New committee for Graaff-Reinet Heritage Society declares intentions
Members
of the public may be interested to know that a new Committee for the
Graaff-Reinet Heritage Society has been elected, and this committee
wishes publicly to declare its firm intention to actively engage
heritage issues in Graaff-Reinet, particularly in the communities of
the Horseshoe and Umasizakhe.
Already a survey of buildings
which are already protected or are to be considered for heritage
designation has been conducted, with photographs, sketches and notes
made by architectural students of Nelson Mandela Bay University. This
survey will inform a new planning programme directed at the care and
restoration of heritage sites, as well as the proclamation of new
sites. Each member of the committee has been assigned a sector of the
relevant areas of the Horseshoe and Umasizakhe (which have buildings
more than 60 years old) to study and make recommendations regarding the
potential heritage status of certain buildings and sites, as well as
the care and maintenance of historic buildings in general.
Officers
of the new committee are Liz van Wyk (Chairperson), Shirley Grindley
(Vice-Chairperson), Ann Murray (Secretary), and Claire Sheard
(Treasurer). Other members are Rosemary Walker and Jean Watermeyer,
Cllr. Theuns Eksteen, Drs Bruce Lakie and Roy Stauth, and Daniel Smith,
Mark Fynney, Paul Inman, and Peter Whitlock.
Membership to the Society is open to any individual, organisation or business within the Graaff-Reinet area.
Major objectives of the Society include the following:
-
to make all sectors of the people of Graaff-Reinet aware that they have
rights to their past and that the concept of heritage is not limited to
buildings, but includes (among other things) any place or object of
cultural significance, as well as intangible aspects of inherited
culture, such as traditions and oral history;
- to actively
pursue and execute the maximum powers afforded the Society by the South
African National Heritage Resources Act 25 of 1999;
- to inform
the public that any individual has the right to stop the destruction,
desecration or modification of any building over 60 years old and the
development or alteration of any property exceeding 5 000 m2 unless a
permit has been issued by the relevant authority; this right may be
exercised by demanding to see the permit, and, if it is not immediately
produced, to go to any SAPS facility and demand that a “stop work
order” be issued in terms of Sections 34 (1) and 51 (6) of the
above-mentioned Act, and that this order be served by a police officer
with immediate effect upon the offending person; and finally
-
to encourage all residents of the Graaff-Reinet area to assist the
Society in maintaining our valuable heritage resources, which are such
a source of great pride to our residents, and has helped make
Graaff-Reinet famous as “the Gem of the Karoo”, as well as playing an
important role in making tourism the fastest growing economic sector in
Graaff-Reinet.
The Committee would hereby like to invite all
Graaff-Reinet area residents to join the Heritage Society, or to
contact any committee member to obtain information about how any
individual or group can play an important role in assisting us in
protecting our community’s precious heritage resources.
MANDELA BAY HERITAGE TRUST
Who’s who in Heritage?
The good news for Heritage in the Metro is that there is a wide range of role players whose positions have become relatively well defined over the past year. There is also a general increased interest in Heritage matters in the Metro.
At the macro Level, heritage in the metro is governed by the South African Heritage Resources Agency, (SAHRA) and the Provincial Heritage Resources Authority (PHRA). The mandate of a PHRA is guided by the National Heritage Resources Act of 1999. In doing this it deals with many matters – one of these is enforcing Section 34 of that Act:
“No person may alter or demolish any structure or part of a structure which is older than 60 years without a permit issued by the relevant Provincial Heritage Resources Authority.”
A local permit committee that sits monthly in the Metro to discuss and issue permits administers this. This committee consists of local experts in Heritage, Town planning and Architecture.
The NMBM and its agencies are also included at this macro level of Heritage management. Exactly how they do this is in the process of being better defined and for the interim the responsibilities are managed by several departments/agencies:
1. Department of Housing and Land deals with issues relating to the built Heritage of the Metro, such as demolition permits. This is done in conjunction with PHRA. 2. Department of Arts, Culture and Recreation manage mostly the aspects relating to “intangible” Heritage such as oral history and the performing arts. 3. The Mandela Bay Development Agency (MBDA), as an agent of urban renewal in the inner city of Port Elizabeth, is currently becoming active in several areas such as assisting with the production of an “asset register” and a “conservation plan” for the Metro.
An asset register is required of the Heritage Act and is simply a register of various Heritage worthy items – buildings, streets, objects, archaeology sites, shipwrecks etc. The conservation plan is a more detailed and possibly more important document. This is a plan for how the Metro is going to manage the items on the asset register and what is its long term vision for the Metro with regard to Heritage. Currently we are at the exciting stage in the development of Heritage management where the Metro is beginning to acknowledge its responsibilities in terms of the Heritage Act and is taking steps to become more compliant.
