The Kopanong Gauteng Government Precinct

http://www.joburg.org.za/2004/jan/govt6.jpg

This precinct will encompass:
- A street underpass
- Skywalks joining buildings
- Underground parking
- A square called the New Heritage Square, to the south of and adjoining the present Beyers Naude Square. The square, to be created from the demolition of 10 inner city buildings, will contain an amphitheatre, a multi-functional Tswana homestead and a symbolic obelisk and "Orientation Wall".

At present the Gauteng government's departments occupy offices stretching across the city, with some departments being split among different buildings.

The proposed plan brings those departments together in central area focused around the new square.

The New Heritage Square

- With the extension of Beyers Naude Square across Market Street, the new, larger square will have six heritage facades facing on to it.

- These will be: two facades of the Central Library, two facades of the historic Corner House on the corner of Simmonds and Commissioner streets, the Harrison Street facade of the City Hall, and the reconstructed Rand Water Board façade on the corner of Simmonds and Commissioner streets.

- The new square will contain "indigenous heritage" in the form of a Stone Age Tswana homestead, constructed in steel and glass, "reminiscent of the pyramid located outside the Louvre in Paris", to be called the New Heritage Complex.

- A "New Heritage Bridge" will link it to Nedbank Place, on the corner of Market and Sauer streets.

- The homestead will have several functions: art and culture-related uses on the ground level, while the "upper levels will form a series of cascading terraces, housing restaurants and cocktail bars".

- Street trading will be allowed under pergolas around the complex.

- There will also be an amphitheatre just off centre of the new double-size square, with a 13-storey structure such as "an obelisk or column or feature within a fountain".

- Alongside this will be "an Orientation Wall" designed as "a link between the old and new facades" which will function as "a window of transparency, opening from government on to the urban community".

- Near to the amphitheatre street vendor stalls will be constructed.

- The ugly walls and non-functional kiosks surrounding the entrances and exits to the present underground parking of Beyers Naude Square will also be demolished to open up the square to the surrounding streets and proposed street cafes and restaurants.

- The Nedbank Place wall facing the square will display digital advertising screens and billboards, "animating the square reminiscent to Time Square, New York".

- Seam lighting will be placed on the north-facing buildings, and restaurants and cafes are to be encouraged along this side, to allow a natural flow from the buildings on to the pavement and the square.

- The square will be dotted with trees.

- It is hoped that the new square will be used for a variety of events, including parades, religious gatherings, outdoor exhibitions, sporting activities and weekend markets.

Underpass, gateways and skywalks

http://www.joburg.org.za/2004/jan/govt4.jpg

- Under the new square there'll be parking, and an underpass (to replace the four blocks of Market Street that will be incorporated into the square), which will begin before Kort Street to the west, and exit after Harrison Street in the east.

- In addition, there'll be two gateways on to the square. The first is the Fraser Street Gateway, a decorative gateway on to the square from the Fraser Street entrance on the north side of the square. It will consist of a wire and perspex shelter, to be used by street curio traders. The second is the Market Street Close Gateway, and marks the start of the square from the west. The gateway will be defined by three rows of trees between Kort and Sauer streets, in contrast to the "hard materiality" of the Fraser Street Gateway.

- The plan also includes four skywalks, linking buildings on the four corners of the enlarged square. The skywalks will consist of three floors, three storeys above the street level. Two of these skywalks will be enlarged to form two gateway towers, the Bank of Lisbon Tower and the Corner House Tower, both buildings on the western corners of the square.

- These towers or skywalks will protrude over Market and Commissioner streets and will join the Corner House and the Avril Malan building, and the Bank of Lisbon building and Nedbank Place. They will consist of a triple volume open-air terrace with cafes, cocktail bars and restaurants overlooking the square. The facades of the towers will contain billboards and digital screens for advertising.

Democratic urban design

NOA Architects feel that the development optimises all the elements of "democratic urban design": heritage, open public space and indigenous architecture, as well as encouraging night life in an area that has traditionally died as soon as workers leave the city.

"The overall celebration of heritage is the ensemble of a collection of colonial buildings, modernist buildings and the inclusion of the Heritage Complex which itself is a building that introduces elements and values of indigenous architecture, expressed in 21st century design and construction techniques."

The GPG sees the development as assisting in the regeneration of the inner city

Demolitions

http://www.joburg.org.za/2004/jan/govt2.jpg

- Two buildings owned by the GPG and presently vacant - Clegg House and SARB House on the corner of Simmonds and Commissioner streets - are to be demolished and replaced by a new building, to be called the Matlotlo Extension.

- Another eight buildings on the edge of Beyers Naude Square are to be demolished to make way for an adjoining square, an effort to revive the present square and extend it to expand open public space in the inner city. The report indicates that at present only three percent of space in the CBD is open public space.

- In total 10 buildings are to be demolished, in terms of the HIA.

- The façade of the Rand Water Board building will be preserved and become the façade of the new Matlotlo Extension, on the corner of Simmonds and Commissioner streets. It was recommended in 1976 that this six and a half storey building be declared a national monument, but this never happened.

- The façade of the Volkskas building (now Absa) will also be retained, to remain where it is while the rest of the building will be demolished. The façade has engraved marble panels and bronze door panels, and the building is considered to be the "first major piece of architecture to be erected in Johannesburg by the emergent forces of Afrikaner finance capital . . .", according to renowned architect Clive Chipkin in his Johannesburg Style, Architecture and Society, 1880s-1960s.

I'm really annoyed...! Why can't these architects see the value of something new in the city? :? The square will breathe new life in the city. Right now these buildings are just standing abandoned. It will also have a great ripple effect.

