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
