Gandhi Square Quality of Life Citichat 30 July 1999

CITICHAT No 24/99 - 30 JULY 1999

Gandhi Square & Quality of Life

One of the issues regarding Gandhi Square (Citichat 23 of 23 July) is that it is a major public space which will now fall under private management, the first of its kind in Johannesburg.

The private management of public space brings with it all kinds of responsibilities that we have been getting to grips with as the construction work has progressed.

In fact the construction period has been particularly useful to gauge the type of problems we will be exposed to. For instance, the disappearance of New Street North and South which have now been incorporated into the Square itself, has removed the on-street parking that was previously available. We have trained 24 hour security personnel on the Square, one of whose functions during the latter phase of construction, has been to stop motorists from parking on the Square. But some motorists are not interested in law and order and drive their vehicles over high kerbs placed specifically to stop access and ignore our advice that parking is now prohibited. We have one security officer in hospital because the motorist that he blocked by standing in front of his car merely knocked him over! Sadly it is not just the general public but also staff of the Council who are giving us a hard time.

Another issue that in recent months has become a major problem in the city is the excessive noise used by retailers to attract shoppers into their establishments and who usually compete with the shop next door as to who can produce the highest decibel rating. But it is not confined to formal shops, it has also been taken up by informal traders on the pavements and the result is public areas that are positively unpleasant and often uninhabitable in so far as office workers are concerned let alone the irritation to the general public.

I have also been getting an increasing number of calls in regard to the apparently growing number of children sniffing glue on the streets, homeless persons living in empty buildings with no services and using the streets for both sexual and sanitary functions as well as the constant stench of urine around some buildings. I am not without compassion for these people and, in many cases, for the circumstances that have led to their plight, but the city cannot recover unless these issues are seriously addressed.

In studying what our approach should be to managing Gandhi square and with a great deal of the above in my mind, I went back to the work produced by the American Alliance for Rights and Responsibilities (AARR). Listen to this:

“The vitality of our nation’s cities and towns depends upon preservation of urban centres that are pleasant and enjoyable. For many communities an important factor in building the quality of life is the preservation of peace, tranquility and civility in public areas. A pleasant environment can make all the difference between a thriving urban area shared by the entire community and a declining area that is eventually abandoned by residents and visitors alike.”

AARR on noise; “Excessive noise is one of the chief urban quality of life problems in many cities. Excessive noise – whether from boomboxes, car alarms, factories, street musicians, or the mentally ill – can make normal conversation, productive work, or some solitude all but impossible. This noise causes residents and visitors to go elsewhere to dine, shop or relax, somewhere that is quiet and peaceful. To combat excessive noise while at the same time protecting the freedom of speech, cities are turning to ordinances which consider the reasonableness of the noise under the circumstances, rather than setting a maximum decibel level. This allows for flexibility, as the reasonable level of noise varies with changing circumstances and the time of day. For example a volume level that might be intolerable on a sidewalk outside a shop might be perfectly acceptable in a football stadium. Similarly, what is reasonable in a parade – or in an emergency – may not be reasonable on a quiet Sunday. By prohibiting speech that is “unreasonably loud” or “loud and unseemly”, based on the surrounding environment, an ordinance operates with greater precision – and is thus more narrowly tailored – than an ordinance imposing a “one size fits all” standard. “

Rob Teir of AARR comments on the constitutionality issue as follows, “The Supreme Court has held on numerous occasions that the constitutional right to freedom of speech does not prevent reasonable restrictions on the time, place and manner in which people choose to express themselves. Such restrictions are justified without reference to the content of the regulated speech, that they are narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest, and they leave open ample alternative channels for communication of the information……The Supreme Court has recognised that governments have a substantial interest in protecting citizens from unwelcome noise in public areas as well as in residential neighbourhoods.”

In a study undertaken by AARR into Urban Quality of Life Issues , one of their findings was as follows; “Cities have more success if the proponents of improved street-order maintenance, work to build public understanding and support. Additionally, community leaders uniting to improve the quality of urban life can and should obtain and hold the moral high ground on these issues. Primarily the focus should consistently be on CONDUCT, not groups of people, with the goal of making the quality of life in urban areas better for the entire community. Cities should avoid the pitfall of turning these issues into class conflicts by emphasising who is using public parks, sidewalks and bus stops. Finally, communities should boldly assert that there is nothing to be embarrassed about when seeking to improve the residential and commercial vitality of an area.”

Regards,