By Neil Fraser
October 3, 2005
AFTER a long silence, the final Heritage Impact Assessment Report (HIA) and revised development proposal for the planned Gauteng provincial government (GPG) precinct has been publicly tabled.
In fact, these form part of a number of documents regarding the proposal that have been made available for scrutiny at the public library in the city and at the South African Heritage Resources Agency (Sahra) provincial offices in Parktown.
That the HIA alone is more than 250 pages makes it extremely impractical to scrutinise the information in such limited surroundings - government at all levels spends money freely on insignificant events or issues that suit them but give the smallest consideration to something of such importance.
You would have thought, as the number of parties greatly concerned with this issue have been known for some time, that copies of the documentation could have been prepared for each party, even if it was at their cost. This would have greatly facilitated the process.
So, what is this all about?
The provincial government has decided to "bring together different GPG departments in a cost-effective manner". To achieve this, it has procured a number of buildings in an area around the historic Beyers Naude Square (previously the Library Gardens, previously Market Square).
Not all of the 12 buildings acquired for this purpose are contiguous to the square, but the concentration is spread through an area of about four city blocks west to east and five north to south.
Benefits
The published "potential benefits" of the project are laudable; they include:
- To improve service delivery by provincial departments through efficient functional interrelation and openness to the public and community at large;
- To identify a vehicle of changing equity ownership of the property estate in the CBD through socio-economic, empowerment and developmental objectives of the project (I particularly like this one);
- To improve space functionality and working environment, accommodating projected growth of various departments in the coming years and allowing flexibility in structures;
- To eliminate process and work disruption by stability of tenure; and
- To create urban design in a government precinct through the consolidation of office space structures that will act as a stimulus for urban regeneration and socio-economic empowerment.
I really think these are great objectives. Maybe after this all happens and new efficiency results, I might get an acknowledgement of a letter I wrote three months ago to an MEC, let alone another from two years back that has not been acknowledged, nor various phone messages not returned.
But I am just being cynical - I really support the proposal to consolidate provincial government departments like this. After all it was, in fact, part of the original deal the Central Johannesburg Partnership offered to the provincial government more than 10 years ago that it turned down.
That is another story, however.
In addition, one major positive is that the structures on the edges of Beyers Naude Square will, at last, be demolished.
It is the rest of the proposal that is unacceptable and gives rise to real concern.
Kopanong
The motivational literature states that the concept that "underpins the urban and architectural design of the precinct is that of 'Kopanong' a Tswana word meaning 'coming together' or, in Afrikaans, 'Verenig'". From this concept, the intention is "to create an urban and architectural environment that fosters cultural integration, creates a space for shared exchanges, and a common home".
In order to do this it is proposed to create a "public square" and a "government court". The public square is intended to be "a focal point for community convergence and a breathing space within the urban environment".
The way that this is written completely ignores the fact that there is already a "public square" - the Beyers Naude Square - which fulfils all the needs that are listed.
Instead, what is suggested is that the Beyers Naude Square be "added to" (not enlarged, as the "addition" is at right angles to the existing square, providing an asymmetrical configuration).
Apart from resulting in extremely poor urban design, this can only be achieved by demolishing eight historic buildings. The sop that is offered is that one of the external walls of the most important of the buildings to be demolished will be conserved (but moved) and a new heritage complex will be built as an urban entertainment mall.
Market Street
A five-level parking garage providing 1 480 parking bays will be constructed below the square that will be created by demolishing the historic buildings, and will be accessed via an underground re-routing of Market Street - entered before Kort Street and exited after Harrison Street.
It is interesting that a number of recent private sector investigations into building parking garages below or above ground have resulted in all of them being built above because of the excessive costs of basement parking. Now we are also going to build underground roads.
It is a lot easier to throw money around when it isn't yours!
I have made my opinions clear in previous Citichats. Ultimately my interest is in what is good for the city and I cannot see that the city needs a huge square, poorly conceived and at the expense of good heritage buildings, as is the case in the present proposal.
After all, the city already has got Beyers Naude Square and Mary Fitzgerald Square, which was built exactly for the purpose of hosting events and gatherings of up to 50 000 people.
But what do the experts say?
HIA report
There are 16 main findings in the final HIA report. Essentially they state that the 10 buildings proposed for demolition are all considered to be places of "cultural significance", namely "heritage resources".
One, the Rand Water Board building, is considered to be of exceptional cultural significance, eight are considered to be of considerable cultural significance and one, the RSA Building, is of limited cultural significance.
The demolition of the Rand Water Board building will have a "potentially irreversible impact" and the proposal to incorporate its façade elsewhere would be "an inappropriate memorialisation".
The loss of the other buildings would have a severe impact which cannot be effectively mitigated.
Indirect heritage impacts include "compromising the historic configuration and spatial structure" of the existing Beyers Naude Square; the ingress and egress ramps of the proposed underpass in Market Street constitute "an irreversible impact"; the principle of new symbolic axes and the introduction of a vertical focal point in Market Street at the crossing of these axes "cannot be supported from a heritage viewpoint"; the proposal to align the proposed new paving grid with the points of the compass "conflicts with the historic meaning and importance of the existing grid pattern".
According to a Sunday Independent report of 25 September, Sahra appointed independent assessors who reportedly stated that the plan was invasive and failed to meet basic requirements for public open space design.
It also, in their opinion, failed to meet the stated aim that the project would be "African", saying that "The stated African intent fails due to a borrowing of traditional images devoid of content ... the square represents an unbroken continuity that the proposal rejects in favour of a radical interpretation of change."
Well, enough said.
Democracy
Why did I choose to headline this Citichat that the issue provides a testing time for our new democracy? Well, the matter now rests before the South African Heritage Resource Agency and the question is whether it will accept the overwhelming expert evidence and objections placed before it and/or will the provincial government find a way to impose its will on the citizens of the city irrespective?
After all, the disastrous redesign some years ago of what was then the Library Gardens was approved by the relevant authorities at that time, notwithstanding huge public criticism of the design - which turned out to be well founded.
But another aspect that concerns me comes from a different quarter. According to an article in the Sunday Times last weekend, an application for rezoning land in Hyde Park, reputedly rejected by the City council, rejected by the Townships Board and rejected by the Gauteng Development Tribunal was upheld by the Gauteng Development Appeal Tribunal. No reasons were given.
In the case of the Gauteng provincial government precinct, if Sahra should turn down the current proposal, the matter can be referred to the relevant central government minister for a final decision. And then?
On the macro front, should the project, as it is now proposed, be accepted, then the implications for heritage conservation and quality public open space are bleak indeed. It would send a signal to every developer that heritage buildings are fair game for demolition and redevelopment.
Government, the custodians of the national estate, should be setting an example, particularly in regard to the preservation of historic resources which are directly under its control and ownership.
It should also be using every opportunity, when adding to our existing resources, to ensure that its projects are of the very best and most appropriate design for the citizens of the city and for our future generations.
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 |
