On Architecture, Urban Design and Town Planning in a Changing World

April 4, 2015

I’ve been away from the pages of Boidus Focus for some time, nursing what doctors call COAD (chronic obstructive air-ways decease – similar to silicosis and dyspnoea). I’ve come to realize that I’m a living metaphor for the global COED (chronic obstructive economic decease). COAD is possible to live with if diagnosed early and the same goes for COED. But a change of living conditions is important and necessary, hence the topic for this essay.

Let’s us start with some mutual self criticism – the economic basis for ever ongoing economical growth in the world is running out of air, or oil rather. The basis for ever-growing industrialization is over. There’s only very expensive and hard-to-get stuff left. OK, we can still get some of it but it leaves our children with almost nothing. Thus, a change must come, the sooner the better. (The sudden low price for oil is temporary and more of a competition and no basis for continued, endless growth.)

We, in the development professions should know that, and start preparing for a sustainable future. For instance, we know that we will not be able to pay for long transports of food and building materials. We must localize needed production as fast as possible and try a more steady and robust economical concept, based on our own resources and labour. Developed countries are today “post-industrial” (while we in Africa are hardly even “pre-industrial”) and they are busy discussing de-industrialization. There is no basis to mimic their developments and no party to join any longer. ‘The Party’s Over’, as Frank Sinatra used to sing, once upon a time. What to do, then?

Well, warnings have been around for long, decades and even a century as we will see (but ignored by neo-liberal authorities, backed up by privately owned media). Hence I start with some historical notes worth to remember.

Secondly, I’ll try to present contemporary concepts for more sustainable design and methods more in line with appropriate technology – giving us a kind of “Architects Almanac”, if you remember the famous Farmers Almanacs. In simple words it gave thumb rules for farmers in the old times, and for many centuries, until “scientific farming” became conditional and traditional Low Tech farming ceased. Among dissident agriculture pundits, traditional farming methods in Africa, all of a sudden are more sustainable than so called modern intensive farming – interesting, for sure!

Of course, the economic decline (COED) will have a great impact on so called “well-to-doers” but will not be much of a difference for the unemployed and people living in rural poverty - I sometimes wonder if this is not the strength of developing countries, a strength the more developed lost many generations ago. In fact, I think we here in Africa are more resilient in meeting economic decline than the “privileged” countries. But I leave that question open for applied philosophy, at the moment.

And, still of course, this will also have great impact on the construction industry we have, engineers, architects, town planners alike and other professions – e.g. realtors (all well-to-doers, by the way as well as most politicians – a democratic dilemma).

And we must remember, a very professional macro-economist, Prof. Roman Grynberg, has given warnings that the sustainability of ‘strip malls’ like the ones we have and now plus CBD is not written in stone and will hardly sustain well in an economic decline situation. And there are many more warnings of the day. Most seriously, some writers are pointing out that even opposition parties are cut off from the grass-roots.

Adjustments to a new situation must be done now if we are serious about the appearance of and renewal of our now aged City, built for a quite different situation. For instance, our outdated ‘modernist’ codes and standards as well as methodologies are based on the eternal growth concept and won’t help us in a declining economic situation. A good example is BHC that can’t produce truly low cost housing any longer - hence we must start with examining the outdated rules, codes and design principles, and also the construction methods we have. I know studies are being done but fear that the “eternal growth concept” might cause cognitive dividing problems and quickly make the studies outdated before the printing ink has dried. “You’re stance is wrong” as Peter Carr told me when I wanted to improve my golf! Another fine metaphor!

So, let’s see what we have in the history books and on the net, today:

Let me start with the not very well known online site (by architects and planners, even students) called Katarxis. In issue 3 there is an article by Brian Hansson (co-editor) on “Science and Aspects”. It’s a long article and I have to abridge it extensively and thus, missing many aspects. But the interested reader will find it on the net (Katarxis.com).

Then I’ll move to writings by and on Christopher Alexander, earlier mentioned in articles by me and father of what I call “An Architects Almanac”, mentioned above. I find his conclusions very essential for our future as architects and planners as well as the beauty of our City. Let me start with Brian’s writings:

Brian Hansson is presenting an old character and wise man – John Ruskin (1819-1900). An astonishing modern thinker that my professor in Architectural History spent two hours to present to us students, once upon a time (1964) - for deaf ears, mostly. Ruskin seems to be totally forgotten today (even in universities), consequently he must be highly important!

