Planning Assessment
Preserving Heritage Aesthetics
Unraveling Kayutangan Street's Historic Building Shop Frontage via Visitor Preferences
2025 Volume 13 Issue 4 Pages 249-276
Details
2025 Volume 13 Issue 4 Pages 249-276
Abstract: The Malang Government has made several improvements to strengthen Kayutangan as the Heritage Capital of Malang City. The presence of new cafes reviving historic buildings in K.S.C. (Kayutangan Street Corridor) has become a place for food and beverage businesses. The rise of new companies in K.S.C. and the massive improvement of K.S.C. has led to the revitalization of diverse shop frontages along the street corridor due to the revival of social, economic, and cultural activities in the Kayutangan area. This study aims to investigate the level of suitability for the emergence of shop frontage design diversity on historic buildings. We are focusing on visitor’s preferences as laypeople. The results show three building frontage typologies in the study object: Associated-Suspended, Overlapped, and Confronted. The assessment of visitor preferences shows a good level of suitability preference for the variety of historic building frontages in Kayutangan. Visitor preferences reveal that building frontages with associated-suspended and overlapped typologies have the highest significance of suitability of shop frontage design concepts compared to the Confrontational type. Therefore, this study suggests considering Associated-Suspended and Overlapped typologies to be implemented on a transformed historic building. When analyzed together as visual and spatial aspects of the area as a whole, the Building Style and Function are the factors that influence the suitability of shop frontage design in the K.S.C. area. The unique characteristics of Dutch East Indies architecture and the building's function can elevate the building’s image and the street corridor’s image as a historic district.
Malang City is a city that has existed since the Dutch East Indies era. As a result, Malang City is one of the old cities in East Java with various historical relics, both royal and Dutch East Indies relics, one of which is the architecture and arrangement of the city area. Multiple kinds of relics of the Dutch era give Malang City the potential to become a heritage city. Therefore, the Malang City Government decided to brand Malang City as a Heritage City. Malang City has several historic street corridors, including the Kayutangan Street Corridor (K.S.C.) (Widodo, 2006).
To fulfill the Heritage City branding, in 2020, the Malang City Government held renovations to transform K.S.C. into a heritage corridor after establishing Kayutangan as the Heritage City of Malang on August 30, 2019. After undergoing renovations, there are gradual changes in Kayutangan. Various new cafes are popping up that utilize buildings that are no longer active or work with buildings that are still active. These buildings transform into new buildings with unique functions. Most of the building revitalization methods applied in Kayutangan change the function of the buildings into food and beverage businesses. As a result of the emergence of new businesses, buildings that were initially inactive have a new life that can attract the public’s attention to do some activities in the Kayutangan area. The conservation of a historic urban area can give a positive well-being value for citizens (Wang, Zhang et al., 2023). Recently, urban heritage is highly regarded as potentially contributing to the growth of the economy and the social value of a community (Husnéin, 2017). People visiting cafes is one of the things that makes K.S.C. lively. The atmosphere of K.S.C., which was initially quiet and rarely used as a city tourist destination, is now crowded with people visiting and walking along the street corridors, especially at night. The people of Malang City perceive the development of K.S.C. as a very good thing and welcome the new face of Kayutangan as a heritage district of Malang City (Sekarsari and Rachmatullah Putra, 2023).
Building transformation techniques are increasingly popular as a means for the preservation of Dutch East Indies buildings in Malang City. The phenomenon of building transformation is also happening in Kayutangan. Historic building transformation involves changing the function of an existing building based on the wishes or needs of its new owner (Bottero, D’Alpaos et al., 2019). Building owners can make renovations to repair or replace damaged parts of the building without changing the overall structure and architecture. Preservation using this method maintains not only the physical condition of the building but also its historical value, with minor changes to the building to keep up with the times. The building’s physical condition is maintained, semi-permanent architectural elements are added to the building, and the building function is modified without changing the existing structure of the building.
Old and historical buildings in Kayutangan have been a research object for various past studies. Different kinds of research that have been conducted in the study object area are about building preservation based on the quality of all building façades in the street corridor (Kurniawan, Putri et al., 2017), 3D interactive visualization scenarios in improving the quality of visual comfort (Santosa, Herry, Ernawati et al., 2018), the aesthetic quality of architectural elements of building façades (Ramli, Antariksa et al., 2020; Sudikno, Santosa et al., 2022; Suryasari, Antariksa et al., 2021), analysis of physical characteristic of streetscape of commercial buildings based on visual judgment by building owner (Santosa, Herry, Ikaruga et al., 2013), and visual quality of modern buildings post-colonial era (Fauziah, Antariksa et al., 2012). For research on visual quality assessment, there are several studies proposing suggestions and design recommendations for buildings and research object areas (Oludare, Ezema et al., 2021; Putra and Prianto, 2019; W and Sukmajati, 2017), and as one of the considerations for policy making in urban planning and building preservation (Jin and Wang, 2021; Kurniawan, Putri et al., 2017; Oludare, Ezema et al., 2021; Santosa, Herry, Ernawati et al., 2018; Santosa, Herry, Ikaruga et al., 2014, 2016; Santosa, H., Yudono et al., 2021).
A research gap was found based on various previous studies conducted in the Kayutangan area. Most studies in Kayutangan examined the visual quality of buildings and areas, but there has yet to be a research on shop frontage design in transformed historic buildings. Therefore, this study focuses on problems based on issues and research gaps with a focus on the significance of the suitability of shop frontage design of historic buildings that have been changed to preserve the Kayutangan area. This study identified the condition of the building and the changes to the building elements of the study object. The assessment used visitors’ perceptions as laypeople through a questionnaire to measure the significance of shop frontage design on historic buildings in Kayutangan. Our goal is limited to studying a layperson’s preference regarding the shop frontage design of historic buildings. This study also investigates the transformation of historic buildings and their role in helping develop an urban heritage area and filling the existing research gap.
Streets are one of the most accessible public spaces in urban spaces. Street space has various forms, values, and meanings. The built structures can form street structures and, as an uninterrupted element of the city morphology, the street network can allow people to feel and recognize the urban character, meet other people, and feel the similarities and differences of a part of a city (Bobić, 2004). According to Rapoport in Bobić (2004), the street is a spatial framework where social, cultural, and educational roles are played and the arrival point of the city’s opposing agents. Rapoport finds these three roles critical prerequisites for generating a personal awareness of open space. Streets are essential not only as functional elements of the city but also as an important element in social, cultural, and educational aspects. It analyzes streetscape and its relationship with the formation of street corridors of greater significance.
As one of the urban interface spaces, the building frontage has several typologies based on several things. The position and depth of the interface configuration of the public space and building line are a few of the essential physical conditioning factors. Any transition or interface area depends on the visual and physical boundary of the public space or the building frontage. With this framework, based on the position of the interface with the building frontage or building line, all interfaces are classified into seven typologies: integrated, Overlapped, Confronted, Associated, Inserted, Extended, and Suspended (Bobić, 2004).
The basic typology contains several forms and configurations organized in the same territorial framework, depending on the context, as well as architectural features (A.F.) and landscape features (L.F.) (Bobić, 2004). Architectural features include railings, arches, stairs, balconies, awnings, exciting building facade features, bay windows, large street windows, murals, entrances, canopies, and fire escapes. Landscape features include high garden walls, short walls/dwarfs, iron railings, fences, bollards, bushes, wing bushes, and vines. Of all the architectural and landscape features, it can be summarized that the primary building frontage configuration elements are doors/access to buildings, windows, vegetation, street furniture, fences, ornaments, building decorations, and canopies.
The transformation of a heritage building by applying new functions will certainly change several things in the building, including the visual part of the building. The new function is vital to choosing the level of intervention in a transformed building (Zhang and Dong, 2021). Building transformation must consider the needs and desires of the community and building users when determining the new function to be applied (Vafaie, Remøy et al., 2023). Therefore, the function of the building is an essential element to consider when redesigning historic buildings, including the frontage design.
