Of Fear and Order

(This Column first appeared in The Herald on 7 June 2013)

Article in the Herald – 4 June 2013

For a Saturday morning, things were going pretty much as they usually do. My daughter’s under 10 hockey match at 8:30, a quick croissant and coffee in Parliament Street, then dashing through to Charlo or Lorraine or Summerstrand or wherever ever the birthday party/play date/guitar lessons were on that particular day. To be honest I can’t remember where I was on my way to, but I do remember a mild throbbing in my head recalling a particularly tasty Friday evening Merlot and  I do remember that I drove past the site that Continental Tyres has been trying to rezone for the last two years. The land lies there, fallow, windswept and bare, offering no benefit, no opportunity and no hope. That’s probably why I hardly noticed it and why I certainly did not think of it at all again until I read Mandla Madwara speaking about it in the Herald this week.

Mandla was eloquently complaining that we can’t afford a city where, routine procedures like rezoning get caught up in red tape for such a long time that even the biggest and most well-resourced corporations become exhausted and frustrated to the point of moving their money elsewhere. My concern about this issue though is not so much about the “how” of the rezoning process, but about the “why”. I mean, why are we as a city bothering with ”zoning” at all? Don’t get me wrong. I am all for legislated building regulations that protect us from fires, shoddy construction and stairs that are too steep. I am all for environmental legislation that stops us from building flats over the swamp where the rare three toed frog lives.  I am all for Heritage legislation, that stops us knocking down a quaint settler cottage to build a Seven Eleven.  What I specifically question in this discussion is the reason for the existence of municipal town planning controls.
But what are town planning controls? Quite simply, they are a set of “rules” that the city makes up to tell you what they think you can and cannot do on the land that you bought and paid for. They are rules that tell you that the municipality would prefer, for example, that you pray there, but don’t sleep there, or that ten families may live there, but not eleven. They are rules that tell the shop owner that they are to provide 6 parking bays for their customers when he knows his business customers only need four. Other rules say that you may build two storeys, but not three, or ten meters from your boundary, but not nine. When your idea for what you want to build on your property is different to what the Town Planning controls permit, you have to prepare what is commonly called a “re-zoning” application. It is this application that Continental Tyres has still not got approval for after two years of waiting.
What I am asking myself is: “What would our world look like without Town Planning controls?” Would the resulting city be so intolerable that it would have less economic development? Would such a city create less jobs than the zoned city? Would a city without town planning controls be uglier?
There is of course no way of knowing for sure, but we can get clues from those parts of towns and cities around the world that were built before our contemporary obsession with town planning controls. I have made it a point to visit these places. I find them exciting, vibrant and viable. The best parts of Amsterdam, Mombasa, London, Shanghai, Antananarivo, Buenos-Aires and Stone Town, were all built in an era before anybody dreamed up the idea of “zoning”, “coverage” or “building lines”. In spite of the traffic jams and other minor inconveniences, these are some of the best places in the world to be. If we have developed our municipal town planning controls to prevent our cities becoming like those places, then I think our energy has been grossly misplaced.
It is actually surprisingly hard to find, in any of the Municipality’s documents any meaningful explanation as to why we need town planning controls at all. Heritage legislation explains that its reason for existence is to protect old stuff. Environment legislation explains that it exists to promote biodiversity and other such good things. The National Building Regulations explain that they are there to ensure safe and healthy buildings. But, the closest I can get to a justification for town planning controls is that they promote “order”.
“Order” seems to me to be the opposite of “freedom”. PW Botha used the word “order” a lot to justify his actions in the eighties. I remember the old UPE using the word “order” to justify why its student dress code required men to where pale safari suites with the socks rolled down at the knee. “Order” to me speaks about entrenching the status quo. “Order” speaks to me about making it difficult for a new entrant to the property market to use their property in such a way as to allow them to compete with the old guard.
So, I say to the city fathers: Stop meddling with our freedoms! Trust us. Trust the economy to create the balance. Trust the legislation to guarantee the non-negotiables. Release the landowners of this city to boost the economy, create jobs and stimulate a vibrant and integrated urban experience.

There is no reason to fear!