Ruskin was interested and active in many seemingly disparate fields and offered early clues about interactions between them and, hence, what unifies activities between architects, artists and critics (and a link to the Prince of Wales regarding “modernism” and the devastating effect it has on today’s cities). There are fascinating Ruskinian ideas, based on late 19

th century developments that are valid even today. His books – The Seven Lamps of Architecture and The Stones of Venice were cautiously welcomed by professionals but his more radical tone in lectures and pamphlets were unheeded. A common situation for dissidents even today!

His books were translated to other languages and many architects were impressed. Certainly by the importance he accorded to the faculty of “memory” (today we, especially Christopher Alexander, refer to history and spirit of a place) and his concerns began to make their mark on culture. But too slow, in his mind, and he realized that the hurdles were to be found in political, economical and social issues.

He went on with a book - Unto this Last on world economics by the time (actually not very different from today’s problems. By the way – during a long train journey through South Africa, a young Indian lawyer read his book and it fell into fertile grounds. The lawyer was a young Mahatma Ghandi!

In his lectures - Storm Cloud of the 19th Century in 1884 – he described the effects of industrial air pollution. By the way, again, I hope our unions know that at the time of infant unions, the air pollution was the starting point for change. Not at all “a bigger piece of the pie – concept” that is the major spark for unions today (that doesn’t work well as the pie is getting smaller and smaller). Food for thought!

Back to Ruskin – his way of looking at the world led him to recognize omens to which conventional science was still blind. This was a full century before science caught up, bringing insights about the environment that Ruskin already could see. For instance:

When Modern Movement was born in the 1920’s, and the fundamentals of it lasted well into the 1970’s in the western world (here it’s still alive in outdated codes, planning and zoning), there were in fact early warnings from Ruskin. He abhorred “the purism” of his time and could foresee what was in the pipeline and the common errors of this concept that come to dominate planning and architecture for many decades long after he parted with this world.

A final point in this very abridged presentation of Ruskin is his discussion about the superiority of aesthetics over a mathematics view of the world. Aesthetic matters (e.g. beauty, form and visual impact) are still regarded as woolly, imprecise and subjective while mathematics, by contrast, is assumed to be scientific, precise, objective and economically rewarding (with its more ambiguous and uncertain details).

No wonder why the CBD area looks like it does – and I know quite a few people that abhors it! And Ruskin very early identified two important failings of architecture of his time as it became too much preoccupied with individual buildings at the expense of context and seldom bothered with the visual impact on the environment.

It’s interesting that his aspects on architecture and culture have a modern follower in Christopher Alexander (CA), in my view. Ruskin’s grasp of “the whole” are exactly what we find in CA’s findings and writings – also presented in Katarxis 3.

In an interview, CA is pointing to the lack of quality and value concepts in modern science that is confusing our paradigms of beauty and harmony in our built environments. His books, understandable even for laymen, are comprehensive, but, somewhat expensive bestsellers. CA has been around for many years and I remember one of his first books – A City is not a Tree –subject to heated discussions in my student years. He was completely right, a city is not a tree where you follow veins from a leaf to the root, back and forth. It is a patchwork of overlapping entities that must interact!

I have written about CA earlier in Boidus Focus (e.g. The Game of Monopoly, issue Aug 9, 2012) and I think I conclude with his “Architecture and Science” from Katarxis 3 when he discussed his quartet of books on “The Nature of Orders” . However, it must be made clear that CA’s concept of “new science” includes earlier somewhat “metaphysical” conceptions of beauty, wholeness and common man perceptions:

“To create beauty of form and beauty of adaption and connection, in the land or in the city – that is the core of every architect’s work. And as all of us know, who have tried to do it for years, it is fiendishly difficult to it well. It makes the utmost challenge to our abilities, our artistic skills, our emotional resources. Given how hard it is, and how precious it is when we achieve it, even in small degree, many architects may well ask themselves how anything scientific could possibly help them in such a task. They could easily wonder – “Is the interest in new science, and in a new science of architecture, something trendy, a wish to be ‘scientific’ for its own sake and a little more?

