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

Architects, Green buildings and Climate Change

(This Article first appeared in The (Easter Cape) Herald on 22 November 2011)
Climate change is a serious threat to our continued success as a species on this planet.
Thankfully though, we have now developed the global consensus that continuously growing human consumption and destruction are a cause for urgent concern.
Much of this continuous growth and destruction expresses itself in what we call the “built environment” The UN Environmental Programme (UNEP) tells us that buildings through their life time consume 48% of all the energy consumed on this planet in any given year. That’s a lot!
This energy is consumed during the manufacture of construction materials, the transport of these materials, the construction process, lighting the building, heating the building, cooling the building, cleaning the building, ventilating and eventually demolishing the building and carting away the rubble.
But the UNEP also tells us that good news is that buildings (compared to manufacturing, transport and others) require the least amount of cost to release the greatest impact on limiting green house gasses.
More good news is that in South Africa, Architects and other built environment designers are very well informed of the strategies that are to be employed to transform the built environment. The strategies involve creatively and innovatively addressing aspects including the following:
  • Passive heating
  • Orientation
  • Passive cooling
  • Rainwater harvesting
  • Grey water harvesting
  • Water saving
  • Promoting biodiversity
  • Local building materials
  • Public transport
  • Embodied energy in Building materials
These strategies are not new. We just now, for the first time since the industrial revolution seem to have the collective will to do something about it and to change the way we build.
Clearly, changing the way we build and employing the strategies that we know need to be employed will require innovation, design leadership and creativity.
We are therefore very fortunate that we do not live in Somalia or Southern Sudan, because in South Africa we have access to the professionals able to provide top quality innovation, design leadership and creativity.
So, what are we saying?
  • Climate Change is a big Problem
  • Buildings are the biggest culprit in this problem
  • Building Industry urgently requires increased levels of innovation, leadership, design and creativity
  • The skill set is in fact already available and ready to be mobilised.
So, what then is the problem?
The problem is that we have adopted public and corporate institutional arrangements that are unable to effectively mobilise that skill to address the challenge. In fact, at a time when we are to rely even more heavily than ever before on our Architects, innovators and designers, we have been caught up in the systematic “commoditisation” of this critical form of leadership.
In both the private and public sector, we have become increasingly obsessed with standardising procurement and “supply chain management” issues. We insist that we procure the services of an Architect to innovate new solutions for the built environment in the same way as we procure toilet paper, grass cutting services or a fleet of refuse trucks. It’s crazy! What results from this standardised procurement practice where “cost is king”, is that the services of the Architect become progressively cheaper and cheaper. The cheaper the product, the poorer the service. Simple!
We are currently doing some work in a city called Chengdu in Central West china.
From our Port Elizabeth office, Architects trained at NMMU and nurtured on the Port Elizabeth design community are doing excellent work designing innovative green buildings in a country where we hear that they plan to build 800 new cities in the next twenty years!
But why are our company’s skills and the skills of hundreds or American and European firms in such demand in China? Not because we are cheaper, not because we are faster, not because we are more compliant than the thousands of Chinese architects. No. It is because we offer innovation, creativity and design leadership. The qualities that could have been abundant among Chinese Architects, if not for the wave of aggressive cost cutting, and “industrial efficiency” that became so widespread during the years of China’s construction boom.
China’s Architects and designers are now very cheap, very fast and completely compliant, but unable to live up to the expectations of the increasingly discerning Chinese private or public sector property developer. So, the developer turns to the “West” .Very sad.
But, it’s not too late for us. We can learn from these errors South Africa still has a very strong community of Architects and other designers focussed on excellence and committed to a better built environment.
So what must we do? What action must we take?
Can I suggest the following?
  • Architects: Can we please snap out of our silly obsession with fashion, Top Billing and playing to the whims of the super-rich and corporate gluttons. There is serious work to be done. We need to save the planet!
  • Public and Corporate developers: Can you please make peace with the fact that most of the innovation, thinking and leadership you require to “green” you property portfolio will actually come from outside your institutions from private firms of Architects and other designers. (And yes you have to set up a process more sophisticated than the ones designed to buy pencils and toilet paper to get the best out of these firms)
If we build green buildings we can save the planet. It’s as simple and as dramatic as that . Failure is not an option. We must succeed!

