February 27, 2006
By Neil Fraser
THIS week the third democratic local government elections are being held and, inevitably, we can anticipate some changes.
I hear on my grapevine that we can expect some restructuring of the current City council political configuration that will affect the inner city. Well, change is good provided that we improve what we have. But it is also good when it provides us with an opportunity to reflect afresh on where we are going, how far we have to still go and how we are going to get there.
The original vision for the inner city was crafted way back in 1996 through a reasonably democratic process in a forum specially established for the purpose of developing the vision ("Where there is no vision, the people perish." - the Book of Proverbs 29:18 KJV).
During the process, community, business and two layers of government - local and provincial - all produced their own inner city visions, which were ultimately negotiated into a single agreed version. By virtue of the four visions being crafted into one, we ended with quite a wordy document. It was certainly not as pithy as one would have liked, but it was the product of consultation and compromise.
The forum used for the visioning exercise itself had no "legal" standing and was superseded by an Inner City Committee (permitted in terms of Section 59, later 79, of the relevant local authority legislation as a non-executive committee which can include non local government organisations and private sector persons).
The wordiness of the vision became quite useful when developing strategies ("Without a strategy the vision will perish." - Neil Fraser).
The strategic development and, ultimately, the implementation process, was entrusted to the newly established Inner City Office closely monitored by the Inner City Committee ("Vision without action is merely a dream; action without vision just passes the time; vision with action can change the world." - I can't remember who this is attributed to, but it was neither the bible nor myself).
The process hiccoughed somewhat in the late 1990s and early 2000, when a series of metropolitan-wide visions were developed by the council. Of these, the one with the most impact was the long term economic vision for the metro, Joburg 2030, and the inner city vision was thus somewhat superseded.
The City's economic development unit, established to ensure the attainment of Joburg 2030, produced a new strategy for the inner city. This was the "five pillar strategy", viz: addressing sinkholes, creating ripple-pond investments, supporting economic sectors, implementing intensive private urban management, and maintaining and upgrading the infrastructure.
These five "thrusts" were specifically targeted to "raise and sustain private investment leading to a steady rise in property values".
All evidence to date points to a great deal of success in meeting that target. Private investment has steadily increased, as have property prices. However, at the time that the "five pillar strategy" was produced, I argued that it neglected to address specifically social issues.
The unit's counter-argument at the time was that social issues were inherent in all five pillars. I felt then, and even more so now, that unless social issues were separately identified as a specific issue to focus on via a sixth "pillar", they would inevitably be overlooked. I believe that this has largely been the case.
In the interim I have also come to believe that a seventh and even an eighth pillar should be added - heritage preservation and urban planning, respectively.
Heritage preservation
This pillar is important because the inner city contains a high proportion of buildings that fall into the over 60 years old category that are badly neglected and negatively affect the city, yet could be a superb asset.
We need a more pro-active programme to pursue their upgrading and restoration. Following the South African Heritage Resources Agency decision allowing the demolition of some of our heritage buildings for the creation of the proposed provincial government precinct, it is clear that responsibility for protecting our heritage cannot be left to that body.
Urban planning
This pillar is important because we just continue to ignore an historic planning regime that is outmoded, outdated and is also acting as a negative rather than a positive force in the urban regeneration process.
For example, it is an accepted fact that the parking regulations implemented 30-odd years ago were, to quote Keith Beavon "undoubtedly ill conceived" (Johannesburg: The Making and the Shaping of the City).
Although the results are all around us - huge investment mainly by the private sector in parking garages because they can't let their buildings because of the lack of parking facilities due to the by-law - yet no-one even considers a change. It is not that the planning department is not proactive - it is not even reactive.
(I still cannot believe that the department chose not to comment on the misguided precinct proposals of the provincial government; talk about dereliction of duty.)
If one examines the emerging "regenerated" inner city, as I have done again lately, one finds an unco-ordinated checker-board distribution of emerging residential development - high income here, social housing there, middle income here, there and everywhere.
There are a few emerging residential precincts as a result of massive office accommodation refurbishment plus the nucleus created by the Brickfields project in Newtown but, generally, residential is widely scattered.
Who is looking at the social implications - such as the schools, the crèches, the clinics, the recreation space and public open space? Our zoning regulations are so loose that there is nothing to stop one providing inappropriate or even undesirable activities in almost any area in the city.
We still have a slum-lorded building in Frederick Street, right in the middle of a corporate head office precinct. We need a Planning Commission to be established with new ideas and new thinking to review the whole sorry mess.
In terms of the new housing dispensation, Breaking New Ground, we need to start looking closely at real inner city integration and developing the instruments that will help us to achieve sustainable settlements for the urban poor within and not on the edge of the inner city.
The South African Cities Network reports that "racially based disparity in access to services, shelter and social facilities is still a predominant feature" of nine of South Africa's major cities, including Johannesburg. Furthermore, it notes that apartheid disparities are deepening as "income-poverty increases and more and more people are excluded from the benefits of urban living".
We need a positive plan to deal with housing across the board that links into the Breaking New Ground approach.
Sustainable settlements
Last week I chaired an urban regeneration and sustainable human settlements conference. A recurring theme from a wide variety of housing professionals was that all South African cities have failed to break away from the physical apartheid city.
One speaker stated that, "we must guard against the danger that many municipalities will persist with the one-dimensional delivery approach of the previous decade as the only capacity they have is to develop [Reconstruction and Development Programme] type [36m² free-standing contractor-built] houses."
Another was asked to give a criticism of Joburg's Inner City Urban Renewal Strategy and suggested that our approach has led to isolated pockets of improvement.
The speaker said we should have a plan for the inner city as a whole (I agree but I think that it is necessary to start by focusing on specific precincts); that there is a stakeholder consultation problem (echoed by a number of speakers, with which I agree. We do not have the level of interaction that existed in 1996, for a variety of reasons); that urban renewal should be viewed as a broader social policy and not just left to market forces (the city should function for the social good of all its citizens); that town planning laws have not kept pace with the demands of today (yes!); that we are not developing new legal instruments to deal with issues such as housing the poor; that inclusive cities require inclusive agendas and collective will; that more emphasis should be placed on quality and not quantity; and that the capacity to manage cities will depend on a whole range of new professionals being trained (amen to all that).
As I've said before, I think we have done well over the past five years in particular; real progress has been achieved. But 2006 - a new City council, a new inner city structure, 10 years of "democratic" experience under our belts, a new housing dispensation - all these sound to me like a great opportunity for a re-appraisal of strategies and structures, an honest quantification of our successes and failures and a fresh focus and strategy for the next five to 10 years.
Happy voting.
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 |
