Boidus- Importance of Memory and History in Planning

A few years back I wrote a couple of articles for a local paper about the importance of Culture and Identity and also touched upon the equally important issue of History.

I also quoted Sir Seretse Khama’s famous statement that we cannot understand where we are going, if we don’t know from where we are coming. Hence, we cannot build a future with identity without the proper visual artefacts of our history and culture, in my opinion. And her I take rather recent history as often important to connect with the past.

We cannot treat our few landmarks as objects in a china crushing stand at a carnival! We have now a situation of that kind coming up:

Let us start with a picture of a very famous architect, planner and designer from Southern Africa, well known and awarded prizes from all over the world – Jose Forjaz from Mocambique – the designer behind the first phases of UB (or UCBLS – Univ College of Botswana, Lesotho and Swaziland), designed and built in mid-70’s and opened in 1977:

Jose Forjaz – UB architect 1974

My story is – when reading a paper I see an “Invitation to Tender” from the Tender Committee, University of Botswana – “Consultancy Services for the Proposed Decommissioning or Demolishing of Old Buildings at UB”.

As some of it is already demolished and new, tasteless and bombastic buildings are the fashion, I immediately come to think of the few remaining original buildings from the early day of UB (when Swaziland and Lesotho were our partners). That’s the careful design by Jose Forjaz, internationally well-known architect that in 1989 was rewarded the Ralph Erskine Award for his designs. A Fact that R E pointed out when here in 1992 when having a workshop/seminar at UB, sponsored by SIDA.

Consequently we have a landmark in Gaborone that not many other African Cities have. But according to the Tender Invitation, now prone to demolishing! Minus another landmark so to say if you have followed my earlier essays.

However, I got a message from Killion Mokwete, architect and lecturer at the UB dept for architecture (furthermore the editor of Boidus Focus).

His message to me simply said – “the demolition has been suspended after a colleague started a petition which gained a lot of support from staff and students”. Well and fine, but...

It’s a good first step but hardly the last – an academic tender committee has as many lives as a cat! So I read the message as “temporarily suspended” and the committee will probably be lobbying with various authorities. And as far as I know, UB doesn’t have to ask for planning and building permission, just notify about the start of the project, as far as I know.

We are in fact dealing with the Ministry of Education here, not City Council and the Town & Country Planning Board. Thus, I think the anti-demolition activists must see that the famous old buildings will have a “building preservation order” from the Minister in charge.

I see it, the future for the landmark is still uncertain – keep fighting at the grassroots and involve the antiquarians at the Museum!

I find it important for the future that we follow SSK’s statement – UB is an important part of Gaborone (and Botswana) and has a history of its own. And that history must be made visual to students, teachers and visitors by preserving more than one or two buildings – there is a living environment to be preserved!

And wouldn’t it be fair by UB to contact the architect and ask him for advice. Maybe he can incorporate the old parts into some new concept while keeping a creative view on history and identity? That’s normally done when the architect is still alive and active.

Let me now give you some few words in general about History, Culture and Identity - how important the issues are, especially when we are coming to a “renewal situation”.

A renewal and the ever ongoing expansion of the City don’t start with a blank slate or panel. It is always primed by topography, existing objects and history. It is unthinkable to imagine that an established university of reputation (and, thus, ranking) would demolish old buildings to create new – they mostly don’t have the finance for that – do we have that? 

Impotent two-variable thinking has already cost a fortune to Botswana. For instance the de-construction of easily upgradable roundabouts to horrible non-functional robotized four way stops. I have written a lot about this in other articles, but to no avail. I only hope that the unfortunate financial recession will put a stop to this frenzy so we can mildly upgrade the ones left for us (as memory of earlier times).

Let me finish with an example how history and previous use of land for agricultural purposes also can determine the future use and planning. Almost all existing “expansion” land outside cities, towns and major settlements have been divided up in fields and used for crop production since many generations.

Consequently, they have a history and certain conditions that must be understood by the planners. Fields are “”belonging” to somebody, have distinct borders, often with drains, tracks and some trees. The fields have soil conditions peculiar to planting. Tracks are compacted and drains clayish. 

We often see plans produced by either DTRP or consultants (working in accordance with DTRP orders – remember, this authority has the most un-experienced planners you can find – often employed straight from university). If you check new detailed plans, you mostly find iron-grid layouts with no reference to the existing fields or topography. It’s like a big brother from government will come in with a bag of millions and prepare for the infrastructure.

