproduction, and control/governmentality of space.
If it can be socially produced, so space also can be socially consumed.Here, the concept of place in architecture can be borrowed to understand the social consumption of space through concept of sense of place.Dovey (2010) uncover sense of place beyond phenomenological subjective experience: he deliver to map the intensity of dynamic use of space.Mapping social consumption of space through intensity can link it to the social production of space, by identifying what kind of social production of spatial intensity.
This paper explores concept social production and consumption of space by examining public markets as cases studies.Public markets are architectural artifacts with rich social contents (Zukin, 2012;Chiu, 2013;Beeckmans & Brennan, 2016), where "artifacts" refer to Rossi (1996) idea how architecture represents the urban history.Commonly, public markets are initially formed through informal trading activities in neutral spaces, such as public spaces such as streets or open spaces, and later formalized by certain authorities by giving many kind of signifiers such as permanent buildings (Tangires, 2008;Mayo, 2013;Stobart & van Damme, 2015;Kelley, 2018).Previous research demonstrated that historical context of public market buildings is reflected in their morphology and typology, and some holding specific value and being considered as cultural heritages (Shakur et al., 2012;Hmood, 2017;Utaberta et al., 2019).Public markets also represent socio-economical network of traditional trading from the past until present (Yagi, 2012;Fava, 2016).Traditionality of public market trading activities have been facing challenges from modernization pressures, leading to a decline in performance for some (Harada, 2016;Baics, 2017;Fava, 2017;Toftgaard, 2017).However, there have been emerging efforts to revitalize them, taking the consideration their cultural capital (Nam, 2013;Lee, 2018).Cultural contents rooted in tradition are recognized as special character for public markets (Fava et al., 2016), and some become tourist destinations (Park & Koo, 2014;Zakariya et al., 2016;Lee & Lin, 2016;Aliyah et al., 2020).Many public market traders seek to enhance their service quality, customer satisfaction and equity (Wang et al., 2016) and also undertake innovation efforts to revitalize their cultural capacities (Chen & Lin, 2018).
In Indonesia, since the 2000s, various government programs have emerged to revitalize public markets recognizing their roles as economic and socio-cultural places (Basri, 2010;Ekomadyo, 2019).Previously, due to the pressures of modernization, public markets' performance had been declined, being perceived as slums and dirty places, because of their mismanagement (Poesoro, 2007).This affects their consumers mainly come from lower-middle class society, then resulting low competitiveness, because the uppermiddle-class prefers shopping in modern retail facilities.However, despite this trend, several public markets have strong cultural contents that can attract upper-middle class consumers to shop in the market daily.It is interesting to explore how these cultural elements are socially produced in daily economic activities within the public market space.
This paper aims to explore the role of architecture in social production and consumption of space in public markets.Cihapit and Pamoyanan market in Bandung, are chosen for their distinctive characteristics that attract consumers from the middle to upper class, indicating the presence of cultural elements built into daily economic activities.In previous studies, public markets has been observed as p places to with experiences, meanings, and character through economic and socio-cultural activities (Ekomadyo, 2012(Ekomadyo, , 2019)).Through the social production and consumption of space approach, it is expected to uncover the social representation of public market space, including the history of development, social struggle, and spatial control and governmentality, and all linked to the spatial quality that is a concern in the study of places in architecture (Ekomadyo et al., 2018b).More broadly, these research can be contribute to understanding the role of architecture in the field of social and humanities studies.