Demolitions held up
25 Nov 2005

Financial Mail -

Heritage body's permission to destroy 10 Johannesburg buildings is to be reviewed

By Xolile Bhengu

The Gauteng provincial government's plans to demolish 10 buildings in the inner city, approved by the SA Heritage Resources Agency (Sahra), have been halted by an appeal from architects and historians. Opposition appears to be widespread.

Sahra approved the demolition of the Art Deco-style buildings, eight of which are situated between Sauer and Simmonds and between Market and Commissioner streets. An additional two are on the corner of Commissioner and Simmonds streets. Among them is the old SA Reserve Bank House.

The intention was to demolish the 10 buildings to create a Heritage Square surrounded by 22 buildings recently bought for R300m by the Gauteng provincial government. Heritage Square was to be an extension of Beyers Naude Square and Library Gardens.

Sahra's view is that there are 70 or 80 other Art Deco-style buildings that are "more worthy of preservation" and better examples of the type of architecture than the buildings in question. Sahra has, however, suggested that elements of the Volkskas and Rand Water building be left as monument sites.

Architects and historians are appealing against Sahra's decision. They say removing the 60-year-old - and older - buildings is a mistake. But others view the plan as progress.

Surprisingly, the objectors are supported by the Johannesburg inner city's most ardent champion, Neil Fraser, partner in Urban Inc Consultants.

"No-one is opposing the idea of a precinct with a square in the middle," he says. "It is what is planned to replace the buildings that is the problem. What is being offered constitutes bad urban design."

Fraser says "a two-lane underpass is planned for Market Street, replacing the present four lanes, which would cause traffic congestion. The economics of the exercise just don't make sense."

He estimates the city will have to spend R1bn for the square to materialise.

The project leader for the proposed precinct, Jack van der Merwe, says the dilemma that faces Sahra is to decide whether the demolition will ultimately benefit the city. He is applying for a pre-qualification request, so that private-sector stakeholders can set up teams to discuss the issue.

"The debate regarding the square and precinct must continue among the academics who are involved, with each side submitting merits for its position," says Van der Merwe.

Urban Ocean developers cofounder Alfonso Botha says a balance must be struck between heritage and progress. Corner House, Urban Ocean's icon inner-city conversion, will overlook the proposed square, boosting its already high value.

Botha says many buildings in the city have become economically unviable and even havens for unsavoury characters.

Though it is sad that some buildings must go, he says, such a square would bring revenue and breathe life into the city. "Certain compromises have to be considered by both sides.

"We don't have enough open spaces in the CBD, and bold moves such as these must be made. But at the same time, respect and balance must be considered in the decision."

Fanuel Motsepe, an architect for the Gauteng department of public works & transport, says: "The decision was not to devalue the city, but to embrace its history and pave the way forward from the ideologies of the past."

Sahra national spokesman Solayman Ebrahim says the decision was not taken lightly. "It is a democratic process and will be taken to the council for reviewing." He adds that the debate has raised the question of where space for African heritage can be provided.

Not to stick my 50cents in the way...but i do agree with them, even the urbanocean people arent overly happy with the gov plans.

Yes central jozi needs opens spaces, for that it is lacking, BUT careful consideration needs to be given to the process. You cant just knock buildings down on a whim, especially if they are listed, or noted for merit. Otherwise u will be canabilising ur past, for what? an open square, of little relevence? Yes change needs to happen, but i think gov needs to look at other options and different feasibility studyings, before unilaterally doing something this drastic...

im up for this development in cbd think of it ....people will only come and look at those buildings if the think the area is decent/safe = gg precinct lets look at the bigger picture guys unless some one can offer some new ideas i hope it happens

I agree that we cannot knock down buildings on a whim, but these buildings in my opinion don't add anything to the city as they stand presently. Compared to other Joburg buildings, they really aren't anything special. If they wanted to tear down the Barbican for instance, I would strap myself to the building ala Sandra Bullock in Two weeks notice style. :D

But these buildings really aren't anything wow, and in the long term this new square will provide much better value to Joburg than these 10 buildings. Just my 50 cents. :)

OK.. one of the main debates about this precinct is not necessarily that we're knocking down buildings on a whim, but has been more political in nature.

This article- http://www.sundayindependent.co.za/index.php?fSectionId=1083&fArticleId=3011635 - sheds some light on it all.

"Fanuel Motsepe's design for the Gauteng government precinct is that overlaying Johannesburg's modernist city grid with 'tribal space-making' devices and motifs is a legitimate and valid political act that will contribute to dismantling apartheid's 'spatial imbalances'."

"Furthermore, he counters criticism by challenging his critics on the basis that as white, middle-class architects, they have no embodied experience of his tribal culture (Tswana) and have therefore nothing to contribute to his argument."

"He rescripts or reinvents the Johannesburg inner city through, first, destroying what he sees as the vestiges of an oppressive past, and second through the assertion of an African, that is Tswana, particularism."

I don't believe we should look at this project in terms of bashing down aspects of our past or embracing a different and previously marginalised culture. The culture used to inspire the design of this development should be irrelevent in considering the bigger impact it will have on the city. Whether it be Afrikaans or Tswana, the new development should be seen purely as something new that can energise the city. Which layman walking past these buildings seriously sees them as embodiments of Apartheid? Indeed, the buildings are a far cry from the symbolism evoked by the Voortrekker Monument, for instance.

So I believe both Motsepe and his critics are wrong here, and that they are both too concerned with something that is holding back a brilliant development.

