CITICHAT 34/2008 - 29 August 2008
Do you know the way to San Jose?
If the question framed by the sixties song was “Do you know your way to Jozi’s San Jose?” I’m sure that the answer by the majority of readers would be negative.
San Jose is a block of sectional title flats located on Olivia Street, Berea. Or was! One wing is fourteen floors high and the other ten. The building was abandoned by its various sectional title owners quite some years ago - I would imagine in the mid-to-late 1990s when the residential scenario in places like Hillbrow and Berea went through dramatic and often violent change. Many such buildings were occupied by those desperate to have a roof, any roof, over their heads. Some were ‘organised’ by chancers and gangsters always ready to exploit those in need. I remember, around that time, visiting a house in Bertrams - three bedroomed and let to seventy-five people at R200.00 per month! Like many others it was without basic services, the R15 000.00 income per month going straight into the pocket of only one person less the R1 500.00 per month he was paying the actual owner for rent and whatever bribe moneys he was doaling out for officials to turn a blind eye!
San Jose reached a desperate state of degradation some years back. With no services, occupiers had to walk down flight after flight of stairs to fill buckets with water, then climb back to their unit carrying the full buckets where the water could be used to flush their toilets. The waste would end up in the basement which had become a huge sewer. The exterior looked ‘shattered’ with missing and broken windows, rusting and decaying. “So why would anyone even think of living under such conditions?” is the first thing that comes to the minds of all of those who have never experienced what it means to be really poor. In 2005 the Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions (COHRE), an international human rights NGO, published a report “Any Room for the Poor?” that dealt with forced evictions in Johannesburg. The report’s profile of the occupants of Joburg’s “bad buildings” was that they are the poorest and most vulnerable residents in the inner city; many performing poorly paid jobs either in the formal sector or subsistence earners in the informal sector. They live in bad conditions, not by choice, but because nothing else is available. Clearly they live in the inner city so that they can be close to sources of employment and also to avoid transport costs. The judge in the resulting High Court hearing visited the block and commented “The properties are in an abysmal condition……. many of the occupiers….. have been in occupation for a substantial period of time, some for as long as 10 years. The occupiers of the properties are desperately poor people. Most of the occupiers have no formal employment. In fact many of them have no income whatsoever.”
I visited one of the units on Saturday and found a pride of place that seemed in stark contrast to the encompassing conditions. Here poor people had created homes for themselves and their families - neat and tidy and clean. Whatever the state of the building and its immediate surrounds, it represented home more than just a roof over the heads of the occupiers.
Last Saturday the saga in the ‘battle of San Jose’ moved into what will hopefully be its final chapter with many people a great deal wiser than they were at the start. The occupiers, those who have been at the centre of the saga for a long, long time, were about to start a new chapter.
The City originally clearly looked at the building as a major stumbling block to the achievement of the Inner City Regeneration Strategy in which it would have been labelled a ‘sinkhole’. Little thought would have been given to the people occupying the building. The public was becoming used to seeing media articles about the infamous ‘red ants’ evicting people from buildings like these, leaving them with their meagre possessions on the pavement to be carted off to Orange Farm or some other informal settlement miles away from the city or left to find their own alternative accommodation in similar circumstances to those from which they had been evicted. In a way one must sympathise with local government under pressure to restore a sense of order to a city that had been allowed to decay so badly.
In San Jose’s case (and Zinn’s building, 197 Main Street) the City’s argument for the court to grant it eviction orders, was that the buildings were unsafe for human habitation. The occupiers, who were represented by the Wits Law Clinic, Centre for Applied Legal Studies (CALS) and Webber Wentzel, opposed the application on the grounds that the city had not engaged in dialogue with them regarding alternative accommodation.
In 2006, a High Court ruling addressed San Jose and similar cases. Judge J. Jajbhay introduced his judgment as follows “The consequences of rendering a person homeless in the circumstances postulated in this case have a very wide reach. It affects the very quality of a person’s life, dignity and a person’s freedom and security.” He then went on to quote from the United Nations Housing Rights Programme: “To live in a place, and to have established one’s own personal habitat with peace, security and dignity, should be considered neither a luxury, a privilege nor purely the good fortune of those who can afford a decent home. Rather, the requisite imperative of housing for personal security, privacy, health, safety, protection from the elements and many other attributes of a shared humanity, has led the international community to recognize adequate housing as a basic and fundamental human right.”
The Judge recognized that, whilst many States have adopted and ratified these human rights, “their implementation appears to present difficulties for homeless people.” He then stressed that a State had a duty to “immediately address the housing needs of its respective population, if any significant number of individuals are deprived of basic shelter and housing. To do otherwise is considered a prima facie violation of the right to adequate housing.”
In commenting in regard to the buildings affected in the hearing, including San Jose, all of which had been visited by the Judge, je stated that “The Applicant’s Inner City Regeneration Strategy will affect thousands of poor occupiers in the inner city in this way.” He conceded however that “Where occupiers have been occupying the building for some time (such as in the present instance) has to be looked at with far greater sympathy than those who deliberately invade the buildings with a view to disrupting a housing regeneration programme contemplated by a municipality.” Interesting quote from another ruling – ”What is really a welfare problem gets converted into a property one.”
The final judgment was that the Council had failed to comply with the constitutional and statutory obligations of a local authority and failed to give adequate priority and resources to people in the inner city who are in a crisis situation or in desperate need of accommodation.
The City took the judgement to the Supreme Court of Appeal for review. The resultant judgment was handed down in March 2007. It in fact now granted the eviction order but ordered that those evicted must be provided with ‘temporary’ accommodation somewhere in the Johannesburg area..
The occupiers instituted a further appeal against this ruling, directing their appeal to the highest court in the land, the Constitutional Court. Their legal representatives felt that the Appeal Court judgement did not sufficiently safeguard the residents’ constitutional rights by making the execution of the eviction order conditional on genuine consultation and the provision of alternative shelter. They also argued that the judgement did not instruct the City to have a Housing Plan for the many residents of similar buildings in the city.
The Constitutional Court heard the case in August 2007 reserving final judgement and ordered that the representatives of the residents and City should engage meaningfully to firstly improve the conditions in the building on a short term basis and then to find alternative accommodation for those who would have to leave. Final Judgement was handed down in February 2008.
Between these dates and the present, the somewhat antagonistic relationship between the parties ameliorated as they started working towards a common goal. A good working relationship was ultimately forged between officials of the City, CALS and the community involved through their strong resident’s committee. A huge amount of effort was made before the move to ensure that each occupant knew where he/she was being moved to – room assignments, lease agreements, house rules and the procedures of the move were all agreed to so that there should be minimal confusion during and after the event.
In the interim the City had also been working hard to address new policies and strategies in regard to the issue of homelessness and people living under slum conditions in the inner city. In addition they had started acquiring a number of buildings that would be suitable for a variety of housing conditions ranging from low rental and temporary shelter to social and inclusionary housing. This was all encapsulated in the Inner City Charter that had been developed during 2006/7 following wide consultation. The Charter, which was signed in July 2007, contains the following specific commitments:
• The City of Johannesburg will have available at least 500 beds for emergency accommodation and decant facilities in the Inner City by August 2007.
• The City of Johannesburg will have available a further 800-1000 beds for emergency/transitional accommodation and decant facilities in the Inner City by June 2008.
Whilst being late on delivery, the current situation is that some 1250 beds have now in fact been made available in a variety of buildings refurbished or converted for such accommodation. And it was to these buildings that the occupiers of San Jose were moved.
Thus last Saturday morning we witnessed the first truck laden with previous San Jose residents with their belongings move into the converted previous ‘Perm’ building corner Kotze and Claim, Hillbrow and the MBV building, a converted hospital, opposite Joubert Park. Unlike the terrible scenes surrounding evictions this was a celebration – those on the trucks waving at those left behind waiting for their turn. The move took all day until San Jose was empty.
Ciao, neil
Friday, August 29, 2008
Friday, August 22, 2008
Diagonal Street 2 Citichat 22 August 2008
CITICHAT 33/2008 - 22 August 2008
Diagonal Street – Memory and Democracy vs ‘Progress’ – 2.
Picking up where we left off last week with the 1988 Star quotation: “The JCI project is a major element in the redevelopment of Newtown, where the issue of redevelopment in the context of the conservation of the architectural and urban heritage, and the safeguards of the rights of tenancy for historic residential communities will be an ongoing concern.”
With the announcement of the new development on the Diagonal Street site by JCI, a great deal of concern was raised regarding the future of the people that would have to make way for the new building, people who had lived and traded in the precinct for decades. The developer’s had purchased some seven properties which collectively provided town planning rights far in excess of what had been utilised until then. A development of the collective site could thus result in the demolition of a number of historic buildings to make way for one, large structure, and, as a result, not only would the previous occupiers be adversely affected, but the city would lose the core of Johannesburg’s traditional Indian shopping precinct and residential neighbourhood. The architects, RFB, (Now Fee & Challis, a practice that has been and remains intimately involved with the development of the city), came up with a practical, workable solution. They proposed that all the rights be consolidated onto the main redevelopment site, that the buildings fronting onto Diagonal Street be left intact and that the Arcade and living quarters be recreated to replace the 1930s building that would have to be demolished. Thus the final design of the development was not merely to provide prestige office space but to save the important heritage buildings and the facilities that, as was pointed out last week, was the historic home of those that had lived there since the earliest days of the city’s establishment against all kinds of odds.
The proposals were approved and the demolition permit that was issued by the then National Monuments Council (NMC now SAHRA) was subject to very specific conditions that emphasised the nature of what was to be provided “the same type of trading and the original shop frontages and quality of space between”; “the same essential architectural character of the (existing) building” “the new residential section……shall not interfere with the architectural and historic integrity of Saxonia Buildings”.
The last of the NMC’s conditions was “In the event of any one or more of these properties being sold the above undertakings shall be included in the condition of sale as binding on the new owner/owners.”
So, what emerged from the exercise was a valuable built addition to the inner city and the retention, not just of its historical component, but of the local community. Then, as was mentioned last week, the 1990s saw the inner city’s urban decay spiral uncontrollably and Ernst & Young moved from the building leaving it empty. It then changed hands a number of times and in 2003 was bought by the current developers for conversion into residential accommodation. Billing themselves as “a contemporary property developer that seeks to enrich our cities by re-inventing the culture of true inner city living” it was just one of quite a large number of buildings bought by them with a great deal of fanfare – “The American Dream Shifts to Joburg” – “Sexing up the City, new kids on the block turn downtown Joburg buildings into New York style loft apartments” The Knights in Shining Armour had arrived and the damsel in distress (the inner city) could breathe again! Only by 2003, the damsel was actually quite well able to breathe on her own and improving daily. Now, a number of the buildings they bought are in a worse state than before although a number of years have passed since they were acquired - Shakespeare House, the old C N A Building, New Kempsey Building – others are standing only partly refurbished – Corner House, 1 Rissik Street.
