26 September 2006
By Neil Fraser
Happy: adjective; 1. feeling or showing pleasure or contentment; 2. willing to do or accept something; 3. fortunate and convenient
Under the headline, "Five Joburg landmarks saved from demolition", The Star newspaper of Wednesday, 20 September, released the outcome of the South African Heritage Resources Agency (Sahra) appeal committee's findings following a hearing on 19 July when four groups objected to the Sahra advisory committee's decision to allow the demolition of 10 buildings to make way for the proposed Gauteng Provincial Government Precinct.
It also published a photograph of me with the caption "Happy", while the body of the report quoted me as saying I was, "happy with the decision … this means that the underground parking area, which we felt was not necessary, will not be built and the whole square will have to be redesigned".
The last statement is not correct. What I said was that it would not be possible to now build the underground parking garage which, in turn, meant that the underpass would therefore be unnecessary - an underpass that I believed was ill considered in the first place, was impractical and would be extremely expensive, disruptive and create chaos in our traffic patterns.
I am extremely sympathetic in relation to the parking issue, although an above-ground solution would have been infinitely more practical and cost-effective.
The city's recovery, in fact, is being hampered by a lack of adequate public parking facilities because of irrational changes made by city planners in the late 1960s to permissible parking ratios in buildings.
Parking problems
During the city's recovery period from 2000, some 12 000 new parking bays have been built but, regrettably, these have not benefited the public as they are all private parking garages that corporates have been forced to erect to provide parking for their staff. The City now must also deal with this problem, and it is not an easy one to solve, as it is likely to strangle our ongoing recovery.
Sure, I know that we are to plough millions into public transport, but we will always have the parking problem and surely "urban planning" means dealing with such issues.
In similar vein, many might say that retention of the five buildings effectively is going to rob the city of the badly needed open public space that the precinct would have provided.
I am again extremely sympathetic to this need but not in the form that was being proposed. Numbers of smaller public spaces provided throughout the central city area would be far more preferable, a point actually commented on by the appeal committee: "With regard to the issue of public space and the use of the public square … It was felt that smaller spaces of public gathering might be able to provide the same result as the proposed large square."
I am always reminded of the tiny space that was left to the people of New York city by a concerned citizen on, I think, 32nd Street - it is a well-used public haven in the concrete jungle of downtown New York. It is another issue for the city planners to get their heads around.
But these are peripheral issues - the real issue is why I was reported as being "happy", although "thankful" may have been a better adjective. There are three main reasons for this.
The first and by far the most important is that it is because the system has worked. We have an Act of Parliament promulgated in 1999 (that is, a product of our democratic government) that places major responsibilities on the public and the organs created by the State to manage those responsibilities. The act provides an opportunity for appeals to be made against the decisions of the authorities where there is disagreement with such decisions. This was done, and while I feared that the result would be such as to force the appellants to take the matter to law, the appeal committee has, in fact, done the job that the original committee failed to do.
It has assessed the cultural significance of the buildings proposed for demolition and the potential effect of the loss of these buildings as an integral part of the National Estate, and in the case of five buildings, has upheld the appeals lodged by four groups by overturning the previous decision.
Advisory committee
By contrast, the advisory committee had decided that it, "had to assess whether the buildings in question were the best examples of the heritage they represent. The committee agreed that this was definitely not the case. In contrast to most public submissions, which mainly stressed the architectural significance of the structures (understandably so as most submissions were made by architects), the committee noted that there are other similar buildings in the city, which could be declared and conserved".
The position taken by the advisory committee was of serious concern to all of us who have an interest in the protection and management of the National Estate. Its decision:
- emphatically disagreed with the findings contained in the heritage impact assessment (HIA) report regarding the cultural significance of the buildings proposed for demolition; and
- was clearly of the view that there are "better examples" (that is, from an architectural viewpoint) of the buildings proposed for demolition.
In taking such a narrow view, the advisory committee failed to give any meaningful effect to the spirit and intention of the act, that is, the protection and management of all places and objects of cultural significance.
