CITICHAT 47/2007 - 30 November 2007
Notes from the Netherlands
Spent most of this week in Amsterdam and Rotterdam – freezing cold! The first thing that strikes one about these cities is the public transportation – it is just so easy to get anywhere whether by tram, train, bus or metro - fast, efficient and frequent.
I had to give a talk in Amsterdam, part of a programme they are running on Bogota, Johannesburg and Jakarta, and then do some lecturing at Erasmus University in Rotterdam. The Amsterdam talk was arranged by an organisation called ARCAM which is the Amsterdam Centre for Architecture, a foundation founded in 1986. Its aim is to reach ‘the largest possible public’ in order to broaden architectural appeal focusing on topical issues and development within Amsterdam ‘so that discussion about the future is constantly fuelled’. If you are an architectural or urban design/ planning aficionado you can contact them when in the city and they’ll direct you to interesting buildings and sites. They hold public debates about plans, problems and developments in architecture and urban design in Amsterdam; hold exhibitions and publish books, maps and other publications.
I understand that they are financially supported by both the city council and a number of businesses. Sounds like a good communication model!
The population of Amsterdam, the capital of the Netherlands, is given as about 750 000 and is extremely cosmopolitan – 174 nationalities are evidently represented in its residents. It is evidently the third most densely populated city in the world after Bangladesh and South Korea. It must also have one of the highest ratios of bicycles per head of population, I found two estimates of bicycle numbers, 600 000 and one million, which means that either 8 out of every ten own a bike or a third of the population own two each! The city has over 400 kms of bike paths and cars are actively discouraged – the number of parking spaces have been seriously reduced. It helps to make the city pedestrian friendly.
Rotterdam, with a population of about 600 000, is the second largest city after Amsterdam. Only half of this population are Dutch the balance being made up of Surinamese, Turkish, Moroccan, Antilean/Aruban, South European and ‘others’. It was the world’s busiest port between 1962 and 2004, now overtaken by Shanghai. It covers an area of 304 kms of which only 206 is land. Both cities form part of a Region called Rangstad which has a population of 7.5 million and is the sixth largest urban conurbation in Europe after Moscow, London, the Ruhr, Istanbul and Paris.
Both are old cities - Amsterdam was officially ‘born’ in 1275 although there is evidence of much earlier settlements. It received growth boosts in the late 16th century when many fled to it from Antwerp which had been overrun by Spain and again when the railway opened in 1839. Rotterdam can be traced back to 900 although its ‘city rights’ were only granted in 1340 when its population was a mere 2000! .Rotterdam’s main growth occurred after 1872 but the centre of the city was flattened by the Nazis when it was invaded in 1940.
The first regular newspaper in the world was printed in Amsterdam in 1618 and it also became a centre for diamonds and tobacco. Following the setback of WWII, Amsterdam didn’t suffer the destruction that Rotterdam experienced, but the city was obviously hugely negatively affected but went through a dramatic recovery starting in the ‘50s and by the ‘90s the city’s economy had drastically changed to a dominant service industry.
One of ARCAM’S latest publications is a book called “Impact” and it details the history of urban planning in Amsterdam after 1986 including commentary on some 15 major projects developed during that time. In the book, Amsterdam is described as a ‘lobate’ city, a core with extensions like outspread fingers, with radial roads held together by a ring road. Of course the wonderful canals, originally planned and built in the 17th century, also form four concentric half-circles – three residential, Heerengracht, Keizersgracht and Prinsengracht, and the fourth outer ring, Stadhouderskade, built for defence and water management. Interconnecting canals were either for defence or the transport of goods. The book makes the point that Amsterdam is not a true port or river city but rather a ‘water city’. Water remained an important structuring device in all of the city’s planning after the canals were built. In fact “turning land into water and water into land …..is a dynamic that gives Amsterdam its character to this day.”
Housing has always been a pressure for the city. An expansion scheme of 1877 resulted in new districts being constructed “Monotonous residential areas with long narrow streets and long, shallow perimeter blocks, almost all of which was built by speculators and builders in pursuit of a quick profit. Things change: these are now popular neighbourhoods, and that is scarcely thanks to urban renewal”. In 1901 the Housing Act enabled the city council to declare slum dwellings unfit for human habitation and demolish them but it wasn’t until 1917 when ‘Plan Zuid’ was approved that new housing started in earnest. ‘Plan Zuid’ was intended for three income groups; the working class, middle class and the ‘elite’. “This gave rise to a typical Amsterdam tradition: a mix of rich and poor is still one of the most striking characteristics of Amsterdam’s housing. It is true of even the most recently built or planned districts, although the percentage of social housing in each project is steadily declining.”
In regard to transport and open space, the book records “Public transport and the walking distance from the dwelling to a public transport stop was a normative design principle…. as was the amount of green space per inhabitant” After the Second World War there was a considerable increase in the number of cars as well as the way in which they were being used ”…a shift from a small number of chauffeur-driven cars to a large number of privately driven cars. The demand for parking spaces increased and became an intractable problem and it is now a permanent feature of modern urban planning. It is therefore also an important part of the current policy which is called ‘optimisation of land use’ where – in order to keep the public space attractive with ever higher housing densities – as many parking spaces as possible are housed in built (preferably underground) facilities. ”
In the ‘60s city planning turned to high rise solutions but with strict requirements. “Living in green space and the strict separation of all types of traffic were just two of the noble departure points. Most importantly, the ground level was for the pedestrian. The spectre of the city centre clogged up with cars unquestionably played a role here.”
The second half of the 1970s was characterized primarily by the search for housing locations in and near Amsterdam. The important structure plan De Stad Centraal (The City Central) the official document on the compact city policy, which still applies today, was published in 1985. “The aim was to increase the limit in mobility and the urbanization of the countryside and to revitalize the existing city, including urban renewal in the postwar reconstruction areas… “ IJBurg (18 000 dwellings and relevant facilities) “is a good old-fashioned city lobe with a high-speed tram as its backbone. In that regard, it is interesting to see that here too, the lobate city is based on accessibility by public transport. In the 1980s the unremitting attention to public transport was aimed primarily at improving and expanding the network, as well as reducing car traffic. The concept of the transport node became the guiding principle in city planning.”