However, the Ernst & Young building, renamed ‘The Franklin’, was one of the buildings in their portfolio that has gone ahead although painfully slowly. I believe, from some of the people who have bought into it and are now staying there, that it provides really good inner city living. Incidentally, the blurb says that they will convert this building “into some of the most opulent apartments available anywhere in the world. Everything ‘designer’ is being incorporated in these luxurious living spaces, etc etc.” Ja, well….!
The Indian tenants evidently were not even told of the change in ownership and only found out through the changed details on their rent statements. Three years after the purchase, in 2006, the Indian tenants of the shops were called together and “asked to be part of the renovation project” – a year later they were given notice! Later, their rent was doubled. The plan is to change the retail to accommodate a new batch of national and local retailers, not the locals. In fact that the plan is sub-titled “Shopping – Luxury – Lifestyle” and the upgrade “to emulate European street shopping.”
In other words it is the introduction and promotion of a foreign retail experience at the cost of the destruction of the existing Oriental street shopping experience – only because the former pays better and ‘progress’, after all, is all about financial returns!
Who are the affected people? Here’s a small sample:
A. Has been occupying the same shop for over 68 years. He was born and raised in the area. His grandmother/father were the initial owners of the business. He is the third generation of the business to run the business on Diagonal Street. He knows no other home except this place.
B. “This is another forced removal. We have three children and three staff members to look after and their families. The area is a historical area, one of the few places where black traders are still allowed and have been trading over the years.”
C. Has been running the shop for 40 years. After completing his matric he joined his father who owned the business since 1980. He used to come everyday before and after school to help – one of his black customers says “I have been shopping in this shop since 1969. My children, my wife and brothers still come and do their shopping here in the same shop. We love the place and would like to see the shops stay.”
D. The current owner has worked in the business from an early age, was born and raised in the area as well. His grandparents used to own the shop from the early 1940s. The grandfather died and the grandmother, who is in her 80s, is still alive but on retirement. The current owner is the third generation of the same family to own and run this shoe business.
E. The business started operating in the early 20s (ie 1920s) and was taken over by his son who took over the business after his father’s retirement – he is now 83. He is assisted by his son – a third generation of the same family.
F. “People are dying of stress, the hairdresser whose family was on this site for nearly 90 years, died just a few months after being evicted. The other lady who was in her 50s also died of stress.”
This isn’t the removal of a bunch of people who have been illegally occupying a building for a few years, nor of a bunch of criminals – this is the destruction of a community! One of my colleagues writes “It is important to remember that when the development was mooted, permission was granted by the responsible heritage authority, albeit reluctantly, to demolish the old structures on the site but with the proviso that the new structure should acknowledge and commemorate the important social history of the Indian people who lived in and around Diagonal Street, Johannesburg. In a sense, therefore, it was the way Indians were required to live and work that the new structures were designed to replicate, not merely the building typology that was retained. More importantly it was social values and a way of life that was conserved. I think it would be fair to say that what was conserved at the time was building typology overlaid with a recognition of the social values of an important but disenfranchised group.”
I think we as a country are still largely feeling our way with the whole issue of ‘recognition’ and ‘forms of recognition’ related to our history. An article on Constitution Hill comments on its great success “the occupation of buildings that once symbolized race supremacy and now stands for tolerance, the rule of law, and constitutional democracy; in itself carries a powerful pedagogic message.” This is what we badly need in this age which has recently been further compromised by xenophobia.
An international conference focusing on the relationship between Memorialisation and Democracy was held in Santiago, Chile in June 2007. Whilst Memorialisation (the process of creating public memorials) might not sound in line with what we have been talking about, I think that it is closer than one first appreciates – “Memorialisation remains an underdeveloped, or unevenly developed, field. This may be because memorials are too often understood as outside the political process – relegated to the “soft” cultural sphere as art objects, to the private sphere of personal mourning or to the margins of power and politics. As a result memorials are rarely integrated into broader strategies for democracy building. Memory sites fall between the cracks of existing policies for historic preservation, transitional justice, democratic governance, urban planning and human rights. whereas truth commissions, judicial processes, police reform and other mechanisms for addressing the past are subject to public scrutiny, few nations or communities have developed analogous expectations, let alone standards of accountability, for memorialisation.”
I like that phrase “memory sites” – is that not what the Diagonal Street precinct is all about? The Rand Steam Laundry site was also all about memory, memory intertwined with history – that is now gone. We cannot allow such things to repeated. “….the best bulwark against human rights abuse is an active engaged citizenry with the awareness, freedom and inspiration to stop abuse before it starts.”
Think about it, neil
Diagonal Street – Memory and Democracy vs ‘Progress’ – 2.
Picking up where we left off last week with the 1988 Star quotation: “The JCI project is a major element in the redevelopment of Newtown, where the issue of redevelopment in the context of the conservation of the architectural and urban heritage, and the safeguards of the rights of tenancy for historic residential communities will be an ongoing concern.”
With the announcement of the new development on the Diagonal Street site by JCI, a great deal of concern was raised regarding the future of the people that would have to make way for the new building, people who had lived and traded in the precinct for decades. The developer’s had purchased some seven properties which collectively provided town planning rights far in excess of what had been utilised until then. A development of the collective site could thus result in the demolition of a number of historic buildings to make way for one, large structure, and, as a result, not only would the previous occupiers be adversely affected, but the city would lose the core of Johannesburg’s traditional Indian shopping precinct and residential neighbourhood. The architects, RFB, (Now Fee & Challis, a practice that has been and remains intimately involved with the development of the city), came up with a practical, workable solution. They proposed that all the rights be consolidated onto the main redevelopment site, that the buildings fronting onto Diagonal Street be left intact and that the Arcade and living quarters be recreated to replace the 1930s building that would have to be demolished. Thus the final design of the development was not merely to provide prestige office space but to save the important heritage buildings and the facilities that, as was pointed out last week, was the historic home of those that had lived there since the earliest days of the city’s establishment against all kinds of odds.
The proposals were approved and the demolition permit that was issued by the then National Monuments Council (NMC now SAHRA) was subject to very specific conditions that emphasised the nature of what was to be provided “the same type of trading and the original shop frontages and quality of space between”; “the same essential architectural character of the (existing) building” “the new residential section……shall not interfere with the architectural and historic integrity of Saxonia Buildings”.
The last of the NMC’s conditions was “In the event of any one or more of these properties being sold the above undertakings shall be included in the condition of sale as binding on the new owner/owners.”
So, what emerged from the exercise was a valuable built addition to the inner city and the retention, not just of its historical component, but of the local community. Then, as was mentioned last week, the 1990s saw the inner city’s urban decay spiral uncontrollably and Ernst & Young moved from the building leaving it empty. It then changed hands a number of times and in 2003 was bought by the current developers for conversion into residential accommodation. Billing themselves as “a contemporary property developer that seeks to enrich our cities by re-inventing the culture of true inner city living” it was just one of quite a large number of buildings bought by them with a great deal of fanfare – “The American Dream Shifts to Joburg” – “Sexing up the City, new kids on the block turn downtown Joburg buildings into New York style loft apartments” The Knights in Shining Armour had arrived and the damsel in distress (the inner city) could breathe again! Only by 2003, the damsel was actually quite well able to breathe on her own and improving daily. Now, a number of the buildings they bought are in a worse state than before although a number of years have passed since they were acquired - Shakespeare House, the old C N A Building, New Kempsey Building – others are standing only partly refurbished – Corner House, 1 Rissik Street.
However, the Ernst & Young building, renamed ‘The Franklin’, was one of the buildings in their portfolio that has gone ahead although painfully slowly. I believe, from some of the people who have bought into it and are now staying there, that it provides really good inner city living. Incidentally, the blurb says that they will convert this building “into some of the most opulent apartments available anywhere in the world. Everything ‘designer’ is being incorporated in these luxurious living spaces, etc etc.” Ja, well….!
The Indian tenants evidently were not even told of the change in ownership and only found out through the changed details on their rent statements. Three years after the purchase, in 2006, the Indian tenants of the shops were called together and “asked to be part of the renovation project” – a year later they were given notice! Later, their rent was doubled. The plan is to change the retail to accommodate a new batch of national and local retailers, not the locals. In fact that the plan is sub-titled “Shopping – Luxury – Lifestyle” and the upgrade “to emulate European street shopping.”
In other words it is the introduction and promotion of a foreign retail experience at the cost of the destruction of the existing Oriental street shopping experience – only because the former pays better and ‘progress’, after all, is all about financial returns!
Who are the affected people? Here’s a small sample:
A. Has been occupying the same shop for over 68 years. He was born and raised in the area. His grandmother/father were the initial owners of the business. He is the third generation of the business to run the business on Diagonal Street. He knows no other home except this place.
B. “This is another forced removal. We have three children and three staff members to look after and their families. The area is a historical area, one of the few places where black traders are still allowed and have been trading over the years.”
C. Has been running the shop for 40 years. After completing his matric he joined his father who owned the business since 1980. He used to come everyday before and after school to help – one of his black customers says “I have been shopping in this shop since 1969. My children, my wife and brothers still come and do their shopping here in the same shop. We love the place and would like to see the shops stay.”
D. The current owner has worked in the business from an early age, was born and raised in the area as well. His grandparents used to own the shop from the early 1940s. The grandfather died and the grandmother, who is in her 80s, is still alive but on retirement. The current owner is the third generation of the same family to own and run this shoe business.
E. The business started operating in the early 20s (ie 1920s) and was taken over by his son who took over the business after his father’s retirement – he is now 83. He is assisted by his son – a third generation of the same family.
F. “People are dying of stress, the hairdresser whose family was on this site for nearly 90 years, died just a few months after being evicted. The other lady who was in her 50s also died of stress.”
This isn’t the removal of a bunch of people who have been illegally occupying a building for a few years, nor of a bunch of criminals – this is the destruction of a community! One of my colleagues writes “It is important to remember that when the development was mooted, permission was granted by the responsible heritage authority, albeit reluctantly, to demolish the old structures on the site but with the proviso that the new structure should acknowledge and commemorate the important social history of the Indian people who lived in and around Diagonal Street, Johannesburg. In a sense, therefore, it was the way Indians were required to live and work that the new structures were designed to replicate, not merely the building typology that was retained. More importantly it was social values and a way of life that was conserved. I think it would be fair to say that what was conserved at the time was building typology overlaid with a recognition of the social values of an important but disenfranchised group.”
I think we as a country are still largely feeling our way with the whole issue of ‘recognition’ and ‘forms of recognition’ related to our history. An article on Constitution Hill comments on its great success “the occupation of buildings that once symbolized race supremacy and now stands for tolerance, the rule of law, and constitutional democracy; in itself carries a powerful pedagogic message.” This is what we badly need in this age which has recently been further compromised by xenophobia.
