Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer. Sun-tzu Art of War. (~400 BC)

The letter is a reaction to the proposed plans by Intaprop to make an Illovo Boulevard type incision through Dunkeld joining up with Rosebank. Perhaps this is reminiscent of the 2005 Dunkeld Village Association (DVA) objections to the Gautrain’s route beneath 'houses built in the early part of the 20th century'.

The DVA didn’t manage to bend the line of the Gautrain, but they certainly intend to bend the line of Intaprop’s boulevard, which some speculate will most probably carry on through to Cradock Avenue in Rosebank. There are of course other possibilities: at one end of the spectrum evolving the Bompas Road spine and, on the other, to mischievously speculate of a much grander scheme involving the area between Melrose Arch, Illovo and Rosebank.

As it turns out Intaprop note that they had approached the DVA as far back as 2006. Their stated intention was to create a community scheme to ensure that the development is handled responsibly, but also to ensure that everyone benefits equally. Interestingly the DVA website at the time of writing is completely silent.

In VBGD Town Planners report Oct ’2010 it is taken for granted that the Illovo Boulevard precinct plan will proceed straight through Dunkeld. In section 2.1 of the report it reads ”Initial indications are that the extension of Fricker Road southwards into Dunkeld is a likely eventuality.”  Intaprop have admitted that “additional traffic that development would bring to the area was considered and the extension of Fricker Road was a logical solution.”

In the Aggrieved Residents of Dunkeld letter the claim is made that: “Intaprop apparently tried to influence Joburg Council Planners to adopt a new Dunkeld Precinct Plan that would link the commercial areas of Illovo with that of Rosebank through a new boulevard.” No wonder some of the residents are hopping mad though perhaps some stand to gain quite handsomely.  "The DVA was an active participant in the public participation process of Council to formulate the RUDF (Rosebank Urban Development Framework) and was also in support of the Fricker road link." argues Andre Gouws, MD of Intaprop.

He also points out that “pressure was already mounting on the area in 2006 and many of the properties were already being used informally for business purposes. Many of the properties were being neglected and the area was deteriorating. We saw the need to create a plan and rules to ensure that development in the area is undertaken responsibly and in a similar way to what created the Illovo Boulevard node. The residents association (strong and powerful as it is) allowed the deterioration of the properties, the general decline of the public space and the business trading from many of these properties. It was clear to all that redevelopment was on the cards to revive and improve the area” elaborates Andre Gouws.

He continues: “Although the DVA was not opposed to development in the area, it only supported low density development on an ad hoc basis; but this does not improve the public space and does not prescribe rules and regulations to ensure quality. A more sophisticated plan was required where ad hoc developments will have to fit into a bigger plan for a high quality precinct and also to ensure that these “early” developments make a contribution to the public space where required - roads, parks, and other services”.

One area broker believes that it would be better for residents to 'get into bed with the developers' like the Illovo residents who kept their ‘enemies’ close. This way they can “manage the process” as the broker suggests. Commentators also believe Illovo Blvd is a success and that it is that way because residents are very much involved.

Some positive spin-offs cited by one broker were the presence of 24hour security that usually comes with office buildings and the beneficial prices that owners can demand for their properties.

The Aggrieved Residents of Dunkeld have compared Dunkeld to Upper Houghton which was declared a national heritage area, as it is a similar age to that of Upper Houghton. One can’t help wondering if one were to apply similar reasoning to say, Melville or Yeoville, what sort of public sympathy would there be?

What is uncertain is the intentions of council. One ought to consider that when developments of this nature take place, the developers are required to grow the infrastructure in the forms of roads, sewerage etc. On the issue of engaging Council and formulating policy, Gouws maintains: “Like the DVA and many other stakeholders, we engage with the formal structures of Council from time to time and we have (like the DVA) made certain proposals to Council regarding the Dunkeld Development Precinct Plan. Council will evaluate the proposals and will decide independently on the way forward in line with their plans and policies for the growth of the city”.

There is also some debate as to Rosebank’s development. Some believe the area to be overdeveloped. The Aggrieved Residents of Dunkeld would concur, claiming that: “The Rosebank Box and for that matter Sandton and the Illovo Point area have many hundreds of thousands of square meters of spare bulk capacity.” Rendering redundant the need to look further to Dunkeld for expansion. They do have a point given some of the massive development projects and future opportunities within Greater Johannesburg overall....not to mention the fact that with the onset of Gautrain and the BRT system requiring supportive commuter densities, additional bulk has effectively been granted to the node and along the spine that underpins its route. By this town panning logic though, it would equally perhaps seem reasonable to conceive of a parallel boulevard linking Illovo with Rosebank with scaled- down rights.

The feasibility of such a land parcelling exercise is of course critical and under most circumstances probably out of range for the short-term, perhaps more suited to a 10-20 year time horizon. Ultimately the onus of any proposal is for the developer to be able to prove demand and feasibility.

Looking back at similar situations in Johannesburg, perhaps the residents are going to have to come up with a better strategy than “Heritage” to preserve their suburb in the face of development. It is also more than just about the age of structures; and motivating such status takes a lot of time effort and resources. Thinking back to the fates of Parktown and Melrose leaves one a little discouraged; upper Houghton has the environmental advantages of being on a ridge, not to mention Herbert Baker designs, other famous architects of the time and 'legendary' residents.

There can be little doubt that developers do indeed wield great power and have favour and influence in municipal circles. They know where the red tape is and who’s who in the bureaucratic machinery.
 
As Trinculo from Shakespear’s Tempest famously puts it, "misery acquaints a man with strange bedfellows". Short-term market conditions notwithstanding, this may be the time for the Aggrieved Dunkeld residents and the proposed developers to consider working out together what seems inevitable.

eProp welcomes any constructive feedback on this subject: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.