Motsepe shouldn't see the GPG as a way of redressing the wrongdoings of the past, and his critics shouldn't be concerned with how the new development will destroy remnants of our past, because in my opinion, these few buildings are hardly anything to worry about. To the layman on the street, they do not carry much symbolism at all. They may be listed as a heritage symbol, but in the context of what is going on in our city, the value that they contribute to the city pales in comparision to what the new development could contribute. In fact, a new square such as this one will not only invigorate the CBD, but create something new which WILL be symbolic to everyone.

knock them down!!

Get rid of the freaking past. Its nothing to be proud of in any case. Knock them down and renew the city!

^^ Woah... if many of the new urban planners (like Jane Jacobs who has revolutionized planning for the better) read that they would have a heart attack!.. Most people argue that cities need their old buildings in order to function properly, and I mostly agree.

I think in Johannesburg's case, the project is generally a good move... but I still think some things should have been done differently, or worked around. (And preserving facades is often done very poorly, which worries me.)

If they can pull it off very well, then I am for this project, in other words ;) But if it, in any case, was unsuccessful, it would be inexcusable. Judging by all the office workers in the precinct, it should work out fine.

Speaking of which, does anyone have numbers on how many new office workers and a total number of office workers will be in the CBD when it's all done?

-thryve

Do have a question though........if the government moves into Standard Bank...where will Standard Bank move?.......Perhaps Standard Bank.....isnt located in Standard Bank Building anymore?

"Woah... if many of the new urban planners (like Jane Jacobs who has revolutionized planning for the better) read that they would have a heart attack!.. Most people argue that cities need their old buildings in order to function properly, and I mostly agree."

I agree entirely with you that old buildings shouldn't be knocked down. :) But look at these buildings? I myself have been on a tour of SARB and Clegg House, and it's quite frankly a dusty, disused bunch of offices from the past. The same goes for the other buildings. The way these architects are going on one would think these buildings are vital to the life and soul of Joburg's heritage, and they aren't.

If they were knocking down Corner House, or Barbican, or Antsteys for instance, then that would be a problem. But these 10 buildings? puh-leaze... I just think it's a little tiff between architects in which they all have their own agendas. Anyway - the nay-sayers are winning the battle. The media is on their side, and we all know what happens then. The Star ran a front-page article yesterday on how this whole project was a waste of tax-payers money. So while the rest of SA moves on with inner city development, we sit on our laurels having cat fights. It are making me pissed off. :bash:

"Do have a question though........if the government moves into Standard Bank...where will Standard Bank move?.......Perhaps Standard Bank.....isnt located in Standard Bank Building anymore?"

Well Standard has a HUGE 7/8-floor monstrosity sitting next to the building that is to be occupied, so I think they're perhaps just consolidating themselves there. They definitely aren't moving though.. :) They've just completed their multi-story parking lot and their art gallery is still going strong.

oh just start imploding already..... jeesh!!!!

Ok...i do hear what ur saying...but the cost of close on R2 billion to knock down buildings, create an underpass and open space seems like a fricken waste of money

Going on what Joburg said, I agree with it. A social place of gathering and improved city economy (which will be a long term spinoff) means a better life for everyone in the city.

I guess it's okay, considering how Joburg said that they really aren't important to the city's heritage... who knows. Johannesbrug definitely needs a large public space... Toronto did the same just recently...people love the area, and it has been important in making the city what it is... I have to disagree with dysan1, because it is so much more than just a bunch of skywalks and underpasses. It is soo much more.

Hmmm..Maybe one day Joburg might have its own Times Square.

I actually don't necessarily support the idea of an underpass because I don't believe it's really necessary. If it's going to cost that much, then I think it would be more prudent to slow traffic down by placing a fountain or something in the middle of the road and creating a circle, as well as pedestrian crossings. I think an underpass is a little excessive.

But I dunno - maybe it is in fact necessary. All I care about is that these buildings are blerrie well imploded and the square created. For flips sakes man.. typical Joburgers I tell you.

Yes a Times Square type development would be awesome!!! *Crosses fingers*


Its great that the Standard Art Gallery is going strong.....but its a shame they wont be inhabiting that skyscraper anymore..........however, maybe we will see an expansion sometime?

Also, the 10 buildings ear-marked with the exception of maybe Custom House.......arent worth anything in my opinion......lets move forward eh.

Hmmm..Maybe one day Joburg might have its own Times Square.

The initial aim of the project was to make something similar to Time Square, but I'm not sure if they still following the same trend.

When did standard bank leave that skyscraper that looks like it isnt finnished? Is it empty at the moment?

I actually like Standard Bank....its cool...in an ugly sorta way hehehe. The construction method is whats really interesting about it.

I also quite like it. It's original.. And I don't think it's empty at the moment, but if the diagram posted above is correct, government will soon take it over.

Finally, someone who agrees with us. And this guy, by the way, is the author of the book the nay-sayers love to quote from.

The building blocks of change
30 Nov 2005
Clive Chipkin
http://www.eprop.co.za/news/article.aspx?idArticle=6647

THE controversy surrounding the proposals for the new Gauteng Provincial Government Precinct — the Kopanong Project at Beyers Naude Square in central Johannesburg — has served to drown out the merits of the scheme.

The project is principally the work of the in-city architect Fanuel Motsepe. During 2003 and 2004, I acted as consultant in urban history for the design architects. Although I ended this role 18 months ago, I remain committed to the principle of supporting spatial interventions by a new generation at the place where Johannesburg began.

I do not regard Johannesburg as a sacred cow, and in fact this would go against the historical grain of the city.