An international conference focusing on the relationship between Memorialisation and Democracy was held in Santiago, Chile in June 2007. Whilst Memorialisation (the process of creating public memorials) might not sound in line with what we have been talking about, I think that it is closer than one first appreciates – “Memorialisation remains an underdeveloped, or unevenly developed, field. This may be because memorials are too often understood as outside the political process – relegated to the “soft” cultural sphere as art objects, to the private sphere of personal mourning or to the margins of power and politics. As a result memorials are rarely integrated into broader strategies for democracy building. Memory sites fall between the cracks of existing policies for historic preservation, transitional justice, democratic governance, urban planning and human rights. whereas truth commissions, judicial processes, police reform and other mechanisms for addressing the past are subject to public scrutiny, few nations or communities have developed analogous expectations, let alone standards of accountability, for memorialisation.”
I like that phrase “memory sites” – is that not what the Diagonal Street precinct is all about? The Rand Steam Laundry site was also all about memory, memory intertwined with history – that is now gone. We cannot allow such things to repeated. “….the best bulwark against human rights abuse is an active engaged citizenry with the awareness, freedom and inspiration to stop abuse before it starts.”
Think about it, neil
Friday, August 15, 2008
Diagonal Street Memory,Democracy, Progress 1 Citichat 15 August 2008
CITICHAT 32/2008 - 15 August 2008
Diagonal Street – Memory and Democracy vs ‘Progress’ – 1.
The last few years have seen an escalation in the dichotomy of retention/restoration vs “progress”. The media often loves to present this dichotomy as the young entrepreneur inflamed with a desire to provide services to the public - ie his own specific public being the tenants in his latest development - vs the forces against progress. The knight in shining armour astride his white horse, pitted against by what are perceived to be a bunch of predominantly old and white self-appointed custodians of the country’s and cities’ heritage – the Mother Grundys. We had the debacle of the so-called Provincial Government Precinct plan which was intent in wiping out a dozen or so acknowledged heritage buildings and, surprise, surprise, approved of by the very heritage authorities responsible for their protection. If the Mother Grundy’s had not intervened (at their own considerable cost) we would have destroyed a number of buildings unique in the memory of the city. We recently had the illegal and wanton razing of the old Rand Steam Laundries Buildings on the corner of Napier Road and Barry Hertzog. At the time I wrote “History repeats itself! This time it is an aptly named corporation, Imperial, that ‘with blind ruthlessness and staggering cynicism’ has destroyed not just one of the last local examples of steam driven industry, but crushed a place where South African history converged: the struggle of poor people to earn an honest living; colonial segregation; indifference; displacement; discrimination; lack of compassion and the eventual disintegration of the AmaWasha” Again, the Mother Grundys are taking up the cudgels to ensure that the perpetrators are brought to book and provide fitting compensation and memorialisation of an important part of our history. Other buildings litter the cityscape as they are allowed to implode on themselves – the public and private sectors are equally to blame but the Central and Provincial Government in particular, as they have the power to take action but do little if anything at all.
This is not a simple arena where ‘progress’ stands in one corner and the Mother Grundys in the other, may the best one win! This is a complicated territory to traverse, one that impinges on complex memories, justice, reconciliation, reparation, truth telling and truth-facing, coming to grips with the past – all impacting into human rights and democracy itself. At a major conference in New York recently on ‘Memorialisation and Democracy’ Alberto van Klaveren Chile’s deputy foreign minister was quoted as saying “Knowing the truth is a complex and difficult process, but it’s indispensable if we are to build a space for encounter and consensus, a space that allows us to affirm that democracy belongs to all of us…the state has a clear obligation to pass on to new generations the ethical principles of truth, justice and reparation.”
I love Diagonal Street and its immediate surrounding. It is probably one of the most eclectic precincts in the city jumble that we call Joeys. The precinct that encompasses Diagonal Street teems with strongly contrasting building types and styles and communities that span our history. I must say that I’d always assumed that the Diagonal Street name, as reported in the Daily Mail of 11 August 1930 simply “emphasises the curious run of a thoroughfare on the municipal maps” or more simply put, was the obvious name for the diagonal edge of the triangular shaped farm, Langlaagte, which acted as the western boundary to the original town limits. Maps produced prior to 1900 are silent as to the name, but the Standard and Diggers News of 18 September 1897 refers to it as ‘Diagonal Street’ whilst the later Post Office Directory of 1906 refers to it as ‘Jubilee Street’. Some even later publications refer to it as ‘Diagonal Street, also known as Jubilee Street’ (wonder which Jubilee - Jubilee Mine or Queen Victoria’s Jubilee?) Whatever.
Early maps reflect the area just west of Diagonal Street as “uitval grond” and it seems to have been treated as something of a no-man’s land. There apparently was no strict enforcement of the Transvaal Republic’s Law 3 of 1885 which restricted property ownership “of the coloured native races of Asia” so that Indians settled either just outside the city limits (Pageview) or on its edges such as at Diagonal Street. The Diagonal Street precinct became a racially mixed area. Arnold Benjamin, ‘Lost Johannesburg’, adds “Further laws however, such as the Gold Law of 1908 and the Asiatic Land Tenure and Trading Amendment Act of 1919, imposed new restrictions on Indians. Yet again, little if anything was done to enforce them: trading licences continued to be issued, and no alternative areas were offered. From the beginning therefore, many Indians effectively owned “white” property through nominees. Business knew no real boundaries. And, as the town centre, meanwhile, shifted eastwards across towards Rissik and Eloff Street, the Asians of Diagonal Street were left undisturbed”
An official enquiry into the racial status of the area dragged through 1934 to 1937 eventually leading to a recommendation that the status quo of the area be legalised which was done via the new Land Tenure Act of 1936. Certainty brought re-investment to the area which started to again enjoy a look and feel of rejuvenation. Then disaster! The Group Areas Act of 1950 basically stripped Indians of their rights and on December 3rd 1970, the Diagonal Street precinct was declared a white area. Benjamin again – “Landlords stopped spending money on any but essential maintenance; rebuilding was in any case forbidden and the quarter became progressively more shabby……Diagonal Street is dying a much slower death than Pageview, but the story is one of equally dreary misguidance. Sections still flourish, others have been laid bare or rebuilt, but the whole area is inexorably earmarked for ‘redevelopment’. With it will disappear a uniquely colourful part of Johannesburg’s business area.”
Somehow the area escaped the annihilation of Pageview, maybe Government was just too busy flattening similar areas throughout the country! In 1988, the old magic was still there albeit that the buildings themselves had a feel of neglect and slow decay. Sally Dewar, a reporter, wrote about the precinct “It is vibrant and alive, and colourful, peopled by a hotchpotch of many races, religions and cultures to whom Diagonal Street is a way of life: nothing special, just a few rows of shops that they and their fathers have always patronised for their daily needs….I spent some time there. I wandered down Diagonal Street, then back along Kort Street, dodging the stacks of tin trunks and pyramids of saucepans spilling out from doors of overstocked shops, stepping around neat piles of fruit on wooden trestles… In most of these little shops which sell just about everything, the pre-occupation is with health. In the northern suburbs they have their health shops; here they have all the traditional remedies of the black culture, with a smattering of the old Afrikaans, and a little of the Oriental thrown in too ….over all hangs an aura of incense, which is sold in most shops and burnt in many….kitchenware comes high on the list, from small gadgets to great sets of enamelled or aluminium saucepans …. I felt a shock of anticipation as I walked into the cool depths of a shop stocked from floor to ceiling with bolts of cotton cloth – mostly African prints – I pass time in a wholesale and retail merchant’s shop , in which the scene must be familiar to travellers from Hong Kong, Cairo…or Mombassa – wherever Asians ply their trade.”
The names associated with the precinct over time – the architects and owners and the many tenants provide some of the spice to the flavour of the precinct – just a sprinkling include M.J.Harris; Bhowan Bros.; F.C.Meeser; Suggan Morar; Galal Nowan; Messrs.M.G.Patel; B.Raina Esq.; Bernard Janks and Partners; Manilal Bros; Leslie Simon; Sizabantu Shop; Mr.H.Baker; Mr.H.Green Esq; Yussuf Mohammed Essop; John Russel-Boulton; RFB Consulting Architects; Goolam Mohammed; S.Edinburgh Esq.; A. Sarenbock; O.R Patel & Co.; Mr Khoosal Kanjee; Mr P. Patlansky; Helmut Jahn; C.K.Patel Fruiterers and Cosmetics; Starlite Fashions; Chicks Wholesalers; Bawa Fashions; Mr. Chandoo; Mrs. Daya; R.Dayalzee; Neel Gopal Yakoob Mohammed; Limbada & Co.; A.Ismail; Keshav & Saryu Vinoo; Haroon Chotia; Ibrahim Dawood.
But it’s not just the wares and people that give the precinct its special flavour. It’s also the vast range of building types and styles that act as an eclectic backdrop to the colourful vitality of the area. The buildings range from run down Edwardian and Victorian to the brash bling of 11 Diagonal Street. The Kazerne Building on the corner of Jeppe and Diagonal dates back to 1896. The Victorian Neo Classical Carmel Building (also referred to as Saxonia or Hanson Building) was built in 1897. Gardee’s Arcade has roots back to 1922 although on a parallel site. The Victorian/Edwardian “Grand Hotel’ on 12 and 14 Diagonal Street dates back to 1926 when the stands were the sites of a number of single storey buildings. The two storey “Pie House” taking up the triangle between Diagonal and Sauer, is a 1930s creation, a somewhat foreshortened “Flatiron’ building. 42 Diagonal Street, Oskop House, comes from another era again. It was built as a three or four storey building in 1944 and extended to seven in 1949. 11 Diagonal Street, the ‘Diamond Building’ was built in 1984 and sold last year to ABSA for their own institutional purposes. The same applied to AA House only it was sold to FNB diagonally opposite the site on which a new building is currently under construction, also for FNB. The original structure on this site was a house completed in 1926 and then replaced by a building known as Cigarette House which was in turn demolished and the site turned into a parking area for FNB for a number of years. The JSE Building and its Annexe and the pedestraian unfriendly Reserve Bank building next to the Turbine Hall development about which I have previously waxed lyrical. What number of stories could these buildings tell!
And then there is Ernst & Young House developed by JCI and built in 1990. The Argus Company, as it was, sold the seven stands to the west of their building housing ‘The Star’ to JCI who planned a new multi-storey office tower to house the Ernst & Young group. The initial indications were that everything on the site bought by them would be demolished including “the Victorian shops between Pritchard and President Streets, with their balconies, filigree iron work and the colourful Cairo-style fruit market dating back to 1896.” John Citizen joined the Mother Grundys and the Indian traders and the heritage lobby in a howl of protest. Two weeks later the Star reported that “the developers of the site which extends across all seven stands behind the Star …have decided to develop only the area behind the shops. Even the alleyway market will be spared.”