But development on tribal land is seldom Council or GoB-funded like the old Accelerated Land Servicing Programmes for towns. They are Land Board based and there is hardly any project finance. The development must evolve bit by bit over time and for many years, the new settlers must suffer from no constructed roads, drains and probably no sewers.

Furthermore, the overworked LB surveyors must deal with a lot of claims from “landowners” that have a corner here and there cut off. And new plot owners must build houses partly on an old field, partly over a ditch or an old track. Knowing the situation at LB’s, this is not feasible.

If the development had been “field by field”, tracks kept for transportation and ditches for storm water disposal, and existing vegetation intact, we have a more pragmatic and rational development in tune with the history of the place – the spirit of the place, called.

A paper on this methodology has been presented by me many years ago but can’t even be found in the DTRP library, today.

Bad methodologies cost government a lot of money – I don’t like to say this but fortunately we have to Change, just like in USA. And like there – it’s most important to find housing concepts better than the “bungalow” one!

Jan Wareus

The Game of Monopoly, Town Planning and Quest for Urban Design

I’m not writing this against any ideas presented by fellow professionals in Boidus Focus. On the contrary, I’m very much in support of them. However, I have to caution that we must change the “playing board” or we cannot achieve much, unfortunately.

In my previous writings, I have indicated that a future “less abundance” world will have serious implications for us as professionals. I have pointed out the rapidly escalating building costs - to a great degree due to import, transportation and lack of local production. Thus, there is a need for us to localize building materials production.

Furthermore, we must (as the builder’s advisor) do what we can to reduce the carbon footprint of the buildings as well as maintenance costs (electricity for air-cons, lifts etc) and create a sustainable basis for the building industry for the future. So much for the future...

But we have problems with what has already been built – it’s not up to any standard of value. Right - but I also indicated that we once had some kind of holistic standard that was destroyed! But let’s forget that and take some new steps and go for a “change”!

I read complains about the lack of landmarks in our City. I think that this fact, a holistic incompleteness, is the real background for the “Design Forum 2012” and Boidus focussing on the “State of our Cities”. This is to me a good development and I read with great interest the words from the old doyen of architecture and urban planning and design – Mr L Mosienyane. As well as the words from his junior, Mr P Moalofi.

They are so right about the need for urban design in our cities. The question is how to apply it in the existing web of bureaucratic standards, codes, land evaluations and regulations. It’s like sitting around a Monopoly board, playing a simplified game and asking for new rules that the other players doesn’t feel a need for.

Dear colleagues, this metaphor of  Monopoly is not a laughing matter. In 1974, more than 80 million games had been sold (translated to 27 languages). And many more since then, “upgraded” with skyscrapers and more easy ways of getting out of prison (and even credit cards).

As a matter of fact, the game has been extensively used in university education of finance students. Easy enough for them to understand, I guess. It has definitely had a serious impact on town planning and totally void of design for beauty! A sad story, indeed.

So, pardon me, we are all playing Monopoly! And the whole basis for modern town planning and urban design is this simplified rule of the game. Control an area, build houses, collect rentals, increase the value and build a hotel (and skyscrapers, today). It’s money and profit (and bankruptcy) and not wholeness and beauty that’s the name of the game.

And a strong, sticking web has been developed around this rather lately created concept – that’s what has to be moderated so we have a chance of discussing wholeness, landmarks and beauty!

The web is not “www”! It consists of codes, standards and acts that have been created here. And everybody that has read the Terms of Reference for a planning project knows what I’m talking about – Development Control Code, Urban Development Standards etc. Pre-school regulations for playschool kids – embarrassing - why do we accept it? Funny enough, I have noticed that the strangulating web doesn’t even go very well with urban estate theory and bank lending policies. Maybe, we can walk on toes and hold hands with them for a “change”.

To wind this up and showing the incompatibility of existing rules/regulations and the basic design concept for an urban renewal project, I’m about to present “A New Theory of Urban Design” by Christopher Alexander (CA) et cons. It is from 1978 so “new” must be taken with a pinch of salt. But, I have learnt much from this student project – by the way, Boidus, why don’t we make the ext.2 renewal a student project, for a start? With no restrictions but to beauty and make wholeness! And the CA book a compulsory reading?

To understand CA right, he has for many years been trying to be explicit about the implicit in architecture and urban design in the past. An enormous undertaking and the results are impressing. His books “A Pattern Language” and “The Nature of Order” must be read by us in the field. As well as students aiming for the field!