Method
To explain social production and consumption of space in public markets, this research uses two approaches.The first approach is Low's (2017) concept of social production of space.The second is Dovey's (2010) social constructivism approach for sense of place.
For this research, the social production of space in public market is seen from the history and development, political economy, production/resistance/reproduction, and government and control of the space.The history and development of public market are seen from some historical moments in development policies of public markets in national and city level, and also the position of the cases.Political economy of space is seen from the government intervention in trading activities of public markets.The production/resistance/reproduction of space is seen how the public market can relate the social struggle and social class.And, the spatial governmentality and control is seen how public markets management control the spatial territorialities through administrative devices and building elements.
Social consumption of space of public markets is seen from the meaning as places for traders and buyers, the character of space, spatial intensity, the role of commodities in spatiality, and the intensity of the gangways.The meaning of space is the basic concept of "place", and in public markets, meaning can be traced from the traders and buyers experiences.The character of public market space is constructed through social interaction.Spatial intensity provides quantitative description of spatial utilization, and in public market it can be identified through the number of buyers attending the public market spaces in certain periods.The role of commodities in spatiality explains how space is used by types of commodities, and in public markets it relates to spatial zoning based on commodities.And, the intensity of gangways will explain the intensity of spatial use, and in public market it relates to the commodities zoning.
This study focuses on two cases: Cihapit market and Pamoyanan market in Bandung.The selection of these two markets is based on their unique character: ability to attract consumers from the middle to upper class society, while mostly public markets' consumers from the middle to lower class.It reflects the presence of cultural contents within the public markets, and the social production and consumption approach is expected to reveal the character.The selection of these two cases is not intended for comparison but rather to enrich the understanding of social production and consumption of space in public markets.
To identify the role of architecture in the social production and consumption of space in public markets, research is conducted through several stages: 1) conducting preliminary research on the case studies, using data collection methods such as observation, unstructured interviews, and partial involvement in various market community activities; 2) creating a research framework by deriving the theory of social production of space from Low (2017) and adopting the social constructivism of place approach from Dovey (2010) for social consumption of space; 3) studying the history and development of the public markets through literature reviews, secondary data analysis, and in-depth interviews with key actors involved in the market case; 4) investigating and mapping how public markets spaces are utilized, employing structured interviews with consumers, observing the timing of market usage, observing the distribution of commodities and market access, and calculating the intensity of space/gangway utilization in the market; 5) conducting data analysis based on the framework developed as the research findings, and 6) interpreting the research findings and reflecting on previous studies to draw conclusions and contribute to the development of knowledge.

Public market development and revitalization in Indonesia
In Indonesia, public market is recognized as "house of economy and culture" (Basri, 2010).The role of public market was begun in the past time, written in historical inscription as a part of urban life (Nastiti, 2003), even several Indonesian cities grew generated by market activities (Wiryomartono, 1995).Indonesian public market also has another term as "traditional market", because of bargain process to get agreed-price by traders and buyers, distinguishing from fixed-price in modern shopping facilities.Traditional means handling-down process from generation to the next (AlSayyad, 2004), because the trading-works in the public market are inherit from the predecessors.
Before Independence, it is recognized several public markets developed and well-known in Indonesian as European-colonized country.In early of 20th century, this country got significant prosperity by producing plantation goods to supply European needs after World War I.This prosperity was expressed in many buildings by exercising Tropical-Europe approach in architectural design, including public markets.
Its independence in 1945 brought Indonesia as a new nation-state with own authority to govern the people.It also brought modernization process, where the government made several regulations based on rationalism, and also provided modern infrastructure and facilities for national progressive development (Colombijn & Coté, 2010;Prozorovskii, 2016;Matondang, 2019).There were two political phases in Indonesian development: after Independence until the end of 1970s as a new nation-state to formulate appropriate governance system to manage people, and early of 1970s until end of 1990s when government system was organized by centralistic orders, called New Order, and had orientation in political-economy stabilization to guide National Development Program adopted Rostow's (1962) Modernization Theory of Development.In early as a new nation-state, modernization in public market governance was indicated on many efforts to formalize the informal traders by built permanent buildings and market institution to give formal status and to draw retribution from the traders.While in centralistic New Order era, public market development became part of national development program, where government provided public market facilities, through President's instruction, with uniformity of building design that named Public Market by President's Instruction (in Indonesian term called as "Pasar Inpres").
Modernization in Indonesia had created a new raising upper-middle class, that impacted on shopping lifestyle.Since 1960s, modern shopping facilities such as supermarkets and department stores emerged to respond raising upper-middle class societies (Firmanzah & Halim, 2010).Managed by professionalism, the modern shopping facilities evolved into many new forms, adapted to the market trends: it can be bigger such wholesale hypermarket, or smaller such as neighbourhood convenience stores.On the other side, public market has been still managed traditionally as business as usual and did not so much inserting professional values.Here, the dichotomy of modern and traditional market has been started: modern market for upper-middle class societies, and traditional market for lower-middle ones (Sarwoko, 2008;Utomo, 2011;Indiastuti et al., 2008).
This dichotomy then makes unfair competition and caused the decline of traditional market performance (Prabowo & Rahadi, 2015).Traditional market was imagined as dirty and slum places, do not attracting people to come (Rahadi et al., 2015).It is identified two factors caused traditional public market decline: uncontrolled penetration of modern shopping facilities into neighbourhood scale to serve lower-middle societies, and mismanagement of traditional market with non-professionalism and non-accountability governance (Poesoro, 2007;Masitha, 2010;Prabowo et al., 2017).
Since 2000s, when Indonesian politics transformed into more democratic and decentralize, willingness to revitalize traditional markets has emerged.Through Law of Trade 07/2004, the traditional and modern market dichotomy was eliminated, and officially government introduce new term called "Pasar Rakyat", means market for the people.
Indonesian decentralization policies gave more authority for municipal governments, including to govern their public markets.Some municipal governments chose revitalization program by actualizing local culture (Holidin & Handini, 2014;Putra & Rudito, 2015;Aliyah, 2017), and others chose to improve public markets economic values by increasing their development intensity through partnership with private sectors (Ferlan & Harto, 2013;Setlight, 2013).