The eventual building designed by RFB Consulting Architects, was described as a “tall building contributing to the New York sky-line of Johannesburg. Refreshing in colour and texture, in contrast to the Life Centre, dwarfing its neighbours, the building boasts confidence in the Inner City of Johannesburg”. And it did, a truly worthwhile addition to the City and to the precinct’s cluster of eclecticism. Only, the confidence took a nose-dive in the late 1990s when a total lack of urban management in the precinct saw crime and grime taking hold and Ernst & Young headed north, closely followed by the JSE itself. The Ernst & Young building stood vacant and was described by the international media as one of the many ‘boarded up buildings that now make up the CBD of Johannesburg.”
The Star’s Metro article of 13 October 1988, during the heat of controversy became prophetic. “The JCI project is a major element in the redevelopment of Newtown, where the issue of redevelopment in the context of the conservation of the architectural and urban heritage, and the safeguards of the rights of tenancy for historic residential communities will be an ongoing concern. How right they were! I’ve burbled on too much so let’s leave it here and we’ll pick up the story next week.
Till then ciao, neil
Diagonal Street – Memory and Democracy vs ‘Progress’ – 1.
The last few years have seen an escalation in the dichotomy of retention/restoration vs “progress”. The media often loves to present this dichotomy as the young entrepreneur inflamed with a desire to provide services to the public - ie his own specific public being the tenants in his latest development - vs the forces against progress. The knight in shining armour astride his white horse, pitted against by what are perceived to be a bunch of predominantly old and white self-appointed custodians of the country’s and cities’ heritage – the Mother Grundys. We had the debacle of the so-called Provincial Government Precinct plan which was intent in wiping out a dozen or so acknowledged heritage buildings and, surprise, surprise, approved of by the very heritage authorities responsible for their protection. If the Mother Grundy’s had not intervened (at their own considerable cost) we would have destroyed a number of buildings unique in the memory of the city. We recently had the illegal and wanton razing of the old Rand Steam Laundries Buildings on the corner of Napier Road and Barry Hertzog. At the time I wrote “History repeats itself! This time it is an aptly named corporation, Imperial, that ‘with blind ruthlessness and staggering cynicism’ has destroyed not just one of the last local examples of steam driven industry, but crushed a place where South African history converged: the struggle of poor people to earn an honest living; colonial segregation; indifference; displacement; discrimination; lack of compassion and the eventual disintegration of the AmaWasha” Again, the Mother Grundys are taking up the cudgels to ensure that the perpetrators are brought to book and provide fitting compensation and memorialisation of an important part of our history. Other buildings litter the cityscape as they are allowed to implode on themselves – the public and private sectors are equally to blame but the Central and Provincial Government in particular, as they have the power to take action but do little if anything at all.
This is not a simple arena where ‘progress’ stands in one corner and the Mother Grundys in the other, may the best one win! This is a complicated territory to traverse, one that impinges on complex memories, justice, reconciliation, reparation, truth telling and truth-facing, coming to grips with the past – all impacting into human rights and democracy itself. At a major conference in New York recently on ‘Memorialisation and Democracy’ Alberto van Klaveren Chile’s deputy foreign minister was quoted as saying “Knowing the truth is a complex and difficult process, but it’s indispensable if we are to build a space for encounter and consensus, a space that allows us to affirm that democracy belongs to all of us…the state has a clear obligation to pass on to new generations the ethical principles of truth, justice and reparation.”
I love Diagonal Street and its immediate surrounding. It is probably one of the most eclectic precincts in the city jumble that we call Joeys. The precinct that encompasses Diagonal Street teems with strongly contrasting building types and styles and communities that span our history. I must say that I’d always assumed that the Diagonal Street name, as reported in the Daily Mail of 11 August 1930 simply “emphasises the curious run of a thoroughfare on the municipal maps” or more simply put, was the obvious name for the diagonal edge of the triangular shaped farm, Langlaagte, which acted as the western boundary to the original town limits. Maps produced prior to 1900 are silent as to the name, but the Standard and Diggers News of 18 September 1897 refers to it as ‘Diagonal Street’ whilst the later Post Office Directory of 1906 refers to it as ‘Jubilee Street’. Some even later publications refer to it as ‘Diagonal Street, also known as Jubilee Street’ (wonder which Jubilee - Jubilee Mine or Queen Victoria’s Jubilee?) Whatever.
Early maps reflect the area just west of Diagonal Street as “uitval grond” and it seems to have been treated as something of a no-man’s land. There apparently was no strict enforcement of the Transvaal Republic’s Law 3 of 1885 which restricted property ownership “of the coloured native races of Asia” so that Indians settled either just outside the city limits (Pageview) or on its edges such as at Diagonal Street. The Diagonal Street precinct became a racially mixed area. Arnold Benjamin, ‘Lost Johannesburg’, adds “Further laws however, such as the Gold Law of 1908 and the Asiatic Land Tenure and Trading Amendment Act of 1919, imposed new restrictions on Indians. Yet again, little if anything was done to enforce them: trading licences continued to be issued, and no alternative areas were offered. From the beginning therefore, many Indians effectively owned “white” property through nominees. Business knew no real boundaries. And, as the town centre, meanwhile, shifted eastwards across towards Rissik and Eloff Street, the Asians of Diagonal Street were left undisturbed”
An official enquiry into the racial status of the area dragged through 1934 to 1937 eventually leading to a recommendation that the status quo of the area be legalised which was done via the new Land Tenure Act of 1936. Certainty brought re-investment to the area which started to again enjoy a look and feel of rejuvenation. Then disaster! The Group Areas Act of 1950 basically stripped Indians of their rights and on December 3rd 1970, the Diagonal Street precinct was declared a white area. Benjamin again – “Landlords stopped spending money on any but essential maintenance; rebuilding was in any case forbidden and the quarter became progressively more shabby……Diagonal Street is dying a much slower death than Pageview, but the story is one of equally dreary misguidance. Sections still flourish, others have been laid bare or rebuilt, but the whole area is inexorably earmarked for ‘redevelopment’. With it will disappear a uniquely colourful part of Johannesburg’s business area.”
Somehow the area escaped the annihilation of Pageview, maybe Government was just too busy flattening similar areas throughout the country! In 1988, the old magic was still there albeit that the buildings themselves had a feel of neglect and slow decay. Sally Dewar, a reporter, wrote about the precinct “It is vibrant and alive, and colourful, peopled by a hotchpotch of many races, religions and cultures to whom Diagonal Street is a way of life: nothing special, just a few rows of shops that they and their fathers have always patronised for their daily needs….I spent some time there. I wandered down Diagonal Street, then back along Kort Street, dodging the stacks of tin trunks and pyramids of saucepans spilling out from doors of overstocked shops, stepping around neat piles of fruit on wooden trestles… In most of these little shops which sell just about everything, the pre-occupation is with health. In the northern suburbs they have their health shops; here they have all the traditional remedies of the black culture, with a smattering of the old Afrikaans, and a little of the Oriental thrown in too ….over all hangs an aura of incense, which is sold in most shops and burnt in many….kitchenware comes high on the list, from small gadgets to great sets of enamelled or aluminium saucepans …. I felt a shock of anticipation as I walked into the cool depths of a shop stocked from floor to ceiling with bolts of cotton cloth – mostly African prints – I pass time in a wholesale and retail merchant’s shop , in which the scene must be familiar to travellers from Hong Kong, Cairo…or Mombassa – wherever Asians ply their trade.”
The names associated with the precinct over time – the architects and owners and the many tenants provide some of the spice to the flavour of the precinct – just a sprinkling include M.J.Harris; Bhowan Bros.; F.C.Meeser; Suggan Morar; Galal Nowan; Messrs.M.G.Patel; B.Raina Esq.; Bernard Janks and Partners; Manilal Bros; Leslie Simon; Sizabantu Shop; Mr.H.Baker; Mr.H.Green Esq; Yussuf Mohammed Essop; John Russel-Boulton; RFB Consulting Architects; Goolam Mohammed; S.Edinburgh Esq.; A. Sarenbock; O.R Patel & Co.; Mr Khoosal Kanjee; Mr P. Patlansky; Helmut Jahn; C.K.Patel Fruiterers and Cosmetics; Starlite Fashions; Chicks Wholesalers; Bawa Fashions; Mr. Chandoo; Mrs. Daya; R.Dayalzee; Neel Gopal Yakoob Mohammed; Limbada & Co.; A.Ismail; Keshav & Saryu Vinoo; Haroon Chotia; Ibrahim Dawood.
But it’s not just the wares and people that give the precinct its special flavour. It’s also the vast range of building types and styles that act as an eclectic backdrop to the colourful vitality of the area. The buildings range from run down Edwardian and Victorian to the brash bling of 11 Diagonal Street. The Kazerne Building on the corner of Jeppe and Diagonal dates back to 1896. The Victorian Neo Classical Carmel Building (also referred to as Saxonia or Hanson Building) was built in 1897. Gardee’s Arcade has roots back to 1922 although on a parallel site. The Victorian/Edwardian “Grand Hotel’ on 12 and 14 Diagonal Street dates back to 1926 when the stands were the sites of a number of single storey buildings. The two storey “Pie House” taking up the triangle between Diagonal and Sauer, is a 1930s creation, a somewhat foreshortened “Flatiron’ building. 42 Diagonal Street, Oskop House, comes from another era again. It was built as a three or four storey building in 1944 and extended to seven in 1949. 11 Diagonal Street, the ‘Diamond Building’ was built in 1984 and sold last year to ABSA for their own institutional purposes. The same applied to AA House only it was sold to FNB diagonally opposite the site on which a new building is currently under construction, also for FNB. The original structure on this site was a house completed in 1926 and then replaced by a building known as Cigarette House which was in turn demolished and the site turned into a parking area for FNB for a number of years. The JSE Building and its Annexe and the pedestraian unfriendly Reserve Bank building next to the Turbine Hall development about which I have previously waxed lyrical. What number of stories could these buildings tell!
And then there is Ernst & Young House developed by JCI and built in 1990. The Argus Company, as it was, sold the seven stands to the west of their building housing ‘The Star’ to JCI who planned a new multi-storey office tower to house the Ernst & Young group. The initial indications were that everything on the site bought by them would be demolished including “the Victorian shops between Pritchard and President Streets, with their balconies, filigree iron work and the colourful Cairo-style fruit market dating back to 1896.” John Citizen joined the Mother Grundys and the Indian traders and the heritage lobby in a howl of protest. Two weeks later the Star reported that “the developers of the site which extends across all seven stands behind the Star …have decided to develop only the area behind the shops. Even the alleyway market will be spared.”
The eventual building designed by RFB Consulting Architects, was described as a “tall building contributing to the New York sky-line of Johannesburg. Refreshing in colour and texture, in contrast to the Life Centre, dwarfing its neighbours, the building boasts confidence in the Inner City of Johannesburg”. And it did, a truly worthwhile addition to the City and to the precinct’s cluster of eclecticism. Only, the confidence took a nose-dive in the late 1990s when a total lack of urban management in the precinct saw crime and grime taking hold and Ernst & Young headed north, closely followed by the JSE itself. The Ernst & Young building stood vacant and was described by the international media as one of the many ‘boarded up buildings that now make up the CBD of Johannesburg.”
