CITICHAT 33/2007 - 24 August 2007
Has the GPGP gone monorailing?
Premier Shilowa of Gauteng, announced the establishment of the Gauteng Provincial Government Precinct (GPGP) on the 17th November 2003 – that’s almost four years ago. In the announcement he stated that “The establishment of the precinct is an indication of our confidence in the future of the city and our efforts, together with the City of Johannesburg and other stakeholders, including the private sector, to revive the city and turn it into a world-class African city. We believe the initiative will send an unequivocal message, as government we are here to stay ”
A subsequent Gauteng Provincial Government newsletter headlined “you might have heard about it in the corridors of the GPG Head Office Buildings, read about it somewhere and might even have talked about it …. the next meeting place of Gauteng is in a public sector zone in the Johannesburg Central Business District. This zone is known as the GPG Precinct”
Two years later, the MEC for Finance and Economic Affairs, Paul Mashatile (oh, he of monorail fame) was reported in The Star (Nov 28 2005) as announcing that the project would cost R2,5 billion “including the costs of refurbishing, cleaning and replacement of the facade and building a new heritage complex, parkade, underpass and square in the city centre”
The assembly of the eighteen buildings required by the Provincial Government to form the nucleus of their precinct was undertaken in secret
(although all the property people I spoke to before the Premier’s announcement of course new about Project ‘Kopanong’!). The reason for the secrecy was, evidently so as not to influence the market positively thereby driving up prices.
From 2003 Citichat recorded the progress of the GPGP - just short of two years ago on 30 September 2005, it reported that the Final Heritage Impact Assessment Report (HIA) had been made available for public comment; a month later, 21 October, it commented sadly on SAHRA’s decision to approve the demolition of ten heritage buildings; in July 2006 it recorded that the appeal against the SAHRA decision had been heard (nearly nine months after objections had been made) and on the 21st September 2006, exactly a year ago it recorded that the decision to demolish at least five of the buildings had been reversed by an Appeal Committee. The results of the Appeal Hearing were gratifying (although not totally so) in that it appeared as if the system in so far as objections, appeals etc had been concerned, worked although the procedures adopted by SAHRA throughout the process were, in my opinion, highly questionable. I did however raise a number of questions at the time all of which have been and are likely to remain unanswered:
• how the Provincial authorities, using tax-payers’ 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 so 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? Whilst 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.
The City, you may remember, had been ‘strongarmed’ into withdrawing their objection to the design of the GPGP with a promise of ‘consultation’ in arriving at the final design. A committee between local and provincial government was in fact established (I was appointed by one Council Department to safeguard their interests but there was an objection by the Provincial authorities that I was one of the objectors so I was unable to attend the meetings!) I know that the city representatives put forward a highly practical alternative approach that would have ended in some limited demolition but on the north side of the square with only one heritage building affected, the demolition of which, weighed against the gains that could be made to the overall design, was acceptable.
The last I heard was that this had been rejected by Province who evidently stated that “no demolition of any buildings would be undertaken”. Since then a long, loud silence!
In the meantime the buildings bought by Provincial Government, 5 years ago have been empty and left to disintegrate thus creating an added eyesore in the city centre. Surely it is incumbent on Provincial Government, particularly given the Premier and MEC’s comments way back at the start of the project, to advise the citizens of the city just what they are now planning! Surely it is incumbent on Provincial Government as one of our custodians of the built heritage and as the property owner of these crumbling structures to tell us what they are planning to do with the heritage (and other) buildings that daily degenerate? Why the current secrecy? Surely there are undisputed parts of their plan that could have gone ahead some time ago and, in fact, been completed by now that would have a positive effect on the built environment? I refer here to the awful buildings on the north and south of Beyer’s Naude Square that have become nothing better than open urinals and by edging directly onto President and Market Streets force pedestrians into the roadways the plan was to demolish them, hallelujah! But why hasn’t it happened? Why has the fountain between the Legislature and the Rissik Street Post Office not been removed (it hasn’t worked for years other than as a washing area for homeless people!) or at least reconfigured and put back into use – although I can hardly think the latter an option!
When will government at all levels understand that the city belongs to the people who pay their rates and taxes from which the city is maintained but also from which these edifices were built in the first place – the least we deserve in the “accountability” and ‘transparency’ of our newly democratic country is just that.
It is bad enough that the refurbishing of the previous City Hall section and the fast fading Rissik Street Post Office has taken the time it has, but this new situation is not acceptable. (I understand that proposal calls for the design of refurbishment of both these two buildings has now been advertised although I missed seeing the adverts myself.)
All of us who were involved with the objections were in fact highly supportive of the principles behind the proposals. Citichat 34/2005 repeated 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. The celebration of those African peoples here prior to 1886 must be done, but in an appropriate place and manner.” But let’s get on with it!
There were numerous media articles published whilst the controversy raged – one of the best from Lone Paulsen and Melinda Silverman who reminded the public that the existing square is one of the city’s oldest, most inclusive public place. When it was laid out in 1886 it accommodated Johannesburg’s first government building at a time when the square was a vast open dusty plain – as the city grew this turned into a frenetic trading place for both white and black – the Boers defeat at the turn of the century heralded in Edwardian architecture and the new city hall was completed on the east of the square in 1915 – by the 1930s the public library had been completed on the opposite east side and the ‘market’ was replaced with gardens. In 1980 the area was desecrated through the controversial “Library Gardens: project and the area has been languishing ever since. This historic focal point of the city centre is surely worth some effort on the part of the authorities to ensure that it is a welcoming and attractive meeting place for 2010 visitors let alone the citizens of the city…..or has it gone the way of the monorail?