Think Local and create jobs.

(I wrote this article for Port Elizabeth’s daily newspaper, The Herald, it first appeared there on 20 June 2011)
The other day I went to watch our local rugby team play at our local stadium. Some local friends and I have taken a suite at the stadium to support the local economy. So, there I was, drinking some local beer and having a good time. At half time we were brought a meal to help soak up some of the alcohol. After complimenting the waitress on the meal, I was horrified as she explained that the Thai Chicken dinner had in fact been pre-cooked in Cape Town and brought in by truck up the N2 that morning. Come On! Could this be?
This meal was creating employment for someone in a Cape Town factory kitchen? What are we thinking? No, I am not picking on the stadium management. I am sure they are doing a great job. I am picking on us, all of us who live here and who need to develop an awareness that we need to support and grow our local economy. This is where jobs and poverty reduction will come from. It is unfashionable to say this I know, but we must come to see that it is more urgent for us to take action against poverty than against global warming. We must come to see that is more urgent for us to address the local economy than to address Rhino poaching. If we allow this poverty time bomb to explode, it will take out every Rhino, every Elephant, every forest and everything that this country has built up over the centuries. It’s urgent!
I had forgotten about my Cape Town cooked rugby meal by the time the May 18 local government elections came around. But, as I listened to the campaigning, I was struck by how few ideas at all were put forward about issues impacting on the local economy. All I got was a lot of hype about killing Boers, media bias, open toilets and police brutality.
I heard no-one, contesting these elections, articulate any understanding of the challenges facing the local economy. This is odd, because local government can and should play a pivotal role in leading us out of poverty and joblessness. We must, of course, be informed by policy developed at a national or provincial level, but our strategy and tactics need to be made completely relevant to the local economy. It is not clear to me from anything I have heard from local government, what our strategy and tactics are. It seems though, that we have developed the idea that we need “outside investment” or an “export programme” to get our local economy to work. We seem to believe that we need GM to get deals that see’s it export more Hummers to Kazakhstan, or that we need to build an IDZ so we can export Aluminium to Argentinean cooldrink can fabricators! We have come to think that we will be rescued by big investment from “outside”. We believe that somehow these actions will make the poor less poor. I am sorry to say, our thinking is mistaken. In order for us to reduce poverty and create jobs, we desperately need to focus on not only on getting new money to come in, but also on how we ensure that he money that is generated here remains for as long as possible. We must work to ensure that money circulates locally as many times as possible before it vanishes to the coffers of transnational corporations in Johannesburg, Hong Kong or London. This is the challenge that our small city is facing. It is not the same as the challenges that Cape Town, Durban or Dubai are faced with. It is our own challenge. It is a distinctly local challenge and in desperate need of local thinking and local leadership.
Each of you reading this will know how in your homes and in your jobs illogical purchasing decisions are being made all the time. As transnational corporations work harder and harder to expand their global reach, we find ourselves making more and more stupid decisions. We buy Irish butter , we get our takeaway from an American hamburger chain, our cars, even those made in the metro, are in some way part of a scheme to enrich a German or Japanese corporation. We watch foreign TV. We listen to American music. Every time we purchase from these transnational corporations we are taking away from the local economy, we take away from local culture, we damage the environment through waist, emissions and packaging. But what can we do?
Perhaps the first step we must all take is to help each other understand that “localisation” (not Globalisation) of the economy is: Good for the environment, Good for job creation, Good for quality, Good for well-being. Maybe the second step could be to build consciousness through our purchasing decisions. We could buy milk from a local dairy. We could support local restaurants (avoid the chains) We could switch off the TV, watch Bay United or the EP Kings at our local stadiums. We could catch a show at the Opera House. We could buy our food at a farmer’s market. We could start a farmers market! We could grow our own food. We could sell our own food. ….I don’t know. There must be a million things we can do to localise our economy. Let’s choose one, and do it today. It’s Urgent.