Freedom and the shape and form of South African cities

Freedom is so complicated. There are so many difficult decisions to make all the time. Do I get Top TV with its new porn channels? Do I marry a gay person? Do I wear a headscarf to work? Do I circumcise myself after high school? Do I circumcise my son at birth? Do I just let my foreskin do its own thing?
It was all so much easier in the old days when they treated us like children. We were told what to think, told what to do, told where to stay, who to have sex with and what gods to pray to.  Now of course, there is so much choice that it is mind boggling and we all suddenly expected to be adults and make up our own minds.
It does seem though that the ideas that we have of freedom take longer to trickle down to some aspects of our lives than it does to others. The aspect that I am quite interested in of course the urban aspect. Cities and town in South Africa now accommodate half the country’s population. That means that 50% of the country’s population now look to towns and cities for the space they need to express their freedom.
So, I ask:
“How has freedom changed the shape and form of our cities since the days of apartheid?”
When I drive the dusty streets of Missionvale or Motherwell, I am struck by how little has visibly changed since freedom. There are still shacks, far and remote from the city. Refuse clutters up open spaces and things seem generally run down. My mother-in-law lives in a cul-de-sac in Connacher Street, New Brighton. (Yes I have the freedom to choose a mother in law from New Brighton) I have been visiting her there since the late eighties and have, since those days, every winter, had to park my car in the same muddy puddle outside her house. Freedom has not yet tarred the dirt road outside my mother in law’s house. Freedom has, though, managed to build a Stadium, a Casino, two five star hotels, a number of glitzy shopping malls, a billion dollar container port and a very big brewery.  Sure, the townships have rows and rows of new concrete block, featureless RDP houses. Some street lights and sewers have been installed, but no matter what way you look at it, we are still faced with a stark and distinct contrast between town and township. There is no blurring of the edges in any way. Yes, millions have been spent on infrastructure. Yes, the scale of the problem is immense, but we would not be doing justice to the challenge by not being brutally honest that we are nowhere near achieving the objective of making “township”, “town”. If we continue to move at this pace, I can assure you, our cities in 20 years’ time, will still be characterised by the terms “town” and “township”.
Many of my friends, I am sure, will say that I am confusing “freedom” with “prosperity” and that we are all now free to pull ourselves up by our bootstraps. We are all now free to get a fancy job and buy a house in Summerstrand, away from the muddy township streets, littered parks and shack land gangsters. But these friends may be overlooking an important piece of context here. We must remember that the shape and form of our cities is set in the mould of a grand apartheid plan. A spatial plan that not only kept people of different complexions apart, but much, much more significantly, housed  the poor and working class in locations remote from the city centre, remote from opportunity and remote from cultural institutions. It kept the poor remote from all the benefits that come from the proximity generally associated with living in a city. But most curiously and surprisingly, in Nelson Mandela Bay, we have continued to build our city in this mould. We have continued in almost all instances to perpetuate the apartheid city masterplan; locating poor and working people further and further from the centre beyond Motherwell on the road to Addo and beyond Bethelsdorp on the back road to Kwanobuhle.
No matter what we say, poor people are not free to live where they want in the city. Poor people are not free to take advantage of the opportunities that the city has to offer. Poor people continue to be located in such a way and under such conditions as to be lumped with all the disadvantages of rural living, without any of its advantages. They are located in such a way as to be exposed to all the disadvantages of urban living, without any of its advantages. Ask these people to list what has changed in their lives since freedom, and I expect you will not need a very long page.
My argument ,  therefore,  is  that, quite a few (not all) of the causes of poverty and barriers to progress in our city have to do with physical and spatial planning features we have inherited. My further argument is that we have done very little so far to undo this terrible planning legacy, we are instead, perpetuating it.
We can definitely do better, but in order to do so we have to agree that this matter belongs on the agenda and deserves urgent attention. “Business as usual” Is just not an option.
THC

Searching for the real thing

(This piece first appeared in The Herald on 10 April 2013)