Case study areaThe research location is Kayutangan Street Corridor (K.S.C.) Malang, on Jl. Jenderal Basuki Rachmat, Malang City (see Figure 1). K.S.C. was chosen as the research location because it has a history as a commercial area during the Dutch East Indies era, with various historical buildings located throughout. Until today, this street still functions as a commercial area and the position has been strengthened after the renovation process to preserve K.S.C. as the heritage capital of Malang City.
After Malang City branded itself as a Heritage City, it chose K.S.C. as the capital heritage area of the city because it is one of the historic urban areas in Malang City and is close to the city center. Therefore, the Malang City government has been renovating Kayutangan from 2020 until today to preserve the remaining authenticity of the street corridor. As a result, new businesses emerge in the street that reactivated several old buildings and changed their functions. Some historic buildings have also been revitalized by changing or adding new uses to them, leading to increased social, economic, and cultural activities in K.S.C. This study focuses on historic buildings that have undergone changes in function that contribute to the livelihood of K.S.C.
The research population is the historic buildings along Jl. Jenderal Basuki Rachmat corridor. There are eight historic buildings—mainly comprising food and beverage—and only one building for each function as a church, office, and hotel (see Figure 2). The sample selection used a purposive sampling technique, selecting samples with specific considerations. The research sample was determined based on criteria that limit historic buildings with photographic evidence of buildings in the Dutch East Indies era and revitalized or adaptively reused in 2019 and above. Four historic buildings were selected as the research samples based on the criteria, which are Lafayette Coffee & Eatery, Kopi Lonceng, Kedai Namsun, and MoMo’s Coffee & Bakery (see Table 1). Therefore, this study only focuses on the selected four historic buildings. The other historic buildings did not undergo any changes in the visual and building function. Therefore, they were not chosen as the research study object. The conclusions that are drawn will be focused on and linked to the four historic building objects.
| Building | Year Built | Building Category | Building Changes | Location | Coordinate | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Latitude | Longitude | |||||
| Lafayette Coffee & Eatery | 1936 | Heritage | Façade, function | Jl. Semeru No. 2, Malang City | -7.9766743 | 112.6288278 |
| Kopi Lonceng | 1930 | Suspected heritage | Function | Jl. Jenderal Basuki Rachmat No. 45, Malang City | -7.977673 | 112.6287742 |
| Kedai Namsun | 1920s | Suspected heritage | Façade, function | Jl. Jenderal Basuki Rachmat No. 31, Malang City | -7.9786346 | 112.6292409 |
| MoMo's Coffee & Bakery | 1930s | Suspected heritage | Façade, function | Jl. Jenderal Basuki Rachmat No. 11A, Malang City | -7.979968 | 112.630008 |
Lafayette Coffee & Eatery is a coffee shop and eatery that opened in April 2021 at the Rajabally intersection, using one of Rajabally's twin buildings. This building was constructed in the 1920s. Built as a twin building, it acts as a gateway to the city of Malang through Kotabaru Station with Mount Kawi as a backdrop framed by the twin buildings. During the Dutch East Indies era, the building on the north side served as a bookstore called Boekhandel Sluyter and the building on the south side served as a jewelry store called Juwelier Tan. Currently, only the north side of the building is still in use, now it functions as Lafayette Coffee & Eatery. The south side of the building was closed during the pandemic era and previously served as the Commonwealth Bank. The building had undergone several changes in its function in the modern era, including a billiard cafe, a food stall, a mobile phone shop, a Hajj and Umrah tour and travel agency, and a cooperative.
Kopi Lonceng is a coffee shop that cooperates with Optik Surya as its business premises. Opened in July 2022, this is a building with two different businesses, namely a coffee shop and an optics shop. Originally, this building was a building for the Koninklijke Boekhandel en Drukkerijen (Royal Book and Printing House), owned by the company G. Kolf & Co. This company was the most famous printing, publishing, and bookstore chain in the Dutch East Indies, including the top four postcard manufacturers of the Dutch East Indies era. After independence, the building was divided into two shops on the north and south sides. However, the authenticity of the building was only preserved on the north side. In 1973, the building was bought by the family who owns Optik Surya and has remained an optics shop for 50 years. Although there is an extension of the function of the building, the changes that took place were only in the organization of space and interior decoration.
Kedai Namsun was built in the 1920s when Kayutangan functioned as an elite commercial corridor during the Dutch East Indies era. Initially, this building functioned as a photography studio called Studio Malang, as evidenced by the carved ornaments with Agfa and Kodak lettering on the front facade of the building. Studio Malang is a photo studio in Malang City that has documented the atmosphere of Malang City during the Dutch colonial era. In addition, this building was also a sewing machine shop and a car repair shop. After the independence era, this building changed its function to a residential building in the 1970s. Seeing the development of Kayutangan, which can attract a large number of visitors, and its strategic location, the owner's family decided to add a shop function to the building. Previously, this building was used as a camera shop and studio, car shop, and textile shop.
MoMo's Coffee & Bakery was built in the 1920s, just like Kedai Namsun and the other buildings. According to the book “De Gids voor Malang en Omstreken” published in 1924, this building once served as a post office during the Dutch colonial era. However, during the independence era, the building changed its function to a pharmacy under the name Apotik Kabupaten until 2015. In addition, the building served as an internet café, herb shop, tour and travel agency, property management office, and cafe before finally becoming MoMo's Coffee & Bakery in 2023.
Research methodThis study used factor analysis and multiple linear regression to investigate the significance of shop frontage design suitability in historic buildings. In addition, this study also identified the typology of building frontages applied to historic buildings. The factors of shop frontage design elements in the overall study objects are determined using factor analysis, but this method was not applied to individual research samples. The assessment of the influence of the shop frontage design elements on the suitability of shop frontage design in historic buildings was done using multiple linear regression analysis.
The research study objects are located along Kayutangan Street Corridor, where Kayutangan was designated as the heritage capital of Malang City by the Malang City Government in 2019. The buildings were then analyzed based on the significance of the suitability of the building's shop frontage design. The output from this study can be used as a consideration for designing frontages on historic buildings.
The research variable is an attribute with certain variations and is determined by the researcher as a material for processing or analyzing data to conclude the research findings. The selected variables are the result of the explanation of variables in previous studies (see Table 2).
| Aspect | Variable | References Sources |
|---|---|---|
| Architectural elements of the shop frontage (X2) | Architectural style (X2.1) | Askari and Dola (2009); Berman and Evans (2018); Bobić (2004); Leong (2018); Moosomin Heritage (2015); Müezzinoğlu (2021); Peak District National (2014); Ramli, Antariksa et al. (2020) |
| Entrance door (X2.2) | ||
| Window (X2.3) | ||
| Building ornaments (X2.4) | ||
| Building signage (X2.5) | ||
| Lighting (X2.6) | ||
| Canopy/overhang (X2.7) | ||
| Building façade (X2.8) | ||
| Landscape elements of the shop frontage (X3) | Vegetation (X3.1) | |
| Street furniture (X3.2) | ||
| Outdoor seating area (X3.3) | ||
| Building function (X4) | Building function (X4) | Devitasari, Suprapti et al. (2021); Djebbour and Biara (2019); Ismail (2015) |
This study collected two types of data: primary and secondary. Primary data is the result of field observations and questionnaires. Field observations were conducted to observe the community's social activities and study objects in the study area to determine the time base for distributing questionnaires. A camera was used for field documentation. Secondary data used in this study was in the form of previous research studies, literature, or other data that can support this study.
The first stage of the study was pre-observation of the field to determine the time of data collection. The field phenomena were observed in the morning, afternoon, and evening to note the differences in activities at different times. The collection days were on weekdays and weekends. Data was not collected when it rained because the intensity of community activities decreases when it rains. The pre-observation result determines the time for distributing the questionnaires based on the intensity of the crowd of visitors, which was at 16.00–21.00 WIB every day.