The Star’s Metro article of 13 October 1988, during the heat of controversy became prophetic. “The JCI project is a major element in the redevelopment of Newtown, where the issue of redevelopment in the context of the conservation of the architectural and urban heritage, and the safeguards of the rights of tenancy for historic residential communities will be an ongoing concern. How right they were! I’ve burbled on too much so let’s leave it here and we’ll pick up the story next week.
Till then ciao, neil
Friday, August 8, 2008
Rissik Street Post Office Citichat 8 August 2008
CITICHAT 31/2008 - 8 August 2008
Rissik Street Post Office?
Scarcely a week goes by without my receiving an enquiry from someone regarding the status of the Rissik Street Post Office. Before sharing what I know, a reminder of why this building is synonomous with a great deal of the history of the city from practically its earliest days.
When Cape Town became a victualling station for shipping passing the Cape of Storms it also became a postal centre with a series of “post office stones” and trees under which letters were left for collection and onward movement. Johannesburg’s postal service started two centuries later through the appointment of one A.B.Edgson as the first postal agent for the city. He kept a canteen in Ferreira’s Camp and the post was held, appropriately enough for a mining city, in a gin box! Towards the end of 1886 postal services were introduced three times a week. The addressee’s names were read out from an open window and the public claimed their post! At the end of the first year of this service there were 10 000 unclaimed letters (130 being for the Smith Family!).
In 1888 a single storey government building was erected on the site of the current building and the post office relocated from Ferreira’s Camp into a wing of this new building. The first pillar boxes were erected in 1889 and the first house-to-house deliveries started in 1896. However, these were stopped when the Volksraad refused to approve funds to cover the cost of deliveries. In 1887 the first telegraph service was instituted. In 1892 the entire building was made available to the postal services but in 1895 it was vacated so that the building could be demolished to make way for the new, existing building.
The new three storey building was designed by Sytze Wierda, the state architect for the Zuid Afrikaanse Republiek (ZAR) and construction started in 1896. The contractor was NCA Meischke and the contract price sixty five thousand pounds. Meischke also later built the City Hall directly to the west of the Post Office. The building opposite the City Hall on the corner of Market and Harrison Streets is known as Meischke’s Building and, urban legend has it, was built from materials surreptitiously dropped off Meischke’s delivery wagons as they rode down Market Street to the two government building sites! The corner-stone of the Post office building was laid by the then Postmaster I.N.van Alphen on the 27th February 1897 and the building opened to the public just over a century ago on 1 July 1898. Chipkin’s “Johannesburg Style” reflects the following: “The ZAR architecture of Johannesburg, originally part of the public works programme carried out by a reluctant Boer government, possesses a fascination deriving from its sound architectural qualities as well as from its archeological remoteness. The most prominent example was the Rissik Street Post Office , a wide three storey edifice , which defined the eastern perimeter of the vast Market Square like a nineteenth century version of the Renaissance Palazzo della Cancelleria in Rome.”
‘Vast’ was no exaggeration. Initially, the Market Square was a space undifferentiated from the general area around it but for the fact that it was the camp’s centre for trading. It was shown on early maps as stretching from Sauer Street to Rissik Street. Initially the only building on the Square was the small tin shed of the Market-Master which was replaced with a brick building in 1888. After 1890 the cattle trade was moved to Marshall Square (now occupied by a commercial building – another example of local authorities’ lack of appreciation for public open space) and Market Square was reserved for general auctions and sales. Gerard-Mark van der Waal (From Mining Camp to Metropolis) describes Market Square – “Every day of the week Market Square was therefore a hive of activity. Ox-wagons were parked everywhere and people thronged around the tables on which the merchandise was displayed. The New Market Building, a large two storey complex which had replaced the old building in 1890-1, stood in the middle of the square , between Simmonds and Harrison streets - it was demolished in 1915. Due west of the Market building were a number of small one-storey structures, two tall reservoirs and a narrow tower used by the fire brigade.” The Rissik Street Post Office was built facing onto the Market Square, although not on Market Square land, and looked over this vast stretch of ground in the middle of the rapidly growing mining town. The Rissik Street Post Office must have dominated the area with its three storey façade.
After the Anglo Boer War and the resultant end of the Transvaal Republic, the accession of King Edward VII in 1902 was commemorated by the addition of a fourth storey to the building. This was on the instructions of the newly appointed Governor of the Transvaal and the Orange Free State, Lord Milner. The English architect Wilfred Tonkin was responsible for the design of the new floor and of the clock tower marked with the cypher “E.R.” Arnold Benjamin, “A Lost Johannesburg” wrote of the additions, “Yet the structure familiar to Johannesburgers of today is substantially different from the original 1897 version. The addition of an extra storey in 1905 badly spoiled its looks….that addition unfortunately destroyed the original proportions and replaced the charming variation of the roof line with one that was straight and functional, dominated by a heavy clock tower (and a large square watertank!).”
The City Hall was built in 1912-14 although its positioning was strongly criticised by the Association of Transvaal Architects who wanted it placed on the western end of the Square to provide a far better balanced space between it and the Rissik Street Post Office. The fact that this suggestion was rejected, led to the relatively small space that now separates the City Hall’s eastern façade from the Rissik Street Post Office, two great buildings far too close to each other to visually fully appreciate the merits of either. (This small space is of course is also bisected by Rissik Street and the useless fountain not so warmly referred to as ‘Eddy’s Folly’ after the Chairman of the City’s Planning Committee who, scorning all objections, forced the design and that of the then Library Gardens onto the City in the early 1990s.) This Rissik Street space now faces a further bisection with the proposed Bus Rapid Transport route up Rissik Street which means that the fountain will undoubtedly have to go. A number of street folk will also now lose their washing trough!
Back to history! In 1919 when the Central Government revealed plans for further extensions to the Rissik Street Post Office the Association of Transvaal Architects and the Town Planning Association (Transvaal) joined forces to recommend that the Rissik Street Post Office should in fact be demolished as it was “an obsolete building which did not warrant additional expenditure” and should be rebuilt on the western end of the Square. The then City Council decided that the western end of the Square should rather be reserved for the Library which was eventually built in 1932-34. If one adds the physical areas covered by the Library and the City Hall, a substantial piece of public open space in the centre of the city was forever lost to its citizens.
In 1940 an agreement was entered into between the national government and the city council to the effect that ownership of the land would be transferred to the council and that the government would be responsible for demolishing the building. As a result of strong preservation voices, the Council waived this clause in 1976 and the building was declared a National Monument in 1978. The responsibility for the maintenance of the building remained that of the Post Office in terms of the long term lease agreement which was now entered into between the Post Office and the City. The ‘rental’ was R49 per year! The Post Office despite requests, instructions and threats of court action never fulfilled its obligations in regard to maintenance and the building deteriorated from year to year. In 1993 an editorial in the Star said: “For Johannesburg to think it is worthy or capable of hosting any prestige event, let alone the Olympic Games, is laughable!…..Have a good look at that National Monument, the Rissik Street Post Office. It is literally falling to pieces….instead of being a monument to the past, it is a national disgrace.”
In 1994 the Central Johannesburg Partnership (CJP) proposed to the fledgling Gauteng Provincial Government that it relocate from Pretoria to Johannesburg. Two of the city’s buildings which could be utilised by the Provincial Government were identified as the City Hall building which could be altered to house the Provincial Legislature and the Rissik Street Post Office which could be refurbished for the offices of the Premier. Although the City would make the latter building available, it was not in a position to finance the restoration. A private sector consortium was put together by the CJP, the finance raised and a lease deal offered to the Provincial Government which was accepted. I have never been able to determine exactly why Provincial Government reneged on the deal, although I have heard that there were ‘political pressures’ brought to bear, whatever that might mean! Before the deal was scuppered, the City’s negotiation with the Post Office to cancel their lease and vacate the building had been completed. The deal included a payment to the Council of R3.5 million in compensation for the lack of maintenance that had led to the poor exterior state of the building at that time. That money was never spent on the Rissik Street Post Ofice!
In 1988 the Council (in the form of the Southern Metropolitan Local Council) called for proposals for the future use of the building. The Council accepted a Malaysian property developer’s proposal to turn the building into a “five star boutique hotel” at a cost of R35 million. A number of people, including myself, were highly sceptical of the proposal as well as of the feasibility of turning the building into a hotel at that low cost. At one meeting with council, when I suggested that this deal would never happen, I was told that I was just being negative! The deal did nothing other than to block all other possibilities for a number of years and was finally cancelled in the early 2000s.
The City then put out another proposal call for the re-development of the building through the Johannesburg Property Company (JPC) and, I understand, received some very good commercial proposals including retail, hotel and commercial uses. However the City were evidently heavily ‘leaned on’ and the building was sold to the Gauteng Provincial Legislature I think for something like R25 million although, as yet, no actual money has changed hands.
The building has thus stood empty since 1995 and continues to decay, its demise assisted by vagrants and profiteers as the building has been stripped unhindered over the years.
In Citichat 28/2002 I recounted the fascinating but sad information regarding the clock in the Rissik Street Post Office’s clock tower. It was built in London by Gillett & Johnston in Croydon and shipped to South Africa early last century. Its largest bell, named “Little Evelyn” weighing in at 1050 kg, was an exact replica of the smallest bell in London’s Big Ben of which the Rissik Street clock is an exact replica in miniature – absolutely unique! For nearly eighty years, three times a week two apprentices spent the better part of a morning winding the three weights of 225kg; 293kg and 360 kg for the clock movement; hour and quarter hour strike respectively. On two occasions in the past (1936 and 1952) a weight fell due to overwinding, crashing through two floors and landing in the main foyer. In 1980 the winding mechanism was automated, a concrete slab cast under the clock to avoid such accidents (a similar one in Big Ben is 5 metres thick!) and the four light bulbs illuminating the clock face replaced with 16 neon tubes. Some years ago the clock was stolen, in fact almost everything of value has been systematically pilfered, from brass window fittings and door handles to even some of the wooden flooring and stair balustrades. Whilst the latter has probably been used for firewood, the former must surely have been sold to unscrupulous scrap metal dealers. And to add insult to injury, it is also not just that parts of the building have been stolen, I believe that even the plans of the building were removed from the city council by someone who claims to have saved them from the incinerator in the 1970's!
Some good news! In the last couple of months we have been made aware that the Gauteng Legislature intends proceeding with a massive refurbishment of the building as offices for themselves as well as space in the old postal hall for public consultation usage, etc. The building will not fully meet their needs but there are numerous neighbouring buildings, existing and planned, that will do so. The big question mark is when this will happen? The bad news is that it seems that, with the current Legislature nearing the end of its term, there is a reluctance to commit the incoming Legislature to such plans. I find this quite strange unless Legislatures themselves are under threat as a result of the current investigations into the three tier form of government. In which case we are back where we were in 1995!
