October 24, 2005
I WAS going to write something more on transport but that will have to wait until next week as the laissez faire decision by the South African Heritage Resources Agency (Sahra) regarding the demolition of heritage buildings, basically to create an unwanted public square, has made me so mad I could spit!
Why "unwanted" when we desperately need more open public space in our overbuilt city environment? I dealt with this issue last year in my column The Kopanong Gauteng Government Precinct when I wrote that, "Efforts to increase and improve public space and public life must be applauded - they strengthen the role of the city as a democratic forum.
"This becomes more and more critical in a society that is shrinking through privatisation of space and increasing personal isolation. Just look at the cars going to and from the workplace: seldom do they carry more than the driver.
"You can't efficiently have more than one person working at a time in front of a computer. Television isolates us individually even as we watch it with others. As communication has ballooned so has loneliness.
"We need to provide opportunities for people to use their senses and to interact directly with their surroundings. But, to quote from one of the submissions, 'destruction of inherited features (with which the existing space is blessed even given the best efforts of previous councils to destroy) such as symmetry, however incongruous they may appear to one-dimensional stream of modernism, is counter productive.
'It is indeed more sophisticated to work with existing symmetries and axes and introduce in new intervention such features as balance in an inclusive way, thus developing a rich orchestration of the old and new.'"
First prize
So, first prize, and what we rightfully expected, would have been an outright rejection by Sahra of the application to demolish important heritage buildings in order to create an enlarged public space that completely distorts the symmetry created by the historic west-east axis of the original space around which the city grew - a complete destruction of the definition of the historic shape of what was Market Square.
By doing that, we will destroy the memories that are critical in the life of a city and its citizens.
Second prize, and second prize by a long, long way, would have been if Sahra had requested the provincial government rethink its proposals; that if a square was so important to them, it should be at the expense of the more modern, meaningless buildings north of Beyers Naude Gardens. Why should heritage make a compromise when these buildings could be removed and never missed - they are completely unsympathetic to the square.
Flo Bird, of the Parktown and Westcliff Heritage Trust, describes them as "ill-mannered" in relation to the square, which they certainly are.
It would be tragic to allow even the demolition of the buildings bounded by Fraser, Market, Simmonds and Commissioner streets in order to create an unwanted public space (especially the Volkskas and African Bank buildings at the corner of Simmonds and Commissioner streets). But maybe this would have been the very poor third prize whereby the Rand Water Board building would be retained, together with the buildings on either side of it, and the SA Reserve Bank and Clegg House buildings on Commissioner Street would be retained.
Johannesburg style
The Rand Water Board building is referred to by Clive Chipkin in his book
Johannesburg Style as "a major statement of street architecture, unsurpassed in the Johannesburg landscape. While the buildings on either side are not that important from the aspect of heritage retention, the beautifully balanced facades of the three read together provide a great streetscape at a sympathetic scale to the area they are located in.
Turning to the Reserve Bank and Clegg House buildings - just stand on the corner of Fraser and Commissioner streets and look east to see how these two buildings add to the continuity of Art Deco and heritage buildings along this part of Commissioner Street. At least the space thus created would then frame the two when viewed south from Beyers Naude Square.
By caving-in to the provincial government, Sahra has lost the opportunity to bring some sense to the government's approach. The compromises I've suggested would result in the retention of all or some of the buildings patently of great heritage value but, more importantly, would have demonstrated that a fair appraisal had been made in the interests of the city.
It would also have sent out a signal that the integrity of Sahra and that of the National Heritage Resources Act would not be compromised.
The custodian of our heritage resources, Sahra, has rejected not only the objections of many specialists in the field and the recommendations of the Heritage Impact Assessment report, but also the strongly worded condemnation of independent assessors of the project.
We may also well ask where the city stands on decisions on what is, in fact, its physical territory. Is its silence the result of political imposition by the next rung in political power or has it commented to Sahra on the proposals?
We should also be asking for the process of appointment of whatever professional team is involved to be made public. I, for one, have never seen any requests for appropriate professionals to put forward proposals. Surely, such a large and definitive public project requires such transparency?
Farce
Looking at all the information available, I cannot believe that Sahra has applied its mind to the issues at stake. The whole public participation process was a farce, with decisions appearing to have been taken before any consultations took place. No compromise to design has been entertained, notwithstanding the strong representations made for changes throughout the process.