The second stage was determining the typology of buildings based on their shop frontage (see Figure 3). This building typology process aimed to find the type of frontage applied by each study object. The results of mean score analysis and multiple linear regression can reveal the shop frontage typology most favored by visitors and the significance level of the suitability of building frontage design. The building typology was categorized based on the type and design elements of the building frontage. There are seven categories of building frontage, according to Bobić (2004), which were then re-categorized based on building interface, architectural elements of building frontage, landscape elements of building frontage, and building function. The building typology analysis revealed the details of the design elements applied to the building, which results in the conclusion of the similarity of the most commonly used design elements across the study objects.
The third stage was the collection of visitor perception data using a questionnaire to assess the design elements of the building frontage. The questionnaire used research variables as the questionnaire's items (see Table 3). The questionnaires were distributed directly to the visitors as laypeople of each research objects., therefore the respondent’s population of this research is the building’s visitors. The respondents were laypeople over 18 years old and were visiting the research object. They consist of local people of Malang City and tourists from outside Malang City.
|
Shop Frontage Design Elements: According to your preferences, are the visual elements of the shop frontage suitable for this historical building as a café? |
|||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variables | Score | ||||||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | |
| Architectural style (X2.1) | |||||||
| Entrance door (X2.2) | |||||||
| Window (X2.3) | |||||||
| Building ornaments (X2.4) | |||||||
| Building signage (X2.5) | |||||||
| Lighting (X2.6) | |||||||
| Canopy/overhang (X2.7) | |||||||
| Building façade (X2.8) | |||||||
| Vegetation (X3.1) | |||||||
| Street furniture (X3.2) | |||||||
| Outdoor seating area (X3.3) | |||||||
| Building function (X4) | |||||||
| Suitability of shop frontage design for a historical building (Y) | |||||||
Note: 1: Very not suitable; 2: Not suitable; 3: Not quite suitable; 4: Normal; 5: Quite suitable; 6: Suitable; 7: Very suitable
Each shop was assessed by a different person. We distributed the questionnaires to the laypeople as our respondents to give us a point of view from them—the building visitors—as the main building users. A study about a layperson’s preference can help provide information to the architects of how a layperson thinks about a historic building’s shop frontage design (Ghomeshi, Nikpour et al., 2012). We assisted the respondents in completing the questionnaire by standing near them in case they wanted to ask something about the building or the questions (see Figure 4). While being assisted, some of the respondents shared their thoughts about the building as they filled out the questionnaire. Some older respondents preferred to have the questionnaire read to them and answer verbally, while the questionnaire was filled out by the authors according to their answers at the same time. This study collected 218 respondents, with 52 people from Lafayette Coffee & Eatery, 57 from Kopi Lonceng, 53 from Kedai Namsun, and 56 from MoMo's Coffee & Bakery.
The next stage was inputting the data collected from the questionnaires into SPSS to be analyzed using descriptive statistical methods, factor analysis, and multiple linear regression on each building and the research sample as a whole representative of the old buildings in K.S.C. The research results will bring out the shop frontage design elements that contribute significantly to the suitability of building shop frontage design and determine buildings as a benchmark for applying shop frontage design in old buildings, especially in historic buildings.
Assessment of visitor’s preferenceInvestigating visitor preference for the design elements of shop frontage on historical buildings in K.S.C. used descriptive statistical analysis methods (frequency) combined with factor analysis and multiple linear regression. The descriptive analysis method requires distributing questionnaires to respondents to assess eight variables of physical elements of the shop frontage, three variables of building front area elements, and one variable of building function. The research questionnaire used a multiple rating scale consisting of seven scales, from a score of 1 (Very Unsuitable) to a score of 7 (Very Suitable). The visitor preference data from the questionnaires was transferred to a table that contains the scores of the respondent's assessments regarding the suitability design of shop frontage on each study object. The highest scores indicate the most suitable design elements of the shop frontage, while the lowest scores mean the most unsuitable design elements.
Before beginning the statistical analysis, the research instrument underwent a validity and reliability test to determine the questionnaire's validity and reliability. In this study, the validity test used the correlation validity test with Pearson’s correlation score. The test used a two-tailed test with a significance level of 95%. For validity criteria, f rcount > rtable, then the questionnaire is valid; if rcount < rtable, the questionnaire is not valid. The reliability test used the Cronbach’s alpha. For reliability criteria, if the Cronbach's Alpha value is > 0.60, the questionnaire is considered reliable or consistent. Conversely, if the Cronbach's Alpha value is < 0.60, then the questionnaire is considered unreliable or inconsistent.
After the validity and reliability test, the analysis began by conducting a descriptive statistical analysis to determine the mean score of each variable. This stage was to discover the suitability value of each design element of the shop frontage based on visitor preference. The formula of the mean score is as follows:
where
We produced a frequency table for the mean score categorization based on the formula (see Table 4).
| Category | Mean Score |
|---|---|
| Very unsuitable | 1.000 – 1.857 |
| Unsuitable | 1.858 – 2.714 |
| Quite unsuitable | 2.715 – 3.571 |
| Ordinary | 3.572 – 4.428 |
| Quite suitable | 4.429 – 5.285 |
| Suitable | 5.286 – 6.142 |
| Very suitable | 6.143 – 7.000 |
The next stage of the analysis of respondent preference data used multiple linear regression analysis to find out the most significant or dominant variable influencing the suitability of shop frontage design in each sample object through multiple linear regression equations as follows:
Y is the predicted value of the dependent variable (the suitability of shop frontage design), X1 through Xn are the independent variables (12 variables of the shop frontage design elements), C is the constant value of the regression or the Y-intercept when all of the independent variables are equal to zero, and b1 through bn are the estimated regression coefficients for each variable.
Multiple linear regression analysis requires verification through a series of classical assumption tests to meet the requirements of the regression model, including the multicollinearity assumption test, heteroscedasticity assumption test, normality assumption test, autocorrelation assumption test, simultaneous regression parameter test, and F test. The final results of multiple linear regression analysis indicate two categories of variables: the partially significant variable (p > 0.05) and the most significant variable (p < 0.05).
After analyzing each study object, all study objects were analyzed simultaneously to determine the design element factor of the shop frontage that influences the significance of the suitability of the shop frontage design in the K.S.C. as a whole. This stage was conducted using factor analysis and then continued with multiple linear regression analysis. Factor analysis requires adequate samples. Therefore, the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (K.M.O.) Measure of Sampling Adequacy test was needed. The minimum K.M.O. value is > 0.50. At the same time, Bartlett's measure was used to test whether the original correlation matrix is an identity matrix. Therefore, the test needed to be significant (p < 0.05).
Based on the results of the frontage typology of the study objects, there are three types of shop frontage based on the type and configuration of the building interface: architectural style, canopy/overhang, windows, entrances, street furniture, and use of building frontage space (see Table 5). The first type is Associated-Suspended, which includes Kopi Lonceng and MoMo's Coffee & Bakery. The second type is Overlapped, which is Lafayette Coffee & Eatery. The third type is Confronted, which is Kedai Namsun.