What was forcing the old masters to comply with the wholeness of the town? What explains the “secrets” our modern masters had? They were ”spiritual” and tongue-tight because, I think, the metaphysical character, artistic approach (contrary to positivistic and modern science). But essential to know for us field-workers in the guild. We must honor him! His book “A New Theory of Urban Design” (1978) is now a collector’s item. As I told you, it is about an academic project, cleaning an area of fixed plot lines, zoning, urban administration, financing and economics.

As an illustration to this writing, I include the dust cover text for your reading 

Not astonishingly, the result was an old fashioned, somewhat Mediterranean coastal city, centuries old. Teaching us a lesson, indeed. See the City they built in a :25 model!

We are victims of “modern” regulations and codes! And the pure “urban design” cannot work without changing the DTRP rules!!

As the Boidus interviews in last issue are indicating implicitly, we have to realize that our present institutions are at odds with a consistent urban renewal process. And drastically so – present-day methods, conceptions and procedures are incompatible with the desire for wholeness, to use the words of CA. That’s our problem, folks!

We have a “climate” full of defects – we call them problems as they require corrections so we can create a well functioning and good looking society. And the problems are inbuilt in the existing planning process.

Remember the following words by Herman Daly: The more we have of permanent rules, the less able we are to make necessary adjustments and meet changing conditions.

We must come up with an alternative planning process!

The Bureaucratic Steps

M C Escher (Dutch artist 1898-1972)–detail from “Ascending and Descending” /Wikipedia

Jan Wareus June 2012

RENEWABLE IGNORANCE – Gaborone City 25 yrs

Beauty comes with a Twist

What I want to say this time is not hard to write about – and follows:

The change 25 yrs ago – from Town to City – should have been a remarkable change of protocol. According to complains I hear, running a godforsaken rural small town on the outskirts of the Kalahari, however idyllic, innocent and against all odds declared a Capital, is not the same as running a CITY CAPITAL.

Instead of boozing up the management in 1987, the Council went on with business as usual. By time a handful of un-experienced students (seconded by GoB) were filling a few vacant posts in the council as qualified, essential staff were obviously too expensive for the council. 

A serious mistake by the council of the time.

Consequently, the small town, upgraded to a City, is still being run by fairly understaffed departments that are not always equipped to scrutinize and confidently handle multimillion projects. And the important decisions are made by elected laymen. The paradox of democracy, some intellectuals say.

Thus, the talk of the town indicates that the City Council is not run by appointed experts but by elected politicians and the forces of the market. Councillors are frequently changed and many of them have a few fingers in the market pot, too. So the market is well represented and ignorance renewed.

So I hear – let me try and analyse what has gone and is going wrong with this City of ours. My lamentation goes like this, based on a few key issues stated here:

1.                        Any capital City must be able to present the visitor and the inhabitants the “soul” of the country in what many of the critics call landmarks.

2.                        A true capital City must have a functional and understandable context, even if complex. And being an important focal point in the region (Greater Gaborone).

3.                        Infrastructure must be well functioning and rational, without unnecessary hindrances and bottlenecks - e.g. we must have a well functioning and maintained public transport system covering the region.

On the question on “landmarks”, I want to remind you of my view presented in Plain Talk 8 (Boidus 01/o4/12) – i.e. as an ordinary “town” Gaborone had a significant landmark, once. It was a small “Garden City” in accordance with the theories of Ebenezer Howard – a small garden city straight out of the theory book! Not many other towns could proudly refer to such a fact, not even the ones in UK. And due to clever politics of the time, the “segregating” elements in Howard’s model had been eliminated. Gaborone was visited by many professionals, quite a number of interested people, just because of this 

landmark. 

I have to mention this as reminder of the fact that a landmark might not necessarily be a museum, a traditional village, a game reserve or some statues! For instance, Brasilia and Chandigarh are visited on basis of the architecture and planning. Food for thoughts, so to say!

Now, when the basis for that kind of appreciation is destroyed, we have to try a different approach to the landmark issue. In my view, a pleasant city must have a number of interesting buildings, places (and spaces), creating a wholeness. And if not any single one of them can be pointed out as THE landmark, the totality, the whole, and their interaction will constitute the landmark we are lacking so far.

I pointed this out earlier and also that the landmark we had was bit by bit de-constructed and resulting in an amorphous traffic chaos - a rather embarrassing, negative landmark.

As far as I can see, the future for a positive image of the City lies with a profound understanding of “wholeness” and not individual “landmarks”.