It was a particularly miserable Wednesday evening on Stanley Street. The Easter Weekend rain that had washed away the Splash festival had left behind a cold, damp windy drizzle in its wake. But still, the street pavements were full of people; students, yuppies, car guards, artists, hippies, wanabee’s and buskers. It was a week night. It was a wet night. It was a cold night, but still we struggled to get an inside table at a restaurant or find a parking spot.944907_10151899005068975_675733428_n
So, as I sipped my wine outside, on the pavement, huddled in my jacket against the wind, I could not help but wonder a little about why Stanley Street, in Richmond Hill, has become such a popular place to be. I mean, it’s nice, there are people walking up and down, quaint shops and restaurants, trees planted down each side of the street, but no evidence of any flamboyant spending. No dancing fountains, no Zara super store, no four storey high ice-rinked  atrium with glass lifts whizzing silently up and down. Why then, was I, like so many others, rather, instead, not enjoying climate controlled, 24 hour security, undercover parking,  porcelain tiled comfort of any number of malls, shopping centres or franchise eateries available for us to choose from on any given evening. Why was I abandoning comfort and security for this wobbly table on a windy sidewalk in an ageing part of town.  I am sure some would argue that Stanley Street’s popularity has to with the quality of its restaurants. Some would talk about accessibility; others still would guess that about the particular entrepreneurial vision of a key initial property investor.
But I don’t think the success and popularity can necessarily be ascribed to any one of those factors in isolation. In fact, I am trying here to convince you, that what we see in Stanley Street is evidence of a far greater global movement and mind shift. And, of course, it’s not just Stanley Street. We see this re-awakening in Central, we have seen it in the Cape Town inner-city. All through the UK, US and Australia inner-city neighborhoods have become re-invigorated filled with new life, new energy and new business. So, what’s this all about? I am arguing that this phenomenon,  is evidence of the beginning of a wider shift in consciousness which includes the wholesale rejection of all that is fake, a rejection falsehood, pretense and scam.  As mass manufacture, mass media and massive institutions private and public seek do dominate and control, we see beginnings of a backlash and a resistance.
Being continually bombarded by commercial messages and plots to extract money from us has left many cynical and jaded. Growing numbers of people no longer trust big business, big money and big institutions. These powerful “machines” make us stand in queues, they make us talk to their call centres, they keep making us change our passwords, they anger and frustrate us. This new cynicism has led to rush for antiques and collectables instead of cheap Chinese imports  and a rush to social media instead of American TV channels.  Those that still watch TV, watch “reality” TV choosing rather to watch the boring authentic lives of Big Brother housemates over the fake interesting lives of The A Team, Knightrider or the Brady Bunch. More and more people reject branded goods for the hand made alternative. Artisan breads, micro-breweries and a Barista crafting your Cappuccino just the way you like it.
Grassfed beef, whole milk, free range chicken and genuine leather are all part of this movement toward authenticity. Less and less do we tolerate artificial flavouring, dubbed movies or plastic Christmas trees. They are just not the real thing and are not good enough.
A growing number of people are searching for authenticity. People are searching for what is real, sincere and meaningful. For our cities, that means more and more people will come to reject remote suburban malls. More and more people will reject the franchise steakhouse with is standardised happy birthday clap along song and dance. The taste for the authentic drives these people away from the remote, sterile, cookie cutter secure complexes in Lorraine. This movement drives people away from insanely clean, manicured office parks where people live out their days in insanely sterile manicured office jobs.
In growing numbers, people choose Stanley Street and other inner city environs like it, not because they are cleaner, not because it is dryer or less windy, not because the pick pockets and drug dealers are banished, but because these environments feel real, they feel sincere and they feel authentic. These environments exhibit less evidence of heavy handed government planning controls that seek to sterilise and segregate. Houses in a houses zone. Shops in a shops zone and restaurants in a restaurant zone. Buildings neatly spaced out with nice lawn between them. No messy parking in the street. No people cluttering up the pavement. All very clean, but oh so boring and oh so fake.
Perhaps, what we see starting in Stanley Street and in Central can be the beginning of that “special something”  that Port Elizabeth and the Nelson Mandela Bay has to offer the world. PE can’t be more Joburg than Joburg. PE can’t be more Hollywood than Hollywood. PE can’t be more Vegas than Vegas, but PE can be the best in the world at being sincerely, authentically PE, the real thing!
Tim Hewitt-Coleman
PS: Please do me a favour;  subscribe to my newsletter its got some cool stuff!

Central, Port Elizabeth – Blueprint for metro’s urban future?

