21 October 2005

GAUTENG PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT PRECINCT – SAHRA decision a sad day for heritage preservation. 

Was going to write something more on transport but it’ll wait until next week as the laissez faire decision by the South African Heritage Resources Agency (SAHRA) regarding the demolition of heritage buildings, basically to create an unwanted public square, has made me so mad I could spit! 

Why unwanted when we do desperately need more open public space in our overbuilt city environment? I addressed this issue in Citichat 2 of 2004 when I wrote that “Efforts to increase and improve public space and public life must be applauded – they strengthen the role of the city as a democratic forum. This becomes more and more critical in a society that is shrinking through privatisation of space and increasing personal isolation. Just look at the cars going to and from the workplace. Seldom do they carry more than the driver. You can’t efficiently have more than one person working at a time in front of a computer. Television isolates us individually even as we watch it with others. As communication has ballooned so has loneliness. We need to provide opportunities for people to use their senses and to interact directly with their surroundings. But, to quote from one of the submissions, “destruction of inherited features (with which the existing space is blessed eve n given the best efforts of previous councils to destroy) such as symmetry, however incongruous they may appear to one-dimensional stream of modernism, is counter productive. It is indeed more sophisticated to work with existing symmetries and axes and introduce in new intervention such features as balance in an inclusive way thus developing a rich orchestration of the old and new.” 

So, first prize, and what we rightfully expected, would have been an outright rejection by SAHRA of the application to demolish important heritage buildings in order to create an enlarged public space that completely distorts the symmetry created by the historic west/east axis of the original space around which the city grew – a complete destruction of the definition of the historic shape of what was Market Square. By doing that, we will destroy the memories that are critical in the life of a city and its citizens! 

Second prize, and second prize by a long, long way, would have been if SAHRA had requested Provincial Government to rethink their proposals. That if a square was so important to them, it should be at the expense of the more modern, meaningless buildings north of Beyers Naude Gardens. Why should heritage make a compromise when these buildings could be removed and never missed – they are completely unsympathetic to the Square, Flo Bird describes them as “ill-mannered” in relation to the Square, which they certainly are!  

It would be tragic to allow even the demolition of the buildings bounded by Fraser, Market, Simmonds and Commissioner Streets in order to create an unwanted public space (especially the Volkskas and African Bank buildings at the corner of Simmonds and Commissioner Streets). But maybe this would have been the very poor third prize whereby (1) the Rand Water Board Building would be retained together with the buildings on either side of it and (2) the SARB and Clegg House buildings on Commissioner Street would be retained.  

The Rand Water Board building is referred to by Clive Chipkin in his book ‘Johannesburg Style’ as “a major statement of street architecture, unsurpassed in the Johannesburg landscape.”  Whilst the buildings on either side are not that important from the aspect of heritage retention, the beautifully balanced facades of the three read together provide a great streetscape at a sympathetic scale to the area they are located in. In relation to the SARB and Clegg House buildings - just stand on the corner of Fraser and Commissioner Streets and look east and see how these two buildings add to the continuity of Art Deco and heritage buildings in this part of Commissioner Street. At least the space thus created would then frame SARB and Clegg House when viewed south from Be yers Naude Square. 

By caving-in to Provincial Government, SAHRA has lost the opportunity to bring some sense to the approach of Provincial Government. The compromises I’ve suggested would result in the retention of all or some of the buildings patently of great heritage value but, more important,  would have demonstrated that a fair appraisal had been made in the interests of the city. It would also have sent out a signal that the integrity of SAHRA and that of the National Heritage Resources Act would not be compromised. The custodian of our heritage resources, SAHRA, has rejected not only the objections of many specialists in the field as well as the recommendations of the Heritage Impact Assessment but also the strongly worded condemnation of independent assessors of the project.  

We may also well ask where the city stands on decisions on what is in fact their physical territory? Is their silence due to political imposition by the next rung in political power or have they commented to SAHRA on the proposals? We should also be asking for the process of appointment of whatever professional team is involved to be made public. I, for one, have never seen any requests for appropriate professionals to put forward proposals. Surely, such a large and definitive public project requires such transparency? 