| Frontage | Buildings | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| LCE | KL | KN | MCB | |
| Building Interface (X1) | ||||
| Figure of Frontage (X1.1) | See Fig. 5 | See Fig. 6 | See Fig. 7 | See Fig. 8 |
| Types (X1.2) | Overlapped | Associated-Suspended | Confronted | Associated-Suspended |
| Configuration (X1.3) | Loggia |
Sidewalk café Allocated unit |
Frontage, Doorway |
Sidewalk café Allocated unit |
| Architectural elements (X2) | ||||
| Style (X2.1) | Nieuw Bouwen | Nieuw Bouwen | Art Deco | Nieuw Bouwen |
| Entrance door (X2.2) | Doorway | Doorway | Doorway | Combined with window |
| Window (X2.3) | Large street window | Large street window | Large street window | Large street window |
| Ornament (X2.4) | Tower | Gewel | Entrance door, wall, gewel | Tower, collumn |
| Signage (X2.5) |
3D Letters Blade |
2D and 3D Letters Suspended Lightbox |
Banner |
3D Letter Blade Light Box |
| Lighting (X2.6) |
Hanging lamp and ceiling light (Warm white) Streetlamp (Daylight) |
Lightbulb (Warm white) Streetlamp (Soft white) |
Streetlamp (Soft white) |
Wall light and accent light (Warm white) Streetlamp (Soft white) |
| Canopy/overhang (X2.7) | Canopy | Canopy | Overhang | Canopy |
| Landscape elements (X3) | ||||
| Vegetations (X3.1) |
Medium and large canopy trees Potted plants Decorative plants |
Medium canopy tree | Medium canopy tree |
Small and large canopy trees Potted plants Decorative plants |
| Street furniture (X3.2) |
Streetlamps Bollards |
Streetlamps Bollards Sidewalk bench |
Streetlamps Bollards |
Streetlamps Bollards |
| Frontage usage (X3.3) | Outdoor seating area | Outdoor seating area | None | Outdoor seating area |
| Building function (X4) | Café & Eatery | Café | Eatery | Café & Bakery |
Note: LCE: Lafayette Coffee & Eatery; KL: Kopi Lonceng; KN: Kedai Namsun; MCB: MoMo’s Coffee & Bakery
Kedai Namsun has a Confronted type, a type of building interface with a clear separation between public and private areas (see Figure 5). The configuration of this type is a Doorway, which is the entrance to the building. Another configuration is Frontage, where the building line with the road territory boundary has an obvious boundary and no separation space between them.
The type of building interface shown on the Lafayette Coffee & Eatery building is the Overlapped type, which allows two areas (public and private) to overlap, allowing the public area to be under the building (see Figure 6). The configuration used is in the form of a loggia, a building space under the part of the building that is open to the street on one side. Lafayette Coffee & Eatery utilizes part of the ground floor area as a loggia by opening a portion of the wall on two sides of the building to be used as a terrace for outdoor seating areas bordered by iron railings.
Kopi Lonceng and MoMo's Coffee & Bakery have the same building interface type, which is Associated, with a Sidewalk Café configuration and Suspended with Allocated Unit configuration (see Figure 7 and Figure 8). Associated is a type of building interface where the building elements penetrate outward to the sidewalk area, making public and private areas spatially and socially coexist. This type of interface with the Sidewalk Café configuration means that the seating area penetrates outward to the sidewalk area but remains attached to the side of the building. The Suspended building interface type occurs when the building's facilities are placed across the building while remaining dependent on the building, making the sidewalk territory between these units seem to belong to the building. The combination of these two types allows the entire sidewalk in front of the café to be both the public area of the street corridor and the private area of the adjoining building.
In terms of architectural elements, almost all buildings have similarities, except for Kedai Namsun. The study objects were dominated by the Nieuw Bouwen architectural style, except for Kedai Namsun with the Art Deco style. The Nieuw Bouwen building uses a canopy as a building shading that extends following the shape of the building, while the Art Deco building uses an overhang. Hence, the building shading tool only functions to cover the building opening. The use of ornaments in Nieuw Bouwen buildings is less than in Art Deco buildings. Kedai Namsun building, with an Art Deco style, has ornaments in almost all parts of the building facade. Lafayette Coffee & Eatery, Kopi Lonceng, and Kedai Namsun have doors separated from the windows. Only MoMo's Coffee & Bakery has a configuration where the main entrance of the building is in unity with the windows. The use of prominent ornaments around the entrance frame of Kedai Namsun's building makes the Doorway very easily visible. The Nieuw Bouwen buildings already use signage with lights, with various types of signage such as neon boxes, suspended, blades, and letters. Kedai Namsun only uses banners made of cloth without any lighting, so the signage is not visible at night, causing visitors to K.S.C. to be unaware of the function of this building.
Most of the landscape elements on each front of the study building have the same landscape element features. What distinguishes them is the size of the trees, the tree canopy, the type of street furniture, and the use of outdoor space in front of the building. In front of Lafayette Coffee & Eatery and MoMo's Coffee & Bakery is a tree with a height of>8m and wide canopies that shade the space below. Trees 4-8m tall with medium canopies that do not adequately shade the space below are in front of Kopi Lonceng and Kedai Namsun. Streetlights and bollards are located in front of all the study buildings. Still, street benches are found only in front of Kopi Lonceng, so Kopi Lonceng utilizes the bench as an extension of its business premises. Besides Kopi Lonceng, Lafayette Coffee & Eatery, and MoMo's Coffee & Bakery also have outdoor seating areas, except for Kedai Namsun.
The quality of building frontage design in KSCThe quality of the building frontage design elements was assessed based on the mean score, which reflects the visitor's perception (see Table 6).
| Aspect | Variable | Building’s shop frontage | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LCE | KL | KN | MCB | ||||||
| Architectural elements of shop frontage (X2) | Architectural style (X2.1) | 6.08 | Suitable | 5.65 | Suitable | 5.45 | Suitable | 5.54 | Suitable |
| Entrance door (X2.2) | 5.50 | Suitable | 5.54 | Suitable | 5.66 | Suitable | 5.48 | Suitable | |
| Window (X2.3) | 5.79 | Suitable | 5.46 | Suitable | 5.47 | Suitable | 5.39 | Suitable | |
| Building ornaments (X2.4) | 5.77 | Suitable | 5.60 | Suitable | 5.42 | Suitable | 5.68 | Suitable | |
| Building signage (X2.5) | 5.73 | Suitable | 5.49 | Suitable | 5.19 | Quite Suitable | 5.36 | Suitable | |
| Lighting (X2.6) | 6.23** | Very suitable | 5.67 | Suitable | 5.34 | Suitable | 5.91** | Suitable | |
| Canopy/overhang (X2.7) | 5.56 | Suitable | 5.16 | Quite Suitable | 4.98 | Quite Suitable | 5.04* | Quite Suitable | |
| Building façade (X2.8) | 5.94 | Suitable | 5.67 | Suitable | 5.72 | Suitable | 5.70 | Suitable | |
| Landscape elements of shop frontage (X3) | Vegetation (X3.1) | 5.27* | Quite suitable | 4.49* | Quite Suitable | 4.25* | Quite Suitable | 5.29 | Suitable |
| Street furniture (X3.2) | 5.60 | Suitable | 5.26 | Quite Suitable | 5.34 | Suitable | 5.36 | Suitable | |
| Outdoor seating area (X3.3) | 5.67 | Suitable | 5.30 | Suitable | 4.83 | Quite Suitable | 5.48 | Suitable | |
| Building function (X4) | Building function (X4) | 5.85 | Suitable | 5.68** | Suitable | 5.96** | Suitable | 5.73 | Suitable |
| Average | 5.75 | Suitable | 5.41 | Suitable | 5.30 | Suitable | 5.50 | Suitable | |
Note: LCE: Lafayette Coffee & Eatery; KL: Kopi Lonceng; KN: Kedai Namsun; MCB: MoMo’s Coffee & Bakery
Lafayette Coffee & Eatery has a reliable Cronbach's alpha value (α = .898), and all questionnaire items are valid (Pearson’s correlation is significant, p < 0.05 (2-tailed)). The Lafayette Coffee & Eatery building is very distinctive with its lighting. At night, the building looks brightly lit at the corner of Rajabally intersection, making the building look iconic and stand out from other buildings. The application of good lighting on the building signage, exterior, and interior lighting that can be seen from the outside allows the lighting score to be higher than the others. Vegetation has a low value compared to other shop frontage elements due to the uneven use of vegetation in the building.