Public market in Bandung and social production of space in Cihapit and Pamoyanan market
As mentioned above, social production of space in public markets is seen from their history and development, political economy, production/resistance/reproduction, and governmentality and control of space.Studying both cases Cihapit and Pamoyanan market in Bandung, their historical development are actually related with the historical policies of public market in national and city level.This policies influenced the political economy of public market space, indicated in government intervention on existing trading activities.This intervention also affects the social production/resistance/reproduction, because market development program also affects the social class of market traders.In both market cases studied, the government's influence in spatial control are represented in architecture of public market buildings.
Public markets existence in Bandung can be traced from its historical development as Dutch colonial city since 19th century, while it designed as Tropical Europe city (Siregar, 1990).It is identified several markets had been built in city center area, and some was well-known as best market in Asia (Dellanita, 2019).The Chinese people in Bandung put significant role in public market development, by activating the new market adjacent to the Chinatown (Nidikara & Kusliansjah, 2020;Kustedja, 2012), and by spreading around the city neighbourhood clusters by raised shop houses in neighbourhood clusters (Tunas, 2007;Kartamihardja, 2017).These shop houses increased their economic capacity, generated busy places and attracted hawkers to come this area.Then, some hawkers relocated to open space near or behind the shop houses, delivered permanent shelters, and organized as formal public market (Ekomadyo et al., 2018a).
There are three main period of public market development in Bandung, after Indonesian Independence.First, when Bandung became capital of West Java province, its status generated urbanization from surrounding regions.People came to this city, tried to get better life, some worked informally as hawkers, and occupied empty spaces near the crossroads or lined up along street edges.At that period, municipal government of Bandung city tried to build permanent places for the hawkers, and institutionalized them as public market.Second, after these period, in 1970s until 1990s, there were many new development of public markets, as part of Indonesian National Development Program.Third, since 1990s until now, the city government got more authority to manage local development budget, and it impacted to the program of minor rehabilitation of many public markets in Bandung in 2006.Responding to the urban economic growth, a municipalowned enterprise was founded to manage and increase public markets economic intensities through public-private partnership.This approach stimulated several mayor rehabilitation of public market by developing new buildings in existing sites.At this period, some private sectors also built some public markets, many of them are located at urban fringes.Nowadays, it is identified 46 public markets in Bandung: 39 markets owned by government and 9 by private sectors, and spread at city center, suburban, and urban fringes (Figure 1).The political economy in social production of both public markets space can be trace how the government intervene into trading activities.Naturally, public markets are constructed by fairly informal exchange of goods and services in a neutral zone (Tangires, 2008) until a certain authority put the landmark to signify the market.Cihapit and Pamoyanan market began with informal activities, and in order to make them orderly, government intervene to make them formally.Transformation from informality into formality are organized through legitimizing the trader's status, building facilities with standardized kiosks, and providing utility support.Government gets authority to draw retribution from the traders, with the kiosk dimension as one of retribution parameter.But, market activities still also attracts another hawkers to come.Some can be accommodated inside the market area and also pay the retribution.The other ones occupied the public space mostly on street edges near the market, and does not be administered and pay retribution, but public still recognize them as part of the market traders (Figures 2, 3, 4, and 5).
Social production, reproduction, and resistance is recognized how social class are constructed in public market development.In the beginning, the permanent building represents the raise of traders social class.But, as like as common public markets in modernization pressure, their performance declines, because many consumers, especially upper-middle society, shift to modern shopping facilities such as supermarkets or department stores.Upper-middle society prefers to go to the supermarket with its quality and lifestyle image, and the lower-middle go to the public market preferring cheap prices and does not merely concerns with the quality.It impacts less effort of public markets management, and the also impacts to the image as dirty, ugly and slum places.
In social control and governance of space, market management is determinant agent by administrative and territorial authority.Identity of market authority is signified by market signboards referring to the Municipal-owned of public market, located on the market gates (Figures 2, 3, 4, and 5).As impact in centralized policy since New Order in Indonesia, the position of public market officers have  Building morphology and typology causes the difference of social control of space between Cihapit and Pamoyanan market.Because of enclaved morphology, Cihapit market has only one main gate connected with main road, and two alternative gates connected with the alleys (Figure 2), so the market management can fully control the market activities time by opening and closing those gates.Pamoyanan market has uniform-shape building typology as "Pasar Inpres" that provide 8 kiosks in front areas have their own gates, so they can open and close their kiosk without adjusting time with market management rules (Figure 4).Another difference is happen in parking lot provision.Enclaved-shape of Cihapit market cause parking lot unavailable inside market area (Figure 2).Meanwhile, by its morphology, Pamoyanan market has a parking lot in front of the building (Figure 4) and it can give appropriate facilities for consumers dan additional retribution for market management.
By analysing the social production of public market space, it can be identified several roles of architecture.Building morphology and typology represents the development history of public market.Permanent buildings Learning from social production of Cihapit and Pamoyanan market space, architecture can be used to read the development history, government intervention, social class representation, and spatial control of public market space.But, social production approach do not answer what the market meaning for users and their hope for spatial quality.It is need to identify not only how space is socially produced, but how it also consumed, that become concern of place studies.