The ‘90s appears to be have focused on regional development - “today’s network city consists primarily of movement and mobility, but also as regards information, communication and production. And the netwok city is everywhere. The unbuilt area is easily accessible and is inseparable from the built-up area.” Now the focus moved from compact city to compact region. “The aim of this approach is that in the future, too, larger landscape units will not be fragmented. Amsterdam’s green wedges are important for the quality of life in the region and are laid down in a Main Green Structure. The City also now has a water plan. So the city’s carefully preserved mix of building development, green areas and water keeps Amsterdam livable. That has always been the case. Urban planning in Amsterdam has, from the very beginning, never been anything other than the expansion and improvement of opportunities for living, working, transportation and recreation.”
And Rotterdam? Well, we’ve run out of space but one thing that I should mention about this city is its close watch on economic issues. It has a committee of private sector high-powered economists who keep the Mayor constantly advised of economic trends and appropriate actions. But, over and above this, it has a top level of international players in a wide range of disciplines – up there at the level of Bill Clinton and the like – also advising the Mayor. They evidently meet once per year and their latest advice was to get Rotterdam positioned as the leader in European reduction of CO2 emissions – as a result, a plan has been prepared and will be implemented from next year.
Old these cities may be but they are no slouches – we can learn much from them and their experiences.
I guess that’s it for the year – I’m taking a bit of break from the end of next week, so talk to you in the New Year. Have a blessed Christmas and a safe, restful seasonal break and may 2008 be everything you wish for you and yours.
Ciao, neil
Friday, November 30, 2007
Friday, November 16, 2007
Progress Review Public Environment Citichat 16 November 2007
CITICHAT 45/2007 - 16 November 2007
Year-end review 4 – Upgrading the Public Environment.
I’m writing this Citichat in Port Elizabeth where the Mandela Bay Development Agency is putting the finishing touches to the first phase of upgrading Govan Mbeki, the main street through the CBD. The upgraded street will be opened at the end of the month and the second phase will be started in the New Year. Walking through the almost completed streetscape reminded me of this comment by Allan Jacobs - "If we can develop and design streets so that they are wonderful, fulfilling places to be - community-building places, attractive for all people - then we will have successfully designed about one-third of the city directly and will have had an immense impact on the rest." – which is also a good introduction to today’s year-end review.
Year-end reviews 1 and 2 (Citichats 42 & 43/2007) looked at two of the major visual changes we can anticipate in the inner city, those brought about by a new transportation system (the Bus Rapid Transport System, BRT) and those, largely, emanating from it, dense residential accommodation. But what about the base off which these are to be provided? What about the streetscapes?. At present not very pretty! I find it constantly embarrassing taking visitors through the city and pointing out the real progress that has been made and then asking them to “watch their step” as they walk over pavements with missing paving slabs and pavers and, even more dangerous, skirting manholes with no covers.
The value of upgrading our public infrastructure has been experienced over the past few years through four urban upgrade projects, all inspired and largely funded and maintained by the private sector – Gandhi Square, Braamfontein, AAC’s Main Street pedestrianised precinct and Main Street itself. A number of others, some private and some public sector inspired, are at various stages of progress. The “Legal Precinct” around the High Court, the pavements around the Fashion Kapitol Building currently under construction in the Fashion District in Pritchard Street, the pavements around Jewel City and at the entrances to and within the Ellis Park Precinct and the Hillbrow Health Precinct all bear testimony to public space revamping. The Inner City Charter process has recognised both the need and value of the urban environment anticipating providing a substantial spend on “walkable streets”. A Charter-related report states the following “On 18 May 2007, Mayoral Committee approved the City’s Capital Budget for the 2007/08 financial year ………of which R300 million was allocated to the Inner City specifically for the upgrading of physical infrastructure and public environment. One of the outcomes from the 2007 Inner City Summit process has been the further allocation of R300 million exclusively towards improvement of the Inner City. The main objective of the additional funding is to support the City’s strategic agenda to significantly upgrade the public environment and to improve the quality of the built environment by implementing housing developments.
The rationale is to target a focused area in the Inner City on a block-by-block basis and to implement a full range of public environment upgrades, relating to the classification and function of the particular street. The City can therefore systematically over the next financial years roll-out this programme and not only significantly improve the physical quality, but also link these interventions to focussed urban management interventions.”
That is really very good news!
In the immediate term the focus is on Hillbrow, Berea and Yeoville. It is recognised that these areas have some of the worst urban environments in the Inner City and yet have the highest population densities. Prioritising these areas over those in the CBD itself also takes into account that BRT will be disrupting many of our CBD streets whereafter attention will have to be paid to both road and footway replacement anyway. Professional teams have already been appointed to provide “a comprehensive Inner City streetscape/public environment plan” for the Hillbrow/Berea/Yeoville areas by December, just a couple of weeks away. That means that tenders will be called for early in 2008 and work can commence immediately thereafter.
Another related Charter project is more long term – “upgrading of identified priority streets and precinct areas will be implemented” by December 2009 – that’s just two years away. Not sure what ‘priority streets’ means but if it encompasses attending to the many, many degraded pavements throughout the core CBD area, it cannot be soon enough. I understand that a basic grading of roads has been done which classifies the range of elements that could be included in an upgrade, such as paving, pedestrian lighting, street furniture, swivel bins, infrastructure upgrading, public transportation facilities and public art. It is provisionally estimated that R850 000 per 100m street length will be needed for streets classified as Public Movement Routes, R600 000 for Activity Streets and R300 000 for Residential Streets. This translates into approximately 150 city blocks to be targeted for public environment upgrades with a budget allocation of R150 million. Clearly the reason for many decades of neglect previously has been cost but 2010 is spurring on the need to get our public environment in order!
But other good news in the Charter is that feasibility and business plans for a development of a number of “key iconic public place projects” must be finalised by March next year and such places include Old Park Station and the Gauteng Provincial Government Square. Both have been allowed to become major eyesores yet have tremendous potential. Both are owned by other Government or parastatal bodies, the Park Station building is owned by Transnet whilst the latter area is a Provincial government responsibility. It really is a pain when levels of government other than local, add to the degradation of the city, so it is good to know that within four months there will be a plan for at least these two. We need to add the Rissik Street Post Office and the old police barracks in Marshall Street to the list of projects demanding action and a large number of others. The City, to their credit, is currently dealing with the much neglected Governor’s House next to Constitution Hill.
