Proposed Development of the Lutheran Church Block, Stand Street
Vassa was asked by the CoCT SPELUM Committee to comment on a proposal made to develop the building currently housing Mike’s Sports.
The architects presented the project to the committee and VASSA members on Tuesday 08 March at an urgently convened meeting. Based on this and further information gathered, the Society’s comment was formulated and submitted to SPELUM. See below.
For your interest: Links to some articles about the proposal:
1 http://www.iolproperty.co.za/roller/news/entry/planned_development_highlights_holes_in
2 http://www.iolproperty.co.za/roller/news/entry/heritage_value_of_historical_lutheran
3 http://www.iolproperty.co.za/roller/news/entry/cape_town_project_poses_threat
4 http://nuwegeskiedenis.co.za/ontwikkeling-vir-ou-lutherse-kompleks-krap-mense-om/
5 http://nuwegeskiedenis.co.za/historiese-lutherse-kerkkompleks-in-kaapstad-in-gevaar/
6 http://nuwegeskiedenis.co.za/moderne-ontwikkeling-reeds-by-historiese-lutherse-kerkkompleks/
Ban the Building petition
Hans Fransen spearheaded a petition by concerned citizens objecting to the planned multi-storey building adjoining the Lutheran complex, and also submitted the petition to SPELUM.
SAVE OUR HERITAGE
‘’We feel the Cape Town public should be alerted to the worst threat to its built heritage for many decades.
The threatened heritage is the city’s finest and best preserved 18th century complex comprising the Lutheran Church in Stand St and the adjoiningtwo double-storey houses: the former Lutheran Parsonage and its Sexton’s House, better known as the Martin Melck House (now the Gold Museum).
Adjoining these buildings is an elongated former warehouse, also well over two centuries old.
The threat is the proposed erection of a four-story building resting on the warehouse, while the latter will be converted into a parking garage …
It will be remembered how a proposed fly-over bridge over Buitengragt some 30 years ago rightly caused a public outcry because it would affect the same heritage group. Yet this time around, the proposed development somehow received approval, while being allowed to remain out of public scrutiny.
It has now been publicised and is starting to receive considerable flak from conservation bodies, ratepayers and interested individuals.’’ Signed: Sheryl Ozinsky, Dr Barry Smith, Dr Hans Fransen
Cape Times: Tuesday, March 8 2011
VASSA’s Comment
Wednesday, March 23 2011
The Chairman
Spatial Planning, Environmental and Land Use Management Committee
City of Cape Town Administration, Civic Centre,
Hertzog Boulevard, Cape Town, 8001
Dear Sir/Madam
COMMENT ON ITEM 200510 (FILE REF LM5567): APPLICATION FOR CONSENT: ERF 174009, CNR STRAND AND BREE STREETS, CAPE TOWN
This letter of comment is in response to a request for comment by SPELUM, communicated by the applicant (refer ITEM NO SPEL 18/02/11; P.910 of document pack) on their behalf.
We note for record-keeping purposes that the request to comment was a verbal request, followed by an ordinary post letter, not postmarked, sent to our post box at Vlaeberg Post Office, Cape Town. Despite the lack of registered post delivery, we are proceeding in good faith to issue our comment within 30 days of receipt of the ordinary post letter. The letter was retrieved on 25 February. Thirty days from that date is 28 March. This letter is thus lodged within the notice period.
Thank you for requesting comment from the Vernacular Architecture Society of South Africa on this matter. We regard it as a matter of national interest, despite the technicalities of heritage grading or lack thereof on the constituent parts of the block affected by the proposal. As a Society with a specific interest in the conservation and preservation of our Vernacular Architectural Heritage, we believe this development proposal to be firmly located within that ambit and therefore feel qualified to comment.
From the outset it should be noted that we fully acknowledge that conservation goes hand-in-hand with adaptive re-use. No city or country (and particularly our own) can afford to fossilise every historical building of note. However, the challenge rests in how one achieves this without compromising opposing interests to a point of negation of one or the other. With this as a point of departure, we comment as follows:
1 Background
1.1 The Application before SPELUM
SPELUM is considering an application for “Consent to permit work in a declared Urban Conservation Area” (the Central City Conservation Area) in terms of section 108 of the Zoning Scheme Regulations.
Section 108 of the Zoning Scheme (2007) relates to Urban Conservation Areas. Section 1(iii) of the section is of particular reference here:
(iii) the Council shall not give its special consent in respect of subparagraphs (i) and (ii) if such demolition, erection, alteration, felling or uprooting or causing to destroy (as the case may be) will be detrimental to the protection and/or maintenance of the architectural, aesthetic and/or historical significance, as the case may be, of the area in which such erection, alteration, felling, uprooting or causing to destroy is proposed.