Social consumption of space in public markets: Cihapit and Pamoyanan market as places
If space can be socially produced, can it also socially consumed?To answer it, concept of "place" is relevant to complete social production of space by identifying how space is also socially consumed.By social constructivism of place concept, the public market space is identified its meaning for traders and buyers, the special character, spatial intensity, the role of commodities in spatiality, and the intensity of the gangways.
For traders, public market gave them meaning as place for livelihood.Most traders have motivation to survive in public market, and only a little have economic motivation and choose to move another place if they calculate this place is not profitable anymore.It strengthen Prihandana's (2002) findings after researching in several public markets in West Java, that public market became livelihood places for society.In Cihapit and Pamoyanan market history, both markets activities are early generated by informal hawkers that came to Bandung from other cities to gain better life.As livelihood place to survive, almost traders do not put spatial quality as important things, and their priority concern is daily economic activities to support their life.For them, quality of public market built form is relative to the other market or to the condition before.
For buyers, public market has special meaning as places that provide everyday needs with cheaper prices, because they can bargain with traders.By everyday life rhythm, they choose to go to public market in the morning, before they do other activities to other places.Open and closed time of both public markets actually adjust with traders' activities rhythm, while most buyers visit the market at 7-11 am in the morning.In Pamoyanan market, most buyers, especially housewives, visit in 8-9 am (Figure 6 left) after they drop their children in private school adjacent the market.Bargain atmosphere in trading activities make social relation among buyers and traders (Figure 6