Similarly, the New York Times concluded in May 2001 that "few things in New York are more deeply contextual than change". London too, has grappled with these issues. In 2004, preservationist bodies were persuaded to make concessions regarding London’s transformation. In fact, English architect Christopher Wren’s new biographer argues: "Cities are organic. The urge to protect is sometimes the response of those nervous of change." This is one of those awkward facts that reflects the internal contradictions of cities.

It is important to relate that Motsepe and I differed in some aspects of the project and that I asked that the Market Street underpass — the intended tunnel under the square — should be abandoned, as should the moving of the old Rand Water Board building. But we agreed that it was necessary to confront change and to avoid leaving the status quo entrenched.

The fundamental question is: how far should the preservation of cultural heritage go without stifling growth and innovation? The move from a colonial-conquest society to a democracy represents a significant enlargement of expectations — and these should become evident in the urban fabric.

On the other hand, the rigid application of heritage rules results in the embalmed city, where change is impossible and buildings of a nominated vintage become holy icons; where the past and present are enemies of the future.

All buildings in central Johannesburg are the products of architectural practices working during the period of white hegemony. Vital space must be found for the new generation of architects sensitive to formerly invisible issues.

I recognise that some of the opponents of this project have voiced genuine concerns and valid worries. But many of those loudest in their condemnation, urged on by their cheerleaders, have arrived with a confrontational attitude and belief in conspiracy theories.

Even the letter of February 2004 — signed on behalf of the South African Institute of Architects, the Gauteng Institute for Architecture and various heritage organisations — contains, in my opinion, some dubious arguments. For example, that axiality and symmetry are fundamental to western culture. This is an argument disproved by the modern movement and Gothic asymmetry. Yes, Beaux Arts classicism, which they refer to by implication, does comply with this orthodoxy, but the Piazza of St Mark’s in Venice, which is dog-leg in shape, most certainly does not.

But at least the institute’s letter conceded the argument that the Beyers Naude precinct is Johannesburg’s central place — what the author Rodney Mace, in his history of Trafalgar Square, calls a city’s "front room".

There are undoubtedly three buildings of substantial quality threatened by the proposals. I am opposed to the removal of one of these buildings. But the opponents say that all 10 — others say nine — of the targeted buildings are invaluable parts of Johannesburg’s "heart and soul". I find this absurd.

Just as ridiculous are the claims that our Art Deco heritage is threatened. The old SAPM building is not Art Deco and, in any case, its original character was ruined by a 1980s conversion. Clegg House is only remotely Art Deco. SARB House is Art Deco Banal.

I have written previously that "we must feel pretty desperate if we need to rely on these buildings to substantiate our Art Deco heritage". Why is there this element of exaggeration which greatly attracts the whinging generation? Why is there so little sense of pragmatism? My own explanation is that there are other agendas at work. An important point to remember is that Motsepe has been at pains to incorporate large portions of our past into this project — including the Cenotaph and Gordon Leith’s old Reserve Bank building, where his rehabilitation work will create an architectural treasure open to the public.

How to break the impasse? These are my personal conclusions.

The treasury component — the Matlotlo project — on Commissioner Street should go ahead. This would necessitate the demolition of Clegg House and SARB House to make way for what we anticipate will be good architecture, representative of its time.

The rest of the project should be put on hold for 18 months. We could learn from Liverpool and hold a limited competition for five or six invited practices at the most. The terms of the competition would be to invite proposals for the upgrading of Johannesburg’s central place, create increased civic space for celebrations and political gatherings, create a heritage complex where modern architecture will have reference to SA’s pre-colonial past and our post-colonial future and make the precinct a "major cultural destination".

There are no guarantees, but it is an objective worth fighting for.

Chipkin, an architect, is author of Johannesburg Style: Architecture & Society 1880s-1960s. His new book — Johannesburg Transition: Architecture & Society 1950-2000 — will be published next year.

May I ask where this project is at? It's been 2005 since we've last spoken about it. I completely lost hope in it, and lost track of it... shame on me!

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b143/hsark5/PPPQ14_1.jpg

Anyways, it reminds me of Yonge-Dundas Square in Toronto. Dundas Square, as it is more often called, however, was created out of a block of useless discount stores and a parking lot. It has a large downtown shopping centre (the world's largest downtown mall, in fact) facing onto it, as well as offices and plenty of retail. The electronic billboards have the 'cool' factor, but are quite unncessary to be used for just advertising.

Public spaces are so VERY important for the vitality of any place... I think if timed correctly, Johannesburg could benefit largely from the project. Hopefully university students would use it alot? I am sure, judging by Newtown and MF Square, Johannesburg will host many large festivals, music shows, and markets at the square... entertainment like that would be a good idea.

http://img507.imageshack.us/img507/262/ydsquare1jh8.jpg

http://img162.imageshack.us/img162/19/ydsquare2mc0.jpg

http://img507.imageshack.us/img507/3831/ydsquare3ck7.jpg

http://img66.imageshack.us/img66/2572/ydsquare4mp7.jpg

http://img507.imageshack.us/img507/2014/ydsquare5fz1.jpg

A pano I thought I'd throw in (http://img236.imageshack.us/img236/1117/ydsquare6hh3.jpg)

Again, not trying to advertise the city I live in... simply sharing those photos with you, and giving you an idea of how it could turn out.

It's taking painfully long to go anywhere. The two sides are still battling it out.

I bash my head against the wall again and again and again and again.

For Pete's sakes, these buildings are nothing to write home about compared to the other buildings we have in the city - which, by the way, sit disused and dormant. I'm thinking the Rissik Street Post Office and the Barbican here.