But some other good news is that, whilst the Legislature were also hoping to obtain Oppenheimer Square behind the Post Office building to erect additional offices, that, thankfully, will not be allowed. The Square is currently a disgraceful piece of public space that desperately needs some love and care! But so is the Rissik Street Post Office!
Ciao, neil
Rissik Street Post Office?
Scarcely a week goes by without my receiving an enquiry from someone regarding the status of the Rissik Street Post Office. Before sharing what I know, a reminder of why this building is synonomous with a great deal of the history of the city from practically its earliest days.
When Cape Town became a victualling station for shipping passing the Cape of Storms it also became a postal centre with a series of “post office stones” and trees under which letters were left for collection and onward movement. Johannesburg’s postal service started two centuries later through the appointment of one A.B.Edgson as the first postal agent for the city. He kept a canteen in Ferreira’s Camp and the post was held, appropriately enough for a mining city, in a gin box! Towards the end of 1886 postal services were introduced three times a week. The addressee’s names were read out from an open window and the public claimed their post! At the end of the first year of this service there were 10 000 unclaimed letters (130 being for the Smith Family!).
In 1888 a single storey government building was erected on the site of the current building and the post office relocated from Ferreira’s Camp into a wing of this new building. The first pillar boxes were erected in 1889 and the first house-to-house deliveries started in 1896. However, these were stopped when the Volksraad refused to approve funds to cover the cost of deliveries. In 1887 the first telegraph service was instituted. In 1892 the entire building was made available to the postal services but in 1895 it was vacated so that the building could be demolished to make way for the new, existing building.
The new three storey building was designed by Sytze Wierda, the state architect for the Zuid Afrikaanse Republiek (ZAR) and construction started in 1896. The contractor was NCA Meischke and the contract price sixty five thousand pounds. Meischke also later built the City Hall directly to the west of the Post Office. The building opposite the City Hall on the corner of Market and Harrison Streets is known as Meischke’s Building and, urban legend has it, was built from materials surreptitiously dropped off Meischke’s delivery wagons as they rode down Market Street to the two government building sites! The corner-stone of the Post office building was laid by the then Postmaster I.N.van Alphen on the 27th February 1897 and the building opened to the public just over a century ago on 1 July 1898. Chipkin’s “Johannesburg Style” reflects the following: “The ZAR architecture of Johannesburg, originally part of the public works programme carried out by a reluctant Boer government, possesses a fascination deriving from its sound architectural qualities as well as from its archeological remoteness. The most prominent example was the Rissik Street Post Office , a wide three storey edifice , which defined the eastern perimeter of the vast Market Square like a nineteenth century version of the Renaissance Palazzo della Cancelleria in Rome.”
‘Vast’ was no exaggeration. Initially, the Market Square was a space undifferentiated from the general area around it but for the fact that it was the camp’s centre for trading. It was shown on early maps as stretching from Sauer Street to Rissik Street. Initially the only building on the Square was the small tin shed of the Market-Master which was replaced with a brick building in 1888. After 1890 the cattle trade was moved to Marshall Square (now occupied by a commercial building – another example of local authorities’ lack of appreciation for public open space) and Market Square was reserved for general auctions and sales. Gerard-Mark van der Waal (From Mining Camp to Metropolis) describes Market Square – “Every day of the week Market Square was therefore a hive of activity. Ox-wagons were parked everywhere and people thronged around the tables on which the merchandise was displayed. The New Market Building, a large two storey complex which had replaced the old building in 1890-1, stood in the middle of the square , between Simmonds and Harrison streets - it was demolished in 1915. Due west of the Market building were a number of small one-storey structures, two tall reservoirs and a narrow tower used by the fire brigade.” The Rissik Street Post Office was built facing onto the Market Square, although not on Market Square land, and looked over this vast stretch of ground in the middle of the rapidly growing mining town. The Rissik Street Post Office must have dominated the area with its three storey façade.
After the Anglo Boer War and the resultant end of the Transvaal Republic, the accession of King Edward VII in 1902 was commemorated by the addition of a fourth storey to the building. This was on the instructions of the newly appointed Governor of the Transvaal and the Orange Free State, Lord Milner. The English architect Wilfred Tonkin was responsible for the design of the new floor and of the clock tower marked with the cypher “E.R.” Arnold Benjamin, “A Lost Johannesburg” wrote of the additions, “Yet the structure familiar to Johannesburgers of today is substantially different from the original 1897 version. The addition of an extra storey in 1905 badly spoiled its looks….that addition unfortunately destroyed the original proportions and replaced the charming variation of the roof line with one that was straight and functional, dominated by a heavy clock tower (and a large square watertank!).”
The City Hall was built in 1912-14 although its positioning was strongly criticised by the Association of Transvaal Architects who wanted it placed on the western end of the Square to provide a far better balanced space between it and the Rissik Street Post Office. The fact that this suggestion was rejected, led to the relatively small space that now separates the City Hall’s eastern façade from the Rissik Street Post Office, two great buildings far too close to each other to visually fully appreciate the merits of either. (This small space is of course is also bisected by Rissik Street and the useless fountain not so warmly referred to as ‘Eddy’s Folly’ after the Chairman of the City’s Planning Committee who, scorning all objections, forced the design and that of the then Library Gardens onto the City in the early 1990s.) This Rissik Street space now faces a further bisection with the proposed Bus Rapid Transport route up Rissik Street which means that the fountain will undoubtedly have to go. A number of street folk will also now lose their washing trough!
Back to history! In 1919 when the Central Government revealed plans for further extensions to the Rissik Street Post Office the Association of Transvaal Architects and the Town Planning Association (Transvaal) joined forces to recommend that the Rissik Street Post Office should in fact be demolished as it was “an obsolete building which did not warrant additional expenditure” and should be rebuilt on the western end of the Square. The then City Council decided that the western end of the Square should rather be reserved for the Library which was eventually built in 1932-34. If one adds the physical areas covered by the Library and the City Hall, a substantial piece of public open space in the centre of the city was forever lost to its citizens.
In 1940 an agreement was entered into between the national government and the city council to the effect that ownership of the land would be transferred to the council and that the government would be responsible for demolishing the building. As a result of strong preservation voices, the Council waived this clause in 1976 and the building was declared a National Monument in 1978. The responsibility for the maintenance of the building remained that of the Post Office in terms of the long term lease agreement which was now entered into between the Post Office and the City. The ‘rental’ was R49 per year! The Post Office despite requests, instructions and threats of court action never fulfilled its obligations in regard to maintenance and the building deteriorated from year to year. In 1993 an editorial in the Star said: “For Johannesburg to think it is worthy or capable of hosting any prestige event, let alone the Olympic Games, is laughable!…..Have a good look at that National Monument, the Rissik Street Post Office. It is literally falling to pieces….instead of being a monument to the past, it is a national disgrace.”
In 1994 the Central Johannesburg Partnership (CJP) proposed to the fledgling Gauteng Provincial Government that it relocate from Pretoria to Johannesburg. Two of the city’s buildings which could be utilised by the Provincial Government were identified as the City Hall building which could be altered to house the Provincial Legislature and the Rissik Street Post Office which could be refurbished for the offices of the Premier. Although the City would make the latter building available, it was not in a position to finance the restoration. A private sector consortium was put together by the CJP, the finance raised and a lease deal offered to the Provincial Government which was accepted. I have never been able to determine exactly why Provincial Government reneged on the deal, although I have heard that there were ‘political pressures’ brought to bear, whatever that might mean! Before the deal was scuppered, the City’s negotiation with the Post Office to cancel their lease and vacate the building had been completed. The deal included a payment to the Council of R3.5 million in compensation for the lack of maintenance that had led to the poor exterior state of the building at that time. That money was never spent on the Rissik Street Post Ofice!
In 1988 the Council (in the form of the Southern Metropolitan Local Council) called for proposals for the future use of the building. The Council accepted a Malaysian property developer’s proposal to turn the building into a “five star boutique hotel” at a cost of R35 million. A number of people, including myself, were highly sceptical of the proposal as well as of the feasibility of turning the building into a hotel at that low cost. At one meeting with council, when I suggested that this deal would never happen, I was told that I was just being negative! The deal did nothing other than to block all other possibilities for a number of years and was finally cancelled in the early 2000s.
The City then put out another proposal call for the re-development of the building through the Johannesburg Property Company (JPC) and, I understand, received some very good commercial proposals including retail, hotel and commercial uses. However the City were evidently heavily ‘leaned on’ and the building was sold to the Gauteng Provincial Legislature I think for something like R25 million although, as yet, no actual money has changed hands.
The building has thus stood empty since 1995 and continues to decay, its demise assisted by vagrants and profiteers as the building has been stripped unhindered over the years.
In Citichat 28/2002 I recounted the fascinating but sad information regarding the clock in the Rissik Street Post Office’s clock tower. It was built in London by Gillett & Johnston in Croydon and shipped to South Africa early last century. Its largest bell, named “Little Evelyn” weighing in at 1050 kg, was an exact replica of the smallest bell in London’s Big Ben of which the Rissik Street clock is an exact replica in miniature – absolutely unique! For nearly eighty years, three times a week two apprentices spent the better part of a morning winding the three weights of 225kg; 293kg and 360 kg for the clock movement; hour and quarter hour strike respectively. On two occasions in the past (1936 and 1952) a weight fell due to overwinding, crashing through two floors and landing in the main foyer. In 1980 the winding mechanism was automated, a concrete slab cast under the clock to avoid such accidents (a similar one in Big Ben is 5 metres thick!) and the four light bulbs illuminating the clock face replaced with 16 neon tubes. Some years ago the clock was stolen, in fact almost everything of value has been systematically pilfered, from brass window fittings and door handles to even some of the wooden flooring and stair balustrades. Whilst the latter has probably been used for firewood, the former must surely have been sold to unscrupulous scrap metal dealers. And to add insult to injury, it is also not just that parts of the building have been stolen, I believe that even the plans of the building were removed from the city council by someone who claims to have saved them from the incinerator in the 1970's!
Some good news! In the last couple of months we have been made aware that the Gauteng Legislature intends proceeding with a massive refurbishment of the building as offices for themselves as well as space in the old postal hall for public consultation usage, etc. The building will not fully meet their needs but there are numerous neighbouring buildings, existing and planned, that will do so. The big question mark is when this will happen? The bad news is that it seems that, with the current Legislature nearing the end of its term, there is a reluctance to commit the incoming Legislature to such plans. I find this quite strange unless Legislatures themselves are under threat as a result of the current investigations into the three tier form of government. In which case we are back where we were in 1995!
But some other good news is that, whilst the Legislature were also hoping to obtain Oppenheimer Square behind the Post Office building to erect additional offices, that, thankfully, will not be allowed. The Square is currently a disgraceful piece of public space that desperately needs some love and care! But so is the Rissik Street Post Office!