right).
Both markets have special character by their informality, social relationship, and their specific location.Although public markets in Indonesia has customers mostly from lower-middle society, both markets have upper-middle ones.Cihapit market has location in urban center area, close with colonial neighbourhood clusters where upper-middle society in Bandung stay and live.The residence chooses Cihapit market to shop daily because have special social relationship with shopkeepers for a long time (Ekomadyo et al., 2018b).Meanwhile, Pamoyanan market has location near the Chinese neighbourhood cluster and adjacent with private school mostly for upper-middle Chinese society (Ekomadyo et al., 2012).Both Cihapit and Pamoyanan market got their special character, their Genius Loci, by social construction among traders, buyers, and their "loci": their specific location.In spatial intensity, it is identified that not all of trading spaces are occupied and active.Cihapit market has just 66% active trading spaces, meanwhile Pamoyanan market has 79%; both consist various commodities.Fish and meats occupies most active trading spaces in Cihapit market (24%), while Pamoyanan market has vegetables (37%) as most occupied commodities.In Cihapit market, food and beverages occupies many active trading space (17%) and makes special character comparing with other markets such as Pamoyanan that only occupies 4% of active trading spaces.Commodities variation indicates the special character of both markets: Cihapit market on food and beverages and Pamoyanan market on vegetables (Figure 7).Public market special commodities variety and diversity has been constructed by trading tradition in the city, where some commodities are prominent in a market rather than others because of the lower price or higher quality.In this case, food and beverages in Cihapit market and vegetables in Pamoyanan market becomes prominent because of higher quality rather than other markets.
The spread trading spaces utilization and commodities is mapped on Figure 8.By this map, there are some patterns can be read.Most empty spaces are located on back area: these trading spaces are uneasy to be accessed.Area of daily commodities such as vegetables and fruits are located in the front area and easy to be accessed.Wet commodities, such as meat and fish, are grouped to provide specific infrastructure easily such as fresh water outlet and drainage, and located in the back area in order to keep isolated from others.Other are spread without specific patterns (Figure 8).
Learning from both markets, commodities zoning is not merely functional, but also social.Functionally, commodities zoning can make visitors easier to reach what commodity they choose.Socially, zoning is arranged by considering the justice of trading spaces: same commodities on same zone.But in practice, there are social order in the zoning decision.In Cihapit market, the traders who occupy the entrance alley, as they arrived later than the traders in the main area, sell complementary commodities, such as take-away food, which are not sold in the main area.In Pamoyanan market, senior traders gets more accessible space.Several different commodities are located closely, because of close kinship between them.The close social relationship is used while one trader leaves his/her kiosk for a while and entrusts it into adjacent trader to keep the kiosk.
The consumption of space is also seen through identifying the intensity of gangways as place for buyers.Figure 9 shows the intensity level of the gangways in Cihapit and Pamoyanan market, and some lessons can be read.Gangways with high intensity are mostly located in main access of the market.Cihapit market have only one main access, and this gangway has very high intensity.Pamoyanan market have 5 main access, and they have various levels of intensity: very high, high, and low.More access of Pamoyanan market al.o makes its overall gangways intensity spread more evenly rather than Cihapit market.Both markets also have alternative accesses, not well-designed formally, but contribute for gangways intensity surround them.Beside of access, the intensity is also influenced by commodities.Daily commodities such as vegetables and fruits attract people to come.Both markets also have gangway with high intensity despite of far from the entrance access.In Cihapit, high-intensity gangway is attracted by a food kiosk named "Warung Mak Eha" as legendary traditional culinary inside the market.In Pamoyanan, high-intensity gangway is attracted by pork commodity kiosk as only kiosk that sell pork for Chinese people in this area (Figure 9).
By analysing the place of Cihapit and Pamoyanan market, there are identified several learning about how space is socially consumed.For traders, meaning of the market is a place for livelihood, and spatial quality is relative comparing other markets or condition before.For buyers, meaning of the market is a place to gain daily commodities with affordable prices and get informal atmosphere generated by social relation with traders.Both markets have special character with upper-middle consumers related to their specific location, where the "Genius Loci" is socially constructed.Commodities zoning and accessibility are functional aspects that influencing the social consumption space.Zoning is organized mainly for functional purposes, but has also socio-historical consideration.Accessibility influences the gangways intensity, but specific commodities can also attract people to come and make higher intensity in surrounding gangways.