Clause 38 (3) of the act, in fact, specifies that if heritage resources are to be adversely affected by a proposed development alternatives must be considered. Clearly this has not been the case. If the press reports are accurate then what I have said above is borne out by Sahra's apparent comments:
"The SA Heritage Resource Agency (Sahra) said that after considering objections to the idea, the advantage of a development to house provincial government offices in one area, weighed more than keeping the buildings."
What absolute, unadulterated drivel - the demolition of eight of these buildings has absolutely nothing to do with housing provincial government offices in one area. This only applies to the Reserve Bank and Clegg House buildings. The eight buildings are to be demolished to make a square, not offices and the square is not integral to the creation of a provincial government precinct.
Anyway, do you really think that provincial government officials are even going to use the square? The original design shows all their buildings connected by sky-ways, so the original concept was to have no-one walking around at ground level. Even though some of these have been omitted from the revised design they will eventually be brought back, just watch.
Spin-offs
The press reports continue: "Kgomommu [Thabo Kgomommu, the provincial manager of the regulating agency] said, 'In line with the new dispensation in the country, Sahra has also considered the socio-economic spin-offs that will flow from the project. If the project goes ahead, the regeneration of the inner city will be enhanced.'"
What are these socio-economic spin-offs? Sahra needs to explain this comment and give us the interpolation of these socio-economic spin-offs, which evidently influenced its decision. At the same time, someone must tell us what we, the taxpayers and ratepayers of the country and the city, are spending on grandiose, unnecessary and totally useless schemes.
Nobody has had the guts to make public the costs of a five-level basement parking garage to be created under the square, nor the cost of sinking Market Street below its existing street level. Nor has the economic disaster that will be created for private property owners, whose properties will be negatively effected by the ramps in and out of the underpass, been quantified.
Has Sahra taken into account the loss of rates revenue to the city when eight of these buildings disappear, or is the provincial government going to pay the equivalent rates bill on the open space it creates?
The provincial government provided a fillip to urban renewal when it moved from Pretoria to Johannesburg (let's not forget, the move was in response to a suggestion by business and was not off its own bat). To suggest that this latest proposal is going to add significantly more to the process is questionable.
All provincial government staff are already in the city - this is not going to attract more. In fact, if anything we are now going to have a whole bunch of empty buildings that they will vacate.
Art Deco
"The relevant Sahra committee has considered the impact the project will have on the future of Johannesburg, especially the important buildings that will remain." There are more than 100 art deco buildings in the city centre, dating back to the 1930s and 1940s when the style was at its height around the world.
This statement shows a complete lack of understanding by the very organisation that is supposed to protect our heritage. What about the massing together of Art Deco buildings, the fact that we have a hundred has absolutely nothing to do with the issue. The juxtaposition of such buildings going down Commissioner Street, one of the great Art Deco streets in the world, is of far more importance than scattered buildings lost among the city's more modern structures.
Most importantly, if this decision is allowed to stand then it has compromised heritage retention completely. How can Sahra in future refuse any application to demolish any heritage buildings? Remember that Chipkin describes the Rand Water Board building as "unsurpassed in the Johannesburg landscape".
Through its decision Sahra has rejected the retention of heritage buildings on the basis of their individual merit - every developer is now going to insist that their proposed new development is going to be of more value to the city than merely retaining what is there.
Over the years I have had many property owners contact me for advice regarding Sahra requirements that were petty and ridiculous in relation to the big picture. Now, every time the city tries to call errant property owners to book to return their heritage buildings to the state they were in before unauthorised alterations, they will point out that Sahra has allowed really important heritage buildings to be annihilated, so why the fuss?
Sahra has effectively pulled the rug out from under the feet of those required to enforce the law.
It is intriguing that the statement made by Thabo Kgomommu on Monday, 17 October was to the media only and that interested parties were not invited to be present. We merely received an email some days later from the EIA/HIA consultants appointed by the provincial government containing a copy of a letter that blandly states:
"After considering the different reports as well as submissions by members of the public, Sahra has decided to support the proposed project. We therefore give your client permission to demolish the following buildings…" The names of the 10 buildings follow.
The covering letter from the consultants advises that an appeal against the decision can be made not later than 10 November. I note that this is to be directed to the Sahra provincial manager, from whom permission to demolish the buildings emanated - another instance of Sahra being both player and referee, perhaps?
We need to object massively, otherwise it will be a sad day for the city and a sadder day still for 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 |