Ciao, neil
Friday, August 1, 2008
Renamings Citichat 1 August 2008
CITICHAT 30/2008 - 1 August 2008
A Renaming Dichotomy
Last night’s Star carried an advert containing proposed name changes to three Gauteng Hospitals and the criteria used for the proposals. Pretoria Academic Hospital becomes “Stephen Bantu Biko Academic Hospital”; Coronation Hospital becomes “Rahima Moosa Mother and Child Hospital” and Johannesburg Hospital (still known as the “Joburg Gen” or just “The Gen”) will be Charlotte Maxeke Academic Hospital.
Sometimes name changing is resisted because of emotional or political reasons but in other instances, such as the one this Citichat is devoted to, present major dichotomies that must be carefully weighed up.
Back in 2006 I wrote that “Name changes are nothing new, they happen for a variety of reasons sometimes to reflect a change in community; to honour politicians or local heroes or replace the names of those who have disgraced themselves or fallen from favour; streets are often renamed to recognise international cause celebres, etc etc. But the most widespread changes take place following political regime changes sometimes brought about by war or conflict. This has been the situation through a large part of the African continent following the gaining of independence by various countries previously under colonial control……Sometimes the motivation is language based…… Some name changes are strictly commercial.”
In our case, throughout the country, a number of name changes have taken place, generally with only minimal although heated protests because the name change themselves have been sensible, well motivated and often relating to changing names that are totally unacceptable if not hurtful to the majority of our population. Such situations should and will continue to happen.
There is of course legislation that is supposed to provide direction at all three levels of government. Policy in Johannesburg was originally approved in December 2001 and then amended in 2004 and again in June 2008. The Policy starts with a quotation from the South African Geographical Names Council (SAGNC) – “For as long as there has been culture, people have placed a meaning by naming every event they have encountered, be it the birth of a child, climatic conditions, initiation rites, battles, death, or any other event that seems vital to their daily existence,. It has been a way of giving life meaning, a way of claiming territory, a way of honouring leaders, a way of giving direction or location, a way of celebrating important events and mourning disastrous events”.
Our Joburg policy then suggests that “The naming of streets and public places after memorable events is a way of etching the country’s history, both pleasant and not, in people’s memory.” I wonder if it doesn’t miss one further category. Street naming was also a convenient way of demarcation in the early days of the establishment of a city or town and, as time has passed, the name has become historically significant. But more of that later.
Our Joburg Policy provides some excellent principles to be adhered to in the naming and renaming process for example “Names should, as far as possible, be after themes, such as Flora and Fauna, colours, geographical features, historical events, etc. Only in rare cases should peoples’ names be used……” “The renaming of streets and public places should only be done where there is a demonstrable need motivated as per the provisions of this policy, so as to curb unnecessary expense”
The Policy further provides criteria for selecting names eg “Naming after living people should be avoided and only be done in exceptional cases.” “ Names should promote a sense of ownership and the character of the area” “Names should be in keeping with the theme of an area such that they have local relevance” “Changes of names for public buildings, facilities and public open spaces shall only be approved when they do not violate historical or common usage names.” Etc etc
In regard specifically to renaming, the following, inter alia, are offered: “to assist in the prioritising of streets and public places to be renamed a strong motivation is to be provided in cases where a name change is proposed – “where the existing name is considered offensive” “where the existing name is meaningless or historically irrelevant” “where the name change is desirable to promote the goodwill of people now living in the new South Africa” “where the change in name will assist in building a sense of ownership and community and redefining society change”
So where is all this going?
Well, the Gauteng Provincial Government has renamed parts of the R24 to ‘Albertina Sisulu Road’. However, as the R24 continues as a municipal road from Bruma through the inner city to Roodepoort, the City’s intention, I imagine developed under pressure from its political “Big Brother”, is that the full extent of this roadway is to be renamed Albertina Sisulu Road. That will mean renaming some eighteen streets two of which are amongst our most historic names and arguably provide part of the historic distinctiveness of the city. Those are Market Street and Main Reef Road.
The Star of 20 September 1926 reads “Lest we forget where the market originally was, the busy street running on the southern side of the Town Hall will remind us”. Market Street ran along the southern boundary of the City’s market square. Pop in to the ground floor of 90 Market Street and you can see photographs of the huge area, the largest in any South African town, thronged with people of all races. This was the market place for fresh produce until 1913 when the Newtown Market came into operation. Local Government has steadily eaten away at what would have otherwise been the real green lung in the city, now lost to the Legislature (City Hall) and City Library. In fact Market Street is the only reference left to remind us of where this great trading space was located, change the name and all reference to the historic market will be completely obliterated! The street is incidentally about to undergo radical change as it is remodelled to accommodate the Bus Rapid Transport System including a number of the gigantic stations that have to be accommodated. “Trench City” is going to be the understatement of the year!
Main Reef Road of course, strikes right to the raison d’etre for Johannesburg itself – gold mining. Anna Smith, in her book on ‘Johannesburg Street Names’, devotes two pages to the naming of this street. “ ‘The origin of this artery, which runs from one end of the Witwatersrand to the other, can be traced to the wheel tracks of the pioneers , cut by their ox wagons, mail-coaches, and other conveyances, when, in 1886, the incredible truth had been published that the gold-beds were more or less continuous over scores of miles’ according to ‘Environs of the Golden City and Pretoria’.”
In June 1896 representatives of various mining companies discussed the question of making a main road from Boksburg to Krugersdorp, twenty eight miles in length. The Chamber of Mines, according to it Eighth Annual Report, contributed 200 pounds of the 250 pounds required for the survey. The name used was the ‘Witwatersrand Main Road’, and it was emphasised that the road would follow the line of the Reef, as it was intended for the transportation of supplies to the mines. On 21 July 1897 the Standard and Diggers’ News followed up earlier references to this road in a leader under the heading ‘Main Reef Road’ and expressed the hope that “the Volksraad would assent to the construction of a road along the Main Reef from Roodepoort to Boksburg” Anna Smith then quotes an article from The South African Financial Record of 3 March 1898 which recorded the construction of the road which was started as ‘relief work’ employing about 300 unemployed persons at ‘ninepence per hour’ or ‘thirty five shillings per week (half day only on Saturday). Being merely relief work, when a man has earned 10 pounds he will, if necessary, have to make way for any other who is in need.” The Standard and Diggers’ News of 29th March 1898 reported that work was proceeding apace. Construction was held up with the outbreak of war in 1899. In 1904 the road was vested in the relevant Municipalities. The Star of 16 June 1928 recorded that ‘32 years ago the mining companies themselves formed a private trust to construct the hard thoroughfare which was officially christened “the Main Reef Road or Witwatersrand Road”. The Rand Daily Mail of 20 September 1906 in a section called ‘People and Places – by Old Stager’ (maybe a forerunner of Citichat!) recorded “that the term ‘Main Reef’ may have been first used by Sam Fox, and from this the name of the road derived.”
‘Comment’ in the Star of July 3rd “Name-change process not open” by Sonwabile Mancotywa,, CEO of the National Heritage Council of SA, brought a welcome voice of reason to the naming debate. Mancotywa suggests that we have at least progressed from debating the necessity of change to the choice of name to be honoured or erased. I think he is correct, though I suspect that there remain many hard-liners who haven’t yet accepted the necessity for change – as he rightly points out with such people it isn’t the process they are fighting, it is the actual names being ‘imposed’ on them. Nevertheless, they are in the minority and, over time, will be overtaken by what is right.
But he succinctly spells out the fundamental issue that lies behind our name-changing – “The choice of names that were either selected or omitted for public entities is indicative of South Africa’s ghastly past. Africans were largely excluded and some names were downright offensive towards them. The few African place-names selected were misspelt and thus distorted of their meaning. This simply added further insult. It showed total lack of respect for the humanity of Africans. That was not surprising, as apartheid rested on the idea that Africans were sub-human. Name-changes therefore seek to restore that dignity by affirming that Africans too, like any peoples anywhere in the world, have a history and historical figures that need recognition. They are not invisible or without any past to speak of. Whites are part of this society and its history. Addressing the injury of Africans, therefore, ought to not make Africans insensitive to the anxieties of their white counterparts. After all, we have committed ourselves to building a united and non-racial society, where each individual and community counts equally.”
But, in this case, the roads don’t relate to our ghastly past but to our very real history. So this is a very difficult one and clearly very, very sensitive. Albertina Sisulu, known affectionately as MaSisulu, is an icon of the struggle – the widow of the late, loved, Walter Sisulu – she endured unbelievable persecution at great cost to her family and to herself – her husband was imprisoned for a quarter-of-a-century, her two sons and a daughter were detained (the latter, Lindiwe, is our current Minister of Housing). MaSisulu herself was detained and held in solitary confinement for seven weeks in 1963, she then received a 5 year banning order confining her to her location and prohibiting her attendance at gatherings of more than two persons. In 1969 she again received a 5 year banning order confining her to her home at nights and weekends and in 1979 she received a two year banning order. She was again banned from 1982 to 1983 whereafter she was arrested and held without bail for six months – her charge was “for singing ANC songs at the funeral of a woman leader of the movement’ – for which she subsequently was sentenced to four years in jail but released on bail pending an appeal. She was arrested and detained again in 1984 on a charge of high treason as one of the leaders of the mass mobilisation of the UDF. She played a number of prominent roles in the ANC’s Women’s League; was a leader of the campaign to boycott “Bantu Education”; one of the leaders of the national demonstration of 20 000 women in Pretoria in 1956 protesting the extension of pass laws to African women and was one of the leaders of the 1958 demonstrations against pass laws for which she was jailed.
There could be few people more deserving of recognition on every possible level than MaSisulu and, thankfully, she has been recognised in many ways already. I mentioned a couple of weeks ago that she was honoured as one of three persons to receive the first Constitution Hill Trust Awards, one of I’m sure many of such awards; there is an Albertina Sisulu Centre in Orlando West and the Walter and Albertina Sisulu Recreation Centre in Randburg. I believe that there is to be a new public artwork in Braamfontein to pay tribute to this remarkable couple. Am I saying that this is sufficient recognition? Not at all! I am saying that there is a great dichotomy to be faced in this particular renaming as it will lose forever two other significant, historic and relevant names relative to the city’s heritage.
The Vienna Memorandum on “World Heritage and Contemporary Architecture – Managing the Historic Urban Landscape” adopted by UNESCO doesn’t directly deal with name changing but has some sensible approaches that we could interpolate from, ie “the future of our historic landscape calls for mutual understanding between policy makers, urban planners, city developers, architects, conservationists, property owners, investors and concerned citizens, working together to preserve the urban heritage while considering the modernisation and development of society in a culturally and historic sensitive manner, strengthening identity and social cohesion. Taking into account the emotional connection between human beings and their environment, their sense of place, it is fundamental to guarantee an urban environmental quality of living to contribute to the economic success of a city and to its social and cultural vitality.”
I believe that the proposal has been approved by the Mayoral Committee but still has to be presented for public consideration so you need to make up your mind and be part of the debate.