Some great stuff on over the next two weekends and go and look at the impressive Eland statues erected last weekend corner Bertha and Ameshoff, ciao, neil
Friday, August 24, 2007
Friday, August 17, 2007
Public Art; BRT Citichat 17 August 2007
CITICHAT 32/2007 - 17 August 2007
State, Statues and Smart Transportation
In response to last week’s comments about the lack of Council action regarding the ‘Irish Barracks’ (the historic central police barracks in Marshall Street) Eric Itzkin, the City’s Deputy Director, Immovable Heritage, points out that for some time they have been trying to prod Public Works, the building’s owner, to permit the old building to be repaired. “So it's not true that the City has been inactive on that one” - my apologies, Eric! However the lack of action on the part of the Works Department is symptomatic of Central Government’s inability to meet its obligations or for that matter to even recognise them, when it comes to issues of Heritage or property ownership. The President was evidently fairly harsh with both the City Council and the Business sector regarding the inner city when he held his ‘imbizo’ back in April - yet one of his own Departments has replicated the inaction and indifference of its predecessor - doing absolutely nothing about this building since it assumed responsibility for it in 1994 – 13 years of further inaction equating to 13 years of degeneration including a fire that has partly destroyed the building. It now undermines all the good that has been done in uplifting and regenerating the general area of the inner city around it.
Over the past decade, but more so over the last few years, the City has become increasingly responsive to the need for public art. (Google “Beeldenstad” and then the Johannesburg sub-section) MetroMall, the Faraday taxi rank and the Constitutional Court are all relatively recent public developments that have showcased artworks – the columns supporting the elevated portion of Joe Slovo Drive leading to the Ellis Park precinct, have been clad in mosaic as part of the 2010 upgrade. “Public Art has become an integral part of economic regeneration and is playing an increasingly important role as creative catalyst in landscape design, urban design and architecture. (The Welsh Development Agency Design Guide).
A while ago I mentioned that work had started on the corner of Bertha and Ameshoff Streets in preparation for a new piece of public art. Remember the hideous bridge that used to span Bertha? Now, we will have a splendid artwork to grace one of the city’s main ‘gateways’. The initiative is a joint effort of the Johannesburg Development Agency (JDA), the City’s Department of Community Development and the Braamfontein Improvement District. The artwork is the result of a competition administered by the Braamfontein-based arts consultancy, the Trinity Session who were also responsible for the metal tree sculptures in Juta Street. The statue was chosen from submissions made by five invited professional artists with experience in undertaking large public commissions, the winning submission coming from Clive van der Berg. The work consists of two Eland profiles with a combined weight of about 50 tons and 7.5 metres overall height to the tip of the horns. It is to be cast on site tomorrow, Saturday 18 August starting at about 08h00.
7.5 metres and 50 tons is no small object in anyone’s language and will provide an iconic focus that will complement the public environment upgrading that took place a couple of years back funded jointly by the City and the major private sector corporates in the area. The representation of an eland, a buck that probably grazed in this area over a century ago, placed on this busy street corner should “prompt reflection on our relationship to the past, and to the inter-connectedness of environmental, cultural and spiritual destinies”.
The City has come out with a draft development framework for supporting land uses along the Bus Rapid Transport (BRT) pilot route which will run from Parktown to Sunninghill. The draft is available on www.joburg.org.za and the City is inviting comments from the public by 31 August. This is a comprehensive document that clearly spells out a number of strategies that appear to be well thought-out and motivated. I say ‘appear’ because I have not had time to read every page of the 100-plus paged document but I must say that I liked what I’ve seen.
One of the six strategies that the draft deals with in detail, is increasing density and compactness. The whole idea is “to curb urban sprawl” and to promote “the use of smart transportation”. The strategy seeks to densify areas within walking distance of the proposed transit stations. This may cause consternation in the affected areas but is long overdue and the BRT becomes the ideal catalyst to achieve higher densities. Northern suburbs residents in particular have been spoilt with low density, sprawled development and if we are going to cope long term with growth and a better transport system, densification is critical.
Here are some pertinent comments on densification by international experts that I have extracted from a November/December 2006 Urban Land Institute (ULI) publication on Architecture and Society - the emphases are mine:
• Dense, efficient cities are much more sustainable than sprawling medium-to-low-density cities.
• Density of development is fundamental in creating high quality urban projects
• There is a particular advantage to the environment in vertical city making, requiring manipulation of light, air and comfort requiring attention and articulation in architectural design. There is no doubt that design can ameliorate density in such a way as to provide very pleasant lifestyles even in extreme densities. It seems that the capacity of cities to hold more people in the same area is almost limitless provided appropriate infrastructure is created at the same time.
• Cities are too important to be left to the politicians and economists…….the challenge will be to focus in depth on social dynamics and how cities are used by the people who live and work in them and how to understand their needs and prepare for expansion of new communities.
• The polycentric city – London is a classic model with many centres – Greenwich, east London, parts of the West End, Chelsea Camden, north London – all with their dynamic intensities. And they were all suburbs once. Enough building mass and enough mixed use actually creates a fabric that over time becomes integrated into the surroundings. The problem is suburban housing that just has housing. You can’t support a bus system, you can’t support a school, you can’t support a shop if you don’t have enough people living within a 10 or 15-mile radius.