At the Micro Level of Heritage management are the voluntary associations (VA’s). There are several of these in the Metro that range from place specific groups such as the Bethelsdorp Trust and South End Trust to more topic specific groups such as the Historical Society.
So where does the Mandela Bay Heritage Trust fit within this? We would like to believe that we span all theses spheres from the Macro – big ideas – to the Micro – more specific. In this way, we believe that we are in quite a unique position in the Metro. Further, we are not specifically aligned but rather aim towards the larger goal of greater Heritage awareness, management and prosperity in the Metro.
Currently, some of the issues we look at at the Macro scale are liaising with PHRA and NMBM with regard to general Heritage awareness, the asset register and current issues that are being discussed in the press such as preservation of the Red Location houses.
On the scale of the more specific, we debate and liaise with the NMBM, other VA’s, rate payers organisations and councillors about issues such as specific demolitions, “buildings in danger” and crime.
We believe that all these issues relating directly to the higher and more long- term idea of, “what do we want our Metro, particularly the older areas such as Central, Richmond Hill and Northend, to look and feel like and what is our attitude towards our heritage-worthy buildings and streets?”
Article by Bryan Wintermeyer Mandela Bay Heritage Trust Published in the column Heritage Today in the PE Express 13 August 2008
Demolition is not the Only Option
The future of many older buildings and indeed the whole older area in our Metro, is uncertain. People say times are changing, that development can’t be stopped and that progress is good. Progress and development will mean more investment and more jobs and, surely, a better life for all?
We agree. Change and progress is good. Our Metro, long sidelined compared to its bigger sisters in the country, has at last got its fair share of the buoyant and positive mood in the country over recent years. Our Metro has lagged behind for several reasons – deliberate policy by the previous government; it lacked the big city-ness of Cape Town and Johannesburg; and we have a large and poor rural interior. But we have a port and it was for this reason that the city was born and developed the way it did in the 1800s. And it was because of this early growth that this Metro has a large number of older buildings and large older areas.
About one hundred and sixty years later, our city had another growth spurt – its teenage years. The 1950s and 1960s saw development in Port Elizabeth on a grand scale. Buildings got bigger and taller. A number of new tall blocks of flats were built along the beachfront and in Central. Govan Mbeki Avenue also got its characteristic main street, “wall of buildings”-feel by the building of many multi-storey buildings. This period saw the end of a lot of heritage-worthy buildings and streets and squares and we are the poorer for it. Mistakes like the forced removals and demolition of Old South End, the massive demolitions that were needed to build the freeways and the reorganising of Market Square will stay with us forever. And this loss is hard to quantify.
But we have since then become more sensitive to the value of the older parts of our Metro. And this is where the conflict between Heritage interests, developers and property owners and the municipality lies. Now in its third wave of development, the new millennium with its particular needs has caught our Metro a little unprepared. Big business had moved out of the traditional town centre to the new shopping centres. The older parts of our metro had become less desirable and less valuable. It had become degraded.
But what do we do now? The city is growing and there is new development and progress. Developers do their sums and conclude that it could be profitable to build new apartments or offices or shops in these older areas of the Metro. We believe that this is good because development is good, is it not? And if someone wants to invest in our Metro, particularly the degraded areas, then we should encourage this. Surely?
But this is short sighted. We need to remember that this current development growth spurt may be over soon and that we need to be more sustainable for the long and slow growth periods between now and the next one. Not all development is good development. Existing buildings and functions are usually demolished to make way for these newer developments. These old buildings have value. They often form part of a group of buildings and contribute to that area looking and feeling a certain way. A decision needs to be made at this stage of each of these large developments on what is better for the city in the long term. Would it not be better to keep the older parts of the Metro largely as they are and to exploit the unique opportunity that this large collection of older buildings provides us with?
There are huge under-explored “visions” for the older parts of the Metro such as Heritage tourism, the development of small-scale businesses and repopulating the older areas with niche income-generating functions that could be more sustainable and longer lasting alternatives to the many current inappropriate developments and development proposals. These new functions could include entertainment, high value residential, live and work facilities, administrative facilites and education and student facilities.
But what do we do with our older buildings? They might not be appropriate for redevelopment for the vision presented above. Some mention a lack of parking and the poor condition of some buildings as a problem. And that they are too small or the wrong shape. We fully believe that with ingenuity and creativity, many older buildings could be recycled to be appropriate for a range of new facilities and their demanding functional requirements. There are many good examples of this. The Biscuit Mill in Cape Town, Newtown in Johannesburg and Warwick Junction in Durban, to name a few. And these places are all the richer for keeping the old and incorporating the new in a clever and sensitive and sustainable way.