I tend to go on a bit about the form and shape of our cities. I find myself speaking about better cities, greener cities and walkable neighbourhoods wherever I can and whenever I can. But, I have come to see that perhaps the idea of a new urban future is not so easy for most of us to visualise.
In a small meeting last week with very intelligent Phd’s, business champions and students of literature, a colleague and old friend confronted me: “What do you mean by “re-imagining the city”. Do you mean building winding streets rather than straight streets?” My friend could not see that changing the form of the city would have any impact on the lives of ordinary people. His frank question helped me see that the important work of building consensus on what our cities of the future should look like has not yet even begun. The ideas are there, but they are stuck in the minds, books and blogs of the brilliant few. The brilliant few however don’t build cities; they tend rather to spend most of their time arguing with each other.
I have decided to come to the aid of the brilliant few in attempting to build consensus. I have also come to see that looking back at our history exposes us to a laboratory of urban experiments, some that worked and some that did not. Looking in to the future on the other hand, is of course very confusing, untested and most of all; impossible.
I love Central Port Elizabeth.
I love the cool shade of Trinder Square. I love the antique shops of Lawrence Street. I love the galleries, museums and courthouses. I look through the grime and the vice to the underlying physical and spatial structure. Central is a living, breathing lesson in urbanism. It is a lesson from the past about how we can build the cities of our future. Let us consider Central for a minute:
·       Vibrant mix of Offices, residences and shops
·       Comfortable mix of old and young
·       Street life and café culture
·       Nightlife and youth culture
·       Rare mix of rich and poor
·       Healthy mix of rental and freehold
·       Hospitals, churches, schools, buses, taxis, shops and parks all in walking distance
I am not looking at Central as something that needs to be protected like a museum. I am pointing to Central as a contemporary model of urban land use, a model of mixed use and a model of car management that should be replicated throughout our metro, (or at very least along the corridors that now become supported by public transport)
Providing roads, sewer, water and electricity is cheaper in Central than in Sherwood or in NU5, because taller buildings and higher densities mean less infrastructure cost. Central has proportionately less streets to sweep and fewer bins to collect. We know that higher density environments are much more efficient for the public and private sector to service. About this there is no disagreement.
So, if Central is efficient, if Central is green, if Central is pro-poor, if Central is fun, if Central is beautiful, why can’t we see to it that we build more neighbourhood’s like Central?
The answer quite simply, ladies and gentlemen, lies in a very powerful little document called the “Port Elizabeth Zoning Scheme”. Authored in the 1960’s by nameless champions of suburbia and reworked and edited over the years by technical types seeking to close loopholes; The Port Elizabeth Zoning Scheme sets out what you may and may not do on your own property. It may allow you to work there, but not sleep there. It may allow you to pray there, but not shop there. It may compel you to build 10 m away from your boundary or it may compel you to provide hundreds of parking bays on your site for the shop you choose to build.
Central was designed before our contemporary obsession with the motor car. Central was designed at a time when walking was the dominant means of transport, (supported by public transport for longer distances). Central was designed at a time when we understood that it is illogical for each city dweller to plant a quarter acre of lawn in front of each of their homes. Suburbs like Newton Park or Kwadwesi will never become like Central because of the provisions of the Port Elizabeth Zoning Scheme (and other schemes like it). The Zoning Scheme requires that millions of Rands be thrown into parking basements, setbacks and building lines. The Zoning scheme encourages single use sterility. The Zoning scheme discourages mixing of rich and poor (you try build an affordable, Central style block of flats on your site in Walmer and see how far you get!)
I am not suggesting here that we abandon our tradition of orderly city building, but I do suggest that we do not continue to let our city be designed by a faceless, anonymous and hugely outdated rulebook. I put it to the readers of this column, that we must be clear when engaging the municipality. We want our city to look and feel like Central. If they have rules on their books that stand in the way of this then those rules are of no use to us.
We are fortunate to have Central. It is full of life, it is full of hope and it is full of lessons.

This column first appeared in The Herald, Port Elizabeth, 29 November 2012

Have you hugged your Architect today?

The East Cape Institute of Architects (ECIA) is proud to be associated with this Business Link publication. Our members are full of praise for the work that Business Link has done over the years to strengthen linkages between businesses in our region. We recognise this strength because the building of linkages has been at the heart of our organisation for over 100 years.
The ECIA was founded as the Port Elizabeth Society of Architects in 1900. It has since that time worked tirelessly to strengthen linkages between Architects in the region. The Institute has also championed the cause of strengthening linkages between the profession and the public as well as private sector developers who make use of our services in creating the built environment that we see around us in the City, that we have all made our home.
Central to our task, our mission and our mandate is building and re-enforcing of linkages with the world of design and ideas from beyond the City limits and beyond the borders of our country. The Institute of Architects has over the years unapologetically promoted excellence in design and construction. This it does through a number of programmes including Continuing Professional Development (CPD), awards programmes and publications. In spite of its smaller economy and in spite of its remoteness from the centres of power and commerce, the ECIA has consistently continued its culture of excellence and innovation. At this year’s national awards ceremony in Cape Town, the South African Institute of Architects (SAIA) presented four “Awards of Merit” and an “Award of Excellence” to projects from our City. (No other region in our province managed even one award!)
It is critical that therefore that I now make this point to business and civic leaders that are reading this publication:
Port Elizabeth Architects are of the highest order. We have been able to achieve this status because of the unwavering vision of local private and public sector leaders who over the last one hundred and eleven years have continued to entrust us with their most significant, most public and most visible investments. I speak for every member of the East Cape Institute of Architects when I say that we are deeply grateful to you and the space you have given us to assist you in building a lasting built environment of which residents of our City can be proud.
It is not incidental that we have in Port Elizabeth a multi-award winning architecture department at the Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University (NMMU). The relationship between practicing Architects at the ECIA and the professors, lecturers and students at the NMMU has always been a special one. We treasure this relationship because we know that the practice of architecture has as its foundation the centuries old scientific and cultural traditions of six continents over many epochs. We treasure this relationship also because of the innovation that the NMMU is able to provide in seeking answers to the challenge of the sustainable and green cities that will have to become our future.
So, I would ask that you take your time to look though the Directory of Architects listed in this publication. I can personally vouch for each and every one of them. Feel free to speak to an architect about your vision and your ideas for your property (architects love to chat and a glass of red wine tends to make them even chattier.) Yes we want to make money out of you, but we are also interested in being responsible members of the business community. We are an interesting lot! Invite us to talk to your Rotary Club or your AGM. We will go on about the “Ideal City”,“green buildings”, Ancient Egypt or rain water harvesting. I can guarantee you it will be interesting!
GIVE US A CALL!
(This Article first appeared in the Business Link  on 12 November 2012)