Discussion
Learning from social production and consumption of space in public market, there are several significant findings from studying Cihapit and Pamoyanan market.Firstly, building morphology and typology, represents the historical development of public markets as urban artifacts.Public markets morphology is related with urban fabrics that are assembled through urban process (Kim et al., 2004;Beattie, 2008;Mayo, 2013), meanwhile, their typology is related to the time when public market are developed (Hmood, 2017).The morphology of these two markets reflects two aspects: the pattern of public market development by the government and the urban fabric influencing the markets' consumer character.The development pattern of both markets shows similarities: each market begins with the presence of informal traders in neighbourhood nodes, then government provided permanent structures nearby vacant lands to establish the public markets.Meanwhile, the urban fabric associated with market consumers is represented by the market locations: Cihapit market is located at city center areas, within the ex-European neighborhood cluster from colonial times that has now transformed into an upper-middle-class residence in Bandung.Pamoyanan market, on the other hand, is located at the node of residential area of the Chinese working-class community in colonial-era in Bandung, which has also transformed into an upper-middle-class society.The typology of buildings represent the time of market construction.Cihapit market's buildings are functional shelters, and the building typology can only be inferred from the Chinese-style buildings in front of the market represents how Chinese people spread from Chinatown to the residence areas in Bandung (Siregar, 1990;Tunas, 2007).In contrast, Pamoyanan market represents the uniformity shape of "Public Market by President's Instruction (Pasar Inpres)" and indicates the influence by New-order's National Development Program in 1970-1980s.Secondly, the construction of public market buildings make formalizes and legitimizes trading activities.Typically, public markets begin in neutral zones, like public spaces, evolving from informal activities into formal institutionalization through construction of several landmarks to signify the market activities (Tangires, 2008).This process is followed by the development of permanent shelters (Chiu, 2013;Kelley, 2018).In the case of Cihapit and Pamoyanan market, public markets emerged on vacant land adjacent to a gathering of informal traders in the area.Regardless of their design, these permanent buildings create new social class for traders: transitioning from informal hawkers into recognized market traders.The permanence of the buildings also signifies the authority who authority vest-ed, who oversee and collect retribution as compensation for the provided facilities.The construction of permanent public market buildings represents the desire of well-ordered and civilized living.
Thirdly, the organization of public market commodities zoning is determined by both functional and socio-historical considerations.From functional perspective, zoning aids consumers in easily to get orientation (Al-Maimani, 2014).Zoning also plays a role in achieving social justice in trading spaces organizing fair competition among traders.However in practice, there are no rigid rules in zoning.In Cihapit and Pamoyanan market, the placement of certain commodities has also been influenced by historical background of traders or their kinship relation.
Fourthly, spatial intensity of public market is determined by access and zoning.Pamoyanan market exhibits a more even spatial intensity due to its multiple access points compared to Cihapit market.Besides access, the zoning of commodities zoning also impacts spatial intensity, with daily commodities such as vegetables drawing visitors to the area.As like as shopping facilities layout, access points and specific commodities are strategically organized to arrange the flow of the visitors.In mall or supermarket design, anchor commodities are located in farthest point to attract people come to this point and surrounding (Juel-Jacobsen, 2016).This pattern is also found at public markets, when some specific commodities in distant areas can draw visitors, such as "Warung Mak Eha" in Cihapit market and pork stall in Pamoyanan market, increasing surrounding gangways intensity.However, this pattern does not well-designed in formal process, but emerged informality through everyday social practices.
Fifthly, informal atmosphere in public markets is the advantages when compared to modern shopping facilities.Transactions in public market occur with non-fixed price, requiring buyers to bargain the price with traders.These interactions naturally foster social interaction, as buyers and traders must communicate to agree on prices.Social interaction and personal relationship contributes to the establishment of strong social trust in public market (Rahadi, 2012;Wang et al., 2016).Here, costumers can get more friendly, personal, intimate, and enjoyable experiences compared to the supermarkets (Ng, 2003).In Cihapit market and Pamoyanan market, the close relationships between several traders and buyers lead to the formation of unique consumer loyalty.Buyers often request special treatment, such as having their purchases delivered to their cars or ordering specific commodities, and traders willingly comply because these buyers are regular customers.Trust in economic activities, fostered through informal social interaction is what gives public markets their distinctive character.Therefore, the public markets' spirit of places, their Genius Loci, does not happen naturally but by socially constructed over time (Ekomadyo, 2012).Historically, informality has becomes the hallmark of public markets, attracting non-daily visitors such as tourists to come to experience the atmosphere of informality (Kim, 2014;Aliyah et al., 2017).
Sixthly, although quality becomes concern in the discipline of architecture, the social practices in public markets space indicates that spatial quality is relative, depending on preferences of traders and buyers and also governance capacity.For traders, public markets hold significant as livelihood space, making its spatial attributes widely accepted.Buyers, on the other hand, associate the spatial quality with commodity prices, proximity, time, and social relation with specific traders.Some architects and engineers attempt to establish public market design criteria (Ekomadyo & Hidayatsyah, 2012;Hermawan et al., 2018) assuming the presence of powerful authoritative institution controlling the production space.But, learning from Cihapit and Pamoyanan market, it is found that public market managements often prioritize revenue collection rather than fostering strong vision for enhance competitiveness through spatial quality.It is need for comprehensive and long-term development process to exert governmentality over the spatial quality of public markets.