And what about my great concern voiced over the last year – more and better urban green space? Well, the following answer is spelt out in the Charter:
• An implementation plan for a coherent approach to upgrading and maintaining existing but currently dysfunctional open spaces and parks is to be completed by December and to be rolled out between then and March 2009.
• The identification of possible new spaces is to be completed by March 2008 – related feasibility studies and business development plans are to be completed by July 2008 and management agreements in place by September 2008.
• Key public open space interventions to be investigated by March 2008 include the Braamfontein cemetery; a park at the base of the Hillbrow Tower; a major park east of the High Court and west of Joe Slovo Drive and public open spaces to be created on the south west corner of the CBD close to Standard Bank.
I gather that the intention is also to upgrade social facilities such as parks and recreation centres if they are situated on a street that is targeted for upgrading.
Projects for Public Spaces (PPS – www.makingplaces@pps.org) – a US organisation that works with partners all over the world compiled these tips for creating good places – one hopes that those entrusted with the urban design of our proposed new urban spaces take heed and particularly of the last point!
Good places promote sociability
These are the spots where you run into people you know, where you take friends and family when you want to show them the neighborhood. These places become the heart and soul of the neighborhood because they offer people many different reasons to go there
Good places have lots of things to do
The places people love most are the ones where they can pursue a variety of activities. Without opportunities to do something more than sit and look around, the experience you have in that place is "thin" -- there is nothing to keep you there for any length of time.
Good places are comfortable and attractive
They beckon you to come visit. Flowers, comfortable benches with a nice view, and attractive lighting all make you feel this is a place you want to come to often. In contrast, a place that lacks these kind of amenities often feels unwelcoming and a bit threatening. It may actually be unsafe or just feel unsafe, but either way no one wants to be there.
Good places are accessible
These places are clearly identifiable from a distance, easy to enter when you get closer, and it is simple to understand how you use them. A space that is not accessible will be end up empty, forlorn and often dilapidated.
Good places are inspired by the people who live there
The big question is, of course, how do you begin to create the good places that every neighborhood craves? What process can you use to build spots where people want to hang out? Long experience has shown us that bottom-up rather than top-down strategies to create or revitalize public spaces work best. This approach is based on the simple idea that the people who live in a neighborhood are the world's experts on that particular place. Any project to improve things should be guided by the community's wisdom, not the dictates of professional disciplines. This is the most important lesson about making great neighborhoods we have learned in 30 years of work.
A couple of weeks back a tour driver listening to my upbeat patter on the future of the city stopped me as we drove through the mayhemic Jeppe Street and asked if I was serious about the environmental upgrading. “It will never happen here!” he said – we need to prove him wrong!
Ciao, neil
Year-end review 4 – Upgrading the Public Environment.
I’m writing this Citichat in Port Elizabeth where the Mandela Bay Development Agency is putting the finishing touches to the first phase of upgrading Govan Mbeki, the main street through the CBD. The upgraded street will be opened at the end of the month and the second phase will be started in the New Year. Walking through the almost completed streetscape reminded me of this comment by Allan Jacobs - "If we can develop and design streets so that they are wonderful, fulfilling places to be - community-building places, attractive for all people - then we will have successfully designed about one-third of the city directly and will have had an immense impact on the rest." – which is also a good introduction to today’s year-end review.
Year-end reviews 1 and 2 (Citichats 42 & 43/2007) looked at two of the major visual changes we can anticipate in the inner city, those brought about by a new transportation system (the Bus Rapid Transport System, BRT) and those, largely, emanating from it, dense residential accommodation. But what about the base off which these are to be provided? What about the streetscapes?. At present not very pretty! I find it constantly embarrassing taking visitors through the city and pointing out the real progress that has been made and then asking them to “watch their step” as they walk over pavements with missing paving slabs and pavers and, even more dangerous, skirting manholes with no covers.
The value of upgrading our public infrastructure has been experienced over the past few years through four urban upgrade projects, all inspired and largely funded and maintained by the private sector – Gandhi Square, Braamfontein, AAC’s Main Street pedestrianised precinct and Main Street itself. A number of others, some private and some public sector inspired, are at various stages of progress. The “Legal Precinct” around the High Court, the pavements around the Fashion Kapitol Building currently under construction in the Fashion District in Pritchard Street, the pavements around Jewel City and at the entrances to and within the Ellis Park Precinct and the Hillbrow Health Precinct all bear testimony to public space revamping. The Inner City Charter process has recognised both the need and value of the urban environment anticipating providing a substantial spend on “walkable streets”. A Charter-related report states the following “On 18 May 2007, Mayoral Committee approved the City’s Capital Budget for the 2007/08 financial year ………of which R300 million was allocated to the Inner City specifically for the upgrading of physical infrastructure and public environment. One of the outcomes from the 2007 Inner City Summit process has been the further allocation of R300 million exclusively towards improvement of the Inner City. The main objective of the additional funding is to support the City’s strategic agenda to significantly upgrade the public environment and to improve the quality of the built environment by implementing housing developments.
The rationale is to target a focused area in the Inner City on a block-by-block basis and to implement a full range of public environment upgrades, relating to the classification and function of the particular street. The City can therefore systematically over the next financial years roll-out this programme and not only significantly improve the physical quality, but also link these interventions to focussed urban management interventions.”
That is really very good news!
In the immediate term the focus is on Hillbrow, Berea and Yeoville. It is recognised that these areas have some of the worst urban environments in the Inner City and yet have the highest population densities. Prioritising these areas over those in the CBD itself also takes into account that BRT will be disrupting many of our CBD streets whereafter attention will have to be paid to both road and footway replacement anyway. Professional teams have already been appointed to provide “a comprehensive Inner City streetscape/public environment plan” for the Hillbrow/Berea/Yeoville areas by December, just a couple of weeks away. That means that tenders will be called for early in 2008 and work can commence immediately thereafter.