THC 24 10 12

Architectural Practice and the failure of leadership in the South African Urban Crisis

(This paper was first presented at the Biennial Conference of the South African Institute of Architects in Cape Town on 14 September 2012)

Good morning ladies and gentleman.

I am speaking to you today in a humble attempt to convince you of three things:
1.South African cities are in a state of crisis.
2.Architectural practice in South Africa is facing an impending crisis.
3.There is a pressing and urgent new role for the Architect to play in this Country.

We are living in a beautiful time, a time of elevated consciousness, a time of a new awareness of our intimate relationship with the planet as a living breathing, interconnected, but finite, sustaining system.

We are living in a time where we are coming to reject the ugly and embrace beauty:
•We have collectively rejected bad coffee
•We have embraced artisan breads and handmade cheeses
•The Arab Spring has rejected ugly leadership in a wave of contagious disgust.
•There is desire for all things authentic, fresh from the farm, BBC Food, pavement café’s.

•We have abandoned Macho, black hats for politicians and the stiff upper lip.
•We have slowly overcome the worst of our Victorian Puritanism
•We are dealing slowly with our bigotry.
We are living in a beautiful time.

Yet still, no matter how you look at it South African cities eighteen years into democracy can all still, without exception be described using the terms “Town” and “Township”.

Yet still, in spite good policy documents, South African cities have continued to become massive sprawling, polluting, fossil fuel dependent, crime ridden poverty traps. These cities, in which 50% of our population now live, are monuments to inefficiency and environmental arrogance.

To this day, our cities remain memorials to apartheid’s most visible and viscous social engineering projects; divided between rich and poor, black and white and well serviced and poorly serviced. But what is perhaps worse, is that far from undoing this divisive sprawl our model of development since1994 has continued to perpetuate and re-enforce this failed pattern.

As we speak, this pattern is playing itself out in the city to which I have dedicated my professional life thus far. Where, if big private capital has its way Nelson Mandela Bay will, in the coming months see massive new sprawling developments beyond Motherwell to the east and outside Sherwood to the west  of the metro.

The process is now well underway to obtain approval for a new R6 Billion “mixed residential” development beyond Motherwell, along the road to Addo and the EIA has been approved for a massive new regional shopping centre to the west along the N2.
The question, I suppose is:
•Have we, as a community of Architects, stopped to think what it is that we are allowing to happen here?
•Should we give up hoping that our cities too can become “things of beauty”?
•Are we happy that our cities and especially our “townships” continue their low density sprawl endlessly, like a tumour, consuming the landscape?
Government support for ugly, anti-urban developments of this nature seem strange, contradictory and confusing, especially since it has become generally understood that the economy can no longer afford to keep building environmentally destructive sprawling cities the way we have been building since the World War 2.

Government policy documents since “breaking new ground” to the first drafts of the National Planning Commission documents are clear that South African cities need to be “accessible”, “compact” and break away their “divisive spatial and physical past”.
To add insult to injury South African cities are also reminders of another massive mistake of recent history! The mistake, with which we must now rapidly come to terms, is that South African cites have been designed under the false assumption, and the lie, that cheap fossil fuels would be available in perpetuity. This is now proving to be a colossal and expensive mistake.

The International Energy Agency have told us that global oil production has continued to increase year on year, since oil was first extracted from the ground in 1859, but that production has now peaked. In fact the consensus is that oil production peaked sometime in 2006 already. In other words, each and every year since 1859 the world was able to meet the increased demand for fossil fuels by simply finding new oil fields or drilling deeper into old ones. But now, supply is rapidly declining, while demand continues to grow unchecked, most notably to meet the needs of the growing Chinese and Indian economies.

While the implications of peak oil are now broadly understood, what I would prefer to focus on is what this means for how we approach the design of our cities looking forward.