This leads me to propose that the City must urgently create a City Beauty Council or Urban Aesthetics Council, an advisory board that most of the important cities all over the world has created since long.

Such a board must deal with the impact of large projects (as defined in the Town and Country Planning Act) and include the visual impact. As most architects and designers today are 110% and more in the harness of the developers, this must be a relief to them. And that is my experience of the Beauty Council I come in contact with in Stockholm, once upon a time. Most architects liked it and referred to it when developers became too arrogant. And it also encouraged the designers/architects to lift themselves up to levels they didn’t know they were capable to reach.

A few, though, complained about “no freedom of design”. What kind of freedom – freedom to be arbitrary or freedom to be appropriate? However, most professionals in major cities are accepting that their prposed “landmarks” are scrutinized by such a council.

I sincerely think this is the way of giving us in Gaborone some kind of official evaluation of the visual impact future developments may have.

But it is important to understand that a Beauty Council is not there to “put lipstick on the gorilla”. On the contrary – the task is to care for wholeness, townscape, interaction between buildings – in short, a city to be proud of!

The illustration this time you find on the InterNet as it doesn’t want to print. It is about the Stockholm Beauty Council and look for <Stockholm.se/ skonhetsradet> where you find a brief presentation.

Why don’t we try this way out of an embarrassing situation mostly due to so called market demands? The global market hasn’t been able to take care of its own needs, and even less the local needs. That’s a lesson we are learning more of day by day.

When coming to the point of the City as a focal point in a region, I must say that the ignorance by the City regime doesn’t augur well for the future. The historical boundaries are reached and the city, with prevailing development concept, has come to its “walls”. So the future of the City and its importance is very much outside these walls.

This is a common and shared problem for most cities. And most of them have created some kind of regional association for co-operation. And soon this has resulted in some kind of regional plan, indicating how different parts of the region can cooperate on transport, localization, infrastructure a s o. A planning colleague, Jason Sechele, has written about this kind of problems but as far as I know, not been approached by GCC – why?

I fear to conclude that GCC is awaiting that “experts” from Town and Regional Planning will have to impose some ridiculous concept on GCC!

It’s high noon for acting, now – or it will be imposed ten years too late! And the situation has grown from bad to worse for GCC.

The most pertinent question for a Regional Council will, naturally, be about public transport (as many places outside the City are “bedroom communities” to Gaborone). Which leads to the next issue listed above.

On the question of a functional, rational and easily run public transport system for the region, I have written about the issue in, mostly, Sunday Standard, but my readers now might have missed it. Thus, here it is in brief:

I feel embarrassed on behalf the road engineers that are busy to find borrowed money to de- and reconstruct the roads we have. A few friends are calling our City “Baby Los Angeles”! And I have to agree that we are day by day looking like that. And we have learnt nothing from the LA syndrome or decease.

I was in LA in 1964 and met Victor Gruen, a (then) well known planner and architect (at that time there was no rift between architects and town planners – the latter was then just a specialised architect). When I asked what had happened with the famous public transport system, he sighed and explained:

The streetcar (trams) and bus based system was very good and based on taxes. A new ticketing order was introduced and all of a sudden the finances went into red. The system cost more than money gained. Soon the transport system was up for sale. Ford, Chrysler and GM were interested to buy. They had invested a lot in a growing auto market. GM took over and started dismantling the public transport system bit by bit (after raising the ticket price, of course). Result – public transport disappeared and private cars increased. And the sprawl of suburbs also increased. Enormous traffic jams occurred. Federal and government money went into new roads and large traffic junctions (also tax money but much more than before). So, we have subsidized the auto industry and here you can see the new LA that doesn’t function any longer!

And that “new” LA we are mimicking here now! To a high cost and also subsidizing private, bad functioning, private transport.

Something must be learnt from this – especially when we can study cities of our own size (e.g. Grenoble) having well functional public transport to a cost that makes ticketing almost unnecessary.

I think I have to stop for the time being and I recommend further reading on theories of arriving to beauty and good functioning cities on the net. For instance www.katarxis3.com  that is easily found on Google or Yahoo.

There is also a Council for New Urbanism (CNU) on the net that is a must for everyone interested in urban development in our times.

Now I’m preparing to dig into an issue that are of great importance to our towns and cities – that is land evaluation and the role of land costs for town planning and building.

Jan Wareus/JOWA – If you don’t know, my full name is Jan Ove Wareus 

Seven Steps to Heaven

-The Gaborone North/Phakalane disaster and bureaucrazy!