I really don't see why these people who are jumping up and down about buildings, which are incredibly decrepid, non-descript and have no social value whatsoever, are not jumping up and down and DOING something about the REAL beautiful buildings in Joburg.

My view is that we need something BIG and something NEW in the CBD that will be a catalyst for other development. And something that'll bring people into the CBD to play. There are TONS of other empty buildings in the city that are dirt cheap on the market and which could be bought up if space became a premium.

Here's the article..

'Sahra didn't have authority' to approve demolitions
http://www.joburg.org.za/2006/july/...ovtprecinct.stm
July 20, 2006
By Lucille Davie

THE body that approved the demolition of 10 inner city buildings did not have the authority to do so, according to lawyers representing appellants in the appeal hearing.

In terms of the National Heritages Resources Act of 1999, the South African Heritage Resources Agency (Sahra) does not have the power to order the demolition of buildings, says Terry Winstanley of Winstanley & Cullinan Environmental Law Specialists.

Furthermore, the act does not allow for Sahra to act on behalf of the provincial heritage body, the Provincial Heritage Resources Authority of Gauteng (PHRAG), under which the demolition of the buildings should fall.

Sahra approved the demolition in October 2005, to make way for the provincial New Heritage Square, a square that will double the size of the present Beyers Naude Square.

Appeals against the decision were heard by Sahra's appeals committee on Wednesday, 19 July.

The committee is made up of lawyer Gloria Rabyanyana, emeritus professor and architect Bannie Britz, architect Gershon Manana, and chairperson Ciraj Rasool.

The four parties to appeal the decision were the South African Institute of Architects, Herbert Prins and fellow architects, the Parktown and Westcliff Heritage Trust, and city revival champion Neil Fraser and the Johannesburg Heritage Trust.

Legal teams represented the first three, while Fraser represented himself.

Five of the buildings are older than 60 years, therefore requiring a demolition permit from Sahra. Several of the buildings are art deco buildings, while others are unique examples of their architectural style.

The square, part of the proposed Gauteng provincial government precinct, will encompass a street underpass, four skywalks joining buildings, and underground parking. Market Street, between Sauer and Harrison streets, will form part of the square, becoming an underpass, with an entrance in Kort Street and exit after Harrison Street. This will mean that the present four lanes will be reduced to two lanes.

A detailed Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) concluded that the demolition, in particular of nine of the 10 buildings, would represent the loss of a valuable heritage resource. An independent report, compiled by out of town architects Gawie Fagan, Franco Frescura and Nina Maritz came to the same conclusion.

Herbert Prins and architects

Winstanley represented architect Herbert Prins and heritage architects Henry Paine, Lone Poulsen, Marcus Holmes, Mira Fassler-Kamstra and Alan Lipman. She stated that the three-year term of office of the Sahra appeal committee lapsed on 31 March 2006, in terms of the act.

The national minister of arts and culture, Pallo Jordan, had unconstitutionally extended the term of office of the Sahra council by six months, she argued. "The council has therefore not been validly appointed and it has no power in law to mandate the appeals committee which should adjourn this matter until Sahra's institutional arrangement have been regularised."

If PHRAG was hearing the appeals, the decision would lie with the provincial MEC for sports, art, culture and recreation. "If that is the case, then this appeal is improperly constituted and the appeal body has no power in law to hear this matter or consider the appeal."

But, even if this were the case, argued Winstanley, the heritage resources authority only has a commenting function – the decision-maker is rightly the authority specified under the Environment Conservation Act.

Winstanley argued that the appeals committee relied on the HIA and a summary of the socio-economic impact assessment. The former "proposed the re-assessment of the demolition of the nine buildings and a consideration of their adaptive use, as well as advising that serious reconsideration be given to the underpass in Market Street".

As a result, there is "no rational connection between the findings of the heritage impact assessment report and the decision reached by the committee. In those circumstances, it would be competent for a court to set aside such a decision".

Consequently, "the appeal committee should exercise its powers and set aside the committee's decision".

Winstanley also referred to the cultural significance of the buildings: "They display particular characteristics valued by a community or cultural group"; and they "demonstrate a high degree of creative or technical achievement at a particular period". Also, they are important because of "their strong or special association with the life or work of a person of importance in the history of South Africa".

Referring to the legality of the decision, Winstanley said that the committee "did not act independently and free from outside influence". This was compounded by its incorrect view that to balance the interests of heritage resources, conservation and the need for socio-economic transformation, the destruction of the buildings would equal socio-economic transformation.

Concern was expressed that the decision was made on the basis of reading the summaries of the reports only, and not the full report.

Parktown and Westcliff Heritage Trust

Allyson Crutchfield of BK&M Attorneys presenting the heads of argument on behalf of the Parktown and Westcliff Heritage Trust, reiterated points about the illegality of Sahra to act on behalf of PHRAG, the lack of regard of the cultural heritage and historical significance of the buildings, the failure to consider the reports available, and the failure to involve interested parties in the decision-making process.

In referring to destroying memories, Crutchfield stressed that "memories are part of the collective conscious and although it is a natural tendency for people to be selective in what memories they preserve, the city embodies the memories of all citizens, not just a select few. Further wholesale removal of a built precinct does not only remove the bad memories but the good memories too".

She said that heritage resources have lasting value and are "valuable, finite, non-renewable and irreplaceable" and as such they must be "carefully managed to ensure their survival".

In addition, these resources have the "capacity to promote reconciliation, understanding and respect, and contribute to the development of a unifying South African identity". Any decision regarding them must guard against the use of these resources for "sectarian purposes or political gain".

She concluded that the decision should be set aside and costs be awarded to the appellant.