There are many ways to add value to the older parts of this Metro. Surely, demolition is not the only option?
Article by Bryan Wintermeyer Mandela Bay Heritage Trust Published in the column Heritage Today in the PE Express 03 May 2008
Does Port Elizabeth need a Main Street?
Is our main street necessary for our city? Govan Mbeki Avenue is Port Elizabeth’s main street – it runs from the town hall and market square eastwards through our CBD; past our main transport interchanges; through some of our few street-shopping areas; through our motor town and then past the northern areas and industrial areas onto Uitenhage and Despatch.
The Matrix Architects and Urban Designers, a Port Elizabeth based practice, has recently upgraded the first part of Govan Mbeki Avenue from the Town Hall to Donkin Street. The Mandela Bay Development Agency (MBDA), an agent of the municipality that has been formed with a specific focus on inner city development, has initiated this. This is the MBDA’s first substantial and flagship project.
Over recent years, since the heady days of our port city’s period of rapid growth in the early to mid 1900s, the street has experienced a marked change in image, use and spatial arrangement. It is no longer the premier shopping area or the most desirable address for big business. The ground floor is very busy, as are the pavements, but the upper floors are often empty. Many people stay away from the centre of town because it is perceived to be dangerous and, besides, most of the shops and utilities are now firmly established in suburban malls that have more convenient parking.
Yet today it is still a main street, possibly not in a traditional sense, but certainly in the minds and lives of most the people of the city. It defines the CBD: houses most of the major public facilities, is a major transport from the northern parts into the city, is still the shopping street of choice for a majority of the people of Port Elizabeth and market square at its termination outside town hall on its west end is the symbolic “centre of town.” Govan Mbeki Avenue is well used and important.
This redevelopment has proposed highlighting the importance of this main street for our city and the awarding of this tender and the successful implementation of this phase 1 of the project needs to be seen as a positive gesture by the municipality in investing in the inner city. The design attends to issues of image, use and spatial arrangement. Old and new connections are made to other parts of the CBD such as the Donkin Reserve by a grand staircase and an escalator and traffic and parking has been attended to in a sensible way. A most notable success of the redevelopment is in the simple re-establishment of the street as a linear element in the city as it was originally envisioned, as a long and grand axis that ends at Market Square and Town Hall. Over the more recent years this has become less clear: Market Square underwent an unfortunate “modernisation” in the 1970s; a clump of palm trees and a sky bridge and restaurant over the street (now unused and an eyesore) were added to the middle of this primary portion of the street dividing it into portions. This new redevelopment simply reinforces the original spatial arrangement (although the sky bridge and restaurant, it is said, are to remain). The palm trees have been relocated to more appropriate parts of the city and the pavement and street surface has been more singly and clearly dealt with. An interesting effect that this perceived extra space on the pavement has made is that now the walls of buildings on either side of the street seem more exposed. People have commented that they have noticed buildings on Govan Mbeki Avenue for the first time.
This redevelopment is complimented by other initiatives by the municipality such as more policing and cleaning and an active publicity campaign (that included the grand opening by the Mayor.) An unanticipated effect of using energy-saving light fittings (imported from France!) was that, at the moment of the turning on of the lights by the mayor after sunset, there was not a flashing of lights and fireworks but a satisfying low watt glow!
The usability and people friendliness of the pavement has been concentrated on. Places are made for formalised hawking, places for sitting and places for activities. It is hoped that this component of the redevelopment is sensitive to people’s needs and not over regulated. One of the charms of the hustle and bustle of the city is the opportunity it affords to people to do a wide range of activities on the pavements. This can make the street more dynamic, more enjoyable for people and more viable.
Main streets are important and it is necessary that they are “redeveloped” or reinvented from time to time. This project goes a long way in doing this for Govan Mbeki Avenue in Port Elizabeth. If the city and authorities want this main street to really work it would be worthwhile to remember the primary rules for public space: “used space is good space” and, “people attract people.” The test of the success of our new and improved Govan Mbeki Avenue will be how good it is for the people that use the pavements and buildings every day.
Article by Bryan Wintermeyer Mandela Bay Heritage Trust Published in the column Heritage Today in the PE Express 12 February 2008
SWARTLAND HERITAGE FOUNDATION
TOWNHOUSES, PANHANDLES, DENSE URBAN DEVELOPMENTS . . . in relation to Riebeek Kasteel (and probably translatable to other rural villages)
by Chris Murphy of Swartland Heritage Foundation
A document intended to create a platform for discussion regarding random property development, especially regarding smaller rural towns and villages.