It is not possible to talk about the past without giving some kind of historical overview – the “climate of the day”, so to say. Let me begin like this:

We are going to talk about the times from Independence to about mid-80-ies. The president, Sir Seretse Khama (SSK), studied Law and other things (e.g. John M Keynes macro-economic theories) in the 60-ies, well ahead of the later neo-conservative Chicago-school of old economical “axioms” from late 1800 and early 1900.

In fact – SSK was a social democrat and made a few study tours to Scandinavia to find out how this policy worked – the so called “middle way” - more sustainable to developing countries than later “hard core” neo-classical economics. He even made a deal with the Swedish government to have physical planners seconded to Botswana via SIDA.

As social democrats are inherently from the Keynesian side of the macro-economic border, a few planners arrived here in the late 70-ies, like myself (arriving in mid January - 79) to make physical plans for future Botswana the “middle way”, developmental, that is.

Now, remember, this is the time when Keynes was swapped as an economic/political conservative named Milton Friedman of the Chicago School of Economics became the economic hero of the day – waiving a diploma from the Nobel Prize Committee for his economic ideas! A paradox, so to say! But such things happen often in our modern “global” world.

Henceforth, a “re-born” old economic paradigm was bit by bit presented by “tamed” economists from IMF and World Bank (plus WTO) and become the basis for future planning of “new” macro-economics. Often called neo-liberal or neo-conservative, sometimes even neo-classical. Make your choice and remember that this happened in the late 70-ies and early 80-ies here.

SSK died in July 1980 and social planning was soon forgotten – then market planning (sellers market) became dominant (for BHC, too). As I know it, the SSK followers were educated in another era of neo-conservative economics with figure-heads like Reagan and Thatcher. 

Consequently, social planning was out and market planning was the new thing. Our Botswana social planning balloon burst all of a sudden.

Except for Sir Ketumile, no IMF and World Bank educated local economist in government had the slightest idea about the economic history of developing countries. How the developed countries reached their goals.

This was a sad time for Botswana, in my opinion – the old “develop-mentalist” (middle way) concept, very much designed for developing countries, was abandoned – a concept  that once worked so well for western countries (based on financial regulations, protected markets, and a piece of social welfare - still in use here and there, even in USA).

And here we are, today – the prevailing situation – a macro-economy that doesn’t work well for developing countries not then or now when we are facing a world of less abundance (i.e. limited growth and need of a steady state economy).

However, the many bursting economic (and real estate) global bubbles we have experienced are seemingly making some developing countries re-thinking. And as far as I can see, we are also giving now prevailing “axioms” a second thought. But how is the “free-market” responding? Well, it is still relying on eternal growth when we clearly see that resources are finite (oil, for instance).

To make a long story short, there is an upcoming disaster called Phakalane in the papers, now becoming a kind of myth – the above writings are part of the explanation to current predicament for this township, initially presented as an “an independent township” by the landowner.

However, we mustn’t forget that Phakalane was given an approval by the Minister of the time – consequently, the authorities must live up to this approval! When a Minister uses his veto against a decision of his Town & Country Planning Board, it implicitly means that the TCPB advice wasn’t correct in his mind! Land policy must include the landowners views – we have to try it, he implicated – remember SSK had before his depart accepted this – that must have been the Ministers thinking!

To be loyal and obedient to government decisions by the civil servants is basic in most countries. But here in Botswana it appears that we have “factions” even in the civil servants daily work – no impartiality! And the servant’s memory (probably also envy) is as long as the old road to Ghanzi.

Back to the old times – in May 1979 (not 1978 as the applicant for the change of land of his farm is indicating in his autobiography – let’s call him DM forthwith), I was told by my Director/DTRP (Mr York-Smith – YS) that DM had asked for an appointment and YS would, unfortunately, be very busy in a meeting with the Minister (and his deputy, principal planner Mr O Andersson, OA, unfortunately needed a sudden sick leave due to his Bell’s Paisy). So Mr Wareus (JW), after just a couple of months at DTRP (not even domesticated, then, see DM’s book) and not even allocated a proper office (JW had only a corner in the drawing office for laying out Gaborone West) had to meet DM and tell him that his case was OUT as the forefathers had deemed his land agricultural!

DM is telling us in his book that JW was an arrogant Swede. Maybe so, but a lot embarrassed also. My brief by YS and OA was just brief – “it’s against GoB policy to encourage private townships that doesn’t take into account the housing policy by GoB on agricultural land – DM is speculating!