• In (some) cities, the form of the buildings, their layout on the ground, actually exacerbates the problem. Think of the vast amount of housing that is being built behind barbed wires, or electronic fences, or walls in cities like Mexico City, Sao Paulo, Caracas, Johannesburg. You know that as society changes and the neighbours may become wealthier, these will never become integrated areas. Building cities without walls is very important, and I am not optimistic that things are going to change in many of those places.”
Well, here is a blueprint for change that all critics of local government, and I include myself in that group, should study and consider very carefully. I think it is a positive signal from the Council.
Cheers, neil
State, Statues and Smart Transportation
In response to last week’s comments about the lack of Council action regarding the ‘Irish Barracks’ (the historic central police barracks in Marshall Street) Eric Itzkin, the City’s Deputy Director, Immovable Heritage, points out that for some time they have been trying to prod Public Works, the building’s owner, to permit the old building to be repaired. “So it's not true that the City has been inactive on that one” - my apologies, Eric! However the lack of action on the part of the Works Department is symptomatic of Central Government’s inability to meet its obligations or for that matter to even recognise them, when it comes to issues of Heritage or property ownership. The President was evidently fairly harsh with both the City Council and the Business sector regarding the inner city when he held his ‘imbizo’ back in April - yet one of his own Departments has replicated the inaction and indifference of its predecessor - doing absolutely nothing about this building since it assumed responsibility for it in 1994 – 13 years of further inaction equating to 13 years of degeneration including a fire that has partly destroyed the building. It now undermines all the good that has been done in uplifting and regenerating the general area of the inner city around it.
Over the past decade, but more so over the last few years, the City has become increasingly responsive to the need for public art. (Google “Beeldenstad” and then the Johannesburg sub-section) MetroMall, the Faraday taxi rank and the Constitutional Court are all relatively recent public developments that have showcased artworks – the columns supporting the elevated portion of Joe Slovo Drive leading to the Ellis Park precinct, have been clad in mosaic as part of the 2010 upgrade. “Public Art has become an integral part of economic regeneration and is playing an increasingly important role as creative catalyst in landscape design, urban design and architecture. (The Welsh Development Agency Design Guide).
A while ago I mentioned that work had started on the corner of Bertha and Ameshoff Streets in preparation for a new piece of public art. Remember the hideous bridge that used to span Bertha? Now, we will have a splendid artwork to grace one of the city’s main ‘gateways’. The initiative is a joint effort of the Johannesburg Development Agency (JDA), the City’s Department of Community Development and the Braamfontein Improvement District. The artwork is the result of a competition administered by the Braamfontein-based arts consultancy, the Trinity Session who were also responsible for the metal tree sculptures in Juta Street. The statue was chosen from submissions made by five invited professional artists with experience in undertaking large public commissions, the winning submission coming from Clive van der Berg. The work consists of two Eland profiles with a combined weight of about 50 tons and 7.5 metres overall height to the tip of the horns. It is to be cast on site tomorrow, Saturday 18 August starting at about 08h00.
7.5 metres and 50 tons is no small object in anyone’s language and will provide an iconic focus that will complement the public environment upgrading that took place a couple of years back funded jointly by the City and the major private sector corporates in the area. The representation of an eland, a buck that probably grazed in this area over a century ago, placed on this busy street corner should “prompt reflection on our relationship to the past, and to the inter-connectedness of environmental, cultural and spiritual destinies”.
The City has come out with a draft development framework for supporting land uses along the Bus Rapid Transport (BRT) pilot route which will run from Parktown to Sunninghill. The draft is available on www.joburg.org.za and the City is inviting comments from the public by 31 August. This is a comprehensive document that clearly spells out a number of strategies that appear to be well thought-out and motivated. I say ‘appear’ because I have not had time to read every page of the 100-plus paged document but I must say that I liked what I’ve seen.
One of the six strategies that the draft deals with in detail, is increasing density and compactness. The whole idea is “to curb urban sprawl” and to promote “the use of smart transportation”. The strategy seeks to densify areas within walking distance of the proposed transit stations. This may cause consternation in the affected areas but is long overdue and the BRT becomes the ideal catalyst to achieve higher densities. Northern suburbs residents in particular have been spoilt with low density, sprawled development and if we are going to cope long term with growth and a better transport system, densification is critical.
Here are some pertinent comments on densification by international experts that I have extracted from a November/December 2006 Urban Land Institute (ULI) publication on Architecture and Society - the emphases are mine:
• Dense, efficient cities are much more sustainable than sprawling medium-to-low-density cities.
• Density of development is fundamental in creating high quality urban projects
• There is a particular advantage to the environment in vertical city making, requiring manipulation of light, air and comfort requiring attention and articulation in architectural design. There is no doubt that design can ameliorate density in such a way as to provide very pleasant lifestyles even in extreme densities. It seems that the capacity of cities to hold more people in the same area is almost limitless provided appropriate infrastructure is created at the same time.
• Cities are too important to be left to the politicians and economists…….the challenge will be to focus in depth on social dynamics and how cities are used by the people who live and work in them and how to understand their needs and prepare for expansion of new communities.
• The polycentric city – London is a classic model with many centres – Greenwich, east London, parts of the West End, Chelsea Camden, north London – all with their dynamic intensities. And they were all suburbs once. Enough building mass and enough mixed use actually creates a fabric that over time becomes integrated into the surroundings. The problem is suburban housing that just has housing. You can’t support a bus system, you can’t support a school, you can’t support a shop if you don’t have enough people living within a 10 or 15-mile radius.