Conclusions
Learning from Cihapit and Pamoyanan market, there can be identified several roles of architecture in social production and consumption of space.Architecture, based on building typology and morphology, represents the time when the building was built, and signifies historical context of public markets development.Architectural buildings becomes means to formalize trading activities through providing permanent shelter, thereby influences to raise traders' social class.The zoning of commodities can be organized based on functional consideration, but in practice, it is also influenced by socio-historical relationship.Spatial intensity of public market is determined by access and commodities zoning, reflecting the mutual relation of architecture and non-architectural element in consumption of space.The advantageous value of public markets lies in informal atmosphere generated by fluid social relationships among traders and buyers.The spatial quality of public market is relative and depends on governance capacity.
In general, the social production and consumption of space approach offers a perspective on the social practices of architecture.The building typology and morphology can be interpreted not only as architectural forms, but also to unveil the urban fabrics of urban process and the time when the building was constructed.Formal buildings sometimes play role in contributing to social class division, but in other side, aligning with the notion of architecture as cultural producers (Dovey, 2010).Conversely, informality can be maintained by fluid social space, adding a special dimension to the intensity of a place through social interaction.Several architectural elements, such as access and zoning in public markets, contribute to the spatial intensity.These elements play a crucial role in shaping the unique character of a place.
Although normative criteria for good design can be formulated, in practice, spatial quality of public market is relative depends on its capacity for spatial governmentality.This argument refers to the statement that spatial quality in architecture is related to social, economic, and political aspects.Learning from public market, desire to better built of environment is relative among actors, so it is need more inclusive understanding of spatial quality with concerning everyday social practice.
Finally, the study of social production and consumption of space can also pave the way for how architecture as discipline can contribute for social and humanity studies.Through architecture, we can read the urban process, where the spaces represents citizens struggle (Chaudhary, 2020), dwelling adaptation (Asikin et al., 2019, and social order reconfiguration (Sassen, 2010).If design is viewed as means of human desire to reach better future (Dovey, 2010), the practice of architecture can be put to shape, condition, and facilitate social relation and to transmit social meaning for good built forms (Yaneva, 2008(Yaneva, , 2009)).

Disclosure statement
This paper does not content any competing financial, professional, or personal interests from other parties.

Figure 1 .
Figure 1.Public markets development in Bandung (left) and their spread in the city (right) (source: processed from Bandung City Public Market Office, 2007; West Java Trading and Industrial Office, 2017, and other sources)

Figure 2 .
Figure 2. Cihapit market and its surrounding

Figure 3 .Figure 4 .
Figure 3. Cihapit market scene: a -old Chinese Shop house; b -market gate between the buildings; c -market sign as also market gate; d -non-permanent kiosk inside the market area (entrance pathway); e -permanent kiosks inside the buildings; f -informal hawkers outside the market area; g -parking outside the market area intervention to manage informal trading activities, make it legally and compensate by retribution.In the beginning, permanent buildings raised the social class of traders, but the lack of management and maintenance caused the decline of public market performance.Market managements have authority to govern the market and controls the spatial utilization by open/close the gates and stop/continue the electricity support.

Figure 5 .
Figure 5. Pamoyanan market scene: a -main building (two storeys) and parking lot inside the market area; b -additional building (one storey) adjacent to main building; c -market sign in the center of market; d -private school adjacent to the market; e -permanent kiosks inside the market building; f -non-permanent kiosks inside market area; g -informal hawkers and parking points outside the market area

Figure 6 .Figure 7 .
Figure 6.Everyday activities of Cihapit and Pamoyanan market: graphic of activity time (left), and bargain activities in Cihapit market (right above), and Pamoyanan market (right below)