More importantly – after I had been appointed by YS and OA, I was called to a meeting with some very important directors for other government departments (Dir S&L and BHC – Mr Dickson, no x, DM, and Mr Richardson) and told that the entire housing policy of GoB would disintegrate and fall apart if the new town was approved (as cross-subsidies from high cost to low cost would not be possible - no high cost left in town). Consequently, I was very nervous when I met DM.

However, I tried my own way when I had the meeting and made it clear to DM that some kind of “deal” with Council and GoB was needed, as, in my experience from earlier work in Sweden, private initiatives were acceptable but must follow established policies. I “arrogantly” told DM this experience as an advice for the future of his new town concept.

But I realized, then, that I was the department’s sacrificial lamb! Last arrival, first to go, if something was not to the liking to YS or the Office of the President, who gave the orders regarding DM’s application.

I gave DM my best advice - he should negotiate with the authorities but he was adamant that he only needed an approval. His idea was an “independent” township, with its own water, sewer, power a s o. My “arrogant” question was – has that ever happened anywhere?

The difference between long-term loans for infrastructure and quick bucks for selling even fine plots is enormous, financially seen. So much I had learnt from the earlier introduction of neo-conservative economic in other countries (including US of A).

And I pointed to a book I had on the table ( The Suburban Dream – recently arrived to my office), indicating that not even in the US of A, suburban townships could be built on private money, only, too much upfront and too much interest to pay over long time. But DM was true to his “perseverance” attitude and cut the meeting short after I had advised him that a satellite town might, in my opinion, be possible in the Mmamashia area – he just had to negotiate with the Kgatleng Council (and Chris Fleetwood-Bird who had the same idea and had started to by some land in that area). But DM didn’t want a change the already expensive drawings. A sad story for me as a town planner, indeed.

However YS became furious due to my proposal to DM and I was about to be sent home for this – I could stay probably because of the urgency of Gab West and by time being “domesticated” according to DM.

I was, however, called to an interrogation, probably with the PS (can’t find any note about it in my diary) and told that I shouldn’t have given DM a finger about a “satellite town” – a finger I have been sucking ever since then.

So it goes when policy, politics and forward planning are misunderstood, neglected and not adhered to. Other farm owners in Mokolodi, Notwane, Gaborone North and Tlokweng South were/are more careful and are now making necessary deals with authorities. More of “let time be ripe”. That’s how it works in a steadfast bureaucrazy.

Now we have to support the Phakalane development as an approved fact – it has become an essential part of our City – SSK never noticed (in the 70-ies) that the upper classes in Sweden had already found their favourite “suburbs”, that government supported with trams and railways that never became economically “balanced”. But the well-to-do were very essential for the running of the country – so it is here, too, even if Marx might rotate in his grave.

Hence, we must accept this fact, although it’s still not too late for Phakalane to accept that we will, sooner or later, create a satellite to Gaborone City at the Mmamashia Junction. Phakalane has to become more than a sprawling suburb with bedrooms and sleeping places for people working in the City. It must be part of a satellite town, as independent as possible.

Discuss and negotiate, make a deal with the owners of Gaborone North, Ruretse and the Kgatleng Council and the City Council– my last advice in this matter! Just the same as my first advice in 1979, by the way.

And my firm belief in the future for Greater Gaborone – satellite towns – will be further discussed in this column.

Bureaucratic Stairs

M C Escher 1960

Jan Wareus

Too Many Cooks - Bad Cooking

For a start, I have to reply to a comment – How do I think that we, tied up by a SACU treaty, can produce our own construction material to competitive costs?

Well, I’m not a dormant politician but as far as I know, it is quite possible that Botswana exempt VAT from local products. That would be a good start, I think.

So, I’m still awaiting my sticker for the car from Boidus - BOTSWANA MUST SECURE A  PRODUCTION OF BUILDING MATERIALS OF ITS OWN!

There have been some articles in our papers about traffic chaos and lack of landmarks in the City. To this I will now dedicate this column and I do not separate the two issues, in fact, I think they are just two sides of the same coin.

Arriving here in January 1979, I became fascinated by the then small Garden City that had just taken a step over the Segoditsane River to Broadhurst and expected further growth to the west of the railway – the reason for my recruitment, actually.

I was so interested of the planning background for Gaborone that I went to the National Archives to find some early planning documents. The librarian was very astonished to see the first planner ever visiting him.

I’ve got the approved or accepted layout for Gaborone from him. And that’s more or less exactly what you can see in the old part of the City today. But also an early alternative that convinced me that the used “garden city” concept wasn’t just a mere idea amongst others. I have a copy of this early alternative below.