• In (some) cities, the form of the buildings, their layout on the ground, actually exacerbates the problem. Think of the vast amount of housing that is being built behind barbed wires, or electronic fences, or walls in cities like Mexico City, Sao Paulo, Caracas, Johannesburg. You know that as society changes and the neighbours may become wealthier, these will never become integrated areas. Building cities without walls is very important, and I am not optimistic that things are going to change in many of those places.”
Well, here is a blueprint for change that all critics of local government, and I include myself in that group, should study and consider very carefully. I think it is a positive signal from the Council.
Cheers, neil
Friday, August 10, 2007
Residential; Heritage Decay Citichat 10 August 2007
.
CITICHAT 31/2007 - 10 August 2007
One step forward and a number back - more good news and more of the same bad news.
On two mornings this past week I was taken to see the changes that are taking place in specific areas in the inner city. Both were to the south of Market Street. The biggest noticeable change was the sheer numbers of people now working in buildings that less than eighteen months ago were virtually empty. And developers are saying that if they had more space they could fill it and, in fact construction abounds in some areas. Probably two main issues that are having a strong and positive effect are the economy itself but secondly, that people who have resisted working in the inner city are now either buying good accommodation in the city or are enjoying the benefits of easy transport and the rapidly growing service economy that is materializing in order to support them. We need a big push to deal with the environment around these specific areas, I hear in one instance of an area around some of the major buildings being deliberately held up because of unacceptable demands on the property owner by a council entity. This sort of attitude must be stopped otherwise it really is a story of one step forward….!
The other really good news that I received this week relates to the buy-out of the notorious Dunwell and Softstone properties with concommitmant plans to refurbish these. The purchase of the Dunwell portfolio is evidently subject to a number of conditions precedent that still need to be fulfilled Here we have so-called ‘slum lording’ being taken up and, with the quality of those who have purchased and will refurbish the properties, I have no doubt that a series of what can be described as ‘sink-holes’ amongst the twenty four buildings involved in the deal, will be turned around and once again be an asset to the city. According to the press release:
ApexHi Properties Limited has acquired two residential property portfolios (the Dunwell and Softstone portfolios) for R246-million and will invest a further R91-million in refurbishing costs in a joint venture with residential specialists, Aengus Property Holdings. The purchase of the Dunwell portfolio is subject to a number of conditions precedent that still need to be fulfilled.
The Dunwell portfolio, which consists of 15 residential properties located in Braamfontein, Johannesburg, will be acquired for R115-million. An additional R78-million will be incurred in refurbishing costs. A portion of the portfolio, at a cost of R47-million, will be refurbished and held as investment property, the balance of the portfolio, purchased and refurbished for R146-million, will be sold to investors.
The Softstone portfolio will be acquired for R131-million and a further R11-million will be incurred in refurbishing costs. The portfolio consists of nine residential properties in Hospital Hill, Johannesburg, Hillbrow, Braamfontein, Parktown and Berea. The joint venture will retain a portfolio of R86-million, the balance of the portfolio will be disposed of.
Aengus Properties have been working with ApexHi since last year and the relationship has been extremely positive for the city – Aengus has developed ‘Braamfontein Lofts’ from what used to be Biccard House; ‘Fashion Lofts’ from Kelhof; ‘Lofts@66’ from mothballed 66 Smal Street and ‘Tribeca Lofts’ from African City – the bulk of the 514 extremely good quality residential accommodation has been sold often within days of coming on the market. There is a close link between this and my earlier comment – there is a growing number of people now working in the inner city who also prefer staying here. Ten years ago I would have been burnt at the stake for suggesting that this was the way we would go!
The second issue that hit me forcibly on my walk around is that in relation to some issues - nothing changes. The older sink-holes in the city are still being allowed to rot and do their damage. One visual aspect of the inner city that continues to be of major concern to me, is the treatment (or rather the lack thereof) of buildings, old and not so old, scattered throughout the inner city. The irresponsibility of both some private developers and of all levels of government in regard to these buildings is appalling. Walked past the Irish Barracks in Marshall Street and was dismayed to see that it is still a burnt-out shell. The building has not been in use for decades. The fire that partly destroyed this building took place years ago and was probably caused by vandals burning the plastic sheathing off stolen copper wire. For some time before the fire, it was used by the City as a store for informal traders – it housed ex-supermarket trolleys and goods the movement of which to and from the building created havoc with traffic. I understand that the building belongs to Central Government who are supposed to be the leaders of preservation of the country’s heritage. What a joke! Remember Drill Hall? It had to have a series of fires that almost destroyed it and cost numerous lives before the City Council stepped in, took over ownership and restored as much as what was left. The Irish Barracks must be classified as a ‘sinkhole’ yet the central government owner, through its Works Department, ignores genuine interest from those who are keen to place the building back into the daily life of the city. And the City does nothing – surely the new urban management regime that has been spoken about for months should see this as an urgent responsibility? Of course the building has become even more of an eyesore now that the buildings that surround it have been upgraded – someone needs to get off their butt fast!
Our National Heritage Resources Act contains all the ‘right words’ – “enable and encourage communities to nurture and conserve their legacy so that it may be bequeathed to future generations….. our heritage is unique and precious and it cannot be renewed. It helps us to define our cultural identity and therefore lies at the heart of our spiritual well-being and has the power to build our nation.”
Oswald Spengler (the ‘Decline of the West’ and ‘Cities’) aptly wrote in the early 20th century “We cannot comprehend political, social 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.”