Neil Fraser and the Johannesburg Heritage Trust

Fraser argued that whereas in November 2003 Gauteng premier Mbhazima Shilowa implied in a statement that the provincial square would revive the city centre, the city had "already moved into a positive upswing" and that "considerable progress" had been made since 2000.

He quoted figures for property transfers, the value of property transactions, sectional title transactions, office space occupation, and an improvement of rentals, all of which showed considerable growth.

Fraser then went on to describe how cities across the world were retaining historic facades of buildings and refurbishing the interior of buildings, as opposed to demolishing old buildings. The three independent architects who compiled a report for Sahra, recommended the former.

Fraser questioned whether the demolition would create much-needed public space in the CBD. He argued that the "demolition of these buildings is not going to create additional effective public space". He proposed instead that the retention of the buildings would supply the province with reasonably priced accommodation for NGOs, professionals, day-care and healthcare needs.

"The refurbished and upgraded buildings would contribute to the economic life of the city still paying rates and service charges," he said, adding that the demolition would lead to a loss to the city of around R2-million a year.

He explained, too, that the cost of refurbishing the buildings would be around R300 million, as opposed to the destruction of value of some R500-million if the buildings were demolished.

He questioned the economics of the proposed underpass on Market Street, necessary because the square will be extended southwards of Beyers Naude Square over Market Street. The underpass would condense four lanes of traffic into two lanes underground.

Fraser said the cost of the disruption to the retailers along Market Street, plus the underpinning of buildings along the street, would probably be around R200 million, and was not worth it. It would mean creating "limited additional public space and replacing four lanes of traffic with two, with all these downsides, is nothing short of irresponsible".

He suggests that Market Street be retained as is, and be paved in the same manner as the square, with the street being closed off when the full square space is needed.

Fraser argued, too, that at present the square caters for 16 000 people at a public gathering. He quoted the independent architects as saying that only 12 000 people will be catered for in the future square, assuming everyone wants a view of the total area.

He concluded: "The project will result in the destruction of usable buildings at a current rebuilding value of at least R500-million; it will more than halve the number of traffic lanes and result in less effective public space. We are not exactly getting our money's worth!"

SA Institute of Architects

Lara Grenfell of Cliffe Dekker Inc represented the SA Institute of Architects. She argued that the buildings were part of the "national estate" and should not be dealt with in isolation. In addition, they have cultural significance, and as such, the intrinsic worth of the buildings should be considered. "They are part of the heritage of Johannesburg, and therefore substantive grounds are needed why this should be disregarded."

Grenfell argued that across the world there is a sympathetic approach to what constitutes heritage and therefore what is worth saving. She pointed to the re-use of significant buildings like the Old Fort and the construction of the Constitutional Court. "We need to look sympathetically at the effect of the removal of the buildings."

She also argued that although seven or eight alternative suggestions were proposed, Sahra did not consider these alternatives when making its decision.

Fanuel Motsepe of NOA Architects, the firm that is proposing the new development, said he needed time to respond to the appeals.

Architect Phil Mashabane of Mashabane Rose Associates, the chairperson of the committee that approved the demolitions, countered the arguments by briefly stating that no information had been given as to why the buildings are significant.

Questions from the lawyers to him were disallowed, and Rasool said a decision would be made within 30 days: "Be assured that issues will be thoroughly investigated."

*cough* lol. Anything new happen or did it get cancelled?

Jakes1 knows more about this, but as far as I know, all the fighting about the development and the bureaucracy killed it.

It's a great pity IMO, because I really do think the project could have done wonders to that area leading from the Rissik Street Post Office down to the library.

The project was not well concieved from the beginning. They are looking to retaining all buildings, fixing the existing urban open space. It is a much more workable design. A civil servant area can never be time square. It was a mickey mouse plan and I hated it from the start. Stop with these grand schemes that take forever (or never) to complete. rather do realistic things, fix the area up, and then the dreams will follow.

As far as I have it the precinct will be upgraded, but the demolition of wonderful heritage buildings and the creation of vile theme parked open spaces will not go ahead.

Seems we might have been wrong about the project being canned....
From Neil Fraser's article... http://www.joburg.org.za/content/view/2213/58/

Gauteng city region

The GCRO will undertake and co-ordinate research and benchmarking for the Gauteng city region. This partnership will allow for an independent assessment of the [city region's] impact on poverty, underdevelopment, unemployment and inequality and other key indicators. It will also enable us to more effectively harness the province's intellectual capital to help build a better Gauteng."

That's well and good, but let's have the details of the proposed Gauteng city region. Anyway, according to the media, a significant proportion of that intellectual capital may well be on the move again.

Good news was that the province will be implementing the "G-link (Gauteng link) initiative to provide affordable broadband access to 95 percent of Gauteng's people within the next five years". I'm not sure how that all works out in relation to what each city is planning, though. Again, some clarity is needed.

Nothing was said about "Mashatile's Monorail", but I'm sure that will raise its head again. For me, what was glaringly missing was a report back on the Gauteng provincial government precinct (GPGP).

We'll have to rely on a report in the Saturday Star of 16 February 16, with a misguided headline - "Joburg CBD upgrade ready to roll". What do you think we've been doing for the last 14 years, playing marbles?

It was reported that "after a delay of almost seven years, work ... will finally get under way on Monday, when contractors move on to site". Apparently this will consist of "stripping and dismantling partitions and clearing the buildings which have been standing empty and disintegrating since the provincial government purchased them several years ago".

