Housing;Slumlords:Heritage Citichat 10 May 2002

CITICHAT 18/2002 - 10 May 2002


Housing, Slumlords and Heritage

Was asked a question by a well known property journalist preparing an article for this week’s Financial Mail. The question, “What constitutes a slumlord?” comes hard on the heels of legal action taken by the Council in respect of two residential projects in the inner city. The two are only the tip of the iceberg as there are numerous scenarios of great concern in our housing situation.

In the first case, 16 Frederick Street, a Cape Town developer purchased an office block for conversion to residential accommodation although he had evidently told the seller that the building was going to be used for ‘educational’ purposes. Plans were submitted and I understand that they generally complied with the city’s various by-laws and zoning regulations. The conversion was not of offices into apartments or flats but into what has become known as ‘shared accommodation’, ie the 30 rooms per floor each house up to three persons. Ablution facilities, which include showers, are communal and located at one end of each floor and within the norms of model regulation ratios relative to numbers of occupants. The rental of a ‘bed’ averages R650.00 per month and the developer says that he cannot satisfy the demand. The one hundred and sixty room project provides an initial yield of 87% a year based on the R600 000 purchase price and R1,3 million paid for the refurbishment.

The problem is that the building is cheek by jowl with some major corporate head offices who are not that excited at what they consider to be a potential slum developing on their doorstep. The developer says that he provides excellent management and will not allow the building to turn into a slum, all tenants are carefully vetted and have to have been in employment for over two years. The developer argues that he is providing a much needed asset to the city (at an 87% yield mark you!), catering for an economic level that cannot find decent accommodation in the city at affordable rentals. The corporations point to papers stuck to window panes and sneakers on window cills and say that they would not have themselves chosen to develop corporate head offices in ‘low cost residential areas’. My friend Rich Bradley always stresses that capital goes where it is welcome and where there is certainty, when Montreal was dithering about secession, capital upped and reinvested in Toronto. Well, certainty is hard to come by when our zoning laws are so poorly framed that this particular area allows commercial, industrial or residential development. The developer was successful in its appeal.

Scenario two is Burlington House which stands on Gandhi Square. An investor bought the office building which, unlike most other buildings on the Square, stayed empty even after the upgrading of the Square. Immediately following its sale, dozens of persons were seen to be moving into the building. As with Frederick Street it was the adjacent property owners who alerted the Council. It took a couple of months for the Council to get their act together, but this time they were successful – quite simply the zoning clearly didn’t allow for residential use.

Whilst the results of a Council investigation state that ‘there are already in existence adequate regulations and by-laws to ensure that the conversion of buildings into shared accommodation are executed in an appropriate and habitable manner’ the fact of the matter is that the existing regulations and by-laws are not sufficient to deter people from violating them and there is absolutely no check to see if there is compliance. Fortunately the report acknowledges this aspect.

However, as one developer points out, plans for new residential accommodation are scrutinised meticulously and even the smallest deviation has to be addressed or plans are rejected. Yet people are allowed to live in the city in conditions that threaten their lives. A recent survey of residential buildings in a part of the city found that whilst the buildings were in ‘reasonable’ condition and overcrowding wasn’t too extensive, all the external fire escapes were so badly rusted as to be unsafe and there were no fire extinguishers in any of the buildings!

Scenario three relates to this unhealthy and dangerous conditions that hundreds of inner city residents are currently living under. There is an alarming amount of illegal occupation of buildings in various parts of the city. In many instances this takes place in buildings that have been deserted by their owners for a number of reasons, in quite a few instances the owner is in fact government at one or another level. The late, lamented Drill Hall was one such building. As with the Drill Hall, there have been numerous incidents related to the buildings, we have had nine fires in such buildings over probably as many months. Worse still, a number of lives have been lost! To its credit, the City identified a number of buildings that are in such a bad a state of repair that they have been slated for demolition, and, demolition of some has already taken place. But now comes the rub! Some of those slated for demolition, in fact some already demolished, are classified as being of historic or heritage value. In terms of national legislation these may not be demolished. But some are so bad that they appear to be beyond saving. We are told that there is simply no money available to refurbish them or even to maintain them. But why were they allowed to get into such a state in the first place? Why do we perpetuate this state of affairs? Just look at the accelerating deterioration of the Rissik Street Post Office and one must come to the conclusion that no one actually cares. ‘Let it rot until it becomes a danger to the public and then we can justifiably demolish it’ appears to be the attitude of the authorities. I have to ask myself if this is any better an attitude than that of slumlords who, in my opinion exploit people and economic situations to their own inflated benefit.

In a paper by Donovan D.Rypkema entitled “Globalisation, Heritage Buildings and the 21st Century Economy”, the author concludes as follows: “Historic preservation as an economic development strategy is consistent with all five principles of 21st Century economic development: globalisation, localisation, diversity, sustainability and responsibility.

Heritage conservation reinforces the five senses of quality communities: sense of place, sense of identity, sense of evolution, sense of ownership and sense of community.

Historic preservation can meet the test of both “quality” and “authenticity” that will be crucial elements in economic development in the next century

The cultural assets of a city – dance, theatre, music, visual arts, crafts, and others – are inherently influenced and enhanced by the physical context within which they were created and evolved over the centuries. If cultural resources are to become and remain an economic asset for a city, then the physical context that has always influenced their creation needs to be maintained. Otherwise more than just the physical buildings are at risk; the quality, character, differentiation and sustainability of the other assets are in jeopardy as well.

Historic preservation allows a city to participate in the positive benefits of a globalised economy while resisting the adverse impacts of a globalised culture.

Historic preservation allows a city the opportunity to modernise without having to Westernise. More than that – historic preservation is the irreplaceable variable to achieve modernisation without Westernisation.

For the 21st Century only the foolish city will make the choice between historic preservation and economic development. The wise city will effectively utilise its historic built environment to meet the economic, social and cultural needs of its citizens well into the future. Early in the 20th Century Oswald Spengler wrote; “We cannot comprehend political and economic history at all unless we realise that the city…..is the determinative form to which the course and sense of higher history generally conforms. World history is city history” And the political and economic history of the 21st century will surely be written in cities as well.”

I hate to think what they will write of ours!



Regards, neil fraser