To which Donovan Rypkema, in his excellent paper on ‘Globalisation, Heritage Buildings and the 21st Century’ adds “….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.
A level down from Central Government we have a Provincial Legislature that that acts just as badly as its superior – no worse, given Provincial heritage responsibility. The Rissik Street Post Office – supposedly bought by the Provincial Legislature some years back for office space – daily disintegrates. Its unique historic clock and bells long since melted down in a scrap buyers yard whilst the building daily becomes more and more of a cancer on the urban fabric. Provincial Government is supposed to provide the government agency that is entrusted to manage Gauteng’s heritage. What a joke!
In March they provided yet another demolition permit of a building known for, and drawn to their attention, for its heritage value. Although it is not within the Inner City but in Parkwood it is another example of the total disrespect they have for legislative procedures as well as apparent disinterest in heritage preservation.
The private sector’s hands are not clean either. The quite remarkable turn- around that the city has experienced has resulted in what appears to me to be major exploitation of the urban environment. A number of private buyers, unlike the two mentioned previously and, thankfully, many others, have bought substantial numbers of buildings for very little over the past few years and for which they are quite happy to pay rates yet see them rot until the market goes even higher and they can make a killing.. Just good business? For them, maybe, but for the inner city it certainly isn’t because of the negative impact that the empty buildings, some of which are rotting hulks, have on the city. How can a property owner be permitted to surround a building with hoardings for a couple of years or have street parking bays closed also for years, yet do nothing with the building without the city paying any attention at all? Is the city happy to merely collect their rates and ignore the negative impact on the city itself? Again, hopefully when the much vaunted urban management programme is put into place (when?) maybe we’ll see some appropriate reaction. Personally, I think that it is time to become punitive.
Trust you enjoyed ‘Women’s Day’ and are having a great long week-end, best regards, neil
CITICHAT 31/2007 - 10 August 2007
One step forward and a number back - more good news and more of the same bad news.
On two mornings this past week I was taken to see the changes that are taking place in specific areas in the inner city. Both were to the south of Market Street. The biggest noticeable change was the sheer numbers of people now working in buildings that less than eighteen months ago were virtually empty. And developers are saying that if they had more space they could fill it and, in fact construction abounds in some areas. Probably two main issues that are having a strong and positive effect are the economy itself but secondly, that people who have resisted working in the inner city are now either buying good accommodation in the city or are enjoying the benefits of easy transport and the rapidly growing service economy that is materializing in order to support them. We need a big push to deal with the environment around these specific areas, I hear in one instance of an area around some of the major buildings being deliberately held up because of unacceptable demands on the property owner by a council entity. This sort of attitude must be stopped otherwise it really is a story of one step forward….!
The other really good news that I received this week relates to the buy-out of the notorious Dunwell and Softstone properties with concommitmant plans to refurbish these. The purchase of the Dunwell portfolio is evidently subject to a number of conditions precedent that still need to be fulfilled Here we have so-called ‘slum lording’ being taken up and, with the quality of those who have purchased and will refurbish the properties, I have no doubt that a series of what can be described as ‘sink-holes’ amongst the twenty four buildings involved in the deal, will be turned around and once again be an asset to the city. According to the press release:
ApexHi Properties Limited has acquired two residential property portfolios (the Dunwell and Softstone portfolios) for R246-million and will invest a further R91-million in refurbishing costs in a joint venture with residential specialists, Aengus Property Holdings. The purchase of the Dunwell portfolio is subject to a number of conditions precedent that still need to be fulfilled.
The Dunwell portfolio, which consists of 15 residential properties located in Braamfontein, Johannesburg, will be acquired for R115-million. An additional R78-million will be incurred in refurbishing costs. A portion of the portfolio, at a cost of R47-million, will be refurbished and held as investment property, the balance of the portfolio, purchased and refurbished for R146-million, will be sold to investors.
The Softstone portfolio will be acquired for R131-million and a further R11-million will be incurred in refurbishing costs. The portfolio consists of nine residential properties in Hospital Hill, Johannesburg, Hillbrow, Braamfontein, Parktown and Berea. The joint venture will retain a portfolio of R86-million, the balance of the portfolio will be disposed of.
Aengus Properties have been working with ApexHi since last year and the relationship has been extremely positive for the city – Aengus has developed ‘Braamfontein Lofts’ from what used to be Biccard House; ‘Fashion Lofts’ from Kelhof; ‘Lofts@66’ from mothballed 66 Smal Street and ‘Tribeca Lofts’ from African City – the bulk of the 514 extremely good quality residential accommodation has been sold often within days of coming on the market. There is a close link between this and my earlier comment – there is a growing number of people now working in the inner city who also prefer staying here. Ten years ago I would have been burnt at the stake for suggesting that this was the way we would go!
The second issue that hit me forcibly on my walk around is that in relation to some issues - nothing changes. The older sink-holes in the city are still being allowed to rot and do their damage. One visual aspect of the inner city that continues to be of major concern to me, is the treatment (or rather the lack thereof) of buildings, old and not so old, scattered throughout the inner city. The irresponsibility of both some private developers and of all levels of government in regard to these buildings is appalling. Walked past the Irish Barracks in Marshall Street and was dismayed to see that it is still a burnt-out shell. The building has not been in use for decades. The fire that partly destroyed this building took place years ago and was probably caused by vandals burning the plastic sheathing off stolen copper wire. For some time before the fire, it was used by the City as a store for informal traders – it housed ex-supermarket trolleys and goods the movement of which to and from the building created havoc with traffic. I understand that the building belongs to Central Government who are supposed to be the leaders of preservation of the country’s heritage. What a joke! Remember Drill Hall? It had to have a series of fires that almost destroyed it and cost numerous lives before the City Council stepped in, took over ownership and restored as much as what was left. The Irish Barracks must be classified as a ‘sinkhole’ yet the central government owner, through its Works Department, ignores genuine interest from those who are keen to place the building back into the daily life of the city. And the City does nothing – surely the new urban management regime that has been spoken about for months should see this as an urgent responsibility? Of course the building has become even more of an eyesore now that the buildings that surround it have been upgraded – someone needs to get off their butt fast!