Goverment precinct

Imagine if it was a private sector developer - seven years. Upgrading will then start in May, with the offices being ready for occupation by December. Phase two of the GPGP will be "the upgrading of pavements and reshaping of Beyers Naude Square and its surroundings". Hallelujah! Flo Bird, of the Parktown and Westcliff Heritage Trust, and I have a date to dance on the rubble of the demolished edge buildings on the north and south boundaries of the square. Right Flo?

Apart from the refurbishing of the heritage buildings and the square, a new 15-storey office block will be built on the open land on the corner of Sauer, Commissioner and Market streets. This R100-million building will house the office of the premier. It will be right opposite the Avril Malan building, which has been dubbed the worst building in the CBD. Bet we now see some action there!

The comment was also made that the province would seek assistance from the private sector for additional parking now that its underground parking building has been scrapped. I don't think so - the private sector is struggling with this issue, the result of poor parking ratios introduced by the public sector itself in the 1960s.

Not a word was said about the Rissik Street Post Office, although that evidently falls under the provincial legislature, but then I thought that Beyers Naude Square did as well. The City has got to use its political muscle to force the legislature to get this building into shape before 2010 - imagine taking Pommy visitors around the city and telling them that the decayed building was once our city's main post office and that under the giant condom on the clock tower were once housed miniature Big Ben bells, presented to us by the City of London, which have been stolen and melted down. Mind you, Pommy soccer lads are probably more interested in condoms than bells!

I see in the premier's address he talked about a campaign of naming and shaming those who did not change to energy efficient globes and switch off lights and appliances at night and when not in use. It is also time to name and shame those that are allowing our heritage assets to disappear (or callously removing them as was done by Imperial).

sounds great - It was obviously revised, and adapted. The first round was a bit themeparky.

woopie newtown part 2

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b143/hsark5/PPPQ14_1.jpg


I really liked this concept.

I Found this image/render on the Stefan Antoni Olmesdahl Truen Architects site... (which i'm prity sure is a South African architecture firm)... It's name ....Kopangong... I'm not 100% certain that this is the proposed 15F office block.....

http://www.saota.com/Images/Kopanong_intro.jpg

It looks suspiciously like what was the Standard Bank tower. Anyone able to confirm what this is please?

They seem to be doing a retake of the Standard Bank building. That's definitely not a new building, and the old Standard Bank building (which i love) is part of the precinct.

Check out the plan here... http://www.architectafrica.com/images1/bin9/heritagesquare_big.jpg

that's what I expected, however, are the other buildings in the precinct, like the Standard Bank tower, going to be "modernised", as this image perhaps suggests, or are they going to be left alone.

They seem to be doing a retake of the Standard Bank building. That's definitely not a new building, and the old Standard Bank building (which i love) is part of the precinct.

Check out the plan here... http://www.architectafrica.com/images1/bin9/heritagesquare_big.jpg

It used to be Standard Bank's building but as far as I know Standard Bank has moved out of that building. That modification will be nice for that building.

It is the old Standard Bank building - and now one of the Gauteng provincial agencies occupy the building. It is an amazing building (IMO) and hopefully it will get a bit of a spruce-up.

I Found this image/render on the Stefan Antoni Olmesdahl Truen Architects site... (which i'm prity sure is a South African architecture firm) thats correct i worked for them for a bit a few years back they've got some amazing designs for highrise buildings but most of thoses are international ,the south african stuff are houses and low-rise commerical buildings

thanks 'Joburg'. like the plans
http://www.architectafrica.com/images1/bin9/heritagesquare_big.jpg

I don't think that these are the revised plans. Tom can you confirm?

yup thoses were the old ones which first came out i had a chance to attend a lecture about the new development the architects came over had shoulded us there plan and ideas

i had a chance to attend a lecture about the new development the architects came over had shoulded us there plan and ideas


Where can we get these plans?? :) And are the new architects Stefan Antoni? Or still Motsepe?

Had a look on the Motsepe website, no new developments or news updates concerning there involvement.... not much help I was then..... However here is the link to the project page just for interest.

http://www.motsepearchitects.co.za/AGCEP/larg012.png

Thanks KomSakkie.. they have some interesting looking projects on the go. The link you posted above appears to be for the 'African Gateway Convention and Entertainment Precinct' in Centurion - wonder what this is?

Also look at the 'Botswana Serviced Accommodation' in Gabarone.

I know Motsepe was involved in the Motlotlo House extension, which is in the government precinct. It's a fabulously dramatic domed building - totally hidden in the city!

Ahh.. Sorry, it was meant to be the goverment precict link.

Between 17 and 19 buildings are currently being revamped. If anyone can post the re-desing of this precinct that will be appriciated.

Are there any other buildings which will be developed for the square?

http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g160/amgosai/Puzela/P1150297.jpg

woohoo managed! to upload 1 pic :banana:

^^ lol, you should have turned it around DB.

Is this project going ahead. this whole thing really confuses me:(

It confuses me also but if I'm not mistaken, the proposed Square is not gonna be constrcuted but the GPG buildings themselves are gonna be renovated. So it still puzzles me on why they call it a precinct, may be someone can explain it better.

^^haha, Maybe they building an awsome square/precinct secretly and we will only find out when its done

/well we can dream.

It confuses me also but if I'm not mistaken, the proposed Square is not gonna be constrcuted but the GPG buildings themselves are gonna be renovated. So it still puzzles me on why they call it a precinct, may be someone can explain it better.

I am so glad the precinct did not go ahead! It was kitch, ill-concieved and it would have destroyed a large part of the city's heritage. The "precinct" will be the same as newtown, Main street or the shopping precinct. Artwork will link the buildings. The Square will be cleaned up and redeveloped. And all of the building that were about to be demolished will be renovated! They are currently renovating at least 7 buildings that I know of. All of them face the square, or they are close to it.