On the subject of the HIA's assessment of the cultural significance of the buildings proposed for demolition, the findings were that nine of the 10 buildings proposed for demolition, were of either "exceptional" or "considerable" cultural significance.
The advisory committee chose to not accept this choice of terminology - even though Sahra itself has failed to develop the necessary system for the grading of places, which it is required to do in terms of the act. (I trust that Sahra, in light of the significance of this issue in this case, will now do what is required of it.)
Whereas the advisory committee was openly antagonistic to the HIA, the appeal committee "agreed that the heritage impact assessment conducted by Dr Johann J Bruwer and his team had done an excellent job. The HIA represented a thorough and comprehensive study and made a balanced appreciation of the matter".
Had the initial finding of the advisory committee been similar to that of the appeal committee, the appellants might have been hard-pressed to argue the retention of the other five buildings. If any Citichat reader would like a copy of the findings of the Appeal Committee, drop me a line.
Public support
The second reason I was "happy" was the public support that was generated in opposing the decision. There have been times over the past nearly 14 years when I have felt that the inner city has been of little interest or consequence other than to a small handful of people. However, the numbers of "concerned parties" represented by the four appellants was substantial and I am thankful that there are still many, many civic-minded people who are prepared to stand up against the authorities when necessary. I feel this way particularly as, by contrast, in a number of discussions I had with business people whose bottom-line fixation and concern that they would possibly lose business particularly with the provincial authorities, in my opinion, overshadowed their judgment.
I feel this way particularly, too, in relation to the City's abdication of its responsibilities to its citizens when, under pressure from provincial politicians, it withdrew its appeal in favour of a City-provincial liaison committee.
The third reason is simply that I believe that these buildings have important stories to tell, stories that cannot be told by the memorialisation of parts of them as was proposed. In this regard I am impressed by the appeal committee's recommendation that consideration be given to the incorporation of a museum of architecture and urban history into the ultimate planning of the area that could also address issues of social and cultural history.
In addition, its decision to retain the Second New Library Hotel building because of its being "a significant site of repression and resistance in gay and lesbian history", shows a sensitivity to culture and history that was completely absent from the advisory committee's decisions.
Concerns
There are, however, two issues that remain of great concern. The first is the fact that the actual process was hopelessly marred from the very beginning, but I have previously written much on that issue, and we still need to debate if and how it should be taken further.
The second is to ask how the provincial authorities, using taxpayers' money, could place themselves in a position where they now own buildings that they are unable to proceed with as planned.
This would not happen in the private sector where investors would not take such risks with their own money. Buildings that might fall under some form of restrictive legislation would be purchased "subject to obtaining demolition" or other permission.
Were the provincial authorities so presumptuous as to believe that they could ignore national legislation because they could apply pressure to have it bypassed? And why was there no consultation between provincial and City authorities during the planning stage? While the provincial government is the senior partner, the city is ultimately the responsibility of local government, and to plan major changes to the city's public environment (and traffic) without any consultation is, as a citizen and a taxpayer, unacceptable.
Let me wind down by saying what I said when I first wrote about the Gauteng Provincial Government Precinct way back in February 2004,
and enlarged and repeated in October 2005: "Just to again state clearly that I am highly supportive of the Gauteng provincial government's proposals to 'bring together different GPG departments in a cost-effective manner'. I am equally highly appreciative of the published 'potential benefits' of the project, which include improving service delivery; identifying a vehicle for changing equity ownership of the property estate in the CBD; improving space functionality and working environment; eliminating process and work disruption and creating an urban design of a government precinct through consolidation of office space structures that will act as a stimulus for urban regeneration and socio-economic empowerment.
"I am also supportive of creating a resource that celebrates the heritage of African peoples who were here before the 'discovery' of gold in 1886.
"What I am totally opposed to, is creating a poorly conceived public open space at the expense of culturally significant buildings and irretrievable damage to an important existing heritage resource."
I will be really "happy" if the decision of the appeal committee allows us now to achieve the provincial government's objectives in a dignified and meaningful way - certainly its decision would have brought a greater appreciation of last weekend's Heritage Day.
Be happy, 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 |