Our National Heritage Resources Act contains all the ‘right words’ – “enable and encourage communities to nurture and conserve their legacy so that it may be bequeathed to future generations….. our heritage is unique and precious and it cannot be renewed. It helps us to define our cultural identity and therefore lies at the heart of our spiritual well-being and has the power to build our nation.”
Oswald Spengler (the ‘Decline of the West’ and ‘Cities’) aptly wrote in the early 20th century “We cannot comprehend political, social 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.”
To which Donovan Rypkema, in his excellent paper on ‘Globalisation, Heritage Buildings and the 21st Century’ adds “….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.
A level down from Central Government we have a Provincial Legislature that that acts just as badly as its superior – no worse, given Provincial heritage responsibility. The Rissik Street Post Office – supposedly bought by the Provincial Legislature some years back for office space – daily disintegrates. Its unique historic clock and bells long since melted down in a scrap buyers yard whilst the building daily becomes more and more of a cancer on the urban fabric. Provincial Government is supposed to provide the government agency that is entrusted to manage Gauteng’s heritage. What a joke!
In March they provided yet another demolition permit of a building known for, and drawn to their attention, for its heritage value. Although it is not within the Inner City but in Parkwood it is another example of the total disrespect they have for legislative procedures as well as apparent disinterest in heritage preservation.
The private sector’s hands are not clean either. The quite remarkable turn- around that the city has experienced has resulted in what appears to me to be major exploitation of the urban environment. A number of private buyers, unlike the two mentioned previously and, thankfully, many others, have bought substantial numbers of buildings for very little over the past few years and for which they are quite happy to pay rates yet see them rot until the market goes even higher and they can make a killing.. Just good business? For them, maybe, but for the inner city it certainly isn’t because of the negative impact that the empty buildings, some of which are rotting hulks, have on the city. How can a property owner be permitted to surround a building with hoardings for a couple of years or have street parking bays closed also for years, yet do nothing with the building without the city paying any attention at all? Is the city happy to merely collect their rates and ignore the negative impact on the city itself? Again, hopefully when the much vaunted urban management programme is put into place (when?) maybe we’ll see some appropriate reaction. Personally, I think that it is time to become punitive.
Trust you enjoyed ‘Women’s Day’ and are having a great long week-end, best regards, neil
Friday, August 3, 2007
George; Bureauracracy Citichat 3 August 2007
CITICHAT 30/2007 - 3 August 2007
Looking South (East?) and counting the cost of Bureaucracy
Was on a fleeting visit to what I used to call the Southern Cape earlier this week. They tell me that it is now known as ‘East Cape” – whatever!
I spent a very short time, hours only, in both George and Knysna and it is quite some years since I was in that part of the world. Just some quick impressions as that was all I had time for. Firstly the tremendous growth that this part of the country has clearly enjoyed over the past few years is continuing judging by the high level of new development that is visible just everywhere and, secondly, how clean the area and particularly those two towns are.
George has spread over a huge area, driving from Knysna I measured 10 kms from entering the edge of its ‘strip’ retail area to what I used to understand as the beginning of its CBD. A long, low-density retail strip, rather sprawled but very orderly and quite diverse. At the end of this, one turns into the traditional main drag, York Street, which is extremely wide with well tended central flower beds and then deep parking areas on either side before you get to the retail. Doesn’t make for a brilliant pedestrian retail experience but I must say the spaciousness, cleanliness and excellent condition of the public environment made me rather envious. Quite a number of the pavements, and some of the roads, have been and are being resurfaced with a lovely red paving brick and add to the upbeat feel of the public space. On the downside, I had a brief chat to a councillor and gathered that drugs and particularly ‘tik’ are a major and growing concern.
The N2 between George and Knysna has been dramatically improved since I was there last and one can really enjoy easy driving through continuously magnificent scenery – spoiled only by the some lousy architecture in the widely scattered residential, primarily ‘holiday’, areas along the way.
Knysna, on the other hand has high density retail on both sides of its main street and, whilst being more easily walkable than George, clearly lacks the latter’s countrified charm and spaciousness. Lots of visitors - even at this time of the year - making full use of the many touristy shops and pavement cafes. Driving through the main street is awful, very congested – even at this time of the year - with little on-street parking. The planners appear to have chosen to rather put their parking areas behind the main retail street but these are quite difficult to find if you don’t know that they are there. I understand that the Knysna municipality are looked on as being one of the most enterprising municipalities around the country, for example they are already providing free broad-band access to their citizens with a growing number of ‘hot spots’ being positioned throughout the town whilst most other Councils are still talking about this amenity. Was interested to see that they are also repaving a main street square which I remember previously as catering for informal traders, badly housed and mostly selling tourist goods. It will be interesting to see how they intend to accommodate them in the future. Incidentally, the prices of housing appears prohibitive!