Kopi Lonceng has a reliable Cronbach's alpha value (α = .836), and all questionnaire items are valid (Pearson’s correlation is significant, p < 0.05 (2-tailed)). The visitor perceives that the building function is appropriate for the building. Vegetation has the lowest value compared to other building frontage elements because there is only one type of vegetation in the form of a medium-sized tree in front of the building, and it does not adequately shade the space underneath. Due to the small width of the tree canopy and the direction of sunlight, the tree did not protect the outdoor seating area from sunlight.
Kedai Namsun has a reliable Cronbach's alpha value (α = .864), and all questionnaire items are valid (Pearson’s correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)). Based on visitor perception, the building function is suitable as an eatery place. However, vegetation has the lowest score. Like Kopi Lonceng, the existing vegetation is only a medium-sized tree with a medium canopy width. Although it can slightly shade the space underneath, it covers the frontage of the building enough to obscure the presence of the building when viewed from far away. Vegetation type, height, canopy width, and density can affect the visibility of the historic building (Santosa, Herry, Yudono et al., 2023).
MoMo's Coffee & Bakery has a reliable Cronbach's alpha value (α = .856), and all questionnaire items are valid (Pearson’s correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)). The position of this building is more or less the same as that of Lafayette Coffee & Eatery, which is in the corner, and it has a tower. The building color, with a combination of white and bone white, makes this building look bright and a typical color of Dutch East Indies buildings, so the exterior color of the building has the highest value on the building facade elements. The problem with the canopy is that it cannot shade the entire outdoor seating area because it only shades the building itself, so it has the lowest value on the building facade elements.
Suitability of building shop frontage design as a heritage building in KSCThe suitability of shop frontage design concepts in historic buildings was assessed based on each building and the building as a whole as a historic building in a historic street corridor. Multiple regression analysis was conducted to see if the design elements of the shop frontage predicted the suitability of the shop frontage design for every individual sample and the overall samples as the heritage building in K.S.C., using the Enter method (see Table 7).
Tests to see if the data met the assumption of collinearity indicated that multicollinearity was not a concern (Architectural style, Tolerance = .511, V.I.F. = 1.956; Entrance door, Tolerance = .286, V.I.F. = 3.449; Window, Tolerance = .322, V.I.F. = 3.101; Building ornaments, Tolerance = .363, V.I.F. = 2.753; Building signage, Tolerance = .418, V.I.F. = 2.391; Lighting, Tolerance = .650, V.I.F. = 1.539; Canopy/overhang, Tolerance = .405, V.I.F. = 2.472; Building façade, Tolerance = .368, V.I.F. = 2.718; Vegetation, Tolerance = .366, V.I.F. = 2.731; Street furniture, Tolerance = .439, V.I.F. = 2.278; Outdoor seating area, Tolerance = .565, V.I.F. = 1.770; Building function, Tolerance = .662, V.I.F. = 1.512). The data met the assumption of independent errors (Durbin-Watson value = 2.080). The histogram of standardized residual values indicated that the data contained approximately normally distributed errors, as the normal P-P plot of standardized residuals showed points that were not entirely on the line but close. The scatterplot of standardized residual values showed that the data met the assumptions of homogeneity of variance and linearity.
| Variable | LCE | KL | KN | MCB | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| b | t | Sig. | b | t | Sig. | b | t | Sig. | b | t | Sig. | |
| (Constant) | 1.237 | .829 | .412 | 1.399 | 1.653 | .105 | 4.088 | 4.063 | .000 | 1.161 | .931 | .357 |
| Architectural style (X2.1) | -.037 | -.251 | .803 | .129 | 1.244 | .220 | -.373 | -1.636 | .110 | -.053 | -.403 | .689 |
| Entrance door (X2.2) | .111 | .555 | .582 | .122 | .759 | .452 | .328 | 1.627 | .112 | .163 | .988 | .329 |
| Window (X2.3) | -.538* | -2.868* | .007*** | -.106 | -.574 | .569 | .073 | .386 | .702 | -.039 | -.240 | .811 |
| Building ornaments (X2.4) | -.138 | -.781 | .439 | .017 | .142 | .888 | -.302 | -1.263 | .214 | -.255 | -1.650 | .106 |
| Building signage (X2.5) | -.286 | -1.739 | .090 | -.208 | -1.653 | .106 | .041 | .236 | .815 | .281** | 2.350** | .023*** |
| Lighting (X2.6) | .170 | 1.285 | .206 | -.121 | -.949 | .348 | .258 | 1.297 | .202 | -.006 | -.045 | .964 |
| Canopy/overhang (X2.7) | .020 | .119 | .906 | .122 | 1.040 | .304 | -.181 | -.973 | .336 | .553** | 2.904** | .006*** |
| Building façade (X2.8) | .287 | 1.637 | .110 | .254 | 1.842 | .072 | .284 | 1.119 | .270 | .484** | 3.317** | .002*** |
| Vegetation (X3.1) | .293 | 1.664 | .104 | -.016 | -.117 | .907 | .139 | .791 | .434 | -.024 | -.159 | .874 |
| Street furniture (X3.2) | .015 | .092 | .927 | .088 | .651 | .519 | .291 | 1.366 | .179 | -.282 | -1.946 | .058 |
| Outdoor seating area (X3.3) | .350** | 2.469** | .018*** | -.056 | -.417 | .679 | -.240 | -1.219 | .230 | -.221 | -1.311 | .197 |
| Building function (X4) | .489** | 3.739** | .001*** | .707** | 6.994** | .000*** | .075 | .374 | .710 | .165 | 1.267 | .212 |
Note: *) Negative relation, p < 0.05; **) Positive relation, p < 0.05; ***) Significant, p < 0.05; LCE: Lafayette Coffee & Eatery; KL: Kopi Lonceng; KN: Kedai Namsun; MCB: MoMo’s Coffee & Bakery
The study found that the design elements of the shop frontage explain a significant amount of the variance in the value of the suitability of the shop frontage design (F(12, 39) = 4.103, p < .01, R2 = .558). The design elements can significantly explain 55.8% of the suitability of shop frontage design. The analysis shows that the window (X2.3) (b = -.746, t = -2.868, p < 0.05), outdoor seating area (X3.3) (b = .377, t = 2.469, p < 0.05), and building function (X4) (b = .598, t = 3.739, p < 0.05) are the design elements that significantly predict the value of the suitability of the shop frontage design. The other elements do not significantly predict the value of the suitability of the shop frontage design.
Tests to see if the data met the assumption of collinearity indicated that multicollinearity was not a concern (Architectural style, Tolerance = .779, V.I.F. = 1.284; Entrance door, Tolerance = .324, V.I.F. = 3.085; Window, Tolerance = .244, V.I.F. = 4.099; Building ornaments, Tolerance = .586, V.I.F. = 1.705; Building signage, Tolerance = .526, V.I.F. = 1.900; Lighting, Tolerance = .511, V.I.F. = 1.957; Canopy/overhang, Tolerance = .606, V.I.F. = 1.650; Building façade, Tolerance = .437, V.I.F. = 2.288; Vegetation, Tolerance = .430, V.I.F. = 2.326; Street furniture, Tolerance = .460, V.I.F. = 2.175; Outdoor seating area, Tolerance = .468, V.I.F. = 2.136; Building function, Tolerance = .814, V.I.F. = 1.228). The data met the assumption of independent errors (Durbin-Watson value = 2.477). The histogram of standardized residual values indicated that the data contained approximately normally distributed errors, as the normal P-P plot of standardized residuals showed points that were not entirely on the line but close. The scatterplot of standardized residual values showed that the data met the assumptions of homogeneity of variance and linearity.
The study found that the design elements of the shop frontage explain a significant amount of the variance in the value of the suitability of the shop frontage design (F(12, 44) = 6.34, p < .01, R2 = .634). The design elements can significantly explain 63.4% of the suitability of shop frontage design. The analysis shows that the building function (X4) (b = .574, t = 6.994, p < 0.01) is the element that significantly predicts the value of the suitability of the shop frontage design. The other elements do not significantly predict the value of the suitability of the shop frontage design.