Another related Charter project is more long term – “upgrading of identified priority streets and precinct areas will be implemented” by December 2009 – that’s just two years away. Not sure what ‘priority streets’ means but if it encompasses attending to the many, many degraded pavements throughout the core CBD area, it cannot be soon enough. I understand that a basic grading of roads has been done which classifies the range of elements that could be included in an upgrade, such as paving, pedestrian lighting, street furniture, swivel bins, infrastructure upgrading, public transportation facilities and public art. It is provisionally estimated that R850 000 per 100m street length will be needed for streets classified as Public Movement Routes, R600 000 for Activity Streets and R300 000 for Residential Streets. This translates into approximately 150 city blocks to be targeted for public environment upgrades with a budget allocation of R150 million. Clearly the reason for many decades of neglect previously has been cost but 2010 is spurring on the need to get our public environment in order!
But other good news in the Charter is that feasibility and business plans for a development of a number of “key iconic public place projects” must be finalised by March next year and such places include Old Park Station and the Gauteng Provincial Government Square. Both have been allowed to become major eyesores yet have tremendous potential. Both are owned by other Government or parastatal bodies, the Park Station building is owned by Transnet whilst the latter area is a Provincial government responsibility. It really is a pain when levels of government other than local, add to the degradation of the city, so it is good to know that within four months there will be a plan for at least these two. We need to add the Rissik Street Post Office and the old police barracks in Marshall Street to the list of projects demanding action and a large number of others. The City, to their credit, is currently dealing with the much neglected Governor’s House next to Constitution Hill.
And what about my great concern voiced over the last year – more and better urban green space? Well, the following answer is spelt out in the Charter:
• An implementation plan for a coherent approach to upgrading and maintaining existing but currently dysfunctional open spaces and parks is to be completed by December and to be rolled out between then and March 2009.
• The identification of possible new spaces is to be completed by March 2008 – related feasibility studies and business development plans are to be completed by July 2008 and management agreements in place by September 2008.
• Key public open space interventions to be investigated by March 2008 include the Braamfontein cemetery; a park at the base of the Hillbrow Tower; a major park east of the High Court and west of Joe Slovo Drive and public open spaces to be created on the south west corner of the CBD close to Standard Bank.
I gather that the intention is also to upgrade social facilities such as parks and recreation centres if they are situated on a street that is targeted for upgrading.
Projects for Public Spaces (PPS – www.makingplaces@pps.org) – a US organisation that works with partners all over the world compiled these tips for creating good places – one hopes that those entrusted with the urban design of our proposed new urban spaces take heed and particularly of the last point!
Good places promote sociability
These are the spots where you run into people you know, where you take friends and family when you want to show them the neighborhood. These places become the heart and soul of the neighborhood because they offer people many different reasons to go there
Good places have lots of things to do
The places people love most are the ones where they can pursue a variety of activities. Without opportunities to do something more than sit and look around, the experience you have in that place is "thin" -- there is nothing to keep you there for any length of time.
Good places are comfortable and attractive
They beckon you to come visit. Flowers, comfortable benches with a nice view, and attractive lighting all make you feel this is a place you want to come to often. In contrast, a place that lacks these kind of amenities often feels unwelcoming and a bit threatening. It may actually be unsafe or just feel unsafe, but either way no one wants to be there.
Good places are accessible
These places are clearly identifiable from a distance, easy to enter when you get closer, and it is simple to understand how you use them. A space that is not accessible will be end up empty, forlorn and often dilapidated.
Good places are inspired by the people who live there
The big question is, of course, how do you begin to create the good places that every neighborhood craves? What process can you use to build spots where people want to hang out? Long experience has shown us that bottom-up rather than top-down strategies to create or revitalize public spaces work best. This approach is based on the simple idea that the people who live in a neighborhood are the world's experts on that particular place. Any project to improve things should be guided by the community's wisdom, not the dictates of professional disciplines. This is the most important lesson about making great neighborhoods we have learned in 30 years of work.
A couple of weeks back a tour driver listening to my upbeat patter on the future of the city stopped me as we drove through the mayhemic Jeppe Street and asked if I was serious about the environmental upgrading. “It will never happen here!” he said – we need to prove him wrong!
Ciao, neil
Friday, November 9, 2007
Charter Review Citichat 9 November 2007
CITICHAT 44/2007 - 9 November 2007
Year-end review 3 – Charter.
You will have noted that, after much focusing on the Inner City Regeneration Charter at the end of last year and the beginning of this, I have been remarkably restrained in making any further observations. This is because most of what has been happening since the Inner City Summit in May 2007 has been within the City Council and little was made available to report on.
This all changed on Wednesday of this week, however, when the first meeting of the Inner City Charter Partnership Forum was held. The ICCPF will form the platform off which the regeneration efforts of the City will be placed, reviewed, reported and commented on, added to and, most important, measured and monitored.
But let’s back up a little and review the process that had taken place leading to Wedneday’s session. The second term of the Executive Mayor, Cllr. Amos Masondo, began in late 2005 and ran into a great deal of criticism relative to the Inner City because of a number of actions that marked the start of his second term: (i) the Inner City no longer would feature as one of his priority issues (ii) the position of an MMC (member of the mayoral committee) responsible for the inner city would be dispensed with and this responsibility placed under the Planning Department which would be expanded to include the responsibility for Urban Management, (iii) in reducing the numbers of municipal regions, the inner city would be amalgamated with another region creating a new super region, Region F, and, (iv) the Inner City Section 79 Committee as constituted was replaced with a political oversight committee. In one fell swoop, all the positives that he had been responsible for and associated with through his first term of office 9except (iv)) appeared to have been swept away. Almost exactly a year ago I wrote, Citichat 44/2006, “ Over the past few months I have expressed concern that our urban regeneration process appeared to be running out of steam. In fact, some recent figures that I have been researching, clearly show that the rate of investment in the inner city declined in 2006 when compared to 2005 and the years immediately prior to 2005”.
The Executive Mayor, on the 13th of November 2006, reacted to the concerns many of us were expressing by announcing a programme and process to ‘refocus and re-energise interventions and initiatives around the regeneration of the Inner City’ – this would be driven through an Inner City Regeneration Charter and Summit process. The inner city might be off the priority list as such, and all the other machinations might appear to be supporting this belief, but the conclusion that the Inner City was no longer of paramount importance to the City Council was simply not true, said the Mayor. In fact it was an opportunity to introduce a far more meaningful process that would he would lead himself.