This subsection explicitly requires that the context in which a proposal is situated must be considered in deciding the matter. The site is surrounded by a range of historically, architecturally and aesthetically significant buildings and public spaces illustrating different periods within the history of Cape Town and South Africa.
Section 108 (1)iii requires the Committee to consider the context within which the proposal is located, not just the erf on which development is proposed.
Thus, the input of the Urban Design Section of the City Administration (see p914 of the document pack) should be given equal weight with that of Heritage Resources in this case. We urge the Committee to consider the intact block, albeit now over-shadowed in adjacent street blocks, rather than just the warehouse site in making this decision.
In this case, it is the contribution of the warehouse site in its current two-storied form to the whole block and the pedestrianised section of Waterkant St that it abuts onto, that is the primary concern to the area in which the addition is proposed, rather than the warehouse’s remaining intrinsic conservation-worthiness.
1.2 The Design proposal
The proposal is to restore and put to new use the existing C18th warehouse building, replace the roof with a trafficable concrete slab (to be used as a parking deck), and construct a new four-storey office block above the north-eastern portion of the existing building at the corner of Bree and Waterkant Streets.
In constructing the new building, eight columns will need to be sunk into the erf. Of these, three will be located within the portion of the site identified by Fagan Architects as having the most intact C18th building fabric.
The archaeological impact of these column foundations on any archaeological deposit that may lie below the C18th building floor is not discussed in any detail in the HIA, yet a monitoring brief (12.4 in the HIA) is recommended as a condition of approval of the development.
2 Procedural issues
2.1 HWC Authorisation process
According to the HIA (p915 of SPELUM document pack; p2 of HIA), the Notice of Intent to Develop outlined a required study for the site that included consultation of the Cape Institute for Architecture’s Heritage Committee and officials of the City Council’s Heritage Resources Section. This was endorsed by HWC’ s BELComm on 17 September 2009. Thus, HWC was at this early stage aware of the limited consultation proposed and did not require more representative consultation.
The HWC Record of Decision was issued with only very limited consultation. In a matter that includes issues of concern not only in the domain of architects but also of a broader audience of cultural historians and the public at large, they decided on the matter with limited disciplinary input from civil society.
A broad spectrum of interested parties and concerned citizens must be forgiven for coming to the conclusion that there was an underlying intent to keep the proposal ‘under wraps’ for as long as possible and to confine the public phase of consultation to the shortest possible period. If this assumption has merit, then it has ethical implications which perhaps do not reflect kindly on the process of consultation.
While the report tabled to SPELUM cites as a reason to recommend the matter for approval (12.3, p.916 of documentation pack) that “relevant heritage authorities have offered no objection to the application”, it is submitted that HWC’s decision did not include broad enough consultation to be considered representative and thus is a procedurally flawed decision.
2.2 Consultation paucity identified by City’s Manager: Heritage Resources
We welcome the Committee’s responsible and accountable response to the concerns raised by the Manager: Heritage Resources, as this has opened a matter of at very least local heritage importance, but (given the resonance C18th history and its artefacts has for South African history) quite reasonably national heritage significance.
2.3 Issues of jurisdiction
When HWC was established in terms of the National Heritage Resources Act (Act 25 of 1999) – NHRA, the then National Monuments administered by SAHRA were transferred to HWC’s jurisdiction, with the implied responsibility for HWC to re-assess, re-grade and declare both Grade 1 and Grade 2 Heritage Resources.
This has not happened and so we are in the limbo state where sites of national heritage significance, such as the Lutheran Church, Sexton’s house and Martin Melck House, are de facto Grade 2 resources because of HWC’s failure to fulfill this responsibility. Before any further development can be allowed on this site, this issue should be resolved by HWC and SAHRA.
There is precedent (Waenhuiskrans, Kassiesbaai, Bokaap) for SAHRA Western Cape to administer sites of national significance as if they have been declared Grade 1 sites. Surely then, they should have been consulted in this matter?
3 Architectural, urban design and conservation implications
3.1 Significance, conservation and interpretation
The four surviving C18th buildings form a “complex” taking up more than half of the city block bounded by Strand, Buitengracht, Waterkant and Bree Streets. While the other, later buildings (Martin Luther House (c1955) and Free World Coatings (originally “Swan Building” (1964), newly remodelled) within this block are not architectural gems, they conform in the main, in bulk and scale, with the older buildings and so provide a fairly neutral foil for the Lutheran complex and warehouse. Dates quoted are from Rennie (1978:11)
The unique architectural and historic value of the Lutheran complex of buildings comprising the Lutheran Church, the old Lutheran Parsonage (Gold of Africa Museum) and the Lutheran House (Netherland’s Consulate General) has been noted since the 1977/78 study commissioned by the Cape Institute for Architecture (Rennie 1978).