The answer is a resounding “No.” The purpose of a scientific view of architecture is to enable us to create deeper structure – and that means more satisfying design, more eternal forms, more valuable places, more beautiful buildings. The new theory is not merely a gloss on architecture, to raise its intellectual level. It is above all, a source of help – artistic help – to pull us out the mud pit we have fallen into during the last eighty years, by making, following and copying over simplified forms, only because commercial instincts have robbed the field entirely of the kind of awareness which was needed, for millennia, by the people who made the great buildings of the past, in many cultures and in many conditions.

The awareness hinges above all, on the processes that are used to make these buildings. The process we have learned, and have come to accept, as the “normal” way to design buildings and to get them built – the procurement methods of the 20th century – are very, very defective. To do better, to make places people genuinely like, to make places where people feel at home, it is necessary to have new tools of practice – new ways of creating buildings, new ways of conceiving buildings. The science I speak of is the bearer of new, more sophisticated techniques of making, shaping and designing. That is something that open our eyes, as artists, and permits us to do things we have not dreamed of for decades or generations.”

We must contemplate on these words when we are engaged in architecture, place- making and wholeness but mostly we do not! Otherwise, our designs might become lawyer jokes. And self-criticism is useful. My illustration is from the Architects Costume Ball in New York 1931 – seemingly one proud and six rather embarrassed architects! Sorry, my friends – planners and architects alike.

- JW

Alternative Construction Methods Urgently Needed

An interesting American professor in Ecological Economies (Herman Daly) wrote recently – “Upon having accumulated a lifetime of knowledge we all promptly die” and “successive generations repeat earlier mistakes”.. Let me oppose this with another column for Boidus and the development professionals.

After a lifetime as a town planner, with all usual extrapolations of trends into the future, I’ve found that the crux of the matter is (and has always been) a fair discussion of the future as we can see it now. So much of the future has been defined by choices already made and opportunities long since foregone – not to talk about the stupid 25 year horizon of our development plans, based on already made choices. Facing a future with “less abundance” of finance and energy needs more than a simple Monopoly board and the few choices the playing cards indicate. We are not in times of self-full filling prophesies of ever growing GDP any longer, a fact you probably realized already.

We are now in times when cost of manufacturing and energy needed must be seriously taken into account as well as the carbon footprint the construction industry is creating. Although the industry and many in the development professions (incl. real estate) seemingly treat this as a taboo subject, we have no other choice.

My intention is to put some attention to building materials that are more “medium tech” than the old fashioned “low tech” technique in use at the moment. I’ll do so but first some words about the impassible construction methods we are currently (and traditionally) using and the consequences of that.

Let us take a look at an UK paper (from Google) under the headings they use, starting with
Climate Change - Building use in the UK contributes about 50%of the UK’s CO2 emissions and construction contributes another 7% (figures from 2004). The main base performance criteria for energy efficient buildings all concern the thermal performance of the building shell where most of the CO2 gains can be made.

Thus my column in Boidus 01.02.2012 – Embodied Energy - and we received not a single comment! The 7% can be reduced depending on materials and design, of course also on building methods and technique’s applied. The paper goes on:

The fact is that if we are serious about climate change then we need to stop playing games with technologies which do not delver real CO2 savings. The real challenge in this area is the refurbishment of existing buildings (soon very imminent here as well as those being built right now). However, it would help for a start if we also produced really energy efficient buildings (and we are not doing this).


Waste - The waste going to landfills from the construction industry in 2004 was about 100 million tons. This is more than 3 times the amount of domestic waste collection (28 million tons)….and this is equivalent to one house being buried in the ground for every 3 built….and the calculations do not take into account an extra 25% energy for waste.

These are figures for 2004 and UK. But looking around in the un-built areas of Gaborone and the way we are knocking down, actually crushing, so called illegal buildings, I’m sure we are close to the UK figures (if turned into percentage). This doesn’t augur well regarding the coming re-development of older parts in our City.
The report goes on highlighting “Resource Use” and points out that a large proportion of construction materials are imported there, as here. And transportation of building materials over long distances is not only expensive (in the future, maybe unsustainable) as well as increasing the CO2 transmissions.

The report ends with a note that the construction industry has a big impact (probably the biggest of all industrial sectors) on the carbon emission. And we know from other studies that the simple curing of concrete stands for +5% of the total carbon emissions to the atmosphere.