The process started within weeks of the Executive Mayor’s announcement, the first phase lasting until May 2007. A series of twenty-four intensive workshops was held over this period, four each on six specific clusters or individual themes: Urban Management, Safety and Security; Social Development; Housing Development, Transportation, Economic Development and Public Spaces, Arts, Culture and Heritage. The four workshops were structured, via interaction with the private sector and civil society, from highlighting the problems through to identifying possible solutions and action to be taken. In parallel, various appropriate research studies were undertaken and a new Spatial Development Framework embarked upon. A draft document was developed which was called the “Inner City Charter” and which encapsulated the critical issues identified by stakeholders at the workshops, provided a statement of the desired outcomes in relation to the issues, and set out a number of measurable commitments to be achieved during the balance of the Executive Mayor’s term of office.
The first draft of the Charter document was released at an Inner City Summit convened by the Executive Mayor on 5 May 2007. Following comments received, the draft was adjusted and the final Charter document was approved by the Mayoral Committee on the 19th July 2007.
In terms of the draft document, the institutional and capacity development arrangements for implementation would be addressed following the Summit as would the establishment of “A Charter Partnership Forum that will work to expand and deepen the partnership between the City, business, civil society and other spheres of government, and which will enable external stakeholders to closely monitor the implementation of Charter commitments.”
Wednesday’s meeting launched the latter. The session was well attended by relevant councilors and council officials, Provincial Government, representatives of business, formal and informal, NPOs, Institutions of Higher Learning (never been sure why that label is given them it’s like the meaningless ‘captains of industry’) etc etc.
The final combination or construction of the Forum has not yet been agreed (for instance Heritage related organizations were left off the suggested list of ‘members’) but basically the Forum seeks to be representative of the relevant public and private sectors and civil society. It is ‘the participatory structure of the Inner City Regeneration Charter’; a mechanism for community participation as envisaged in national legislation; but is not a decision making body, it may make recommendations, and is not to supplant the political oversight role of the newly constituted Inner City Section 79 Committee. Its role is to champion the inner city; monitor and evaluate overall progress on action plans set out in the Charter; provide a forum for stakeholders to raise issues of concern and propose remedial action and enable all stakeholders to formulate strategies for problem solving. It will be convened by the Executive Mayor on a quarterly basis throughout the balance of his term of office.
One concern expressed on a number of occasions throughout the pre-Summit period, that of the Council being player and referee, was again raised at the Forum. There is however a proposal by Council that Quarterly Reports on progress against the Inner City Regeneration Charter commitments will be commissioned from a “neutral and independent specialist tasked with assembling evidence of the progress achieved.”
In the absence of the appointment of a ‘neutral and independent specialist’ Yael Horowitz, the Inner City Programme Manager, provided a brief initial report on progress to date which reflects that the Charter Commitments for July to September were generally met, on track or are ongoing with a few delays to specific projects for plausible reasons. However, the list of Charter Commitments to be achieved by the end of December is substantial, too considerable to quote here, and will require a great deal of determined and focused effort. The latter must be of concern as the structure adopted by Council to date has largely produced a silo mentality and approach. In an effort to overcome this, a Multi Disciplinary Task (MDTT) team “meets regularly to co-ordinate, integrate, manage and monitor service delivery activities of all Municipal Owned Entities and Core Departments that operate in the Region.” This MDTT “includes senior officials in the region and/or head office, who are delegated to take decisions on service delivery issues.”
Jumping ahead from December commitments, those for the end of June 2008, provide a more macro picture of what the city is targeting to achieve, ie
• Sustained urban management throughout the Inner City area
• A Public Environment Upgrade to Hillbrow, Berea and Yeoville (here tenders have already been called for design etc. and various professional teams have been appointed and on-the-ground interventions by the JDA are due to commence shortly.
• CID and NID coherent programme of support to three initiatives should be completed
• A Housing Action Plan should have been adopted
• A new and innovative approach to ‘Bad Buildings’ should be in place
• Support for the really stressed Sectional Title sector should be in place and a
• Reconfigured Better Buildings Programme launched
• Informal Trading and Linear Markets must be up and running and there is a large programme to be well advanced in
• Community and Social Development
The Mayoral Committee approved an allocation of R300 million for inner city capex for the current year (ie will have to be spent by end June 2008) and this is being spent as follows:
• Housing (a mix of emergency shelter, transitional accommodation and other ) amounting to R107 million.
• Public Environment Upgrade particularly for the Hillbrow, Berea Yeoville upgrade R171.5 million and,
• Capital for Pikitup mechanical improvements and upgrading of pounds R21.5 million.
Of the R100 million approved for the Urban Management & Operational Budget, R19,6 million had been spent to the end of September ie in the first quarter.
I liked:
Yael’s acknowledgment that were was a need to develop ‘real new programmes’ to deal with the social support and open space that will be required to meet the City’s proposed 50 to 75 000 new housing units over the next seven or eight years and
the Executive Mayor’s comments in relation to a question on occupied buildings “there will be no incentive offered by Council for illegal activities and illegally occupying buildings” as well as
his answer to comment on the slowness of Council often merely through bureaucratic requirements thrust on them “we have a need for speed and action and nothing should be delayed because of lack of leadership”.
I didn’t like:
the clear absence of so many Executive Directors and CEOs of Council Departments and entities. This does not bode well for the commitment that will be needed to achieve Charter goals. We will achieve so much more as a team rather than a group of people more interested in their personal ‘scorecards’ than in the interests of the inner city.
And then I did have a sinking feeling when I saw the new Newtown Toilet Accommodation being prominently featured on the “scene-setter video” after hearing last week that they are now only opened a couple of times a week because “no-one was given operational budget” I trust that this approach won’t dog our efforts!
Maybe it’s also time that we did away with rah-rah videos at the start of a process (it did admittedly include a little bit of bad mixed with the good) and focus on really celebrating our final achievements.
All in all, however, an uplifting start to a process that is full of promise and will make a substantial difference over the next few, critical, years.
Cheers, neil
Year-end review 3 – Charter.
You will have noted that, after much focusing on the Inner City Regeneration Charter at the end of last year and the beginning of this, I have been remarkably restrained in making any further observations. This is because most of what has been happening since the Inner City Summit in May 2007 has been within the City Council and little was made available to report on.