John Rennie’s entry in The Buildings of Central Cape Town Vol. 2 (Rennie 1978:11) notes that, even then, there had been “much interior re-structuring with concrete beams and floors replacing previous timber”.
He refers the reader to the “Cape Provincial Institute of Architects Urban Vigilance Committee report to National Monuments Council (February 1977)”, indicating that the site was perceived to be under threat at the time.
Martin Melck House has been a National Monument (now a Provincial Heritage Site) since 1936, while the church and Sexton’s House have had the same status since 1949.
The four buildings mentioned here are accorded “Category 1” status in The Buildings of Central Cape Town Vol. 1 (Rennie 1978:47). In a grading system less nuanced than the one currently used, this category indicated buildings of “national or local importance”. What is significant to note is that this category was based on what is now termed intrinsic significance, coupled with associational, historical significance and was generally accorded to buildings worthy of National Monument status.
As recently as 2004, while revising his Old Buildings of the Cape, Dr Hans Fransen wrote “[The Martin Melck House] is one of a group of three (if no.94 is included, four) 18th-century buildings in Strand Street that is of unique value to Cape Town.” And: “Even today the Lutheran group manages to dominate the upper half of Strand Street, in the face of modern buildings many times its size” He has more recently (Fransen, pers.comm) added “I think that what I wrote there about the group, seven years ago, can still stand as entirely valid”.
The block is described as “unique in the City” in the SPELUM document pack (p.912). “Uniqueness” is, in terms of the NHRA, grounds for high heritage significance. In site of high significance, a “no development” option is reserved. In this case, it is felt that this should have been exercised. It is thus not a matter of how additions are designed, but of whether they should be considered at all.
The Strand Street side is an almost intact historical façade and the Bree Street edge is formed by the modified façade of the old VOC Corn Store which is still worthy of conservation for its scale and the items of historical value intact within its interior. The proposed scheme is admirable in its architectural sensitivity towards the Strand Street elevation of the city block. While the scale of the buildings forming the Waterkant Street edge relate well to the buildings opposite (circa 1800’s) which are worthy of conservation in their own right, the proposal before us will devastate the Waterkant Street streetscape.
Waterkant Street marks an important boundary between old Cape Dutch architecture on the Lutheran city block and Victorian architecture on the other side of the street. This is visual history and interpretation of great value to the public experience of the history of Cape Town as its links two important eras of Cape Town’s history, allowing a street experience largely unchanged since the C19th and one that used to be typical of Cape Town’s built environment. While the two sides of Waterkant Street differ in architectural language, they are unified in scale and therefore the historical connection remains evident. The proposed structure would render this historical connection insignificant, amounting to a great loss for the City.
3.2 Visual impact
Waterkant Street between Loop Street and Buitengracht contains some of Cape Town’s best-preserved rows of Victorian commercial architecture. This holds especially true for the seaside stretch between Bree Street and Buitengracht where it faces the contemporary developments to the rear of the Lutheran Church. Even though these were built in 1955 and 1963 (and both remodelled very recently), they were kept to the same scale as their Victorian neighbours, thus preserving the spatial feel of both Cape Dutch and Victorian Cape Town in this street block.
This unique sense of place is very evident whenever one emerges from the over-bulked lower reaches of downtown Waterkant Street. From here one moves into the open streetscapes made possible by the low architecture of the Lutheran block and its neighbours in this area. In this precinct the sky is dominant and the proportionate height of the VOC warehouse to the width of the streets renders the streetscape recognisably similar to old photographs and paintings of the area. This stretch of low-scale buildings extends for 2,5 blocks along both sides of Waterkant Street from below Long Street up to Buitengracht. Unfortunately the proposed development sits right in the middle of this stretch and will ruin the continuity of this special streetscape.
Recent modern developments in Cape Town have generally allowed for generous setbacks so that the modern additions are subservient to historical buildings at their base and much less apparent (if not invisible) from street-level.
However in the proposal before us a seven to eight storey building is envisaged on the Waterkant, Bree Street corner with no setbacks from the corner’s site boundaries to provide any sense of relief. As a consequence, the proposed office block would effectively loom over the Bree and Waterkant Street corner and destroy one of the last remaining corners where old central Cape Town still retains its Cape Dutch scale of streetscape. The proposed corner building will dominate all historical buildings in the immediate vicinity.