I visited the Knysna Municipal offices to ask for some literature on the town, as I couldn’t find a town website - not tourist info which the web is full of, but covering issues such as population, economy, growth, future plans, etc. I was told, rather uncertainly but very nicely and politely, that they would have to see what they had and would e-mail me the info. Haven’t received yet, maybe they don’t have access to their wireless facility! I did the same in George – although they did have a website it doesn’t have the info I wanted. As I wasn’t sure where the municipal offices were, I stopped in at the George Tourism Bureau, well accommodated in a historic building. They didn’t have that kind of info either, understandably I guess, so I was directed to the Municipal offices some blocks away, whose officials were also extremely nice and polite but re-directed me back to the Tourism centre. I didn’t have the time or the inclination at that stage to go back again but it made me aware of how totally centred such towns appear to be on tourism with, evidently, little thought to broader economic sustainability.
Which brings me to the issue of our burgeoning bureaucracy
Last year I was invited to the launch of a research report focused on ‘ counting the cost of red tape’ in the tourism industry, pretty staggering figures too. Well, we have recently been making a lot of submissions in response to public invitations to be ‘accredited’ on various panels as potential service providers. In the construction industry this would be akin to pre-qualifying before you are allowed to tender for or be appointed on a specific contract. All well and good, but I would love to know what the cost to the country is for this bureaucratic excess. You have to make separate applications to different departments of national and provincial government but, worse, you have to do the same to every municipality and, in the case of Johannesburg, separately to its different departments and municipal entities – annually or biennually.
Why there cannot be a Johannesburg central register of service providers that you are required to update annually I just don’t understand. It takes many man-hours to complete each submission and for each of these you have to provide various original documents or sworn copies of originals. Each basic document is different in order to cater for the idiosyncrasies of each department or municipal entity even though they are for the same municipality. On more than one occasion in the past two years we have been advised that our applications were lost (with all their original supplements) and that we had to re-apply!
With respect, the information that is requested to accompany the documentation is often in relation to processes that have been long abandoned such as Regional Services Council levies, or are no longer possible to obtain. For instance SARS, intelligently, no longer provides separate documents for “good standing” and ”tax clearance” and “VAT” and “PAYE” and “UIF” etc etc etc but provides one document that covers all of these issues. But application documents still request these individually. Someone is just too lazy to update their own documentation.
Some of the questions asked are quite inane, extremely badly worded and don’t apply to pre-qualification where there is no specific contract in view: “what would you ensure effective Project Management of assignments for XXXX?” or “what is the distance from the candidate organisation’s office to the relevant (Your Organisation Name) offices?” “Would the awarding of the contract result in your having to employ additional people and if so how many additional people would you require?” “Give a breakdown of the race and gender of these people” “Appointment of a new boarder (sic) panel of professional service providers….”
Then, irrespective of the fact that new BEE codes were promulgated on the 9th February this year and have force of law providing a single standard for measuring BEE contribution levels of all enterprises, everyone does there own thing. The new legislation provides a level of protection for small organisations like ours that have a turnover of R5 million or less. We are awarded an automatic BEE level ‘Four’ status regardless, which we can then improve further through black equity. This is a protection for micro businesses the lack of which previously has resulted in many old established firms having to shut down simply because they had a single ‘white’ proprietor. At least there is now protection for small traditional ‘one- or two-man bands’ who have a low annual turnover, and probably use more black students or graduates part time providing them with more essential training and experience than many bigger companies .
Yet, national and local government departments make no reference in their documents to the legislated BEE status rather falling back on the 80/20 or 90/10 preference points system to be applied for adjudication This latter means that 90 points are allocated for price, 6 points for use of historically disadvantaged individuals (no franchise in national elections before the 1983 and 1993 Constitutions) and the remaining 4 points for females. That preference system is also in use currently by a number of Council departments and municipal entities. But not all! One Johannesburg entity advises that it will evaluate applications 50% as to track record, prior experience and price and 50% as to black economic empowerment, skills development, social investment and procurement. This appears to be clear discrimination that does not take into account the law of the land nor micro businesses.
It’s about time that we had a similar investigation to the “counting the cost of red tape” but this time into the cost, efficiency and discriminatory practices of the procurement processes of municipalities and other public sector bodies!
Enjoy the beautiful winter weekend, ciao, neil
Looking South (East?) and counting the cost of Bureaucracy
Was on a fleeting visit to what I used to call the Southern Cape earlier this week. They tell me that it is now known as ‘East Cape” – whatever!
I spent a very short time, hours only, in both George and Knysna and it is quite some years since I was in that part of the world. Just some quick impressions as that was all I had time for. Firstly the tremendous growth that this part of the country has clearly enjoyed over the past few years is continuing judging by the high level of new development that is visible just everywhere and, secondly, how clean the area and particularly those two towns are.
George has spread over a huge area, driving from Knysna I measured 10 kms from entering the edge of its ‘strip’ retail area to what I used to understand as the beginning of its CBD. A long, low-density retail strip, rather sprawled but very orderly and quite diverse. At the end of this, one turns into the traditional main drag, York Street, which is extremely wide with well tended central flower beds and then deep parking areas on either side before you get to the retail. Doesn’t make for a brilliant pedestrian retail experience but I must say the spaciousness, cleanliness and excellent condition of the public environment made me rather envious. Quite a number of the pavements, and some of the roads, have been and are being resurfaced with a lovely red paving brick and add to the upbeat feel of the public space. On the downside, I had a brief chat to a councillor and gathered that drugs and particularly ‘tik’ are a major and growing concern.