This all changed on Wednesday of this week, however, when the first meeting of the Inner City Charter Partnership Forum was held. The ICCPF will form the platform off which the regeneration efforts of the City will be placed, reviewed, reported and commented on, added to and, most important, measured and monitored.
But let’s back up a little and review the process that had taken place leading to Wedneday’s session. The second term of the Executive Mayor, Cllr. Amos Masondo, began in late 2005 and ran into a great deal of criticism relative to the Inner City because of a number of actions that marked the start of his second term: (i) the Inner City no longer would feature as one of his priority issues (ii) the position of an MMC (member of the mayoral committee) responsible for the inner city would be dispensed with and this responsibility placed under the Planning Department which would be expanded to include the responsibility for Urban Management, (iii) in reducing the numbers of municipal regions, the inner city would be amalgamated with another region creating a new super region, Region F, and, (iv) the Inner City Section 79 Committee as constituted was replaced with a political oversight committee. In one fell swoop, all the positives that he had been responsible for and associated with through his first term of office 9except (iv)) appeared to have been swept away. Almost exactly a year ago I wrote, Citichat 44/2006, “ Over the past few months I have expressed concern that our urban regeneration process appeared to be running out of steam. In fact, some recent figures that I have been researching, clearly show that the rate of investment in the inner city declined in 2006 when compared to 2005 and the years immediately prior to 2005”.
The Executive Mayor, on the 13th of November 2006, reacted to the concerns many of us were expressing by announcing a programme and process to ‘refocus and re-energise interventions and initiatives around the regeneration of the Inner City’ – this would be driven through an Inner City Regeneration Charter and Summit process. The inner city might be off the priority list as such, and all the other machinations might appear to be supporting this belief, but the conclusion that the Inner City was no longer of paramount importance to the City Council was simply not true, said the Mayor. In fact it was an opportunity to introduce a far more meaningful process that would he would lead himself.
The process started within weeks of the Executive Mayor’s announcement, the first phase lasting until May 2007. A series of twenty-four intensive workshops was held over this period, four each on six specific clusters or individual themes: Urban Management, Safety and Security; Social Development; Housing Development, Transportation, Economic Development and Public Spaces, Arts, Culture and Heritage. The four workshops were structured, via interaction with the private sector and civil society, from highlighting the problems through to identifying possible solutions and action to be taken. In parallel, various appropriate research studies were undertaken and a new Spatial Development Framework embarked upon. A draft document was developed which was called the “Inner City Charter” and which encapsulated the critical issues identified by stakeholders at the workshops, provided a statement of the desired outcomes in relation to the issues, and set out a number of measurable commitments to be achieved during the balance of the Executive Mayor’s term of office.
The first draft of the Charter document was released at an Inner City Summit convened by the Executive Mayor on 5 May 2007. Following comments received, the draft was adjusted and the final Charter document was approved by the Mayoral Committee on the 19th July 2007.
In terms of the draft document, the institutional and capacity development arrangements for implementation would be addressed following the Summit as would the establishment of “A Charter Partnership Forum that will work to expand and deepen the partnership between the City, business, civil society and other spheres of government, and which will enable external stakeholders to closely monitor the implementation of Charter commitments.”
Wednesday’s meeting launched the latter. The session was well attended by relevant councilors and council officials, Provincial Government, representatives of business, formal and informal, NPOs, Institutions of Higher Learning (never been sure why that label is given them it’s like the meaningless ‘captains of industry’) etc etc.
The final combination or construction of the Forum has not yet been agreed (for instance Heritage related organizations were left off the suggested list of ‘members’) but basically the Forum seeks to be representative of the relevant public and private sectors and civil society. It is ‘the participatory structure of the Inner City Regeneration Charter’; a mechanism for community participation as envisaged in national legislation; but is not a decision making body, it may make recommendations, and is not to supplant the political oversight role of the newly constituted Inner City Section 79 Committee. Its role is to champion the inner city; monitor and evaluate overall progress on action plans set out in the Charter; provide a forum for stakeholders to raise issues of concern and propose remedial action and enable all stakeholders to formulate strategies for problem solving. It will be convened by the Executive Mayor on a quarterly basis throughout the balance of his term of office.
One concern expressed on a number of occasions throughout the pre-Summit period, that of the Council being player and referee, was again raised at the Forum. There is however a proposal by Council that Quarterly Reports on progress against the Inner City Regeneration Charter commitments will be commissioned from a “neutral and independent specialist tasked with assembling evidence of the progress achieved.”
In the absence of the appointment of a ‘neutral and independent specialist’ Yael Horowitz, the Inner City Programme Manager, provided a brief initial report on progress to date which reflects that the Charter Commitments for July to September were generally met, on track or are ongoing with a few delays to specific projects for plausible reasons. However, the list of Charter Commitments to be achieved by the end of December is substantial, too considerable to quote here, and will require a great deal of determined and focused effort. The latter must be of concern as the structure adopted by Council to date has largely produced a silo mentality and approach. In an effort to overcome this, a Multi Disciplinary Task (MDTT) team “meets regularly to co-ordinate, integrate, manage and monitor service delivery activities of all Municipal Owned Entities and Core Departments that operate in the Region.” This MDTT “includes senior officials in the region and/or head office, who are delegated to take decisions on service delivery issues.”
Jumping ahead from December commitments, those for the end of June 2008, provide a more macro picture of what the city is targeting to achieve, ie
• Sustained urban management throughout the Inner City area
• A Public Environment Upgrade to Hillbrow, Berea and Yeoville (here tenders have already been called for design etc. and various professional teams have been appointed and on-the-ground interventions by the JDA are due to commence shortly.
• CID and NID coherent programme of support to three initiatives should be completed
• A Housing Action Plan should have been adopted
• A new and innovative approach to ‘Bad Buildings’ should be in place
• Support for the really stressed Sectional Title sector should be in place and a
• Reconfigured Better Buildings Programme launched
• Informal Trading and Linear Markets must be up and running and there is a large programme to be well advanced in
• Community and Social Development
The Mayoral Committee approved an allocation of R300 million for inner city capex for the current year (ie will have to be spent by end June 2008) and this is being spent as follows:
• Housing (a mix of emergency shelter, transitional accommodation and other ) amounting to R107 million.
• Public Environment Upgrade particularly for the Hillbrow, Berea Yeoville upgrade R171.5 million and,
• Capital for Pikitup mechanical improvements and upgrading of pounds R21.5 million.