Firstly, I would suggest, let us concede that we have got it all horribly wrong up until now. South African cities are of a very low density and have sprawled very widely. The brutal truth is that the general public are going to have to pay a very heavy price for this design error. It is soon going to become unbearably expensive to move around in private motor vehicles. It is going to become unbearably expensive to distribute food and goods within our sprawling cities It is going to become unbearably expensive for police to patrol and for municipalities to collect refuse. Even if our cities suspend their sprawling today, it is still going to be very tough!
•But what are architects able to do about this?
•Is there a role for the architect to play in moving us out of this crisis?

The Architect in contemporary society takes on sometimes the guise of the teacher, sometimes the guise of bureaucrat, sometimes an employee of a private sector developer, but most of all it is the Architect in private practice that we see as being “typical”. The Architect in private practice makes up the majority of our kind and are perhaps most visible to the public.

But, I am afraid in practice we have had our energies diverted away from the challenge of envisioning a better urban future. We have become obsessed with geometry, blinded by fashion and seduced by style. Our students hang on every word of celebrity architects, who are perhaps better described as entertainers than champions of the built environment.

When on the rare occasion have come to work those in townships (areas most in need of intervention, areas experiencing the crisis most intensively, area where our cities display their most ugly selves), Architects seem to have completely misunderstood the question.

As Architects, we seem to have completely failed to see where our real contribution can be made and where it is most needed. We have allowed ourselves to get caught up in the notion that somehow marginalised people (read black in the South Africa context) are a “special case” that requires Architects to apply a special methodology and approach.
Our recent past has seen very many Architects, unfamiliar with townships or rural areas being tripped up and stumbling over an “appropriate cultural response”. Considering perhaps the users and their clients and being foreign, “different” and “peculiar”. These architects consider the brief for a Township project, as would an American casino architect considering a conceptual response to a commission in the South Pacific. “What are the symbols and materials that are meaningful to these strange people?” he would ask. Invariably the design becomes a patronising series of palm leafed, round poled, out of scale structures that speaks more about the Architect’s ignorance and his snapshot, whirlwind visit preconception of the South Pacific Island in question, than it does to the cultural aspirations of the subject islanders.
I would argue that Architects in practice are limited by their tendency to misunderstand the question.
I would argue that Architects are limited by underestimating their potential contribution to the larger more pressing urban challenges.
I would argue that Architects are limiting themselves in believing (without any supporting evidence) that some other grouping is best placed to provide the leadership and do the thinking that is required to turn our cities into quality environments supportive of good living. There is a vague, unsubstantiated view that Town Planners, or Civil Engineers or elected office bearers are dealing with getting all this fixed.
Even inside our profession we have begun to think that to contemplate the design of the “spaces between buildings” is somehow the work of secialists who call themselves “Urban Designers”. A further fragmentation, that weakens our role, in the same way as the fragmenting of project management as something distinct from what architects normally do. This fragmentation and this limiting view is contagious and severely limits the way in which client organisations (especially public sector clients) interact with the Architect in private practice. In public sector projects, the irrational and unsubstantiated belief among government departments is that the best way to harness the energy of Architects in turning our cities into happy, vibrant life supporting communities is to fragment design tasks into small unrelated and simplistic components and to put these fragmented design tasks out to tender where cost of fees will determine the architect most suited.
So, we have an urban crisis of massive proportions, but absolutely no public sector mechanism to channel the creative and leadership energies of Architects in practice toward the challenge. It would be understandable perhaps if our cities were in Southern Sudan or Somalia, where the human resource is simply not available to do the thinking and provide the leadership. But South Africa’s problem is rather the inability of our system to harness the energy skill and leadership that is locally available to us in addressing the urban crisis.
We have a “procurement system” designed by accounting minds to prevent corruption and ensure compliance. In the public sector the same system designed to procure toilet paper and fax machines is now used to procure the services of an Architect. The Brutal truth is, leadership and creativity cannot be bought this way. It simply does not work anywhere in the world.

We have recently come to do some work in China, where strangely, South African architects along with other “western” counterparts are held in high regard. And, I suppose, for good reason. South African architects come from a proud tradition where we have been routinely called upon to bring vision and leadership, not just a technical design skill, not just problem solving.

We come from the tradition of Vitruvius, Wren, Michaelangelo, Le Corbusier, Fuller, Khan and Wright. Chinese Architects are very good at problem solving and they are numerous. In spite of this fact, almost every project of any significance in China today is authored by a “Western” Architect.