Tests to see if the data met the assumption of collinearity indicated that multicollinearity was not a concern (Architectural style, Tolerance = .353, V.I.F. = 2.835; Entrance door, Tolerance = .451, V.I.F. = 2.219; Window, Tolerance = .519, V.I.F. = 1.927; Building ornaments, Tolerance = .322, V.I.F. = 3.109; Building signage, Tolerance = .608, V.I.F. = 1.645; Lighting, Tolerance = .463, V.I.F. = 2.162; Canopy/overhang, Tolerance = .532, V.I.F. = 1.881; Building façade, Tolerance = .284, V.I.F. = 3.519; Vegetation, Tolerance = .594, V.I.F. = 1.684; Street furniture, Tolerance = .406, V.I.F. = 2.446; Outdoor seating area, Tolerance = .474, V.I.F. = 2.111; Building function, Tolerance = .456, V.I.F. = 2.194). The data met the assumption of independent errors (Durbin-Watson value = 1.819). The histogram of standardized residual values indicated that the data contained approximately normally distributed errors, as the normal P-P plot of standardized residuals showed points that were not entirely on the line but close. The scatterplot of standardized residual values showed that the data met the assumptions of homogeneity of variance and linearity.
The study found that the design elements of the shop frontage explain a significant amount of the variance in the value of the suitability of the shop frontage design (F(12, 40) = 1.212, p = n.s., R2 = .267). The design elements can explain 26.7% of the suitability of shop frontage design but not significantly. The analysis shows that no design elements significantly predict the value of the suitability of the shop frontage design.
Tests to see if the data met the assumption of collinearity indicated that multicollinearity was not a concern (Architectural style, Tolerance = .580, V.I.F. = 1.724; Entrance door, Tolerance = .366, V.I.F. = 2.734; Window, Tolerance = .382, V.I.F. = 2.621; Building ornaments, Tolerance = .217, V.I.F. = 2.397; Building signage, Tolerance = .699, V.I.F. = 1.430; Lighting, Tolerance = .557, V.I.F. = 1.796; Canopy/overhang, Tolerance = .275, V.I.F. = 3.632; Building façade, Tolerance = .469, V.I.F. = 2.131; Vegetation, Tolerance = .444, V.I.F. = 2.252; Street furniture, Tolerance = .475, V.I.F. = 2.107; Outdoor seating area, Tolerance = .353, V.I.F. = 2.836; Building function, Tolerance = .592, V.I.F. = 1.688). The data met the assumption of independent errors (Durbin-Watson value = 1.865). The histogram of standardized residual values indicated that the data contained approximately normally distributed errors, as the normal P-P plot of standardized residuals showed points that were not entirely on the line but close. The scatterplot of standardized residual values showed that the data met the assumptions of homogeneity of variance and linearity.
The study found that the design elements of the shop frontage explain a significant amount of the variance in the value of the suitability of the new shop frontage design (F(12, 43) = 4.754, p < .01, R2 = .570). The design elements can explain 57% of the suitability of shop frontage. The analysis shows that the building signage (X2.5) (b = .302, t = 2.350, p < 0.05), canopy/overhang (X2.7) (b = .598, t = 2.904, p < 0.05), and building façade (X2.8) (b = .732, t = 3.317, p < 0.05) is the design elements that significantly predict the value of the suitability of the shop frontage design. The other design elements do not significantly predict the value of the suitability of the shop frontage design.
Factor analysis was conducted on the 12 items with orthogonal rotation (varimax). The Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin measure verified the sampling adequacy for the analysis, K.M.O. = 0.876. Bartlett's test of sphericity was significant (p < 0.05). Therefore, we can proceed with factor analysis. An initial analysis was run to obtain the eigenvalues for each factor in the data. Three factors had eigenvalues over the Kaiser's criterion of 1 and, in combination, explained 59.906% of the variance. All factors have high-reliability values, and all Cronbach's α > 0.60. Building Style and Function, compared with other factors, have the lowest reliability rate with Cronbach's α = .644 (see Table 8).
After factor analysis, a multiple regression was conducted to see if the factors of design elements of the shop frontage predicted the suitability of the shop frontage design. Tests to see if the data met the assumption of collinearity indicated that multicollinearity was not a concern (Front space of the building, Tolerance = 1.000, V.I.F. = 1.000; Originality value, Tolerance = 1.000, V.I.F. = 1.000; Building opening, Tolerance = 1.000, V.I.F. = 1.000). The data met the assumption of independent errors (Durbin-Watson value = 2.093). The histogram of standardized residual values indicated that the data contained approximately normally distributed errors, as the normal P-P plot of standardized residuals showed points that were not entirely on the line but close. The scatterplot of standardized residual values showed that the data met the assumptions of homogeneity of variance and linearity.
| Variable | Rotated Factor Loadings | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Building Elements and Street Amenities | Building Style and Function | Building Opening | |
| Vegetation (X3.1) | .801 | ||
| Outdoor seating area (X3.3) | .697 | ||
| Canopy/overhang (X2.7) | .689 | ||
| Street furniture (X3.2) | .682 | ||
| Lighting (X2.6) | .578 | ||
| Building ornaments (X2.4) | .544 | ||
| Building signage (X2.5) | .468 | ||
| Building function (X4.1) | .795 | ||
| Building façade (X2.8) | .660 | ||
| Architectural style (X2.1) | .592 | ||
| Entrance door (X2.2) | .873 | ||
| Window (X2.3) | .841 | ||
| Eigenvalues | 4.987 | 1.149 | 1.053 |
| % of variance | 41.555 | 9.573 | 8.778 |
| α | .832 | .644 | .795 |
Using the enter method, it was found that the factors of design elements of the shop frontage explained a significant amount of the variance in the value of the suitability of the new shop frontage design (F(3, 214) = 23.427, p < .01, R2 = .247). The factors of the design elements can explain 57% of the suitability of shop frontage. The analysis shows that Building Style and Function are the factors of the design elements that significantly predict the value of the suitability of the shop frontage design (b = .525, t = 8.254, p < 0.05). The Building Elements, Street Amenities and Building Openings do not partially significantly predict the value of the suitability of the new shop frontage design. (see Table 9).
| Model | Variable | Unstandardized Coefficients | Standardized Coefficients | t | Sig. | |
| B | Std. Error | Beta | ||||
| 1 | (Constant) | 5.954 | .063 | 93.831 | .000 | |
| Building Elements and Street Amenities (F1) | .086 | .064 | .080 | 1.348 | .179 | |
| Building Style and Function (F2) | .525 | .064 | .490 | 8.254 | .000 | |
| Building opening (F3) | -.037 | .064 | -.035 | -.582 | .561 | |
Note: Dependent Variable: Suitability of Building Frontage Design
This study focuses on the assessment of storefronts of historic buildings that have experienced functional and visual changes. Not only did this study make assessments of the building facade, but this study also identified the physical elements of the building facade design and the spatial space in front of it as the space of the building shop front. A previous study in Kayutangan assessed the aesthetic aspects of all building facades in K.S.C. when the area had not been renovated to prepare them as the capital of the historic area of Malang City based on the assessment of five experts back in 2017, while the revitalization as the heritage capital of Malang City started in 2020 (Kurniawan, Putri et al., 2017). There are also some previous studies in K.S.C. that examined some of the historic buildings in the area, but these studies were also conducted prior to the renovation of K.S.C., which caused visual and activity changes in the study area (Azis, Santosa et al., 2019a, 2019b; Ramli, Antariksa et al., 2020; Santosa, Herry, Ikaruga et al., 2013).