Of the R100 million approved for the Urban Management & Operational Budget, R19,6 million had been spent to the end of September ie in the first quarter.
I liked:
Yael’s acknowledgment that were was a need to develop ‘real new programmes’ to deal with the social support and open space that will be required to meet the City’s proposed 50 to 75 000 new housing units over the next seven or eight years and
the Executive Mayor’s comments in relation to a question on occupied buildings “there will be no incentive offered by Council for illegal activities and illegally occupying buildings” as well as
his answer to comment on the slowness of Council often merely through bureaucratic requirements thrust on them “we have a need for speed and action and nothing should be delayed because of lack of leadership”.
I didn’t like:
the clear absence of so many Executive Directors and CEOs of Council Departments and entities. This does not bode well for the commitment that will be needed to achieve Charter goals. We will achieve so much more as a team rather than a group of people more interested in their personal ‘scorecards’ than in the interests of the inner city.
And then I did have a sinking feeling when I saw the new Newtown Toilet Accommodation being prominently featured on the “scene-setter video” after hearing last week that they are now only opened a couple of times a week because “no-one was given operational budget” I trust that this approach won’t dog our efforts!
Maybe it’s also time that we did away with rah-rah videos at the start of a process (it did admittedly include a little bit of bad mixed with the good) and focus on really celebrating our final achievements.
All in all, however, an uplifting start to a process that is full of promise and will make a substantial difference over the next few, critical, years.
Cheers, neil
Friday, November 2, 2007
Progress Review Residential Citichat 2 November 2007
CITICHAT 43/2007 - 2 November 2007
Year-end review 2 – Residential .
Wanted to do a review of residential this week but I see that I covered the subject quite fully just some months back. So let me just provide some residential high- and lowlights and then link future residential to last week’s topic – transportation. Thanks by the way for the many comments received in reply to last week’s Citichat – both supportive and critical – we need more debate!
Firstly then residential highlights. The rejuvenation of the Jeppe, Bree, Plein Streets’ middle income strip; the move eastward towards End Street/Doornfontein; the strong recovery of Braamfontein both in regard to student accommodation and quality middle income and the higher income developments at the western end of Marshall and Anderson Streets. Public environment upgrading in Hillbrow and Berea should be starting early next year although a great deal of building upgrading appears to already be happening - with a great deal more needed. (I believe that the Ponte re-development is sold out which should act as a strong catalyst for the area – to think that ten years ago the previous owners were punting for rezoning to a jail!)
Lowlights are the lack of progress of residential development on city owned land in Newtown and Constitution Hill and a bunch of middle to higher income private sector central city developments around Commissioner and Diagonal Streets that just never seem to progress. There has been no progress this year at all with the Better Buildings Programme which I hear is about to undergo a dramatic change that one can only hope is really going to be for “the better”! But why the interminable delays?
If one then looks forward, there is the continuing huge need for solutions to be found for integrated residential development across economic and racial barriers and a solution to the continuing problem of so many people living in sub-standard accommodation. Richard Daley, Mayor of Chicago “…….we require that 20 percent of units be affordable in residential developments that receive city assistance. We demolish run-down homes or apartment buildings and turn them over to developers of affordable housing . Then we provide a subsidy that allows the developer to reduce the purchase price and still make a profit. We replace dangerous, unsafe high rises with mixed income communities ending the isolation that has trapped residents in a cycle of poverty and failure.”
Hopefully the current city programme of constructing ‘temporary accommodation’ will allow for releasing residents similarly trapped in the not too distant future but I worry about the apparent lack of scale.
However, the biggest influence on how the future city will look and work relates to its transport related residential component. One of the really important outcomes of a decent transportation system is the impact that it will have on the siteing and massing of development. I think this has been recognised by the powers that be in the opportunities that will be offered for bulk and density but I don’t think that is enough. We also have to have the guts to do some meaningful interventions and I’m not sure that we are prepared to go that far.
The past five years have already witnessed a massive increase in inner-city residential living because the market has re-acted to the huge pent-up demand, skewed by decades of apartheid planning, for decent accommodation close to employment. But this has largely been through seizing opportunities to convert empty commercial or degraded residential into middle income housing. Surely the new transportation systems must lead to transit-oriented development on a far more imaginative and broader scale requiring public and private sectors to work far closer together to create mixed use environments close to public transport. That requires developers to be working with public transportation authorities to plan for a diversity of development including a wide range of housing types to suit all kinds of economic circumstances within an environment of a greater proliferation of open space and which encourage walking and cycling. “Increasingly accepted as a smart approach to urban growth and a solution to sprawl, successful transit oriented development is found around the United States and Europe and in Singapore and Hong Kong. With thriving transit systems and very low per capita car use, Hong Kong and Singapore teach that citywide planning, when made a key priority in transit, can result in economic and environmentally successful high density urban development providing viable and sustainable places in which large populations can live work and play.” Several lessons of transit oriented development have emerged from other countries, we need to learn from them.
Recently, I read an article on the “inextricable role” that planning needs to play in the development of transit in China (41 000 kms of expressway in 2006 which by 2020 will exceed 85 000 - bad news as far as I’m concerned - last year China added 1, 000 new cars a day to its roads!) but its railway system will extend to 100 000 kms by the same time. 11 265 of those will be rapid rail connections between provincial capitals and main cities including a 174 kms $1.2 billion high speed train between Shanghai and Hangzou. The article also contained the following somewhat sobering statement maybe because it’s so close to the bone “the scale and breadth of this investment in infrastructure are unprecedented, and understanding its ramifications is difficult for many, especially for Westerners more accustomed to Governments that only begrudgingly support mass transit. While these figures are singularly impressive, the official reported projections may be somewhat inflated. What provincial governments announce – and what is actually implemented – is not always the same. Statistics, reliable or otherwise, are hard to come by. Indeed, for all its recent openness, China is still known to guard and manipulate information it gives to the public, especially information it considers to involve the greater good of the citizenry.”