Mention the concept of development within much of the local community, and inevitably the reception will be frosty. But let us question why, and what the potential issues might be? First of all, dense development in the context of the Western Cape is not unusual. Today much focus is on the Bo Kaap, Observatory, Woodstock, Green Point. What are we dealing with? Why are these areas admired? Developers are the first to spot the potential and ‘yuppify’ these localities, leading to regeneration. I am not dealing with socio-economic and displacement factors, merely architectural and aesthetic aspects.
Dense urban development obviously has some appeal. But in a rural urban* context? Why not? Often European (French, Italian, English, for example) dense country ‘villagescapes’ are admired. Again why? What makes a dense development attractive? Let us look at the features.
Starting with the Cape Town suburbs above, much of the cluster housing is from the Victorian or early Edwardian period. It was a time of rapid expansion. Much of the material, features and styles were . . . common: wrought ironwork, vertical shaped sash windows, similarly pitched roofs, low palisade fences fronting properties. In the Bo Kaap, in particular, it was the flat pitched roof aspect, with decorative cornice work, evenly balanced windows aside central doorways. What seems to be the common denominator is just that, commonality.
Villages, like Riebeek Kasteel, were most often sub divisions of farms extant in the area. The cutting up of the rural landscape, mostly 19th century, was fairly rapid, compared to previous allocations of fairly remote (from Cape Town that is) portions of land, whether as quitrent or freehold. In relative terms these sub divisions were quite small.
What is happening now is the further extension of this ethos, with history repeating itself to some degree, especially where agricultural land is being absorbed into towns and villages. Much of the townhouse/panhandle concept does have commonality. But here the comparison stops.
In and around Cape Town materials, styles and layout do not appear to be an issue, especially for new developments with no relationship to existing styles, like Parklands, for example. In the rural landscape they of course do. The Swartland does have an architectural language (detailed in a Swartland Heritage Foundation reference document). An example of how not to proceed is outside Mossel Bay where extensive ‘Tuscan’ developments now occupy the landscape astride the N2. What is the relevance of this style in modern South Africa? It requires a separate document detailing lack of confidence in our local aesthetic.
Part of the commonality in early developments is ‘on street’ frontages – this, to my mind, encourages interaction amongst people living in a community. Today we are probably confronted, literally, with what has been termed ‘street garage architecture’. The car rules and a property must afford the owner the most expedient method to enter his or her house. This is certainly not conducive to social interaction, or a pleasing aesthetic.
Then materials: modern pre cast concrete (fences, retaining walls), face brick, inappropriately proportioned and situated windows, roof tiles, etc, might all be acceptable for development in areas with no heritage references, as above. BUT here’s the rub – they are not suitable in a small rural village in the Swartland.
This is again the aspect that is so attractive in small European villages – mostly a similar approach via design and materials. And modern additions are usually very strictly controlled to ensure blending with existing fabric. It appears that not density, but these concepts, dictate appropriateness.
European villages, and those in this country, grew organically, with restrictions on styles often dictated by availability of materials and design references. The supposed limitations are what guided early developments. Today’s freely available sources (the web, TV, books, magazines, catalogues) has led to a free-for-all design ethos. If we are to preserve the character of villages like Riebeek Kasteel we might have to take note of the early ‘limitations’ factor and utilise this to retain some integrity. Some other Western Cape towns have imposed quite draconian limitations on any type of architectural diversions, even down to garages or sheds, for example: this perhaps goes too far, restricting individual creativity. A balance should be achieved.
The anticipated level of expansion in and around Riebeek Kasteel is a matter of concern; I use the word in a positive manner, in that the situation needs an aesthetic guide. This crossroads could lead to another characterless village, or one of future reference as a controlled expansion. As tourism is considered one of the economic possibilities, it would be pointless to have a property growth potential where residents have no chance to create financial opportunities. By this I mean the environment is so unattractive so as not to induce visitors to venture into it.
This document does not deal with two aspects: 1 Public opinion. Swartland Municipality is obliged by legislation to take cognisance of the views of local residents. As I hinted at the beginning, the concept of dense urbanisation in a rural setting is not universally welcomed. This is probably linked to the type of architectural style normally associated with these sprawls. There was strong reaction to the proposed Groenrivier development by local residents.
2 Desirability and demand for cluster type housing in this same environment – I am not aware of any scientific process (survey) in existence, or if one does, having been used in the Swartland, to determine this.
* rural urban as opposed to town urban, indicating a developed location within a country settingand the wider spread of structures normally associated with this landscape in South African country villages