I am so glad the precinct did not go ahead! It was kitch, ill-concieved and it would have destroyed a large part of the city's heritage. The "precinct" will be the same as newtown, Main street or the shopping precinct. Artwork will link the buildings. The Square will be cleaned up and redeveloped. And all of the building that were about to be demolished will be renovated! They are currently renovating at least 7 buildings that I know of. All of them face the square, or they are close to it.

Ah that's cool. When will they start with cleaning and redeveloping the square?

Last time I passed this one, it seemed like they were busy with some interior renovations. It would be nice if they still continue with this extirior.

http://www.stefanantoni.co.za/Images/Kopanong_intro.jpg

^^ lol, you should have turned it around DB.

:doh: photobucket did it......it wasnt me

http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g160/amgosai/Puzela/P1150295.jpg

It's ok DB...lol

http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f119/Puleza/P1180548.jpg

http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f119/Puleza/P1180560.jpg

http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f119/Puleza/P1180551.jpg

http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f119/Puleza/P1180524.jpg

http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f119/Puleza/P1180547.jpg

^^ Looks like that building is getting three floors added to it

http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f119/Puleza/P1180548.jpg

http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f119/Puleza/P1180560.jpg

http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f119/Puleza/P1180551.jpg

Hello Guys,
I have no idea how to post pictures, but please see my report to the PRAH regarding the Kopanong F@@K up in johannesburg cental.
Yet again our heritage is being destroyed! this time its not even by a big corporate, its our very own provincial government. when will this stop?

Please see the attached Photographs of The New Library Hotel, The Rand Water Building and The First National Bank Building.

I spoke to Herbert on Friday, he has already raised the issue of the demolition of the Edoardo Villa Panels. I will not go into this again, other than that to add that from my investigation on site nobody seems aware of the location of these panes. I would imagine that they have simply been demolished and discarded. Very unfortunate. There are now boards up on site which indicate an architect who is apparently in charge of the building. I will try again to contact the architect tomorrow as I did not have much luck on Friday.
The name of the practice responsible does not come to mind now, but they certainly are not a large or renowned firm - I have never heard of them.

<image002.jpg><image003.jpg><image004.jpg>
Details of the site and the remaining ground floor infill walls stripped of the Edoardo Villa panels.

The New Library Hotel has been stripped down virtually just to the bare structure. This building is protected under the National Heritage Resources act 34 (1) of 1999.

<image005.jpg>

The Rand Water Building is also undergoing 'renovations'

This building by Gordon Leith was completed in 1941, making it a Section 34(1) protected building.
Clive Chipkin in his book, Johannesburg style commends the building ''I regard it as a major statement of street architecture, unsurpassed in the Johannesburg landscape.''
Dr JJ Bruwer in his report fotr the Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality notes exemplary aspects in the building as :-
The Marble floor and marble lining in the lobby and entrance hall. Also mentioned are the panelled walls and wood block floors in the offices.

As I am aware this is a very important building as was recommended at some stage for national monument status if I remember correctly.

I could not gain access to the building but it looks as though the interior has been completely gutted. Also some of the external windows have been removed.
Apparently no heritage assessment was undertaken prior to the current 'renovations' commencing on the buildin

Dear Sydney Shiba Architects,

Please advise whether a permit has been issued for the apparently illegal work being carried out on the FNB Building, at the corner of Market and Simmonds Streets, Johannesburg Central.
As I am sure you are aware, the First National Bank Building, on which your company is working, was afforded provisional heritage protection; and thus, permission for any changes to the building needs to be granted by the relevant heritage authority. The photographs attached show what is left of panels by the South African artist Eduardo Villa, which appear to have been destroyed.
Please advise on the current location of these panels - as they are an irreplaceable, protected artwork. I would assume that they have been carefully documented, placed in storage for safekeeping and will be reinstated once the renovation of this building is complete.

Destruction of a Heritage resource is a criminal offence. The destruction of these panels would be very sad indeed and a great loss to our city.

Brian McKechnie

Please see the attached photographs of the First National Bank Building, Johannesburg Central, as during our telephonic conversation you seemed unaware of where these artworks had been placed on your building.
Brian.K is online now Report Post Edit/Delete Message

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_gWFx8ixB-YM/SqTikJ0B9hI/AAAAAAAADWs/9OfGogYXN-E/s1600/7%2BSeptember%2B2009%2B%2B336.jpg

Glass panel things going up in Beyers Naude. From http://www.jhbdaily.blogspot.com/

Saw that one last week friday but couldn't stop to take a pic as I was late already. It's dissapointing thet they never removed those bricks which forms part of paving and replce them with the bigger once. I hope they will wash them frequently but the square is nice.

Theres an article in the Property Magazine about Jakupa architects.
They mention something about a government precinct.

I'll check again.

http://i653.photobucket.com/albums/uu258/Onkez/KopanongGautengGovernmentPrecinct.jpg http://i653.photobucket.com/albums/uu258/Onkez/KopanongGautengGovernmentPrecinct1.jpg http://i653.photobucket.com/albums/uu258/Onkez/KopanongGautengGovernmentPrecinct2.jpg http://i653.photobucket.com/albums/uu258/Onkez/KopanongGautengGovernmentPrecinct3.jpg

Guys, any news on what is going on here? I walked past all of the buildings. Customs house has all its windows replaced, but the ground floor was empty (no builders). Same with Library and the Rand Water building. 69 President feels quiet too. It is clear that work is happening, with scaffolding and construction cranes (at FNB House and 69 President). But I did not see one worker.

Why?