The reason for this is quite simple. The rampant Chinese economy has measured architects in the same way as they have measured other sectors of their manufacturing dominated economy, by their ability to obediently carry out instructions, quickly and cheaply. The inevitable evolutionary result of course, is that what survives is a legion of architectural practices that work quickly and cheaply. Any Chinese architectural firm that has decided rather to question their instructions, contemplate the bigger picture and spend time and effort to be at the cutting edge of excellence, have fallen by the wayside in the headlong rush that has been the Chinese construction “miracle” of the last 20 years. But, now that Chinese public and private sectors developers are cultivating an appetite for “world class” urban environments, they turn around to the profession that they have systematically devastated and realise that their own architects are simply not able to deliver the required leadership and vision.

Sadly, these developers are left with no choice but to turn to “Western” Architects, whose presence in China serves to even more relegate Chinese architects to second class technical support and providers of local content.

While the Chinese experience is sad, we are even more concerned to see that this trend is playing itself out in our own country. Here private sector developers have for years seen the Architect as a convenient “gun for hire”.

Listed venture capital, life assurers and pension funds have over the last 30 years seen to the systematic destruction of high street economies in every city and town they have deemed worthy of their interest. From Klerksdorp to Kimberly, from Port Alfred to Port Shepstone, Architects working “at risk” are enlisted to prepare scheme upon scheme on cheap land on the urban periphery. Once inside the system, the Architect is compelled to persevere until eventually one of these schemes manages to jump all the requisite hurdles allowing him, exhausted,  to claim a significantly reduced fee from the cost cutting developer. The concentration of money in the hands of so few large private sector developers makes the comparatively disorganised Architect in private practice an easy target for saving a few thousand rands.

Architects are of course not the cause of the destruction of South Africa’s vibrant, complex and integrated high street heritage, but we have been willing mercenaries and we do have blood on our hands.

So too the maddening “town house developments” that have become the blight of our middle class suburbs, where architects play lapdog to a system that all of us know to our cores is delivering the poorest possible urban environments.

The crisis our profession finds itself in today is not something that started this year. It is not something that comes out of some recently scribed government tender rules. Rather, it is a global challenge that comes out of a 1980’s Thatcherite view that the unfettered “free market” must determine the value of everything. Every commodity, every service, every tradable item. This view became dominant among the Yuppie classes who became suspicious of Guild economies, like those regulated by the Royal Institute of British Architects (and of course their local cousin the South African Institute of Architects)

The Institute of Architects as an organisation of mutual benefit had evolved its systems over hundreds of years, carrying with it a tradition of honour where a fair price was fixed and an intricate system of peer pressure was put in place to ensure the delivery of architectural services was of the highest possible quality. For generations similar “guilds” so to the affairs of lawyers, doctors, tailors and cobblers. The system worked very well, but the powerful class of Thatecherite bureaucrats and industry captains have been determined in their effort to wipe out this tradition and replace it with a “dog eat dog”, no honour, no pride, no quality “short term cost only” system. The private sector started this viscous attack and with time governments in a desperate attempt to be “progressive” and “keep up with the times” followed suit.
As you can see, Architectural practice is therefore severely constrained. Those of us that were looking toward the Architect in practice to save the day are unfortunately going to become very disappointed and completely disillusioned.

We can also see how, by extension, the Architect as teacher is similarly constrained, in that regardless of the quality of the design skills imparted to the young architect destined for practice, the structure is such that the young Architects value in being able to re-imagine the city in all its component physical and spatial parts and to rethink the space and form into something original, liveable and beautiful, is lost and when squeezed and squashed into the limiting box that has become private practice.

While the large portion of young Architects (products of Architects in the guise of teachers), end up in practice, a fair portion of them end up in the employ of private and public sector developers. Here they are often able to do good work, acting as “interpreters” to the Architects in practice, working as friendly bureaucrats inside the system and for the betterment of the built environment. Generally though these bureaucrat architects are seen mistakenly by their bosses as “technical types” and don’t rise to levels of meaningful leadership, where they would able to influence meaningful urban change.
So, is the situation hopeless?
Are we destined in this country to have to endure, decaying conurbations of hostile and unliveable, car infested sprawl?
I am trying to convince you here today, that it is in fact hopeless…..
Unless and this is a big “Unless”.
Architects are able to develop the courage to step out of the traditional guises with which they have become so comfortable.

Architects must accept that, for better or worse, they are better equipped than any other profession or grouping to provide the leadership and vision required to guide our cities and towns from where they are now to where we know they can be. Architects must take the courage to be thought leaders, business leaders and where appropriate political leaders. Architects must write, they must talk, and they must take the centre stage. Architects must unapologetically seek the limelight in promoting a vision of the built environment designed and built for quality human interaction and the elevation of the human spirit.