The proposed building is also not designed to blend in with, or provide a backdrop to its historical neighbours. Instead the building draws attention to itself with its elevated volume, strong horizontal window bands, modern cladding and wilful diagonally sliced end. In fact the design in itself takes on a dated 1970’s appearance in contrast with the almost timeless simplicity of the historical complex on which it rests at this point.
The sloping facade is also not in keeping with other tower blocks in the area. While the Heritage Resources Branch’s motivation of their support of this feature (p.914 of the document pack) argues for mitigating visual impact with it, the Urban Design Branch’s comment is the more strictly urban-scaled interpretation and, referring back to subsection 1(iii) of Section 108, should be accorded the greater weight as an argument as it more closely adheres to the requirement of that section: to consider the area (context) within the Urban Conservation Area in which the development is proposed.
Since the recent and widely acclaimed pedestrianisation of Waterkant Street, this street has become one of Cape Town’s most important circulation routes both for residents and tourists alike. It is therefore incomprehensible that such an overpowering addition can be envisaged in such a historically sensitive location. It can therefore safely be concluded that architecturally the end result of the proposal provides an inadequate solution to accommodating the owner/developer’s rights.
The unsympathetic and dramatic effect of juxtaposing buildings of different mass and scale immediately alongside each other have been amply exemplified for us in the case of Marie Koopmans De Wet House which stands in uncomfortable, overwhelmed contrast with its neighbours. This too is a visual impact. At present, however, all the block’s tall neighbours are removed from it by a street width. The proposal will bring the same height and bulk right into the block. In particular, the effect on the experience of the Gold Museum courtyard will become much like the experience of the Koopmans De Wet House courtyard, dramatically reducing its interpretative value as an extant example of the secluded urban courtyard of c18th Cape Town.
3.3 Bulk and scale in the immediate context
Like the fabric that formed the basis for the Heritage Square development, the Lutheran city block is remarkably intact and much of its heritage value derives from the fact that the block as a whole still retains its historical scale
The proposals before us reflect extensive alterations that radically change the essence of the old buildings with only a limited concession to restoration and conservation.
The proposed building which rises some twenty meters above the roof of the VOC warehouse will permanently alter the scale and fabric of the aforementioned block. This will detract from the cohesive integrity of buildings (both historical and contemporary, and which happily co-exist) currently occupying this block. The presence or planned development of tower buildings on neighbouring city blocks cannot therefore be offered as relevant supportive evidence in favour of the proposal for the Lutheran city block.
4 Conclusion
This matter has raised a series of concerns for VASSA. These have been grouped above as procedural and architectural, urban design and conservation issues.
The procedural issues are, in part, also systematic problems that must be addressed by authorities at a scale greater than this application, but have led to this matter going this far without broader consultation.
That the site has not been re-graded and declared since HWC was mandated to do so over nine years ago means that HWC and SAHRA have failed the South African public it is supposed to serve. If HWC has not fulfilled the mandate that was delegated to it, surely the NHRA empowers SAHRA to revoke the delegation of powers?
If the block were graded as being of national significance, a significance it holds in public perception, this debate would have a very different timbre. It would make sense both intuitively (as it does to the public) and administratively to exercise the “no further development” option for this site.
Our position, as the subcommittee mandated by the VASSA Chairperson to workshop this response, has been informed by a presentation from the architects and heritage practitioner and reading of SPELUM documentation and other existing literature on the site.
This committee is of the opinion that, immaterial of the great skill of the architects involved, or the merits of otherwise of the proposal, this block should be preserved, not conserved.
This block is of sufficient heritage significance by virtue of the four C18th buildings, which together present, in one block, a representative range of 18th-century Cape Town architecture – ecclesiastic, domestic and utilitarian – to warrant a “no further development” option.
Whatever the legal technicalities currently in place, this block should be managed in the spirit of the declaration of three of its buildings as National Monuments over 60 years ago – as a Grade 1 site.
We therefore cannot support this, or any other proposal to extend the building envelope on this block. This block’s contribution to public understanding of our collective past will be compromised should this happen and a vital artefact of our past lost.
We trust that your committee will hold its custodial charge (which the NHRA’s preamble binds us all to) and the requirements of Section 108 (1)iii as primary decision-making determinants and not grant the applicants permission to proceed with this proposed work in a declared Urban Conservation Area.
Yours sincerely,
M W Hattingh
Chairman
& Subcommittee
Keith Loynes, Kathy Dumbrell, Roelf Jansen, Hans Fransen, David Glennie, Joanna Marx, Marion Ellis