Pic 1 -  “alternative from Nat Archives” 

Here you find all the significant conceptual features for a classical garden city - neighbourhood units, curved streets/roads, schools and shops in the middle possible to reach by foot within acceptable distance (1/4 of a mile=ab. 400 m) and vehicular roads with roundabouts (for slow and easy moving traffic).

All this was accentuated in the final, implemented layout (plus more roundabouts). In 1979 all was still functioning well and actually the newly constructed Gaborone was a landmark in itself! Many visitors convinced me of that and I found no reason to change “planning attitude” for the Gab West planning. 

Consequently, Gab West can be characterized by the neighbourhood units and curved streets/roads and the first phases by the schools and shops centrally located and, naturally, a traffic system based on roundabouts (to keep up with the then admired landmark mage and proper function).

But for the schools, something happened during the detailed planning period.

It can probably be illustrated by the pictures below from Jwaneng (planned 1977-1979) and a phase of Gab West (planned late 1988). 

Pic 2 - Jwaneng and Pic 3 -Gab West

Looking at the Jwaneng neighbourhood portion we see that the Setswana Medium School is very central in the “hood”, not easily reached by car but within easy reach for walking children.

In Gaborone West the schools have moved closer to secondary roads to become more easily reached by cars. The reason – educational policy had changed and many school sites were allocated to private developers for English Medium Schools. 

There was no announced policy shift from the Ministry of Education but planners adapted to what had become the song of the day – and tried to save the “hood” from disturbing traffic. For Secondary Schools, even more attractive to private developers, the norm was to site them close to Primary Roads for easy access. However, such roads were often in the hands of Roads Department (being gazetted) and they were most often denied direct access e.g. Rainbow and Westwood schools.

But the traffic disaster is partly due to this privatization of schools that could not be foreseen at the planning stage. When their number became significant, and every second private car in mornings had to deliver children to their private schools, a kind of coupe de grace was given to the traffic situation in Gabs. Enhancing this was naturally the (to planners) unforeseen support by banks, council and government to private car ownership. So we now have a great number of bank-owned cars with children taken to schools every morning. So much that the Director of Roads, supported by Council and elected MP’s seems obliged to deconstruct the original roundabouts and create a small Los Angeles. That, as we all have experienced, works even worse than the now deconstructed previous system.

For more reading about this I recommend the interviews with Luc van der Casteele in Sunday Standards (two so far and more promised). Excellent analysis of the current, “improved” traffic system!

That, as well as the school concept, has become modern “planning disasters”. I’m mentioning this as I, in year 2000, was invited to UB to talk about “The Problems of Urban and Regional Planning in Botswana” and wrote a paper about “Planning Disasters in Botswana” instead. Basing this on the then acute Mogoditshane squatting  and subsequent “yellow monsters” as well as the so called Urban Standards (presented by DTRP totally void of any research and earlier standards). We are coming back to these historical events if you are interested.

So, I guess I’m back to “Planning Disasters in Botswana” with this column.

There are more of disasters, though. Next column will be dedicated to an ever ongoing bureaucratic belittle of a grand scheme of improving the environment of Gaborone. 

It ain't necessarily so (Miles Davis version)

This time I will touch upon a few different but in my view connected matters – first...

As we all know, imported goods are unnecessarily expensive here due to transport costs.            

And as I have argued so far in my writings, transport costs will escalate very much in the future.  This is due to the oil bubble bursting. The oil producing countries know very well that they have a finite product and the last drops will be expensive – and they want to keep the last barrels for themselves. Furthermore, it is confusing to see that the distributors (Exxon, Mobile, BP, Shell et al) seemingly have a deep stance in the crude oil production, too  – covering the whole line from extracting to the deliverance.  That’s obviously what happens on a free, unregulated market!  I don’t understand the record profits they have just now if this isn’t the explanation.

So the unregulated, free trade market is making record profits of the very basic necessity for the GDP growth, as we know it so far – in fact killing it. And consequently killing all kinds of fumbling small industrialization attempts for the developing countries – where we belong.

 Consequently, we have to do what the now industrialized countries once did. Start local production and protect it from unfair competition. That was actually the basis for the so called Bretton Woods Concept!

We must have a construction material production of our own and cut the ever escalating transport costs. As well as putting more people into production!   