Ciao, neil
A Renaming Dichotomy
Last night’s Star carried an advert containing proposed name changes to three Gauteng Hospitals and the criteria used for the proposals. Pretoria Academic Hospital becomes “Stephen Bantu Biko Academic Hospital”; Coronation Hospital becomes “Rahima Moosa Mother and Child Hospital” and Johannesburg Hospital (still known as the “Joburg Gen” or just “The Gen”) will be Charlotte Maxeke Academic Hospital.
Sometimes name changing is resisted because of emotional or political reasons but in other instances, such as the one this Citichat is devoted to, present major dichotomies that must be carefully weighed up.
Back in 2006 I wrote that “Name changes are nothing new, they happen for a variety of reasons sometimes to reflect a change in community; to honour politicians or local heroes or replace the names of those who have disgraced themselves or fallen from favour; streets are often renamed to recognise international cause celebres, etc etc. But the most widespread changes take place following political regime changes sometimes brought about by war or conflict. This has been the situation through a large part of the African continent following the gaining of independence by various countries previously under colonial control……Sometimes the motivation is language based…… Some name changes are strictly commercial.”
In our case, throughout the country, a number of name changes have taken place, generally with only minimal although heated protests because the name change themselves have been sensible, well motivated and often relating to changing names that are totally unacceptable if not hurtful to the majority of our population. Such situations should and will continue to happen.
There is of course legislation that is supposed to provide direction at all three levels of government. Policy in Johannesburg was originally approved in December 2001 and then amended in 2004 and again in June 2008. The Policy starts with a quotation from the South African Geographical Names Council (SAGNC) – “For as long as there has been culture, people have placed a meaning by naming every event they have encountered, be it the birth of a child, climatic conditions, initiation rites, battles, death, or any other event that seems vital to their daily existence,. It has been a way of giving life meaning, a way of claiming territory, a way of honouring leaders, a way of giving direction or location, a way of celebrating important events and mourning disastrous events”.
Our Joburg policy then suggests that “The naming of streets and public places after memorable events is a way of etching the country’s history, both pleasant and not, in people’s memory.” I wonder if it doesn’t miss one further category. Street naming was also a convenient way of demarcation in the early days of the establishment of a city or town and, as time has passed, the name has become historically significant. But more of that later.
Our Joburg Policy provides some excellent principles to be adhered to in the naming and renaming process for example “Names should, as far as possible, be after themes, such as Flora and Fauna, colours, geographical features, historical events, etc. Only in rare cases should peoples’ names be used……” “The renaming of streets and public places should only be done where there is a demonstrable need motivated as per the provisions of this policy, so as to curb unnecessary expense”
The Policy further provides criteria for selecting names eg “Naming after living people should be avoided and only be done in exceptional cases.” “ Names should promote a sense of ownership and the character of the area” “Names should be in keeping with the theme of an area such that they have local relevance” “Changes of names for public buildings, facilities and public open spaces shall only be approved when they do not violate historical or common usage names.” Etc etc
In regard specifically to renaming, the following, inter alia, are offered: “to assist in the prioritising of streets and public places to be renamed a strong motivation is to be provided in cases where a name change is proposed – “where the existing name is considered offensive” “where the existing name is meaningless or historically irrelevant” “where the name change is desirable to promote the goodwill of people now living in the new South Africa” “where the change in name will assist in building a sense of ownership and community and redefining society change”
So where is all this going?
Well, the Gauteng Provincial Government has renamed parts of the R24 to ‘Albertina Sisulu Road’. However, as the R24 continues as a municipal road from Bruma through the inner city to Roodepoort, the City’s intention, I imagine developed under pressure from its political “Big Brother”, is that the full extent of this roadway is to be renamed Albertina Sisulu Road. That will mean renaming some eighteen streets two of which are amongst our most historic names and arguably provide part of the historic distinctiveness of the city. Those are Market Street and Main Reef Road.
The Star of 20 September 1926 reads “Lest we forget where the market originally was, the busy street running on the southern side of the Town Hall will remind us”. Market Street ran along the southern boundary of the City’s market square. Pop in to the ground floor of 90 Market Street and you can see photographs of the huge area, the largest in any South African town, thronged with people of all races. This was the market place for fresh produce until 1913 when the Newtown Market came into operation. Local Government has steadily eaten away at what would have otherwise been the real green lung in the city, now lost to the Legislature (City Hall) and City Library. In fact Market Street is the only reference left to remind us of where this great trading space was located, change the name and all reference to the historic market will be completely obliterated! The street is incidentally about to undergo radical change as it is remodelled to accommodate the Bus Rapid Transport System including a number of the gigantic stations that have to be accommodated. “Trench City” is going to be the understatement of the year!
Main Reef Road of course, strikes right to the raison d’etre for Johannesburg itself – gold mining. Anna Smith, in her book on ‘Johannesburg Street Names’, devotes two pages to the naming of this street. “ ‘The origin of this artery, which runs from one end of the Witwatersrand to the other, can be traced to the wheel tracks of the pioneers , cut by their ox wagons, mail-coaches, and other conveyances, when, in 1886, the incredible truth had been published that the gold-beds were more or less continuous over scores of miles’ according to ‘Environs of the Golden City and Pretoria’.”
In June 1896 representatives of various mining companies discussed the question of making a main road from Boksburg to Krugersdorp, twenty eight miles in length. The Chamber of Mines, according to it Eighth Annual Report, contributed 200 pounds of the 250 pounds required for the survey. The name used was the ‘Witwatersrand Main Road’, and it was emphasised that the road would follow the line of the Reef, as it was intended for the transportation of supplies to the mines. On 21 July 1897 the Standard and Diggers’ News followed up earlier references to this road in a leader under the heading ‘Main Reef Road’ and expressed the hope that “the Volksraad would assent to the construction of a road along the Main Reef from Roodepoort to Boksburg” Anna Smith then quotes an article from The South African Financial Record of 3 March 1898 which recorded the construction of the road which was started as ‘relief work’ employing about 300 unemployed persons at ‘ninepence per hour’ or ‘thirty five shillings per week (half day only on Saturday). Being merely relief work, when a man has earned 10 pounds he will, if necessary, have to make way for any other who is in need.” The Standard and Diggers’ News of 29th March 1898 reported that work was proceeding apace. Construction was held up with the outbreak of war in 1899. In 1904 the road was vested in the relevant Municipalities. The Star of 16 June 1928 recorded that ‘32 years ago the mining companies themselves formed a private trust to construct the hard thoroughfare which was officially christened “the Main Reef Road or Witwatersrand Road”. The Rand Daily Mail of 20 September 1906 in a section called ‘People and Places – by Old Stager’ (maybe a forerunner of Citichat!) recorded “that the term ‘Main Reef’ may have been first used by Sam Fox, and from this the name of the road derived.”
‘Comment’ in the Star of July 3rd “Name-change process not open” by Sonwabile Mancotywa,, CEO of the National Heritage Council of SA, brought a welcome voice of reason to the naming debate. Mancotywa suggests that we have at least progressed from debating the necessity of change to the choice of name to be honoured or erased. I think he is correct, though I suspect that there remain many hard-liners who haven’t yet accepted the necessity for change – as he rightly points out with such people it isn’t the process they are fighting, it is the actual names being ‘imposed’ on them. Nevertheless, they are in the minority and, over time, will be overtaken by what is right.
But he succinctly spells out the fundamental issue that lies behind our name-changing – “The choice of names that were either selected or omitted for public entities is indicative of South Africa’s ghastly past. Africans were largely excluded and some names were downright offensive towards them. The few African place-names selected were misspelt and thus distorted of their meaning. This simply added further insult. It showed total lack of respect for the humanity of Africans. That was not surprising, as apartheid rested on the idea that Africans were sub-human. Name-changes therefore seek to restore that dignity by affirming that Africans too, like any peoples anywhere in the world, have a history and historical figures that need recognition. They are not invisible or without any past to speak of. Whites are part of this society and its history. Addressing the injury of Africans, therefore, ought to not make Africans insensitive to the anxieties of their white counterparts. After all, we have committed ourselves to building a united and non-racial society, where each individual and community counts equally.”
But, in this case, the roads don’t relate to our ghastly past but to our very real history. So this is a very difficult one and clearly very, very sensitive. Albertina Sisulu, known affectionately as MaSisulu, is an icon of the struggle – the widow of the late, loved, Walter Sisulu – she endured unbelievable persecution at great cost to her family and to herself – her husband was imprisoned for a quarter-of-a-century, her two sons and a daughter were detained (the latter, Lindiwe, is our current Minister of Housing). MaSisulu herself was detained and held in solitary confinement for seven weeks in 1963, she then received a 5 year banning order confining her to her location and prohibiting her attendance at gatherings of more than two persons. In 1969 she again received a 5 year banning order confining her to her home at nights and weekends and in 1979 she received a two year banning order. She was again banned from 1982 to 1983 whereafter she was arrested and held without bail for six months – her charge was “for singing ANC songs at the funeral of a woman leader of the movement’ – for which she subsequently was sentenced to four years in jail but released on bail pending an appeal. She was arrested and detained again in 1984 on a charge of high treason as one of the leaders of the mass mobilisation of the UDF. She played a number of prominent roles in the ANC’s Women’s League; was a leader of the campaign to boycott “Bantu Education”; one of the leaders of the national demonstration of 20 000 women in Pretoria in 1956 protesting the extension of pass laws to African women and was one of the leaders of the 1958 demonstrations against pass laws for which she was jailed.
There could be few people more deserving of recognition on every possible level than MaSisulu and, thankfully, she has been recognised in many ways already. I mentioned a couple of weeks ago that she was honoured as one of three persons to receive the first Constitution Hill Trust Awards, one of I’m sure many of such awards; there is an Albertina Sisulu Centre in Orlando West and the Walter and Albertina Sisulu Recreation Centre in Randburg. I believe that there is to be a new public artwork in Braamfontein to pay tribute to this remarkable couple. Am I saying that this is sufficient recognition? Not at all! I am saying that there is a great dichotomy to be faced in this particular renaming as it will lose forever two other significant, historic and relevant names relative to the city’s heritage.
The Vienna Memorandum on “World Heritage and Contemporary Architecture – Managing the Historic Urban Landscape” adopted by UNESCO doesn’t directly deal with name changing but has some sensible approaches that we could interpolate from, ie “the future of our historic landscape calls for mutual understanding between policy makers, urban planners, city developers, architects, conservationists, property owners, investors and concerned citizens, working together to preserve the urban heritage while considering the modernisation and development of society in a culturally and historic sensitive manner, strengthening identity and social cohesion. Taking into account the emotional connection between human beings and their environment, their sense of place, it is fundamental to guarantee an urban environmental quality of living to contribute to the economic success of a city and to its social and cultural vitality.”
I believe that the proposal has been approved by the Mayoral Committee but still has to be presented for public consideration so you need to make up your mind and be part of the debate.
Ciao, neil
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
