By Neil Fraser
August 29, 2005
A FEW years ago the City, through its department of arts, culture and heritage services, instigated a survey of Johannesburg's heritage buildings.
The first and second phases of the survey have been completed and cover about 200 buildings over 52 city blocks between, west to east, Diagonal to Eloff streets and, north to south, Bree to Fox streets. A third phase is under way covering a further 112 buildings extending south of the above area to Anderson Street and east to Von Brandis Street.
The findings of the first two phases of the survey were, surprising to me but reassuringly, that most of the buildings were in a "reasonable" state of repair, with many needing only minor repairs and cosmetic work. A small number were in a serious state of deterioration, and some even classified as being in a derelict or deplorable state.
Problems of a serious nature have been referred to the Region 8 Inner City Regeneration Office and action has already been taken against offending property owners.
In a city that has a wealth of great heritage buildings, I don't think that "reasonable" is an acceptable classification. We should be able to report that the majority of our heritage buildings are "stunning, doll!". At present, how many buildings could be called stunning?. I can think of half-a-dozen at best.
Maintenance
As someone given the responsibility of managing and maintaining a heritage building (90 Market Street) I can tell you that it is an expensive exercise. Old buildings need a great deal more than love - there is a continuous demand for repairs and maintenance. Just as we need more and more attention to our bodies as we age, so do buildings.
At least medical aid provides some financial relief for human beings (or it used to!) but there is no heritage aid. The City should want its heritage buildings to be stunning, so why is there no assistance granted to property owners?
Our planners seem to be so busy meeting political demands for integrated development plans, spatial development frameworks and a host of other gobbledygook bureaucratic nonsense, that no-one pays any attention to the fact that our basic town planning scheme is hopelessly outdated and completely laissez-faire, let alone worrying about what is actually needed on the ground.
The Johannesburg Heritage Trust is looking at the feasibility of establishing a revolving heritage fund for acquiring and restoring appropriate buildings. Something I came across in looking at such funds elsewhere could be a solution to some of our heritage maintenance problems.
It appears to be a solution that will not cost the City council a cent but could result in owners of heritage buildings having sufficient cash to bring their buildings up to "stunning" standards.
Heritage funding
From Vancouver, the model works as follows. Any interested heritage property owner approaches the City to negotiate a deal for transferable development rights. The owner prepares a financial analysis that shows what the land value would be if the site were to be redeveloped as against what the land value would be assuming retention of the historic building.
The difference is the amount of incentive that is allowed in the form of "bonus development rights". The City converts the financial results into spatial terms, in our case bulk, and negotiates a number acceptable to both it and the owner as being reasonable under current market conditions.
The City then enters into a Heritage Revitalisation Agreement with the property owner. This outlines the duties, obligations and benefits for both parties. The agreement reflects the bonus development rights figure arrived at.
Where this cannot be used on the site in question, the property owner is allowed to sell the bonus development rights. In return, the building owner is required to rehabilitate and upgrade the building and to provide continued maintenance.
Bulk can thus be sold to one receiver site, or many, but transferable bulk can only be held by the original source or sold directly to a receiver site - development rights cannot be owned by a third party. Heritage density or bulk can be transferred to any property that meets the City's urban design objectives and is not limited by zoning, use, height or boundaries.
United States
The system is not unique to Vancouver. New York was probably the first American city to create a Transferable Development Rights (TDR) system.
In San Francisco this system has been in use since the 1960s to preserve historic and landmark buildings. It is evidently extremely active and bulk is transferred on a regular basis. Unlike Vancouver, third parties are allowed to purchase TDRs. This means that a whole market is created with developers, investors (speculating on appreciation over time) and brokers all operating in it.
In Seattle the City evidently operates a "Density Bank" that buys the TDRs if no other buyers exist, and trades in them. It has Landmark TDRs for historic sites, Open Space TDRs for sites that are preserved as parks or open spaces, and Housing TDRs for sites that preserve "non-market housing", or social housing.
We don't have to re-invent the wheel but we do need to think outside the box if we are going to have a positive effect on heritage preservation.
Regards, Neil
Permission to use web site material
Publishers may use material from this site free of charge, as long as:
- Credit is given to either the "City of Johannesburg website
(www.joburg.org.za)" or to "Johannesburg News Agency
(www.joburg.org.za)";
- If the article is used online, a link is provided to the original
article on this website;
- The name of the article's author is acknowledged;
-
The webmaster is informed of how and where the material is used (fill
in this brief online form).
Johannesburg News Agency is operated by BIG Media at 011-484-1400 |