The renovation to revitalize K.S.C. encouraged the adaptation of Dutch colonial buildings to be used as new business places in K.S.C. The result succeeded in the emergence of social, economic, and cultural activities in the public space along K.S.C. (Antariksa, Santosa et al., 2024) that correlated with the visual changes of the shop fronts of active buildings along K.S.C. The activity generation that occurred, which was influenced by the emergence of new businesses that utilize shop front spaces on active buildings allowed for a variety of new community activities that come alive at night public spaces in K.S.C. New community activities not only take place until the afternoon, but also emerging on the shop front until the evening. Meanwhile, this research examines a historic building’s shop frontage whose functions and visuals have undergone changes over 2019. These four historic buildings that have undergone design changes may one day become the catalyst for changes in inactive buildings along the K.S.C. to be reactivated.
Based on the average of each aspect per study object, it is found that the highest value of architectural and landscape elements of the shop frontage design belonged to Lafayette Coffee & Eatery. In contrast, Kedai Namsun held the highest application of new building functions but the lowest in the shop frontage design elements. The results shown in Table 10 conclude that Lafayette Coffee & Eatery can be used as the primary reference in applying the architectural and landscape elements of the shop frontage. Meanwhile, the use of the building can be modelled after Kedai Namsun.
| Buildings | Architectural elements of shop frontage (X2) | Landscape elements of shop frontage (X3) | Building function (X4) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lafayette Coffee & Eatery | 5.83** | Suitable | 5.51** | Suitable | 5.85 | Suitable |
| Kopi Lonceng | 5.53 | Suitable | 5.02 | Quite suitable | 5.68* | Suitable |
| Kedai Namsun | 5.40* | Suitable | 4.81* | Quite suitable | 5.96** | Suitable |
| MoMo’s Coffee & Bakery | 5.51 | Suitable | 5.18 | Quite suitable | 5.73 | Suitable |
Note: *) Lowest value; **) Highest value
Table 11 shows the variables with the highest score (**) and the lowest score (*) on each aspect of each study object. The physical element variable of building frontage with the highest value based on the assessment of the four study objects belongs to Lighting. In contrast, the lowest value belongs to Canopy/Overhang. The Outdoor Seating Area is the shop frontage design element with the highest value, while vegetation holds the lowest value.
| Study objects | Architectural elements (X2) | Landscape elements (X3) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variables | Mean score | Variables | Mean score | |||
| Lafayette Coffee & Eatery | Lighting (X2.6)** | 6.23 | Very suitable | Outdoor seating area (X3.3)** | 5.67 | Suitable |
| Entrance door (X2.2)* | 5.27 | Quite suitable | Vegetation (X3.1)* | 5.27 | Quite suitable | |
| Kopi Lonceng | Lighting (X2.6)** | 5.67 | Suitable | Outdoor seating area (X3.3)** | 5.30 | Suitable |
| Building façade (X2.8)** | 5.67 | Suitable | ||||
| Canopy/overhang (X2.7)* | 5.16 | Quite suitable | Vegetation (X3.1)* | 4.49 | Quite suitable | |
| Kedai Namsun | Building façade** | 5.72 | Suitable | Street furniture (X3.2)** | 5.34 | Suitable |
| Canopy/overhang (X2.7)* | 4.98 | Quite suitable | Vegetation (X3.1)* | 4.25 | Quite suitable | |
| MoMo’s Coffee & Bakery | Lighting (X2.6)** | 5.91 | Suitable | Outdoor seating area (X3.3)** | 5.48 | Suitable |
| Canopy/overhang (X2.7)* | 5.04 | Quite suitable | Vegetation (X3.1)* | 5.29 | Suitable | |
Note: *) Lowest value; **) Highest value
The results of multiple linear regression analysis revealed that six design elements of the shop frontage affect the suitability of shop frontage design in each building, which are Windows (X2.3), Building Signage (X2.5), Canopy/Overhang (X2.7), Building Façade (X2.8), Outdoor Seating Area (X3.3), and Building’s Function (X4). However, not all design elements positively influence the suitability of the shop frontage design. The shop frontage design elements in the three study objects significantly affect building frontage design. We found that 25% of building frontage design elements influence Lafayette Coffee & Eatery (Overlapped typology) and MoMo's Coffee & Bakery (Associated-Suspended typology), 8.3% on Kopi Lonceng (Associated-Suspended typology), but none influence Kedai Namsun (Confronted typology). This is because Kedai Namsun's frontage is considered passive frontage. The frontage of Kedai Namsun, which does not have an outdoor seating area like the other three buildings, is less able to attract the public’s attention to visit this building. Passive frontage limits public interaction with the building, so Kedai Namsun’s frontage design is considered unsuitable as a shop frontage.
The windows (X2.3) at Lafayette Coffee & Eatery have a significant influence but also show a negative relationship with the frontage design. Although the window size is already broad, the parked cars sometimes block the view to the outside. Expansive windows and good organization of interior elements can invite passersby to visit inside (Merton, 2017; Zharfan, Hartawan et al., 2019). In addition, the similar window and entrance door design can also affect the value of the window because it will confuse first-time visitors when looking for the building entrance.
Building signage (X2.5) is one of the most crucial shop front elements as it shows the identity of the building. This element influences the frontage design of MoMo's Coffee & Bakery. The types of signage used were neon boxes, lettering, and suspended signage. The signage placement was precise and not covered by any objects in front of the building. The recommended design is building signage design that is simple, bold, clearly visible, and proportional (Merton, 2017; Moosomin Heritage, 2015). In addition, signage design must also consider color choice. The choice of contrasting colors between the signage text and the background is critical to make it attractive and easy to read, but it must remain sensitive to the identity of the historic building (Merton, 2017; Moosomin Heritage, 2015). In the MoMo's Coffee & Bakery signage design, the use of color used contrasting and bold choices, pairing dark blue and orange so that the signage is easy to see from far away.
The canopy/overhang (X2.7) design should be in line with the architectural style of the building so that the canopy and building show unity and harmony in design. The canopy can also have a contrasting color but still align with the structure, making it more attractive to visitors (Merton, 2017). The canopy on MoMo's Coffee & Bakery is one of the architectural elements that influence the suitability of the shop frontage design. The canopy design is flat but noticeable because the height is similar to the building opening's height. It still preserved the original structure of the canopy. The flat canopy is similar to the Nieuw Bouwen's characteristic of utilizing horizontal lines, aligning the design with the building's architectural style.
Apart from the design, the canopy/overhang should also be able to shade the building and the space underneath from the weather (Moosomin Heritage, 2015). The canopy designed on the study objects protected the buildings from the weather due to the tropical climate. Still, it is the architectural element with the lowest mean score in the three study objects (Kopi Lonceng, Kedai Namsun, and MoMo’s Coffee & Bakery). The low mean score could be due to the time of the research conducted in the evening. The sunlight and heat emitted are less intense than during the middle of the day, so it doesn't disturb visitors' comfort when sitting outside.
The building façade is an essential element and can influence the design of the shop frontage because this element is the overall appearance of the face of the building (Suryasari, Antariksa et al., 2022). Building façades (X2.8) that still have the impression of originality after the intervention to adapt to their function have a high preference value by visitors. MoMo’s Coffee & Bakery’s façade is one of the architectural elements that significantly influenced the suitability of shop frontage design. A good shop building façade can adjust to the shop frontage design and the elements in the facade to not disturb the harmony of the existing shop frontage (Merton, 2017; Rodney and Partners, 2008). Like Lafayette Coffee & Eatery, this building’s function has changed multiple times prior to 2023. Even so, with the new function, the building still manages to maintain the façade’s originality value.
The existence of an outdoor seating area can help improve the atmosphere of the building and make the area more lively due to activities outside the building (Merton, 2017). The building with an outdoor seating area element (X3.3) that affects the design of the shop frontage is Lafayette Coffee & Eatery. The outdoor seating area on the loggia adds to the lively impression of the building and the surrounding area. Aside from that, the outdoor area can present a different atmosphere to the visitors while still in the same building. Visitors usually sit on the loggia when they want to have a more private conversation, light up a cigarette, or want to be alone. The outdoor seating area can also appeal to the public interest to visit the building.