Looking at all the information available, I cannot believe that SAHRA has applied its mind to the issues at stake. The whole public participation process was a farce with decisions appearing to have been taken before any consultations took place. No compromise to design has been entertained notwithstanding the strong representations made for changes throughout the process. Clause 38 (3) of the Act in fact specifies that if heritage resources are to be adversely affected by a proposed development alternatives must be considered. Clearly this has not been the case. If the press reports are accurate then what I have said above is borne out from SAHRA’s apparent comments “The SA Heritage Resource Agency (Sahra) said that after considering objections to the idea, the advantage of a development to house provincial government offices in one area, weighed more than keeping the buildings.”  What absolute, unadulterated drivel – the demolition of eight of these buildings has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with housing provincial government offices in one area. This only applies to the SARB and Clegg House buildings. The eight buildings are to be demolished to make a square not offices and the square is not integral to the creation of a Provincial Government precinct. .Anyway, do you really think that Provincial Government officials are even going to use the square? The original design shows all their buildings connected by sky-ways so their original concept was to have no-one walking around at ground level – even though some of these have been omitted from the revised design they will eventually be brought back, watch!

The press reports continue “Kgomommu (that is Thabo Kgomommu, the provincial manager of the regulating agency) said: "In line with the new dispensation in the country, Sahra has also considered the socio-economic spin-offs that will flow from the project. If the project goes ahead, the regeneration of the inner city will be enhanced. What are the socio-economic spin-offs –SAHRA needs to explain this comment and give us the interpolation of these socio-economic spin-offs which evidently influenced their decision. At the same time someone must tell us what we, the taxpayers and ratepayers of the country and the city are spending on grandiose, unnecessary and totally useless schemes. Nobody has had the guts to make public the costs of a five basement level parking garage under the square to be created nor the cost of sinking Market Street below its existin g street level. Nor has the economic disaster that will be created to private property owners, whose properties will be negatively impacted on by the ramps in and out of the underpass, been quantified. Has SAHRA taken into account the loss of rates revenue to the city when eight of these buildings disappear or is Provincial Government going to pay the equivalent rates bill on the open space they create? 

Provincial Government provided a big fillip to the urban renewal process when they moved from Pretoria to Johannesburg (let’s not forget,  in response to a suggestion by business and not off their own bat!). To suggest that this latest proposal is going to add significantly more to the process is questionable. All provincial government staff are already in the city – this is not going to attract more – in fact if anything we are going to now have a whole bunch of empty buildings which they will vacate!
"The relevant Sahra committee has considered the impact the project will have on the future of ohannesburg, especially the important buildings that will remain." There are more than 100 art deco buildings in the city centre, dating back to the 1930s and 1940s when the style was at its height around the world.  

This statement shows a complete lack of understanding by the very organization that is supposed to protect our heritage – what about the massing together of Art Deco buildings – the fact that we have a hundred has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with the issue – the juxtaposition of such buildings going down Commissioner Street, one of the great Art Deco streets in the world, is of far more importance than scattered buildings lost amongst the city’s more modern structures. 

Most importantly, if this decision is allowed to stand then it has compromised Heritage retention completely. How can SAHRA in future refuse any application to demolish any heritage buildings? Remember that Chipkin describes the Rand Water Board building as “unsurpassed in the Johannesburg landscape.” Through their decision SAHRA has rejected the retention of heritage buildings on the basis of their individual merit - every developer is now going to insist that their proposed new development is going to be of more value to the city than merely retaining what is there! Over the years I have had many property owners contact me for advice in regard to SAHRA requirements that were petty and ridiculous in relation to the big picture. Now, every time the city tries to call errant property owners to book to return their heritage buildings to the state they were in before unauthorized alterations, they wi ll point out that SAHRA has allowed really important heritage buildings to be annihilated, so why fuss? SAHRA have effectively pulled the rug out from under the feet of those required to enforce the law.  

It is intriguing that the statement made by Thabo Kgomommu on Monday was to the media only and that interested parties were not invited to be present. We merely received an e-letter some days later from the EIA/HIA consultants appointed by Provincial Government containing a copy of a letter which blandly states the following:  “After considering the different reports as well as submissions by members of the public SAHRA has decided to support the proposed project. We therefore give your client permission to demolish the following buildings…..” (the names of the ten buildings follows). 

The covering letter from the consultants advises that an appeal against the decision can be made by not later than 10 November. I note that this is to be directed to the SAHRA Provincial Manager from whom permission to demolish the buildings emanated. Another issue of SAHRA being both player and referee? 

We need to object massively otherwise it will be a sad day for the city and a sadder day for heritage preservation! Regards, neil 

Neil Fraser is a partner in Neil Fraser & Associates which trades as ‘Urban Inc.’ an urban consultancy dedicated to the revitalisation and regeneration of cities and of the inner city of Johannesburg in particular. He can be contacted at (083) 456 0242 or (011) 444-4895 or by e-mail at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.   Views and opinions expressed in Citichat are not necessarily those of Urban Inc.

Citichat is a free weekly publication concerning cities generally and Johannesburg specifically. Please forward Citichat to your colleagues who may wish to be placed on the subscription list. To subscribe please contact us at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.