The leaders of our profession must be sure that they make themselves available as advisors to cabinet ministers, premiers and presidents. Our towns must be run by architect mayors, Architects must go out and infiltrate chambers of commerce, gaming boards, Diocesan Councils, ward committees, development agencies and ratepayers associations. Architects must take their family fortunes and develop property of sustainable quality. Where leadership is required, Architects must be prepared to step in and provide it in a way that is biased toward the goal of a quality, people focused built environment.
I am not certain if this campaign will work. I am not certain if architects are able to slip out of their apathy and their self-doubt, but I do know that for us to continue doing what we are doing will steadily result in the decline of our beloved profession and rapidly result in the failure of our cities.
Architects; the next move is ours!

Toward the compact green cities of our future

Toward the compact green cities of our future

(This piece first appeared in The Eastern Cape Herald on 4 May 2012)
 If big private capital, has its way Nelson Mandela Bay will, in the coming months see massive new sprawling developments beyond Motherwell to the east and beyond Sherwood to the west. The multi-billion rand Baywest shopping centre along the N2 toward Humansdorp, this month obtained environmental approvals from the MEC, while the process is now well underway to obtain approval for a new R6 Billion mixed residential development beyond Motherwell, along the road to Addo.
The question, I suppose is: Have we, as a community, stopped to think what it is that we are allowing to happen here? Are we happy that our city continues its low density sprawl endlessly, like a tumour, consuming the landscape? Government support for these two proposed developments seem strange and confusing, especially since it has become generally understood that the economy can no longer afford to keep building environmentally destructive sprawling cities the way we have been building since the World War 2. Government policy documents since “breaking new ground” to the first drafts of the National Planning Commission documents are clear that South African cities need to be accessible, compact and break away their divisive spatial and physical past.
In spite good policy documents, South African cities have continued to become massive sprawling, polluting, fossil fuel dependent, crime ridden poverty traps. These cities, in which 50% of our population now live, are monuments to inefficiency and environmental arrogance. To this day, our cities remain memorials to apartheid’s most visible and viscous social engineering projects. But they are also reminders of another massive mistake of recent history! The mistake, with which we must now rapidly come to terms, is that South African cites have been designed under the false assumption and the lie that cheap fossil fuels would be available in perpetuity. This is now proving to be a colossal and expensive mistake.
The International Energy Agency have told us that global oil production has continued to increase year on year, since oil was first extracted from the ground in 1859, but that production has now peaked. In fact the consensus is that oil production peaked sometime in 2006 already. In other words, each and every year since 1859 the world was able to meet the increased demand for fossil fuels by simply finding new oil fields or drilling deeper in old ones. But now, supply is rapidly declining, while demand continues to grow unchecked, most notably to meet the needs of the growing Chinese and Indian economies.
While the implications of peak oil are now broadly understood, what I would prefer to focus on is what this means for how we approach the design of our cities looking forward. Firstly, I would suggest, let us concede that we have got it all horribly wrong up until now. South African cities are of a very low density and have sprawled very widely. The brutal truth is that the general public are going to have to pay a very heavy price for this design error. It is soon going to become unbearably expensive to move around in private motor vehicles. It is going to become unbearably expensive to distribute food and goods within our sprawling cities It is going to become unbearably expensive for police to patrol and for municipalities to collect refuse. Even if our cities suspend their sprawling today, it is still going to be very tough!
Secondly I would suggest that we do not expend any energy in trying to apportion blame for these design errors. We must understand and forgive our Town Planner friends motivated by a fee structure that for years encouraged hectare upon hectare of free standing sites in mundane suburbia and featureless townships. We should understand and forgive our Civil Engineer friends motivated by a fee structure that for years encouraged kilometre upon kilometre of suburban roads, sewers and storm water systems. To vilify these professions and the government departments that briefed them would be futile. Rather let us turn these skilled and committed thinking people to the task of imagining the new compact green cities of the future. Cities where people can walk to work or use public transport. Cities that produce their own food, cities that create vibrant live hoods and cultural diversity.
But thirdly, and most importantly we need to put an immediate stop to the popular myth that profit motivated big developers “know best” about what is good for us and our city’s future. The fact that a big JSE listed developer has acquired cheap land of the periphery of our city and can fill it with government subsidised housing or thousands of square meters of retail clothing stores we don’t need, does not mean that it is good for our city. It does not mean it is good for our economy. It does not mean that is good for our people. In fact, all it means is that our city becomes more sprawled, more distorted and more likely to trap ordinary citizens in an unbearably expensive future where no one wins. We cannot afford to allow this myth to continue any longer.
What I do know for sure is that our generation is equipped and capacitated to change all this, but what I am not so sure of is whether we have the courage to confront or the commitment to stay at it.
We will see.
Tim Hewitt-Coleman 20 April 2012