In short, there is high time to discuss our building and construction methods – and there are actually much better alternatives than the use of concrete blocks and cement, for instance. I will point out such alternatives in the following but first a typical experience:

In my early days here in Botswana and living in a small apartment next to GSS, I got an offer of a plot (rented) in a charming village within reach of my motorbike. I made a deal with a local builder of making me two huts (roundavels), one for sleeping and one for eating + a pit latrine and water connection.

I handed out the money necessary for concrete blocks and some bags of cement. Simultaneously, a lady neighbor and mother of two small ones, started building her hut from sundried bricks she had made during a couple of months and covered her entire yard. Before my sleeping hut was up to roof height, she had moved in to her new house, neatly plastered the traditional way – of course I realized that her traditional hut needed a lot of maintenance in the rainy season but my conclusion was clear – high building standards take time and money!

Also, my firm belief was that construction problems here are often lack of supervision. Correct me if you can! And these conclusions are of importance when we talk about housing of the “common man” which is where I’m heading right now.

I’m not saying this to embarrass the “large scale” construction industry – I know since long that they know perfectly well how to handle the issue of “prefab” – often the key to successful construction of scale. Following story might be of interest:

The construction of Sowa Town and the timely needs of the mining company didn’t seem to be congruent at the planning stage. But problems were solved and this will show the prudence of my current critical mind. Skills and determination were at hand and problems were overcome quite easily due to foresight and experience of the involved specialists!

In short – there was the task of building more than 650 houses in a short time. The choice was – hand built masonry houses that would take a hoard of skilled bricklayers and supervisors (that wasn’t within the borders of Botswana) or some kind of “prefabrication and fitters” that many large construction firms could supply (in chorus). The clever architect from Anglo-American, Tony Young, recommended the “prefab” concept and a site factory. Consequently, housing needs were met with few delays.

To show you what this involved, I give you some illustrations from “Planning 113” of 1992. The prefab factory and construction worked like this:

                                                     "Illustration 1 Some excerpts from Planning 113"

Consequently, I see no problem in the “large projects” done by BHC, Time and a few other developers. But it always looks to me as “experiments” rather than necessity. There is seldom any follow up of it, unfortunately – we’re always starting from zero.

But coming to building materials, there is a serious oversight here. And I’m talking about modern building blocks that have been used in more industrialized countries since the late 1920’s – the so called Autoclaved Aerated Concrete (AAC), produced under different labels since the old patent lapsed. Ytong, Leca, Xella, Siporex - the list is long.

* It’s lightweight concrete of very exact dimensions easy to cut to preferred shape (by saw) and hardly in need of more than one millimeter of very thin mortar;

* Furthermore, the products have much more of interesting advantages compared to conventional concrete – it uses less concrete since Portland cement is one of the most energy and carbon-intensive building materials;

* Despite the energy-intensive autoclaving (baking) process, manufacturers say it takes about 50% less energy to make, because of the lower Portland cement content by volume and so far this no one has challenged this claim;

* It’s lighter which cuts down transportation costs and fuel use;

* It’s a better insulator to heat and cold and has excellent sound proof properties;

* It is also fire resistant.

A drawback is the fact that we have no manufacturer in Botswana but rumors are that there is someone experimenting with it somewhere in Gaborone North. It would be interesting to hear from him. Maybe he is also suffering from this modern syndrome of “patents” as most people in need of affordable medicine.

Another one is that AAC is only feasible for low and mid-rise buildings – hence very popular for single family houses, schools etc. For higher buildings, reinforcements are needed – and most manufacturers have systems and solutions for this.

AAC has the advantage that it can be produced in closed factory conditions as the “baking” gives unwanted emissions (but less than ordinary curing cement - remember the high amount of CO2 produced by this method).

However, this fault in manufacturing ordinary stones can also be “cured” and it as to do with the ballast/aggregate used. Today it is mostly crushed gravel of certain size. It is clear that things are happening today from the sites I’ve been clicking. The new thing is to swop the old kind of aggregate to pebbles or crushed AAC. Then the old type of concrete stone will keep the CO2, dissolved in the AAC elements and the large amount of carbon is neutralized inside the stone. Clever – but it will need an interested manufacturer and probably a more expensive product.

I will probably write more on this issue in the future and I’ll end with some pictures of the new/old lightweight AAC and it’s following here.

                                                                                            "Illustration 2"


Jan Wareus
Plain Talk –Dec 21/2012

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