November 6, 2006
By Neil Fraser
A MEETING was hosted on Friday morning by the South African Heritage Resources Agency (Sahra) for stakeholders and "interested and affected parties" to comment, again, on a number of development proposals in Newtown.
In the next couple of weeks Sahra is, hopefully, going to make a ruling on the proposals. I say hopefully because the whole process has already been incredibly drawn out. In fact, I first reported on the development aspect in April last year (Citichat 6/2005) - now some 18 months ago - at which stage it had already been on the go for a good few months. A process that takes two years, however necessary, is not in anyone's interests - and particularly those of the city.
The background to the saga is that the Johannesburg Development Agency, on behalf of the City council, had called for development proposals for five sites in what is known as Central Place Precinct in Newtown. The council owns the land through the Johannesburg Property Company. Two of the sites are known as Five and Six Central Place. Number five is directly south of the Worker's Library and Museum and covers about 1 500 square metres. It connects to number six, directly to its east, on the corner of Jeppe and Miriam Makeba streets, which is 6 250 square metres in extent.
The initial proposals put forward for the development of these two sites some 18 months ago would have resulted in 20 000 square metres of mixed use and, on site six, the first fully mixed use development in Newtown offering retail, commercial and residential space. It was to include two cinemas, restaurants, a gym and other retail as well as extensive parking.
The proposal on site five was for a hotel of about 120 rooms in a low rise six-storey building. One of the major issues raised in objections to the proposals was that the space that was being offered for development should encourage fresh thinking and looked at as a valuable heritage resource instead of merely as a development opportunity.
In addition, the proposed development on site six would have had a dramatic visual impact on Newtown; the upper income residential component was spread over four tower blocks, 23, 16, eight and four storeys in height, set on a double storey podium. In this regard, concern was expressed as to whether the project's scale would not be inappropriate in relation to the contiguous single storey Worker's Library and Museum and the artisans' single storey housing. As a result the initial proposal was redesigned and currently is more like the Brickfields project in scale, with blocks of four and six, and two of 12 storeys in height.
Provisional protection
When the development intention was originally made known to Sahra, it, on 12 July 2005, gave notice of its intention to declare Newtown "a provisionally protected area". The reason for this was that Newtown is a unique place; it initially housed a great many of the urban poor who used the clay in the area to make bricks to earn a living. They were later forcibly removed and the area became the city's major industrial precinct. It was home to the shunting yards, the city's market and abattoir, the light and power company, the destructor-incinerator, tram sheds and the power station, among others.
Between 1905 and 1910 a compound was built to house 312 black municipal workers. The workers were all migrants chosen by the chief in their area and contracted to the City on an annual basis. The accommodation for and treatment of the workers was quite horrific. They were housed in large dormitories on concrete bunks, with communal toilet and shower facilities. Initially the communal toilets had a ditch with running water over which the men would have had to squat. This was later "upgraded", with eight or nine squat pans in one room - no partitions or privacy.
If a worker misbehaved he would be handcuffed or chained to a steel ring cast into a wall of a cell for varying periods of time, depending on the misdemeanour. His contract would not be renewed if he was viewed as a habitual troublemaker. If the cell was occupied and someone else had to be "disciplined" he would be handcuffed embracing a punishment tree, which is no longer there.
So the compound, which subsequently became the Worker's Library and Museum, was a place of great human suffering and indignity. On the north side of the compound a number of cottages were built for white artisans - they are the red-roofed, single storey cottages that face on to Mary Fitzgerald Square on Jeppe Street. At their west end the double storey house was that of the manager. Apartheid, racial separation, marginalisation, inequity - all were entrenched from the earliest days of the fledgling city.
I wonder how many people driving or walking past these buildings know the story behind them. Maybe if they did they would become more interested in the richness of the city's history and enter the debates that are engendered. Maybe it is our fault for not telling these stories. Clearly, the history and heritage that is inherent in these buildings is unique and any new development must be sympathetic not only to the buildings that remain but particularly to the pain and suffering that they represent.
Heritage impact assessment
Because of the area's rich history it was agreed that the whole of Newtown should be the subject of a heritage impact assessment (HIA). The first phase of the HIA focuses on the Central Place sites and the site next to the Market Theatre known as The Majestic site.
In terms of the National Heritage Resources Act, an HIA is required before a decision can be taken on whether or not a development may proceed if the development will change the character of a site that is more than 5 000 square metres in extent and if there is reason to believe that heritage resources will be affected by the development. Section 38 (3) (e) of the Act states that the heritage impact report must include the results of consultation with communities affected by the proposed development and other interested parties regarding the effects of the development on heritage resources.
The report must be submitted to Sahra for consideration, and it must issue a decision on whether the development may proceed and determine any limitations, conditions, general protections or compensation, if any, to be imposed.
There was a public consultation process and the HIA was completed in February. This was followed by a public information-sharing meeting on 16 March; it was evidently well attended. All comments were collated and submitted to Sahra shortly after the period allowed for comments closed on 24 March.
Now, seven months later, an invitation was issued by Sahra to attend a meeting "to afford an opportunity for interested and affected parties to present their cases to Sahra as the heritage authority". This appears to suggest that the previous process was not considered to be acceptable to Sahra - but why the enormous delay?
Something seems wrong to me - all issues and comments raised by interested and affected parties at the public meeting, during interviews and through correspondence with the public participation consultant during the official comment period were collated into an Issues and Responses Trail which was submitted to Sahra. Everyone has been waiting for the decision that was anticipated to flow from that process. But instead, there was another meeting. And why was there the inordinate delay?
At Friday's meeting a prepared presentation was done by Khanya College and another submitted by Flo Bird on behalf of the Parktown and Westcliff Heritage Trust. A few folk from the floor also made comments. The usual comments were made that there had been inadequate consultation, but this certainly does not appear to be the case if one reviews the documentation.
Development guidelines
The Parktown and Westcliff Heritage Trust submission included some useful recommendations on development guidelines, viz that the existing development guidelines needed to be elaborated on and given statutory force to control subdivisions, new buildings and spaces ensuring that heritage value was the pre-eminent factor in determining infill:
- Heritage buildings must dictate the scale and materials of new buildings, ensuring that new buildings are harmonious with and subordinate to the heritage buildings. Views of Turbine Hall are much more valuable than views of a new shopping centre; visitors can see shopping centres anywhere in Johannesburg or in most towns in South Africa.
- Connectivity and relationship among the heritage elements must be retained. The linkages must be both visible and accessible on foot. That means that sight-lines and views must decide the heights and footprints of any in-fill or new development - not commercial considerations.
- Spaces must also be meaningful and related to the heritage issues, whether it is a matter of balancing space to create a setting, to ensure linkages or to provide views. Ramming an enormous building right up against the cooling towers is completely unacceptable.
- Accessibility is a vital element in the conservation of heritage sites and areas. In some instances this may be limited to visual access only and a conservation management plan should give guidance here.
Heritage is never an easy issue to deal with. Perceptions and opinions are often diametrically opposed, with each side fervently believing that their viewpoint is the only correct one.
On the one side stand those perceived as fiercely protective of heritage at the expense of progress and on the other stand developers who are perceived as wanting to make a quick buck at the expense of whatever stands in their way.
Neither of these perceptions is accurate and I believe that there is a middle ground where the views of both can be accommodated. We must, however, have processes and procedures that are more transparent and that respond quickly and practically to such issues - even a year is an unacceptable delay.
Neil
PS: Beryl Porter's Walk and Talk Tours is offering a tour of "Newtown and the West End of Joburg" on 3 December. It costs R80,00 per person and you can get details from the Walk and Talk Tours website.
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 |
