Urban Infrastructure 5

1. Urban Infrastructure 5 TODAY: Housing Social Facilities Wiggins Multi-purpose Centre, Cato Manor, Durban (Cato Manor Development Association - CMDA)

2. The four pillars of the modern infrastructural ideal

3. Nuts and Bolts of the Invisible City Transportation systems Demand and Supply factors Bid-rent curve Utilities Variations Standards

4. ‘Government strives for the establishment of viable, socially and economically integrated communities situated in areas allowing convenient access to economic opportunities as well as health, educational and social amenities….’ (South African Department of Housing 1994) Wiggins Incremental Housing, Cato Manor, Durban CMDA

5. Aims of the South African Housing Programme Stabilise the housing environment Institutional, technical and logistical housing support mechanisms Mobilise private savings and housing credit at scale Provide subsidy assistance Rationalise institutional capacities Facilitate speedy release and servicing of land Coordinate and integrate public sector investment and interventions

6. Key elements of the housing programme Subsidy assistance Enablement approach Breadth rather than depth Incremental housing process Minimum standards for plot size, infrastructure and size of house More than 90% of subsidies used were for a ‘standard product’ Focus on large scale delivery Cato Manor CMDA

7. Reading…. Housing as structuring element – how? Explain housing typologies Private, versus community and state sectors Can we create integrated neighborhoods using housing delivery? Other benefits other than housing delivery?

8. Contradictions between housing delivery and urban reconstruction intentions

9. Social Costs

10. Breaking New Ground Sustainable human settlements Integration with social facilities and transport routes ‘new settlements should be compact, mixed land use, diverse, life-enhancing environments with maximum possibilities for pedestrian movement and transit via safe and efficient public transport in cases where motorised means of movement is imperative’ (DOH 2004) Cato Manor CMDA

11. Private sector driven medium – to high income housing Logic of market demand Avoid ‘crime and grime’ Design principles of New Urbanism but retrofitted to gated community needs Highly insular Spatial splintering Fragmentation Some regeneration of inner city areas but expensive and niche market GAP and Social Housing

12. Social Facilities Chesterville Ext. Community Hall, Cato Manor CMDA

13. Recreational open space (active and passive; public and private; etc.) • Areas that provide environmental services • Worship sites • Education (crèche, pre-school, primary, secondary, technical, tertiary, etc.) • Health (hospitals, clinics – permanent and mobile, etc.) • Cemeteries • Social welfare (welfare offices, pension pay points, etc.) • Safety (police, prisons etc) • Community facilities (halls, libraries, museums, etc.) Uses

14. Thresholds The point at which the functioning of a facility becomes viable (‘how many?’) • Catchment The area from which users (of facilities) are drawn • Factors that influence planning standards • Agency/institutional needs of organisations that provide and maintain facilities • User needs – appropriateness and need • Planning parameters • Scale at which planning standards are applied Key Concepts

15. Demographics - Numbers - Composition - Distribution Thresholds / Numbers “How many?” Affordability Government capacity to provide, manage and maintain Dimensions/Size “How big?” Locational criteria “Where?” Definition of Catchments, Neighbourhoods Public vs. private Transport modes Recreational needs

16. Evolution of Social Facility Standards “….since the rise of the city, with its division of labour and complex, stratified social and spatial structures, public-private distinction has been a key organizing principle, shaping the physical space of the cities ad social life of their citizens.” (Madanipour, 2003: 1) 44 Stanley, JHB South Bank, London Lower Manhattan, NYC

17. Distinction is not clear-cut: • Public space can be unexpected: streets that become playgrounds; • community halls that get used for private weddings as well as communal functions; • Open space privatised within gated communities; • Madanipour (2003) distinguishes between: • Public space – PLACE Physical environment associated with public meanings and functions • Public sphere – REALM Broader concept referring to the range of places, people and activities that constitute the public dimension of human social life Public vs. private

18. The Neighbourhood Unit • Perry • Building block for New Town design • Defined by spatial limits by a focal point such as a primate school, park of public square • Population of 5000 • Clusters organised into neighbourhoods organised around social facilities

19. Limits to the notion of the neighbourhood unit • Physical determinism • Emphasis on pedestrian movement became problematic with mass access to vehicles • Inward looking • Modernism – middle class access to motor vehicle and highway planning “space of the city was no longer experienced on foot” (Madanipour, 2003: 201) Also: a new kind of open space: ceremonial and in some cases: providing the ‘canvasses’ for public buildings

20. Modernism “Redefinition of the relationship between public and private space, which would reshape the urban space, creating large quantities of open space for hygienic as well as aesthetic reasons. What resulted were vast expanses of space which could have little of no connection with the other space of the city and could be left under-used, only to be watched from the top of high rise buildings or from the car windows.” (Madanipour, 2003: 202).

21. Impact of modernist principles • Social and public spaces were treated as distinctly separate from residential space • Split between private and public • Emphasis on maximum standards • Quantitative approach • Social facilities as stand-alone entities

22. Open Space standards; Canberra Source: National Capital Development Commission (1981) Approaches: Open Space • Early classifications: • Private open space • Public open space • Communal open space • Later functional approaches: • Managed resource production • Environmental and ecological balance • Public health and safety • Community development and welfare • Urban form • Focus on use • Play streets • Playgrounds • Pocket parks • Kick-about areas • Local wild places

23. Quantitative measures

24. Qualitative measures

25. Source: Barton et al (2003) Access and choice

26. Approaches: Community facilities • Accessibility vs. use • Highly contextual – influenced by social and cultural factors • Emphasis is on schools, community halls, libraries and worship sites • Commercial enterprise guided by hierarchies and informed by trends and market demands (e.g. gyms)

27. Catchments

28. Figure 7: Recreation (Urban Projects Manual) Source: Davidson and Payne (1983) Figure 6: Schools (Urban Projects Manual) Source: Davidson and Payne (1983) Design guidelines

29. Contextual influences A road is not just a road Multiple use: public courts that accommodate multiple activities such as social gatherings, children’s place, drying clothes, drying seeds, limited parking of vehicles etc. Accommodating small economic opportunities such as street trade Manhattan, NYC

30. In the South African context • Space and threshold standards • Cannot do this in isolation; needs to understand how facilities relate to one another • Over-design is wasteful • Need realistic standards • Multi-use facilities • Understand population profiles in order to respond to needs meaningfully • Time and distance standards • Walking routes • Public transport/land use relationship • Changing car ownership

31. In the South African context (2) • Public place design • Multi-functionality in design • Large spaces are often underutilised, alienating and unsafe whilst small overcrowded spaces are stress-inducing. • The size and character of public spaces should be informed by locational context, the immediate physical environment and local needs. • Role and access to space should be clear; if this is ambiguous, problems arise with regards to responsibility and maintenance. • Treatment of edges to spaces will impact on surveillance and safety as well as the degree to which these spaces are used.

32. Multi-purpose centres • Minimum space standards • Working with topography • Multiple use of facilities • Tight design classifications

33. Multi-purpose centres (2) • Joint management requirements • Land management issues • Ongoing management • Security • Interface design important

34. Gaps • Standards in rural areas, large and diverse municipal areas

35. HIV

36. Other contextual issues • Land uses traditionally not catered for: • Urban agriculture • Pension pay-points • Informal trade • Container parks • Phone containers

37. Conclusions Limits to standardization Translating international approaches into local solutions Context Consideration of social networks and local meaning constructs limitations of traditional modernist approaches Social and Institutional Agency Diversity of actors implicated Tensions between policy goals and implementation Cato Crest Multi-purpose Centre, Cato Manor CMDA