Neil Fraser
10 May 2002
A property journalist once asked me: "What constitutes a slumlord?" The question was prompted by the legal action taken by the City of Joburg against two residential projects in the inner city.
In the first case, a Cape Town developer purchased an office block on 16 Frederick Street to convert into residential accommodation. He had, however, evidently told the seller that the building was going to be used for 'educational' purposes.
Plans were submitted and apparently generally complied with the City's various by-laws and zoning regulations. The conversion was not of offices into apartments or flats but into what has become known as 'shared accommodation', ie the 30 rooms per floor each house up to three persons.
Ablution facilities, which include showers, are communal and located at one end of each floor and within the norms of model regulation ratios relative to the number of occupants. The rental of a 'bed' averages R650 per month and the developer said he could not satisfy the demand. The 160-room project provides an initial yield of 87% a year based on the R600 000 purchase price and the R1.3 million spent on refurbishment.
The problem is that the building is cheek by jowl with some major corporate head offices who are not that excited at what they consider to be a potential slum developing on their doorstep. The developer argued that he provides excellent management and will not allow the building to turn into a slum. He added that all the tenants were carefully vetted and must have been employed for more than two years.
The developer further argued that he was providing a much needed asset to the city by catering for an economic level that cannot find decent accommodation in the city at affordable rentals. The corporations objected to papers stuck to window panes and sneakers hanging on window sills and said they would not have chosen to develop their head offices in "low cost residential areas".
My friend Rich Bradley always stresses that capital goes where it is welcome and where there is certainty. When Montreal was dithering about secession, capital upped and reinvested in Toronto. Certainty is hard to come by when our zoning laws are so poorly framed that this particular area allows for a mix of commercial, industrial or residential development. The developer's appeal was successful.
Scenario two was Burlington House in Gandhi Square. An investor bought the office building which, unlike most other buildings on the Square, had stayed empty after the revamp. Immediately after the building was sold, dozens of people were seen moving in. As with the Frederick Street incident, the adjacent property owners alerted the Council.
It took a few months for the Council to get their act together, but this time they were successful - the zoning didn't allow for residential use.
The results of a Council investigation state that 'there are already in existence adequate regulations and by-laws to ensure that the conversion of buildings into shared accommodation is executed in an appropriate and habitable manner'.
However, the reality is that the existing regulations and by-laws are not sufficient to deter people from violating them and there are no mechanisms in place to enforce compliance. Fortunately the report acknowledges this aspect.
However, as one developer points out, plans for new residential accommodation are being scrutinised meticulously and even the smallest deviation has to be addressed or plans are rejected. Yet people are allowed to live in the city in conditions that threaten their lives.
A recent survey of residential buildings in a part of the city found that whilst the buildings were in 'reasonable' condition and overcrowding wasn't too extensive, all the external fire escapes were so badly rusted as to be unsafe and that there were no fire extinguishers in any of the buildings.
Scenario three relates to the unhealthy and dangerous conditions that hundreds of inner city residents are currently living under. There is an alarming amount of illegal occupation of buildings in various parts of the city. In many instances this takes place in abandoned buildings, while in quite a few instances the buildings are owned by some government department.
The late, lamented Drill Hall was one such building. As with the Drill Hall, there have been nine fires in such buildings over as many months. Worse still, a number of lives have been lost. To its credit, the City has identified a number of buildings that are in such a bad a state of repair that they have to be demolished. Some of these have already been demolished.
But now comes the rub! Some of the buildings earmarked for demolition and some that have already been demolished, are classified as being of historic or heritage value. In terms of national legislation these may not be demolished. But some are so bad that they appear to be beyond saving.
We are told that there is no money available to refurbish or maintain them. But why were they allowed to be in such a state in the first place? Why do we perpetuate this state of affairs? The accelerating deterioration of the Rissik Street Post Office leads one to the conclusion that no one actually cares. "Let it rot until it becomes a danger to the public and then we can justifiably demolish it" appears to be the attitude of the authorities.
I ask myself if this is any better an attitude than that of slumlords who, in my opinion exploit people and economic situations to their own inflated benefit.
In a paper by Donovan D.Rypkema entitled "Globalisation, Heritage Buildings and the 21st Century Economy", the author concludes as thus: "Historic preservation as an economic development strategy is consistent with all five principles of 21st Century economic development: globalisation, localisation, diversity, sustainability and responsibility."
Heritage conservation reinforces the five senses of quality communities: sense of place, sense of identity, sense of evolution, sense of ownership and sense of community. Historic preservation can meet the test of both "quality" and "authenticity" that will be crucial elements in economic development in the next century.
The cultural assets of a city - dance, theatre, music, visual arts, crafts, and others - are inherently influenced and enhanced by the physical context within which they were created and evolved over the centuries.
If cultural resources are to become and remain an economic asset for a city, then the physical context that has always influenced their creation needs to be maintained. Otherwise more than just the physical buildings are at risk; the quality, character, differentiation and sustainability of the other assets are in jeopardy as well.
Historic preservation allows a city to participate in the positive benefits of a globalised economy while resisting the adverse impacts of a globalised culture.
Historic preservation allows a city the opportunity to modernise without having to Westernise. More than that - historic preservation is the irreplaceable variable to achieve modernisation without Westernisation.
For the 21st Century only the foolish city will make the choice between historic preservation and economic development. The wise city will effectively utilise its historic built environment to meet the economic, social and cultural needs of its citizens well into the future.
Early in the 20th Century Oswald Spengler wrote; "We cannot comprehend political and economic history at all unless we realise that the city … is the determinative form to which the course and sense of higher history generally conforms. World history is city history. And the political and economic history of the 21st century will surely be written in cities as well."
I dread to think what they will write of our city!