Can families root out Poverty?

This piece first appeared inThe Herald (Port Elizabeth) on 8 December 2010.
Nguni Matroos, the one armed geriatric Tsistikama farmer,…an inspiration!

Minister Ebrahim Pattel proposes that the salaries of the rich are frozen. While it is easy to see how this move would score points with the labour movement, the Minister has not argued how this limitation will address the challenge of poverty. We speak a lot about poverty in South Africa.y, rural poverty, “endemic poverty”, “entrenched poverty”. In talking, we have almost abstracted poverty; elevated to the status of an issue. Something requiring the world’s attention like global warming or rain forests. But how much do we really know about poverty? We think we know what poverty is. Surely the answer is obvious. But is it? South Africa like other developing countries are today the front-line, we are at the battlefront of the war against poverty. Here, poverty is real, tangible and palpable. This is not the case in Japan, New Zealand or Sweden.  Our friends in those countries can be forgiven for assuming and arms length theoretical view of poverty. But for us in Africa, we have got to develop an understanding of poverty useful  enough, to use to take action. Poverty is a problem effecting real people with real lives. I have slowly begun to grasp that we often think of poverty as the “inability to consume”. We think that poverty is simply that we haven’t got enough stuff or the money to buy stuff. But I wonder if it would not be better to understand the “inability to consume” rather as the symptom of the problem we are trying to solve. Would it not be more useful for us to see that it is the continued inability to produce and be productive that is the root of poverty?

Much of poverty is caused by ordinary people being robbed of their ability to be productive.  This robbery has been carried out in the name of colonialism, apartheid, crime or capitalism. Government’s welfare and housing programme’s are addressing the fallout from the robbery. They are to be applauded for this effort. But, does a social grant and an RDP house stop poverty? Is a poor woman still poor the day after she moves into her new RDP house? Yes. Of course. She is simply a poor person sleeping under and asbestos roof.  For us to take this woman out of poverty, we need to find out what stands in the way of her being productive. This is where it becomes difficult for government. It is impossible for government to go door to door, intervening at a household level . Government is doing what governments must do. Government have cemented our macro economic fundamentals and they have put in place safety nets for those that are too sick, too old or too young to look after themselves.
So if the institution of government cannot root out poverty at the household level, which institution can? This is where I propose, for discussion, that we do not overlook the family as an “institution”. The family institution has real power and it has broad reach. A family has the ability to identify those of its members who are victims of poverty. If it is not your sister, it may be your cousin, if it not your cousin it may be your second cousin. Extend definition outward from the core as far as you need to find a member trapped in poverty. Once we find this person, I suggest we get personally involved; understanding what obstacles this member faces to being productive. Remember we are trying to help this person to take the first step out of poverty. To earn even R1000.00 a month may revolutionise this family member’s life. What blockages stand in the way of your family member growing chickens? Selling firewood? Making vetkoek?  Mending dresses?  Painting houses? Growing pumpkins? Washing sheets? Baking Bread?  Don’t be cynical or patronising. Remember obstacles that may seem small to you could seem insurmountable to them. Once you agree on the project, help unblock the blockages. It may require a small cash loan, it may require some advice, it may need you to assist with an alcohol addiction, you may need to fence in the chickens to keep the neighbours dogs out. Each situation will be different, but know that you are the best placed person to help. One by one, family by family poverty slowly begins to withdraw to be replaced by a generation of productive, efficient and competitive families.
Could this be the path we should walk? Let us discuss it.