If you read last weekend’s Sunday Times ‘Survey on the City of Johannesburg’ you will know that China is not alone in this approach An article in the Survey “Public Transport Revolution Planned” was dominated by a picture of existing ‘Metro buses’ (the caption read “the present bus system will be turned into what is known as Bus Rapid Transport” – I would call that not only gross misrepresentation but a miracle rather than a revolution!) and the City missed a great opportunity to start building enthusiasm and a common understanding of the BRT proposals and of the impact they will have on the city and its citizens – an impact that could make us into the really great African city of world class status. But, do we have the vision to go beyond ourselves?
This City should stop treating its citizens as dumbos and turn what is without doubt a critical intervention into an opportunity to get everyone to buy-in and rebuild civic pride. This is the biggest single opportunity that the city has embraced since the discovery of gold and I would have employed some of the genius of a Richard Rogers, Renzo Piano, Norman Foster, Santiago Calatrava, maybe even a Frank Gehry, to lift everyone’s sights to what could be and to excite and motivate even the dourest and most doughty of critics.
Ciao, neil
Year-end review 2 – Residential .
Wanted to do a review of residential this week but I see that I covered the subject quite fully just some months back. So let me just provide some residential high- and lowlights and then link future residential to last week’s topic – transportation. Thanks by the way for the many comments received in reply to last week’s Citichat – both supportive and critical – we need more debate!
Firstly then residential highlights. The rejuvenation of the Jeppe, Bree, Plein Streets’ middle income strip; the move eastward towards End Street/Doornfontein; the strong recovery of Braamfontein both in regard to student accommodation and quality middle income and the higher income developments at the western end of Marshall and Anderson Streets. Public environment upgrading in Hillbrow and Berea should be starting early next year although a great deal of building upgrading appears to already be happening - with a great deal more needed. (I believe that the Ponte re-development is sold out which should act as a strong catalyst for the area – to think that ten years ago the previous owners were punting for rezoning to a jail!)
Lowlights are the lack of progress of residential development on city owned land in Newtown and Constitution Hill and a bunch of middle to higher income private sector central city developments around Commissioner and Diagonal Streets that just never seem to progress. There has been no progress this year at all with the Better Buildings Programme which I hear is about to undergo a dramatic change that one can only hope is really going to be for “the better”! But why the interminable delays?
If one then looks forward, there is the continuing huge need for solutions to be found for integrated residential development across economic and racial barriers and a solution to the continuing problem of so many people living in sub-standard accommodation. Richard Daley, Mayor of Chicago “…….we require that 20 percent of units be affordable in residential developments that receive city assistance. We demolish run-down homes or apartment buildings and turn them over to developers of affordable housing . Then we provide a subsidy that allows the developer to reduce the purchase price and still make a profit. We replace dangerous, unsafe high rises with mixed income communities ending the isolation that has trapped residents in a cycle of poverty and failure.”
Hopefully the current city programme of constructing ‘temporary accommodation’ will allow for releasing residents similarly trapped in the not too distant future but I worry about the apparent lack of scale.
However, the biggest influence on how the future city will look and work relates to its transport related residential component. One of the really important outcomes of a decent transportation system is the impact that it will have on the siteing and massing of development. I think this has been recognised by the powers that be in the opportunities that will be offered for bulk and density but I don’t think that is enough. We also have to have the guts to do some meaningful interventions and I’m not sure that we are prepared to go that far.
The past five years have already witnessed a massive increase in inner-city residential living because the market has re-acted to the huge pent-up demand, skewed by decades of apartheid planning, for decent accommodation close to employment. But this has largely been through seizing opportunities to convert empty commercial or degraded residential into middle income housing. Surely the new transportation systems must lead to transit-oriented development on a far more imaginative and broader scale requiring public and private sectors to work far closer together to create mixed use environments close to public transport. That requires developers to be working with public transportation authorities to plan for a diversity of development including a wide range of housing types to suit all kinds of economic circumstances within an environment of a greater proliferation of open space and which encourage walking and cycling. “Increasingly accepted as a smart approach to urban growth and a solution to sprawl, successful transit oriented development is found around the United States and Europe and in Singapore and Hong Kong. With thriving transit systems and very low per capita car use, Hong Kong and Singapore teach that citywide planning, when made a key priority in transit, can result in economic and environmentally successful high density urban development providing viable and sustainable places in which large populations can live work and play.” Several lessons of transit oriented development have emerged from other countries, we need to learn from them.
Recently, I read an article on the “inextricable role” that planning needs to play in the development of transit in China (41 000 kms of expressway in 2006 which by 2020 will exceed 85 000 - bad news as far as I’m concerned - last year China added 1, 000 new cars a day to its roads!) but its railway system will extend to 100 000 kms by the same time. 11 265 of those will be rapid rail connections between provincial capitals and main cities including a 174 kms $1.2 billion high speed train between Shanghai and Hangzou. The article also contained the following somewhat sobering statement maybe because it’s so close to the bone “the scale and breadth of this investment in infrastructure are unprecedented, and understanding its ramifications is difficult for many, especially for Westerners more accustomed to Governments that only begrudgingly support mass transit. While these figures are singularly impressive, the official reported projections may be somewhat inflated. What provincial governments announce – and what is actually implemented – is not always the same. Statistics, reliable or otherwise, are hard to come by. Indeed, for all its recent openness, China is still known to guard and manipulate information it gives to the public, especially information it considers to involve the greater good of the citizenry.”
If you read last weekend’s Sunday Times ‘Survey on the City of Johannesburg’ you will know that China is not alone in this approach An article in the Survey “Public Transport Revolution Planned” was dominated by a picture of existing ‘Metro buses’ (the caption read “the present bus system will be turned into what is known as Bus Rapid Transport” – I would call that not only gross misrepresentation but a miracle rather than a revolution!) and the City missed a great opportunity to start building enthusiasm and a common understanding of the BRT proposals and of the impact they will have on the city and its citizens – an impact that could make us into the really great African city of world class status. But, do we have the vision to go beyond ourselves?
This City should stop treating its citizens as dumbos and turn what is without doubt a critical intervention into an opportunity to get everyone to buy-in and rebuild civic pride. This is the biggest single opportunity that the city has embraced since the discovery of gold and I would have employed some of the genius of a Richard Rogers, Renzo Piano, Norman Foster, Santiago Calatrava, maybe even a Frank Gehry, to lift everyone’s sights to what could be and to excite and motivate even the dourest and most doughty of critics.
Ciao, neil
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