As a matter of fact – the same goes for food production and electricity. We have realized this, now, and hopefully we will soon have the house in order.  Outstanding  examples  are  diamond sorting and polishing, glass manufacturing and more. We have a brick factory that cannot compete with our neighbour in the south, so some kind of protection is needed (as it is for eggs, chicken and poultry and now and then, tomatoes, too).

Obviously our government is aware of the modern economical follies as some kind of anti-neoliberal concepts are in use despite the propaganda from World Bank, IMF and WTO with its “tamed” economists from the Chicago School of Economics. 

In this situation we have to strongly convince ourselves and possible investors that we locally have to secure a construction industry of our own as I indicated in last column.

I leave the rest of arguing to the new generation of “dissident” economists that now and then are writing intelligible in our papers or you can find on the Web.  GS Mantowe mentioned some in his latest column that I know you read.   On my part I recommend you to read Herman Daly (professor in environmental science and former World Bank expert – see Daly News on Google). He knows a great deal about our future!

Now another topic that will lead to a third one and I find them being connected.

In my bookshelf I have “Ralph Erskine – Architect” (Byggforlaget, Stockholm 1990), and I want to quote some lines in the following:

Erskine often spoke to guests at international congresses as well to students and fellow architects. In such a company his role was to warn of the risks of following trends and temporary whims – in his view, “postmodernism is a harlot touting flashy packaging for capitalism”. He also often spoke of the need to create mixed-use communities of buildings in harmony with one another.

For him beauty was not necessarily what was elegant – he said that “God created not just the speedy elegant gazelle but also the pig. Just like the pig, slightly clumsy, thick buildings can be beautiful provided they terminate with a neat flourish”.

And now, how to illustrate some of the more than 200 projects in RE’s diary? And suddenly it has become obvious how to do it...

Mmegi  02 March 2012 has an article by Gothataone Moeng about the often mentioned “lack of landmarks” in Gaborone. A few professional architects are mentioned and quoted, among them Leta Mosienyane and Nick Njarange. They complain, bitterly!

But neither of them is pointing the finger to where it should be pointing – to the architects! They seem to be missing some organization outside the architectural field that should be responsible. But there is no other than the architects that should be accused of the ignorance for the missing beauty of our capital, in my opinion.

They are the ones designing new buildings with no connection to other buildings. Facing different directions, being high, medium or low, according to Killion Mokwete, also interviewed.

Are these “prominent” architects asking for help by DTRP, Town Councils or what?

Why can’t the architectural profession come up with an “aesthetical and concurrence board” similar to what they have in Paris, London and New York (even Stockholm, by the way)? Why do they ask to be spoon fed with regulations? Haven’t they the professional background to solve the problem they are complaining about? Isn’t it a fight on “home grounds”?

Well, I’m pessimistic. I don’t think they are willing to take the responsibility to come up with a city of some kind of coherent beauty. They prefer the masquerade – the fancy dress party and then point the finger somewhere else! They all tried their own “landmark” and failed due to lack of co-operation.

So, finally, let me introduce to you an Erskine landmark project (done in collaboration with his old architect friends – a normal working condition for him) now built in Stockholm - the Wasa Terminal.

In brief, it is a covering a large part of the Central Station and opening up an enormous amount of bus, office, and commercial space on what was earlier supposed to be an impediment, a “fault line” in the City, like the one we have. The commercial success was enormous and something similar can be made in Gaborone, I’m sure.

In earlier articles and in other papers, I have mentioned this to no avail. The double spur from New Naledi to Segoditshane Valley must be dug down. No problem! The goods yard moved outside the immediate urban area.  And all of a sudden we have an enormous area that could be opened for development! As well as connecting Gab West with Gab East – what a relief for pedestrians! And we will have a prestigious terminal for our long haul busses and spur based commuting, too. (Fortunately, we already have a terminal for the hundreds of kombi’s we have to live with for years, if I understand the situation right.)

Furthermore, it is obvious to me that Botswana Railways, the major landowner in the area, nowadays is very much interested in making money from real estate.

And, with collaboration between the architects, the possible “landmark” that is wanted, will hopefully be possible.  But organize yourself and work together.  Maybe you should ask for a competition among selected consortiums (it’s a too big project for any existing firm of today). Maybe it could result in something as impressive as the proposal by SHoP Architects for the Innovation Hub.

And act while it is still money around for this kind of projects. I wish you luck! Below I will give you an idea how RE and his friends made it in Stockholm (see pic). And note, the necessary glass-covered, indoor concept, there,  could here become a carbon-friendly shaded area, here.

Pic of Wasa Terminal in Central Stockholm