According to Merton Council, a building’s function is one of the important components when designing a shop frontage (Merton, 2017). The shop frontage is one of the visual communication tools for humans that talk about the function of a building. Therefore, the building function (X4) can influence the design suitability of the shop frontage, which was found in Lafayette Coffee & Eatery and Kopi Lonceng. Lafayette Coffee & Eatery has undergone several changes that have caused the appearance of the building facade to change many times as well. Hence, Lafayette Coffee & Eatery needs to design a shop front that is distinctive and different from those previously applied without reducing the originality aspects that still exist. Kopi Lonceng, an optical shop that has been functioning since 1973, has experienced the addition of new functions, so it also needs to pay attention to the design of its shop frontage to reflect the building's functions, which are café and optical shop.
When assessed as a whole, the factor analysis results found three factors of shop frontage design elements that affect the suitability of shop frontage design: Building Elements and Street Amenities (F1), Building Style and Function (F2), and Building Opening (F3). The results of multiple linear regression analysis of the factors of shop frontage design element’s influence on the suitability of shop frontage design mentioned that only the Building Style and Function (F2) influenced the suitability of shop frontage design. As a historic building, building style can be the primary key to attracting public attention to visit. Historic buildings that can preserve their level of originality can hold the distinctive impression of historic buildings and enhance the image of historic areas (Askari and Dola, 2009; Bahar, Santosa et al., 2022; Mundher, Al-Sharaa et al., 2022). The building's function also needs to be considered because it is one of the memorable building elements for the public (Zabetian Targhi and Razi, 2022).
This study began with the aim of analyzing the significance of the suitability of shop frontage designs in historic buildings based on layperson preferences. The focus of this study is limited to analyzing four historic buildings in Kayutangan Street Corridor (K.S.C.) that have undergone changes since 2019. Out of the eight historic buildings, four were chosen based on the aforementioned criteria. This study contributes to the importance of historic building shop frontage design in the visual and spatial aspects of historic districts based on visitor preferences in K.S.C.
There have been many studies focusing on expert opinions, but there is a need to deepen preference research emphasizing the public as laypeople regarding changes to the K.S.C. that have been programmed by the Malang City Government in collaboration with experts, academics, and community organizations. Therefore, it is important to provide a different perspective as well as an evaluation of shop front design in historic building design. Studying visitors for layperson preference can help the government, stakeholders, and architects determine the preferred design elements, which significantly influence the design of K.S.C.'s historic building shop frontage. This study also promotes preferred building typologies and design elements that can be considered when redesigning buildings based on functionality.
The frontage typology of historic buildings that function as food and beverage businesses shows three types of frontages based on the type and configuration of the building interface, architectural style, canopy/overhang, windows, entrance, street furniture, and use of the building's front space. The typologies found in K.S.C. are Overlapped, Associated-Suspended, and Confronted. Apart from the seven typologies proposed by Bobić (2004), this study found a new building frontage typology, a combination type of Associated and Suspended. Combining these two typologies allows the building to utilize the entire sidewalk in front of it as its activity area without eliminating the public space element on the sidewalk.
The architectural element of the shop frontage with the highest value based on the mean score assessment of the four study objects was Lighting (X2.6). In contrast, the element with the lowest value was mostly the Canopy/Overhang (X2.7). The Outdoor Seating Area (X3.3) dominates the landscape element of the shop frontage with the highest value, while Vegetation (X3.1) accounts for the lowest landscape element value. Visitor preferences state that the Building Function (X4) is suitable for the Kayutangan area. The mean score revealed that visitors prefer lighting (X2.6) and outdoor seating areas (X3.3) from a shop frontage design. Visitors like the bright appearance of the building at night. Well-applied lighting can make a building stand out at night and easily noticeable to the public. It can also enhance the visual appearance of the building. Visitors prefer the outdoor seating area because they can spend their time outside while enjoying themselves. Meanwhile, canopy/overhang (X2.7) and vegetation (X3.1) were less preferred than other design elements. It may be because, from late afternoon to evening, the sunlight and sunrays are less intense than in midday. Therefore, these two design elements have little impact on visitors.
The results of multiple linear regression analysis on each study object revealed that the suitability of the Overlapped typology’s shop frontage design elements was significantly and dominantly influenced by window (X2.3), outdoor seating area (X3.3), and building function (X4). On the other hand, the Associated-Suspended typology’s shop frontage design element suitability was dominantly influenced by building signage (X2.5), canopy/overhang (X2.5), and building façade (X2.5). However, the shop frontage design elements in the Confronted typology had no significant influence. These results revealed that transformed historic buildings were recommended to implement Confronted or Associated-Suspended typologies to their design, with the Lafayette Coffee & Eatery and MoMo's Coffee & Bakery buildings as precedent studies.
Factor analysis was conducted on the 12 independent variables, resulting in three new factors. The results of the factor analysis revealed three factors that influence the suitability of shop frontage design on historic buildings: Building Elements and Street Amenities (F1), Building Style and Function (F2), and Building Opening (F3). However, the results of multiple linear regression analysis on the three factors suggest that only the Building Style and Function (F2) significantly influenced the suitability of shop frontage design on historic buildings in K.S.C.
Building Style and Function is a latent variable consist of three independent variables, building function, architectural style, and building façade. Shop frontage is able to show the building’s identity based on its design. Located in the historic area of the city, the new shop front design on the historic building successfully maintains the original architectural style, preventing the building facade from reducing the historic impression of the building and the area. The preservation of the original architectural style and the design of the storefront, which successfully shows the identity of the building, makes the facade of the building an influential factor in the design of storefronts in K.S.C. As a historic building, preserving the original architectural style without diminishing its characteristics is recommended. Therefore, the design of the building façade must preserve the originality of its architectural style while adding new elements to show the building’s unique identity. It is also essential to align the façade design with the building’s function to make the public aware of its new use.
In summary, it is vital to identify the typology well based on the variance of the design elements that visitors prefer. Understanding the design preferences of visitors as laypeople is important so that the design of the building can meet the desires of both the architect as the designer and the visitors as building users. This research is based on a government program in the form of K.S.C. revitalization in collaboration with experts, academics, and community organizations. This research aims to explore public preferences and evaluate the K.S.C. revitalization project as a heritage capital and new public space in Malang City. Controlling shop frontage diversity in buildings at K.S.C. needs to be carried out continuously to maintain the historical significance of the visual and spatial layout of the Kayutangan historic area.
The results of this study require better improvements related to design concepts in historical buildings that have been transformed. The important results of this research are expected to be an input for the government to remain able to control and anticipate changes in storefront design triggered by the development of the phenomenon of the massive growth of the adaptive reuse movement in other Dutch East Indies buildings along the K.S.C. The area has slowly managed to attract and revive social activities and economic growth of the community along this area. For future studies, the transformed building can be assessed based on its new concept design significance according to the façade visual quality and the indoor spatial quality to gain more in-depth knowledge about the suitability of the new concept design applied to a historical building. Aside from the design elements of the building, it is also necessary to observe the physical changes to visitor's activities on historic street corridors.
Conceptualization, H.S., A. and A.P.Y.; methodology, H.S., and A.P.Y.; software, H.S., J.E., and A.P.Y.; investigation, H.S., and A.P.Y.; resources, A.P.Y..; data curation, H.S.; writing—original draft preparation, H.S., and A.P.Y.; writing—review and editing, H.S., A., J.E., and A.P.Y.; supervision, H.S., and A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
The authors declare they have no conflicts of interest regarding the paper's publication. All co-authors have seen and agree with the manuscript's contents, and we certify that the submission is original work and is not under review at any other publication.
The authors gratefully acknowledge that the present research is supported by the Ministry of Research and Technology and the Higher Education Republic of Indonesia. We are also grateful to the LPPM Universitas Brawijaya for financial support for our research. Finally, we express our sincere gratitude to all the individuals and organizations who have contributed to the publication of this research paper.