The N2 between George and Knysna has been dramatically improved since I was there last and one can really enjoy easy driving through continuously magnificent scenery – spoiled only by the some lousy architecture in the widely scattered residential, primarily ‘holiday’, areas along the way.
Knysna, on the other hand has high density retail on both sides of its main street and, whilst being more easily walkable than George, clearly lacks the latter’s countrified charm and spaciousness. Lots of visitors - even at this time of the year - making full use of the many touristy shops and pavement cafes. Driving through the main street is awful, very congested – even at this time of the year - with little on-street parking. The planners appear to have chosen to rather put their parking areas behind the main retail street but these are quite difficult to find if you don’t know that they are there. I understand that the Knysna municipality are looked on as being one of the most enterprising municipalities around the country, for example they are already providing free broad-band access to their citizens with a growing number of ‘hot spots’ being positioned throughout the town whilst most other Councils are still talking about this amenity. Was interested to see that they are also repaving a main street square which I remember previously as catering for informal traders, badly housed and mostly selling tourist goods. It will be interesting to see how they intend to accommodate them in the future. Incidentally, the prices of housing appears prohibitive!
I visited the Knysna Municipal offices to ask for some literature on the town, as I couldn’t find a town website - not tourist info which the web is full of, but covering issues such as population, economy, growth, future plans, etc. I was told, rather uncertainly but very nicely and politely, that they would have to see what they had and would e-mail me the info. Haven’t received yet, maybe they don’t have access to their wireless facility! I did the same in George – although they did have a website it doesn’t have the info I wanted. As I wasn’t sure where the municipal offices were, I stopped in at the George Tourism Bureau, well accommodated in a historic building. They didn’t have that kind of info either, understandably I guess, so I was directed to the Municipal offices some blocks away, whose officials were also extremely nice and polite but re-directed me back to the Tourism centre. I didn’t have the time or the inclination at that stage to go back again but it made me aware of how totally centred such towns appear to be on tourism with, evidently, little thought to broader economic sustainability.
Which brings me to the issue of our burgeoning bureaucracy
Last year I was invited to the launch of a research report focused on ‘ counting the cost of red tape’ in the tourism industry, pretty staggering figures too. Well, we have recently been making a lot of submissions in response to public invitations to be ‘accredited’ on various panels as potential service providers. In the construction industry this would be akin to pre-qualifying before you are allowed to tender for or be appointed on a specific contract. All well and good, but I would love to know what the cost to the country is for this bureaucratic excess. You have to make separate applications to different departments of national and provincial government but, worse, you have to do the same to every municipality and, in the case of Johannesburg, separately to its different departments and municipal entities – annually or biennually.
Why there cannot be a Johannesburg central register of service providers that you are required to update annually I just don’t understand. It takes many man-hours to complete each submission and for each of these you have to provide various original documents or sworn copies of originals. Each basic document is different in order to cater for the idiosyncrasies of each department or municipal entity even though they are for the same municipality. On more than one occasion in the past two years we have been advised that our applications were lost (with all their original supplements) and that we had to re-apply!
With respect, the information that is requested to accompany the documentation is often in relation to processes that have been long abandoned such as Regional Services Council levies, or are no longer possible to obtain. For instance SARS, intelligently, no longer provides separate documents for “good standing” and ”tax clearance” and “VAT” and “PAYE” and “UIF” etc etc etc but provides one document that covers all of these issues. But application documents still request these individually. Someone is just too lazy to update their own documentation.
Some of the questions asked are quite inane, extremely badly worded and don’t apply to pre-qualification where there is no specific contract in view: “what would you ensure effective Project Management of assignments for XXXX?” or “what is the distance from the candidate organisation’s office to the relevant (Your Organisation Name) offices?” “Would the awarding of the contract result in your having to employ additional people and if so how many additional people would you require?” “Give a breakdown of the race and gender of these people” “Appointment of a new boarder (sic) panel of professional service providers….”
Then, irrespective of the fact that new BEE codes were promulgated on the 9th February this year and have force of law providing a single standard for measuring BEE contribution levels of all enterprises, everyone does there own thing. The new legislation provides a level of protection for small organisations like ours that have a turnover of R5 million or less. We are awarded an automatic BEE level ‘Four’ status regardless, which we can then improve further through black equity. This is a protection for micro businesses the lack of which previously has resulted in many old established firms having to shut down simply because they had a single ‘white’ proprietor. At least there is now protection for small traditional ‘one- or two-man bands’ who have a low annual turnover, and probably use more black students or graduates part time providing them with more essential training and experience than many bigger companies .
Yet, national and local government departments make no reference in their documents to the legislated BEE status rather falling back on the 80/20 or 90/10 preference points system to be applied for adjudication This latter means that 90 points are allocated for price, 6 points for use of historically disadvantaged individuals (no franchise in national elections before the 1983 and 1993 Constitutions) and the remaining 4 points for females. That preference system is also in use currently by a number of Council departments and municipal entities. But not all! One Johannesburg entity advises that it will evaluate applications 50% as to track record, prior experience and price and 50% as to black economic empowerment, skills development, social investment and procurement. This appears to be clear discrimination that does not take into account the law of the land nor micro businesses.
It’s about time that we had a similar investigation to the “counting the cost of red tape” but this time into the cost, efficiency and discriminatory practices of the procurement processes of municipalities and other public sector bodies!
Enjoy the beautiful winter weekend, ciao, neil
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
